gulf of mexico ocs proposed geological and geophysical activities · 2019-10-14 · u.s. department...

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2017-051

Gulf of Mexico OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities

Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I: Chapters 1-9

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2017-051

Gulf of Mexico OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities

Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I: Chapters 1-9 Author Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Prepared under Contract No. GS-10F-0443M and Task Order No. M1PD00025 by CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 8502 SW Kansas Avenue Stuart, Florida 34997 Published by

New Orleans August 2017

v

COVER SHEET

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for

Gulf of Mexico OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities in the Gulf of Mexico

Draft ( ) Final (x)

Type of Action: Administrative (x) Legislative ( )

Area of Potential Impact: Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal Counties and Parishes of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida

Agency Headquarters’ Contact Region Contact

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region (GM 623E) 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70123-2394

Jill Lewandowski U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OEP) Sterling, VA 20166-9216 703-787-1584

Greg Kozlowski 504-736-2512

ABSTRACT This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) covers the potential

significant environmental effects of multiple geological and geophysical (G&G) activities on the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas (WPA, CPA, and EPA). It evaluates the types of G&G surveys and activities in the three program areas managed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM): oil and gas; renewable energy; and marine minerals.

The proposed action is a major Federal action requiring an EIS. This document provides the following information in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, and it will be used in making decisions on the proposals.

This Final Programmatic EIS includes the purpose and background of the proposed action, identification of the alternatives, a scenario of the anticipated level of G&G activities in the program areas across the WPA, CPA, and EPA. A description of the factors and impacts caused by the proposed activities, a description of the affected environment, and an analysis of the potential

vi

environmental impacts under routine and non-routine conditions for the proposed action and alternatives are analyzed. Activities and disturbances associated with the proposed action on biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources are considered in the analyses. The proposed mitigating measures and their potential effects are described. Also, the potential contributions to cumulative impacts resulting from activities associated with the proposed action are analyzed.

It is important to note that this Final Programmatic EIS was prepared using the best information that was publicly available at the time the document was prepared. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives and, if so, was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place.

Additional copies of this Final Programmatic EIS and the other referenced publications may be obtained from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Public Information Office (GM 335A), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, by telephone at 504-736-2519 or 1-800-200-GULF, or on the Internet at http://www.boem.gov/GOM-G-G-PEIS/ and http://www.boem.gov/nepaprocess/.

http://www.boem.gov/GOM-G-G-PEIS/http://www.boem.gov/nepaprocess/

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is issuing this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to describe and evaluate the potential environmental impacts related to geological and geophysical (G&G) survey activities in affected Federal and State waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The G&G surveys will be conducted to provide data to inform business decisions about the development of oil and gas reserves, locate and evaluate marine mineral deposits, provide engineering data for developing renewable energy projects, identify geologic hazards and benthic habitats to avoid, and aid in the location and avoidance of archaeological sites. This Programmatic EIS evaluates G&G survey activities within Program Areas for which BOEM has oversight (i.e., oil and gas, renewable energy, and marine minerals) to investigate offshore oil, gas, methane hydrate resources, non-energy/marine mineral resources, and geologic hazards. The G&G survey activities may occur within the three planning areas (i.e., the Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas [WPA, CPA, and EPA]).

This Programmatic EIS establishes a framework for BOEM to guide subsequent NEPA analyses of site-specific actions while identifying and analyzing appropriate mitigation measures to be used during future G&G activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs. BOEM will address the impacts of future site-specific actions in subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a tiering process based on this programmatic evaluation.

BOEM is the lead agency for this Programmatic EIS, with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as cooperating agencies. BOEM is the lead Federal agency in providing guidelines for implementing the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. BOEM and BSEE have a memorandum of agreement (MOA) stating that BSEE will serve as cooperating agency on Bureau of Ocean Energy Management NEPA documents, oversee any requisite environmental monitoring needs, and ensure that post-activity environmental compliance needs are met and documented (Appendix A). The NOAA is a cooperating agency for this Programmatic EIS because the scope of the proposed action and alternatives involve G&G survey activities that could impact living marine resources and because the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the lead Federal agency in managing and regulating marine mammals and sensitive marine species, including those listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

This summary provides an overview of the analysis of the proposed action and other alternatives that would allow BOEM to authorize G&G activities within the GOM where it has oversight. The details of the analysis conducted for each alternative and Program Area can be found in the main body of this Programmatic EIS. Additional supporting information can be found in the appendices. The main body of this Programmatic EIS contains the following chapters:

viii Executive Summary

• Chapter 1 (Introduction) describes the purpose, objectives, and scope of thisProgrammatic EIS; describes the role of BOEM, BSEE, and cooperatingagencies; provides background information; reviews the Deepwater Horizonexplosion, oil spill, and response; and explains the regulatory context of thisProgrammatic EIS.

• Chapter 2 (Alternatives Including the Proposed Action) describes the sevenalternatives evaluated (including the proposed action), the survey protocols andmitigation measures included in all of the alternatives, and issues to be analyzed;identifies alternatives not analyzed and mitigation measures not included;presents a comparison of potential impacts by alternative; and describesmitigation measures, monitoring, and effectiveness.

• Chapter 3 (G&G Activities and Proposed Action Scenario) describes theG&G activities included in each Program Area and the expected level of effortduring the 10-year period covered by this Programmatic EIS, identifies anddescribes the impact-producing factors (IPFs), and provides a cumulative activityscenario for impact analysis.

• Chapter 4 (Description of the Affected Resources and Impact Analysis)describes the affected environment and analyzes the potential impacts of eachalternative.

• Chapter 5 (Other NEPA Considerations) describes the unavoidable adverseimpacts, irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, and therelationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity.

• Chapter 6 (Public Involvement and Agency Consultation and Coordination)describes the consultation and coordination activities with Federal, State, andlocal agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and other interested partiesthat occurred during the development of this Programmatic EIS.

• Chapter 7 (Literature Cited) describes the technical information on which theanalyses within this Programmatic EIS are based.

• Chapter 8 (Preparers and Reviewers) describes the technical staff withinBOEM, BSEE, NMFS, and the contractors responsible for the content of thisProgrammatic EIS.

AREA OF INTEREST

The AOI includes the Federal OCS waters of the GOM that are within BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico WPA, CPA, and EPA. The AOI also includes the coastal (i.e., State) waters of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, extending from the coastline outside of estuaries seaward 3 nautical miles (nmi) (3.5 miles [mi]; 5.6 kilometers [km]) from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and seaward to 9 nmi (10.4 mi; 16.7 km) from the coastlines of Texas and Florida (Figure ES-1). BOEM does not approve G&G activities in State waters; however, since G&G

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS ix

activities in OCS waters can potentially impact resources in State waters (e.g., sound traveling from OCS areas into State waters), for purposes of impacts analysis in this Programmatic EIS, State waters were included in the AOI.

Figure ES-1. Area of Interest for the Proposed Action.

To support the impact analysis, this Programmatic EIS includes resources that inhabit or migrate through the AOI and that may be affected by the proposed action. The AOI inner boundary follows the shoreline along most of the U.S. coast, extending across the mouths of estuaries and bays. State waters are not within BOEM’s jurisdiction; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits G&G activities in State waters. The USACE also has jurisdiction over such activities, including OCS seafloor structures, in State and Federal waters. Though BOEM does not approve G&G activities in State waters, BOEM is analyzing the potential effects in adjacent State waters in this Programmatic EIS because

(1) NMFS has jurisdiction and MMPA permitting authority in Federal and Statewaters, and requires an assessment of the potential impacts to the humanenvironment;

(2) the acoustic energy introduced into the environment during G&G activities inFederal waters could affect resources in State waters; and

x Executive Summary

(3) G&G activities could include interrelated and connected activities in Federal andState waters that would be considered connected actions.

TYPES OF G&G ACTIVITIES ANALYZED

A variety of G&G activities, most of which use sound in some way, are used to characterize the shallow and deep profile of the OCS, including the shelf, slope, and deepwater ocean environment. The G&G surveys are conducted to (1) obtain data for hydrocarbon and mineral exploration and production; (2) aid in siting of oil and gas structures and facilities, renewable energy structures and facilities, and pipelines; (3) locate and monitor the use of potential sand and gravel resources for development; (4) identify possible seafloor or shallow-depth geologic hazards; and (5) locate potential archaeological resources and benthic habitats that should be avoided. Ingeneral, G&G activities include the following:

• types of deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys used almost exclusively for oiland gas exploration and development;

• other types of surveys and sampling activities used only in support of oil and gasexploration and development, including electromagnetic surveys, geological testwells, and various remote sensing methods;

• non-airgun high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys used in all three ProgramAreas to detect and monitor geohazards, archaeological resources, and certaintypes of benthic communities; and

• geological and geotechnical seafloor sampling used in all three Program Areas toassess the suitability of seafloor sediments for supporting structures (e.g.,platforms, pipelines, cables, and renewable energy facilities such as windturbines), or to evaluate the quantity and quality of sand for beach nourishmentand coastal restoration projects.

The G&G activities in support of renewable energy development would consist mainly of HRG and geotechnical surveys in Federal and State waters

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xi

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Seven alternatives (A through G) are analyzed in this Programmatic EIS. All G&G activities permitted under the alternatives would need to comply with existing laws and regulations. The alternatives are designed to minimize impacts to resources by avoiding them or by modifying the design of proposed G&G activities. In addition, during the MMPA authorization process, NMFS may require additions or alterations to mitigation measures to minimize or avoid impacts to marine mammals. The mitigation measures required under each alternative are given in Table ES-1.

• Alternative A – Pre-Settlement (June 2013) Alternative: BOEM wouldcontinue to permit/authorize at the current projected activity levels withimplementation of standard mitigation measures applied to G&G activitiesthrough lease stipulations, issued permits and authorizations as conditions ofapprovals (COAs), Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs), and/or bestmanagement practices in place prior to the June 2013 Settlement Agreement.

• Alternative B – Settlement Agreement Alternative: BOEM would continue topermit or authorize G&G activities through the use of site-specific NEPAevaluations, lease stipulations, NTLs, best management practices, and COAswith the addition of mitigation measures from the Settlement Agreement for CivilAction No. 2:10-cv-01882 dated June 25, 2013, and the Stipulation to AmendSettlement Agreement dated February 8, 2016 (collectively, the AmendedSettlement Agreement). Mitigation measures included in Alternative B includemeasures carried forward from Alternative A and measures from the AmendedSettlement Agreement, such as expansions of the Protected Species Observer(PSO) and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) Programs, separation distancebetween simultaneous surveys, a coastal waters’ seasonal restriction, andrestrictions within the Plaintiff’s Areas of Concern.

• Alternative C – Alternative A Plus Additional Mitigation Measures: Thisalternative has been identified as BOEM’s Preferred Alternative. BOEM wouldcontinue to authorize G&G activities that would include the mitigation measures,monitoring, reporting, survey protocols, and guidance that are included inAlternative A, as well as additional mitigation measures carried forward fromAlternative B, including the expanded PSO and PAM Programs; measurescarried forward and modified from Alternative B (the requirement of PAM inMississippi and De Soto Canyons and a change in the timing of the coastalwaters’ seasonal restriction); and newly introduced measures for surveyprotocols for non-airgun HRG surveys.

• Alternative D – Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns: BOEMwould authorize G&G activities and would include all mitigation measuresincluded in Alternatives A and C with the addition of shutdowns of airgun andHRG survey sound sources for all marine mammals, with the exception ofbow-riding dolphins within an exclusion zone or actively approaching dolphins.

xii E

xecutive Sum

mary

Table ES-1. Applicability of Mitigation Measures to G&G Surveys by Alternative (indicates which mitigation measure is applicable to an alternative)

Survey Type Mitigation Measures Survey Protocol Seasonal Restrictions

and Closures

Ves

sel S

trike

Avo

idan

ce

Mar

ine

Deb

ris G

uida

nce

Avo

idan

ce o

f Sen

sitiv

e B

enth

ic

Com

mun

ities

Avo

idan

ce o

f His

toric

and

Pre

hist

oric

S

ites

Sha

llow

Haz

ards

Gui

danc

e

Nat

iona

l Mar

ine

San

ctua

ry R

egul

atio

ns

Milit

ary

Coo

rdin

atio

n

Anc

illary

Act

ivity

Gui

danc

e

Impl

emen

t PS

O P

rogr

am

Impl

emen

t Exp

ande

d P

SO P

rogr

am

Min

imum

Sep

arat

ion

Dis

tanc

e

Red

uced

Lev

el o

f Act

ivity

Use

of P

AM

Stro

ngly

Enc

oura

ged

Use

of P

AM

Req

uire

d

Sei

smic

Airg

un S

urve

y P

roto

col

Non

-Airg

un H

RG

Sur

vey

Pro

toco

l

Coa

stal

Wat

ers

Sea

sona

l Res

trict

ion

Are

as o

f Con

cern

with

in th

e EP

A8

CP

A, E

PA,

Dry

Tor

tuga

s, a

nd F

low

er

Gar

den

Ban

ks C

losu

re A

reas

Seismic Airgun Surveys A-G A-G A-G A-G1 A-G1 A-G A-G A-G A,G B-F2

D3 B E A,G B-F4

C-F5 A-G -- B6

C-F7 B F

Non-airgun HRG Surveys with Frequencies >200 kHz

A-G A-G A-G A-G1 A-G1 A-G A-G -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Non-airgun HRG Surveys with Frequencies ≤200 kHz

A-G A-G A-G A-G1 A-G1 A-G A-G -- C-F -- -- -- -- -- -- C-F -- -- F

Other G&G Surveys A-G A-G A-G A-G1 A-G1 A-G A-G -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CPA = Central Planning Area; EPA = Eastern Planning Area; ft = feet; HRG = high-resolution geophysical; kHz = kilohertz; m = meters; OCS = Outer Continental Shelf; PAM = passive acoustic monitoring; PSO = protected species observer. 1 Avoidance of historic and prehistoric sites and sensitive benthic communities applies only to surveys that involve seafloor-disturbing activities. Seismic airgun surveys and

non-airgun HRG surveys that do not disturb the seafloor are not required to avoid these sites or features. Non-airgun HRG surveys and most seismic airgun surveys (except those in which cables or sensors are placed in or on the seafloor) do not disturb the seafloor.

2 Expanded to include manatees and all water depths. 3 Expanded from Footnote 2 to include shutdown for all marine mammals, with the exception of bow-riding or actively approaching dolphins (i.e., common bottlenose, Fraser’s,

Clymene’s, rough-toothed, striped, spinner, Atlantic spotted, pantropical, and Risso’s), and all water depths. 4 During periods of reduced visibility for surveys in waters deeper than 100 m (328 ft). 5 The PAM required for all airgun surveys at all times in the Mississippi Canyon and De Soto Canyon lease blocks. 6 Applies from (a) March 1 to April 30 in Federal coastal waters shoreward of the 20-m (66-ft) isobath (and a 5-km [3-mi] buffer extending seaward from the 20-m [66 ft] isobath)

and (b) from January 1 to April 30 within the portion of these coastal waters falling within the boundaries of the unusual mortality event in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 7 Applies to all coastal waters shoreward of the 20-m (66-ft) isobaths between February 1 and May 31. 8 Does not apply to currently leased OCS lease blocks, any portion of the area encompassed by EPA Lease Sale 226, or neighboring OCS lease blocks adjacent to permitted

survey areas but within an otherwise off-limit area.

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xiii

• Alternative E – Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels: BOEM wouldauthorize G&G activities and would include all mitigation measures included inAlternatives A and C, and BOEM would authorize a reduced level of G&G activityfor seismic airgun surveys under two options: Alternatives E1 and E2.

− Alternative E1 includes a 10 percent reduction in deep-penetration,multi-client seismic airgun surveys.

− Alternative E2 includes a 25 percent reduction in deep-penetration, multi-client seismic airgun surveys.

• Alternative F – Alternative C Plus Area Closures: BOEM would continue topermit G&G activities and require that operators comply with mitigationrequirements carried forward from Alternatives A and C, with the addition of areaclosures to provide additional protection for certain cetaceans and otherresources, and distance restrictions based on received sound levels into watersadjacent to the closure areas. The four closure areas are the CPA Closure Area,EPA Closure Area, Dry Tortugas Closure Area, and Flower Garden BanksClosure Area.

• Alternative G – No New Activity Alternative: BOEM would cease issuingpermits for new G&G surveys and would not approve new G&G surveysproposed under exploration or development plans. However, G&G activitiespreviously authorized under an existing permit or lease would proceed usingmitigation measures described under Alternative A and the expanded PSO andPAM Programs carried forward from Alternative B, but they would not berenewed or reauthorized and, thus, would eventually be phased out. The secondpart of Alternative G is NMFS’ No Action Alternative. For NMFS, denial of MMPAauthorizations constitutes NMFS’ No Action Alternative, which is consistent withNMFS’ statutory obligation under the MMPA to grant or deny applications toauthorize incidental take and to prescribe mitigation, monitoring, and reportingwith any authorizations.

Resource Areas and Impact-Level Criteria

Baseline environmental characterization and impact analysis for each alternative were conducted for 12 resource areas:

xiv Executive Summary

• marine mammals;

• sea turtles;

• fisheries resources and essentialfish habitat (EFH);

• benthic communities;

• marine and coastal birds;

• Marine Protected Areas (MPAs);

• Sargassum communities;

• commercial fisheries;

• recreational fisheries;

• archaeological resources;

• other marine uses; and

• human resources, land use,and economics.

Impact-level criteria were applied to each resource area based on four parameters: detectability (i.e., measurable or detectable impact); duration (i.e., short term, long term); spatial extent (i.e., localized, extensive); and severity (i.e., severe, less than severe). The resulting impact-level criteria were broadly defined as

• Nominal: Little or no measurable/detectable impact;

• Minor: Impacts are detectable, short term, extensive or localized, but less thansevere;

• Moderate: Impacts are detectable, short term, extensive, and severe; or impactsare detectable, short term or long lasting, localized, and severe; or impacts aredetectable, long lasting, extensive or localized, but less than severe; and

• Major: Impacts are detectable, long lasting, extensive, and severe.

Resource-specific, impact-level criteria were developed on a resource-specific basis to determine the appropriate impact level for each IPF.

Impact-Producing Factors

The IPFs are G&G activities that, based on their potential to affect the environment, require a thorough analysis in this Programmatic EIS. The IPF candidates were screened and those selected for inclusion are as follows (Table ES-2):

• active acoustic sound sources;

• vessel and equipment noise;

• vessel traffic;

• aircraft traffic and noise;

• stand-off distances;

• vessel discharges;

• trash and debris;

• seafloor disturbance;

• geological test welldischarges;

• entanglement; and

• accidental fuel spills.

Gulf of M

exico G&

G A

ctivities Program

matic E

IS

xv

Table ES-2. Preliminary Screening of Potential Impacts (Leopold Matrix)

Resource

Activ

e Ac

oust

ic S

ound

Sou

rces

Vess

el a

nd E

quip

men

t Noi

se

Vess

el T

raffi

c

Airc

raft

Traf

fic a

nd N

oise

Stan

d-O

ff D

ista

nces

Vess

el D

isch

arge

s

Tras

h an

d D

ebris

Seaf

loor

Dis

turb

ance

Dril

ling

Dis

char

ges

Enta

ngle

men

t

Acci

dent

al F

uel S

pill

Marine Mammals + + + + - - + - - + +Sea Turtles + + + + - - + - - + +Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat + + - - - - + + + + + Benthic Communities + - - - - - + + + - + Marine and Coastal Birds + + + + - - + - - - + Marine Protected Areas + - - - - - + + + - + Sargassum and Associated Communities - - + - - + + - - - + Commercial Fisheries + - + - + - - + - + +Recreational Fisheries + - + - + - - - - - + Archaeological Resources - - - - - - - + + + +Other Marine Uses - - + + + - - + - + Human Resources, Land Use, and Economics1 - - - - - - - - - - - Recreational Resources and Tourism - - - - - - - - - - - Air Quality - - + + - - - - - - - Water Quality - - - - - + + - + - + Geography and Geology - - - - - - - + - - - Physical Oceanography - - - - - - - - - - - Coastal Barrier Island Beaches, Seagrass, and Wetlands - - - - - - - - - - -

G&G = geophysical and geological. Key: + indicates a potential impact; - indicates no impact expected; shaded areas = resources that were eliminated from detailed analysis due to limited anticipated impacts associated with G&G activities. 1 The impact-producing factors do not apply to this resource; however, resource subcomponents have potential impacts from some alternatives.

xvi Executive Summary

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects refer to the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively major actions taking place over a period of time. Within each resource section in Chapter 4, the cumulative analysis considers impacts to environmental and socioeconomic resources that may result from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, including non-G&G-related activities such as shipping and marine transportation and commercial fishing, as well as all OCS and State oil- and gas-related activities. The three major topical areas are the OCS Program, Oil and Gas Activities in State Waters, and Other Major Factors Influencing the AOI.

OCS Program: The OCS Program includes activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development, decommissioning, renewable energy development, and marine minerals use. The IPFs associated with OCS Program activities that coincide with the proposed action include vessel and equipment noise (including explosives use [decommissioning]), vessel traffic (support vessel traffic), aircraft traffic and noise, stand-off distance, vessel discharges, seafloor disturbance, geological test well discharges, and accidental fuel spills. All G&G survey activities associated with the OCS Program are included in the proposed action; therefore, G&G activities are not included in the cumulative analysis but instead are addressed in the proposed action impact analysis.

Oil and Gas Activities in State Waters: The Oil and Gas Activities in State Waters Program includes activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development and decommissioning. It is recognized that the types of activities described for OCS Program activities would be the same as the Oil and Gas Activities in State Waters Program and would have the same IPFs. However, oil and gas activities in State waters would include the G&G surveys permitted by other agencies. Therefore, the IPFs that coincide with G&G activities include active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic (support vessel traffic), aircraft traffic and noise, stand-off distance, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, geological test well discharges, entanglement, and accidental fuel spills.

Other Major Factors Influencing the AOI: The other major factors influencing the AOI program include activities associated with deepwater ports; commercial and recreational fishing; shipping and marine transportation; ocean dredged material disposal site; existing, planned, and new cable infrastructure; military activities; scientific research; maintenance dredging of Federal channels; coastal restoration programs; Mississippi River hydromodification; extreme climatic events; climate change and sea-level rise; and natural oil seeps. The IPFs associated with activities undertaken as part of other major factors influencing the AOI and that coincide with the proposed action include active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, stand-off distance, vessel discharges, trash and debris, seafloor disturbance, entanglement, and accidental fuel spills.

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xvii

IMPACT CONCLUSIONS BY RESOURCE FOR ALTERNATIVES A THROUGH G

The analysis conducted in this Programmatic EIS identifies the change from present conditions for issues (principal effects identified for analysis) resulting from the relevant actions related to the proposed action. Baseline environmental characterization and impact analysis for seven alternatives (A through G) were conducted for the 12 resource areas listed previously considering the IPFs (G&G activities with the potential to affect the environment of the AOI). The levels of impacts determined by resource and applicable IPF across the seven alternatives are presented in Tables ES-3 and ES-4. Those resources that are determined to have no or nominal impacts across all alternatives (i.e., benthic communities, Sargassum communities, recreational fisheries, and other marine uses) are not discussed in this Executive Summary. The analysis of impacts for all resource areas under Alternatives A through G are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The differences in impacts between those identified under Alternative A and those identified for Alternatives B through G are discussed by resource and the relevant IPF. The IPFs and impact-level criteria applied during the impact assessment remain the same for all alternatives for each resource. The conclusions of impact assessment for alternatives are presented below.

Impact Conclusions for Marine Mammals

Impacts to marine mammals from all IPFs associated with deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys may result in extensive (i.e., affecting large numbers of individuals) short-term but not severe impacts with possible, albeit limited, physical injury or possible mortality (resulting only from vessel collisions). Some of the mitigation measures included in the alternatives provide a level of protection to various target species and afford a reduced level of impacts to those target species and biologically important periods and geographic locations (e.g., seasonal restrictions in coastal waters afford protection to individual members of the bay, sound, and estuary stocks during their calving season, as well as coastal stocks of common bottlenose dolphins, Atlantic spotted dolphins, and individual manatees that may occur in coastal and inshore waters; the EPA Closure Area provides protection targeted to the Bryde’s whale, with protection afforded to other species present in the closure area; and the CPA Closure Area provides targeted protection to the sperm whale, with protection afforded to other species within the closure area). However, when impacts from deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys to all marine mammals within the AOI during the 10-year timeframe of this Programmatic EIS are considered for the impact-level determination, the overall impact level is moderate, depending on the stock, for Alternatives A through E, minor for Alternative F, and no impact for Alternative G due to no new activities.

Minor impacts are expected for shallow-penetration seismic airgun surveys and non-airgun HRG surveys for Alternatives A through F based on exposure modeling. Impacts from vessel and equipment noise are assessed as nominal to minor for Alternatives A through F because many marine mammal species produce and perceive low- to mid-frequency sounds; furthermore, the effect of increased ambient noise on marine mammals could mask biologically significant sounds. Vessel collisions with marine mammals are likely to be avoided; however, if a collision did occur, it could result in mortality. Therefore, depending on whether or not a collision did occur, nominal to moderate impacts are expected for Alternatives A through F.

xviii

Executive S

umm

ary

Table ES-3. Impact Levels by Resource and Applicable Impact-Producing Factor Across Alternatives A Through G, as Discussed in Chapter 2.13

Resource and Impact-Producing Factor Alternative1

A B C D E F G* Marine Mammals

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Deep-Penetration Airguns Mod Mod2,3,4,5 Mod2,4,5 Mod2,5,7 Mod2,4,5 Min2,3,4,5 No Impact Shallow-Penetration Airguns Min Min2,3,4,5 Min2,4,5 Min2,5,7 Min2,4,5 Min2,3,4,5 No Impact HRG Equipment Min Min Min6 Min6 Min6 Min6 No Impact

Vessel and Equipment Noise Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Vessel Traffic Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod No Impact Aircraft Traffic and Noise Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Trash and Debris Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Entanglement Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min

Sea Turtles Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Min Min Min Min Min Min No Impact HRG Equipment Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min6 Nom-Min6 Nom-Min6 Nom-Min6 No Impact

Vessel and Equipment Noise Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Vessel Traffic Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod No Impact Aircraft Traffic and Noise Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Trash and Debris Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Entanglement Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min

Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact HRG Equipment Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact

Vessel and Equipment Noise Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Trash and Debris Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Seafloor Disturbance Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Drilling Discharges Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Entanglement Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min

Table ES-3. Impact Levels by Resource and Applicable Impact-Producing Factor Across Alternatives A Through G, as Discussed in Chapter 2.13 (continued)

Gulf of M

exico G&

G A

ctivities Program

matic E

IS

xix


A B C D E F G Benthic Communities


Airguns Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact HRG Equipment Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact

Trash and Debris Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Seafloor Disturbance Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Drilling Discharges Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No-Nom

Marine and Coastal Birds Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom Nom-Min No Impact HRG Equipment Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact

Vessel and Equipment Noise Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Vessel Traffic Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Aircraft Traffic and Noise Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Trash and Debris Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom

Marine Protected Areas Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod No Impact HRG Equipment Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact

Trash and Debris Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Seafloor Disturbance Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Drilling Discharges No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod Nom-Mod No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No-Nom

Sargassum Communities Vessel Traffic Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Vessel Discharges Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Trash and Debris Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No-Nom


xx E

xecutive Sum

mary


A B C D E F G Commercial Fisheries


Airguns Min Min Min Min Min Min No Impact HRG Equipment Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact

Vessel Traffic Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Stand-Off Distance Min Min Min Min Nom-Min Min No Impact Seafloor Disturbance Min Min Min Min Min Min No Impact Entanglement Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom-Min Nom

Recreational Fisheries Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Airguns Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact HRG Equipment Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact

Vessel Traffic Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Stand-Off Distance Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom

Archaeological Resources Seafloor Disturbance Nom-Maj Nom-Maj Nom-Maj Nom-Maj Nom-Maj Nom-Maj No Impact Drilling Discharges Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Entanglement Nom-Maj Nom-Maj Nom-Maj Nom-Maj Nom-Maj Nom-Maj No Impact Accidental Fuel Spills Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No Impact Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom No-Nom

Multiple-Use Areas Vessel Traffic No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom Aircraft Traffic and Noise No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom Stand-Off Distance No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom Seafloor Disturbance No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom No-Nom Accidental Fuel Spills Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Cumulative (incremental increase) Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom


Gulf of M

exico G&

G A

ctivities Program

matic E

IS

xxi

Resource and Impact-Producing Factor Alternative 1

A B C D E F G Human Resources, Land Use, and Economics

Land Use and Infrastructure Ben-Min Ben-Min Ben-Min Ben-Min Ben-Min Ben-Min Min-Mod Environmental Justice Ben-Nom Ben-Nom Ben-Nom Ben-Nom Ben-Nom Ben-Nom Min Demographics Ben-Nom Ben-Min Ben-Min Ben-Min Minor Minor Min-Mod Economics Ben-Min Ben-Mod Ben-Min Ben-Mod Min-Mod Min-Mod Mod-Maj

Note: Impacts are categorized as Beneficial, Major, Moderate, Minor, or Nominal (refer to Chapter 4.1.2 for definitions). Ben = Beneficial Impact; G&G = geological and geophysical; HRG = high- resolution geophysical; No = No Impact; Nom = Nominal Impact; Min = Minor Impact; Mod = Moderate Impact; Maj = Major Impact. 1 Alternative A = Pre-Settlement (June 2013) Alternative, Alternative B = Settlement Agreement Alternative, Alternative C = Alternative A Plus Additional

Mitigation Measures, Alternative D = Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns, Alternative E = Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels, Alternative F = Alternative C Plus Area Closures, and Alternative G = No New Activity Alternative.

2 Provides protection to coastal marine mammal species (i.e., common bottlenose dolphins, manatees, and Atlantic spotted dolphins) when they are reproducing (calving) and increases the fitness values of the reproducing species.

3 Provides protection for whale species (i.e., Bryde’s, beaked, sperm, and dwarf and pygmy sperm whales) and manatees providing localized reduction in sound exposure and associated impacts for those species.

4 Provides protection to bay, sound, and estuary stocks of common bottlenose dolphins, individual coastal stocks of common bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and manatees; individual beaked whales and sperm whales, as well as potentially calving sperm whales; and the small population of geographically and genetically distinct Bryde’s whales in the Gulf of Mexico.

5 Provides protection to vocalizing marine mammals. 6 Provides protection to all marine mammals and sea turtles, with additional protection (shutdown) for sperm, Bryde’s, beaked, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales,

and manatees. 7 Provides protection for all marine mammals except bow-riding dolphins (i.e., common bottlenose, Fraser’s, Clymene’s, rough-toothed, striped, spinner, Atlantic

spotted, pantropical, and Risso’s).

xxii E

xecutive Sum

mary

Table ES-4. Impact Levels for Marine Mammals from Airguns and the Species Groups Protected Across Alternatives A through G, as Discussed in Chapters 2.13 and 4.2

Resource and Impact-Producing Factor

Alternative A B C D E F G*

Marine Mammals Active Acoustic Sound Sources Airguns Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Min Min

Additional protection afforded to marine mammal species groups from mitigation measures

Table ES-4. Impact Levels for Marine Mammals from Airguns and the Species Groups Protected Across Alternatives A through G, as Discussed in Chapters 2.13 and 4.2 (continued)

Gulf of M

exico G&

G A

ctivities Program

matic E

IS

xxiii

Coastal marine mammal species (i.e., common bottlenose dolphins, manatees, and Atlantic spotted dolphins) when they are reproducing

(calving) or bay, sound, and estuary stocks of bottlenose dolphins, individual coastal stocks of common bottlenose dolphins, and Atlantic

spotted dolphins as applicable.

Manatees and their offspring.

Vocalizing marine mammals.

Sperm, dwarf, and pygmy sperm whales.

All marine mammals.

Bryde’s whale and/or the genetically distinct Bryde’s whales in the Gulf of Mexico, as applicable.

Calving sperm whales.

Except bow-riding or actively approaching dolphins (i.e., bottlenose, Fraser’s, Clymene’s, rough-toothed, striped, spinner, Atlantic

spotted, pantropical, and Risso’s).

Beaked whales.

xxiv Executive Summary

Potential impacts to marine mammals from an accidental fuel spill are expected to range from nominal to minor, depending on the numbers of individuals coming into contact with the spilled fuel and their exposure time as well as the exposure of federally listed species to the spilled fuel, for all alternatives except Alternative G. Other IPFs affecting marine mammals are assessed as nominal for Alternatives A through F and no impact for Alternative G. Behavioral impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed action that are analyzed in this Programmatic EIS are short-term disruption of behavioral patterns, abandonment of activities, and/or temporary displacement from discrete areas. Due to the extensive mitigations in the proposed action, no serious injuries or mortalities are anticipated.

Impact Conclusions for Sea Turtles

Impacts to sea turtles are assessed as minor for airgun surveys for Alternatives A through D and F because they are not expected to result in substantial changes to behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive success, or lifetime reproductive success (fitness). Due to the reduced level of proposed activities under Alternative E, the impact level is expected to be minor. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, there would be no impact from any IPF. In addition, some protection is afforded to sea turtles under Alternatives B through F to reduce the extent of potential permanent threshold shift auditory injuries from implementation of the expanded PSO Program, but not significantly enough to change the overall impact level. For Alternatives A through F, nominal to minor impacts are expected for non-airgun HRG surveys. Impacts to sea turtles from vessel traffic would range from nominal to moderate (if a collision occurred) for Alternatives A through F because the support vessels associated with G&G activities travel at higher speeds and the potential for collisions increases at night and at times of reduced visibility. Potential impacts to sea turtles from an accidental fuel spill are expected to range from nominal (if the fuel does not contact individual sea turtles) to minor (if individual sea turtles encounter the dispersed windrows of the surface slick) for all alternatives, except Alternative G (no impact). Impacts from entanglement and entrapment would be nominal for all alternatives except Alternative G, which would be no impact. Other IPFs affecting sea turtles are assessed as nominal for Alternatives A through F and nominal declining to no impact under Alternative G.

Impact Conclusions for Fisheries Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

Impacts to fish resources and EFH are assessed as nominal to minor for airgun surveys as well as vessel and equipment noise under Alternatives A through F based on the potential to disrupt spawning aggregations or schools of important prey species, the mobile and temporary nature of most surveys, the small area of the seafloor affected during surveys, and the possibility of fishes temporarily moving away from noise that is affecting them. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, there would no impact to fish and EFH from any IPF. Impacts from an accidental fuel spill range from nominal to minor for Alternatives A through F based on the location of the event and presence of fish or buoyant eggs and larvae. There would be no impact from an accidental fuel spill under Alternative G due to no new activity. Other IPFs affecting fish resources and EFH are assessed as nominal for all alternatives with the exception of entanglement for Alternative G, which would be no impact as there would be no new activity.

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxv

Impact Conclusions for Benthic Communities

Impacts to benthic communities are assessed as nominal for all applicable IPFs and alternatives, except Alternative G, due to the existing protective measures in place for avoiding known sensitive communities during seafloor-disturbing activities and the prevalence of soft bottom in the AOI. In addition, active acoustic sound sources have not been determined to have impacts to benthic communities. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, there would be no impact to benthic communities from any IPF.

Impact Conclusions for Marine and Coastal Birds

Impacts to marine and coastal birds are assessed as nominal to minor for active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, and aircraft traffic and noise for Alternatives A through D and F. Due to the reduced level of proposed activities under Alternative E, the impact level for seismic airgun surveys is expected to be nominal. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, there would be no impact to coastal and marine birds from any IPF. Impacts from an accidental fuel spill are nominal under most circumstances, may increase to minor based on timing and location, and could increase to moderate if a listed species or its prey is directly impacted across all alternatives.

Impact Conclusions for Marine Protected Areas

Impacts to MPAs are assessed based on the impact levels presented across all resources that may occur within the boundaries of MPAs. Therefore, impacts from active acoustic sound sources range from nominal to moderate for all alternatives except Alternative G. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, there would be no impact to MPAs from any IPF. Impacts from accidental fuel spills range from nominal to moderate for all alternatives (except Alternative G, which would be reduced to nominal), eventually declining to no impact.

Impact Conclusions for Sargassum and Associated Communities

Impacts to Sargassum and associated communities are assessed as nominal for Alternatives A through F based on the widespread patchy distribution of Sargassum mats and the propensity of Sargassum mats to be undisturbed by physical displacement. Species that utilize Sargassum as habitat for all or some of their life cycle (e.g., fish, sea turtles, and invertebrates) would be spatially limited and short term. No serious damage to Sargassum and associated fauna is expected to occur for all alternatives. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, there would be no impact to Sargassum from any IPF.

Impact Conclusions for Commercial Fisheries

Impacts to commercial fisheries are assessed as minor for airgun surveys for Alternatives A-F. Impacts from airgun surveys are expected to be intermittent and temporary. Because fishing equipment could be damaged, the potential for impacts are reduced by several measures, and any impacts would be spatially localized and temporary. Impacts from entanglement

xxvi Executive Summary

are assessed as nominal to minor for all alternatives except Alternative E2, which would be nominal, and Alternative G, which would be no impact. Impacts from stand-off distance are assessed as minor for all alternatives except Alternatives E2 and G. Under Alternative E2 (25% reduction in line miles of deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys), a decrease in impacts from minor to nominal is expected for stand-off distance impacts because these types of surveys typically have the larger stand-off distance requirements and large arrays. Impacts from seafloor disturbance are assessed as minor for all alternatives, except Alternative G which would be no impact. Impacts from non-airgun HRG sound sources, vessel traffic, and accidental fuel spills are assessed as nominal for Alternatives A through F due to the limited and localized activities; however, G&G activities could overlap with productive fishing grounds. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, there would be no impact to commercial fisheries from any IPF.

Impact Conclusions for Recreational Fisheries

Impacts to recreational fisheries are assessed as nominal for all alternatives for all applicable IPFs due to the short-term and localized interactions between recreational fishing and G&G activities, except for Alternative G. Impacts under Alternative G would be no impact.

Impact Conclusions for Archaeological Resources

Impacts to archaeological resources from seafloor disturbance and entanglement are assessed as nominal to major, depending on the type of survey and whether site-specific information regarding potential archaeological resources is available, for all alternatives, except Alternative G. Under Alternative G, impacts would be reduced to no impact. Impacts from drilling discharges and accidental fuel spills are assessed as nominal for all alternatives, except for Alternative G. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, there would be no impact to archaeological resources from any IPF.

Impact Conclusions for Multiple-Use Areas

Impacts to other space use in multiple-use areas is assessed as no impact to nominal for all alternatives for all applicable IPFs because many of the components of other marine uses are expected to be conducted in support of or in coordination with G&G activities for all three Program Areas. In addition, activities would be of relatively short duration, with the time and extent dependent upon the type of G&G activity. Due to no new activity under Alternative G, changes in space use in multiple-use areas would range from no impact to nominal.

Impact Conclusions for Human Resources, Land Use, and Economics

Impacts to land use and coastal infrastructure are expected to be beneficial (positive) to minor for Alternatives A through F and minor to moderate for Alternative G. Impacts to environmental justice are expected to be beneficial (positive) to nominal for Alternatives A through F and minor for Alternative G. Impacts to demographics are expected to be beneficial (positive) to nominal for Alternatives A through D; minor for Alternatives E and F; and minor to moderate for Alternative G. For regional economic factors, the selection of Alternatives A through D or F would

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxvii

support current activity levels in industries that depend on G&G surveying, which would have beneficial (positive) economic impacts. However, the alternatives would also entail some negative economic impacts arising from costs, inefficiencies, accidental events, and supply chain impacts. These negative impacts are expected to be minor for Alternatives A and C. The negative impacts could become moderate for Alternatives B, D, E, and F, depending on the ultimate introduced costs and inefficiencies, as well on how the offshore oil and gas industry adjusts its practices. The negative impacts of Alternative G would be moderate to major since it would substantially disrupt existing industries, supply chains, and energy consumers.

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxix

TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................................. lvv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. lviivii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................. lxi

CONVERSION CHART ..................................................................................................................... lxvii

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-3

1.1 Proposed Action and Purpose and Need .............................................................................. 1-3 1.1.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 1-3 1.1.2 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................... 1-4 1.1.3 Area of Interest .......................................................................................................... 1-6

1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-7 1.2.1 History of G&G Environmental Review in the GOM .................................................. 1-8 1.2.2 Petition for Authorization to Take Marine Mammals Incidental to Conducting

Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Gulf of Mexico ........................................... 1-9 1.2.3 Litigation Settlement ................................................................................................ 1-10

1.2.3.1 Interim Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 1-11 1.2.3.2 Settlement Agreement Items for Analysis in This Programmatic EIS ..... 1-13 1.2.3.3 Non-Duplicative Surveys and Lowest Practicable Source Levels

Panels ...................................................................................................... 1-13 1.2.3.4 Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................ 1-14 1.2.3.5 Incentives for the Use of Noise Reduction Technology ........................... 1-17

1.2.4 Environmental Baseline and the Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and Response ................................................................................................................. 1-17

1.2.5 Model Overview ....................................................................................................... 1-18 1.2.6 Risk Assessment Framework .................................................................................. 1-24

1.3 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 1-26 1.3.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Agreements ......................................................... 1-26 1.3.2 State Laws, Regulations, and Agreements ............................................................. 1-27

1.4 Programmatic Approach to the NEPA Process ................................................................... 1-27 1.5 Objectives and Scope .......................................................................................................... 1-29

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

2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2 Additional Information Applicable to the Alternatives ............................................................ 2-3

xxx Table of Contents

2.3 Alternative A – Pre-Settlement (June 2013) Alternative........................................................ 2-7 2.3.1 Description ................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.3 Rationale .................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4 Alternative B – Settlement Agreement Alternative ................................................................ 2-8 2.4.1 Description ................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.4.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 2-9 2.4.3 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 2-10

2.5 Alternative C – Alternative A Plus Additional Mitigation Measures (Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................................................................... 2-11 2.5.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 2-11 2.5.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-12 2.5.3 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 2-13

2.6 Alternative D – Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns ......................................... 2-13 2.6.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 2-13 2.6.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-13 2.6.3 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 2-15

2.7 Alternative E – Alternative C At Reduced Activity Levels ................................................... 2-15 2.7.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 2-15 2.7.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-15 2.7.3 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 2-17

2.8 Alternative F – Alternative C Plus Area Closures ................................................................ 2-17 2.8.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 2-17 2.8.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-17 2.8.3 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 2-19

2.9 Alternative G – No New Activity Alternative ........................................................................ 2-20 2.9.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 2-20 2.9.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-22 2.9.3 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 2-22

2.10 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 2-22 2.10.1 Issues to be Analyzed ............................................................................................. 2-23 2.10.2 Issues Considered but Not Analyzed ...................................................................... 2-24

2.11 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward .............................................................. 2-25 2.11.1 Shutdown for All Marine Mammals Within the Level A Harassment Exclusion

Zone ......................................................................................................................... 2-26 2.11.2 Require Alternative Technology Use ....................................................................... 2-26 2.11.3 Requirement to Obtain an LOA or IHA Prior to Receiving BOEM’s Approval ........ 2-28

2.12 Mitigation Measures Considered but Not Carried Forward ................................................. 2-29 2.12.1 Active Acoustic Monitoring ...................................................................................... 2-29 2.12.2 Aerial Surveys.......................................................................................................... 2-30

2.13 Comparison of Impacts by Alternative ................................................................................. 2-31

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxxi

2.14 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Effectiveness ............................................................................ 2-38 2.14.1 Time and Area Restrictions and Closures............................................................... 2-39 2.14.2 Minimum Separation Distances ............................................................................... 2-40 2.14.3 Non-Duplicative Surveys and Lowest Practicable Source ...................................... 2-41 2.14.4 Exclusion Zone ........................................................................................................ 2-42 2.14.5 Exclusion Zone Monitoring ...................................................................................... 2-43 2.14.6 Ramp-Up ................................................................................................................. 2-48 2.14.7 Shutdowns of Sources for Protected Species ......................................................... 2-48 2.14.8 Reduction in G&G Activity Levels............................................................................ 2-49

2.15 Adaptive Management ......................................................................................................... 2-50

3 G&G ACTIVITIES AND PROPOSED ACTION SCENARIO .......................................................... 3-3

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2 Proposed Action Scenario by Program Area......................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Oil and Gas Program G&G Surveys ......................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1.1 Proposed Action Scenario ......................................................................... 3-5 3.2.1.2 Projected Activity Levels ............................................................................ 3-5

3.2.2 Renewable Energy Program G&G Surveys .............................................................. 3-7 3.2.2.1 Proposed Action Scenario ......................................................................... 3-8 3.2.2.2 Projected Activity Levels ............................................................................ 3-9

3.2.3 Marine Minerals Program G&G Surveys ................................................................. 3-10 3.2.3.1 Proposed Action Scenario ....................................................................... 3-11 3.2.3.2 Projected Activity Levels .......................................................................... 3-14

3.3 Impact-Producing Factors from the Proposed Action ......................................................... 3-16 3.3.1 Impact-Producing Factors for Routine Activities ..................................................... 3-17

3.3.1.1 Active Acoustic Sound Sources ............................................................... 3-17 3.3.1.1.1 Airguns .................................................................................. 3-17 3.3.1.1.2 Non-Airgun (Electromechanical) HRG Sources ................... 3-18

3.3.1.2 Vessel and Equipment Noise ................................................................... 3-20 3.3.1.2.1 Vessel Noise ......................................................................... 3-20 3.3.1.2.2 Equipment Noise Including Drilling Noise ............................ 3-21

3.3.1.3 Vessel Traffic ........................................................................................... 3-22 3.3.1.3.1 Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration .................................... 3-22 3.3.1.3.2 Renewable Energy Surveys ................................................. 3-24 3.3.1.3.3 Marine Minerals Surveys ...................................................... 3-25

3.3.1.4 Aircraft Traffic and Noise ......................................................................... 3-25 3.3.1.5 Stand-Off Distance ................................................................................... 3-27 3.3.1.6 Vessel Discharges ................................................................................... 3-27 3.3.1.7 Trash and Debris ...................................................................................... 3-28 3.3.1.8 Seafloor Disturbance ............................................................................... 3-29

3.3.1.8.1 Seafloor or Bottom Sampling Activities ................................ 3-30 3.3.1.8.2 Placement of Anchors, Nodes, Cables, and Sensors .......... 3-31

xxxii Table of Contents

3.3.1.8.3 COST Wells and Shallow Test Drilling ................................. 3-31 3.3.1.8.4 Bottom-Founded Monitoring Buoys ...................................... 3-31

3.3.1.9 Drilling Discharges ................................................................................... 3-32 3.3.1.10 Entanglement ........................................................................................... 3-33

3.3.2 Impact-Producing Factors for Accidental Fuel Spills .............................................. 3-34 3.4 Cumulative Activities Scenario ............................................................................................ 3-35

3.4.1 OCS Program .......................................................................................................... 3-37 3.4.1.1 OCS Oil and Gas Exploration and Development..................................... 3-37 3.4.1.2 Decommissioning ..................................................................................... 3-38 3.4.1.3 Renewable Energy Development ............................................................ 3-39 3.4.1.4 Marine Minerals Use ................................................................................ 3-39 3.4.1.5 Geological and Geophysical Activity Related to the Oil and Gas

Program.................................................................................................... 3-40 3.4.2 Oil and Gas Activities in State Waters .................................................................... 3-41 3.4.3 Other Major Factors Affecting Offshore Environments ........................................... 3-41

3.4.3.1 Deepwater Ports ...................................................................................... 3-41 3.4.3.2 Commercial and Recreational Fishing ..................................................... 3-42 3.4.3.3 Shipping and Marine Transportation ........................................................ 3-43 3.4.3.4 Dredged Material Disposal ....................................................................... 3-44 3.4.3.5 Existing, Planned, and New Cable Infrastructure .................................... 3-45 3.4.3.6 Military Activities ....................................................................................... 3-45 3.4.3.7 Scientific Research .................................................................................. 3-47 3.4.3.8 Maintenance Dredging of Federal Channels ........................................... 3-47 3.4.3.9 Coastal Restoration Programs ................................................................. 3-48 3.4.3.10 Mississippi River Hydromodification and Subsidence ............................. 3-48 3.4.3.11 Natural Processes .................................................................................... 3-49 3.4.3.12 Recreational Activities .............................................................................. 3-50

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED RESOURCES AND IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................... 4-3

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.1.1 Preliminary Screening of Activities and Affected Resources .................................... 4-4

4.1.1.1 Activity Screening ....................................................................................... 4-5 4.1.1.2 Resource Screening .................................................................................. 4-5

4.1.2 Impact-Level Definitions ............................................................................................ 4-7 4.1.3 Impact-Producing Factors ......................................................................................... 4-9 4.1.4 Other Considerations ............................................................................................... 4-10

4.1.4.1 Analysis and Incomplete or Unavailable Information .............................. 4-10 4.1.4.2 Cumulative Scenario Summary ............................................................... 4-11 4.1.4.3 NMFS’ Technical Guidance ..................................................................... 4-12 4.1.4.4 Risk Assessment Framework .................................................................. 4-14 4.1.4.5 Space-Use Conflicts ................................................................................ 4-14

4.1.5 Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill .............................................................. 4-15

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxxiii

4.2 Marine Mammals ................................................................................................................. 4-18 4.2.1 Description of the Affected Environment ................................................................. 4-18 4.2.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) ......................... 4-24

4.2.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities .................................................................... 4-25 4.2.2.1.1 Characteristics of Active Acoustic Sound Sources .............. 4-25 4.2.2.1.2 Analysis of Active Acoustic Sound Sources ......................... 4-45 4.2.2.1.3 HRG Survey Activities .......................................................... 4-58 4.2.2.1.4 Vessel and Equipment Noise ............................................... 4-64 4.2.2.1.5 Drilling-Related Noise ........................................................... 4-66 4.2.2.1.6 Vessel Traffic ........................................................................ 4-67 4.2.2.1.7 Aircraft Traffic and Noise ...................................................... 4-69 4.2.2.1.8 Trash and Debris .................................................................. 4-70 4.2.2.1.9 Entanglement ........................................................................ 4-71 4.2.2.1.10 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ................................. 4-72

4.2.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill .......................................................... 4-73 4.2.2.3 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................. 4-75

4.2.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities................................... 4-75 4.2.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey

Activities ................................................................................ 4-75 4.2.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions ........................................... 4-85

4.2.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative).................................. 4-88 4.2.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities .................................................................... 4-88

4.2.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ................................. 4-88 4.2.3.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ...................................................... 4-90 4.2.3.1.3 Minimum Separation Distances ............................................ 4-92 4.2.3.1.4 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within

the EPA ................................................................................. 4-93 4.2.3.1.5 Use of PAM Required ........................................................... 4-95 4.2.3.1.6 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ................................. 4-96

4.2.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill .......................................................... 4-97 4.2.3.3 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................. 4-98

4.2.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities................................... 4-98 4.2.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey

Activities ................................................................................ 4-99 4.2.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions ........................................... 4-99

4.2.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional Mitigation Measures) ............................................................................................... 4-99 4.2.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities ..................................................................4-100

4.2.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to May 31) ...............................................................................4-100

4.2.4.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ....................................................4-100 4.2.4.1.3 Use of PAM Required .........................................................4-101

xxxiv Table of Contents

4.2.4.1.4 Non-Airgun HRG Survey Protocol ......................................4-102 4.2.4.1.5 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-103

4.2.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill ........................................................4-104 4.2.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-105

4.2.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-105 4.2.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey

Activities ..............................................................................4-105 4.2.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-105

4.2.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns) ...........4-106 4.2.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities ..................................................................4-106

4.2.5.1.1 Expanded PSO Program with Additional Shutdowns .........4-106 4.2.5.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-107




4.2.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-109 4.2.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities ..................................................................4-109

4.2.6.1.1 Reduced Level of Activity ...................................................4-109 4.2.6.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-110




4.2.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures) .................................4-113 4.2.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities ..................................................................4-113

4.2.7.1.1 Closure Areas .....................................................................4-113 4.2.7.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-118




4.2.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative) ..........................................4-121 4.2.8.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities ....................................................4-121 4.2.8.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill ........................................................4-124

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxxv

4.2.8.3 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey Activities .................4-124 4.2.8.4 Cumulative Impact Conclusions ............................................................4-124

4.2.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-125 4.3 Sea Turtles .........................................................................................................................4-126

4.3.1 Description of the Affected Environment ...............................................................4-126 4.3.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) ........................4-129

4.3.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities ..................................................................4-130 4.3.2.1.1 Characteristics of Active Acoustic Sound Sources ............4-130 4.3.2.1.2 Analysis of Active Acoustic Sound Sources .......................4-138 4.3.2.1.3 Vessel and Equipment Noise .............................................4-142 4.3.2.1.4 Vessel Traffic ......................................................................4-144 4.3.2.1.5 Aircraft Traffic and Noise ....................................................4-145 4.3.2.1.6 Trash and Debris ................................................................4-146 4.3.2.1.7 Entanglement and Entrapment ...........................................4-147 4.3.2.1.8 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-148




4.3.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative) ................................4-160 4.3.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities ..................................................................4-161

4.3.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ...............................4-161 4.3.3.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ....................................................4-162 4.3.3.1.3 Minimum Separation Distances ..........................................4-163 4.3.3.1.4 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within

the EPA ...............................................................................4-164 4.3.3.1.5 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-165




4.3.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional Mitigation Measures) ..............................................................................................4-168 4.3.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities ..................................................................4-168

4.3.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to May 31) ...............................................................................4-168

4.3.4.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ....................................................4-168 4.3.4.1.3 Non-Airgun HRG Survey Protocol ......................................4-169 4.3.4.1.4 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-170

xxxvi Table of Contents

4.3.4.2 Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills ...........................................................4-171 4.3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-171



4.3.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns) ...........4-172 4.3.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities ..................................................................4-172 4.3.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill ........................................................4-172 4.3.5.3 Cumulative Impacts........................................................

gulf of mexico ocs proposed geological and geophysical activities · 2019-10-14 · u.s. department...

Documents