Fw: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM 

Kelly Fortin to: kheitkamp 

Cc: Michael Carbon, Don Evans, Brian Glover, ealbright 

Bee: Lorinda Shepherd 

From: Kelly Fortin/R4/USEPA/US 

To: kheitkamp@environcorp.com 

05/18/2012 01:56PM 

Cc: Michael Carbon <mcarbon@environcorp.com>, Don Evans/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Glover 

<bglover@environcorp .com>, ealbright@environcorp .com 

Bee: Lorinda Shepherd/R4/USEPA/US 

KylePer the email below, the NMFS January 24, 2011 concurrence letter is still applicable. Please include the 

January letter (attached to my email on Monday} and the following information from my email in your 

application: 

"the most recent Biological Opinion for the drilling area, if one has been performed, the status of this 

opinion in light of reinitiation, and status of any additional listings of species or habitat (in this case you 

appear to have come to the conclusion that there are none}." 

No lengthy discussion is necessary; this can all be covered in a paragraph. I will touch base with the Fish 

and Wildlife service. Feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. 

Take care and hope you enjoyed your time outdoors. 

Kelly 

- FoiWarded by Kelly Fortin/R4/USEPA/US on 05/18/2012 01:34PMFrom: 

To: 

Cc: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Kyle Baker <kyle.baker@noaa.gov> 

Kelly Fortin/R4/USEPA/US@EPA 

Jon_Hemming@fws.gov, "Epperson, Deborah" <Deborah.Epperson@boem.gov>, Adam Brame 

<adam.brame@noaa.gov> 

05/18/2012 01:06PM 

Re: FW: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM 

Kelly, the information we expressed in the Jan 24, 2011letter regarding air permits still applies. 

Let's be sure to include air permits and the regulatory jurisdictions of EPA and BOEM by 

planning area, as well as other oil and gas discharges permitted by the EPA in the BA 

Deb, regarding the lead agency, please submit some documentation with the revised request for 

consultation. The regs are below: 

§ 402.07 Designation oflead agency. 

When a particular action involves more than one Federal agency, the consultation and conference 

responsibilities may be fulfilled through a lead agency. Factors relevant in determining an 

appropriate lead agency include the time sequence in which the agencies would become 
involved, the magnitude of their respective involvement, and their relative expertise with respect 

to the environmental effects of the action. The Director shall be notified of the designation in 

writing by the lead agency. 

On Fri, May 18,2012 at 12:42 PM, Kelly Fortin <Fortin.Kelly@epamail.epa.gov> wrote: 

KyleI was speaking with Deborah as you were responding. She will include the information 

regarding the interagency cooperation with EPA in the cover letter with the biological 

assessment. I will touch base with her to see if there is any additional information that 

she needs. This covers us going forward. 

How would you like to handle the projects that come in before the re -inititated 

consultation is complete? Is the January 24, 2011 letter still accurate? 

Kelly 

""'Kyle Baker ---05/18/201212:12:46 PM---Kelly, due to the complexity of this 

consultation please provide the documentation of the lead agenc 

From: Kyle Baker <kyle.baker@noaa.gov> 

To: Kelly FortinfR4/USEPAIUS@EPA 

Cc: Jon Hemming@fws.gov, "Epperson, Deborah" <Deborah.Epperson@boem.gov> 

Date: 05118/2012 12:12 PM 

Subject Re: FW: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM 

Kelly, due to the complexity of this consultation please provide the documentation of the lead 

agency designation to be submitted with the biological assessment. Also, please get with Deb 

to include the necessary information in the biological assessment regarding the EPA that will 

be submitted for consultation. 

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Kelly Fortin <Fortin.Kelly@epamail.epa.gov> wrote: 

Kyle, 

Thank you for your response. It is my understanding that we had already 

worked out between BOEM, NMFS, and EPA, that BOEM was to be the lead 

agency and EPA a coordinating (co-action) agency for the purposes of ESA 

section 7 interagency cooperation for the drilling activities covered by the lease 

plans. I had several discussions with Deborah and David Bernhart regarding 
this matter in December 2011. I believe Mr. Bernhart and Ms. Epperson 

discussed this matter at their consultation meeting in December 2011, which 

resulted in David's letter of January 24, 2011. David's letter indicates: 

"We have subsequently reviewed our approach to the issue of air emissions. 

Following discussions with EPA and BOEMRE on air quality permits and the 

regulatory jurisdictions of the agencies, NMFS will include the EPA as an 

action agency in future opinions on oil and gas activities on the Outer 

Continental Shelf." 

Such a consolidated approach will save the applicants and the Services from 

having to re-address the same projects for ESA purposes as the result of our 

air quality permits. EPA requested that BOEM be designated as the lead 

agency for ESA purposes in our NEPA comments on the supplemental EIS. 

Please let me know if we need to provide an additional letter requesting that 

BOEM be designated the lead agency pursuant to the procedures set out at 

402.06-07. With respect to the number of permit applications we anticipate, 

that is hard to say. We've had 5 so far resulting from the 2007-20121ease 

sales. I would expect 3-5 annually, depending on the results of the 2012 lease 

sale and upon the types of permits requested. I am happy to discuss our 

permitting process with you. There is also a description of the process on our 

OCS Permits page on the Region 4 website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/ocspermits/ocsprocess.html. 

Please let me know what additional information is needed , or if we should set 

up all call between our agencies to get this worked out. 

Kelly Fortin 

404-562-9117 

""'Kyle Baker ---05/15/2012 11:03:13 AM---Kelly, we are currently preparing a 

new consultation on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas actions . The ba 

From: Kyle Baker <kyle.baker@noaa.gov> 

To: Kelly Fortin1R4/USEPAIUS@EPA 

Cc: Kyle Heitkamp <kheitkamp@environcorp.com>, Jon Hemminq@fws.gov, "Epperson, Deborah"< 

Deborah.Epperson@boem.gov> · 

Date: 05/15/2012 11:03 AM 

Subject: Re: FW: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM 
Kelly, we are currently preparing a new consultation on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas 

actions. The baseline status has changed due to DWH. I recommend the EPA ensure 

they are a co-action agency on the new programmatic opinion underway. I suggest the 

EPA and BOEM/BESEE document that BOEM is the lead federal agency on the 

consultation, and provide that to me. We can then include an analysis of the EPA 

actions in the consultation. I may need some additional information on the EPA 

process and number of expected permitting actions from you to complete the analysis. 

On Mon, May 14,2012 at 12:42 PM, Kelly Fortin <Fortin.Kelly@epamail.epa.gov> 

wrote: 

KyleUnless the BOEM designates us as a coordinating agency under the 

ESA (which we have requested), the advice on whether consultation is 

necessary on the air permitting action must come from the FWS and 

NMFS, rather than the BOEM. An email that the most recent letter of 

concurrence to EPA (see below) or BOEM on the leasing program that 

covers the areas under consideration is still current , such as the 

2007-2012 OCS Leasing program or the Biological Opinion of Lease 

sale 224, would be fine. Please see the attached letters from the FWS 

and NMFS, which covered the projects we permitted this past year. 

Essentially, we just need to know that the status has not changed . 

I also included the letter from BOEM on the reinitiation of the 

consultation, for your records 

With respect to the permit application, please include the most recent 

Biological Opinion for the drilling area, if one has been performed, the 

status of this opinion in light of of reinitiation , and status of any 

additional listings of species or habitat (in this case you appear to have 

come to the conclusion that there are none). 

Our contacts at the Services are listed below, and I have copied them on 

this email. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or if I 

can help facilitate this in any way. 

Kelly 

Dr. Jon Hemming 850-769-0552 ext. 2238 

US DOl Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office 

Panama City, FL 32405 

Kyle Baker 727-551-5789 

Protected Resource Division 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

Southeast Regional Office 
263 13th Avenue South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

(See attached file: MMS post-BP spill_ reinit request on 2007-2010 lease sales 

biop.pdj)(See attached.file: NMFS ESA letter, 012411.PDF) (See attached 

file: epaair081210.pdj) 

""'Kyle Heitkamp ---05/11/2012 05:48:33 PM---Kelly, Statoil has 

engaged BOEM and NMFS to determine if there are any new 

endangered species or cri 

From: Kyle Heitkamp <kheitkamp@environcorp.com> 

To: Kelly FortinfR4/USEPAIUS@EPA 

Date: 05/11/2012 05:48PM 

Subject FW: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM 

Kelly, 

Statoil has engaged BOEM and NMFS to determine if there are any new 

endangered species or critical habitat identified in the EGOM. Would the email 

response below satisfy as an attachment to the original biological opinion, or 

would EPA like to see a more formal letter response from BOEM & NMFS? 

I just want to make sure we are providing EPA with the correct 

documentation. 

Thanks, 

Kyle 

From: Epperson, Deborah [mailto:Deborah.Epperson@boem.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:22 PM 

To: Donald Evans 

Cc: Ensz, Holli 

Subject: RE: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM 

Don, 

As we discussed, the current consultation with NMFS was reinitiated 

following the DWH event and we are working with NMFS on a new 

consultation that I am hoping will be completed by the end of this year. 

There were no new species or critical habitats identified and we are still 

consulting with NMFS on sperm whales, all 5 species of sea turtles, and 
the gulf sturgeon. 

Please let me know if you need more information. 

Deborah 

From: Donald Evans [mailto:DOEV@statoil.coml 

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:44 AM 

To: Epperson, Deborah 

Subject: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM 

Deborah, 

Thanks for your time this morning discussing the current NMFS biological 

opinion and the new consultation for the GOM which is currently open and 

covers all three planning areas (western, central and eastern). No new 

endangered species have been included in the new consultation and air 

quality impacts are not expected to adversely impact any threatened or 

endangered species or critical habitats. 

Thanks again, 

Donald P. Evans 

Lead HSE - Environmental 

Statoil- DPNA UON HSE 

t: 71 3 485 2203 

m: 832 788 9282 

e: doev@statoil.com 

21 03 CityWest Blvd 

Suite 800 

Houston, TX 77042 

USA 

www.statoil.com 

..!; Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is 

intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the 

information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the 

addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete 

this message. 

Thank you 

The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is 

intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the 

information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the 
addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete 

this message. 

Thank you 

This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or 

otherwise protected by law from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use 

of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the addressee or authorized agent of the 

addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the 

message or any information contained within. If you have received this message 

in error, please contact the sender by electronic reply to 

email@environcorp.com and immediately delete all copies of the message. 

Kyle Baker 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

Protected Resources Division 

o: 727-824-5312 

f: 727-824-5309 

Kyle Baker 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

Protected Resources Division 

o: 727-824-5312 

f: 727-824-5309 

Kyle Baker 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

Protected Resources Division 

o: 727-824-5312 

f: 727-824-5309