United States Environmental Region 4
Protection Agency 61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
904/P-09-001
December 9, 2009
Environmental
Assessment
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permitting for
Eastern Gulf of Mexico Offshore Oil
and Gas Exploration, Development
and Production
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1- 1
1.1 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION 1- 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 1- 2
1.2.1 Purpose 1- 2
1.2.2 Need 1- 2
1.3 ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND 1- 3
1.3.1 General NPDES Permits 1- 3
1.3.2 Definition of New Source 1- 5
1.4 THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT AND MMS LEASE PROGRAM 1- 6
1.4.1 The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 1- 6
1.4.2 Exploration, Development and Production Plans 1- 7
1.4.3 Protective Stipulations 1- 8
1.4.4 Environmental Studies and Monitoring 1- 9
1.4.5 Regulation of Pipelines 1-10
1.5 GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006 1-11
1.6 OTHER RELEVANT FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES 1-11
1.6.1 Pollution Control Regulations 1-11
1.6.2 Natural Resource Protection Regulations 1-16
1.6.3 Other Resource Protection Policies and Programs 1-21
2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2- 1
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2- 1
2.1.1 Alternative A: (Preferred Alternative) Issue a New, Revised General Permit 2- 1
2.1.2 Alternative B: Issue an NPDES General Permit Unchanged from the 2004 General Permit. 2- 1
2.1.3 Alternative C: No Action—No Issuance of Any NPDES General Permit 2- 2
2.1.4 Factors Applicable To Alternatives B and C 2- 2
2.1.5 Protective Measures Applicable Under All Alternatives 2- 2
2.2 REGULATED WASTE STREAMS 2- 3
2.2.1 Overview 2- 3
2.2.2 Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings 2- 4
2.2.3 Produced Water 2- 7
2.2.4 Produced Sand 2- 7
2.2.5 Wastes from Maintenance Operations 2- 8
2.2.6 Sanitary and Domestic Wastes 2-8
2.2.7 Deck Drainage 2- 8
2.2.8 Well Treatment, Completion, and Workover Fluids 2- 9
2.2.9 Miscellaneous Discharges 2- 9
2.3 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED WASTE STREAMS UNDER
DIFFERENT STANDARDS 2- 9
2.3.1 Drilling Fluids 2-13
2.3.2 Drill Cuttings 2-13
2.3.3 Produced Water 2-14
2.3.4 Produced Sand 2-14
2.3.5 Deck Drainage 2-14
2.3.6 Well Treatment, Completion, and Workover Fluids 2-14
2.3.7 Wastes from Maintenance Operations 2-14
2.3.8 Miscellaneous Discharges 2-15
2.3.9 Miscellaneous Discharges of Seawater and Freshwater 2-15
2.3.10 Sanitary and Domestic Waste 2-15
2.3.11 Other Permit Limitations and Conditions 2-15
2.3.12 CWA Section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements 2-16
2.4 OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY SUMMARY EPA REGION 4 AREA 2-16
-------
CONTENTS
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
ALTERNATIVES 3- 1
3.1 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO THE 2004 Final SEIS and 1998 FINAL EIS 3- 1
3.2 SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF,
CONTINENTAL SHELF TRANSITION ZONE AND DEEP WATER AREAS OF THE
GULF OF MEXICO UNDER EPA REGION 4 JURISDICTION 3- 3
3.2.1 Summary of Deep Water Biological Resources 3- 3
3.2.2 Summary of Biological Resources in the Continental Shelf and Continental Slopes RegionsS- 7
3.3 REVIEW OF NEW INFORMATION ON IMPACTS FROM SBM AND ASSOCIATED
CUTTINGS 3-13
3.3.1 Fate and Transport of SBM 3-13
3.3.2 Degradation of SBF 3-14
3.3.3 Benthic Community Effects 3-16
3.4 MARINE WATER QUALITY 3-18
3.4.1 Introduction 3-18
3.4.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Marine Water Quality 3-18
3.4.3 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Marine Water Quality 3-19
3.3.4 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Marine Water Quality 3-19
3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts and Summary of Impacts on Marine Water Quality 3-20
3.5 SEDIMENT QUALITY 3-20
3.5.1 Introduction 3-20
3.5.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Sediment Quality 3-21
3.5.3 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Sediment Quality 3-23
3.5.4 Effects of Wastes from Maintenance Operations on Sediment Quality 3-24
3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts and Summary of Effects on Sediment Quality 3-24
3.6 LIVE BOTTOMS (EXCLUDING SEAGRASSES) 3-25
3.6.1 Introduction 3-25
3.6.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Live Bottoms 3-26
3.6.3 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Live Bottom Communities 3-26
3.6.4 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Live Bottom Communities 3-26
3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts and Summary of Effects on Live Bottom Communities 3-27
3.7 DEEP WATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES 3-27
3.7.1 Introduction 3-27
3.7.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Deep Water Benthic Communities 3-28
3.7.3 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Deep Water
Benthic Communities 3-33
3.7.4 Effects of Blowouts and Drilling Tube Separation on Deep Water Benthic Communities 3-33
3.7.5 Effects of the Withdrawal of Hydrocarbons on Deep Water Benthic Communities 3-34
3.7.6 Effects of Anchoring and Structure Placement on Deep Water Benthic Communities 3-34
3.7.7 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Deep Water Benthic Communities 3-35
3.7.8 Cumulative Impacts to Deep Water Benthic Communities 3-35
3.8 FISHERIES 3-36
3.8.1 Fish Resources 3-36
3.8.2 Recreational Marine Fishing 3-41
3.8.3 Commercial Fishing 3-43
3.8.4 Human Health Effects 3-46
3.9 AIR QUALITY 3-48
3.8.1 Introduction 3-48
3.8.2 Routine Impacts 3-48
3.8.3 Impacts from Maintenance Wastes Operations Wastes 3-48
3.10 ONSHORE WASTE MANAGEMENT 3-49
3.10.1 Introduction 3-49
3.10.2 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Onshore Waste Management 3-49
3.10.3 Cumulative Effects on Onshore Waste Management 3-49
-------
CONTENTS
4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4-1
4.1 ERA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 4-1
4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES 4-1
4.2.1 EPA NPDES General Permit Limitations 4-1
4.2.2 Other EPA Mitigation Measures 4-5
4.2.3 Other Federal Agency Mitigation Measures 4-6
4.2.4 Zero Discharge Option 4-14
4.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4-15
4.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 4-15
4.5 REALTIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 4-16
5. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 5-1
5.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION 5-1
5.1.1 Consultation Under the Coastal Zone Management Act 5-1
5.1.2 Section 7 Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act and Consultation Regarding
Essential Fish Habitat 5-1
5.2 DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT 5-1
5.4 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-2
6. REFERENCES 6-1
7. LIST OF PREPARERS 7-1
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Major Requirements and Reviews for Oil and Gas Lessees 1- 9
Table 1-2. Crosswalk between Ocean Discharge Criteria and the Location of Supporting
Information 1-17
Table 2-1. Current MMS Notices to Lessees Related to Mitigating Environmental Impacts 2- 3
Table 2-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed General Permit Limitations 2-10
Table 2-3. Remaining MMS Proposed Lease Sales, 2007-2012 Program 2-16
Table 2-4. Draft Proposed Lease Sale Schedule for 2010-2015 2-17
Table 2-5. Projected Offshore Oil and Gas Activity, 2007-2012 2-17
Table 3-1. Environmental Components Evaluated in 1998, 2004, and 2009 NEPA Documents for
Offshore Oil and Gas NPDES General Permits 3- 2
Table 3-2. Summary of the Evaluation of OCS Activities and Affected Environments, NPDES General
Permits for the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry 3- 4
Table 3-3. Depth of Biological Resources 3- 7
Table 3-4. Depth of Fish and Shellfish Resources 3-10
Table 4-1. Matrix of NPDES Permit Limitations and Applicability to the Mitigation of Potential
Environmental Consequences 4-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. USEPA Region 4 and 6 Jurisdictional Boundaries 1- 4
Figure 1-2. New Lease Sale Areas Resulting From GOMESA (Lease Sale 224 Area and Lease
Sale 181 South Area) 1-12
Figure 2-1. Central Planning Area Proposed Lease Sale Area, 2010-2015 2-18
Figure 2-2. Eastern Planning Area Proposed Lease Sale Area, 2010-2015 2-20
Figure 2-3. Active Leases within EPA Region 4 NPDES Jurisdiction 2-21
IV
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACAMP Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan
ACP Area Contingency Plan
ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management
BAT Best Commercially Available and Economically Achievable Technology
BCT Best Conventional Technology
BMP Best Management Practices
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAA Clean Air Act
CER Categorical Exclusion Review
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan
DOCD Development Operations Coordination Document
DOC Department of Commerce
DOI Department of Interior
DOT Department of Transportation
DPP Development and Production Plan
EA Environmental Assessment
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAD Fish Attracting Device
FCMA Fisheries Conservation and Management Act
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FWS US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Interior
GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council
GOMESA Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
LC50 Lethal Concentration 50%
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MCWC Mississippi Commission on Wildlife Conservation
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MMS Minerals Management Service, US Department of Interior
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
-------
CONTENTS
NOW
NPDES
NSPS
NIL
OEM
OCS
OCSLA
ODCE
OOC
OSCP
OPA
RCRA
ROV
ROW
SBF
SBM
SEIS
SRB
TOC
USAGE
USCG
WBM
Non-hazardous Oilfield Waste
National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System
New Source Performance Standard
Notice to Lessees
Oil-based Mud
Outer Continental Shelf
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
Offshore Operators Committee
Oil Spill Contingency Plan
Oil Pollution Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remotely Operated Vehicle
Right of Way
Synthetic Base Fluid
Synthetic-based Mud
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Sulfate Reducing Bacteria
Total Organic Carbon
US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense
US Coast Guard, US Department of Homeland Security
Water-based Mud
VI
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action is the issuance by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 4, of a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for
discharges from new and existing sources from oil and gas extraction activities in the offshore
subcategory under Region 4's jurisdiction in the Gulf of Mexico. The existing NPDES General
Permit, which became effective on January!, 2005, and will expire on December 31, 2009,
applies to existing and new sources.
The new general permit will replace the existing general permit, and will cover existing and new
exploration, development, and production discharges. "New exploration" is defined by EPA
regulations as an "existing source" and includes activities covered by an exploration plan that is
approved by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), Minerals Management Service (MMS). New
development and production discharges, as defined by EPA's Effluent Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS), will also be covered under the new permit. The new
permit also adds requirements regulating wastes associated with certain maintenance
operations.
The new permit implements effluent limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and
other conditions for discharges from oil and gas facilities engaged in exploration, drilling, well
development and completion, well treatment operations, and production. The regulated wastes
are: drilling fluids; drill cuttings; deck drainage; produced water; produced sand; well treatment,
completion, and workover fluids; sanitary waste; domestic waste; wastes from maintenance
operations; and miscellaneous wastes. The new permit will be effective for five years, will
contain re-opener provisions, and is subject to renewal (with possible revisions) for subsequent
five-year periods.
The 1998 general permit National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review (USEPA 1998a)
addressed a comprehensive NPDES permitting strategy for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
waters under EPA Region 4 jurisdiction, a strategy in which EPA considered both individual
permitting and a general permit for different areas and how those permits would affect potential
oil and gas facility operators. In the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) that was developed for the existing general permit, EPA Region 4 did not re-open
discussion of the overall permitting strategy. The 2004 Final SEIS focused on whether the
discharge of synthetic-based drilling muds (SBM) should be authorized in the 2004 (i.e., the
existing) General Permit.1
In 2004, synthetic-base drilling fluids (SBF) were a relatively new non-aqueous component of
drilling muds, developed to combine the technical advantages of oil-based drilling muds (OEM)
with the low persistence and toxicity of water-based drilling muds (WBM). SBMs have drilling
and operational properties similar to OEM systems, which previously used diesel or mineral oil
as the continuous phase of the mud system. SBMs are used where the properties of WBMs limit
drilling performance. SBMs address many environmental problems associated with most OEMs.
SBF has low aquatic toxicity, and SBM toxicity largely derives from other mud components.
In this document synthetic-based drilling muds, or SBM, refers to the complete mud system, i.e., with all
treatment chemicals, agents, and additives needed fordownhole circulation; synthetic-base drilling fluids,
or SBF, refers to the unadulterated base fluid that serves as the non-aqueous continuous phase
component in a complete drilling mud system.
1-1
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Primarily because of their cost, SBMs are recycled, not discharged like WBMs. This greatly
reduces the volume of SBM discharges to only that SBM adhering to cuttings from SBM
systems (SBM-cuttings). This eliminates bulk discharges that would occur with WBMs.
Compared to WBMs, SBMs achieve significant cost savings for operators while simultaneously
reducing the amount of pollutants discharged to receiving waters of the US (USEPA 1995).
EPA had considered the technological and environmental advantages of SBMs in the
development of technology-based, national effluent guidelines (USEPA 2000a;b). This
information was largely based on studies of continental shelf communities. The 2004 Final SEIS
Region 4 prepared as part of its NEPA review that evaluated the then available information on
SBMs, supported Region 4's authorization for discharging SBM cuttings. However, potential
impacts resulting from discharges of SBM in deep-water marine environments had not been
fully considered by EPA in the 2000 effluent guidelines.
The 2004 SEIS noted that there were several large research projects that were examining the
fate and effects of SBM cuttings in both continental shelf and slope environments. A major focus
of this 2009 Environmental Assessment (EA) is to review information that has become available
since the 2004 SEIS and re-evaluate Region 4's decision to authorize discharges of SBM
cuttings in light of this new information. This review has concluded new information
substantively supports the Region's 2004 decision that SBM are environmentally preferable to
WBM, although the Region believes that long-term and cumulative impacts merit further
monitoring.
1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.2.1 Purpose
EPA has issued Final Effluent Guidelines and NSPS for the offshore subcategory of the oil and
gas industry in accordance with Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Oil and gas
activities defined as "new sources" are required to have NPDES permits that incorporate these
new standards. Activities defined as existing sources must meet Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) standards (See USEPA 2001 b). EPA regulations at 40 CFR
122.29(c) state the issuance of an NPDES permit for a new source is subject to the
environmental review provisions of NEPA as set forth in 40 CFR Part 6, Subpart F.
Furthermore, issuance of a "new source" permit is regarded as a major Federal action that
requires NEPA review. To comply with EPA's NEPA requirements (40 CFR Part 6), the Agency
has prepared this EA to assess the potential impacts of the changes in the proposed general
permit and to consider new technical information relevant to SBM.
1.2.2 Need
EPA Region 4 is proposing to issue a new NPDES General Permit, which will replace the
existing 2004 NPDES General Permit (69 FR 245: 76740-76743) that expires December 31,
2009. The new permit includes three changes to the existing permit, none of which Region 4
believes reflect a substantive change in the terms and conditions of the permit in the context of
NEPA review. The changes are summarized as follows:
• A requirement for operators to comply with CWA Section 316(b) Phase III regulations
that address cooling water intake structures;
• Best Management Practices (BMP) requirements covering solid wastes from certain
facility maintenance activities;
• Modifications to the drilling muds biodegradation test method.
1-2
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The stated intent of Region 4 in its 2004 SEIS was to fulfill its NEPA compliance requirements
beyond the first five-year term of the 2004 general permit. Region 4 anticipated that it would not
prepare an EIS for its reevaluation of the general permit in five years, instead opting for tiered
NEPA documentation unless significant changes to the general permit came under serious
consideration. Region 4 does not believe the changes proposed for the new permit are
significant. Nor has Region 4's review of new information on the potential impacts of SBMs
supported any significant alterations in the determination on SBM cuttings discharges, as
authorized in the existing permit. Thus, EPA Region 4 is developing this EA as fully compliant
documentation of its NEPA obligations for issuance of this new NPDES general permit.
1.3 ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND
The geographic and administrative boundaries related to oil and gas development in the Gulf of
Mexico are not simple. Both MMS and EPA administer programs to regulate the oil and gas
industry in the Gulf of Mexico. For NPDES permitting, Federal jurisdiction begins three statute
miles from the landward boundary of the territorial seas, or the "baseline." For mineral rights and
leasing, MMS management begins three statute miles from the baseline for Mississippi and
Alabama, but three leagues (nine nautical miles) from the west coast of Florida. Thus, EPA's
CWA authority to regulate offshore oil and gas facilities through NPDES permits primarily covers
facilities on the Federally-leased OCS, but also extends to facilities that are shoreward of
Federal OCS lease areas where the State of Florida's mineral rights extend to three leagues.
Figure 1-1 illustrates EPA's Regional jurisdiction of NPDES permitting in the Gulf of Mexico
shared by EPA Regions 4 and 6.
MMS has delineated three planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico - Western, Central, and
Eastern Planning Areas - for the purposes of lease sale development. MMS has modified the
planning area boundary between the Central and Eastern Gulf of Mexico from the planning area
boundary shown in Figure 1-1. However, this change in the boundary between MMS Central
and Eastern Planning Areas has no effect on the administrative jurisdiction of EPA Regions 4
and 6 under the CWA - MMS Planning Area boundaries for the Gulf of Mexico are not relevant
to EPA's jurisdictional boundary between EPA Regions 4 and 6 under the CWA. In addition,
although EPA has statutory authority over administration of the Clean Air Act (CAA), CAA
authority over oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico is jointly shared by the MMS and EPA.
This boundary (87.5° W longitude) under the CAA coincides neither with the MMS planning area
boundary between MMS Central and Eastern Planning Areas nor the CWA jurisdictional
boundary between EPA Regions 4 and 6.
MMS prepares environmental impact statements (EISs) that address both imminent (yearly)
lease sales and the MMS Five-Year Plan for projected lease sales and future development
within a 35 year timeframe. EPA NPDES authority applies to wastewater discharges from oil
and gas exploration, development, and production activities. By assessing its jurisdictional area
and projected planning for permitted activities in this EA, EPA is evaluating impacts of present
and future oil and gas activities for both the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the deeper
waters of the Gulf of Mexico's Outer Continental Slope.
1.3.1 General NPDES Permits
Section 301 of the CWA provides that the discharge of pollutants is unlawful except in
accordance with an NPDES permit. EPA's regulations authorize the issuance of general permits
to categories of related discharges, such as discharges from the same type of source in a
common geographic area (40 CFR 122.28). Moreover, as stipulated in 40 CFR 122.28(c)(1), the
EPA Regional Administrator is required to issue general permits covering discharges from
offshore oil and gas facilities within the Region's jurisdiction except as set forth below. The
1-3
-------
Figure 1-1. USEPA Region 4 and 6 Jurisdictional Boundaries
O
,-- ••• •. „ t •
^-:--
Vy
LEGEND
MIS£R«LS UANAGEMEU! SERVICE PtSNfJIWG ARE.*
US£l» - \. v,*
^-^
v--\
O
D
C
O
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
regulations provide that any owner or operator authorized by the general permit to discharge
may be excluded from coverage by applying for an individual permit. Also, the Regional
Administrator may require any discharger authorized by a general permit to apply for and obtain
an individual NPDES permit (40 CFR 122.28).
The regulations further state that "Where the offshore area includes areas such as areas of
biological concern, for which separate permit conditions are required, the Regional
Administrator may issue separate general permits, individual permits, or both." "Areas of
biological concern," for the purposes of NPDES OCS permitting, are defined as "no activity
zones" for biological reasons by the states of Alabama, Florida or Mississippi. For offshore
waters seaward of three miles, areas of biological concern include "no activity zones" defined by
DOI for biological reasons, or identified by EPA in consultation with DOI, the states or other
interested Federal agencies as containing biological communities, features or functions that are
potentially sensitive to discharges associated with the oil and gas industry.
Effective July 2, 1986, the Regional Administrators of Regions 4 and 6 issued a final NPDES
general permit for discharges from facilities currently located in and discharging to the Gulf of
Mexico seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas of the states bordering the Gulf,
and from any facility placed in and discharging to this area during the term of the permit. The
permit did not authorize discharges from facilities in or discharging to the territorial seas of the
coastal states (51 FR 24897). The 1986 general permit did not apply to new sources because
"new sources," as defined by Section 306 of the CWA, did not exist when the permit was issued.
Effective November 16, 1998, a final NPDES general permit was issued for discharges from
facilities currently located in and discharging to the Gulf of Mexico seaward of the 200 m isobath
in the Eastern Planning Area and seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas of the
Central Planning Area with existing source or new source discharges originating from
exploration or development and production operations. This permit did not apply to
non-operational leases which lost general permit coverage on the effective date of the existing
2004 general permit (63 FR 55745).
Effective January 1, 2004, a final NPDES general permit was issued for discharges from
facilities currently located in and discharging to the Gulf of Mexico seaward of the 200 m isobath
in the originally defined limits of the MMS Eastern Planning Area and seaward of the outer
boundary of the territorial seas of the MMS Central Planning Area with existing source or new
source discharges originating from exploration or development and production operations.
Shoreward of the 200 m isobath offshore of Florida, which is approximately 40 miles offshore
from Pensacola Beach at its closest point, NPDES permit applicants must undergo individual
permit reviews.
1.3.2 Definition of New Source
The regulations in 40 CFR Part 122.2 define "new source" as follows:
New Source means any building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be a
'discharge of pollutants,' the construction of which is commenced:
(a) After promulgation of standards of performance under section 306 of CWA which are
applicable to such sources, or
(b) After proposal of standards of performance in accordance with section 306 of CWA
which are applicable to such source, but only if the standards are promulgated in
accordance with section 306 within 120 days of their proposal.
1-5
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas
extraction point source category were promulgated on January 15, 1993.
The regulations at 40 CFR 122.29(b)(4) define what constitutes "construction" of a new source,
stating that:
Construction has commenced if the owner or operator has:
(i) Begun, or caused to begin as part of a continuous on-site construction program:
(A) Any placement assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment; or
(B) Significant site preparation work; or
(ii) Entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purchase or lease of facilities or
equipment intended to be used in its operation with a reasonable time.
For purposes of the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (58 FR 12457) and NSPS, EPA defines
"significant site preparation work" as "the process of clearing and preparing an area of the
ocean floor for purposes of constructing or placing a development or production facility on or
over the site." Thus, development and production facilities at a new site would be new sources
under the Offshore Guidelines.
Exploration activities at a site have been defined by EPA not to be significant site preparation
work; therefore, exploratory wells would not be new sources in any circumstances (50 FR
34618). EPA does not consider exploratory activities to be "significant site preparation work"
because such activities are not necessarily followed by development or production activity at a
site. Even when exploratory drilling leads to development and production activities, the latter
may not be commenced for months or years after the exploratory drilling is completed (58 FR
12457).
"Site" is defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as "the land or water area where any 'facility or activity' is
physically located or conducted, including adjacent land used in connection with the facility or
activity." EPA proposed that the term "water area" means the "specific geographical location
where the exploration, development, or production activity is conducted, including a water
column and ocean floor beneath such activities. Therefore, if a new platform is built at or moved
from a different location, it will be considered a new source when placed at the new site where
its oil and gas activities take place. Even if the platform is placed adjacent to an existing
platform within the same lease block, the new platform will still be considered a 'new source,'
occupying a new 'water area' and therefore a new site" (50 FR 34618; 58 FR 12457).
1.4 THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT AND MMS LEASE PROGRAM
1.4.1 The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953 (67 Stat. 462), as amended (43 USC
1331 et. seq. [1988]) established Federal jurisdiction over submerged lands on the OCS
seaward of state boundaries (approximately three miles seaward of the coastlines of Mississippi
and Alabama and three leagues seaward of the coastline of Florida). Under the OCSLA, the
Secretary of the Interior is responsible for the administration of mineral exploration and
development of the OCS. The OCSLA empowers the Secretary of the Interior to grant leases to
the highest qualified responsible bidder(s) on the basis of sealed competitive bids and to
formulate such regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act (MMS 1995).
The Secretary of the Interior has designated MMS as the administrative agency responsible for
the mineral leasing of submerged OCS lands and for the supervision of offshore operations after
1-6
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
lease issuance. Regulations administered by MMS govern the leasing of oil, gas, and sulfur
mineral deposits on the OCS (30 CFR 256); regulations pertaining to the conduct of mineral
operations are contained in 30 CFR 250 and 30 CFR 251. Pertinent regulations are also found
in 30 CFR 252, 259, 260, and 270 (MMS 1995).
The OCSLA requires that the DOI prepare a five-year program that specifies, as precisely as
possible, the size, timing, and location of areas to be assessed for Federal offshore natural gas
and oil leasing. The DOI developed a comprehensive program for OCS Natural Gas and Oil
Resource Management for 2007 through 2012 (MMS 2007b).The comprehensive program
proposed six lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico Central Planning Area (one per year, Lease
Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222) and one sale in the Eastern Planning Area (Lease Sale
224). Of these, three lease sales remain, all in the Central Planning Area: Lease Sales 213,
216, and 222. The DOI also has recently released its five year program for 2010 -2015 (MMS
2009). Six lease sales are proposed in the Central Planning Area (Lease Sales 216, 227, 222,
231, 235, and 241) and three sales are proposed in the Eastern Planning Area (Lease Sales
225, 226, and 234). Further details are provided in Section 2.4 of this EA.
Regulations under the OCSLA in 30 CFR 250 address operations on the OCS, and include
measures for pollution prevention and control. Regulations state that the lessee "shall take
measures to prevent unauthorized discharge of pollutants into offshore waters" and shall not
"create conditions that will pose unreasonable risk to public health, life, property, aquatic life,
wildlife, recreation, navigation, commercial fishing, or other uses of the ocean." MMS has the
authority to restrict the rate of drilling fluid discharge or to prescribe alternative discharge
methods and requires lessees to obtain MMS approval of the method of disposal of drill
cuttings, sand, and other well solids. Oil spill contingency plans (OSCPs) also are required.
MMS Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) are formal documents that provide clarification,
description, or interpretation of an OCS regulation or standard; provide guidelines on the
implementation of a special lease stipulation or regional requirement; provide a better
understanding of the scope and meaning of a regulation by explaining MMS interpretation of a
requirement; or transmit administrative information such as current telephone listings and a
change in MMS personnel or office address. A detailed listing of Gulf of Mexico NTLs is
published online at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntlltl.html. A list of current
NTLs related to mitigating environmental impacts is presented in section 2.1.5 of this EA; these
are discussed in section 4.2.3 of this EA.
1.4.2 Exploration, Development and Production Plans
The regulations in 30 CFR 250 provide for the Director of the MMS to regulate all operations
conducted under a lease, right of use and easement, or DOI pipeline right-of-way to promote
orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral resources and to prevent harm or
damage to, or waste of, any natural resource; any life or property; or the marine, coastal, or
human environment. Prior to either exploration, development, or production activities in a lease
block (other than on-lease preliminary activities), companies must submit plans to MMS for
review and approval. Within these plans, specific requirements must be met relative to operating
conditions and environmental consideration (MMS 2002a).
Section 11 of the OCSLA requires submission of an exploration plan prior to exploration on any
lease. A development and production plan (DPP) and supporting information must be submitted
prior to development operations by all operators in the Gulf of Mexico. Among other information,
a DPP is to contain environmental impact-related information such as the frequency of boat and
aircraft arrivals, wastes generated and their disposal methods, air emissions, and the
significance of any impacts on aquatic biota.
1-7
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
MMS requires operators in the Western Gulf of Mexico to submit a Development Operations
Coordination Document (DOCD) and, as required, supporting environmental information, an
archaeological report, a biological report, or other environmental information. The DOCD is
essentially an abbreviated DPP. The DOCD is considered a development and production plan
for the purpose of any references in any law, regulation, lease provision, agreement, or other
document referring to preparation or submission of a plan (MMS 2002a).
A lessee is required to submit an Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) to MMS for approval with
or prior to submitting exploration, development, or production plans. If an OSCP covering the
area has already been approved, it may be referred to in the exploration, development, or
production plan. The OSCP must contain assurances that a full response capability exists for
commitment in the event of an oil spill. Such a commitment includes specification of appropriate
equipment and materials, their availability and deployment time, and provisions for varying
degrees of response effort, depending on the severity of the spill (MMS 2003). More detailed
information on spill contingency planning and response can be found in Appendix C of the MMS
EIS for the 1997-2002 leasing program (MMS 2002a).
After receipt of an exploration plan, DOCD, or DPP, MMS prepares either a categorical
exclusion review (CER), an environmental assessment (EA), or an EIS, with available
information. This information may include the geophysical report (for determining the potential
for the presence of deep-water benthic communities), archaeological report (30 CFR 250.203),
and recommendations by the affected state(s), the Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) (for selected plans under provisions of a DOI agreement), National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and/or internal MMS offices. MMS evaluates the proposed
activity for potential impacts relative to geohazards and man-made hazards (including existing
pipelines), archaeological resources, endangered species, sensitive biological features, water
and air quality, oil spill response, and other uses of the OCS (MMS 2002a).
If MMS determines that the proposed action is an exception to the categorical exclusions listed
in the Department Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 2), then the preparation of an EA is required.
An EA may also be prepared on any action at any time in order to assist in planning and
decision-making or under extraordinary circumstances. EAs are routinely prepared for selected
environmentally sensitive areas and for proposed activities considered environmentally sensitive
(e.g., new or unusual technology and pipeline rights-of-way to shore) (MMS 2002a).
As part of the plan review process, the plan and supporting environmental information are sent
to the affected state(s) for coastal zone management plan consistency certification review and
determination (MMS 2002a). Please refer to Section 1.6.3 for a discussion of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA). Also, copies of the exploration plan, DPP/DOCD and OSCP are sent
to interested Federal and state agencies.
Table 1-1 identifies the major MMS, EPA, and state reviews and requirements applicable to oil
and gas operation in the Gulf OCS.
1.4.3 Protective Stipulations
MMS may develop special stipulations before a lease sale and may attach stipulations to the
lease instrument that would require mitigation for identified adverse environmental impacts.
Biological communities, archaeological resources, and military areas stipulations are those that
have been attached most often to the leases in previous Gulf lease sales. For waters less than
100 m, MMS has required the Live Bottom Stipulation for older leases in their Eastern Planning
Area.
1-8
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trends) Stipulation applies only to certain lease blocks in the Central
Planning Area, and is designed to prevent drilling activities, including anchor emplacement, from
damaging the pinnacles (MMS 2000). If MMS determines that live bottom areas anywhere might
be adversely affected, it will require the lessee to undertake measures deemed economically,
environmentally, and technically appropriate to protect the resources (33 FR 38674).
Table 1-1. Major Requirements and Reviews for Oil and Gas Lessees
Jurisdiction
MMS
EPA
State
Eastern Planning Area
Exploration Plan
Development and Production Plan
(DPP)
Pipeline Application
Oil Spill Contingency Plan
NEPA Review
Environmental Assessment/EIS
General or Individual NPDES Permit
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
NEPA Review3
Air permit to construct and operate
exploratory rigs and production
platforms
CZM Consistency
Review of Exploration Plan and DPP
CZM Consistency Review of NPDES
permit
Central Planning Area
Exploration Plan
Development Operations Coordination
Document (DOCD2)
Pipeline Application
Oil Spill Contingency Plan
NEPA Review
Categorical Exclusion Review/
Environmental Assessment
Air permits to construct and operate
exploratory rigs and production
platforms west of 87.5° W longitude
General or Individual NPDES Permit
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
NEPA Review
Air permits to construct and operate
exploratory rigs and production
platforms east of 87.5° W longitude
CZM Consistency Review of
Exploration Plan and DOCD
CZM Consistency Review of NPDES
Permit
Conditions of plan approval are other mechanisms used by MMS to control or mitigate potential
environmental or safety problems associated with a proposal. Conditions that may be necessary
to provide environmental protection may be applied to any OCS plan, permit, right-of-use of
easement, lease term, pipeline, or pipeline right-of-way grant (MMS 2002a).
1.4.4 Environmental Studies and Monitoring
The OCSLA has provisions for environmental studies and monitoring. Under Section 20 of the
Act, the Secretary shall:
". . . conduct such additional studies to establish environmental information as he deems
necessary and shall monitor the human, marine, and coastal environments of such area
or region in a manner designed to provide time-series and data trend information which
DOCD is an abbreviated version of, but equivalent to, a Development and Production Plan (DPP).
3 EPA must conduct NEPA reviews only on proposed issuances of new source permits (i.e., development
and production activities).
1-9
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
can be used for comparison with any previously collected data for the purpose of
identifying any significant changes in the quality and productivity of such environments,
for establishing trends in the area studied and monitored, and for designing experiments
to identify the causes of such changes."
MMS recently has supported several studies relevant to the EPA Region 4 jurisdictional area
that have focused largely on the fate and effects of discharges of cuttings from SBM systems.
These included:
• Joint Industry Project, Gulf of Mexico Comprehensive Synthetic-based Mud Monitoring
Program Final Report. Prepared for the SBM Research Group. Submitted to Shell Global
Solutions, US. October, 2004. (Continental Shelf Associates 2004)
• "Degradation of Synthetic-Based Drilling Mud Base Fluids by Gulf of Mexico Sediments.
Final Report." OCS Study MMS 2006-028. (Roberts and Nguyen 2006)
• Effects of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development at Selected Continental Slope Sites
in the Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study MMS 2006-045. (Continental Shelf Associates 2006)
• "Synthetic-Based Fluid Spill of Opportunity, Environmental Impact and Recovery. Final
Cruise Report, Green Canyon 726 Spill - 2008." (CSA International, Inc. 2008)
These studies have supplied additional information, particularly concerning fate and effects of
SBM-cuttings discharges to deep water environments. These studies have been reviewed and
the information is discussed in Section 2.2.2.4 of this EA.
1.4.5 Regulation of Pipelines
Regulatory processes and jurisdictional authority concerning pipelines on the OCS and in
coastal areas are shared by several Federal agencies, including DOI, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The Office of Pipeline Safety (in DOT) is
responsible for promulgating and enforcing safety regulations for the transportation of natural
gas, liquefied natural gas, and hazardous liquids by pipeline. The regulations are contained in
49 CFR 191-193 and 195 (MMS 2002a).
Pipeline permit applications to MMS include the pipeline location drawing, profile drawing, safety
schematic drawing, pipe design data to scale, a shallow hazard survey report, and an
archaeological report. The MMS evaluates the design and fabrication of the pipeline and
prepares a CER, EA, and/or EIS in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines. The
MMS prepares an EA and/or an EIS on all pipeline rights-of-way that go ashore. The FWS
reviews and provides comments on applications for pipelines that are near certain sensitive
biological communities. No pipeline route will be approved by MMS if any bottom-disturbing
activities (from the pipeline itself or from the anchors of lay barges and support vessels)
encroach on any biologically sensitive areas, such as stipulation-established No Activity Zones.
The operators are required to periodically inspect their routes by methods prescribed by the
MMS Regional Supervisor for any indication of pipeline leakage. Monthly flyovers are conducted
to inspect pipelines routes for leakage.
Pipelines may be abandoned in place if they do not constitute a hazard to navigation and
commercial fishing or unduly interfere with other uses of the OCS. Procedures for pipeline
abandonment and pipeline reporting requirements are outlined at 30 CFR (MMS 2003).
1-10
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.5 GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006
The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA) was signed on December 20, 2006.
The GOMESA makes available two new areas in the GOM for leasing (Figure 1-2), places a
moratorium on other areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and increases the distribution of offshore oil
and gas revenues to coastal States.
The first area GOMESA makes available for leasing is referred to as the 181 Area. About 2
million acres of the 181 Area are located in the MMS Central Planning Area. Because this
portion was not previously under moratorium, MMS included this area in the Central Planning
Area proposed actions analyzed in the Final Multi-Sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). This area would be
available for lease starting with proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 205. The remaining
portion of the 181 Area (which would be offered as Sale 224) is located in the Eastern Planning
Area, more than 125 mi (200 km) from Florida and west of the Military Mission Line. This portion
of the 181 Area is approximately 584,800 acres, contains 134 whole and partial blocks, and was
scheduled to be offered in Lease Sale 224. On February 14, 2007, MMS announced in the
Federal Register its intent to prepare a SEIS for Lease Sale 224.
The second area GOMESA makes available for leasing is referred to as the 181 South Area.
This area is located in the Central Planning Area and is approximately 5.8 million acres. Future
Central Planning Area lease sales would be expanded to include the 181 South Area. Prior to
GOMESA, the 181 South Area was under moratorium. Once MMS decides to offer the 181
South Area, MMS will conduct a separate environmental review to reevaluate the expanded
Central Planning Area sale area. This will most likely be in the form of an SEIS to the Final
Multi-Sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).
The GOMESA establishes a moratorium on leasing, preleasing, and other activities in the
following areas until June 30, 2022:
• the area within 125 mi (200 km) of the State of Florida in the Eastern Planning Area
• the 181 Area in the Central Planning Area that is within 100 mi (161 km) of the State of
Florida, and
• the area east of the Military Mission Line (at 86°4T30" W longitude).
The GOMESA also mandates MMS provide an option to exchange existing leases located in the
unavailable areas listed above for leases in the available areas of the GOM. Prior to GOMESA,
affected states received recurring annual disbursements of 27% of royalty, rent, and bonus
revenues received within each state's 8(g) zone. Beginnings in FY 2007, and thereafter, Gulf
producing states (i.e., Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) have received 37.5% of
revenue from new leases issued in the 181 Area and 181 South Area. Beginning in FY 2016,
and thereafter, Gulf producing states will receive 37.5% from new leases in the existing areas
available for leasing. The remaining 50% and 12.5% of the total revenues would be distributed
to the US Treasury and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), respectively.
1.6 OTHER RELEVANT FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
1.6.1 Pollution Control Regulations
1.6.1.1 Air Quality Regulation
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from
stationary and mobile sources within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States. Among
other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare.
1-11
-------
Figure 1-2. New Lease Sale Areas Resulting from GOMESA (Lease Sale 224 Area and Lease Sale 181 South Area
o
IV)
LA
Eastern Planning
Area
Central Planning
Area
Proposed
Sale 224
Area
\ A ma Under
''. Moratorium
\
\
Military Mission Line
BP 41*30" W
4
o
D
O
Source: MMS 2007c, Appendix C
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Section 328 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 gave EPA authority to establish requirements to
control air emissions from OCS sources located offshore of the states along the Pacific, Arctic,
and Atlantic coasts, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast off the state of Florida eastward of 87.5° W
longitude to attain and maintain Federal and state ambient air quality standards and to comply
with the provisions of Part C of Title I of the CAA. The Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations
(40 CFR Part 55) were promulgated by EPA on September 4, 1992. For OCS sources located
within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries, the requirements are the same as the
requirements that would be applicable if the source were located in the corresponding onshore
area. OCS sources located beyond 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries are subject to
Federal requirements only. Pursuant to section 328 of the CAA, a state may request delegation
for the authority to implement and enforce the requirements of the OCS program. Currently the
OCS program requirements are implemented and enforced solely by EPA in the GOM east of
87.5° W. longitude.
MMS maintains jurisdiction for implementation of the CAA from OCS sources in the Gulf of
Mexico located offshore coastal states' seaward boundary west of 87.5° W longitude. The CAA
is referred to in Section 5(a)(8) of the OCSLA, which describes DOI's authority to regulate air
emissions from OCS oil and gas facilities. MMS has established regulations to comply with the
CAA (MMS 2002a). MMS also established procedures to regulate activities in hydrogen sulfide
prone areas. These regulations allow the collection of information about potential sources of
pollution for the purpose of determining whether projected emissions may result in onshore
ambient air concentrations above significance levels (MMS 1995).
EPA's authorities for regulating the wastewater and air emissions from OCS oil and gas facilities
are separate and distinct. The preparation of this EA for NEPA compliance is relevant only to
the NPDES general permit and not to EPA and MMS permitting of air emission sources.
1.6.1.2 Solid Waste Management
The disposal of solid and hazardous operational wastes is subject to EPA regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.). Many oil and gas
wastes are exempt from coverage under the hazardous waste regulations of Subtitle C of RCRA
(53 FR 25446). Exempt wastes include those generally coming from an activity directly
associated with the drilling, production, or processing of a hydrocarbon product. Nonexempt oil
and gas wastes include those not unique to the oil and gas industry and used in the
maintenance of equipment.
There are currently no Federal regulations specific to the onshore management of offshore oil
and gas industry wastes. Moreover, since the wastes are classified as Subtitle D (i.e.,
nonhazardous) wastes, enforcement authority over the exempted oil and gas industry wastes
rests primarily with the states. Louisiana requires that most operational wastes be disposed at
nonhazardous oilfield waste (NOW) facilities permitted by the state. The Mississippi Department
of Environmental Quality is responsible for the regulation of solid waste generated by the oil and
gas industry while the State Oil and Gas Board is responsible for liquid wastes. Alabama
regulates drill cuttings and drilling fluids under their solid waste management regulations by
authority of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. In Louisiana, trash and
debris are not allowed to be disposed at NOW sites, but rather are disposed at municipal
landfills (MMS 2003).
Waste contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) is a special
management concern. Unlike man-made radioactive materials, NORM contaminated waste is
not subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. At present there are no Federal
regulations specifically related to the upland disposal of NORM contaminated oilfield wastes.
1-13
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
There are, however, some state-level regulatory developments in the Gulf states of Louisiana
and Mississippi. Louisiana adopted NORM regulations on January 20, 1995 that establish strict
disposal requirements for all NORM wastes. Mississippi's NORM regulations allow temporary
storage of NORM on the site of generation and disposal at approved commercial sites. Neither
Alabama nor Florida has adopted regulations specifically for oil- and gas-related NORM. NOW
wastes from land operations in Florida are disposed on a case by case basis, either on the site
or at an approved disposal facility. The Florida Division of Waste Management regulates off-site
disposal. However, there are no provisions that are specific to out-of-state sources.
1.6.1.3 Regulation of Ocean Dumping
Ocean dumping is regulated by the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1401 et. seq.). Two different categories of material are
regulated by this Act. Regulations (40 CFR 220 et. seq.) implementing the Act require an EPA
permit for all ocean dumping of industrial wastes and municipal sludge materials; however, the
termination of ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial wastes by December 31, 1981,
was mandated by 33 U.S.C. 1412a. The designated ocean areas where wastes may be
disposed are listed in 40 CFR 228.
EPA publishes an annual report entitled Ocean Dumping in the United States that includes
information on permit holders, types of waste approved for disposal under the permit, and yearly
waste volumes disposed. EPA had one designated deep-water disposal area in the Gulf of
Mexico, but the disposal area was officially de-designated on February 27, 1991. The current
interim designated dredged material disposal sites are now being converted by EPA into
formally designated sites. These sites have been used for the disposal of dredged material from
the USAGE harbor entrance channel dredging programs, in most cases, as long as 25 years.
Currently, disposal sites exist at Tampa, Pensacola, Mobile, Pascagoula and Gulfport.
1.6.1.4 Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Solid Wastes from Ships
The Marine Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (MPRCA) (Title II of PL 100-200)
implements Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
("MARPOL"). Under provisions of the law, all ships and watercraft, including all commercial and
recreational fishing vessels, are prohibited from dumping plastics at sea. The law also severely
restricts the legality of dumping other vessel-generated garbage and solid waste items both at
sea and in US navigable waters. The USCG is responsible for enforcing the provisions of this
law and has developed final rules for its implementation (55 FR 171, September 4, 1990),
calling for adequate trash reception facilities at all ports, docks, marinas, and boat launching
facilities (MMS 2003).
Final rules published under the MPRCA explicitly state that fixed and floating platforms, drilling
rigs, manned production platforms, and support vessels operating under a Federal oil and gas
lease (33 CFR 151.73) are required to develop waste management plans (33 CFR 151.57) and
to post placards reflecting MARPOL, Annex V dumping restrictions (33 CFR 151.59). Waste
Management Plans will require oil and gas operators to describe procedures for collecting,
processing, storing, and discharging garbage and to designate the person who is in charge of
carrying out the plan. These rules also apply to all oceangoing ships of 40 feet or more in length
that are documented under the laws of the United States or numbered by a state, and that are
equipped with a galley and berthing. Placards noting discharge limitations and restrictions, as
well as penalties for noncompliance, apply to all boats and ships 26 feet or more in length.
Furthermore, the Shore Protection Act of 1988 (FR 22546, May 24, 1989) requires ships
transporting garbage and refuse to assure that the garbage and refuse are properly contained
1-14
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
on board so that wastes will not be lost in US waters due to inclement wind or water conditions
(MMS 2002a).
1.6.1.5 Federal Oil Spill Program
Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the CWA) provides the authority for the
Federal government's oil spill program. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) contained
significant modifications to many of the provisions of Section 311 of the CWA. Responsibility for
implementing Section 311 is divided between EPA and DOT by Executive Order 11735. In
addition, Executive Order 12777 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations
requiring operators in offshore waters to provide for prevention and containment of oil spills and
to submit oil spill response plans (MMS 1996a). In the event of an oil spill from oil and gas
activity on the OCS, MMS is responsible for operations on the facility and the Coast Guard is
responsible for coordinating cleanup of the ocean. While the Coast Guard has ultimate
responsibility to ensure that an oil spill is effectively cleaned up, it is the responsibility of all OCS
oil industry operators to take immediate corrective action when a spill occurs (MMS 1996a).
Oil-spill-response planning in the US is accomplished through a mandated set of interrelated
plans. The Area Contingency Plan (ACP) represents the third tier of the National Response
Planning System and was mandated by OPA. ACPs cover sub-regional geographic areas.
ACPs are a focal point of response planning, providing detailed information on response
procedures, priorities, and appropriate countermeasures. The Gulf coastal area that falls within
US Coast Guard (USCG) District 8 is covered by the One Gulf Plan ACP, which includes
separate Geographic Response Plans for areas covered by USCG Sector Corpus Christi,
Sector Houston/Galveston, Sector Port Arthur, Sector Morgan City, Sector New Orleans, and
Sector Mobile. The Miami ACP covers the remaining Gulf coastal area.
The ACP's are written and maintained by Area Committees assembled from Federal, state, and
local governmental agencies that have pollution response authority; nongovernmental
participants may attend meetings and provide input. The coastal Area Committees are chaired
by respective Federal On-Scene Coordinators from the appropriate USCG Office and are
composed of members from local or area-specific jurisdictions. Response procedures identified
within an ACP or its Geographic Response Plan(s) reflect the priorities and procedures agreed
to by members of the Area Committees
The OPA requires contingency plans to address the response to a "worst-case" oil spill or a
substantial threat of such a discharge. The oil spill contingency plans identify environmentally
sensitive areas that could be affected by a spill. The plans include strategies for the protection
of such areas and information on equipment locations and response times (MMS 1996a). The
plans also require that vessels and both onshore and offshore facilities have approved response
plans. The basic requirements for oil spill contingency plans for OCS lessees are specified in
MMS regulations under 30 CFR 250.42. These plans adhere to specified requirements,
including the demonstration that they have contracted with private parties to provide the
personnel and equipment necessary to respond to or mitigate a "worst-case" spill (MMS 1992).
Ten spill equipment bases are designated by Clean Gulf Associates the industry cooperative
established to respond to oil spills in the Gulf (http://www.cleangulfassoc.com/locations.html).
The base locations are as follows:
• In Texas - Ingleside, Houston, and Galveston
• In Louisiana - Lake Charles, Intracoastal City, Houma, Leeville, Fort Jackson, and
Venice
• In Mississippi - Pascagoula.
1-15
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.6.2 Natural Resource Protection Regulations
1.6.2.1 Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
Sections 402 and 403 of the CWA require that NPDES permits for discharges to the territorial
seas, the contiguous zone, and the ocean be issued in compliance with EPA's regulations for
preventing unreasonable degradation of the receiving waters. Prior to permit issuances,
discharges must be evaluated against EPA's published criteria for determination of
unreasonable degradation. Unreasonable degradation is defined in the NPDES regulations (40
CFR 125.121(e)) as:
• Significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability of the
biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological
communities,
• Threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption of
exposed aquatic organisms, or
• Loss of esthetics, recreational, scientific, or economic values, which is unreasonable in
relation to the benefit derived from the discharge.
The 10 factors for determining unreasonable degradation are specified at 40 CFR 125.122 and
are:
(1) The quantities, composition and potential for bioaccumulation or persistence of the
pollutants to be discharged
(2) The potential transport of such pollutants by biological, physical or chemical processes
(3) The composition and vulnerability of the biological communities which may be exposed to
such pollutants, including the presence of unique species or communities of species, the
presence of species identified as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act, or the presence of those species critical to the structure or function of the
ecosystem, such as those important for the food chain
(4) The importance of the receiving water area to the surrounding biological community,
including the presence of spawning sites, nursery/forage areas, migratory pathways, or
areas necessary for other functions or critical stages in the life cycle of an organism
(5) The existence of special aquatic sites including, but not limited to marine sanctuaries and
refuges, parks, national and historic monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas
and coral reefs
(6) The potential impacts on human health through direct and indirect pathways
(7) Existing or potential recreational and commercial fishing, including finishing and
shellfishing
(8) Any applicable requirements of an approved Coastal Zone Management Plan
(9) Such other factors relating to the effects of the discharge as may be appropriate, and
(10) Marine water quality criteria developed pursuant to Section 304(a)(1).
An ocean discharge criteria evaluation (ODCE) is an assessment of a permit issuance in terms
of these ten factors. In the event that an ODCE determines that unreasonable degradation will
occur even with proposed technology- and water quality-based permit conditions in place, the
permit cannot be issued as is. CWA Section 403(c) authorizes EPA to impose more stringent
1-16
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
permit conditions and/or monitoring. If EPA concludes that a determination cannot be made due
to insufficient data, Section 403(c) allows EPA to issue a permit for discharge if it is determined
that no irreparable harm would result. Monitoring would be necessary to provide the information
to make a finding of no unreasonable degradation. Section 403(c) also requires including a
provision that authorizes EPA to modify or revoke the permit if, on the basis of new information,
EPA determines continued dischargers may cause unreasonable degradation.
In 2004, an ODCE was prepared for the current permit based on then available information. The
2004 ODCE concluded that no unreasonable degradation of the marine environment would
occur from authorized discharges with permit limitations and conditions in place. The changes in
the proposed permit, which is the subject of this EA, are as stringent as or more stringent than
the requirements of the current permit. No new information that EPA has reviewed in the
development of this EA has identified any impacts that would invalidate or cast doubt on any of
the conclusions EPA reached in the 2004 ODCE.
Therefore, EPA has not developed a new ODCE for this permit action but proposes to adopt the
ODCE that was developed in 2004 for the existing permit. EPA has made a tentative decision
that the ODCE developed for the current permit is adequate and sufficient to make a preliminary
determination that no unreasonable degradation of the marine environment would occur from
discharges authorized under the proposed permit with all proposed limitations and conditions in
place. Any applications for individual NPDES permits from oil and gas lessees submitted under
the proposed permit will receive an independent ODCE review. Table 1-2 provides a crosswalk
between the ten ocean discharge criteria listed above and the location of relevant information
that address these criteria.
Table 1-2. Crosswalk between Ocean Discharge Criteria and the Location of Supporting
Information
Ocean Discharge Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The quantities, composition and potential for bioaccumulation or
persistence of the pollutants to be discharged
The potential transport of such pollutants by biological, physical or
chemical processes
The composition and vulnerability of the biological communities which
may be exposed to such pollutants, including the presence of unique
species or communities of species, the presence of species identified
as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act, or the presence of those species critical to the structure or
function of the ecosystem, such as those important for the food chain
The importance of the receiving water area to the surrounding
biological community, including the presence of spawning sites,
nursery/forage areas, migratory pathways, or areas necessary for
other functions or critical stages in the life cycle of an organism
The existence of special aquatic sites including, but not limited to
marine sanctuaries and refuges, parks, national and historic
monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas and coral reefs
The potential impacts on human health through direct and indirect
pathways (See Section 3.12
Existing or potential recreational and commercial fishing, including
finfishing and shellfishing
Location
For SBM: this EA, Section 2.2.2.4 and
USEPA 2004, Section 2.2.2; for other
discharges, USEPA 1998b
For SBM: this EA, Section 2.2.2.4 and
USEPA 2004, Section 2.2.2; for other
discharges, USEPA 1998b
For SBM: this EA, Sections 3.4-3.10
and USEPA 2004, Sections 3.4-3.9; for
other discharges, USEPA 1998b
For SBM: this EA, Sections 3.2-3.10
and USEPA 2004, Sections 3.2-3.9;; for
other discharges, USEPA 1998b
This EA, Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6
This EA, Section 3.13
This EA, Sections 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11
1-17
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Table 1-2. Crosswalk between Ocean Discharge Criteria and the Location of Supporting
Information
Ocean Discharge Criteria
8. Any applicable requirements of an approved Coastal Zone
Management Plan
9.
10.
Such other factors relating to the effects of the discharge as may be
appropriate (e.g., permit limitations and monitoring requirements)
Marine water quality criteria developed pursuant to Section 304(a)(1)
Location
USEPA1998b
This EA, Section 2. 3
For SBM: this EA, Section 3
USEPA2004, Sections 3.2;
discharges, USEPA 1998b
3 and
for other
1.6.2.2
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the CWA requires a USAGE permit for the disposal or emplacement of fill
material for development purposes of dredge and for the building of structures in all waters of
the US. Section 404 requires USAGE approval, with consultation from other Federal and state
agencies, for the dredging of pipeline canals and navigation routes that service OCS production
and for activities in the state jurisdictional coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The offshore
jurisdictional limits of the USAGE under the CWA extend to the limits of the territorial seas, a
distance of three nautical miles from the coastal baseline.
1.6.2.3
Protection of Wetlands and Floodplains
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," requires Federal agencies conducting certain
activities to avoid, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with the destruction or
loss of wetlands and to avoid support of new construction in wetlands if a practicable alternative
exists. In addition to emergent vegetation, submerged rooted vascular plants (seagrasses) are
covered by this order and CWA Section 404.
Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management," requires Federal agencies to evaluate the
potential effects of actions they may take in a floodplain to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse
effects associated with direct and indirect development of a floodplain. EPA's Statement of
Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection (January 5, 1979) requires
EPA programs to determine if proposed actions either will be in or will affect wetlands or
floodplains. If wetlands or floodplains are affected, the responsible official is required to prepare
a floodplain/wetlands assessment that will become a part of the EA or EIS (40 CFR 6.302).
1.6.2.4 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or
alteration of any navigable water of the US. The construction of any structure in or over any
navigable water of the US, the excavating from or depositing of material in such waters, or the
accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such
waters is unlawful without prior approval from the USAGE. Section 4(e) of the OCSLA extends
this legislation to prevent obstructions to navigation in navigable water from installations and
devices located on the seabed to the seaward limit of the OCS.
1.6.2.5 Endangered Species Protection
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) establishes a national
policy to protect and conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon
which they depend. The Act prohibits Federal agencies, from their direct or indirect actions, from
jeopardizing threatened or endangered species or adversely modifying habitats essential to their
survival. The Act is administered by the FWS and the NMFS. Section 7 of the Act governs
1-18
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
interagency cooperation and consultation. Before an EPA action, the Agency is to identify all
designated endangered or threatened species or their habitats that may be affected by the
action. If listed species or their habitats may be affected, consultation in accordance with the
procedures listed in 50 CFR Part 402 must be undertaken with FWS or NMFS, as appropriate
(MMS 1992, 40 CFR 6.302(h)).
1.6.2.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et. seq.) establishes a
national policy to protect and conserve marine mammals and their habitats. The Act establishes
a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals. A "take" is defined as: "to harass, hunt,
capture, kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill." NMFS, an agency in the Department of
Commerce, manages cetacean populations. The FWS, an agency of the Department of Interior,
is responsible for manatees, sea otters, polar bears, dungongs, and walrus, while the NMFS
has jurisdiction over all other marine mammals (MMS 2002a).
The Marine Mammal Commission is responsible for reviewing and advising Federal agencies
for the protection and conservation of marine mammals because activities under the authority of
Federal agencies may constitute a "take" as defined under the Act. If it is ascertained that taking
may occur, an exemption to or waiver of the Act's moratorium on taking would be required. A
provision of the Act under Section 101 (a) directs the Secretary of Commerce/Interior to allow,
on request, those engaged in oil and gas activities, an exemption from the "taking" prohibitions
stated within the Act when the taking is unintentional, involves small numbers of individuals, and
has negligible effects, provided that satisfactory provisions have been made to monitor and
report the taking. In October 1995, NMFS issued regulations authorizing and governing the
taking of bottlenose and spotted dolphins incidental to the removal of oil and gas drilling and
production structures in the Gulf of Mexico for a period of five years (MMS 1996b, 50 CFR 228).
The MMS coordinates with the FWS and NMFS to ensure that MMS and offshore operators
comply with the MMPA, and to identify mitigation and monitoring requirements for permits or
approvals for activities like seismic surveys and platform removals (MMS 2002a).
1.6.2.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (FCMA), Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS on any action that may result
in adverse effects to essential fish habitat (EFH). The Act establishes a fisheries conservation
zone for the US and delineates an area from the seaward boundaries of coastal states to 200
nautical miles. The NMFS published the final rule implementing the EFH provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens FCMA (50 CFR 600) on January 17, 2002. Certain OCS activities
authorized by MMS may result in adverse effects to EFH, and therefore, require EFH
consultation.
The Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils including the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). The Act requires that a fishery management plan be
prepared for each commercial species (or related group of species) that is in need of
conservation and management within each respective region. From 1976 to 1992, fisheries
management plans have been implemented for the following species or groups of species:
shrimp, stone crab, spiny lobster, coastal migratory pelagic fish, coral and coral reefs, reef
fishes, billfish, red drum, and highly migratory species. Under the most recent congressional
reauthorization of the Act, Atlantic tuna, swordfish, sharks, and Atlantic billfish are now included
for protection.
1-19
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
When the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 reauthorized the FCMA, Congress required NMFS
to designate and conserve EFH for species managed under an existing fisheries management
plan. EFH includes waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth. In March 2000, the MMS's Gulf of Mexico Region consulted NMFS's Southeast
Regional Office to prepare a NMFS regional finding for the Gulf of Mexico Region that allows
MMS to incorporate EFH assessments into NEPA documents. The MMS consulted on a
programmatic level, by letters of July 1999 and August 1999, to address EFH issues for certain
OCS oil and gas activities (plans of exploration and production, pipeline rights-of-way, and
platform removals). For OCS activities in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning
Areas, MMS consults with NMFS at the multi-sale stage. This programmatic consultation covers
OCS activities, including: lease sales, exploration, development, production, and
decommissioning. For other OCS areas, MMS consults with NMFS at each OCS project stage
individually (MMS 2002a).
An EFH consultation for the Central and Western Planning Areas lease sales included in the
2002-2007 OCS Leasing Program, using the Draft Multi-Sale EIS as the NEPA document, was
initiated in March 2002 by MMS with NMFS's Southeast Regional Office. NMFS responded in
April 2002, endorsing the implementation of resource protection measures previously developed
cooperatively by MMS and NMFS in 1999 to minimize and avoid EFH impacts related to
exploration and development activities in the Central and Western Planning Areas. In addition to
routine measures, additional conservation recommendations were made. In May 2002, MMS
responded to NMFS acknowledging receipt and agreement to follow the additional conservation
recommendations.
The EFH conservation measures recommended by NMFS serve the purpose of protecting EFH.
Continuing agreements, including avoidance distances from No Activity Zones of topographic
features and live-bottom pinnacle features, and circumstances that require project specific
consultation, appear in NTL 2004-G05. Effective January 23, 2006, NMFS approved a revision
to the EFH rules acknowledging amendments made by the GMFMC that included the
identification of habitat areas of particular concern. One of the most important changes noted in
the amendment is the elimination of the EFH description and identification from waters between
100 fathoms (600 feet) and the seaward limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Further programmatic consultation was initiated and completed for the 2007-2012 lease sales
addressed in the Multi-Sale EIS, which did not include the 181 South Area. The NMFS
concurred by letter dated December 12, 2006, that the information presented in the Draft Multi-
Sale EIS satisfies the EFH consultation procedures outlined in 50 CFR 600.920 and specified in
an MMS finding of March 17, 2000. Provided MMS proposed mitigations, previous MMS EFH
conservation recommendations, and the standard lease stipulations and regulations are
followed as proposed, NMFS agrees that impacts to EFH and associated fishery resources
resulting from activities conducted under the 2007-2012 lease sales would be minimal.
Due to the addition of the 181 South Area, a new request for EFH consultation and a revision of
the Programmatic Consultation was initiated with the completion of the Draft SEIS and a letter
dated April 21, 2008. A response from NMFS was received on April 28, 2008, concurring that
impacts to EFH and associated fishery resources resulting from activities in the 181 South Area
should be minimal. The NMFS also agreed that the programmatic consultation agreement would
incorporate activities within the 181 South Area and that MMS agrees to apply all previously
accepted EFH consultation recommendations and all standard lease stipulations and
regulations to the new 181 South Area.
1-20
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The action proposed in this EA for the new NPDES general permit authorizes operational
surface water discharges to the OCS area under EPA Region 4's jurisdiction. As a continuation
of activities covered under the 2004 Final SEIS and in the absence of any material adverse
information, the activities considered in this EA represents a subset of the effects discussed in
MMS (2003) and MMS (2008).
1.6.2.8 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.) requires the EPA
Regional Administrator to consult with the appropriate state and Federal agencies exercising
jurisdiction over wildlife resources before issuing a permit proposing or authorizing the
impoundment, diversion, or other control or modification of any body of water. This consultation
is normally accomplished during the NEPA review of the Federal action.
1.6.2.9 Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires EPA to "Expeditiously propose
new science-based regulations, as necessary, to ensure appropriate levels of protection of the
marine environment." The purpose of the executive order is to protect the significant natural and
cultural resources within the marine environment. EPA believes that by encouraging the use of
appropriately controlled SBMs in the place of more toxic OEMs, the marine environment will be
protected from the effects of spills of OEMs and from the effects of disposal of OEMs onshore.
By encouraging the use of appropriately controlled SBMs over WBMs, there will be much less
drilling waste generated and discharged to the ocean per well and the drilling waste discharged
will be far less toxic and will biodegrade at a much faster rate than those of traditional drilling
fluids (USEPA 2001 b).
1.6.3 Other Resource Protection Policies and Programs
1.6.3.1 Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1451 et. seq.) and implementing
regulations in 15 CFR Part 930 require that any Federally licensed or permitted activity affecting
the coastal zone of a state that has an approved coastal zone management program (CZMP) be
reviewed by that state for consistency with the state's program. Under the Act, applicants for
Federal licenses and permits must submit a certification that the proposed activity complies with
an affected state's approved CZMP and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the
CZMP. The state then has the responsibility to either concur with or object to the consistency
determination under the procedures set forth by the Act and their approved plan. For NPDES
general permit programs, EPA would submit a proposed general permit and consistency
determination to the states for comment. The MMS program (lease sales, exploration plans, and
development and production plans) is also subject to consistency review provisions under the
CZMA.
Because the discharges covered by the proposed permits could create the potential for impacts
on state waters, consistency determinations for the general permits will be prepared and
submitted to the states of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. State comments must be carefully
considered to make the activities authorized by the general permit consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a state's CZMP.
Mississippi CZMP Requirements
The Mississippi Commission on Wildlife Conservation (MCWC) was created by legislation in
1978 to implement the Mississippi Coastal Program. The MCWC carries out its responsibilities
through the Bureau of Marine Resources under the Mississippi Department of Wildlife
1-21
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Conservation. The Coastal Program Advisory Committee also was established to participate in
implementation of the coastal program. The committee participates in permit reconsiderations
and acts as an advisor to the Governor.
Coastal management consistency determination requirements for coastal uses and activities are
based on their effect on water quality, water quantity, bottom disturbances, water pollution,
sedimentation (runoff), shoreline erosion, marine aquatic life, and historical and archaeological
sites. Oil and gas activities regulated under NPDES permits are subject to management by the
Mississippi Coastal Program under two sets of guidelines: wetlands management and policy
coordination. All oil and gas exploration and production activities are subject to the
decision-making criteria of the wetlands management guidelines. All NPDES permits are subject
to review under the policy coordination guidelines.
Alabama CZMP Requirements
The Alabama Department of Economic Affairs, the Office of State Planning and Federal
Programs, and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) are
responsible for conducting the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP), which
was approved in September, 1979. Alabama Code 9-7-10 grants authority to the state agencies
to review applications for permits and activities in the coastal area for consistency with the
ACAMP. The approval of any regulated or non-regulated use is dependent upon continued
compliance with the program.
Projects that may have direct and significant impacts must show, to the satisfaction of the
ADEM, the potential impacts of the proposed activities on the following coastal resources:
water quality, cultural resources, air quality, public access, wetlands and submerged grassbeds,
flood and hurricane mitigation areas, shoreline, beaches and dunes, water resources, biological
resources, associated land uses, wildlife habitat, and other coastal resources.
Uses determined by ADEM to have a degrading effect on the coastal area will not be permitted
unless there is a compelling public interest. In this case, such uses shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, minimize degradation of the coastal area. The following factors are considered
when determining the balance between environmental degradation and the public interest:
• Significant national interest such as energy facilities or uses to improve water quality, air
quality, or wetlands
• Enhancing or protecting geographic areas of particular concern and areas for
preservation and restoration, such as construction or improvement of facilities in the Port
of Mobile
• Significant economic benefit for the coastal area
• Water dependence
• Other similar factors.
Florida CZMP Requirements
The Florida CZMP was submitted for approval under CZMA in 1981. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) serves as the lead state agency with regard to CZMP
guidance and requirements and in the consistency determination process for Florida. These
offices have provided guidance for applying for CZMP consistency in the document entitled
Florida Coastal Management Program, Federal Consistency Evaluation Procedures.
Based on a review of the Florida statute chapters that are part of the CZMP, the following
statutes and assessments are expected to be relevant in the CZMP review for issuance of a
NPDES general permit:
1-22
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
• State and Regional Planning (covers statewide resource plans)
> Consistency assessment to address: potential for conflict with goals, objectives, and
policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (including water resources, coastal and
marine resources, air quality, and hazardous and nonhazardous materials and waste)
• State Lands (covers all state-owned lands, including those underwater)
> Consistency assessment to address: protection of archaeological and historical
resources; water resources; fish and wildlife resources, beaches and dunes;
submerged grass beds and benthic communities; swamps, marshes, and wetlands;
mineral resources; unique natural features; submerged lands; spoil islands; and
artificial reefs
• Saltwater Living Resources (covering fisheries management)
> Consistency assessment to address: potential impacts on areas of unique
importance to commercial or recreational fisheries, endangered species, or critical
habitats; currents and larval transport; survival of eggs and larvae; and bottom habitat
characteristics
• Environmental Control (covers pollution of the air and waters of the state)
> Consistency assessment to address: protection of surface water quality, endangered
or threatened species; and solid, sanitary, and hazardous waste disposal
• Pollution Spill Prevention and Control
> Consistency assessment to address: discharge of pollutants and removal and
reporting of discharges of pollutants
• Oil and Gas Exploration and Production
> Consistency assessment to address: compliance with applicable statutory or
regulatory provisions, and protection of submerged lands, beaches, parks, and aquatic
or wildlife preserves
• Economic Development and Tourism
> Consistency assessment to address: potential socioeconomic impacts, including
tourism, and commercial and recreational fishing
• Environmental Land and Water Management (regulates land and water management
through, among other areas, designation of areas of critical state concern)
>Consistency assessment to confirm that there are no areas of critical state concern.
1.6.3.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification by State Water Quality Agency
States adopt surface water quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the CWA, and have
broad authority to base those standards on the waters' use and value for "public water supplies,
propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and . . . other purposes." All permits must
include effluent limitations at least as stringent as needed to maintain established beneficial
uses and to attain the quality of water designated by states for their water. Thus, the states'
water quality standards are a critical concern of the Section 401 certification process (USEPA
1989).
Under Section 401 of the CWA, a state has the authority to grant or deny "certification" for a
Federally permitted or licensed activity that can result in a discharge into navigable waters of the
US, if the discharge will originate in that state. If a state denies certification, the Federal
permitting or licensing agency is prohibited from issuing a permit or license. The decision to
grant or deny certification is based on a state's determination from data submitted by an
applicant, and any other information available to the state, whether the proposed activity will
comply with the requirements of certain sections of the CWA enumerated in Section 401(a)(1).
These requirements address effluent limitations for conventional and nonconventional
pollutants, water quality standards, NSPS, and toxic pollutants (Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and
1-23
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
307). Also included are requirements of state law or regulation more stringent than those
sections or their Federal implementing regulations. States may apply the certification process to
exert control of impacts from Federal projects on wetlands when a state has standards for
wetlands quality.
Only those Federally permitted OCS-related activities that may result in a discharge or
disturbance to coastal waters under state jurisdiction are potentially subject to Section 401
certification. A pipeline landfall is an example of such an activity.
1.6.3.3 Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1983
The Coastal Barriers Resources Act establishes 186 coastal barrier units that are included in a
Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS). The Act prohibits all new Federal expenditures and
financial assistance within the CBRS, with certain specific exceptions including energy
development. The purpose of this legislation was to end the Federal government's
encouragement of development on barrier islands by withholding Federal flood insurance for
new construction of or substantial improvements to structures on undeveloped coastal barriers
(MMS 1992).
1.6.3.4 National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978
The National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1701-1709) calls for the
establishment of a comprehensive, coordinated, and effective ocean pollution research,
development, and monitoring program. The Act requires that the Department of Commerce's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in consultation with other agencies,
prepare a comprehensive 5-year Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Development, and
Monitoring every three years. The Plan contains major elements that consider an assessment
and prioritization of national needs and problems, existing Federal capabilities, policy
recommendations, and a budget review. [Note: The National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of
1978 is Public Law 95-273, May 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 228, as amended, which was classified
generally to chapter 31 (Sec. 1701 et seq.) of Title 33, A/a vigation and A/a vigable Waters, and
was repealed by Public Law 102-567, title II, Sec. 204, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4282.]
1.6.3.5 National Marine Sanctuaries
The National Marine Sanctuary program is administered by NOAA. The marine sanctuary
program was established by the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1401 et. seq. and 16 U.S.C. 1431 et. seq.).
The National Marine Sanctuaries Program is designed to identify areas of the marine
environment of special national significance due to their resource or human use values, and to
provide authority for promulgation of comprehensive and coordinated conservation
management plans and regulations to protect marine sanctuary resources. Special use permits
may be issued which authorize the conduct of specific activities in a national marine sanctuary if
it is determined that such authorization is necessary to establish conditions of access to and use
of any sanctuary resource or to promote public use and understanding of a sanctuary resource.
An activity may be authorized only if it is compatible with the purposes for which the sanctuary is
designated. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is the only designated sanctuary in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Big Bend Seagrass Beds off the coast of Florida are on the site
evaluation list for designation as a National Marine Sanctuary (16 U.S.C. 1431, Title III, and
MMS 1992).
1-24
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.6.3.6 National Estuarine Research Reserves and the National Estuary Program
The Estuarine Research Reserve Program, established by the CZMA of 1972 is administered
by NOAA. The National Estuary Program, administered by EPA, was established in 1987 by an
amendment to the CWA (MMS 1992).
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System serves to enhance public awareness and
understanding of estuarine areas and to promote and coordinate research that will expand
scientific knowledge of significant estuarine resources. For an area to be designated, the law of
the coastal state in which the area is located must provide long-term protection for reserve
resources that will ensure a stable environment for research. Three estuarine research reserves
have been established in the eastern Gulf of Mexico: Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve and Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve in Florida, and Weeks Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve in Alabama (16 U.S.C. 1463b and MMS 1992).
The purpose of the National Estuary Program is to identify nationally significant estuaries, to
protect and improve their water quality, and to enhance their living resources. Under the
program, comprehensive conservation and management plans are developed to protect and
enhance environmental resources. The plans recommend priority corrective actions and
compliance schedules that address point and nonpoint sources of pollution to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of nominated estuaries. Representatives
from Federal, state, and interstate agencies; academic and scientific institutions; and industry
and citizen groups work to define objectives for protecting a nominated estuary, to select the
chief problems to be addressed in the management plan, and to ratify a pollution control and
resource management strategy to meet each objective. Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay and
Tampa Bay in Florida and Mobile Bay in Alabama are components of the National Estuary
Program.
1.6.3.7 Historic and Archaeological Resources Policies
EPA is subject to the requirements of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C 461 et. seq.), the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C 470 et. seq.), the Archaeological and
Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469 et. seq), and Executive Order 11593,
"Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment." These statutes and order establish
review procedures. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Executive
Order 11593, if an EPA action affects any property with historic, architectural, archaeological, or
cultural value that is listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,
the Agency shall comply with the procedures for consultation and comment promulgated in 36
CFR Part 800. Under the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, if an EPA activity may
cause irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, or
archaeological data, EPA or DOI is authorized to undertake data recovery and preservation
activities (40 CFR 6.302).
Because the OCS is not Federally owned land and the government has not claimed direct
ownership of historic properties on the OCS, the MMS only has the authority to ensure that any
agency-funded and permitted actions do not adversely affect significant historic properties.
Beyond avoidance of adverse impacts, MMS does not possess the legal authority to manage
the historic properties on the OCS. The MMS has conducted archaeological baseline studies of
the OCS to determine where known historic properties may be located and to outline areas
where presently unknown historic properties may be located (MMS 2002a).
1-25
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.6.3.8 National Natural Landmarks Policy
Under the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to designate
areas as national natural landmarks for listing on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks.
In conducting an environmental review, EPA is to consider the existence and location of natural
landmarks using information provided by the National Park Service pursuant to 36 CFR 62.6(d)
to avoid undesirable impacts upon such landmarks (40 CFR 6.302).
1.6.3.9 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
The Pollution Prevention Act charges EPA with developing and implementing a strategy to
promote source reduction of potential pollutants through a variety of programs and initiatives.
Pursuant to this charge, EPA published a pollution prevention strategy in the February 26, 1991
Federal Register (56 FR 38). Regarding permits, the strategy states that EPA will promote
cost-effective alternatives to conventional treatment alternatives. It states that EPA will work
with industries to identify opportunities for pollution prevention when developing or renewing
permits. Where authorized by law, EPA will give preference to performance standards that
maximize the range of choices for permittees (56 FR 7859).
1.6.3.10 Moratoria
Two types of moratoria occur that serve to protect resources in the Gulf of Mexico. One type is a
Presidential withdrawal. The area that extends south of latitude 26° N and east of approximately
longitude 86° W within the MMS eastern planning area is one such withdrawn area. Also, all
marine sanctuaries have been withdrawn from oil and gas leasing activities by Presidential
withdrawal.
A second type of moratorium is an Annual or Congressional moratorium for oil and gas
activities. In the past, Congress has imposed a restriction on what areas MMS could offer for
OCS oil and gas leasing. This restriction limited the latitude of MMS in spending appropriated
funds for pre-lease and leasing activities. Congressional moratoria prohibited future oil and gas
leasing but it did not apply to activities on existing leases. These moratoria were enacted
annually as part of the Department of the Interior's appropriations legislation. Currently, no OCS
areas are affected by annual moratoria.
As a result of GOMESA, a portion of the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area and most of the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area are under restriction until 2022. The area restricted is that
portion of Eastern Planning Area within 125 miles of Florida, all areas in the Gulf of Mexico east
of the Military Mission Line (86° 41 'W longitude), and the area within the Central Planning Area
that is within 100 miles of Florida.
1-26
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents the alternatives considered, describes the discharges covered under the
proposed NPDES general permit and discusses the proposed permit limitations and monitoring
requirements. Section 2.1 provides a description of the alternatives. Section 2.2 describes the
waste streams that are regulated under the NPDES permit. Section 2.3 compares the treatment
requirements for these waste streams under different regulatory guidelines. Section 2.4
presents an Offshore Oil and Gas activity summary for the EPA Region 4 jurisdictional area.
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
EPA is considering three alternatives for NPDES permitting in this EA. Permitting may include
general permit issuance or may require individual reviews/permits.
2.1.1 Alternative A: (Preferred Alternative) Issue a New, Revised General Permit
Under Alternative A, EPA would issue a new, revised NPDES general permit. The permit would
cover all existing and new source oil and gas facilities meeting the following requirements.
• This proposed general permit would be issued with the same geographic limits of the
current general permit:
o Coverage would include all of the Region 4 jurisdictional area of the MMS Central
Planning Area seaward of the State waters of Mississippi and Alabama (see Figure
1-1)
o Coverage would apply to waters seaward of the 200 m depth contour within the MMS
Eastern Planning Area
o Coverage would exclude discharges within 1,000 m of Areas of Biological Concern
as designated by EPA
o Coverage would exclude areas under moratorium for oil and gas activities.
• The proposed general permit would:
o Include a set of standard waste stream monitoring and performance conditions
o Require compliance with any MMS lease sale conditions and stipulations
o Require operators to comply with CWA Section 316(b) Phase III regulations that
address cooling water intake structures
o Include Best Management Practices (BMP) requirements covering solid wastes from
certain facility maintenance activities
o Modify the drilling muds biodegradation test method.
• EPA review of individual permits would include appropriate specific waste stream;
environmental monitoring and performance; operating conditions; and Best Available
Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Technology (BCT) effluent limits;
permits for new sources would include, at a minimum, New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) limitations.
• EPA would continue to collect data on impacts from effluent discharges and synthetic
fluids-based mud systems in accordance with Section 403 of the CWA; for new source
production projects, EPA would assess additional information about secondary impacts
as prescribed by NEPA to provide greater protection for these resources.
2.1.2 Alternative B: Issue an NPDES General Permit Unchanged from the 2004
General Permit
Under Alternative B, EPA would re-issue the 2004 general permit in its present form.
2-1
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1.3 Alternative C: No Action—No Issuance of Any NPDES General Permit
Under Alternative C, EPA would allow the existing NPDES general permit to expire and not
issue a new general permit for existing or new sources. EPA would issue individual NPDES
permits under this alternative.
• Alternative C would apply to the entire EPA Region 4 jurisdictional area of the Central
Planning Area and Eastern Planning Area, excluding areas under moratorium for oil and
gas activities.
• Operational and non-operational facilities currently covered by the 2004 general permit
would have coverage withdrawn; they would be able to apply for individual permits.
• All oil and gas facilities, including facilities that are at or shoreward of the 200 meter
isobath, would be subject to individual agency and public reviews/permits.
• Individual NEPA reviews would include appropriate specific waste stream; environmental
monitoring and performance; operating conditions; and BAT and BCT effluent limits;
permits for new sources would include, at a minimum, NSPS limitations.
• Individually permitted operators would be subject to conditions and stipulations from
MMS lease agreements.
This alternative would provide for a more thorough evaluation of potential impacts on sensitive
resources throughout the EPA Region 4 jurisdictional area than would be possible under
Alternatives A and B. However, this alternative does not meet the regulatory mandate that EPA
issue a general permits for oil and gas activities (see Section 1.3.1).
2.1.4 Factors Applicable To Alternatives B and C
In addition to the effluent limitations and monitoring required under the general permit, additional
environmental monitoring requirements may be applicable to individual permitting under
Alternatives B and C. These may include pre- and post-operational environmental monitoring in
the vicinity of drilling rigs or platforms. Pre-operational monitoring may include, but not be limited
to sediment sampling and analysis for a variety of parameters including, for example, priority
pollutants, grain size, acid volatile sulfides, total organic carbon, and 226Ra, 228Ra, gross a-
radiation, and gross v-radiation if discharge of produced water is anticipated. Results of all
analyses would be reported quarterly to EPA Region 4.
2.1.5 Protective Measures Applicable Under All Alternatives
In addition to effluent limitations, all OCS lessees are also subject to Notices to Lessees (NTLs).
Table 2-1 provides a summary of the current NTLs related to mitigating environmental impacts
from offshore oil and gas development and production. These NTLs are constantly updated; the
complete current list may be found on the MMS website at:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntlltl.html
Other lease sale or permit stipulations include those for geohazards, CZMP consistency, and
coordination with state and Federal agencies pursuant to ESA, FCMA, and FWCA. If a sensitive
resource is detected in the surveys required under the appropriate NTL, lease sale or permit,
such as a live bottom or a deep water chemosynthetic community, the EPA Regional
Administrator has the prerogative to deny coverage under the general permit in order to protect
these and other sensitive resources as specified in 40 CFR 122.28(c). EPA could require that
operator to apply for an individual permit. (Potential mitigation measures are discussed in detail
in Section 4.2).
2-2
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 2-1. Current MMS Notices to Lessees Related to Mitigating Environmental Impacts
NIL No.
2009-G11
2009-G04
2009-G02
2008-G20
2008-G06
2008-G05
2008-G03
2007-G25
2007-G20
2007-G09
2007-G04
2007-G03
2007-G02
2006-G21
2005-G07
2004-G05
2000-G20
NIL 99-G22
Effective
Date
06/01/09
01/27/09
01/27/09
10/20/08
05/26/08
05/01/08
04/14/08
09/24/07
05/25/07
04/03/07
02/07/07
02/07/07
02/07/07
10/26/06
07/01/05
04/01/04
12/06/00
09/24/99
Title
Accidental Disconnect of Marine Drilling Risers
Significant DCS Sediment Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Ocean Current Monitoring
Revisions to the List of DCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archeological Resource Surveys and Reports
Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deepwater
Shallow Hazards Requirements
Pollution Inspection Intervals for Unmanned Facilities
2008 Gulf-wide DCS Emissions Inventory (Western Gulf of Mexico)
Coastal Zone Management Program Requirements for DCS ROW Pipeline Applications
Air Emissions Information for Applications for Accessory Platforms to Pipeline ROW
Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting
Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination
Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program
Regional and Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plans
Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports
Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Gulf of Mexico
Deepwater Chemosynthetic Communities
Guidelines for the Sub-Seabed Disposal and Offshore Storage of Solid Wastes
2.2 REGULATED WASTE STREAMS
2.2.1 Overview
Exploration and development activities for the extraction of oil and gas include work necessary
to locate, drill, and complete wells. Exploration activities are those operations that involve drilling
wells to determine potential hydrocarbon reserves. Exploratory activities are usually of short
duration at a given site, involve a small number of wells, and are generally conducted from
mobile drilling units. Development activities involve drilling production wells once a hydrocarbon
reserve has been discovered and delineated. These operations, in contrast to exploration
activities, may involve a large number of wells which may be drilled from either fixed or floating
platforms or mobile drilling units and can produce for up to 31 years (MMS 2003). The
exploration and development phases of the offshore oil and gas extraction industry produce the
following wastewater sources:
• Drilling fluids
• Drill cuttings
• Formation waters
• Well treatment and completion fluids
• Sanitary wastes
• Deck drainage
• Domestic wastes
• Miscellaneous wastes.
The point of discharge from the facility is commonly just above or just below the water surface.
More recent deep sea drilling has occurred in water depths ranging from 300 m to more than
1,000 m, and leases offered for sale are in water depths in excess of 2,500 m. Drilling at these
water depths involves drill cuttings discharged at the sea bottom. This type of discharge occurs
when deep water drilling techniques are used. Subsea drilling fluid boosting, referred to as "dual
2-3
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
gradient drilling," is one such new drilling technique. Dual gradient drilling is similar to traditional
rotary drilling with the exception that the drilling fluid is boosted to the surface by the use of a
pump located at or near the seafloor (USEPA 2000a). Some dual gradient drilling systems
require the separation of the largest cuttings at the seafloor before the drilling fluid is pumped to
the surface for recycling. The larger cuttings are separated in the subsea pump and then sent
to a discharge hose at the seafloor within a 100-m radius of the well site. The remaining drilling
fluid, which contains 95-98% of the total cuttings, is boosted back to the surface for treatment
and reuse of the drilling fluid and discharge or disposal of the cuttings (USEPA 2000a).
Production operations, which consist of the work necessary to bring hydrocarbon reserves from
the producing formation, begin with the completion of each well at the end of the development
phase. The primary waste products from the production phase include the following:
• Produced water
• Produced sand
• Sanitary wastes
• Deck drainage
• Wastes from maintenance operations
• Domestic wastes
• Well treatment, completion, and workover fluids.
The most recent BAT/BCT/NSPS effluent limitations guidelines (Final Rule, January 22, 2001,
66 FR 6850; Technical Corrections, June 8, 2001, 66 FR 30807; Clarification Memo, October
10, 2003) do not modify requirements for any waste stream other than those that contain SBF in
the formulation of SBM. Sections 2.2.2 through 2.2.9 describe the exploration, development,
and production phase waste streams.
2.2.2 Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
The most important waste discharges from drilling operations are drilling fluids (also known as
drilling muds) and drill cuttings with adherent drilling fluid. Drilling fluids and drill cuttings are the
most significant waste streams from exploratory and development operations in terms of volume
and potentially toxic pollutants (USEPA 1993b, 58 FR 12459). Effluent guidelines for these
waste streams have remained unchanged from those used to develop the existing, 2004
general permit. Further analysis of the impacts of this waste stream is provided in this EA, in
which studies on the fate and effects of SBM that have become available since the 2004 SEIS
have been reviewed and evaluated.
2.2.2.1 Drilling Fluids
Drilling fluids are fluids sent down the drill hole to aid the drilling process, including materials to
maintain hydrostatic pressure control in the well, lubricate the drill bit, remove drill cuttings from
the well, and stabilize the walls of the well during drilling or workover operations. Drilling fluid
composition is complex. The bulk of the mud consists of clays, barite, and a base fluid, which
can be fresh or salt water, mineral or diesel oil, or any of a number of synthetic oils.
Drilling fluids and muds discharged on the OCS are generally divided into three categories:
water-based muds (WBM), oil-based muds (OBM), and synthetic fluid-based muds (SBM). OBM
and SBM are often collectively referred to as "non-aqueous" drilling fluids or muds. Numerous
chemicals are added to improve the performance of the drilling fluid (MMS 2003, Boehm et al.,
2001). WBM consists of seawater or freshwater as the continuous phase with such additives as
barium sulfate and up to three percent diesel oil or mineral oil added for lubricity. OBM consist
of either mineral oil or diesel oil as the continuous phase and additives.
2-4
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
WBMs are the conventional drilling medium; OEMs are used in certain drilling situations, e.g.,
where increased lubricity is needed (directional drilling; tight boreholes) or WBMs are
problematic (hydratable shales) (EPA 1993b, 58 FR 12459). Mineral oil is advantageous
because it is less toxic than diesel oil. As required by the existing and proposed Region 4
NPDES general permit, OEM and associated cuttings must be transported to shore for recycling
or disposal unless re-injected.
In recent years, SBMs have been increasingly used, especially in deep water, because they
perform better than WBM and OEM. All OEMs are likely to be replaced by SBMs in deep water
drilling because of the many advantageous features of SBM (Neff et al, 2000). Many
formulations of SBMs are currently available, but muds containing esters and olefins are the
most rapidly biodegradable. The SBF (base fluid) may be a hydrocarbon, ether, ester, or acetal.
Synthetic hydrocarbons include normal (linear) paraffin (LPs), linear-a-olefins (LAOs),
poly-a-olefins (PAOs), and internal olefins (lOs), as well as others. Historically, most drilling in
the Gulf of Mexico has been performed with WBM. When WBM is not suitable and OBM is not
selected, IO and LAO SBFs are used almost exclusively.
SBMs have drilling and operational properties similar to OBM systems and are used where
OEMs are commonly used, e.g., in difficult drilling situations such as high downhole
temperatures, highly directionally deviated holes, or where the properties of WBMs would limit
performance, e.g., hydratable shales or salt. In some instances, SBMs may perform better than
OBM, for example, SBMs have increased the rate of penetration through rock compared with
OEMs. SBMs reduce drilling times compared to WBFs and, therefore, the high costs of drilling
rigs, and are less toxic than OEMs (MMS 2003).
The performance of SBM in drilling wells with large horizontal offsets, in some cases measuring
several miles, has prompted significant changes in oil industry operations. The development of
horizontal or extended-reach drilling techniques has permitted the use of one platform to drill an
increased number of wells, hence reducing the overall number of platforms, operating costs,
and associated environmental impacts. Today's technology permits one well to be drilled to
check several unassociated pay zones, thus further improving efficiencies. The use of multi-well
platforms using OEMs or SBMs is a worldwide trend for the offshore industry (USEPA 1995).
Use of WBM is more cost effective in drilling many shallow wells, and WBM will continue to be
used in those instances. However, for more complicated or deeper wells, SBM is often used
because of the ability to drill more quickly. Although there are clear operational advantages to
using SBM over WBM and OBM, SBMs also offer environmental benefits over the use of WBM
and OBM in certain drilling situations, including:
• Less total drilling wastes are produced compared to WBM
• SBMs are recycled, lowering the total mud system volume compared to WBM
• Less waste requiring onshore disposal is generated as compared to OBM because SBM
cuttings can be discharged whereas OBM-wet cuttings must be transported to shore
• Eliminating diesel as a component of drilling mud lessens the pollution hazard and
improves worker safety through lower toxicity and diminished irritant properties
• Increased use of horizontal drilling is facilitated by SBM, and thus reducing the areal
extent of environmental impacts from drilling operations compared to WBM
• Shortened drilling times from increased penetration rates with SBM as compared to
WBM reduces air emissions
• Improved drilling performance, as compared to WBM, decreases waste generating
incidents, e.g., stuck pipe, which necessitate using diesel or mineral oil "pills" that add to
total mud system waste loads.
2-5
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.2.2.2 Drill Cuttings
Drill cuttings are the solids generated by drilling into subsurface geologic formations, and are
carried to the surface by the drilling fluid system. They are composed of the naturally occurring
solids found in subsurface geologic formations and bits of cement used during the drilling
process. Cuttings are removed from the drilling fluid system by a shale shaker and other solids
control equipment before the fluid is re-circulated down the hole. Cuttings that are thus
separated from the drilling fluid system are permitted to be discharged.
The volume of cuttings generated while drilling the SBM intervals of a well depends on the type
of well (development or production) and the water depth. According to analyses of the model
wells provided by industry representatives, wells drilled in less than 1,000 ft of water are
estimated to generate 565 barrels of cuttings for a development well and 1,184 barrels of
cuttings for an exploratory well. Wells drilled in water greater than 1,000 ft deep are estimated to
generate 855 barrels of cuttings for a development well, and 1,901 barrels of cuttings for an
exploratory well (USEPA 2000a). These values assume 7.5% washout (caving in or sloughing
off of the well bore), based on the rule of thumb reported by industry representatives of 5% to
10% washout when drilling with SBM (MMS 2003).
2.2.2.3 Barite
Barite, barium sulfate, is a major component of all drilling fluid types (WBM, OBM, and SBM) as
a weighting agent. Mercury and other trace metals are naturally occurring impurities in barite.
Trace metals including mercury are of concern because of the potential for a toxic effect or
bioaccumulation in some marine organisms. Since 1993, USEPA has required concentrations of
mercury and cadmium to be less than or equal to 1 ppm and 3 ppm, respectively, in the stock
barite used to make drilling muds. Through mercury and cadmium regulation, USEPA also
controls the levels of other trace metals in barite.
The actual mercury content in the barite used is normally much less than these permit limits
(USEPA1993b). The typical concentration of mercury in barite used for offshore oil and gas
operations in the Gulf of Mexico is 0.5 mg/kg (ppm). The mercury associated with oil and gas
drilling discharges is insoluble and therefore is unlikely to be absorbed by marine organisms,
including bacteria that can make methylmercury (Neff, 2002). This reduces the addition of
mercury to values similar to the concentration of mercury found in marine sediments throughout
the Gulf of Mexico (USEPA, 1993b and c).
Atmospheric mercury deposition is believed to be the main source of anthropogenic mercury
inputs into the marine environment. Mercury in barite has been suggested as a secondary
source in the Gulf. Trace mercury in barite is present predominantly as mercuric sulfate and
mercuric sulfide (Trefrey 1998). Barite is nearly insoluble in seawater. Inorganic mercury is
converted to methylmercury in the environment, which is the species that bioaccumulates
through the food chain. Therefore, unless the mercuric sulfide in the barite can be
microbiologically methylated, this source of mercury is relatively unavailable for uptake into the
marine food web. In an extensive survey conducted by NOAA Fisheries Service, seven species
of reef fish were obtained at locations with extensive oil and gas drilling activity and were
compared to reef fish obtained at locations with no drilling activity. No differences in mercury
levels between the two groups were noted (Lowery and Garrett, 2005).
Despite the low bioavailability of mercury and other barite-associated trace metals, reducing the
discharge of barite can reduce the amount of mercury and other trace metals released in the
offshore environment; the use of SBM reduces barite discharges compared to WBM because
bulk discharges are authorized for WBM but not SBM. Deep well drilling commonly involves use
of WBM in the early drilling stages, but as the drilling progresses into the deeper geologic
2-6
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
zones, operators prefer to shift to SBM. Operators that use only WBM for nearly the entire depth
of the well discharge a larger volume of drilling fluids than when SBM is used because WBM is
less efficient and there are less restrictions on its discharge.
Authorizing SBM discharges reduces the amount of mercury and other barite-associated trace
metals released to the marine environment compared to WBM. First, regulations prohibit the
bulk discharge of SBM drilling muds, but only authorize the discharge of SBM that adheres to
drill cuttings after washing and drying. Also, WBMs produce greater borehole "washout"
compared to wells drilled with SBMs, averaging 45% more washout compared to wells drilled
using SBMs (66 FR 6857, January 22, 2001). Thus, not only is the volume of drill cuttings with
adherent WBM (and its associated barite content) substantially larger than the volume of
cuttings from SBM systems, but bulk discharges of SBM are prohibited, whereas bulk
discharges of WBM, with their entire complement of barite, are authorized.
2.2.3 Produced Water
Produced water is brought up from the hydrocarbon-bearing strata along with produced oil and
gas, and can include water from the geological formation, injection water, and any chemicals
(including small amounts of well treatment, completion, or workover fluids) added downhole or
during the oil/water separation process. Produced water is the largest waste stream from
production activities based on its volume of discharge.
Produced waters are usually high in total dissolved solids (salinity), high in total organic carbon,
and low in dissolved oxygen. Other basic components include heavy metals, elemental sulfur
and sulfide, organic acids, treating chemicals, and emulsified and particulate crude oil
constituents. Produced water may also contain radium from naturally-occurring radioactive
material (NORM) in geologic formations.
After treatment for removal of oil and grease, produced water is usually discharged. In some
cases it is re-injected for disposal or pressure maintenance purposes, or is transported to land
for treatment and disposal (USEPA 1998b).
Effluent guidelines for this waste stream have remained unchanged from those used to develop
the 2004 and 1998 general permits. No further analysis of the impacts of this waste stream is
needed beyond that provided in the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit (USEPA 2004) and
the Final EIS for the 1998 permit (USEPA 1998a).
2.2.4 Produced Sand
Produced sand consists of the slurried particles used in hydraulic fracturing and the
accumulated formation sands and other particles, including scale and paraffin, generated during
production. This material accumulates in production tubing, flow lines, and various oil and gas
process vessels. This waste stream would also include sludges generated by any chemical
polymer used in the produced water treatment system.
These solids must be removed periodically to restore oil and gas production and processing
and/or avoid interruptions to those activities. The sand is separated out from the produced
water, washed with either water or solvent, and transported to shore for disposal (EPA 1993b).
The primary contaminant associated with produced sand is oil (EPA 1993b). However, the
presence of NORM has also been documented. In a 1989 produced sand survey by the
Offshore Operators Committee, NORM levels were found to be above 30 picoCuries per gram
(pCi/g) or 50 microRoentgens/hour (uR/hr) for 17 of 67 locations. Similarly, in the Shell
Offshore, Inc. produced sand washing study, average concentrations of 226Ra and 228Ra before
washing were 44.5 pCi/g and 42.1 pCi/g, respectively, and after washing were 39.9 pCi/g and
38.7 pCi/g, respectively (EPA 1993b). NORM concentrations in the range of 20 pCi/g to 35
2-7
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
pCi/g are typical for several kinds of naturally derived waste materials such as phosphogypsum,
uranium mining overburden and mineral processing wastes. Risk assessments performed on
NORM concentrations from these materials indicate that they may pose some risk to critical
population groups (EPA 1991).
Effluent guidelines for this waste stream have remained unchanged from those used to develop
the 2004 and 1998 general permits. No further analysis of the impacts of this waste stream is
needed beyond that provided in the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit (USEPA 2004) and
the Final EIS for the 1998 permit (USEPA 1998a).
2.2.5 Wastes from Maintenance Operations
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
proposed NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and waste
generated while preparing the surfaces of an offshore facility's structures for painting. Particles
resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other heavy metals
and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human health.
One alternative to minimizing sandblasting waste is by designing and using effective surface
coatings. The types of coatings depend on the section and purpose of the structure. An offshore
oil and gas rig structure has sections that are immersed in water, as well as splash zones, and
non-skid areas such as the drill deck. Areas immersed in water use zinc silicate primers and
high built epoxy coatings. In the splash zone specific coatings are designed to withstand
abrasion and often include glass beads, quartz, or aluminum flakes. Coatings designed with
anti-slip properties, e.g., the drill deck, incorporate very course aggregates for an exaggerated
profile (Brown 2004)
Other alternatives to sandblasting are various abrasive/blasting media. Abrasive blasting or grit
media consist of materials that will remove old paint/coatings and prepare the surface for new
coatings. Examples include aluminum oxide, corn cob, and crushed glass (Kramer Industries,
Inc. 2005-2009). Sandblasting or abrasive blasting will continue to be used in maintenance
operations. BMPs for dust and particle containment using tarps and other measures as outlined
in the permit (see Section 2.3.7, below) are the most effective methods of minimizing the
release of sandblasting debris into the marine environment.
2.2.6 Sanitary and Domestic Wastes
Sanitary wastes originate from toilets. Domestic wastes originate from sinks, showers,
laundries, and galleys. Combined sanitary and domestic waste stream rates of 3,000 gallons
per day to 13,000 gallons per day have been reported.
Effluent guidelines for this waste stream have remained unchanged from those used to develop
the 2004 and 1998 general permits. No further analysis of the impacts of this waste stream is
needed beyond that provided in the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit (USEPA 2004) and
the Final EIS for the 1998 permit (USEPA 1998a).
2.2.7 Deck Drainage
Deck drainage includes waste resulting from platform washings, deck washings, rainwater, and
runoff from curbs, gutters, and drains, including drip pans and work areas (58 FR 12459). Deck
drainage is usually contaminated with oil and grease and a number of chemicals and trace
metals in low concentrations. Oil and grease are the primary pollutants identified in the deck
drainage waste stream. Various other chemicals used in drilling and production operations may
be present depending on the operation activities of individual platforms (MMS 2003). The
quantities of deck drainage can vary greatly, and typical discharge rates are not reliably
predictable.
2-8
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Deck drainage is typically collected in a sump tank where initial oil/water separation takes place.
Water discharged from the sump tank is usually directed to a skim pile, where additional
oil/water separation occurs. The separation process in the skim pile typically occurs beneath the
ocean surface, and the separated water is discharged to the ocean from the bottom of the skim
pile (58 FR 12485). Effluent guidelines for this waste stream have remained unchanged from
those used to develop the 2004 and 1998 general permits. No further analysis of the impacts of
this waste stream is needed beyond that provided in the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit
(USEPA 2004) and the Final EIS for the 1998 permit (USEPA 1998a).
2.2.8 Well Treatment, Completion, and Workover Fluids
Well treatment fluids are spent fluids that result from acidizing and hydraulic fracturing
operations performed to improve oil recovery. Workover fluids and completion fluids are low
solid fluids used to prepare a well for production, provide hydrostatic control, and prevent
formation damage. Principal contaminants in these fluids can include low pH, oil and grease,
metals, a variety of organic compounds, and in some cases NORM. These fluids are sometimes
used to dissolve NORM contaminated scale buildups, and consequently, the waste streams
have been found, in some instances, to have radioactive isotope concentrations as high as
25,000 pCi/L (MMS 1995).
Treatment, workover, and completion fluids are typically collected and disposed of onshore if
there are priority pollutants detected. Otherwise, well treatment, workover, and completion fluids
are treated for oil and grease and discharged.
Effluent guidelines for this waste stream have remained unchanged from those used to develop
the 2004 and 1998 general permits. No further analysis of the impacts of this waste stream is
needed beyond that provided in the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit (USEPA 2004) and
the Final EIS for the 1998 permit (USEPA 1998a).
2.2.9 Miscellaneous Discharges
Other minor discharges are regulated as "miscellaneous discharges." In addition to those
specific wastes for which new source effluent limitations are established, offshore exploration
and production facilities discharge other wastes. These are considered minor but are controlled
by NPDES permit limitations. Minor wastes comprise 18 categories: desalination unit fluids;
blowout preventer fluid; uncontaminated ballast; bilge water; mud, cuttings and cement at the
seafloor; uncontaminated seawater; boiler blowdown; source water and sand; uncontaminated
freshwater; excess cement slurry and cement equipment washdown; diatomaceous earth filter
media; subsea wellhead preservation fluids; subsea production control fluids; umbilical steel
tube storage fluid; leak tracer fluid; riser tensioner fluid; well test fluids; and bulk transfer
operations waste water.
SBM or SBF may be present in miscellaneous discharges as a result of spills or other accidental
releases on the platform. This waste stream is addressed in the current Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and NSPS (USEPA 2001 a and b). Effluent guidelines for this waste stream have
remained unchanged from those used to develop the 2004 general permit. No further analysis
of the impacts of this waste stream is needed beyond that provided in the Final SEIS for the
2004 general permit (USEPA 2004).
2.3 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED WASTE STREAMS UNDER
DIFFERENT STANDARDS
Under the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category Offshore Subcategory, the 2001
Effluent Guidelines and NSPS pertain to Gulf waters seaward of the baseline. Facilities
discharging to the territorial seas, within three nautical miles of the shore baseline of Mississippi,
2-9
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alabama, and Florida or from facilities defined as "coastal" or "onshore" (see 40 CFR Part 435,
Subparts C and D) are regulated under NPDES permits administered by states. Effluent
limitations discussed in the following sections apply to discharges occurring in Federal waters
seaward of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi State waters, or seaward of the territorial seas.
Table 2-2 presents and compares the discharge limitations established in the 2004 General
Permit with the proposed, revised general permit. BAT/BCT and NSPS effluent guidelines, as
well as regulations promulgated under CWA Section 316(b), are the basis for the minimum,
technology-based effluent limitations. Water quality criteria and CWA Section 403, as well as
state certifications, provide for additional permit terms, conditions, and limitations beyond the
required technology-based limitations.
As can be seen in Table 2-2, the discharge limitations of both the existing permit and proposed
permits are nearly identical. The proposed permit adds Wastes from Maintenance Operations to
the list of regulated waste streams. All other discharge limitations remain the same. Although
not included under discharge limitations, the proposed permit will require offshore oil and gas
facilities to comply with CWA Section 316(b), Phase III Cooling Water Intake Structure
regulations, the intent of which is to reduce adverse impacts from the entrainment and
impingement of aquatic biota. Thus, the proposed permit will be more comprehensive than the
2004 general permit and will include all permit limits, conditions, and monitoring requirements to
comply fully with Section 402 of the CWA.
Table 2-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed General Permit Limitations
Regulated
Discharge
Drilling fluids
and cuttings
Type of
Regulated
Discharge
Water-based
drilling muds
(WBMs)
Cuttings from
WBM
systems
Synthetic
fluid (non-
Regulated
Parameter
Oil-contaminated
WBMs
WBMs to which
diesel oil has been
added
Mercury and
cadmium in barite
SPP Toxicity
(water column)
Free Oil
Discharge rate,
maximum
Mineral oil
Drilling fluids
inventory
Volume
Within 1000m of
Areas of Biological
Concern or Dredge
Spoil Site
Same as WBMs
Synthetic-based
muds (SBM)
Existing General Permit
Discharge Limitation
No discharge
No discharge
1 mg Hg/kg and 3 mg Cd/kg
(dry wt) maximum in stock
barite.
Minimum 96-hour SPP LC50
= 30,000 ppm
No discharge.
1,000bbl/hr
No discharge except: carrier
fluid, lubricity agent, or pill
Report
Report
No discharge
Subject to the same
limitations as WBMs except
there is no discharge rate
limitation
No discharge
Proposed General Permit
Discharge Limitation
No discharge
No discharge
1 mg Hg/kg and 3 mg Cd/kg
(dry wt) maximum in stock
barite.
Minimum 96-hour SPP
LC50(1) =30,000 ppm
No discharge.
1,000bbl/hr
No discharge except: carrier
fluid, lubricity agent, or pill
Report
Report
No discharge
Subject to the same
limitations as WBMs, except
there is no discharge rate
limitation
No discharge
2-10
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 2-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed General Permit Limitations
Regulated
Discharge
Drilling fluids
and cuttings
Produced
water
Type of
Regulated
Discharge
aqueous) -
based drilling
muds (SBM)
Cuttings from
SBM systems
Cuttings from
SBM systems
Other non-
aqueous
(diesel or
mineral oil)-
based drilling
muds (OEM)
Cuttings from
OEM
systems
N/A
Regulated
Parameter
Synthetic base fluid
(SBF)
Free oil
Volume
Formation Oil
Suspended
Particulate Phase
(SPP) Toxicity
Drilling fluid
sediment toxicity
ratio
Polynuclear
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
(PAH)
Sediment toxicity
ratio
SBF retained on
cuttings
Biodegradation
Rate
Within 1000m of
Areas of Biological
Concern or Dredge
Spoil Site
OEMs
Cuttings from OEM
systems
Cuttings from oil-
contaminated mud
systems
Oil and Grease
Existing General Permit
Discharge Limitation
SBF limited to C16-C18IO or
C12-C1 4 ester type SBFs
No discharge
Report
No discharge
Minimum 96-hour LC50 of
the SPP Toxicity Test shall
be 3% by volume.
Toxicity ratio shall not exceed
1.0
PAH mass ratio shall not
exceed 1x10-5
Toxicity ratio shall not exceed
1.0
For: C16-C18IO, the
maximum weighted mass
ratio averaged over all SBM
well sections = 6.9 g NAF
base fluid/1 00 g wet drill
cuttings.
For: C12-C14IO, or C8 ester
stock, the maximum weighted
mass ratio averaged over all
SBM well sections shall be
9.4g NAF base fluid/1 00 g
wet drill cuttings.
Biodegradation rate ratio
shall not exceed 1.0
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
42 mg/L daily max;
29 mg/L monthly average
Proposed General Permit
Discharge Limitation
SBF limited to C16-C18IO or
C12-C1 4 ester type SBFs
No discharge
Report
No discharge
Minimum 96-hour LC50 of the
SPP Toxicity Test shall be
3% by volume.
Toxicity ratio shall not exceed
1.0
PAH mass ratio shall not
exceed 1x10-5
Toxicity ratio shall not exceed
1.0
For: C16-C18IO, the
maximum weighted mass
ratio averaged over all SBM
well sections = 6.9 g NAF
base fluid/1 00 g wet drill
cuttings.
For: C12-C14 IO, or C8 ester
stock, the maximum weighted
mass ratio averaged over all
SBM well sections shall be
9.4 g NAF base fluid/100 g
wet drill cuttings.
Biodegradation rate ratio
shall not exceed 1.0
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
42 mg/L daily max;
29 mg/L monthly average
2-11
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 2-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed General Permit Limitations
Regulated
Discharge
Deck drainage
Produced
sand
Well
treatment,
completion,
and workover
fluids
Sanitary waste
(continuous
manned, 10 or
more)
Sanitary waste
(intermittently
manned or
continuously
by<10)
Domestic
waste
Miscellaneous
discharges
Maintenance
operations
wastes
Miscellaneous
discharges to
which
treatment
chemicals
have been
added
Type of
Regulated
Discharge
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Regulated
Parameter
Toxicity
Flow(MGD)
Within 1000m of
Areas of Biological
Concern or Dredge
Spoil Site
Free Oil
Volume
Discharge
Free Oil
Oil and Grease
Priority Pollutants
Volume
Solids
Residual chlorine
Flow
Solids
Solids
Food waste
Free Oil
Wastes, e.g.,
removed paint;
materials from
surface prep and
coating activities
Free Oil
Toxicity
Existing General Permit
Discharge Limitation
Chronic toxicity: NOEC(1), as
per requirements of permit
appendix
Report
No discharge
No discharge
Report
No discharge
No discharge
42 mg/L daily max;
29 mg/L monthly average
Non- detected
Report
No floating solids
At least, but as close to, 1
mg/L
Report
No floating solids
No floating solids
No discharge <12 miles of
shore; food must be
comminuted to <25 mm >12
miles from shore
No discharge
Not regulated
No discharge
7-day minimum and monthly
average NOEC
Proposed General Permit
Discharge Limitation
Chronic toxicity NOEC, as
per requirements of permit
appendix
Report
No discharge
No discharge
Report
No discharge
No discharge
42 mg/L daily max;
29 mg/L monthly average
Non- detected
Report
No floating solids
At least, but as close to, 1
mg/L
Report
No floating solids
No floating solids
No discharge <12 miles of
shore; food must be
comminuted to <25 mm >12
miles from shore
No discharge
Contain to maximum extent
possible
No discharge
7-day minimum and monthly
average NOEC
(1) Lethal Concentration 50%
(2) No Observable Effect Concentration
The proposed permit also revises the methodology for biodegradation testing required for SBM
discharges.
2-12
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The permit limitations and monitoring requirements listed in the remainder of Section 2.3, below,
also constitute factors relating to the effects of the discharge - Criterion 9 of the Ocean
Discharge Criteria as specified in CWA Section 403. The implementation of these permit
limitations and monitoring requirements are anticipated to minimize or eliminate impacts from
the discharge streams discussed below.
2.3.1 Drilling Fluids
The proposed permit contains the following requirements related to WBMs:
• The discharge of oil-contaminated drilling fluids or drilling fluids to which diesel oil has
been added is prohibited
• The stock barite must contain no greater than 1 milligram mercury and 3 milligrams
cadmium per kilogram of barite
• The standard 96-hour LC50 toxicity criterion must not be exceeded at a suspended
particle phase concentration of 30,000 parts per million (ppm)
• The discharge of free oil, as determined by the static sheen test, is prohibited; the
operator must determine the presence of free oil once per month using the static sheen
test and report number of days the sheen is observed
• The rate of discharge of drilling fluids is not to exceed 1,000 barrels per hour
• Discharge of mineral oil is prohibited except for its usage as a carrier, lubricity agent, or
pill
• The operator must record a drilling fluids inventory and report the volume of fluids
(muds) discharged each month
• Discharge within 1000 m of an Area of Biological Concern or a dredge disposal site is
prohibited.
The proposed permit contains the following requirements related to OEM (i.e., diesel or mineral
oil-based muds)
• No discharge.
Finally, the proposed permit applies limitations on the SBF used as the continuous phase of
SBMs:
• The SBF is limited to C16-C18 internal olefin- or C12-C14 ester-type SBFs.
The proposed permit proposes certain revisions to the test protocol for biodegradation.
2.3.2 Drill Cuttings
The proposed permit contains the following requirements related to cuttings from WBM
systems:
• Cuttings from WBM systems are subject to the same requirements and limitations as the
WBM from which the cuttings are generated except that the discharge rate limitation
does not apply to cuttings discharges.
The proposed permit contains the following limit on cuttings from OBM systems:
• The discharge of cuttings from OBM or oil-contaminated cuttings is prohibited.
In addition, the proposed permit contains the following requirements related to cuttings
generated using SBM:
• The discharge of free oil, as determined by the static sheen test, is prohibited
• The operator must record and report the volume of cuttings discharged each month
2-13
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
• The discharge of formation oil is prohibited
• The standard 96-hour LC50 toxicity criterion must not be exceeded at a suspended
particle phase concentration of 30,000 ppm
• The drilling mud:sediment toxicity ratio must not exceed 1.0
• The polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon mass ratio must not exceed 1x10~5
• The sediment toxicity ratio must not exceed 1.0
• The percent of the synthetic drilling fluid retained on the drill cuttings is limited to 6.9%
for lO-based SBF and 9.4% for ester-based SBFs
• The biodegradation rate ratio must not exceed 1.0
• Discharge within 1000 m of an Area of Biological Concern or a dredge disposal site is
prohibited.
2.3.3 Produced Water
The proposed permit contains the following requirements related to produced water:
• The monthly average oil and grease content is not to exceed 29 mg/L and the daily
maximum is not to exceed 42 mg/L
• The discharge must meet a toxicity limitation projected to be the effluent concentration at
the edge of a 100-m mixing zone; the limitation will be calculated based on each facility's
site specific water column condition and discharge configuration
• Every month, the operation must estimate and report the total monthly produced water
flow.
2.3.4 Produced Sand
The discharge of produced sand to Gulf waters is prohibited by the proposed permit.
2.3.5 Deck Drainage
The proposed permit prohibits the discharge of deck drainage with free oil, as determined by the
visual sheen test. In addition the volume of deck drainage discharged must be estimated on a
monthly basis.
2.3.6 Well Treatment, Completion, and Workover Fluids
Requirements under the proposed permit are as follows:
• The monthly average oil and grease content is not to exceed 29 mg/L and the daily
maximum is not to exceed 42 mg/L
• The discharge of free oil, as determined by the static sheen test, is prohibited
• The discharge of priority pollutants is prohibited, except in trace amounts (as defined in
the proposed permit, trace amounts mean that if materials added downhole as well
treatment, completion, or workover fluids do not contain priority pollutants, then the
discharge is assumed not to contain priority pollutants except possibly in trace amounts
[EPA 1998a])
• The volume of well treatment, completion and workover fluids discharged must be
estimated on a monthly basis.
2.3.7 Wastes from Maintenance Operations
The proposed permit for the first time establishes BMPs for this waste steam. Maintenance
waste, such as removed paint and materials associated with surface preparation and coating
operations, must be contained to the maximum extent practicable to prevent discharge. This
includes airborne material such as spent or over-sprayed abrasives, paint chips, and paint
overspray. Measures such as vacuum abrasive blasting, covering grated areas with plywood,
2-14
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
surrounding the area with canvas tarps and similar measures must be employed to capture as
much material as is practicable.
Prior to conducting sandblasting or similar maintenance activities, operators shall operate in
accordance with company or site specific BMPs as needed. BMPs utilized must include specific
containment measures that should be implemented to the maximum extent practicable. These
measures should include, but not limited to:
• Enclose, cover, or contain blasting, sanding, painting, or mechanical cleaning activities,
to prevent abrasives, dust, and paint chips from reaching the receiving water
• Contain blasting, sanding, painting, or mechanical cleaning activities performed over
open water
• Prevent blasting, sanding, painting, or mechanical cleaning activities performed during
windy and high precipitation conditions that render containment ineffective
• Collect spent abrasives routinely and properly store them pending shipment to shore for
their proper disposal
• Mix paints and solvents in designated areas away from drains, ditches, piers, and
surface waters, preferably indoors or under cover
• Have absorbent and other cleanup items readily available for immediate cleanup of spills
• Allow empty paint cans to dry before disposal
• Use plywood and/or plastic sheeting to cover open areas between decks when water
blasting, sandblasting and/or mechanical cleaning activities.
2.3.8 Miscellaneous Discharges
The proposed permit prohibits miscellaneous discharges containing free oil, as determined by
the visual sheen test. Miscellaneous discharges include: desalination unit fluids; blowout
preventer fluid; uncontaminated ballast; bilge water; mud, cuttings and cement at the seafloor;
uncontaminated seawater; boiler blowdown; source water and sand; uncontaminated
freshwater; excess cement slurry and cement equipment washdown; diatomaceous earth filter
media; subsea wellhead preservation fluids; subsea production control fluids; umbilical steel
tube storage fluid; leak tracer fluid; riser tensioner fluid; well test fluids; and bulk transfer
operations waste water.
2.3.9 Miscellaneous Discharges of Seawater and Freshwater
The proposed permit limits miscellaneous discharges of seawater and freshwater to which
treatment chemicals have been added. Requirements under the proposed permit are as follows:
• The discharge of free oil, as determined by the static sheen test, is prohibited
• The toxicity of this discharge must meet either the 48-hour average minimum LC50 or the
7-day NOEC and monthly average minimum LC50 or NOEC toxicity test.
2.3.10 Sanitary and Domestic Waste
The proposed new source permit prohibits the discharge of sanitary and domestic waste
exhibiting floating solids. The permit prohibits the discharge of food waste within 12 nautical
miles of land and requires food waste beyond 12 miles to be comminuted smaller than 25 mm.
The proposed permit also requires that sanitary waste discharged at platforms with continuous
staffing of 10 or more persons have a residual chlorine content of at least 1 mg/L. Furthermore,
the permit incorporates all MARPOL Annex V regulations as published in 33 CFR 151. These
regulations relate to garbage and other discharges similar to sanitary and domestic wastes.
2.3.11 Other Permit Limitations and Conditions
The proposed permit contains additional limitations on discharges as follows:
2-15
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Discharges within 1,000 m of "areas of biological concern" are prohibited. As indicated in
Section 1.3.1, "areas of biological concern," for the purposes of NPDES OCS permitting,
are defined as "no activity zones" for biological reasons by the States of Alabama,
Florida, or Mississippi
For offshore waters seaward of three miles, areas of biological concern include "no
activity zones" defined by DOI for biological reasons, or identified by EPA in consultation
with DOI, the states or other interested federal agencies as containing biological
communities, features or functions that are potentially sensitive to discharges associated
with the oil and gas industry
Discharges within 1,000 m of a Federally Designated Dredged Material Disposal Site, as
listed in 40 CFR §128.151(f).
2.3.12
CWA Section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements
EPA promulgated CWA 316(b) regulations June 16, 2006 ("Final Regulations to Establish
Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities" 71 FR 35005-35046).
CWA Section 316(b) requires NPDES permits to ensure that the location, design, construction,
and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available to minimize
adverse environmental impact. Such impacts include death or injury to aquatic organisms by
impingement (being pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake structure) or
entrainment (being drawn into cooling water systems and subjected to thermal, physical or
chemical stresses).
EPA divided this rulemaking into three phases.
• Phase I for new facilities was completed in December 2001
• Phase II, for existing electric generating plants that use at least 50 MGD of cooling
water, was completed in July 2004
• Phase III addresses other existing facilities, as well as new offshore and coastal oil and
gas extraction facilities.
For the final rule, EPA decided to establish categorical regulations for new offshore oil and gas
extraction facilities that: (1) have a design intake flow threshold of greater than 2 MGD and (2)
withdraw at least 25 percent of the water exclusively for cooling purposes. The rule allows
operators to choose from two compliance options. Track I has an intake velocity limit of 0.5 fps.
Track II has no velocity requirement; however, operators may have to implement other
measures to minimize impingement and entrainment based on site-specific factors. The rule
also indicated the best approach for existing facilities not covered categorically under the rule is
through conditions established by NPDES permit directors on a case-by-case basis using best
professional judgment.
2.4 OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY SUMMARY- EPA REGION 4 AREA
This section provides an overview of the activities
associated with OCS oil and gas development that
could potentially affect the resources of the Gulf of
Mexico area under the NPDES jurisdiction of EPA
Region 4. Between 2010 and 2012, MMS has
three lease sales remaining in the MMS Central
Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico. Table 2-3
presents the scheduled lease sales for the MMS
Central Planning Area (there are no remaining
proposed lease sales in the Eastern Planning Area).
Table 2-3. Remaining MMS Proposed
Lease Sales, 2007 - 2012 Program
Sale
Number
213
216
222
MMS Planning Area
Central Gulf of Mexico
Central Gulf of Mexico
Central Gulf of Mexico
Year
2010
2011
2012
2-16
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The MMS 2010-2015 draft proposed program (MMS 2009) includes sales in all three planning
areas of the Gulf of Mexico Region. Table 2-4 presents the proposed schedule for the Eastern
and Central Planning Areas (see also Figure 2-1).
Three sales are proposed for the MMS
Eastern Planning Area (Figure 2-2),
starting in 2010, offering all the area that
is not leased or under restriction. The
majority of the Eastern Planning Area is
under restriction pursuant to GOMESA.
Should any or all of that restriction be
lifted during the 2010-2015 timeframe,
the draft proposed program area
encompasses a portion of the planning
area. The proposal includes a 75-mi
wide, no permanent surface structures
zone, with no leasing eastward of that
zone (see Figure 2-2). This area is
configured to preliminarily address
military multiple-use issues, over which
MMS is in a continuing dialogue with the
Department of Defense.
Table 2-4. Draft Proposed Lease Sale Schedule
for 2010-2015
Lease
Sale
225
216
226
227
222
231
234
235
241
Area
Eastern Gulf of Mexico
Central Gulf of Mexico
Eastern Gulf of Mexico*
Central Gulf of Mexico*
Central Gulf of Mexico
Central Gulf of Mexico
Eastern Gulf of Mexico*
Central Gulf of Mexico
Central Gulf of Mexico
Year
2010
2011
2011
2011
2012
2013
2013
2014
2015
* Program area for lease sales would be expanded if Congress
passes legislation to lift any or all of the moratorium
mandated by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006
Source: MMS 2009
To the extent that GOMESA restrictions remain in effect during the duration of the lease sale
program, the program area for these sales would include the area offered in Sale 224 in 2008
(see Figure 1-2) as mandated by GOMESA plus a small portion to the south of the Sale 224
area recently made available with the lifting of restrictions.
As presented in Chapter 1, Table 2-5. Projected Offshore Oil and Gas Activity, 2007-2012
while all of the MMS Eastern
Planning Area falls under EPA
Region 4 jurisdiction, only a
small part of the MMS Central
Planning Area is regulated by
EPA Region 4. In 2009, there
were 515 active leases in the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico
Planning Area (Figure 2-3).
Existing and projected oil and
gas development levels in the
Central and Eastern Planning
Areas are shown in Table 2-5.
In April 2007, MMS published
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes I and II (MMS, 2007a) for the Gulf of
Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012; Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207,
210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222. A set of
ranges were developed for resource estimates and projected exploration and development
activities for a "typical" Central Planning Area lease sale. As a result of any one of the Central
Planning Area lease sales, MMS projected: 67-99 exploration and delineation wells; 337-477
development wells; 28-40 production structures would be installed and 130 -2,075 km of new
pipeline would be installed, resulting in 0-1 new pipeline landfalls.
Offshore Oil and Gas Activity
No. of exploration + delineation
wells
No. of Development wells
No. of Workover/Other Wells
No. of Production structures
No. of New pipeline landfalls
Length of New pipeline, km
Projected Activity
Central
Planning Area
67-99
337 - 477
2,009-2,849
28-40
0-1
130-2,075
Eastern
Planning Area
5-15
15-20
91 - 126
1 -1
0
190-440
Sources: Central Planning Area - MMS 2008; Eastern Planning
Area - MMS 2007c
2-17
-------
Figure 2-1. Central Planning Area Proposed Lease Sale Area, 2010-2015
IV)
oo
TX
LA
FL ,
- 2010-2015
* U,S. Planning
Legend
;
Tli* rtiirittoiwt l>OiUf*dartts *w*rt tw»®ns
am wcrit ss th* i^vlslsws b»im»«fl
apt for Initial planning pytT»tw ssiy dte nrt:
neesssarily raWect lite fall of U,S,
rtghlm utsdw lnts«?»ite»sl bw^
N
A
71
|\J
D
m
en
O
•2
m
71
m
en
Rnnrr.fi- MMR
-------
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
By comparison, the Eastern Planning Area proposed lease sale projection was for 5-15
exploration and delineation wells; 15-20 development wells; one production structure installed;
and 190-440 km of new pipeline installed, resulting in no new pipeline landfalls.
These projections of existing operations and additional development levels for the five-year
period 2010 to 2015 are used to evaluate the impacts from the NPDES permit alternatives. A
five-year period is used because the issuance of the general permit would be for a duration of
five years; the permit would cover discharges from existing development activities, and those
initiated over the five-year permit period. The existing plus the five-year projections (2010 to
2015) represent the projected incremental development levels under Alternative A. Activities
resulting from this level of development are projected to last 35 to 40 years.
Factors that may result in impacts of environmental resources of the Gulf of Mexico are
discussed in Chapter 3.The maximum development levels for Alternatives A, B and C will be
used for the assessment of environmental consequences and cumulative impacts in Chapter 3.
As previously discussed, the maximum levels for Alternatives B and C are equal to the projected
numbers of wells and platforms under Alternative A. Such a scenario reflects the assumption
that all of the dischargers will obtain individual permits. This assumption is the most
conservative approach to evaluating the impacts from Alternatives B and C, representing an
assessment of the maximum possible impacts from these alternatives. Under this assumption,
the distinction among any alternatives with respect to environmental consequences arises
largely from the opportunity to perform site specific reviews and to tailor permit requirements to
include mitigating measures appropriate for the particular situations. EPA does not expect
substantial differences from one lessees project to another that would require tailored NPDES
permits.
2-19
-------
Figure 2-2. Eastern Planning Area Proposed Lease Sale Area, 2010-2015
o
IV)
ro
o
MS
AL.
The marltims t-DunSarlss am I mite snowi hereon.
as wall aa tne flvlalons between planning areas,
are Tor Initial planning pur(KS3B only ana Co not
nec«SBafi ry reflect the full eytenl or U.S sovereign
rlgriB unwr International and domestic law.
L-3ge r c
Draft Propc&sd Program Area
No Pernanera O&G
Surface Structures
Draft Proposed Program Area
2010-2015
Outer Continental Shelf
Continental U.S. Planning Area
D
m
en
O
•S
TJ
H
O
o
m
71
m
(n
Rnnrr.fi- MMR
-------
Figure 2-3. Active Leases within EPA Region 4 NPDES Jurisdiction
IV)
ro
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alabama
..•
Gulf of Mexico
MMS Gulf of Mexico OCS Region
Active Leases as of November 1, 2009
| | East of EPA Regions 4 & 6 NPDES Jurisdictional Boundaries
(515 active leases)
All others
TM09065 10/30 WOOSt
O
m
|\J
D
m
en
O
TJ
H
O
O
m
71
m
en
Source: Personal Communication, S. Erin O'Reilly, Leasing and Environment, MMS Gulf of Mexico , Region 11/03/2009
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
3.1 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO THE 2004 FINALSEIS AND 1998 FINAL EIS
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Section 102 requires that "all agencies
of the Federal Government shall... include in every recommendation or report on proposals for
legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on the following items:
• the environmental impact of the proposed action
• any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented
• alternatives to the proposed action
• the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity
• any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in
the proposed action should it be implemented."
Prior to preparation of the Final SEIS for the existing permit, NSPS and Effluent Limitation
Guidelines were issued on January 22, 2001(USEPA 2001 b) to address discharges of SBM and
other non-aqueous drilling fluids from oil and gas drilling operations into the waters of the United
States. These guidelines were finalized after the FEIS for the 1998 NPDES general permit
(USEPA 1998a) was prepared and the 1998 general permit issued. The major change between
the 1998 general permit and the 2004 general permit was the inclusion of SBM as an authorized
waste stream in the 2004 general permit, subject to the national technology-based effluent
limitation guidelines of 2001.
A full evaluation of environmental impacts relating to the 1998 general permit was presented in
the Final EIS for that permit (USEPA 1998a). As the major change from the 1998 General
Permit to the 2004 permit related to the discharge of SBM, not all components of the 1998 Final
EIS required re-evaluation in the 2004 Final SEIS. The 2004 Final SEIS limited its discussion
and evaluation to the waste streams, treatment requirements, affected environment, potential
environmental consequences, and mitigation measures for which modifications occurred
between the 1998 general permit and the 2004 general permit.
The scope of the revisions to the existing, 2004 general permit that are being considered in the
proposed permit are even more limited in nature than the revisions that occurred between the
2004 general permit and the 1998 general permit. Thus, the scope of the present EA is more
limited than that of the 2004 Final SEIS. Table 3-1 identifies potentially affected environmental
components and indicates which of these have been evaluated under the FEIS for the 1998
general permit (USEPA 1998a), under the Final SEIS for the existing 2004 general permit, and
under the present EA for the proposed general permit.
As discussed in Chapter 1, the focus of this EA is on the potential impacts resulting from
changes from the 2004 NPDES general permit that have been included in the new general
permit. Chapter 2 of this EA presented a discussion of the regulated waste streams and the
permit conditions and limitations that EPA is imposing to mitigate potential adverse impacts.
Chapter 3 discusses the environment potentially affected by these discharges and the resulting
environmental consequences expected with the proposed permit conditions, limitations, and
monitoring in place. Section 3.2 is a summary of biological resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
3-1
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 3-1. Potentially Affected Environmental Components Evaluated in 1998, 2004,
and 2009 NEPA Documents for Offshore Oil and Gas NPDES General Permits
Environmental Component
Marine Water Quality
Coastal / Nearshore Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Coastal Barrier Landforms
Wetlands
Seagrasses
Live Bottoms (Excl Seagrasses)
Deep Water Benthic Communities
Florida Manatee
Marine Mammals
Marine Turtles
Coastal / Marine Birds
The Gulf Sturgeon
Endangered Species
Fish Resources
Air Quality
Recreational Beaches
Recreational Marine Fishing
Archaeological Resources
Onshore Waste Management
Socioeconomics - Commercial Fisheries
Global Warming/Fuel Use
Human Health
1998FEIS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2004 Final
SEIS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2009 EA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sections 3.3 through 3.12 discuss the potentially affected environmental components, the
effects of relevant discharges, and cumulative impacts.
Impacts to these resources from all OCS oil and gas activities are provided in several relevant
EIS documents developed by MMS (see MMS 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2007a, 2007c, and 2008).
For the 2004 Final SEIS, the only new or additional oil and gas-related activity was SBM
discharges. Impacts from other waste streams were fully addressed in the FEIS for the 1998
general permit issuance process. In that FEIS, no potential long term irretrievable loss of
resources was found to exist for any of the listed resources from exposure to any of these other
waste streams.
The Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit considered and evaluated the discharge of SBM,
and concluded that no long term irretrievable loss of resources would be expected from this
activity to the listed environmental resources. The Final SEIS recognized that the information
base for evaluating potential impacts was sufficient to anticipate long term impacts were unlikely
to occur, based on available data and analyses (e.g., those for national guidelines; USEPA
2001 b).
However, the 2004 Final SEIS also recognized that, in part because of the relative recent use
and discharge of SBM to domestic waters, an information base sufficient to confirm the Region's
3-2
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
conclusion on the long term impacts of discharged SBM was limited, especially in deep water
environments. Since development of the 2004 Final SEIS, a number of studies have examined
the impacts of SBM, both to shallow and deep water environments, over a longer timeframe.
These studies have been reviewed and evaluated for this EA.
One new waste stream has been included in the proposed new general permit - wastes from
maintenance operations. These wastes derive largely from painting and related surface cleaning
and preparatory activities at offshore oil and gas facilities. This waste stream is limited in the
proposed general permit through the incorporation of BMP requirements.
Table 3-2 specifically identifies OCS activities, environmental components they potentially
affect, which of these have been evaluated and the reason for their evaluation, and provides
these data for the FEIS for the 1998 general permit (USEPA 1998a), the Final SEIS for the 2004
existing general permit, and this EA for the proposed new general permit. The potential impacts
on affected environments, identified in Table 3-2, are discussed below. The geographic extent
of the proposed re-issuance general permit remains identical to the 2004 general permit;
excluded, designated Areas of Biological Concern are unchanged and defined in the proposed
general permit.
3.2 SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF,
CONTINENTAL SHELF TRANSITION ZONE AND DEEP WATER AREAS OF THE
GULF OF MEXICO UNDER EPA REGION 4 JURISDICTION
3.2.1 Summary of Deep Water Biological Resources
Deep water areas can be defined as the areas deeper than approximately 300 m including
portions of the continental slope (approximately 200 m to 3,000 m) and the abyssal plain
(>approximately 3,000 m).The continental slope is a transitional environment influenced by
processes of both the shelf and the abyssal (deep sea) Gulf of Mexico. This transitional
character applies to both the water column and sea bottom environments. The highest values of
surface primary production are found in the upwelling areas in the DeSoto Canyon region. In
general, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico is more productive in the oceanic region than is the Western
Gulf of Mexico. It is generally assumed that all the phytoplankton is consumed by the
zooplankton, except for brief periods during major plankton blooms. Zooplankton then egest a
high percentage of food intake as feces that sink toward the bottom (MMS 2007a). The abyssal
plain is a cold dark environment that serves as a repository of sediment and nutrients. Most of
the benthic fauna found on the deep slope and abyssal plain are endemic to those depths and
can be grouped into several different faunal assemblages.
Pequegnat (1983; and confirmed by LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M
University, Gallaway et al. 1988) originally described the continental shelf/slope as having seven
distinct zones and subzones. These zones have now been replaced with 4 assemblages. Rowe
and Kennicutt (2007) have now described the assemblages as: (1) upper slope, (2) mid-slope,
(3) lower slope, and (4) abyssal plain. The 450-m isobath defines the truly deep sea fauna
where the aphotic zone begins at and beyond these depths. The Pequegnat assemblages were
designated as:
• The Shelf/Slope Transition Zone (150-450 m) is a very productive part of the benthic
environment. Demersal fish are dominant, many reaching their maximum populations in
the zone. Asteroids, gastropods, and polychaetes are common.
• The Archibenthal Zone has two subzones. The Horizon A Assemblage is located
between 475 and 750 m. Although less abundant, the demersal fish are a major
3-3
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE
Table 3-2. Summary of the Evaluation of OCS Activities and Affected Environments, NPDES General Permits for the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry
Section Number in 1998 FEIS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
Section Number in 2004 Final SEIS
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
<
LU
CO
!c
.g
6
z
c
o
'o
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE
Table 3-2. Summary of the Evaluation of OCS Activities and Affected Environments, NPDES General Permits for the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry
Section Number in 1998 FEIS
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
N/A
Section Number in 2004 Final SEIS
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
<
LU
CO
!c
.g
6
z
c
o
'o
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
constituent of the fauna, as are gastropods and polychaetes. Sea cucumbers are more
numerous. The Horizon B Assemblage, located at 775-950 m, represents a major
change in the number of species of demersal fish, asteroids, and echinoids, which reach
maximum populations here. Gastropods and polychaetes are still numerous.
• The Upper Abyssal Zone is located between 975 and 2,250 m. Although the number of
species of demersal fish drops, the number that reach maximum populations
dramatically increases. This indicates a group uniquely adapted to the environment. Sea
cucumbers exhibit a major increase, and gastropods and sponges reach their highest
species numbers here.
• The Mesoabyssa/ Zone, Horizon C Assemblage (2,275-2,700 m), exhibits a sharp faunal
break. The number of species reaching maximum populations in the zone drops
dramatically for all taxonomic groups.
• The Mesoabyssa/ Zone, Horizon D Assemblage (2,725-3,200 m), coincides with the
lower part of the steep continental slope in the Western Gulf of Mexico. Since the
Central Gulf of Mexico is dominated at these depths by the Mississippi Trough and
Mississippi Fan, the separation of Horizon C and D Assemblages is not as distinct in the
Central Gulf of Mexico. The assemblages differ in species constitution.
• The Lower Abyssal Zone (3,225-3,850 m) is the deepest of the assemblages.
Megafauna are depauperate. The zone contains assemblages of benthic species not
found elsewhere (MMS 2003).
The shallowest lease areas encompass the entirety of the upper slope, regardless of the depth
criteria used to define the continental slope. The deepest portions extend nearly into the
deepest part of the Gulf of Mexico (approximately depth 3,000 m) south of the Florida
Escarpment in the Eastern Gulf. This is not particularly deep for the rest of the world's oceans,
but it is within about 800 m of the deepest point of the Gulf of Mexico at 3,840 m, only
accessible from Mexican waters of the southern Gulf. A great number of publications have
derived from the two major MMS-funded studies of the deep Gulf of Mexico (Rowe and
Kennicutt 2007; Gallaway et al. 1988). Refer to these two studies for extensive background
information on deep water Gulf of Mexico habitat and biological communities. There are no
remarkable biological characteristics of the benthic resources of this area other than the
potential for attached communities associated with exposed carbonate material from the edge of
the Florida Escarpment, described below (MMS 2007a).
Chemosynthetic communities are benthic communities of tube worms, mussels and to a lesser
degree, clams that use a carbon source independent of photosynthesis and the sun-dependent
photosynthetic food chain that supports all other life on earth. The principal organisms derive
their entire food supply from symbiotic Chemosynthetic bacteria, which obtain their energy
needs from chemical compounds in the venting fluids. There is only one documented
Chemosynthetic community in the Eastern Planning Area, at the bottom of the Florida
Escarpment in an area of "cold" brine seepage. Although this is the only documented
community in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, such communities could be located throughout the
continental slope of the northern Gulf of Mexico (MMS 2003).
In contrast to early presumptions about deep sea communities, animal diversity, particularly the
smaller forms living in bottom sediments, rivals that of the richest terrestrial environments such
as rain forests. Non-chemosynthetic deep water communities include the full spectrum of living
organisms also found on the continental shelf or other areas of the marine environment. Major
groups include bacteria and other microbenthos, meiofauna (0.063-0.3 mm), macrofauna
(greater than 0.3 mm), and megafauna (larger organisms such as crabs, sea pens, crinoids, and
demersal fish) (MMS 2003).
3-6
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
3.2.2 Summary of Biological Resources in the Continental Shelf and Continental
Slopes Regions
There is general agreement that the continental shelf transition zone, or upper continental slope,
ends at approximately 200 m. The majority of the economically important and ecologically
sensitive biological resources in the Gulf are located at depths, or use habitats found in depths
of 200 m or less. Table 3-3 summarizes the biological resources found in the Gulf and the
depths at which these resources are found (USEPA 1998a).
Research has been increased on deep sea biological communities (waters deeper than 200 m)
occurring in the Gulf. Based on existing literature descriptions, ecosystems deeper than 200 m
are widely scattered with organisms at densities far less than those occurring above 200 m.
Ecologically unique deep water ecosystems do occur; they are predominantly limited to
Table 3-3. Depth of Biological Resources
Resource
Depth
Range,
m
Preferred
Depth, m
Comments
Coastal Habitats
Wetlands
Seagrasses
0-2
1-20
NA
NA
-
Florida Big Bend (1 -20m)
Offshore or Coastal
Live bottom communities
Inner Shelf Seagrass/Algal Bed
Inner Shelf Live Bottom Assemblage
I
Inner and Middle Shelf Live Bottom
Assemblage II
Outer Shelf Low-relief
Outer Shelf Prominence
Middle Shelf Algal Nodule
Assemblage
Agaricia Coral Plate Assemblage
Outer Shelf Crinoid Assemblage
10-200
10-20
10-30
15-70
90 - 200
135-170
60-110
60-80
120-180
10-100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Such as: ( a) Pinnacle Trend, 67-1 10m -Fish and
invertebrates in Pinnacle Trend shown to migrate to
deeper areas in winter (to 200m) and (b) Florida Middle
Ground (25-35 m)
-
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
Endangered Species
Selected Coral Species
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Fin Whales
Humpback Whales
Sperm Whales
West Indian Manatee
Gulf Sturgeon
<200
Unknown
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NA
Juvenile found
from 10-32
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
14 spp identified for special protection; 1 sp for federal
listing
Northern GOM coast a major foraging ground for juvenile
and sub-adults; in year 1-2 the limiting factor is offshore
Found mostly inshore with a brief pelagic juvenile phase
Northern coast of GOM is a major foraging
Found in offshore areas
Found in coastal areas with sitings at 200 m
Range extends to deep water zones
Inshore coastal areas
Sturgeon associated with hard bottom and seagrass
substrates
NOTES: NA- Not Applicable; U- Unknown
3-7
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
scattered chemosynthetic communities in very deep water (i.e., 400 m to 1000 m), and other
moderately productive benthic communities located from 150 m to 450 m (MMS 1990).
Demersal (bottom dwelling) fish are the dominant species in the 150 m to 450 m region. Benthic
organisms at these depths include asteroids, gastropods and polychaetes (MMS 1990).
Scattered coral also occur in deeper water habitats.
It is unclear whether the invertebrates found below 200 m are limited to those depths or are
simply capable of using those depths, but occur in shallow waters as well. In summary, because
of the extremely patchy nature and much lower density of biological resources below 200 m,
EPA is placing a greater importance on resources in the shelf and shelf break areas. In addition,
protection of chemosynthetic communities, probably the most sensitive resource found at these
depths, has been provided for under NIL 2004-G05 and NIL 2000-G20 issued by MMS.
Section 4.2.3.1 provides detailed descriptions of these mitigative measures. Finally, it appears
that the majority of fish species and possibly some of the invertebrate species found at depths
greater than 200 m utilize shallower depths for critical life-history functions.
Biological resources that occur at depths less than 200 m include coastal habitats and offshore
habitats and communities. Coastal aquatic habitats include wetlands and seagrass beds.
Wetlands are in the shallowest environments. Seagrasses occur in water 1 m to 20 m deep.
Over 98 percent of all the seagrass beds in the Gulf of Mexico occur off the coast of Florida. A
major area of seagrass beds is the Florida Big Bend. In a study of this area, Continental Shelf
Associates identified two groupings of seagrasses, an inner association from 1 m to 9 m
consisting of turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoalgrass, and an outer association from 10m
to 20 m that consists of macroalgal and seagrass assemblages (USEPA 1998a).
Live bottoms constitute one of the most environmentally sensitive offshore habitats in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico. Live bottoms are defined as seagrass communities; or those areas that
contain biological assemblages consisting of such sessile invertebrates as sea fans, sea whips,
hydroids, anemones, ascidians, sponges, bryozoans, or corals living upon and attached to
naturally occurring hard or rock formations with rough, broken, or smooth topography; or areas
whose lithotope favors the accumulation of turtles, fishes, and other fauna (MMS 1996b). Live
bottoms in the eastern Gulf extend from 10 m to 200 m deep with the most productive region
occurring shallower than 100 m (MMS 1990). One significant component of live bottoms is coral
species. There are approximately 400 species of coral in the Gulf of Mexico. The largest
number of species and most productive species are considered shallow water species and
occur at depths of less than 200 m, including the continental shelf to its edge (USEPA 1998a).
Having generally characterized the nature and extent of live bottoms, there are some general
bottom and water column condition differences from offshore Mississippi-Alabama to offshore
Florida. Researchers have documented a general lack of firm bottom substrate for attachment
of bottom life and high water column turbidity in much of the east-central inner shelf, offshore
Alabama and Mississippi, and a trend of increased water clarity and light penetration eastward.
The area is not normally under the influence of the subtropical Loop Current that, to the east,
stabilizes water temperatures more suitable to increased epifaunal diversity. The bottom area
offshore Mississippi-Alabama also experiences substantial deposition of fine particle sediments
emanating from coastal rivers that would tend to cover any previously exposed hard substrate.
Many small patches of live bottoms are found scattered throughout the MMS Eastern Planning
Area of the Gulf. The most dense and productive of these live bottom communities fall within
waters shallower than 100 m (MMS 1990). Two areas of extensive live bottom development
occur in the eastern Gulf: the Pinnacle Trend in the northwestern corner of the EPA Region 4
jurisdictional area, and the Florida Middle Ground, located 160 km west-northwest of Tampa.
Live bottoms in the area of the Pinnacle Trend are found in depths of 67 m to 110 m, whereas
3-8
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
those in the Florida Middle Ground extend from 25 m to 35 m (MMS 1990). The extent of the
Pinnacle Trend in the MMS Eastern Planning Area continues to be defined but known to be
present in four lease blocks. The pinnacles containing live bottoms may extend further east than
had previously been documented.
The bottom area offshore Mississippi-Alabama is punctuated in some areas with rocky outcrops
and topographic high features. The Pinnacle Trend is the most dramatic feature, which is
located in water depths to 110 m on the Mississippi-Alabama shelf. The pinnacles appear to be
carbonate reefal structures in an intermediate stage between growth and fossilization. The
region contains a variety of features ranging from low-relief rocky areas to major pinnacles, as
well as ridges, scarps, and relict patch reefs. The heavily indurated pinnacles provide a
remarkable amount of surface area for aggregating sessile invertebrates and attracting large
numbers offish. Additional hard-bottom features are located nearby on the continental shelf,
outside the actual pinnacle trend area.
The features of the pinnacle trend provide a combination of topographic relief, occasionally in
excess of 20 m, and hard substrate for the attachment of sessile organisms, thereby having
greater potential to support significant live-bottom communities than surrounding areas on the
Mississippi-Alabama Shelf. This potential to support live bottom communities has made these
features a focus of concern and discussion (MMS 2003). In contrast, the northwest Florida shelf
is dominated by coarser sand bottoms with widely interspersed carbonate outcroppings, which
are colonized by such epifauna as ascidians, hard corals, and sponges (MMS 1996a). Because
of differences in marine conditions, there are more likely better habitat conditions and a greater
incidence of live bottoms offshore Florida than offshore Mississippi-Alabama (USEPA 1998a).
Of the endangered species that occur in the Gulf of Mexico, many utilize the habitats available
in depths of 200 m or less. Of the 14 coral species recommended for either state or federal
listing as species worthy of special protection, all species were found at water depths of 200 m
or less. One endangered mammal, the humpback whale, utilizes offshore habitats to depths of
200 m (Vittor & Associates, Inc. 1985). Fin whales are found inshore, whereas West Indian
Manatees occur in coastal estuarine areas. In addition several endangered sea turtle species
spend a majority of their lives along inshore areas, including Kemp's Ridley sea turtle and
Loggerhead sea turtle (MMS 1990). The endangered Gulf Sturgeon spends part of its life cycle
in rivers and estuaries and its remaining life cycle in marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico to
Florida Bay (MMS 1996b).
MMS (2007a) reviewed a number of studies that measured the movement and characteristics of
several prominent endangered species. A summary of their findings follows. The sperm whale is
the only great whale that is considered common in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Fritts et al.
1983a; Mullin etal. 1991; Davis and Fargion 1996; Jefferson and Schiro 1997). Aggregations of
sperm whales are commonly found in waters over the shelf edge in the vicinity of the Mississippi
River Delta in waters that are 500 m to 2,000 m in depth (Mullin et al. 1994a; Davis and Fargion
1996; Davis et al. 2000). They are often concentrated along the continental slope in or near
cyclones and zones of confluence between cyclones and anticyclones (Davis et al. 2000).
Consistent sightings and satellite tracking results indicate that sperm whales occupy the
northern Gulf of Mexico throughout all seasons (Mullin et al. 1994a; Davis and Fargion 1996;
Sparks et al. 1996; Jefferson and Schiro 1997; Davis et al. 2000; Jochens et al. 2006).
Sperm whales have been identified as a species of concern in the Gulf of Mexico in relation to
shipping, seismic surveys, and mineral production and the effects of these activities on the
behavior of sperm whales have begun to be studied. The leatherback sea turtle is the most
abundant sea turtle in waters over the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope (Mullin and
Hoggard 2000). Leatherbacks appear to spatially use both continental shelf and slope habitats
3-9
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
in the Gulf (Fritts et al. 1983b; Collard 1990; Davis and Fargion 1996). Recent surveys suggest
that the region from Mississippi Canyon to DeSoto Canyon, especially near the shelf edge,
appears to be an important habitat for leatherbacks (Mullin and Hoggard 2000). Temporal
variability and abundance suggest that specific areas may be important to this species, either
seasonally or for short periods of time. Leatherbacks have been frequently sighted in the Gulf of
Mexico during both summer and winter (Mullin and Hoggard 2000).
Most bottom-dwelling fish species in the Gulf, including many of the economically significant fish
and shellfish species, utilize habitats less than 200 m deep for adult, spawning, and juvenile
habitat (USEPA 1998a). These data are summarized in Table 3-4. The preferred habitat depth
for most of the shellfish resources is less than 200 m. Spawning depth and the preferred depth
for juveniles were found to be less than 100 m and usually in estuaries, seagrasses, or other
shallows.
Table 3-4. Depth of Fish and Shellfish Resources
Resource
Pink Shrimp
Brown Shrimp
White Shrimp
Royal Red Shrimp
Rock Shrimp
Blue Crab
Stone Crab
Oyster
Black/Striped Mullet
Gulf Menhaden
Mackerel (various
spp)
King Mackerel
Red Drum
Lady fish and Tarpon
Sharks
Cobia
Habitat Depth, m
Shore - 65
Shore- 110
<35 (preferred - 1 8)
180-550
15-80
<90, most <35
Shore - 50
<10
Continental Shelf
Shelf waters to 120
To continental shelf edge
U
3- 15
U
Four species locations:
1) Coastal (on continental
shelf); 2) Pelagic (range
over upper zones of whole
ocean); 3) Coastal/pelagic
(inter-mediate but no
trans-oceanic travel);
4) Deep - dwelling
10-55
Spawning Depth, m
20-50
25-110
10-30
Unknown (U)
U
Estuaries & nearshore
U
U
Shore - 40
<20
Offshore
U
Estuaries
Breed in coastal
estuaries, salt
marshes, mangroves
Usually coastal or
estuarine bays
U
Juvenile Depth, m
Seagrass beds
Seagrass, estuaries
Estuaries
U
U
Estuaries
Shallows
U
Estuaries
Estuaries, deep bays
U
15 to 915 but average
depth 35
Primary or secondary
bays
Within 100m of the
surface
U
U
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Small juveniles -11-
135m; large juveniles
<15m
-
Adults in bays, lagoons,
coastal habitat or open
ocean
-
Range is south of
Mississippi to Dry
Tortugas
Reef Fish
Queen Snapper
Multon Snapper
Schoolmaster
Gulf Red Snapper
Cubera Snapper
Dog Snapper
Mahogany Snapper
Lane Snapper
Silk Snapper
Wenchman
170-280
100-180
Shallow reefs
10-65, winter; 20-30,
summer
30-40
1 -80
Shallow
10-400
25 - 230
24 - 1 80
U
U
U
20 - 40 over firm sand
bottom
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
35-60, winter; 15-30,
summer
U
U
U
U
U
U
-
Controversial, may also
be found in shallow
water
—
Max depth, 260m
—
-
—
—
Max depth, 387m
Prefers shelf edge; Max
depth, 370m
3-10
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 3-4. Depth of Fish and Shellfish Resources
Resource
Voraz
Vermillion Snapper
Rock Hind
Speckled Hind
Yellow Grouper
Red Hind
Jewfish
Warsaw Grouper
Snowy Grouper
Nassau Grouper
Black Grouper
Gag
Scamp
Yellowfin Grouper
Sea Basses
Tilefishes
Amberjacks
Triggerfish
Grunts
Porgies
Habitat Depth, m
60 - 400
>30
3-4
30 - 1 90
Shoreline: 90
>20-1 50
25-80
25-90
35-120
20 - 1 20
20 - 600
U
U
25 - 1 00
25-100
Spawning Depth, m
U
30-90
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Juvenile Depth, m
U
U
U
U
U
<20
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Comments
Lower shelf edge; Max
depth, 550m
Max depth, 180m
Max depth, 45m
-
Larger fish found at
>50m; Max depth 95m;
Migrate to deeper water
as size increases
Migrate to deeper water
as size increases
Juveniles, <1m
-
Max depth, 145m
-
-
-
-
-
-
Outer Shelf Fish Species
Blackedge Moray (eel)
Ocellated Moray
Sand Diver
Offshore Lizardfish
Snakefish
Pancake Batfish
Bank Seabass
Rock Seabass
Smoothhead
Scorpionfish
Marbled Puffer
Largescale Lizardfish
Mottled Cusk-Eel
Bass
Twospot Cardinalfish
Rough Scad
Red Goatfish
Longfin Scorpionfish
Horned Searobin
Spiny Searobin
Mexican Searobin
Shortwing Searobin
Anglefin Whiff
Spotfin Flounder
Spotfin Tonguefish
Shortjaw Lizardfish
Lancer Stargazer
Sash Flounder
Horned Whiff
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
20 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
40 - 1 20
60 - 1 20
60 - 1 20
60-120
80-120
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fish species of economical significance, including reef fish, have been studied most extensively
(USEPA 1998a). The preferred habitat for most of these species to spend the majority of their
lifecycle extends into continental shelf waters. Spawning and juvenile habitats for these species
are primarily estuaries and shallows, with the exception of mackerel, which has a spawning
3-11
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
habitat that appears to be in offshore areas, possibly over 100 m deep, judging by the location
of early stage larvae. Small mackerel juveniles also typically inhabit depths over 100 m, but
move inshore into coastal regions as they develop.
A large category of economically important fish species, reef fish, spend the majority of their
adulthood associated with reefs to depths of 150 m. However, some groupers, especially large
individuals, can occur to depths well over 200 m (see Table 3-4). For species for which
spawning depth and juvenile depth have been determined, these depths generally do not
exceed 40 m. Many references discuss that reef fish generally migrate a short distance off the
reef to breed (USEPA 1998a). Although precise depths are uncertain, breeding habitat probably
does not exceed 200 m deep because of the close proximity between breeding habitat and reef
habitat utilized by the adults.
Darnell and Kleypas (1987) have compiled information on demersal fish and shrimp in the
eastern Gulf. This study quantified catch data by species abundance, location, and depth to a
maximum depth of 120 m. Only adult specimens were quantified in this study. The majority of
species collected in this study were found at depths ranging from 0 m to 80 m, with habitat
ranges largely limited to this depth in the water column. Out of a total of 17 shrimp species and
347 fish species, which occurred at depths from 0 m to 120 m, 32 species were abundant in the
depth range of 80 m to 120 m. Three species were found to have a habitat depth range of 60 m
to 120 m; while one species, the horned whiff, had a habitat range from 80 m to 120 m in depth.
All species sampled in this study, appear to occur at maximal abundance at or above 120 m in
depth. However, the distribution map for the horned whiff and other deeper water species
suggests that these species occur deeper than the 120 m depth limit of this study. These
findings demonstrate the importance of the continental shelf and the shelf break area for adult,
juvenile and breeding habitat for demersal fish and shrimp species.
A few species such as royal red shrimp, pelagic sharks, a few reef fish, and some outer shelf
species occur at depths in excess of 200 m.
Rowe and Kennicutt (2007) sampled a wide range of depths throughout the northern Gulf of
Mexico and several stations in Mexican waters. Trawling for demersal fishes was conducted
during 2000, 2001, and 2003 surveys of the study. However, the only comprehensive survey
occurred in the 2000 survey. During the 2000 survey, fishes were captured at 31 of the 43
stations representing all of the deep Gulf of Mexico transects ranging in depths from 188 m to
3,075 m. A total of 1,065 individual demersal fishes, representing 119 species and 42 families,
were collected in the 31 trawl collections. The families Macrouridae (grenadiers or rattails), with
21 species; Ophidiidae (cuskeels), with 15 species; and Alepocephalidae (slickheads), with 8
species, dominated the samples. Cluster analyses resulted in four major assemblages. These
consisted of an OCS assemblage between 188 m and 216 m, an upper slope assemblage
between 315 m and 785 m, a mid-slope assemblage between 686 m and 1,369 m, and a deep
assemblage between 1,533 m and 3,075 m (MMS 2007a).
The above section discusses the living marine resources and habitats relating to ODCE Factors
3, 4, 7, and 10. The composition and vulnerability of the biological communities that may be
exposed to discharged pollutants, the importance of receiving water to surrounding biological
communities, and potential recreational and commercial fishing, as well as the Federal marine
water quality criteria. The biological communities of the receiving water are considered when
determining the discharge rate restrictions, toxicity limitations, type of synthetic fluid and its
toxicity and biodegradability, and the limits on SBM adhering to discharged cuttings. The
potential effects due to organic pollutants in drilling fluids have been reduced with the prohibition
of the use of oil-based muds (diesel and mineral oils) and bulk discharges of SBMs. The heavy
3-12
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
metals that exist in drilling fluids have been reduced in concentration by requiring the use of
clean barite, as measured by the concentration of cadmium and mercury.
In summary, extensive biological resources occur in the eastern Gulf of Mexico above the
200-meter isobath. Whereas the most productive region appears to occur above the 100-meter
isobath, the majority of resource types, including live bottoms and coral, some endangered
species, and many fish and shellfish species, including species of economic importance, also
are abundant from 100 m to 200 m. Because of coastal marine conditions, prevalence of live
bottoms most likely tends to increase from Alabama eastward. Some types of live bottoms are
primarily limited to depths greater than 100 m including outer shelf low relief live bottoms, outer
shelf prominence, and outer shelf crinoid assemblages. The adult habitat for many species of
fish, as well as royal red shrimp, extends to 200 m or deeper for a few species.
3.3 REVIEW OF NEW INFORMATION ON IMPACTS FROM SBM AND ASSOCIATED
CUTTINGS
3.3.1 Fate and Transport of SBM
3.3.1.1 Discharge Volumes and Potential Impacts
A study of four deep water (1,033 m - 1,125 m depth range) drilling sites was performed in the
Gulf of Mexico, at which from one to seven wells were drilled (Continental Shelf Associates
2006), found impacts from cuttings and adherent SBM (SBM-cuttings) were least severe where
the smallest quantities of SBM-cuttings were discharged. Observed impacts included SBM
tracers (Ba and synthetic base fluid) and associated sediment effects (elevated total organic
carbon and anoxic conditions). However, the time elapsed since drilling also was longer at this
site (about 2 years) than at the other three sites (5 to 14 months) and could reflect recovery of
this site over time. Thus, the relative contributions from these two factors at this site cannot be
distinguished. This site notwithstanding, other indicators at other sites appear to indicate
discharge volume is clearly related to potential impact.
A study of eight shelf sites (37 m - 119 m depth range) and slope sites (338 m - 556 m depth
range) in the Gulf of Mexico, at which from one to four wells were drilled (Continental Shelf
Associates 2004), found that chemical changes seemed to be generally related to discharge
volumes. However, alterations appear to be water depth related for some parameters as well.
For two study sites that discharged comparable volumes of an IO SBM in different water depths
(1,309 bbl into water 119m deep versus 1,674 bbl into water 556 m deep) little difference in
TOC values were noted. However, the deep water site showed synthetic fluid and total
petroleum hydrocarbon levels that were generally about one to two orders of magnitude higher
in bottom sediments than at the shallow water site for near- and mid-field stations with respect
to both mean values and ranges; far-field site values for these two parameters were comparable
at both sites. This is likely the result of lower average bottom current speeds as well as less
frequent and intense episodic storm events affecting deeper water sediments.
3.3.1.2 Geophysical Disturbances
The Continental Shelf Associates (2006) deep water study found SBM cuttings and muds were
deposited within a near-field radius of 500 m. Bathymetric, side-scan sonar, and sub-bottom
profile data showed deposition zones ranging from 0.13 to 1.1 km2 in area. Larger zones were
observed at post-development sites; the greatest extent (about 1 km) was noted for a site at
which seven wells were drilled over a period of about 51/4 years. Sediment texture effects were
noted primarily within a 300-m radius of the well. Anchor scars were noted within about 3 km of
the well site, ranging in length from <100 m to > 3 km.
3-13
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
The Continental Shelf Associates (2004) shelf and slope study found little difference in the
deposition pattern of cuttings among shelf and slope sites. Drill cuttings accumulations were
found at all near-field (<100 m) stations and some mid-field (100 to 250 m) stations. The
distribution of cuttings solids in sediments was extremely patchy, but tended to decrease
sharply with distance from the discharge sites.
A study of an exploratory well located in 902 m of water offshore Brazil (Correa et al., 2009)
reported temporal changes in sediment texture and sonar profiles of cuttings accumulations.
They reported sand content within 500 m of the well site increased from 5% - 25% before drilling
to 10% -70% one month after drilling. Sonar patterns showed that cuttings accumulations were
noted one month after SBM discharges but the extent of these accumulations was reduced 12
months after drilling; these changes were graphically presented but not otherwise quantified.
3.3.1.3 Modeling
CSA International, Inc. (2008) submitted a report to US DOI/MMS detailing a field sampling
effort of a spill of SBM in the Central Gulf of Mexico, conducted in June, 2008. A lower marine
riser from the semi-submersible OCEAN VALIANT operating in 1,425 m of water in Green
Canyon Block 726 ruptured on October 21, 2007. The rupture occurred approximately 18m
above the seafloor, and released 1,929 bbl of cuttings-laden mud, of which some 55% was
SBM.
The report included preliminary modeling, using the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) Mud
Model, performed to anticipate the deposition of the SBM to optimize the sampling pattern. The
OOC Mud Model projected some 95% of the discharged mud would be deposited within 110m
of the source, with a maximum SBM thickness of 1.7 m.
The report also provided modeling performed for the Mississippi Canyon Block 777 spill, which
occurred on November 5, 2006 in 1,738 m of water. Approximately 369 bbl of an IO SBM was
discharged about 15m above the seafloor, resulting from an emergency riser disconnect from
the drillship Discoverer Enterprise. The OOC Mud Model was used to predict the deposition
pattern. For slower settling mud components, the maximum mud thickness predicted by the
model was 6.3 cm and the area of predicted exposure to SBF concentrations of 1,000 ppm or
more was 0.6 km2. For faster settling mud components, the maximum predicted mud thickness
was 10.8 cm and an exposed area was 0.24 km2. For both classes the maximum predicted SBF
concentration in the top 2 cm of benthic sediments was 395,000 ppm (i.e., undiluted SBM).
For technical reasons, sediment sampling and analysis to allow a comparison of field results to
model results did not occur.
Pivel et al. (2009) modeled SBM-cuttings deposition impacts at an exploratory well that
discharged about 1000 bbl of SBM and cuttings to the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil located in
902 m of water. The OOC Mud Model was used to assist in developing the sampling design and
results were used to validate the model. The model predictions of deposition thickness and
areal extent of deposition were comparable to field data. However, the locational accuracy of
the deposition pattern was less accurate, as demonstrated by the area where physical/chemical
and meiofaunal impacts were observed. This latter feature of the model was considered highly
sensitive to many factors, e.g., current, speed and direction, discharge rate, etc., for which input
data cannot be accurately anticipated.
3.3.2 Degradation of SBF
A study sponsored by US DOI/MMS examined the factors involved in the degradation of SBMs
and developed a conceptual and computational model for degradation in situ (Roberts and
Nguyen 2006).This study addressed the degradation of SBF in deep water Gulf of Mexico
3-14
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
sediments by examining the degradation of representative SBF components (ethyl oleate and
tetradecene) by marine sediment microbes under deep-water microcosm conditions as well as
the effect of SBF on the microbial ecology of deep-water sediments.
Analyses of the microbial ecology of the sediment were not as useful as had been hoped due to
interference of natural sediment components with the methods used for analyses. The results
did show instances with an increased number of sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) in sediments
exposed to SBF (as compared with sediments not exposed to SBF) or incubated in the
presence of SBF surrogates.
The study demonstrated the Closed Bottle Test for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) could
be adapted to reflect deep-sea pressure and demonstrated the degradative potential of cold
tolerant, anaerobic microorganisms from the Gulf of Mexico towards SBF surrogates. Sulfate
was found to be the major electron acceptor, as expected. Anaerobic incubations for
contaminated sediments (i.e., near field sites previously exposed to SBF) resulted in a 1st-order
decay coefficient1 of approximately -0.22/week; from uncontaminated sediment (i.e., far field
sites not previously exposed to SBF), the first-order decay coefficient approximated -0.11/week.
The two-fold larger decay coefficient for contaminated sediments indicated that pre-exposure to
SBF in marine sediments increases the rate of degradation supported by sediment
microecology. A lag time for ethyl oleate removal was predicted to be between 0 and 11 weeks,
generally with contaminated sites showing shorter lag periods (2 to 4 weeks; mean = 2.7 ±
Iweeks) than uncontaminated sediments (2 to 7 weeks mean = 4.2 ± 2 weeks). Degradation of
tetradecene was substantially slower, with an average decay coefficient for the removal of
tetradecene linked to sulfate reduction (-0.05/week) some four-fold lower for tetradecene than
ethyl oleate. Tetradecene degradation also required a much longer lag period (4 to >30 weeks)
than ethyl oleate.
Roberts and Nguyen (2006) theoretically predicted Monod kinetics2 and based development of
an initial model for SBF degradation on this kinetic model. However, microecology and
biodegradation experimental data described above did not support a Monod kinetic model.
Instead, data indicated simple, substrate-dependant 1st-order kinetics. In a growing system, the
rate of degradation would be expected to increase as the microbial population increases in
response to increased substrate, with a commensurately increasing degradation rate.
The observed 1st order substrate degradation rate was interpreted as indicating there was little
net microbial population growth after observable substrate degradation began. A stable
microbial population suggested that growth was substrate-diffusion limited or limited by an
environmental or physiological factor other than substrate. The authors offered two explanations
1 First order kinetics indicate that the growth rate is dependent solely on substrate concentration. The observed
change in substrate concentration overtime is: dC/dt = kC, where "C" is substrate concentration, "t" is time, and "k" is
the first-order decay coefficient (units for k are reciprocal unit time, i.e., per minute, per week, per month). A positive
"k" indicates an increasing concentration; a negative "k" a decreasing concentration. The size of the "k" value
indicates the rate at which the concentration is changing, i.e., for larger "k" values, changes are more rapid.
2 "Monod" kinetics is an often used, empirical model used to describe complex substrate-dependent microbial
growth, identical in form to the theoretically-derived enzyme-substrate model of Michaelis and Menten. The Monod
equation is: u = umax [ S/(Ks +S)], where u = the growth rate, umax is the maximum specific growth rate, S is the
substrate concentration, and Ks is the substrate affinity constant. Monod kinetics are descriptive of the "mixed
kinetics" region of the population growth rate versus substrate curve, bounded at the lower end by first-order growth
kinetics (i.e., growth rate is dependent solely on substrate concentration) and at the upper end by zero-order kinetics
(i.e., growth rate is constant and independent of substrate concentrations). Monod kinetics describe the case where
growth rates vary due to changes in the microbial population mass due to any number of factors, including genetic,
physiological, or environmental, that may become limiting for a microbial population.
3-15
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
for these results. One is that microbial enumeration techniques were inadequate; the second is
that there was no large growth in microorganisms.
3.3.3 Benthic Community Effects
3.3.3.1 Chemical Disturbances
The Continental Shelf Associates (2006) deep water study found drilling fluid tracers (barium
and SBF) were elevated several orders of magnitude in the sediments at near-field (<500 m)
sites, and positively correlated with estimated SBM-cuttings discharge volumes. Areas of SBM-
cuttings deposition were shown to have elevated total organic carbon (TOC) and anoxic
conditions, including low dissolved oxygen, negative Eh, and shallow depth of the oxidized
layer. Cuttings deposition areas also were correlated to discharge volumes and found primarily
within 300 m of the well. Elevated metals in biota were sporadic in terms of both metals
accumulated (except for Ba) and location relative to the well.
The Continental Shelf Associates (2004) shelf and slope study found chemical alterations of
sediments within 100 m of the study site; at six sites the SBM base fluid concentration was
>1,000 mg/kg for Sampling Cruise 1. Only a few mid-field (100 m to 250 m) sediments showed
evidence of such disturbance, and two sites showed little or no evidence of disturbance due to
drilling discharges.
Pozebon et al. (2009) studied sediment chemistry impacts at an exploratory well that was
located in 902 m of water that discharged about 1000 bbl of SBM and cuttings to the Campos
Basin, offshore Brazil. Metal levels, averaged over 48 near-field stations 50 m to 500 m from the
well site (other than Ba) increased modestly (generally less than 2-fold). Cd, Cu, and Cr
increased one month after drilling; Cd levels decreased one year after drilling, and Cu did as
well but not to pre-drilling levels; Cr, and Al increased one year after drilling; Ni and Zn were
decreased one year after drilling. Ba was substantially increased (3-fold) one month after drilling
and 4-fold one year after drilling. Light hydrocarbons (a marker for SBFs) averaged over near-
field stations increased about 5-fold one month and one year after drilling. Total petroleum
hydrocarbons increased modestly (some 2-fold) one month after drilling but were at pre-drilling
levels a year after drilling.
3.3.3.2 Biological Disturbances
The Continental Shelf Associates (2006) deep water study found near-field disturbed benthic
communities (azoic areas, microbial mats, macroinfaunal depopulation, pioneering stage
assemblages, and areas of selective surface-dwelling species loss). Changes in meiofauna
(small organisms) and macroinfauna occurred primarily within 300 m. Patchy changes occurred
in megafauna populations, with some stations showing conditions similar to those at the far-field
sites. Acute toxicity at two sites showed amphipod survival was significantly lower for near-field
sediments than far-field sediments, and was negatively correlated with drilling indicators (Ba,
SBF). Taxonomic analysis of a subset of the macroinfaunal samples showed high abundances
of one or a few deposit-feeding species, including known pollution indicators.
The Continental Shelf Associates (2004) shelf and slope study found toxicological/ecological
alteration of the benthic environment primarily within 100 m of the study site. Changes to
benthic communities were not severe, even at the sites that were the most heavily contaminated
with drill cuttings solids, and were thought to be caused primarily by organic enrichment of
sediments by deposition of biodegradable SBM-cuttings ingredients and to a lesser extent by
direct chemical toxicity of cuttings ingredients.
Santos et al. (2009) studied macrobenthic community impacts at an exploratory well located in
902 m of water that discharged about 1,000 bbl of SBM and cuttings to the Campos Basin,
3-16
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
offshore Brazil. Measureable macrobenthic community impacts were noted that were related to
SBM discharges, but were limited to within 500 m of the well site (the maximum distance of
near-field stations). Changes were poorly related to chemical parameters, which was taken to
imply indirect effects (e.g., physical, organic enrichment, oxygen depletion) were large causative
factors. One year after drilling, recolonization, with probable recovery, was noted over most of
the 48 near-field stations; at 3 stations the community was still undergoing recovery.
Netto et al. (2009) studied meiofaunal community impacts at this same well in the Campos
Basin offshore Brazil. One month after drilling, significant decreases in the meiofauna density
and number of taxa, as well as nematode density and richness were observed. Relative
abundances of non-selective deposit-feeding nematodes, particularly the genus Sabatieria,
increased significantly. Univariate and multivariate analyses indicate that the impacts on
meiofauna were not restricted to a potential area of impact predicted by a model of cuttings
dispersal; meiofauna changes just after the drilling agreed with the model in showing northward
dispersal but over a larger area. The meiofauna, however, showed a weak correlation with the
analyzed chemical parameters, such as hydrocarbon and metal concentrations. The results
suggest that the effects of SBM drill cutting discharge on the meiofauna were probably related
to physical changes in the substrate.
3.3.3.3 Recovery from Benthic Disturbances
The Continental Shelf Associates (2006) deep water study found observations at study sites
and adjacent lease blocks indicated geophysically detectable mud/cuttings deposits may persist
for 5 years or more; anchor scars may persist for 14 years or more. No chemical or biological
sampling occurred in adjacent blocks, thus whether the mapped mud/cuttings from older wells
are associated with persistent elevations in barium, anoxic conditions, or altered benthic
communities was not known.
The Continental Shelf Associates (2004) shelf and slope study found the degree of physical,
chemical, and biological/ecological alteration seen in near-field and mid-field sediments
decreased during the year between sampling cruises. This decrease appears to be modest. Of
eleven measures of physical and chemical benthic impact for near-field stations at six sites, 23
of the 66 measurements (35%) showed no change or a change away from their far-field
(reference) values; 16 of the 66 measurements (24%) showed a small change towards their far-
field values; and 27 of 66 measurements (41%) showed a large change toward their far-field
values. Decreases appeared to be modest at mid-field stations as well. Of the eleven measures
at mid-field stations, 32 of the 66 measurements (48%) showed no change or a change from
their far-field (reference) values; 17 of the 66 measurements (26%) showed a small change
towards their far-field values; and 17 of 66 measurements (26%) showed a large change toward
their far-field values.
There was less evidence of physical/chemical recovery in the year between cruises in mid-field
than in near-field sediments, which was mainly attributed to the magnitude of disturbance in
most mid-field zones being less than in near-field zones, rendering changes more difficult to
detect. Reductions of drill cuttings solids in sediments and improvement in oxygen status of
sediments was found to be slightly greater over time at continental shelf sites than continental
slope sites, indicating that ecological recovery of deepwater sediments may be slower than that
for shallow-water sediments.
Santos et al. (2009), at a study site located in 902 m water depth offshore Brazil, reports that
one year after drilling they observed recolonization, with probable recovery, over most of the 48
near-field stations; at 3 stations the community was still undergoing recovery. Netto et al. (2009)
studied meiofaunal community impacts at this same well in the Campos Basin offshore Brazil.
3-17
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
Twelve months after drilling, most of the values of the meiofauna descriptors had returned to pre
impact period values. Nonetheless, the multivariate structure of meiofauna community was still
significantly different, and the number of meiofauna taxa, densities of copepods, and epigrowth-
feeder nematodes increased significantly.
3.4 MARINE WATER QUALITY
3.4.1 Introduction
The physical oceanographic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico influence the environmental
impacts of materials discharged into waters of the Gulf. These physical conditions include:
currents, temperature, mixing, meteorological and climatic conditions, and internal waves. The
currents within the Gulf influence the area of impact from discharged materials. There are many
environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. However, nearly all
consequences on marine water quality discussed in the FEIS for the 1998 general permit and
the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit remain unchanged. These consequences will not be
reevaluated in this EA.
The exceptions are for SBM discharges, for which further data have become available and were
reviewed and evaluated, and wastes from maintenance operations (a waste stream previously
not authorized). A number of studies have been released since the 2004 Final SEIS concerning
the impacts of SBM discharges. These studies have primarily focused on benthic impacts of
SBMs. However, the results of these studies continue to support the conclusion that these
materials have very low solubility and form aggregates with drilling mud solids that quickly sink
through the water column to the sediment compartment. The reduced adverse water quality
impact from SBM compared to WBM are expected to continue from these discharges both on a
short-term and long-term, cumulative basis.
3.4.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Marine Water Quality
EPA assessed both surface and pore water (interstitial water located between sediment
particles) quality impacts from the discharge of SBM and SBM-cuttings in the Environmental
Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic-Based Drilling
Fluids and other Non-Aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category (USEPA 2000a). In the Environmental Assessment for this rule, EPA modeled the
incremental water column and pore water concentrations and compared them to recommended
Federal water quality criteria/toxicity values for marine acute, marine chronic, and human health
protection for those pollutants for which EPA has numeric criteria. In addition, the additives used
for SBM are essentially the same as the additives used for WBM. SBM drilling formulations are
essentially WBMs dispersed or emulsified in a synthetic organic carrier. Similar solids are used
in these formulations; however, some of the inert solids as weighting agents and viscosifiers
used in these are treated with amines and other organic additives to make them more
oleophillic.
In addition to the universal constituents found in all drilling fluids, non-water based fluids also
contain emulsifiers. Some drilling fluid chemicals are chemically inert (e.g., barite, clay, etc.) and
will become part of the sediment and disperse along the bottom. Others strongly react with the
environment (i.e., caustic materials such as caustic soda, caustic potash, acids, etc) and
produce reaction products (sodium chloride, potassium chloride), some of which are natural
constituents of seawater. Most organic materials (e.g., lignite, lignosulfonate, polymers, etc) will
eventually be degraded in the environment by bacterial action. The bioaccumulation potential of
additives used in WBM has been well-studied and bioaccumulation does not tend to be a
problem with the additives since most are inorganic in nature. Additives that are organic in
nature are expected to degrade.
3-18
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
While discharge of SBM adhering to cuttings would be allowed under EPA Region 4's new
general NPDES permit, discharges of SBM not associated with drill cuttings would be
prohibited. This limitation substantially reduces adverse water quality impacts from SBM.
The results of EPA's water quality analyses for the Gulf of Mexico showed that there were no
exceedances of Federal water quality criteria in either the current technology (10.2% retention)
or the two discharge option (4.03% and 3.82% retention) scenarios evaluated (USEPA 2000a).
3.4.3 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Marine Water
Quality
Other discharges from oil and gas extraction activities include produced water and
miscellaneous discharges, such as: desalination unit fluids; blowout preventer fluid;
uncontaminated ballast; bilge water; mud, cuttings and cement at the seafloor; uncontaminated
seawater; boiler blowdown; source water and sand; uncontaminated freshwater; excess cement
slurry and cement equipment washdown; diatomaceous earth filter media; subsea wellhead
preservation fluids; subsea production control fluids; umbilical steel tube storage fluid; leak
tracer fluid; riser tensioner fluid; well test fluids; and bulk transfer operations waste water.
Produced water is the largest waste stream generated in oil and gas production. Produced
water can impact water quality by adding hydrocarbons, trace metals, and biochemical oxygen
demand to the environment. Produced water discharge requirements, including discharge
configuration to achieve adequate mixing, a passing toxicity test result, and daily and monthly oil
and grease limits, control the characteristics of the produced water discharges that contribute to
water quality concerns. There are no new data that invalidate the Region's existing evaluation of
the potential impacts or mitigative measures for produced water.
Produced sand has a significant potential for adverse water quality impacts. However, the
proposed general permit continues the prohibition of discharge of produce sand, eliminating any
adverse consequence form this waste stream, which is not discussed further in this EA.
Discharges from other sources are small in quantities and/or infrequent. Contaminants of
concern in these discharges include residual highly concentrated brine from desalination unit
discharge; oil (vegetable or mineral) or antifreeze (glycol) from blowout preventer fluids; solids
from boiler blowdown, formation, source water; and oil and grease from ballast water and bilge
water. Such discharges are rapidly diluted and dispersed. Due to the small quantities of
authorized miscellaneous discharges, their infrequent release, and the essentially unchanged
assessment of potential impacts on water quality, Region 4 continues to conclude water quality
impacts of miscellaneous discharges are minimal and localized near the discharge site.
3.4.4 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Marine Water Quality
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment and to human health.
Wastes from such operations include fine particulates of sand and fine paint chips that would
enter the water column as highly dispersed airborne deposition. While these particulates are a
potential source of concern, EPA believes the possibility of any material adverse impacts on
marine water quality is very low due to: the particulate nature of these wastes, the small
quantities of such materials, the large airborne dispersion of these materials prior to their
entering marine waters over an equally large surface deposition area, the water depths of the
area of coverage for the proposed general permit, and the low frequency of these operations.
3-19
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to the marine
environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term, cumulative impacts from these
wastes.
3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts and Summary of Impacts on Marine Water Quality
The existing Region 4 NPDES general permit prohibits discharges of SBM but allows the
regulated discharge of SBM-cuttings. The proposed permit maintains the same provisions that
are currently in place. (See Table 4-1 for a summary of specific permit limitations and the
consequences they mitigate.) SBM and SBM-cuttings have been shown to disperse little when
discharged, and to exhibit low aquatic toxicity compared to OBM and WBM discharges.
Consequently, impacts from SBM-related discharges are expected to be minimal. The impacts
to marine water quality from the use of SBM are anticipated to be less than those resulting from
OBM- or WBM-based drilling systems.
Produced water and miscellaneous discharges limitations in the existing general permit
conditions are also continued in the proposed general permit. (See Table 4-1 for a summary of
permit limitations on specific waste streams and the consequences these permit limitations
mitigate.) No information has been identified on these discharges that would compel any
change in the Region's previous assessments concerning the nature and extent of potential
adverse impacts or the efficacy of general permit requirements to mitigate any such impacts.
EPA has assessed the potential impacts of the additional waste stream added under the
proposed general permit, wastes from maintenance operations, and believes the requirements
of the permit are adequate to prevent adverse water quality impacts from this discharge.
This section discusses impacts relating to ODCE Factors 4 and 10. The potential effects due to
organic pollutants in drilling fluids have been reduced with the prohibition of the use of OEMs,
diesel and mineral oil, and SBM other than that which adheres to cuttings. Heavy metals that
exist in drilling fluids have been reduced in concentration by requiring the use of clean barite,
measured by the concentration of cadmium and mercury. The oil content and toxicity of
produced water is limited by the permit.
Cumulative impacts on the water quality of the marine environment result from the addition of
discharges from exploratory and production activities to a relatively pristine environment. The
incremental contribution of the proposed action to the cumulative impacts to marine water
quality is expected to be negligible based on the small number of wells expected to be
developed over the term of this general permit (MMS 2007a).
3.5 SEDIMENT QUALITY
3.5.1 Introduction
Mineral sediments in the Gulf of Mexico are primarily terrestrial in origin. Sediment composition
in the Gulf of Mexico ranges from soft, unconsolidated sediments along the edge of the
continental shelf, to coarse sand material in the Florida Straits. The deposition of suspended
sediment is controlled by the near-bottom currents. In the shallower and more energetic waters,
the bottom currents and periodic storms keep the fine clay and silt material suspended. This
material is transported to regions of slower currents and deposited onto the bottom of deeper
areas of the Gulf.
Bottom current velocity generally decreases with increasing water depth. The availability of
biodegradable organic matter in deep water sediments will largely control benthic
biogeochemistry and community structure. The geochemical makeup of deep water sediments
is highly dependent upon sediment deposition rates and the rate at which organic matter is
3-20
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
metabolized. Mineral sediment accumulation rate controls the speed with which surficial
material is buried and increasingly insulated from the sediment-water interface and its overlying
oxygenated waters. Aerobic biodegradation proceeds more rapidly than anaerobic
biodegradation. The degree to which organic matter is aerobically decomposed, at or very near
the sediment-water interface, depends on mineral sediment accumulation rate.
If accumulation rates are low, little organic matter is buried, more is aerobically decomposed,
and sediments may only reach hypoxic conditions. At higher accumulation rates, aerobic
processes will deplete available oxygen and anoxic conditions can occur. The general trend in
deep water areas is for slower accumulation rates, and thus are less reducing with increasing
water depth. As a result, surficial organic matter is decomposed at a higher rate in deep water
sediments (Rowe et al. 2001). More detailed information regarding transport of contaminants in
sediments, the movement of contaminated sediments and sediment quality assessment was
presented in the FEIS for the 1998 general permit.
There are many environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. However,
nearly all consequences on marine sediment quality discussed in the FEIS for the 1998 general
permit and the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit remain unchanged. These consequences
will not be reevaluated in this EA. The exceptions are for SBM discharges, for which further data
have become available and were reviewed and evaluated, and wastes from maintenance
operations (a waste stream previously not authorized). A number of studies have been released
since the 2004 Final SEIS concerning the benthic impacts of SBM discharges. These reports
are discussed below. These studies continue to support the conclusion that SBM-cuttings
rapidly descend through the water column and have a relatively limited areal dispersion, even in
deep water locations. The reduced adverse sediment quality impacts from SBM compared to
WBM are expected to continue from these discharges on both a short-term and a long-term,
cumulative basis. Fewer adverse impacts to sediment quality from SBM-cuttings discharges are
expected than from WBM.
Sediment quality impacts from produced water, deck drainage discharges, well treatment,
completion and workover fluids discharges, domestic and sanitary waste discharges, and
miscellaneous discharges are very unlikely to cause impacts to the benthic environment unless
these are shunted to within 20 m or less of the seafloor. Sediment impacts from these factors
are believed to be unlikely or minimal and are not addressed in this EA.
Produced sand has a significant potential for adverse impacts on benthic environments.
However, the proposed general permit continues the prohibition of discharge on produce sand,
eliminating any adverse consequence from this waste stream. This waste stream is not
discussed further in this EA.
3.5.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Sediment Quality
The bulk discharge of SBM as free product is prohibited under both the existing EPA Region 4
NPDES general permit and the proposed NPDES general permit. Both existing and proposed
general permits, however, allow the regulated discharge of SBM that adheres to cuttings (SBM-
cuttings) after being processed through the cuttings treatment system, the purpose of which is
to remove as much of the adhering SBM as is technologically feasible under BAT effluent
guidelines for return to the drilling mud system. Neff et al. (2000) discussed the fate and effects
of SBM discharges. SBM-cuttings do not disperse in the water column as much as WBM or
WBM-cuttings, and therefore, are not expected to adversely affect water quality. Unlike OBM,
SBM do not contain aromatic compounds and are not as toxic. The primary sediment quality
effect of SBM is the addition of organic matter to the sediment which can result in localized
anoxia while the SBF degrade. Different formulations of SBM, using different SBF, demonstrate
3-21
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
base fluids that degrade at different rates, thus affecting their impact. It is assumed that
discharged SBM associated with cuttings should degrade within 2-3 years after discharge (Neff
et al. 2000).
WBM have routinely been tested using an aqueous phase test to measure toxicity of the
suspended particulate phase (SPP). However, data on interlaboratory variability of SPP toxicity
tests of SBMs indicate that the SPP toxicity results can be highly variable (USEPA 2000a). This
variability likely results from the very low aqueous solubility of SBM and SBM-cuttings, which do
not disperse in water as do WBM or WBM that adhere to discharged cuttings. SBM and SBM-
cuttings tend to clump and sink rapidly to the bottom, producing a wide range of resulting SPP
test media whose physico-chemical variability is reflected in variable toxicity results. As a result,
most toxicity research on SBM-cuttings is focused on determining sediment toxicity as opposed
to the aqueous phase. SBF have been found to have low sediment toxicity.
A study of eight shelf (37 m to 119 m depth) and slope (338 m to 556 m depth) sites in the Gulf
of Mexico, at which from one to four wells were drilled (Continental Shelf Associates 2004)
examined sediment toxicity using sediments collected near discharge points. Most of the
sediment samples within 250 m of the discharge locations had amphipod survival exceeding
75% and were considered nontoxic. At sites where multiple samples had amphipod survival
rates less than 50%, sediment toxicity and SBF concentrations were correlated. Toxicological or
ecological alteration of the benthic environment occurred primarily within 100 m of the study
site. Changes to benthic communities were not severe, even at the sites that were the most
heavily contaminated with drill cuttings solids, and were thought to be caused primarily by
organic enrichment of sediments by deposition of biodegradable SBM-cuttings ingredients and
to a lesser extent by direct chemical toxicity of cuttings ingredients.
Continental Shelf Associates (2004) also examined field impacts and found little difference in
the deposition pattern of cuttings among shelf and slope sites. Drill cuttings accumulations were
found at all near-field (<100 m) stations and some mid-field (100 m to 250 m) stations. The
distribution of cuttings solids in sediments was extremely patchy, but tended to decrease
sharply with distance from the discharge sites. Also, chemical alterations were noted within 100
m of the study site; at six sites SBF concentration was >1,000 mg/kg for Sampling Cruise 1.
Only a few mid-field (100 m to 250 m) sediments showed evidence of such disturbance, and two
sites showed little or no evidence of disturbance due to drilling discharges.
Although the full areal extent and depth of these sediments are not known, the potential impacts
are expected to be localized and short term (MMS 2007a). Compared to OEMs, SBMs are
generally less toxic than mineral oil muds and much less toxic than diesel oil muds
MMS recently completed a field study of four drilling sites located on the slope in water depths
of 1,033 m to 1,125 m (CSA 2006). Sediment barium concentrations were typically enriched by
greater than 10-fold at near-field versus far-field samples as a result of drilling. Concentrations
of other metals—Hg, Zn, As, and Pb—were elevated in 6% -15% of near-field samples relative
to far-field samples. An increase in sediment SBM due to the discharge of SBM-wetted cuttings
was noted, although discharges had ceased 5 months to 2 years prior to sample collection.
Elevated TOC and anoxic conditions corresponded with the presence of SBF. Concentrations of
TOC were typically about one-third greater in near-field sediments relative to far-field sediments.
Sediment profile photography showed microbial mats at more near-field sites corresponding to
organic enrichment from drilling discharges. Scientific studies involving bioaccumulation
potential of SBFs are few. However, data presented in USEPA (2000a) suggest that SBF do not
pose a serious bioaccumulation risk.
3-22
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
A study of four deep-water (1,033 m to 1,125 m depth range) drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico,
at which from one to seven wells were drilled (Continental Shelf Associates 2006), found drilling
fluid tracers (barium and SBF) were elevated several orders of magnitude at near-field (<500 m)
sites, and positively correlated with estimated SBM-cuttings discharge volumes. Areas of SBM-
cuttings deposition were associated with elevated TOC and anoxic conditions, including low
dissolved oxygen, negative Eh (sediment oxidation-reduction potential, Eh, is a measure of the
oxygenation of sediment pore water), and shallow depth of the oxidized layer, and were
correlated to discharge volumes and found primarily within 300 m of the well. Elevated metals in
biota were sporadic in terms of both metals accumulated (except for Ba) and location relative to
the well.
Pozebon et al. (2009) studied chemistry sediment impacts at an exploratory well located in 902
m of water that discharged about 1000 bbl of SBM and cuttings to the Campos Basin, offshore
Brazil. Metal levels, averaged over 48 near-field stations 50 m to 500 m from the well site (other
than Ba) were modest (generally less than 2-fold). Cd, Cu, and Cr increased one month after
drilling; Cd levels decreased one year after drilling, and Cu did as well but not to pre-drilling
levels; Cr, and Al increased one year after drilling; Ni and Zn were decreased one year after
drilling. Ba was substantially increased (3-fold) one month after drilling and 4-fold one year after
drilling. Light hydrocarbons (a marker for synthetic base fluids) averaged over near-field stations
increased about 5-fold one month and one year after drilling. Total petroleum hydrocarbons
increased modestly (some 2-fold) one month after drilling but were at pre-drilling levels a year
after drilling.
Biological effects associated with deposition of WBM related drilling fluid solids have routinely
been detected at distances of several hundred meters. Less routinely, effects have been
observed at greater distances (1 km to 2 km) (USEPA 1993c). Because SBMs do not disperse
in water like WBM, but rather sink to the bottom with little dispersion, effects at these greater
distances are unlikely. However, for sediment-dwelling organisms living in close association to
the discharge sites, adverse community effects including changes in species richness (number
of species), and diversity are possible. Biological impacts from SBM-cuttings discharges may
range from 50 m to 500 m shortly after discharges cease, to as much as 200 m a year later.
There are few data for the region from 500 m to 1,000 m, but the rapid decrease in observed
benthic alterations suggests impacts are fairly localized. In comparison, WBM biological impacts
have been found up to 2,000 m. Concentrations of Ba in the fine particulate fraction sediment
from WBM discharges have been found elevated some two-fold above background 35 km from
the point of discharge in an energetic current regime of the North Atlantic (USEPA 2000a).
3.5.3 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Sediment
Quality
Other discharges from oil and gas extraction activities include produced water and
miscellaneous discharges. Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of
produced water discharges from platforms on the surrounding water column, sediments, and
biota (e.g., Rabalais et al. 1991; Kennicutt 1995; CSA 1997b). The GOOMEX study (Kennicutt
1995) examined the effects of discharges at three natural gas platforms. Localized hypoxia was
observed during the summer months and was attributed to stratification of the water column and
increased organic material near the platform. The distribution of contaminants was patchy and
there were several variables that could contribute to the observations, specifically sand from
cuttings, hydrocarbons, and trace metals in the porewater (MMS 2007a). Discharges from
miscellaneous discharges are small in quantities and/or infrequent. Contaminants of concern in
these discharges include residual high concentration brine from desalination unit discharge; oil
3-23
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
(vegetable or mineral) or antifreeze (glycol) from blowout preventer fluids; solids from boiler
blowdown, source water; and oil and grease from ballast water and bilge water.
Due to the general permit limitations in place covering produced water and sand and
miscellaneous discharges, the generally small quantities and infrequent releases of these
discharges, and their dispersion and dilution in the water column, impacts on sediment quality of
receiving waters are expected to be minimal.
3.5.4 Effects of Wastes from Maintenance Operations on Sediment Quality
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health.
Wastes from such operations would include fine particulates of sand and fine paint chips that
would enter the water column as highly dispersed airborne deposition. While these particulates
are a potential source of concern, EPA believes the possibility of any material adverse impacts
on sediment quality is very low due to: the particulate nature of these wastes, the small
quantities of such materials, the large airborne dispersion of these materials prior to their
entering marine waters over an equally large surface deposition area, the water depths of the
area of coverage for the proposed general permit, and the low frequency of these operations.
EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to the marine
environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term, cumulative impacts from these
wastes.
3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts and Summary of Effects on Sediment Quality
The existing Region 4 NPDES general permit prohibits discharges of SBM but allows the
regulated discharge of SBM-cuttings. The proposed permit maintains the same provisions that
are currently in place. (See Table 4-1 for a summary of permit limitations on specific waste
streams and the consequences these permit limitations mitigate.) The primary sediment quality
effects of SBM and SBM-cuttings are smothering, sediment texture alterations, and
hypoxia/anoxia. SBM rapidly sink through the water column, resulting in relatively localized
effects.
Because of the localized effects on sediments in the vicinity of SBM-cuttings discharges, little
cumulative degradation of overall Gulf sediment quality is expected to result from these
discharges. However, the data on recovery is somewhat limited in scope and duration,
especially for development scenarios, where only a few sites have been examined. In large part
the absence of longer-term studies is a result of the relatively recent development of these
products. While EPA is sufficiently confident that these discharges pose little long-term
cumulative risk, further data is desirable.
Impacts on sediment quality in the receiving waters of produced water and miscellaneous
discharges are expected to be minimal. (See Table 4-1 for a summary of specific permit
limitations and the consequences they mitigate.) Long-term, cumulative impacts on sediment
quality from these discharges are expected to be minimal due to the limitations imposed by the
proposed general permit, the nature and constituents of these discharges, their volumes and
frequencies, and their dispersion and dilution in the water column.
This section discusses impacts relating to ODCE Factor 3, 4, and 5. The composition and
vulnerability of benthic communities, the importance of receiving water to surrounding
3-24
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
communities, and the existence of special aquatic sites are discussed above. Sediment toxicity
limits on SBF and limits on SBF levels in SBM-cuttings greatly mitigate potential sediment
quality impacts. By continuing to authorize SBM-cuttings discharges, EPA is avoiding a large
loading of sediment from bulkWBM discharges, protecting local benthic communities.
The discharge prohibition on produced sand eliminates potential adverse impacts from this
discharge. Produced water and miscellaneous discharges have little if any possible adverse
impacts unless these discharges were shunted near the seafloor; permit limits on these
discharges would mitigate impacts in even these cases. EPA believes that the proposed permit
will ensure that adverse impacts on species migrating to coastal or inland waters for spawning
or juvenile breeding also will be protected.
In addition, free oil, toxicity, oil content, oil and grease levels, solids, priority pollutants, and
chlorine concentrations are monitored in selected waste streams in order to ensure adequate
water and sediment quality. The potential effects due to organic pollutants in drilling fluids have
been minimized with the prohibition of the discharge of OEMs and bulk SBMs. Heavy metals
that exist in drilling fluids have been reduced in concentration by requiring the use of clean
barite measured by the concentration of cadmium and mercury.
The information base is sufficient to conclude there are no reasons to modify current NPDES
permit conditions. The adverse impacts of these discharges, based on current information,
appear to be reasonable in comparison to the impacts of currently available operational
alternatives. Continued monitoring of the impacts of these discharges, however, appears
warranted, in part, because of the limited time over which studies have had the opportunity to
document the environmental impacts and benefits of synthetic-based fluid technology.
3.6 LIVE BOTTOMS (EXCLUDING SEAGRASSES)
3.6.1 Introduction
Live- bottom areas are defined by MMS in Notice to Lessees (NTL) No. 99-G16, as seagrass
communities; those areas (Pinnacle Trend) that contain biological assemblages consisting of
sessile invertebrates living upon and attached to naturally occurring hard or rocky formations
with rough, broken, or smooth topography; and areas where the lithotope favors the
accumulation of turtles, fishes, or other fauna. These assemblages consists of such sessile
invertebrates as sea fans, sea whips, hydroids, anemones, ascidians, sponges, bryozoans,
seagrasses, or corals living upon and attached to naturally occurring hard or rocky formations
with fishes and other fauna. Live bottom types include pinnacle-trend, depressions, ridges,
low-relief topographic features, offshore seagrasses, and coral reef communities, all of which
are important sensitive habitats. MMS includes a Live-Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation to
ensure that impacts from nearby oil and gas activities on these live-bottom areas are mitigated
to the greatest extent possible.
Offshore seagrasses are extremely rare in the leased areas of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and
will therefore not be examined in this EA. In the EPA Region 4 jurisdictional area, live bottom
communities are scattered at the outer edge of the Mississippi/Alabama shelf and across the
Florida shelf (EPA 1998b). Along the length of the west Florida shelf between Key West and
Pensacola, Florida, MMS estimated that 38% of the seafloor consists of hard-bottom/reef
habitat (MMS 2003). Additional information regarding live bottom environments in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico is presented in the FEIS for the 1998 general permit.
There are many environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. Nearly all
consequences on live bottom environments discussed in the FEIS for the 1998 general permit
and the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit remain unchanged. These consequences will
3-25
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
not be reevaluated in this EA. The exceptions are for SBM discharges, for which further data
have become available and were reviewed and evaluated, and wastes from maintenance
operations (a waste stream previously not authorized). However, reduced negative impacts from
SBM systems are anticipated from drilling muds/fluids and cuttings discharges, including
cumulative impacts, when compared to discharges from OEM or WBM drilling systems. These
environmental consequences are discussed in the following sections.
3.6.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Live Bottoms
The proposed general permit will prohibit the discharge of bulk SBM and regulate the discharge
SBM-cuttings, which maintains the same provisions that are currently in place. SBM has a lower
toxicity to marine organisms than WBM or OBM. SBM-cuttings discharges should have only
minor toxic effect on live bottom communities. SBM also greatly reduces the amount of
sediment associated with bulk WBM discharges, which can adversely affect live bottom
communities.
Most impacts of drilling muds and cuttings discharges would be avoided due to (1) the required
avoidance of live bottom areas; (2) the requirement for live bottom surveys; and (3) NPDES
permit restrictions that apply to operations near live bottom areas. SBMs do not readily disperse
in water like WBMs, but rather sink to the bottom with little dispersion, resulting in only localized
effects. Live Bottom Stipulations, imposed as part of a lease agreement or NPDES permit, help
to avoid placing oil and gas facilities on topographic features and other live bottom areas and
therefore, would minimize discharge impacts on these areas. The discharge of SBM-cuttings will
remain localized to the immediate vicinity of the platform. Therefore, few impacts to live bottoms
from SBM and SBM-cuttings discharges are anticipated.
3.6.3 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Live Bottom
Communities
Other discharges from oil and gas extraction activities include produced water and
miscellaneous discharges. The discharge prohibition on produced sand eliminates potential
adverse impacts from this discharge. Produced water and miscellaneous discharges have little,
if any, foreseeable adverse impacts.
In addition, small quantities and infrequent releases of allowable miscellaneous discharges
typically result in minimal impacts confined to an area near the discharge site. Because of
avoidance of live bottoms, miscellaneous discharges will remain localized to the immediate
vicinity of the platform. Therefore, few or no impacts to live bottoms from miscellaneous
discharges are anticipated.
3.6.4 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Live Bottom Communities
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health.
Wastes from such operations would include fine particulates of sand and fine paint chips that
would enter the water column as highly dispersed airborne deposition. While these particulates
are a potential source of concern, EPA believes the possibility of any material adverse impacts
on live bottom communities is very low due to: the particulate nature of these wastes, the small
quantities of such materials, the large airborne dispersion of these materials prior to their
entering marine waters over an equally large surface deposition area, the water depths of the
3-26
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
area of coverage for the proposed general permit, and the low frequency of these operations.
EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to the marine
environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term, cumulative impacts from these
wastes.
3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts and Summary of Effects on Live Bottom Communities
The cumulative impacts on live bottom communities that were discussed in the Final EIS for the
1998 general permit remain unchanged. The proposed general permit maintains the same
provisions that are currently in place. (See Table 4-1 for a summary of permit limitations on
specific waste streams and the consequences these permit limitations mitigate.) The proposed
permit is anticipated to reduce impacts from drilling muds/fluids and cuttings discharges through
the continued authorization to discharge SBM-cuttings. Produced water, wastes from
maintenance operations, and miscellaneous discharges are expected to have only minimal
potential for adverse impacts due to the localized nature of these discharges. Produced sand
impacts are eliminated through a zero discharge requirement in the proposed permit. With
additional MMS lease stipulations and permit site survey requirements, measures are in place to
avoid or minimize any live bottom impacts from oil and gas operational discharges.
This section discusses impacts relating to ODCE Factors 3, 4 and 5. The composition and
vulnerability of live bottom communities, the importance of receiving water to live bottom
biological communities and the existence of special aquatic sites are discussed above. The
receiving water is considered when determining the discharge rate restrictions. The dispersion
modeling considered concentrations of pollutants that may have impacts on aquatic life and the
toxicity limitations on drilling fluids ensure that effluent toxicity is below levels that could have
impacts on local biological communities. By protecting local biological communities, EPA
believes that adverse impacts on species migrating to coastal or inland waters for spawning or
breeding also will be protected. Protecting local biological communities also will provide
protection for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), as designated in accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act.
In addition, free oil, toxicity, oil content, oil and grease levels, solids, and chlorine concentrations
are monitored in selected waste streams in order to ensure adequate water quality. The
potential effects due to organic pollutants in drilling fluids have been eliminated with the
prohibition of the use of oil-based muds and diesel oil and the bulk discharge of SBM. The
heavy metals that exist in drilling fluids have been reduced in concentration by requiring the use
of clean barite measured by the concentration of cadmium and mercury.
3.7 DEEP WATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
3.7.1 Introduction
Due to the water depth, remoteness, and difficulty in sampling these regions, the continental
slope and deep sea areas of the Gulf of Mexico have not been as well studied as the continental
shelf. The majority of deep water benthic life can be found in chemosynthetic communities that
consist of recently discovered organisms. These communities apparently are most abundant
typically in waters deeper than 400 m, which are found in the southwestern portion of the
affected environment. In the absence of light, they derive their energy from chemosynthetic
processes rather than the photosynthetic processes found in shallow water.
The majority of known Gulf of Mexico chemosynthetic community sites are located in the
Central and Western Planning Areas while very few have been discovered in the northern and
eastern Gulf. However, such communities could be located throughout the continental slope of
the northern Gulf of Mexico. Existing mitigation measures include NTL 2000-G20, which
3-27
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
prohibits drilling muds and cuttings discharges within 457 m of areas that might support
chemosynthetic communities (as indicated by geophysical data). SBM-cuttings do not readily
disperse after discharge with the most significant impacts generally limited to within 200 m to
300 m of discharge. It is, therefore, unlikely that they would affect chemosynthetic communities
located at least 457 m away, and, as such, adverse impacts to chemosynthetic communities
from SBM-cuttings are anticipated to be negligible (MMS 2002a, 2007a).
The primary chemosynthetic organisms are bacteria, both free-living (as "bacterial mats") and
endosymbiotic in the tissues of other organisms. These bacteria are able to use free oxygen to
oxidize simple compounds such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and methane (CH4) (Jannasch
1989). The sulfide-oxidizing forms use energy released by the oxidation process to drive the
cellular machinery of carbon fixation. These bacteria produce carbohydrates, proteins, and other
complex organic compounds starting with the basic building blocks of nutrients and water. Like
photosynthetic plants, chemosynthetic bacteria are thus able to form new organic compounds at
the base of the food chain (McDonald 2002).
In deep water environments below the photic zone (depths of 300 m or more), photosynthesis is
no longer possible and nutrient limits sharply constrain the possibilities for community structure.
Where seepage of hydrocarbons, venting of hydrothermal fluids, or other geological processes
supply abundant reduced compounds, chemosynthesis becomes the dominant component of
the ecosystem (McDonald 2002). In the Gulf of Mexico, these conditions are met where oil and
gas seep naturally into seafloor sediments at depths of approximately 400 m and greater.
Although chemosynthesis remains an exclusively microbial process at the cellular level,
chemosynthetic communities in the deep sea achieve prominence because of the symbiotic
partnership between chemosynthetic bacteria and invertebrate hosts (Fisher 1990).
There are many environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. However,
nearly all consequences on deep water benthic communities discussed in the FEIS for the 1998
general permit and the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit remain unchanged. These
consequences will not be reevaluated in this EA. The exceptions are for SBM discharges, for
which further data have become available and were reviewed and evaluated, and wastes from
maintenance operations (a waste stream previously not authorized). However, fewer negative
impacts are anticipated from SBM-cuttings discharges than would occur from WBM and WBM-
cuttings.
Increased adverse impacts are possible from blowouts and marine riser separation, withdrawal
of hydrocarbons and anchoring and structure placement. However, it is believed that use of
SBM will result in less adverse impacts than would occur from WBM or OBM.
3.7.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Deep Water Benthic
Communities
EPA reviewed and summarized the results of available seabed surveys in their Environmental
Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic-Based Drilling
Fluids and other Non-Aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category (USEPA 2000a). Seabed surveys were conducted at sites where cuttings
contaminated with SBMs had been discharged. The seabed surveys measured either sediment
or biological effects from discharges of either WBM or SBM. The purpose of these studies was
to assess potential drilling fluid effects such as increased metals and/or anoxia.
From the survey information then available, the area of impact resulting from SBM-cuttings
discharges appears to be smaller than that resulting from WBM discharges. Biological impacts
from SBM-cuttings discharges may range from 50 m to 500 m shortly after discharges cease, to
as much as 200 m a year later. There are few data for the region from 500 m to 1,000 m, but the
3-28
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
rapid decrease in observed benthic alterations suggests impacts are fairly localized. In
comparison, WBM biological impacts have been found up to 2,000 m.
A series of studies have become available since the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit.
These studies have examined the documented fate and effects of SBM on benthic communities
near continental slope and shelf well sites. Two issues existed for the 2004 Final SEIS in
assessing potential impacts of drilling in deep water sites. One was the unknown applicability of
continental shelf studies of WBM or SBM to deep-water environments. The second was the far
less extensive data base regarding the fate and effects of SBM. These studies have been
reviewed for this EA.
Discharge Volumes and Potential Impacts
A Continental Shelf Associates deep water study (2006) found impacts from SBM-cuttings were
least severe at a site where the smallest quantities of SBM-cuttings were discharged. Observed
impacts included SBM tracers (Ba and synthetic base fluid) and associated sediment effects
(elevated TOC and anoxic conditions). However, the time elapsed since drilling also was longer
at this site (about 2 years) than at the other three sites studied (5 to 14 months) and could
reflect recovery of this site over time. Thus, the relative contributions from these two factors at
the one site cannot be distinguished. This ambiguity notwithstanding, other indicators at other
sites appear to indicate discharge volume is clearly related to potential impact
A study of eight shelf (37 m - 119 m depth) and slope (338 m - 556 m depth) sites in the Gulf of
Mexico, at which from one to four wells were drilled (Continental Shelf Associates 2004), found
chemical changes seemed to be generally related to discharge volumes. However, alterations
appear to be water depth related for some parameters as well. For two study sites that
discharged comparable volumes of an IO SBM but located in different water depths (1,309 bbl
into 119m versus 1,674 bbl into 556 m), although little difference in TOC values were noted, the
deep-water site showed synthetic fluid and total petroleum hydrocarbon levels that were
generally about one to two orders of magnitude higher than at the shallow water site for near-
and mid-field stations with respect to both mean values and ranges; far-field site values for
these two parameters were comparable at both sites.
Geophysical Disturbances
A Continental Shelf Associates deep water study (2006) found SBM-cuttings and muds were
deposited within a near-field radius of 500 m. Bathymetric, side-scan sonar, and sub-bottom
profile data showed deposition zones ranging from 0.13 km2 to 1.1 km2 in area. Larger zones
were observed at post-development sites; the greatest extent (about 1 km) was noted for a site
at which seven wells were drilled over a period of about 51/4 years. Sediment texture effects
were noted primarily within a 300 m radius of the well. Anchor scars were noted within about 3
km of the well site, ranging in length from <100 m to > 3 km.
A Continental Shelf Associates shelf and slope study (2004) found little difference in the
deposition pattern of cuttings among shelf and slope sites. Drill cuttings accumulations were
found at all near-field (<100 m) stations and some mid-field (100 to 250 m) stations. The
distribution of cuttings solids in sediments was extremely patchy, but tended to decrease
sharply with distance from the discharge sites.
A study of an exploratory well located in 902 m of water offshore Brazil (Correa et al. 2009)
reported temporal changes in sediment texture and sonar profiles of cuttings accumulations.
They reported sand content within 500 m of the well site increased from 5% to 25% before
drilling to 10% to 70% one month after drilling. Sonar patterns showed that cuttings
accumulations were noted one month after SBM discharges but the extent of these
3-29
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
accumulations was reduced 12 months after drilling; these changes were graphically presented
but not otherwise quantified.
Chemical Disturbances
A Continental Shelf Associates deep water study (2006) found drilling fluid tracers (barium and
SBF) were elevated several orders of magnitude at near-field (<500-meter) sites, and positively
correlated with estimated SBM-cuttings discharge volumes. Areas of SBM-cuttings deposition
were associated with elevated TOC and anoxic conditions, including low dissolved oxygen,
negative Eh, and shallow sediment depth of the oxidized layer, and were correlated to discharge
volumes and found primarily within 300 m of the well. Elevated metals in biota were sporadic in
terms of both metals accumulated (except for barium) and location relative to the well.
A Continental Shelf Associates shelf and slope study (2004) found chemical alterations within
100 m of the study site; at six sites SBM base chemical concentration was >1,000 mg/kg for
Sampling Cruise 1. Only a few mid-field (100 m to 250 m) sediments showed evidence of such
disturbance, and two sites showed little or no evidence of disturbance due to drilling discharges.
Pozebon et al. (2009) studied chemistry sediment impacts at an exploratory well located in 902
m of water that discharged about 1000 bbl of SBM and cuttings to the Campos Basin, offshore
Brazil. Metal levels, averaged over 48 near-field stations 50 m to 500 m from the well site (other
than Ba) were modest (generally less than 2-fold). Cd, Cu, and Cr increased one month after
drilling; Cd levels decreased one year after drilling, and Cu did as well but not to pre-drilling
levels; Cr and Al increased one year after drilling; and Ni and Zn were decreased one year after
drilling. Ba was substantially increased (3-fold) one month after drilling and 4-fold one year after
drilling. Light hydrocarbons (a marker for synthetic base fluids) averaged over near-field stations
increased about 5-fold one month and one year after drilling. Total petroleum hydrocarbons
increased modestly (some 2-fold) one month after drilling but were at pre-drilling levels a year
after drilling.
Biological Disturbances
A Continental Shelf Associates deep water study (2006) found near-field disturbed benthic
communities (areas devoid of life, microbial mats, macroinfaunal depopulation, pioneering stage
assemblages, and areas of selective surface-dwelling species loss) and changes in meiofauna
and macroinfauna (primarily within 300 m) and patchy in megafauna populations, with some
stations showing conditions similar to those at the far-field sites. Acute toxicity at two sites
showed amphipod survival was significantly lower for near-field sediments than far-field
sediments, and was negatively correlated with drilling indicators (Ba, SBF). Taxonomic analysis
of a subset of the macroinfaunal samples showed high abundances of one or a few deposit-
feeding species, including known pollution indicators.
A Continental Shelf Associates shelf and slope study (2004) found toxicological/ecological
alteration of the benthic environment primarily within 100 m of the study site. Changes to
benthic communities were not severe, even at the sites that were the most heavily contaminated
with drill cuttings solids, and were thought to be caused primarily by organic enrichment of
sediments by deposition of biodegradable SBM-cuttings ingredients and to a lesser extent by
direct chemical toxicity of cuttings ingredients.
Santos et al. (2009) studied macrobenthic community impacts at an exploratory well located in
902 m of water that discharged about 1000 bbl of SBM and cuttings to the Campos Basin,
offshore Brazil. Measureable macrobenthic community impacts were noted that were related to
SBM discharges, but were limited to within 500 m of the well site (the maximum distance of
near-field stations). Changes were poorly related to chemical parameters, which was taken to
3-30
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
infer indirect effects (e.g., physical, organic enrichment, oxygen depletion) were large causative
factors. One year after drilling, recolonization, with probable recovery, was noted over most of
the 48 near-field stations; at 3 stations the community was still undergoing recovery.
Netto et al. (2009) studies meiofaunal community impacts at this same well in the Campos
Basin offshore Brazil. One month after drilling, significant decreases in the meiofauna density
and number of taxa, as well as nematode density and richness were observed. Relative
abundances of non-selective deposit-feeding nematodes, particularly the genus Sabatieria,
increased significantly. Univariate and multivariate analyses indicate that the impacts on
meiofauna were not restricted to a potential area of impact predicted by a model of cuttings
dispersal; meiofauna changes just after the drilling agreed with the model in showing northward
dispersal but over a larger area. The meiofauna, however, showed a weak correlation with the
analyzed chemical parameters, such as hydrocarbon and metal concentrations. The results
suggest that the effects of SBM drill cutting discharge on the meiofauna were probably related
to physical changes in the substrate.
Recovery from Benthic Disturbances
A Continental Shelf Associates deep water study (2006) found observations at study sites and
adjacent lease blocks indicated geophysically detectable mud/cuttings deposits may persist for
5 years or more; anchor scars may persist for 14 years or more. No chemical or biological
sampling occurred in adjacent blocks, thus whether the mapped mud/cuttings from older wells
are associated with persistent elevations in barium, anoxic conditions, or altered benthic
communities was not known.
A Continental Shelf Associates shelf and slope study (2004) found the degree of physical,
chemical, and biological/ecological alteration seen in near-field and mid-field sediments
decreased in the year between Sampling Cruises. This decrease appears to be modest. Of
eleven measures of physical and chemical benthic impact for near-field stations at six sites, 23
of the 66 measurements (35%) showed no change or a change farther from their far-field
(reference) values; 16 of the 66 measurements (24%) showed a small change towards their far-
field values; and 27 of 66 measurements (41%) showed a large change toward their far-field
values. Decreases also appeared to be modest at mid-field stations. Of the eleven measures at
mid-field stations, 32 of the 66 measurements (48%) showed no change or a change farther
from their far-field (reference) values; 17 of the 66 measurements (26%) showed a small
change towards their far-field values; and 17 of 66 (26%) measurements showed a large
change toward their far-field values.
There was less evidence of physical/chemical recovery in mid-field than in near-field sediments,
which was mainly attributed to the magnitude of disturbance in most mid-field zones being less
than in near-field zones, rendering changes more difficult to detect. Reductions of drill cuttings
solids in sediments and improvement in oxygen status of sediments was found to be slightly
greater over time at continental shelf sites than continental slope sites, indicating that ecological
recovery of deepwater sediments may be slower than that for shallow-water sediments.
Santos et al. (2009) studies macrobenthic community impacts at an exploratory well located in
902 m of water that discharged about 1000 bbl of SBM and cuttings to the Campos Basin,
offshore Brazil. One year after drilling they observed that recolonization, with probable recovery,
was noted over most of the 48 near-field stations; at 3 stations the community was still
undergoing recovery. Netto et al. (2009) studied meiofaunal community impacts at this same
well. One month after drilling, significant decreases in the meiofauna density and number of
taxa, as well as nematode density and richness were observed. Relative abundances of non-
selective deposit-feeding nematodes increased significantly. Univariate and multivariate
3-31
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
analyses indicated impacts on meiofauna were not restricted to a potential area of impact
predicted by modeling of cuttings deposition; meiofauna changes just after the drilling agreed
with the model in showing northward dispersal but over a larger area. Meiofauna showed a
weak correlation with the analyzed chemical parameters, such as hydrocarbon and metal
concentrations. The results suggested to the authors that the effects of SBM drill cutting
discharge on the meiofauna were probably related to physical changes in the substrate.
A study sponsored by US DOI/MMS examined the factors involved in the degradation of
synthetic-based muds and developed a conceptual and computational model for degradation in
situ (Roberts and Nguyen 2006).This study addressed the degradation of the SBF component of
drilling muds in deep-water Gulf of Mexico sediments by examining the degradation of
representative SBFs by marine sediment microbes under deep-water microcosm conditions and
examined the effect of SBF on the microbial ecology of deep-water sediments.
The study showed the Closed Bottle Test for BOD could be adapted to reflect deep-sea
pressure and demonstrated the degradative potential of cold tolerant, anaerobic
microorganisms from the Gulf of Mexico towards SBF surrogates. Sulfate was found to be the
major electron acceptor, as expected. A contaminated site (i.e., previously exposed to SBF)
produced a 1st-order decay coefficient twice as large as that from an uncontaminated site (i.e.,
not previously exposed to SBF). Also, the lag time at the contaminated site was shorter than
observed at the uncontaminated site. These results indicate that the prior exposure to SBF
altered the benthic microbial community and resulted in an increased ability to degrade SBF
surrogate compounds.
Analyses of the microbial ecology of the sediment were not as useful as had been hoped due to
interference of natural sediment components with the methods used for analyses. The results
did show instances with an increased numbers of sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) in sediments
exposed to SBF (as compared with sediments not exposed to SBF) or incubated in the
presence of SBF surrogates.
Modeling
CSA International, Inc. (2008) submitted a report to US DOI/MMS detailing a field sampling
effort of a spill of SBM in the Central Gulf of Mexico, conducted in June, 2008. A lower marine
riser from the semi-submersible OCEAN VALIANT, operating in 1425 m of water in Green
Canyon Block 726, ruptured on October 21, 2007. The rupture occurred approximately 18m
(-60 feet) above the seafloor, and released 1929 bbl of cuttings-laden mud, of which some 55%
was SBM.
The report included preliminary modeling, using the OOC Mud Model, performed to anticipate
the deposition of the SBM to optimize the sampling pattern. The OOC Mud Model projected the
deposition pattern would result in some 95% of the discharged mud would deposit within 110m
of the source. The maximum SBM thickness was 1.7 m.
The report also provided modeling performed for the Mississippi Canyon Block 777 spill, which
occurred on November 5, 2006 in 1,738 m of water. Approximately 369 bbl of an IO SBM was
discharged about 15m above the seafloor and resulted from an emergency riser disconnect
from the drillship Discoverer Enterprise. The OOC Mud Model was used to predict the
deposition pattern. For slower settling mud components, the maximum predicted mud thickness
was 6.3 cm and the area of predicted exposed to SBF concentrations of 1,000 ppm or more was
0.6 km2. For faster settling mud components, the maximum predicted mud thickness was 10.8
cm and an exposed area was 0.24 km2. For both classes the maximum predicted SBF
concentration in the top 2 cm of benthic sediments was 395,000 ppm (i.e., undiluted SBM).
3-32
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
For technical reasons, sediment sampling and analysis to compare field results to model results
did not occur.
A study sponsored by MMS (Roberts and Nguyen 2006) examined the factors involved in the
degradation of synthetic-based muds and developed a conceptual and computational model for
degradation in deep-water environments to assess how fast deep-water sediments would
recover under realistic conditions. The equations used in an initial model were based on Monod
kinetics. However, microecology and biodegradation experimental data developed in this study
did not support this kinetic model. The expected changes in numbers of microorganisms if true
growth were occurring were not observed. The observed 1st order substrate degradation rate
indicated little net population growth after observable substrate degradation began, which
suggested microbial growth was substrate-diffusion limited or limited by an environmental or
physiological factor other than substrate. The explanation the authors offered was that either
microbial enumeration techniques were inadequate or there was, in fact no large growth in
degradative microorganism populations.
Pivel et al. (2009) modeled SBM-cuttings deposition impacts at an exploratory well located in
902 m of water that discharged about 1000 bbl of SBM and cuttings to the Campos Basin,
offshore Brazil using the OOC Mud Model to assist in developing the sampling design and
validate the model. The model was very useful in the design of the sampling station locations.
The model predictions of deposition thickness and areal extent of deposition were comparable
to field data. However, the locational accuracy of the deposition pattern was less accurate, as
demonstrated by the area where physical/chemical and meiofauanal impacts were observed.
This latter feature of the model was considered highly sensitive to many factors, e.g., current,
speed and direction, discharge rate, etc., for which input data cannot be accurately anticipated.
3.7.3 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Deep Water
Benthic Communities
Other discharges from oil and gas extraction activities include produced water and
miscellaneous discharges. These discharges are typically low in volume and have been shown
to have minor to negligible impacts to benthic communities on the OCS (MMS 2002a). Because
these other discharges would have more water for dispersion in deeper areas, their impact on
deep water benthic communities is considered to be negligible.
3.7.4 Effects of Blowouts and Drilling Tube Separation on Deep Water Benthic
Communities
A blowout at the seafloor could resuspend large quantities of bottom sediments and even create
a large crater, destroying any organisms in the area. Although the majority of deep water areas
of the Gulf of Mexico have not yet been explored or mapped, the majority of deep water,
benthic, chemosynthetic communities is thought to be of low density. These are widespread
throughout the deep water areas of the Gulf. Consequently, disturbance or destruction of a
small area would not result in a major impact to chemosynthetic communities as an ecosystem
assuming that the appropriate distance from chemosynthetic communities are maintained as
described in existing mitigation measure NTL 2000-G20. Areas so affected could be re-
populated from nearby undisturbed areas.
In addition, it is suspected that the proximity of communities along the northern continental
slope and circulation characteristics of the slope suggest that the gene pool of chemosynthetic
seeps should be well-mixed (McDonald 2002). Genetically mixed populations are more stable
than genetically isolated communities, and therefore, have a higher capacity to reestablish
themselves after a catastrophic event such as a blowout. The impacts from the dispersion of oil
and the physical disruption of the area would outweigh any impacts from the dispersion of SBM.
3-33
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
As a result, impacts from SBM released as a result of a blowout is considered to be negligible.
In addition, under the practices proscribed in NIL 2000-G20, it is believed that all
chemosynthetic communities will be avoided and, thus, would not be subject to impacts from
blowouts.
In the event of a riser disconnect, any residual SBM, which would mostly be associated with the
drill cuttings in the riser, would be expected to have about the same environmental impact as
those that are discharged during drilling. The aqueous toxicity, i.e., LC50 values, would be
expected to be in the range of 300,000 to 1,000,000 ppm. SBM are far less toxic than OBM
containing diesel oil, which is prohibited from operational discharge but not use. Even though
the percentage of retention on cuttings for the SBM-cuttings would be higher than those
discharged (since the cuttings would have not gone though any treatment prior to discharge),
the relative volume of cuttings released during a riser disconnect would be much less than the
volume discharged due to drilling operations. As related by MMS, in each of three riser
disconnects, approximately 600 to 800 bbl of cuttings with SBM were discharged to the seafloor
(MMS 2003). In contrast, the average volume of cuttings generated in drilling a deep
development well is approximately 1,500 bbl (MMS 2003). As such environmental impacts from
riser disconnects are expected to have similar environmental impacts to those from discharges
during drilling.
3.7.5 Effects of the Withdrawal of Hydrocarbons on Deep Water Benthic
Communities
An issue about which little is known is the potential impact on chemosynthetic organisms by the
withdrawal of hydrocarbons. The concern is when all of the recoverable hydrocarbons from
source reservoirs were withdrawn by production operations, oil and gas venting or seepage
would also decrease or stop. Although little information is available in the literature regarding
chemosynthetic seeps, the level of development in deep water areas, especially in the deep
water area covered by this proposed NPDES general permit, is likely to be too low to cause
significant impacts from the depletion of the hydrocarbon energy source. The belief of several
experts contacted by MMS (Personal communications from Dr. Mary Boatman, MMS,
December 8, 2009) about this issue is a consensus that the probability of adverse impacts is
very low. They offer several reasons. The hydrocarbon reserves in the Gulf of Mexico are very
deep, therefore the transit times from reserves to surface seeps are very long (on the order of a
million years). Also, depletion of commercially recoverable oil for most reserves still leaves a
large majority of total reserve hydrocarbons in the formation. MMS is not conducting any
ongoing studies but continues to have internal discussions about this issue. Last, the movement
of hydrocarbons through geologic formations is a highly complex process and its study would
require very long-term, very expensive research.
3.7.6 Effects of Anchoring and Structure Placement on Deep Water Benthic
Communities
As previously discussed, SBM technology allows for drilling in deep water environments. The
increased use of SBM technology may translate into more anchoring and structure placements
potentially affecting deep water benthic communities. However, SBM are also better for
deviated and extended reach drilling, which may decrease the number of structures that would
be required compared to WBM. The Continental Shelf Associates deep water study (2006)
noted anchor scars within about 3 km of the well site, ranging in length from <100 m to > 3 km.
However, due to existing mitigation measures, structures will be placed in locations that should
have little effect on the sparse benthic communities present in the deep water areas of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico.
3-34
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
3.7.7 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Deep Water Benthic
Communities
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health.
Wastes from such operations would include fine particulates of sand and fine paint chips that
would enter the water column as highly dispersed airborne deposition. While these particulates
are potentially a source of concern, EPA believes the possibility of any material adverse impacts
on live bottom communities is very low due to: the particulate nature of these wastes, the small
quantities of such materials, the large airborne dispersion of these materials prior to their
entering marine waters over an equally large surface deposition area, the water depths of the
deep water area of coverage for the proposed general permit, and the low frequency of these
operations. EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to
the marine environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term, cumulative impacts
from these wastes.
3.7.8 Cumulative Impacts to Deep Water Benthic Communities
As noted above deep water communities appear to be widespread throughout the deep water
areas of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Disturbance to a small area is not anticipated to result in a
major impact to the ecosystem. On a cumulative basis, it does not appear that negative impacts
to deep water benthic communities would occur from blowouts and drilling tube separation or
from the withdrawal of hydrocarbons, although actual impacts from the withdrawal of
hydrocarbons are still unknown. Negative impacts from smothering and anoxia could negatively
impact chemosynthetic seep areas if drilling muds/fluids are discharged near these
communities.
However, with respect to drilling muds discharges, impacts to deep water communities from the
use of SBM are expected to be less than those from WBM or OEM and of a limited spatial
scale. Impacts from produced water and sand and other miscellaneous discharges are expected
to have a negligible impact on deep water communities. (See Table 4-1 for a summary of permit
limitations on specific waste streams and the consequences these permit limitations mitigate.) In
addition to the protective provisions of the NPDES general permit, other mitigative measures
(e.g., NTL 2000-G20) are in place to minimize adverse impacts to deep water communities.
This section discusses impacts relating to ODCE Factors 3, 4 and 5.The composition and
vulnerability of deep water communities, the importance of receiving water to deep water
biological communities and the existence of special aquatic sites are discussed above. In the
development of the final effluent limitation guidelines and standards for SBM, the receiving
water is considered when determining the discharge rate restrictions (USEPA 2000b). The
dispersion modeling considered concentrations of pollutants that may have impacts on aquatic
life and the toxicity limitations on both drilling fluids ensure that levels of the effluent is below
levels that could have impacts on local biological communities (USEPA 2000b). By protecting
local biological communities, EPA believes that adverse impacts on species migrating to coastal
or inland waters for spawning or juvenile rearing will also be protected. Also, the deep water
chemosynthetic communities have little inter-relationship with marine communities of the upper
coastal shelf.
3-35
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
As a collective base of information on the potential impacts of SBM, the reviewed studies
suggest that the adverse effects of these discharges appear to be relatively localized and
reversible. The areal extent of impacts noted for physical, chemical, and biological measures
are all relatively consistent, with more significant impacts within about 300 m of the well site and
observed impacts extending at least to 500 m. (Note: although the trend for chemical and
biological impacts shows a fairly steep decline with distance from the well site, sampling data
from stations from 500 m to 1,000 m from well sites is very limited.) Biological impacts appear
more strongly related to physical (smothering, textural changes) and chemical changes from
increased biological oxygen demand and resulting depletion than to toxic effects (although
toxicity to amphipods has been noted).
Impacts appear to be related to both the amount of material discharged and to the energetics of
the benthic environment, i.e., deep water sites demonstrating larger and more persistent
changes. Recovery appears to be largely dependent on anaerobic, microbial decomposition of
SBM base fluids. Recovery of mid-field stations and some near-field stations has been observed
a year after drilling. However, there are conflicting reports about the relative rate at which near-
field versus mid-field stations recover.
The data are substantial, if not completely conclusive, that the spatial extent of SBM discharges
is localized. The impacts of exploratory and small development operations appear to be spatially
limited. However, the impacts of these operations appear to have some persistence. Thus, there
is some remaining uncertainty regarding recovery of affected benthic communities. The major
factor in this regard is the limited length of time over which the impacts of these discharges have
occurred and, therefore, have been available for study. Because there is only a marginally
sufficient basis for projecting long-term impacts from SBM discharges, a long-term impact
assessment is not very reliable at present. Likewise, because of the persistence of impacts that
have been noted up to a year after drilling operations, projecting cumulative impacts is currently
possible but not entirely reliable.
The information base is sufficient to conclude there are no reasons to modify current NPDES
permit limits and conditions. The adverse impacts of these discharges, based on current
information, appear to be reasonable in comparison to the impacts of currently available
operational alternatives. Continued monitoring of the impacts of these discharges, however,
appears warranted, in part, because of the limited time over which studies have had the
opportunity to document the environmental impacts and benefits of SBM technology. Sediment
toxicity limits on SBF and limits on SBF levels in SBM-cuttings greatly mitigate potential
sediment quality impacts. By continuing to authorize SBM-cuttings discharges, EPA is avoiding
a large loading of sediment from bulkWBM discharges, protecting local benthic communities.
Information on the impacts of produced water and miscellaneous discharges is sufficient to
reliably conclude the foreseeable impacts of these discharges should be negligible. The nature,
frequency, discharge volumes, depth of the water column, and the proposed general permit's
limitations support the conclusion that potential deep water impacts from these waste streams
are vanishingly small.
3.8 FISHERIES
3.8.1 Fish Resources
The Gulf of Mexico supports a great diversity of fish resources, the distribution of which is
related to variable ecological factors such as salinity, primary productivity, and bottom type.
These factors differ widely across the Gulf of Mexico and between the inshore and offshore
waters. Various types of fish are often associated with specific environments and are not
randomly distributed.
3-36
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
There are many environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. However,
nearly all consequences on fish resources discussed in the FEIS for the 1998 general permit
and the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit remain unchanged. These consequences will
not be reevaluated in this EA. The exceptions are for SBM discharges, for which further data
have become available and were reviewed and evaluated, and wastes from maintenance
operations (a waste stream previously not authorized). However, continuing reduced impacts
from authorizing cuttings from SBM systems is anticipated for drilling muds and cuttings
discharges. Increased adverse impacts caused by SBM may occur from possible drilling tube
separation. Reduced cumulative, negative impacts from SBM-cuttings discharges are expected.
These environmental consequences are discussed in the following sections.
The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Program in the Gulf of Mexico
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) for 1976, as
amended through 1998, places new requirements on any Federal agency actions in the marine
environment. Federal agencies must describe how actions under their jurisdiction may affect
EFH and are encouraged to include EFH information and assessments with NEPA documents
such as this EA. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. Due to the wide variation of habitat requirements for
all life history stages, EFH for the Gulf of Mexico includes all estuarine and marine waters and
substrates from the shoreline to the seaward limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The requirements for an EFH assessment are as follows:
(1) A description of a proposed action
(2) A description of the action agency's approach to protection of EFH and proposed
mitigation, if applicable
(3) A description of EFH and managed and associated species in the vicinity of a proposed
action
(4) An analysis of the effects of a proposed action and cumulative actions on EFH, the
managed species and associated species.
This document is an EA, so a number of components of the EFH assessment are referenced to
other documents. The action proposed in this EA is permitting operational surface water
discharges to the OCS area under EPA Region 4's jurisdiction. This activity is a subset of the
effects discussed in MMS NEPA documents. NEPA documents prepared by MMS for Gulf of
Mexico lease sales provide the following information:
(1) The description of offshore areas that are considered EFH including live-bottom
formations followed by a description of their biotic assemblages
(2) MMS's approach to the preservation of EFH and specific mitigation measures
(3) The discussion of EFH managed species and additional mitigation
(4) The impact analyses of the proposed action on EFH from routine operations, accidental
spills and cumulative actions.
EPA anticipates the consultation for this project will have a response from consulting agencies
similar to that provided to MMS.
The Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils including the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). The Act requires that a fishery management plan be
prepared for each commercial species (or related group of species) that is in need of
conservation and management within each respective region. From 1976 to 1992 fisheries
management plans have been implemented for: shrimp, stone crab, spiny lobster, coastal
migratory pelagic fish, coral and coral reefs, reef fishes, billfish, red drum, and highly migratory
3-37
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
species. Under recent congressional reauthorization of the Act, Atlantic tuna, swordfish, sharks,
and Atlantic billfish are now included for protection.
The GMFMC Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements (Gulf
Marine Fishery Management Commission 1988) lists a number of measures that may be
recommended in association with exploration and the production activities located close to hard
banks and banks containing reef-building coral on the continental shelf. Recommendations
relevant to the proposed general permit include:
• Drill cuttings should be shunted through a conduit and discharged near the seafloor, or
transported ashore, or to less sensitive, NOAA Fisheries-approved offshore locations
• Drilling and production structures, including pipelines, generally should not be located
within 1 mi of the base of a live reef
• All natural reefs and banks, as well as artificial reef areas, should be avoided.
The Generic Amendment makes an additional specific recommendation regarding OCS oil and
gas activities under the review and permit authorities of MMS and EPA. Specifically, for the
conservation of EFH, activities should be conducted so that petroleum-based substances such
as drilling mud, oil residues, produced waters, or other toxic substances are not released into
the water or onto the seafloor. MMS lease sale stipulations and regulations have already
incorporated many of the suggested EFH conservation recommendations. The permit limitations
developed in this proposed action also support EFH conservation recommendations.
When the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 reauthorized the FCMA, Congress required NMFS
to designate and conserve essential fish habitat (EFH) for species managed under an existing
fisheries management plan. Essential fish habitat includes waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth. In March 2000, the MMS's Gulf of Mexico
Region consulted NMFS's Southeast Regional Office to prepare a NMFS regional finding for the
Gulf of Mexico Region that allows MMS to incorporate EFH assessments into NEPA
documents. The MMS consulted on a programmatic level, by letters of July 1999 and August
1999, to address EFH issues for certain OCS oil and gas activities (plans of exploration and
production, pipeline rights-of-way, and platform removals). For OCS activities in the Western
and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas, MMS consults with NMFS at the multi-sale stage.
This programmatic consultation covers OCS activities, including: lease sales, exploration,
development, production, and decommissioning. For other OCS areas, MMS consults with
NMFS at each OCS project stage individually (MMS 2002a).
An EFH consultation for the Western and Central Planning Area lease sales included in the
2002-2007 OCS Leasing Program, using the Draft Multi-Sale EIS as the NEPA document, was
initiated in March 2002 by MMS with NMFS's Southeast Regional Office. To minimize and avoid
EFH impacts related to exploration and development activities in the Western and Central
Planning Areas, NMFS endorsed the implementation of resource protection measures
previously developed cooperatively by MMS and NMFS in 1999 April 2002, with additional
conservation recommendations. In May 2002, MMS responded to NMFS and agreed to follow
the additional conservation recommendations. A full assessment of EFH for the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico was prepared for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 189 and 197 EIS
(MMS 2003).
The EFH conservation measures recommended by NMFS serve the purpose of protecting EFH.
Continuing agreements, including avoidance distances from topographic feature's No Activity
Zones and live bottom pinnacle features, and circumstances that require project specific
consultation, appear in NTL 2004-G05. Effective January 23, 2006, NMFS approved a revision
3-38
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
to the EFH rules acknowledging amendments made by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council that included the identification of habitat areas of particular concern. One of the most
important changes noted in the amendment is the elimination of the EFH description and
identification from waters between 100 fathoms and the seaward limit of the EEZ.
Further programmatic consultation was initiated and completed for the 2007-2012 lease sales
addressed in the Multi-Sale EIS, which did not include the 181 South Area. The NMFS
concurred by letter dated December 12, 2006, that the information presented in the Draft Multi-
Sale EIS satisfies the EFH consultation procedures outlined in 50 CFR 600.920 and as
specified in an MMS finding of March 17, 2000. Provided MMS proposed mitigations, previous
MMS EFH conservation recommendations, and the standard lease stipulations and regulations
are followed as proposed, NMFS agrees that impacts to EFH and associated fishery resources
resulting from activities conducted under the 2007-2012 lease sales would be minimal.
Due to the addition of the 181 South Area a new request for EFH consultation and a revision of
the Programmatic Consultation was initiated with the completion of the Draft SEIS and a letter
dated April 21, 2008. A response from NMFS was received on April 28, 2008, concurring that
impacts to EFH and associated fishery resources resulting from activities in the 181 South Area
should be minimal. The NMFS also agreed that the programmatic consultation agreement would
incorporate activities within the 181 South Area and that MMS agrees to apply all previously
accepted EFH consultation recommendations and all standard lease stipulations and
regulations to the new 181 South Area.
The action proposed in this EA for the new NPDES general permit authorizes operational
surface water discharges to the OCS area under EPA Region 4's jurisdiction. As a continuation
of activities covered under the 2004 Final SEIS and in the absence of any material adverse
information, the activities considered in this EA represents a subset of the effects discussed in
MMS (2003) and MMS (2008).
3.8.1.1 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Fish Resources
There are many environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. However,
nearly all consequences on recreational marine fishing that were discussed in the FEIS for the
1998 general permit and the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit remain unchanged. These
consequences will not be reevaluated in this EA. The exceptions are for SBM discharges, for
which further data have become available and were reviewed and evaluated, and wastes from
maintenance operations (a waste stream previously not authorized).
Decreased impacts to fish resources are anticipated from authorizing the continued use and
discharge of SBM-cuttings, as compared to WBM. Previous studies have shown that allowable
concentrations of SBF within discharged muds and cuttings will produce lower toxicity to marine
organisms than associated WBM or OBM discharges (USEPA 2000a) and no information has
been identified in the development of this EA that would alter that conclusion.
The SBFs in SBM and derived cuttings are highly insoluble and do not disperse within the water
column like WBM muds and cuttings. SBM-cuttings have been shown to sink rapidly and
accumulate on the seafloor relatively close to the discharge point. While this will most likely
result in a negative effect to bottom dwelling fish species, the rapid settling of this material will
result in a spatially limited area of benthic impact. Also, adverse impacts to demersal species
should be transient and temporary (MMS, 2002a) due to high fish mobility.
Bioaccumulation of potentially toxic chemicals can be a concern for fish resources. The data
presented in USEPA (2000a) suggest that SBF do not have a high potential to bioaccumulate.
There are, however, a wide variety of chemical additives included in different formulations of
3-39
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
SBM systems. These other components of drilling muds also have a bioaccumulative potential.
For example, sediment levels of trace metals, including mercury, have been enriched as a
consequence of barite discharges. However, in an extensive survey by NOAA Fisheries
Service, seven species of reef fish were obtained at locations with extensive oil and gas drilling
activity and were compared to reef fish obtained at locations with no drilling activity. No
differences in mercury levels between the two groups were noted (Lowery and Garrett 2005).
Furthermore, discharges of barite from SBM systems are substantially less than for WBM
because bulk discharges of SBM are prohibited. Thus, SBMs will result in an overall decrease in
the bioaccumulative potential of drilling operations.
The discharge of WBM, OBM, SBM, and several mud components is extensively regulated
under the current EPA Region 4 NPDES general permit. The proposed general permit contains
the same provisions as the existing general permit. As a result, EPA believes drilling muds and
cuttings discharges that are authorized under the proposed general permit will result in
negligible impacts on marine fisheries.
3.8.1.2 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Fish
Resources
Other discharges from oil and gas extraction activities include produced water and
miscellaneous discharges. These discharges are, generally, small in quantity and/or infrequent
releases. These discharges are all regulated under the proposed general permit, including both
chemical and toxicity
The presence of structures would serve as a Fish Attracting Device (FAD) for pelagic (e.g., king
mackerel, tuna, cobia) and reef-associated species (e.g., red snapper, gray triggerfish,
amberjack) and would, therefore, attract recreational anglers (MMS 2002a). Bioaccumulation of
potentially toxic chemicals can be a concern for fish resources. There are a wide variety of
chemical additives used in these other waste streams. These components have a
bioaccumulative potential. However, the toxic and bioaccumulative potential of these discharges
is expected to be minimal because these discharges are expected to rapidly disperse in the
receiving water. In addition, most fish have a relatively large range and are quite mobile. There
should be minimal impacts to recreational marine fishing within a very limited distance of the
discharge point from miscellaneous discharges.
3.8.1.3 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Fish Resources
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health.
Wastes from such operations would include fine particulates of sand and fine paint chips that
would enter the water column as highly dispersed airborne deposition. While these particulates
are potentially a source of concern, EPA believes the possibility of any material adverse impacts
on recreational marine fishing is very low due to: the particulate nature of these wastes, the
small quantities of such materials, the large airborne dispersion of these materials prior to their
entering marine waters over an equally large surface deposition area, the water depths of the
area of coverage for the proposed general permit, and the low frequency of these operations.
EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to the marine
environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term, cumulative impacts from these
wastes.
3-40
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
3.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts and Summary of Effects on Fish Resources
Many of the cumulative impacts to fish resources discussed in the Final EIS remain unchanged
when considering SBM compared to WBM. A reduction in overall negative impacts from drilling
muds/fluids and cuttings discharges and miscellaneous discharges is anticipated from the use
of SBM. (See Table 4-1 for a summary of permit limitations on specific waste streams and the
consequences these permit limitations mitigate.)
This section discusses impacts relating to ODCE Factors 3, 4 and 7. The composition and
vulnerability of fish resources, the importance of receiving water to fish resources are discussed
above. The receiving water is considered when determining the discharge rate restrictions. The
dispersion modeling considered concentrations of pollutants that may have impacts on aquatic
life and the toxicity limitations on drilling fluids ensure that the toxicity of the effluent is below
levels that could have impacts on local biological communities. In addition, conditions and
limitations in the permit were determined to protect water quality and preserve the health of
fisheries. By protecting local biological communities, EPA believes that adverse impacts on
species migrating to coastal or inland waters for spawning or juvenile rearing will also be
protected.
In addition, free oil, toxicity, oil content, oil and grease levels, solids, and chlorine concentrations
are monitored in selected waste streams in order to ensure adequate water quality. The
potential effects due to organic pollutants in drilling fluids have been eliminated with the
prohibition of the use of OBM and diesel oil and the bulk discharge of SBM. The heavy metals
that exist in drilling fluids have been reduced in concentration by requiring the use of clean
barite measured by the concentration of cadmium and mercury.
3.8.2 Recreational Marine Fishing
There are many environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. However,
nearly all consequences on recreational marine fishing that were discussed in the FEIS for the
1998 general permit and the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit remain unchanged. These
consequences will not be reevaluated in this EA. The exceptions are for SBM discharges, for
which further data have become available and were reviewed and evaluated, and wastes from
maintenance operations (a waste stream previously not authorized).
The major recreational activity occurring on the Gulf is offshore marine recreational fishing and
diving. These activities commonly take place in nearshore and coastal environments rather than
in offshore or deep water environments. However, studies, reports, and conference proceedings
published by MMS and others have documented a substantial recreational fishery, including
scuba diving, directly associated with oil and gas production platforms (Witzig 1986, Ditton and
Auyong 1984, Roberts and Thompson 1983, Ditton and Graefe 1978, Dugas et al. 1979, Reggio
1989). Additional general information regarding recreational marine fishing and diving has been
presented in the FEIS for the 1998 general permit.
3.8.2.1 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Recreational Marine
Fishing
Decreased impacts to recreational marine fishing from the discharge of SBM and SBM-cuttings,
as compared to WBM or SBM, were thought likely to occur (USEPA 2004). Previous studies
have shown that allowable concentrations of SBF within discharged muds and cuttings will
produce lower toxicity to marine organisms than associated WBM or OBM discharges (USEPA
2000a) and no information has been identified in the development of this EA that would alter
that conclusion.
3-41
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
In addition, the SBFs in SBM and SBM-cuttings are highly soluble and do not disperse within
the water column like WBM muds and cuttings. SBM-cuttings have been shown to sink rapidly
and accumulate on the seafloor relatively close to the discharge point. While this will most likely
result in a negative effect to bottom dwelling fish species, the rapid settling of this material will
result in a spatially limited area of benthic impact. Also, adverse impacts to demersal species
should be transient and temporary (MMS 2002a) due to high fish mobility.
Bioaccumulation of potentially toxic chemicals can be a concern for fish resources. The data
presented in USEPA (2000a) suggest that SBF do not have a high potential to bioaccumulate.
There are, however, a wide variety of chemical additives included in different formulations of
SBM systems. These other components of drilling muds also have a bioaccumulative potential.
Discharges from SBM systems, however, are substantially less than for WBM because bulk
discharges of SBM are prohibited. Thus, SBMs will result in an overall decrease in the
bioaccumulative potential of drilling operations.
The discharge of WBM, OBM, SBM, and several mud components is extensively regulated
under the current EPA Region 4 NPDES general permit. The proposed general permit contains
the same provisions as the existing general permit. As a result, EPA believes drilling muds and
cuttings discharges that are authorized under the proposed general permit will result in
negligible impacts on recreational marine fishing.
3.8.2.2 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Recreational
Marine Fishing
Other discharges from oil and gas extraction activities include produced water and
miscellaneous discharges. These discharges are, generally, small in quantity and/or infrequent
releases. These discharges are all regulated under the proposed general permit, including both
chemical and toxicity limitations.
The presence of structures would serve as a FAD for pelagic (e.g., king mackerel, tuna, cobia)
and reef-associated species (e.g., red snapper, gray triggerfish, amberjack) and would,
therefore, attract recreational anglers (MMS 2002a). Bioaccumulation of potentially toxic
chemicals can be a concern for fish resources. There are a wide variety of chemical additives
used in these other waste streams. These components have a bioaccumulative potential.
However, the toxic and bioaccumulative potential of these discharges is expected to be minimal
because these discharges are expected to rapidly disperse in the receiving water. In addition,
most fish have a relatively large range and are quite mobile. There should be minimal impacts to
recreational marine fishing within a very limited distance of the discharge point from
miscellaneous discharges.
3.8.2.3 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Recreational Marine Fishing
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health.
Wastes from such operations would include fine particulates of sand and fine paint chips that
would enter the water column as highly dispersed airborne deposition. While these particulates
are potentially a source of concern, EPA believes the possibility of any material adverse impacts
on recreational marine fishing is very low due to: the particulate nature of these wastes, the
small quantities of such materials, the large airborne dispersion of these materials prior to their
3-42
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
entering marine waters over an equally large surface deposition area, the water depths of the
area of coverage for the proposed general permit, and the low frequency of these operations.
EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to the marine
environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term, cumulative impacts from these
wastes.
3.8.2.4 Cumulative Effects on Recreational Marine Fishing
Many of the cumulative impacts on recreational marine fishing discussed in the Final EIS remain
unchanged when considering SBM compared to WBM. The potential increased use of SBM
technology is expected to reduce negative cumulative impact to recreational marine fishing from
drilling muds/fluids and cuttings discharges and miscellaneous discharges. It is also important to
note that almost all of offshore recreational fishing is currently confined within 100 miles of shore
(MMS 2002a). Because the trend in leasing activity is towards deeper water, any impacts to
recreational marine fishing should commensurately decrease (See Table 4-1 for a summary of
permit limitations on specific waste streams and the consequences these permit limitations
mitigate.)
This section discusses impacts relating to ODCE Factor 7. The composition and vulnerability of
recreational marine fishing to drilling and production discharges are discussed above. The
receiving water is considered when determining the discharge rate restrictions. The dispersion
modeling considered concentrations of pollutants that may have impacts on aquatic life and the
toxicity limitations on both drilling fluids ensure that levels of the effluent is below levels that
could have impacts on local biological communities. In addition, conditions and limitations in the
permit were determined to protect water quality and preserve the health of fisheries. By
protecting local biological communities, EPA believes that adverse impacts on species migrating
to coastal or inland waters for spawning or breeding will also be protected.
In addition, free oil, toxicity, oil content, oil and grease levels, solids, and chlorine concentrations
are monitored in selected waste streams in order to ensure adequate water quality. The
potential effects due to organic pollutants in drilling fluids have been minimized with the
prohibition of the discharge of oil-based muds, diesel oil, and bulk SBMs. The heavy metals that
exist in drilling fluids have been reduced in concentration by requiring the use of clean barite
measured by the concentration of cadmium and mercury.
3.8.3 Commercial Fishing
This section focuses on an analysis of the effects of the OCS oil and gas industry on the
employment and population in the coastal areas of Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. Effects on
public services, infrastructure, and social patterns are also considered. There may also be other
economic impacts, direct and indirect, associated with permit issuance because of its effect on
other industries such as commercial fishing. The direct benefit or loss in these industries is
addressed in the sections of this EA related specifically to those topics. Detailed information
regarding the existing socioeconomic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico region was presented in
the FEIS to the 1998 general permit (USEPA 1998a).
The 2008 SEIS prepared by MMS in September for the Western and Central Planning Areas
(and includes a discussion of the west coast of Florida) presented information on landings and
value of fisheries for the US that was compiled by NMFS for 2006 (USDOC, NMFS 2007a), the
most recent compilation at the time of the SEIS (September 2008).
Mississippi's total commercial landings in 2006 were 221.8 million pounds valued at nearly $22
million. Shrimp was the most important fishery landed, with 8.5 million pounds valued at $11.8
million. In addition, during 2006, the Atlantic menhaden catch was valued at $8.4 million
3-43
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
Alabama's total commercial fishery landings for 2006 were 33.7 million pounds valued at $49
million. Shrimp was the most important fishery, with about 23.9 million pounds landed valued at
about $39.2 million. In addition, during 2006, the following species each accounted for landings
valued at over $500 thousand: blue crab, Eastern oyster, sharks, red snapper, striped mullet,
and Spanish mackerel.
Total commercial landings for the west coast of Florida in 2006 were 69.7 million pounds valued
at$146.8 million. Shrimp was the most important fishery landed, with 17 million pounds valued
at $ 37.4 million. In addition, during 2006, the following species each accounted for landings
valued at over $4 million: stone crab, blue crab, Eastern oyster, red grouper, gag, and
Caribbean spiny lobster.
Effects from the 2005 hurricanes have had substantial impacts on the oyster industry and were
initially believed to result in devastating effects on the health and numbers of offshore fish
stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. However, results of surveys conducted by NOAA indicated that
shrimp and bottom fish catch per unit effort were within the range of past interannual variations
(USDOC, NMFS 2007b).
3.8.3.1 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharges on Commercial Fishing
Reduced adverse impacts to commercial fishing from the discharge of SBM and SBM-cuttings
compared to those of WBM or OEM are likely to occur. The reduction in adverse impacts can be
attributed to the same factors as reduction in adverse impacts to recreational marine fishing
discussed in Section 3.7. Decreased impacts to commercial fishing from the discharge of SBM
and SBM-cuttings, as compared to WBM or SBM, were thought likely to occur (USEPA 2004).
Previous studies have shown that allowable concentrations of SBF within discharged muds and
cuttings will produce lower toxicity to marine organisms than associated WBM or OBM
discharges (USEPA 2000a) and no information has been identified in the development of this
EA that would alter that conclusion.
Also, the SBFs in SBM and SBM-cuttings are highly soluble and do not disperse within the
water column like WBM muds and cuttings. SBM-cuttings have been shown to sink rapidly and
accumulate on the seafloor relatively close to the discharge point. While this will most likely
result in a negative effect to bottom dwelling fish species, the rapid settling of this material will
result in a spatially limited area of benthic impact. Also, adverse impacts to demersal species
should be transient and temporary (MMS 2002a) due to high fish mobility.
Bioaccumulation of potentially toxic chemicals can be a concern for fish resources. The data
presented in USEPA (2000a) suggest that SBF do not have a high potential to bioaccumulate.
There are, however, a wide variety of chemical additives included in different formulations of
SBM systems. These other components of drilling muds also have a bioaccumulative potential.
Discharges from SBM systems, however, are substantially less than for WBM because bulk
discharges of SBM are prohibited. Thus, SBMs will result in an overall decrease in the
bioaccumulative potential of drilling operations.
The discharge of WBM, OBM, SBM, and several mud components is extensively regulated
under the current EPA Region 4 NPDES general permit. The proposed general permit contains
the same provisions as the existing general permit. As a result, EPA believes drilling muds and
cuttings discharges that are authorized under the proposed general permit will result in
negligible impacts on recreational marine fishing.
3-44
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
3.8.3.2 Effects of Produced Water and Miscellaneous Discharges on Commercial
Fishing
Other discharges from oil and gas extraction activities include produced water and
miscellaneous discharges. These discharges are, generally, small in quantity and/or infrequent
releases. These discharges are all regulated under the proposed general permit, including both
chemical and toxicity limitations.
Bioaccumulation of potentially toxic chemicals can be a concern for fish resources. There are a
wide variety of chemical additives used in these other waste streams. These components have
a bioaccumulative potential. However, the toxic and bioaccumulative potential of these
discharges is expected to be minimal because these discharges are expected to rapidly
disperse in the receiving water. In addition, most fish have a relatively large range and are quite
mobile. There should be minimal impacts to commercial fishing, limited to within a very limited
distance of the discharge point from miscellaneous discharges.
3.8.3.3 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Commercial Fishing
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health.
Wastes from such operations would include fine particulates of sand and fine paint chips that
would enter the water column as highly dispersed airborne deposition. While these particulates
are potentially a source of concern, EPA believes the possibility of any material adverse impacts
on commercial fishing is very low due to: the particulate nature of these wastes, the small
quantities of such materials, the large airborne dispersion of these materials prior to their
entering marine waters over an equally large surface deposition area, the water depths of the
area of coverage for the proposed general permit, and the low frequency of these operations.
EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to the marine
environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term, cumulative impacts from these
wastes.
3.8.3.4 Cumulative Effects on Commercial Fishing
Many of the cumulative impacts on recreational marine fishing discussed in the Final EIS remain
unchanged when considering SBM compared to WBM. The potential increased use of SBM
technology is expected to reduce negative cumulative impact to commercial fishing from drilling
muds/fluids and cuttings discharges and miscellaneous discharges. Because the majority of
platforms using SBM technology are projected to be in deep water areas, impacts to
recreational marine fishing is expected to be minimal. (See Table 4-1 for a summary of permit
limitations on specific waste streams and the consequences these permit limitations mitigate.)
This section discusses impacts relating to ODCE Factor 7. The composition and vulnerability of
commercial fishing to drilling and production discharges are discussed above. The receiving
water is considered when determining the discharge rate restrictions. The dispersion modeling
considered concentrations of pollutants that may have impacts on aquatic life and the toxicity
limitations on both drilling fluids ensure that levels of the effluent is below levels that could have
impacts on local biological communities. In addition, conditions and limitations in the permit
were determined to protect water quality and preserve the health of fisheries. By protecting local
3-45
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
biological communities, EPA believes that species migrating to coastal or inland waters for
spawning or breeding also will be protected.
In addition, free oil, toxicity, oil content, oil and grease levels, solids, and chlorine concentrations
are monitored in selected waste streams in order to ensure adequate water quality. The
potential effects due to organic pollutants in drilling fluids have been minimized with the
prohibition of the discharge of oil-based muds, diesel oil, and bulk SBMs. The heavy metals that
exist in drilling fluids have been reduced in concentration by requiring the use of clean barite
measured by the concentration of cadmium and mercury.
3.8.4 Human Health Effects
There are many environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. Human health
effects will primarily result from consumption of fish exposed to pollutants discharged from oil
and gas activities. Nearly all consequences on human health that were discussed in the FEIS
for the 1998 general permit and the Final SEIS for the 2004 general permit remain unchanged.
These consequences will not be reevaluated in this EA. The exceptions are for SBM
discharges, for which further data have become available and were reviewed and evaluated,
and wastes from maintenance operations (a waste stream previously not authorized).
The most recent nationwide EPA evaluation of the environmental impacts from offshore oil and
gas drilling activities was conducted for the Final Effluent Limitations and NSPS (USEPA
2000a). EPA performed a human health risk assessment on the drilling muds and cuttings
waste stream. This analysis presented the human health related risks and risk reductions
(benefits) using current technology and regulatory options. EPA based the health risks and
benefits analysis on human exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic contaminants
through consumption of recreationally caught finfish and commercially caught shrimp.
In this risk assessment, EPA used seafood consumption and lifetime exposure duration
assumptions to estimate risks and benefits under the current SBM treatment technology (10.2%
retention) and discharge options (4.03% and 3.82% retention) scenarios. The analysis was
performed only for those contaminants for which bioconcentration factors, oral reference doses
(RfDs), or oral slope factors for carcinogenic risks had been established. The analysis
considered contaminants associated with barite and with contamination by formation (crude) oil,
but did not consider the synthetic base compounds themselves, as no RfDs or slope factors
have been developed for these materials (USEPA 2000a).
EPA first determined the concentration of contaminants in finfish and shrimp tissues. Finfish
tissue contamination was found to be affected by the level of contamination of the water column,
whereas, shrimp tissue contamination was found to be dependent on the level of contamination
of sediment pore water (USEPA 2000a). Finfish and shrimp risk assessments found the lifetime
risk to be less than one in a million, and EPA has determined these discharges pose an
acceptable risk to human health.
As noted previously, there is little bioaccumulative potential for synthetic base fluids. There are,
however, a wide variety of chemical additives included in different formulations of SBM systems.
These other components of drilling muds also have a bioaccumulative potential. Discharges
from SBM systems, however, are substantially less than for WBM because bulk discharges of
SBM are prohibited. Thus, SBMs will result in an overall decrease in the bioaccumulative
potential of drilling operations.
3.8.4.1 Recreational Finfish Fisheries
Exposure of recreational finfish to drilling fluid contaminants was modeled based on the uptake
of dissolved pollutants found in the water column. The concentration of pollutants in finfish
3-46
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
tissue was used to calculate the risk of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic (arsenic only) risk
from ingestion of recreationally caught fish. This risk assessment found that under both baseline
and discharge option scenarios, the hazard quotients were several orders of magnitude less
than 1, so toxic effects were not predicted to occur. Also, the lifetime excess cancer risks for
baseline and the discharge options were found to be less than 10"6 (less than a one-in-a-million
chance of an increased cancer risk due to exposure from the discharge option concentrations or
the baseline concentration) and were, therefore, considered by EPA to be acceptable (USEPA
2000a).
3.8.4.2 Commercial Shrimp Fisheries
EPA based projected shrimp tissue concentrations of pollutants from SBM discharges on the
uptake of pollutants from sediment pore water. The pore water pollutant concentrations were
based on the assumption of even distribution of the total annual SBM discharge over an area of
impact surrounding the model well. Only shallow water wells were modeled in this assessment
due to the lack of shrimp harvesting occurring in water depths greater than 1,000 ft.
For both current technology and discharge options, the hazard quotients were found to be
several orders of magnitude less than 1, so toxic effects were not predicted to occur under
either scenario. Also, the lifetime excess cancer risks for baseline and the discharge options
were less than 10"6 (less than a one-in-a-million chance of an increased cancer risk due to
exposure from the discharge option concentrations or the baseline concentration) and were,
therefore, considered by EPA to be acceptable (USEPA 2000a).
In conclusion, discharges regulated by this permit do not appear to pose unacceptable risks to
human health under the proposed discharge limitations. No further cumulative effects are
anticipated to human health from the proposed action.
This section discusses impacts relating to ODCE Factor 6, Potential Impacts on Human Health.
The permit prohibits the discharge of free oil, OEM, SBM, and muds with diesel oil added.
These prohibitions are based on the potential effects of the organic pollutants in these
discharges to human and aquatic life. In addition, the limitations that require low levels of
cadmium and mercury in the barite added to drilling fluids also effectively lower the
concentrations of other heavy metals found in barite.
3.8.4.3 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Human Health Effects
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health.
Wastes from such operations would include fine particulates of sand and fine paint chips that
would enter the water column as highly dispersed airborne deposition. While these particulates
are potentially a source of concern, EPA believes the possibility of any material adverse impacts
on human health effects is very low due to: the particulate nature of these wastes, the small
quantities of such materials, the large airborne dispersion of these materials prior to their
entering marine waters over an equally large surface deposition area, the water depths of the
area of coverage for the proposed general permit, and the low frequency of these operations.
EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to the marine
environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term, cumulative impacts from these
wastes.
3-47
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
3.9 AIR QUALITY
3.9.1 Introduction
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive Federal law that regulates air emissions from
stationary and mobile sources within the jurisdictional boundaries of the US. Among other
things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to
protect public health and public welfare. The CAA designates six pollutants as criteria pollutants
for which the NAAQS are promulgated. EPA has promulgated NAAQS for carbon monoxide,
ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter less than ten microns in diameter and
less than 2.5 microns in diameter, and lead to protect human health and human welfare. The
potential impacts on local and regional air quality conditions near a proposed action are
determined by the increases in regulated pollutant emissions relative to existing conditions and
ambient air quality.
On the OCS in the GOM east of 87.5° W longitude, the provisions of the CAA are implemented
through regulations established by the USEPA at 40 CFR Part 55. These regulations require
that sources within 25 miles of a state's seaward boundary comply with the applicable
regulations of the corresponding onshore area, generally a state. Areas beyond 25 miles of the
states seaward boundary are subject to Federal requirements including the requirements for
construction and operating permits and equipment-specific performance standards. Pursuant to
the Federal OCS regulations, OCS facilities go through a case by case review process to
ensure they are in compliance with the CAA and would not cause or contribute to a violation of a
NAAQS. Operations west of 87.5° W longitude fall under MMS jurisdiction for implementation of
the CAA provisions.
3.9.2 Routine Impacts
Most of the general permit coverage area is under the air quality regulation of EPA Region 4.
The emissions from proposed action activities are evaluated by individual project for compliance
with applicable permitting requirements, such as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD). CAA requirements are applicable based upon the amount of project emissions and the
project duration. The MMS area-wide leasing program modeling results show that increases in
onshore annual average concentrations of NOx, SOx, and PM10 are estimated to be less than
the maximum increases allowed in the PSD Class I areas (MMS 2007a). The only change in
Region 4's general permit related to air impacts is the localized fugitive emissions from on-board
maintenance operations.
3.9.3 Impacts from Maintenance Wastes Operations Wastes
Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated under the
new NPDES general permit. These wastes consist of the captured sand and surface coatings
waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health.
The single largest concern for this discharge is silicosis, due to worker exposure to crystalline
silica. Sandblasting continues to be one of the greatest sources of exposure to respirable
crystalline silica. Several organizations and countries have enacted prohibitions: Great Britain,
Germany, Sweden, and Belgium; the US Navy, US Air Force, and US Coast Guard; 23 state
departments of transportation have banned the use of silica in abrasive blasting. NIOSH has
recommended a ban since 1974. The International Safety Equipment Association and the Risk
and Insurance Management Society filed a petition April 28, 2009 asking OSHA to prohibit the
3-48
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
use of silica in abrasive blasting. Information on the operational and safety practices at offshore
structures has not been solicited. Currently, OSHA has indicated proper workplace safety
procedures and equipment are sufficiently protective for exposed workers.
3.10 ONSHORE WASTE MANAGEMENT
3.10.1 Introduction
There are many environmental consequences of offshore oil and gas extraction. However,
nearly all consequences on onshore waste management discussed in the FEIS for the 1998
general permit remain unchanged. These consequences will not be reevaluated in this EA. An
exception for onshore waste management occurs, however, for wastes from maintenance
operations. Wastes from maintenance operations are a new waste stream that will be regulated
under the new NPDES general permit. This waste stream consists of the captured sand and
surface coatings waste from the surface preparation and painting of structures at a drilling or
production facility.
Particles resulting from sandblasting contain contaminants such as copper, lead, and other
heavy metals and silica that may be hazardous to the marine environment as well as to human
health. The BMPs for these wastes, which would include fine particulates of sand and fine paint
chips, require operators to collect spent abrasives routinely and properly store them pending
their shipment for onshore disposal.
3.10.2 Effects of Maintenance Operations Waste on Onshore Waste Management
The single largest concern for wastes from maintenance operations is silicosis from inhalation
exposure to crystalline silica. These particulates are a serious source of potential concern
during their use or exposure to fugitive dust. Properly contained, this waste stream poses little if
any risk to either the environment or human health. EPA believes the possibility of any material
adverse impacts on onshore waste management is negligible. These wastes are generated
intermittently and represent a small fraction of material that must be transferred to or from
offshore structures. They represent a minor factor in terms of transport vessel requirements and
capacity; vessel energy use and air quality impact; and vessel safety. They are also a negligible
demand for onshore disposal capacity and negligible concern over proper disposal site safety.
EPA has proposed BMPs to control and minimize the release of these materials to the marine
environment and does not expect any short-term or long-term impacts from these wastes.
3.10.3 Cumulative Effects on Onshore Waste Management
The pace of oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to remain largely
consistent with past levels. As a result, the nature and extent of impacts to land use and the
existing infrastructure are not expected to change appreciably from past experience. The oil and
gas industry has been an integral part of the Gulf of Mexico economy for decades, and the
continuation of industry activities is not expected to result in any major land use or infrastructure
impacts for the region.
This waste steam is expected to impose a negligible increase in the amount of materials
transferred to shore for disposal. The projected level of drilling and development activity during
the term of this general permit is not expected to produce any capacity or safety issues as a
result of requiring onshore disposal for wastes from maintenance operations.
3-49
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 ERA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative A is EPA's preferred alternative as described in Section 2.1.1. EPA has determined
the selection of this alternative would adequately protect the OCS environment. The proposed
NPDES general permit contains protective effluent limits, terms, and conditions. When an oil
and gas exploration or production project meets the general permit requirements, EPA expects
that the marine waters of the Gulf would be adequately protected while allowing an expedited
permit approval. Projects that do not meet these criteria are automatically subject to an
individual NPDES permit and a more detailed environmental review.
The proposed general permit continues to include a condition that excludes coverage for
facilities proposing to discharge within 1,000 m of EPA-designated Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites. These sites are located near commercial ports and are usually within 10 to 12
miles of the shore. The purpose of this exclusion is to be able to fully consider, by means of
individual permit review, any oil and gas facility that could conflict with disposal operations
associated with channel dredging.
The proposed general permit has new requirements in addition to those in the existing 2004
general permit. Best management practices must be used to minimize the discharges from
maintenance wastes, such as those from sandblasting and/or painting. In addition,
implementing regulations of CWA Section 316(b) covering offshore oil and gas facilities were
promulgated in June 2006. The new general permit incorporates the requirements of these
regulations to minimize impingement and entrainment injury to aquatic organisms from cooling
water intake structures.
EPA considered the Section 403(c) Ocean Discharge Criteria in proposing the NPDES general
permits. For facilities not eligible for general permit coverage, or seeking coverage under an
individual permit, EPA would perform a 403(c) evaluation for each new individual permit;
subsequently, each permit would have specific monitoring conditions. Monitoring requirements
provide for the collection of data that enables future permitting to be adjusted, if necessary, to
prevent impacts to marine resources.
4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES
A number of mitigation measures exist that function to minimize impacts to an array of
resources. Available mitigation measures include EPA general permit limitations, terms, and
conditions; MMS imposed lease stipulations, laws, and operational recommendations; and
guidelines, restrictions on permittees by EPA, and the zero discharge option.
4.2.1 EPA NPDES General Permit Limitations
Provisions incorporated into the NPDES general permits (see Section 2.3) are mitigative
measures for water and sediment quality impacts, live bottoms, deep water benthic
communities, marine mammals and turtles, fish resources (including recreational and
commercial fishing), and human health effects. Permit limitations that minimize the impacts of
effluent discharges include: limiting concentrations of mercury and cadmium in barite, limiting or
prohibiting discharge of oils and greases in various fluids, whole effluent toxicity limits,
prohibition of certain discharges. In addition, the general permits require that a critical dilution of
produced water to limit toxicity be calculated on a case-by-case basis. Table 4-1 presents a
matrix of permit limitations and indicates the applicability to their mitigation of the range of
environmental consequences.
4-1
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 4-1. Matrix of NPDES Permit Limitations and Applicability to the Mitigation of Potential Environmental Consequences
Regulated Discharge
Water-based
drilling muds
(WBMs) and
Associated
Cuttings (no
discharge rate
limit on cuttings)
Synthetic fluid
(non-aqueous) -
based drilling
muds (SBM) and
Associated
Cuttings
Oil-contaminated
WBMs
WBMs to which
diesel oil has
been added
Mercury and
cadmium in
barite
SPP Toxicity
(water column)
Free Oil
Discharge rate,
maximum
Mineral oil
Within 1 000m of
ABC or Dredge
Spoil Site
SBM
Synthetic base
fluid (SBF)
Free oil
Formation Oil
SPP Toxicity
Drilling fluid
sediment toxicity
ratio
Proposed General
Permit Discharge
Limitation
No discharge
No discharge
1 mg Hg/kg and 3 mg
Cd/kg (dry wt) maximum
in stock barite.
Minimum 96-hour SPP
LC50 = 30,000 ppm
No discharge.
1 ,000 bbl/hr
No discharge except:
carrier fluid, lubricity
agent, or pill
No discharge
No discharge
SBF limited to C16-C1 8
IOorC12-C14ester
type SBFs
No discharge
No discharge
Minimum 96-hour LC50
of the SPP Toxicity Test
shall be 3% by volume.
Toxicity ratio shall not
exceed 1 .0
Marine Water Quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coastal / Nearshore WQ
Sediment Quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coastal Barrier Landforms
Wetlands
Seagrasses
Live Bottoms (Excl grass)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Deepwater Benthic Comm.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Florida Manatee
Marine Mammals
Marine Turtles
Coastal / Marine Birds
Gulf Sturgeon
Fish Resources
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Air Quality
Recreational Beaches
Recreation'l Marine Fish
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Archaeological Resources
Onshore Waste Mgmt
Socioecon./Comm'l Fish
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Global Warming/Fuel Use
Human Health
X
X
X
X
X
4-2
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 4-1. Matrix of NPDES Permit Limitations and Applicability to the Mitigation of Potential Environmental Consequences
Regulated Discharge
Synthetic fluid
(non-aqueous) -
based drilling
muds (SBM) and
Associated
Cuttings
(continued)
Other non-
aqueous (diesel
or mineral oil)-
based drilling
muds (OBM)
Cuttings from
OBM systems
Polynuclear
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
(PAH)
Sediment toxicity
ratio
cuttings
Biodegradation
Rate
Within 1 000m of
ABC or Dredge
Spoil Site
OEMs
Cuttings from
OBM systems
Cuttings from oil-
contaminated
mud systems
Proposed General
Permit Discharge
Limitation
PAH mass ratio shall
not exceed 1 x1 0-5
Toxicity ratio shall not
exceed 1 .0
For: C16-C18IO,the
max weighted mass
ratio averaged over all
SBM well sections =
6.9g NAF base
fluid/1 OOg wet cuttings.
For:C12-C14IO,orC8
ester stock, the max
weighted mass ratio
averaged over all SBM
well sections shall be
9.4g NAF base
fluid/1 OOg wet cuttings.
Biodegradation rate
ratio shall not exceed
1.0
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
>.
g
a
01
1
0)
c
^>
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
f.
-
"ra
O
'c
0)
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
in
,0
T3
c
ra
0)
m
ro
to
ra
o
O
in
c
ra
^
in
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 4-1. Matrix of NPDES Permit Limitations and Applicability to the Mitigation of Potential Environmental Consequences
Regulated Discharge
Produced water
Deck drainage
Produced sand
Well treatment,
completion, and
workover fluids
Sanitary waste,
continuously
manned by 10+
Sanitary waste,
Continuously
manned by <10
or intermittently
Oil and Grease
Toxicity
Within 1 000m of
ABC or Dredge
Spoil Site
Free Oil
Discharge
Free Oil
Oil and Grease
Priority
Pollutants
Solids
Residual
chlorine
Solids
Proposed General
Permit Discharge
Limitation
42 mg/L daily max;
29 mg/L monthly avg
Chronic toxicity (NOEC),
as per requirements of
permit appendix
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
42 mg/L daily max;
29 mg/L monthly avg
Non- detected
No floating solids
At least, but as close to,
1 mg/L
No floating solids
>.
g
a
to
1
C
^>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
f.
.
"ra
O
'c
b
to
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
in
,0
T3
c
ra
0)
m
ro
to
ra
o
O
in
c
ra
^
in
to
in
in
ra
D)
ro
to
in
D)
"o
X
in
£
m
Q.
to
to
O
X
0)
ra
c
ra
T3
1 1
ro
F
ro
c
^
CO
^J
H
c
^
T3
m
ra
5
in
ra
o
o
o
D)
W
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
in
to
o
in
Q£
1 1
:&•
^
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.2.2 Other EPA Mitigation Measures
The proposed general permit includes several conditions, terms, or provisions that mitigate
potential environmental consequences. These include:
• New requirements on cooling water intake structures
• Discharge prohibitions on
o Halogenated phenols
o Toxic compounds used in subsea operations other than chlorine or other
substances previously approved by EPA HQ (Office of Science and Technology,
Engineering and Analysis Branch), without prior EPA approval
o Unmixed chemicals, i.e., chemicals or products not already mixed for use in any
waste stream.
• Requirements for live-bottom surveys
• BMP requirement to minimize the use and discharge of dispersants, surfactants and
detergents.
4.2.2.1 Cooling Water Intake Structures
New offshore oil and gas extraction facilities that withdraw at least two million gallons per day
(MGD) of water for cooling purposes are subject to the requirements of CWA Section 316(b),
which cover operations of cooling water intake structures. CWA 316(b) requirements apply to
new oil and gas facilities that have an intake of greater than 2 MGD and use greater than 25%
of the intake water for cooling purposes. These requirements provide mitigation measures to
minimize adverse environmental impacts from impingement or entrainment by specifying a
maximum 0.5 ft/sec intake velocity to minimize plankton mortality.
Operators who have cooling water intake structures with a design intake volume greater than or
equal to 5 MGD must conduct a study to determine technologies or operating procedures to
reduce the adverse environmental impacts from these structures on aquatic life. Results of the
survey shall be submitted to EPA Region 4 with the discharge monitoring report no later than
three years after the effective date of this permit. Alternatively, operators who are required to
conduct a cooling water intake structure study under this permit may submit a plan for an
equivalent industry-wide study to EPA Region 4 for approval no later than two years from the
effective date of this permit.
4.2.2.2 Live Bottom Survey
The live bottom survey requirement applies to all exploration and development activity. These
surveys cover the area within 1,000 m of the point of discharge. When a live bottom survey is
prepared for MMS or EPA, the Regional Administrator may require the operator to undertake
protective measures deemed feasible as a condition of general permit coverage. If several wells
are proposed throughout the lease block, a separate live bottom report shall be provided for
each. The live bottom report must include a brief description of the lease block, proposed
project, location of wells, and water depth. The report must include a narrative interpretation of
the seabed within the survey area and any discrete features based on acoustical reflection of
the seabed. EPA will not accept previously prepared geophysical survey reports for lease blocks
in substitution for the live bottom survey report described. Remote sensing data from other
instruments such as echosounders, magetometers, sub-bottom profilers and seismic data
4-5
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
should not be included in the live bottom survey report. Reports containing photocopies of
acoustical imagery will not be accepted.
Measures to reduce impacts could include: directional drilling to avoid areas of biological
concern in coordination with MMS; shunting (piping) drilling muds and cuttings discharges to the
seabed to limit the dispersion and movement of particulate matter; imposing more stringent
concentration limits; requiring no discharge; and/or imposing seasonal limitations on discharges.
Survey requirements would be consistent with MMS's Shallow Hazards Survey requirements.
4.2.2.3 State Coastal Zone Management Program Objections
Pursuant to OCSLA (43 USC 1351) and 30 CFR 250.34, an exploration plan or a development
and production plan and supporting information must be submitted for approval to MMS before
an operator may begin exploration or development and production activities. As part of the
review process, the plan and required supporting environmental information are sent for a
consistency certification review and determination to affected state(s) that have an approved
CZMP (MMS 1990). If a state finds the operator's plan to be inconsistent with its CZMP,
coverage under a general permit would be reconsidered by EPA and an individual permit review
could be undertaken for that specific facility. If the individual permit would be a "new source"
permit, EPA would perform a NEPA review prior to the decision on issuance of the permit as
required by EPA regulation 40 CFR 122.29(c).
This procedure functions as a safeguard by serving as an additional review on proposed
activities and provide better protection of coastal resources. (See Section 1.6.3.1, CZMA, for
more information on CZMP requirements for each state.)
4.2.2.4 On-Platform Processing Facility Stipulation
If a proposed offshore development or production platform contains hydrocarbon separation
facilities or gas processing facilities that could change pollutant discharges or increase
contaminant spill risks over those anticipated for a typical platform, coverage under a general
permit could be rescinded and an individual permit review required for that specific facility. At
the latest, this determination would be made when the applicant submits written notification of
intent to EPA that would include the number and type of facilities within the lease block. EPA
would perform a NEPA review prior to the decision on issuance of an individual new source
NPDES permit as required by EPA regulation 40 CFR 122.29(c). The individual permitting
would afford the opportunity to consider more stringent requirements to mitigate any
supplemental impacts from the processing facilities.
4.2.3 Other Federal Agency Mitigation Measures
4.2.3.1 MMSNTLs
MMS has developed Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that function to mitigate a variety
of impacts. A list of the current NTLs providing mitigation measures was previously presented in
Table 2-1. A description of each NTL is provided below.
Accidental Disconnect of Marine Drilling Risers (NTL 2009-G11)
This NTL was reissued in 2009 and requires that panels and processes that control important
systems such as the lower marine riser package be designed to reduce the possibility of human
error. A previous incident of human error resulted in the accidental disconnect of the drilling riser
and the release of drilling mud. The NTL makes recommendations for operations from floating
drilling rigs for improving control systems as mitigation against releases into the environment.
4-6
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant OCS Sediment Resources in the Gulf of Mexico (NTL 2009-G04)
This updated NTL provides guidance in preserving the OCS sediment resources in the Gulf of
Mexico. In addition, MMS oversees the use of these resources, for either coastal restoration or
gravel deposit mining, to ensure that there are no multiuse conflicts. MMS has delineated where
these sediment resources are found in the Gulf of Mexico and encourages the avoidance of
bottom-disturbing activities at the designated OCS sediment resources.
Ocean Current Monitoring (NTL 2009-G02)
This NTL was issued in January 2009 and requires that all floating mobile offshore drilling units
and production facilities installed in water depths greater than 400 m must continually monitor
and report ocean current data on a real time basis and report to the National Data Buoys
Center. According to MMS, this information is important to evaluate the potential for failure due
to fatigue of drilling risers, production risers, flowline and pipeline risers, Tension Leg Platform
(TLP) tendons, and mooring systems. Failure of the risers could result in the release of drilling
fluids and cuttings and potentially harm the marine environment.
Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deep Water (NTL 2008-G06)
This NTL provides guidance with regard to remotely operated vehicle (ROV) surveys and
reports in deepwater areas (water depths greater than 400 m) of the Gulf of Mexico. The MMS
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region has developed a strategy to ensure sound NEPA compliance for
post-lease activities in deep water areas of the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf
of Mexico.
The strategy was developed because the MMS Gulf of Mexico Region is concerned that
activities related to development in deepwater areas may have localized impacts on benthic
communities, if such communities exist near the well or well cluster (template) site. To carry out
this deepwater strategy, the Gulf of Mexico Region needs information to verify the effectiveness
of existing requirements and mitigations. Accordingly, the MMS has established a program to
acquire information from ROV surveys that lessees conduct both before and after certain
activities in deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
The MMS Gulf of Mexico Region will continue to approve OCS plans based on existing
information regarding the general nature of the seafloor in deepwater areas. If the ROV survey
information indicates that previously unknown, high value bottom communities are present, such
information could lead to future alterations in the review process but would not affect the current
operation. ROV Survey Plans must be included as an integral part of each Exploration Plan
(EP) that proposes activities in the deep water area of the Central and Western Planning Areas
of the Gulf of Mexico. The ROV survey plan must be submitted with the first Development
Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) proposing a surface structure.
Pollution Inspection Intervals for Unmanned Facilities (NTL 2008-G03)
This NTL established intervals at which lessees must inspect unmanned production facilities.
These facilities must be inspected daily or at intervals determined from the NTL published
matrix. In addition, depending on the results of the matrix of location, product, current,
monitoring, and pollution incidence, physical boarding and inspection of the facility must occur
weekly or bi-weekly in order to determine if pollution is occurring.
2008 Gulf-wide OCS Emissions Inventory (Western Gulf of Mexico) (NTL 2007-G25)
The MMS Gulf of Mexico OCS Region is responsible for providing the Gulf of Mexico OCS
emissions data from both stationary platform sources as well as other non-platform sources,
such as exploration, construction, transportation, lightering, and supply vessels. This NTL
4-7
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
instructs operators, lessees, and pipeline right-of-way holders to collect production activities
information (facility, equipment, fuel usage, etc) used in the 2008 Gulf-wide Emissions
Inventory.
This inventory corresponded with and provided data for the EPA onshore periodic emissions
inventory. It will be used to assist states and regional planning organizations with modeling for
additional SIP demonstrations and provides MMS with data needed for compliance with NEPA.
The updated inventory will be used to compute emission trends and perform necessary air
quality impacts assessments.
Coastal Zone Management Program Requirements for OCS ROW Pipeline Applications
(NTL 2007-G20)
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMP) is intended to ensure that any required Federal
license or permit activity affecting any coastal use or resource is conducted in a manner
consistent with approved coastal zone management programs. The term "Federal license or
permit" means any required authorization, certification, approval, lease, or other form of
permission that any Federal agency is empowered to issue to an applicant. The term also
includes renewals and major amendments that affect any coastal use or resource. The NPDES
general permit falls under the CZMP requirements as does MMS leasing program.
All state agencies are required to develop a list of Federal license or permit activities that affect
any coastal use or resource, including reasonably foreseeable effects outside of its coastal zone
that the state agency wishes to review for consistency with its coastal zone management
program. All of the Gulf states have identified OCS ROW pipeline applications as a "listed"
activity requiring consistency review. Therefore, the MMS Gulf of Mexico Region will not
approve an ROW pipeline application until each such affected state has (1) given a general
concurrence for the activities or (2) concurred with the consistency certification accompanying
the application, or (3) been conclusively presumed to concur with the certification accompanying
the application. The NTL continues to outline specific procedures in obtaining and submitting
ROW pipeline applications and consistency certifications.
Air Emissions Information for Applications for Accessory Platforms for Pipeline Rights-
of-Way (NTL 2007-G09)
An accessory platform is a platform attached to a right-of-way (ROW) pipeline to support pump
stations, compressors, manifolds, etc. The site used for an accessory platform is part of the
pipeline ROW grant. Therefore, the platform is subject to Federal Platform and Structures
regulations as all other OCS structures. The MMS regulation at 30 CFR 250.900(b) requires that
the submission of an application and receipt of MMS approval for any OCS structure before
installation or other activities can begin.
Sufficient information to determine the air quality impacts from accessory platforms must be
available to the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region for two purposes. One is to ensure unreasonable
harm or damage to the marine, coastal, or human environment will be prevented. The second is
to provide MMS Gulf of Mexico Region with adequate information to prepare the necessary
NEPA documentation. EPA Region 4 Air Programs would review all accessory facilities of an oil
and gas extraction project and require this information in the application for permits to construct
and operate the emissions source.
Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting (NTL 2007-G04)
Under this February 2007 updated NTL, lessees must implement measures to minimize the risk
of vessel strikes to protected species and report observations of injured or dead protected
species. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that collisions with OCS
4-8
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
support/service vessels could injure or kill protected species (e.g. sperm whales, other marine
mammals, and sea turtles) on the Gulf of Mexico OCS while engaged in supporting oil and gas
industry activities. Vessel crews should use a Gulf of Mexico reference guide that includes and
helps identify the 28 species of whales and dolphins, 5 species of sea turtles, and the one
species of manatee that might be encountered on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. The NIL specifies
procedures and defined measures to avoid striking protected species and to begin the reporting
on injured or dead protected species. This NIL applies to all existing and future oil and gas
operations on the Gulf of Mexico OCS.
Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination (NTL 2007-G03)
This NTL provides updated guidance in preventing intentional and/or accidental introduction of
debris into the marine environment. It applies to all existing and future oil and gas operations on
the Gulf of Mexico OCS.
MMS notes that marine trash and debris pose a threat to fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and
other marine animals; cause costly delays and repairs for commercial and recreational boating
interests; detract from the aesthetic quality of recreational shore fronts; and increase the cost of
beach and park maintenance. As oil and gas industry activities expand into deeper waters, the
number of species of protected marine mammals exposed to marine debris is increasing and
now includes the sperm whale, an endangered species, as well as several threatened species
of sea turtles.
Because oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico could contribute to this chronic problem,
regulations prohibit lessees from deliberately discharging containers and other similar materials
(i.e., trash and debris) into the marine environment. Under this NTL, lessees are required to
make durable identification markings on equipment, tools and containers (especially drums),
and other material.
Furthermore, this NTL points out that the intentional jettisoning of trash has been the subject of
strict laws such as MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control
Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard
(USCG). These USCG regulations further require that lessees become more proactive in
avoiding accidental loss of solid waste items by developing waste management plans, posting
informational placards, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as
covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste.
In the NTL, MMS expresses concern about the accidental loss of articles from structures and
vessels. In some cases, this has resulted from poor waste management practices (e.g., no lids
or unsecured lids on waste receptacles), but in others it is caused by the failure of individuals to
secure materials and personal belongings aboard vessels and facilities. To reduce further the
accidental introduction of marine trash and debris into the Gulf of Mexico, lessees must
implement the following programs:
• Marine Trash and Debris Placards- Under this NTL, lessees must prepare placards that
include each of the information text boxes in Appendix 1 of this NTL and post them in
prominent places on vessels and structures in their exploration, development, and
production activities by March 31, 2003
• Marine Trash and Debris Awareness Training - Under this NTL, lessees must obtain
copies of the training video produced by the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) and
ensure that all offshore personnel, including their contractors and other support services
related personnel (for example, helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) have
4-9
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
viewed this video; all personnel must view the marine trash and debris training video
annually
• Marine Trash and Debris Awareness Training and Certification Process - Operators
must certify in writing that offshore personnel have viewed the training video and make
such certifications available to authorized MMS personnel upon request.
Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Addendum (NTL 2007-G02)
NTL 2007-G02 supersedes 2003-G08 but continues to apply to all seismic operations
throughout the Gulf OCS in waters greater than 200 m in depth. The measures apply to all
on-lease and off-lease seismic surveys that lessees conduct. Addendum 1 modifies the Visual
Observers section of NTL No. 2002-G07. The use of an airgun or airgun arrays while
conducting geophysical operations may have an adverse impact on marine life, including marine
mammals. Some marine mammals, such as the sperm whale (Physetermacrocephalus), are
protected under ESA, and all marine mammals are protected under Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA).
Visual observers who have completed a protected species observer training program are
required on all seismic vessels in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Visual observers are required on all
seismic vessels conducting operations in OCS water depths less than 200 m in the Gulf of
Mexico waters east of 88.0° W longitude. Operators may develop their own protected species
observer training course or use a third party source. The NTL lists the elements required within
the training course.
The observers on duty will look for whales, other marine mammals, and sea turtles using the
naked eye and hand-held binoculars provided by the seismic vessel operator. Visual monitoring
will begin no less than 30 minutes prior to the beginning of ramp-up and continue until seismic
operations cease or sighting conditions do not allow observation of the sea surface (e.g., fog,
rain, darkness). If a marine mammal or sea turtle is observed, the observer should note and
monitor the position (including lat/long of vessel and relative bearing and estimated distance to
the animal) until the animal dives or moves out of visual range of the observer.
When sperm whales are observed entering or within the exclusion zone, observers must call for
the shut down of the airgun array; seismic operators must shut down the array when instructed
by an observer. Lessees may reinitiate ramp-up and seismic survey activities only when the
observer has: (a) determined that the sperm whale(s) has departed the exclusion zone, and (b)
visually monitored the exclusion zone for at least 30 minutes since the last sperm whale sighting
within the exclusion zone.
Regional and Subregional Oil Spill Response Plans (NTL 2006-G21)
This NTL was reissued in October 2006 and provides for additional guidance on the review and
update of Oil Spill Response Plans (OSRP), recognizes the National Incident Management
System, and adds a new section in the OSRP regarding prevention measures for facilities
located in State waters. This NTL provides clarification, guidance, and information to operators
of facilities and leases located seaward of the coastline regarding who is required to submit a
regional OSRP and how to prepare and submit a regional OSRP in the Gulf of Mexico Region.
The MMS requires owners or operators of oil handling, storage, or transportation facilities that
are located seaward of the coastline to submit spill response plans to the MMS for approval. To
implement this requirement in an expedient manner, the Gulf of Mexico Region encourages
each OCS lease operator to submit a regional OSRP that covers all of its existing OCS oil
handling, storage, or transportation facilities and leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
4-10
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition, the MMS requires that each Exploration Plan (EP) and Development Operations
Coordination Document (DOCD) include a site-specific OSRP or reference an approved
regional OSRP.
Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports (NTL 2005-G07)
According to the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
and other applicable laws and regulations, MMS is responsible for ensuring that archaeological
resources on the OCS are not damaged or harmed by oil, gas, and sulfur operations.
Archaeological resources are any material remains of human life or activities that are at least 50
years of age and are of archaeological interest (see 30 CFR 250.105).
Studies conducted on behalf of the MMS (completed in 1977 and 1989) have developed, for
resource management purposes, predictive models of where archaeological resources are likely
to occur on the OCS in the Gulf of Mexico. These resources may be of two types: (1) drowned
terrestrial prehistoric sites dating to the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene period when sea levels
were substantially lower than today and (2) historic sites such as shipwrecks or lighthouses. The
Gulf of Mexico Region uses the results of these studies to determine which OCS areas have the
highest potential for archaeological resources. MMS has issued regulations that require OCS
lessees and operators and pipeline right-of-way holders to conduct surveys within these areas
of high archaeological potential and to submit the results to the MMS.
This NTL and the above-cited regulations require that lessees include archaeological resource
reports with their EP, DOCD, and pipeline applications. The purpose of these reports is to
provide information for the MMS Gulf of Mexico Region to determine the potential existence of
archaeological resources that may be affected by proposed operations. These reports are
based primarily on an assessment of data obtained from remote-sensing surveys.
As information about archeological sites continues to be updated, MMS also requires that
lessees and operators check if their lease block has been added to the updated list of lease
blocks (NTL 2008-G20) requiring archeological resource survey and report.
Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Gulf of Mexico (NTL 2004-G05)
MMS issued this NTL to provide and consolidate guidance for the avoidance and protection of
biologically sensitive features and areas (i.e., topographic features, pinnacles, live bottoms (low-
relief features), and other potentially sensitive biological features) when conducting Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) operations in water depths less than 400 m in the Gulf of Mexico. This
NTL supersedes and replaces NTL No. 98-12, Implementation of Consistent Biological
Stipulation Measures in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico and NTL No. 99-G16, Live-
Bottom Surveys and Reports. Actions required by this NTL include the following:
Topographic Features (Banks)
This provision applies to features found in the Gulf of Mexico only in areas under Region 6
jurisdiction. Lessees must adhere to the provisions of the topographic features lease stipulation.
Also, lessees may have to comply with the following, depending on the outcome of an Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) programmatic consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries):
1. No bottom disturbing activities, including the use of anchors, chains, cables, and wire
ropes from a semisubmersible drilling rig or from a pipeline construction vessel may occur
within 152 m of the designated "No Activity Zone" of a topographic feature; and
2. If more than two wells are to be drilled from the same surface location and that surface
location is within the 3-mile zone of an identified topographic feature, all drill cuttings and
4-11
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
drilling fluids from the drilling operations are to be shunted to the sea bottom through a
structurally sound downpipe that terminates an appropriate distance, but no more than 10m
from the bottom.
Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend Features)
Lessees must adhere to the provisions of the live bottoms (pinnacle trend features) lease
stipulation. In addition, based on an EFH programmatic consultation with NOAA Fisheries, no
bottom disturbing activities, including those caused by anchors, chains, cables, or wire ropes
from a semisubmersible drilling rig or from a pipeline construction vessel, may occur within 30 m
of any hard bottoms/pinnacles that have vertical relief of 8 feet or more. If the proposed bottom
disturbing activities do not meet the avoidance parameters set forth in the EFH programmatic
consultation outlined above, the MMS must consult with NOAA Fisheries.
An individual project-specific EFH consultation is also required whenever the route of a
proposed pipeline that will transport liquid hydrocarbons having an API gravity of 45° or less is
located closer than 91 m (300 feet) from any pinnacle trend feature having 8 feet or more of
vertical relief.
Live Bottom (Low Relief Features)
The NIL requires no bottom disturbing activities, including the use of anchors, chains, cables,
or wire ropes from a semisubmersible drilling rig or from a pipeline construction vessel, which
may cause impacts to live bottoms (low relief features).
Before any drilling activities or construct or place any structure for exploration or development
on any lease with the live bottom (low relief) stipulation, including, but not limited to, well drilling
and pipeline and platform placement, a live bottom survey report containing a bathymetry map
constructed from remote sensing data must be prepared including an interpretation of live
bottom areas using the results of a photo-documentation survey. The live bottom survey report,
including the attendant surveys, must encompass the entire area at least 1,000 m from the
proposed activity site.
Potentially Sensitive Biological Features
Oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation activities in the vicinity of potentially
sensitive biological features may cause deleterious impacts to the sessile and pelagic
communities associated with those habitats.
This NTL specifically states that no bottom-disturbing activities, including the use of anchors,
chains, cables or wire ropes from a semi-submersible drilling rig or from a pipeline construction
vessel may cause impacts to potentially sensitive biological features.
The information from these evaluations must be used to document whether a biologically
sensitive feature or features exist in the areas of concern, and avoid impacting biologically
sensitive features. However, the provisions of this NTL do not modify or cancel any biological
monitoring plan that has been approved by the MMS Gulf of Mexico Region.
MMS Review
MMS will analyze the submitted biological information during the OCS plan or pipeline
application review. If MMS determines that a biologically sensitive feature could potentially be
harmed by the proposed activity, MMS will instruct the operator or lessee to amend the OCS
plan.
4-12
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Deep Water Chemosynthetic Communities (NTL 2000-G20)
The purpose of NTL 2000-G20 is to provide a consistent and comprehensive approach to
protecting high-density Chemosynthetic communities from damage caused by oil and gas
activities.
Deep water (water depths greater than 400 m) Chemosynthetic communities were discovered in
1984 in the central Gulf of Mexico. Chemosynthetic communities include assemblages of
tubeworms, clams, mussels, bacterial mats, and a variety of associated organisms. They are
remarkable in that they use a carbon source independent of photosynthesis and the
sun-dependent photosynthetic food chain that supports all other life on earth. Many of the
species, while similar to those of other Chemosynthetic communities, including vent
communities of the Galapagos Ridge, are new to science.
While most communities are represented by low densities, there are examples of very high
densities of organisms in small isolated areas. Features or areas that could support high-density
Chemosynthetic communities include hydrocarbon-charged sediments associated with surface
faulting, acoustic void zones associated with surface faulting, anomalous mounds or knolls, and
gas or oil seeps. Damage to these communities will result from oil and gas activities that disturb
the seafloor in the immediate vicinity of these communities. Such activities include (but are not
limited to) drilling, anchoring, placing seafloor templates, discharging muds and cuttings, and
installing pipelines.
Detailed data regarding the extent, location, structure, and relationship of these communities to
the local geophysical environment are sparse. This information is particularly lacking for
potential Chemosynthetic community sites believed to exist in water depths beyond 1,000 m.
Under this NTL, lessees proposing activities that could disturb seafloor areas in water depths
400 m or greater must maintain the following separation distances from features or areas that
could support high-density Chemosynthetic communities:
• Locate activities at least 1,500 ft from each proposed muds and cuttings discharge
location; and
• At least 250 ft from the location of all other proposed seafloor disturbances (including
those caused by anchors, anchor chains, wire ropes, seafloor template installation, and
pipeline construction).
Guidelines for the Sub-Seabed Disposal and Offshore Storage of Solid Wastes
(NTL 99-G22)
This NTL provides standardized guidelines and instructions for the sub-seabed disposal and
offshore storage of solid wastes generated from oil and gas development on the OCS in the
Gulf of Mexico Region. This NTL applies only to such solid wastes that are classified as exempt
exploration and production wastes under RCRA. These exempt exploration and production
wastes include drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the
exploration, development, or production of oil, natural gas, or sulfur on the OCS.
According to 30 CFR 250.300(b)(2), lessees must obtain approval for the methods lessees will
use to dispose of drill cuttings, sand, and other well solids from MMS. Under this authority, the
MMS Gulf of Mexico Region requires that lessees obtain approval for the sub-seabed disposal
of all exploration and production wastes, and for the offshore storage of exploration and
production wastes that contain naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) above
background levels. Lessees must obtain these approvals before proceeding with such disposal
or storage operations.
4-13
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This NIL provides guidance and instructions on the disposal of these exploration and
production wastes, worker safety when handling these wastes, and the contents of applications
to dispose of or store these wastes. The procedures regarding waste disposal outlined in this
NIL do not supersede, but are supplemental to, those procedures for abandonment of wells as
specified in Subpart G of 30 CFR 250.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations on Helicopter/Fixed Winged Aircraft Flight Elevations
Noise and disturbance from helicopter traffic or fixed winged aircraft can negatively impact some
environmental receptors, including marine mammals, coastal and marine birds, and recreational
beach users. These impacts are mitigated by an advisory circular developed by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Advisory Circular 91-36C, which prohibits the use of fixed wing
aircraft lower than an elevation of 152 m and helicopters lower than 300 m during the period of
October 15 through April 15 in the vicinity of the numerous national wildlife refuges along the
Gulf coast (FWS 1990). This circular not only avoids wildlife impacts, but may also avoid
recreational beach users and coastal residences. Helicopters typically maintain at least a
1,000-ft elevation over water, except when visibility is limited or for short hops between
platforms (MMS 1992).
4.2.4 Zero Discharge Option
Zero discharge is an option for consideration by potential individual operators, even though EPA
only requires zero discharge for one waste stream—produced sand—under NSPS. An operator
would not require a NPDES permit if there were absolutely zero discharge from the platform to
Gulf waters. Zero discharge would involve the transport of all wastes from platforms to various
onshore facilities for possible treatment and disposal. Drilling fluids and drill cuttings could be
taken to onshore commercial land disposal facilities. Produced water could be re-injected into
underground formations. Well treatment, completion, and workover fluids could be processed at
centralized treatment facilities and injected into underground formations. Miscellaneous solid
wastes must be transported to a municipal solid waste landfill. Sanitary wastes could be
transported to publicly owned treatment works, treated, and discharged.
In developing NSPS for the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas category, EPA considered
and rejected onshore disposal requirements for offshore wastes, except for produced sand. The
Zero Discharge Option was eliminated for drilling wastes because of insufficient onshore
disposal capacity as well as incremental increases in energy requirements, air emissions, and
marine traffic. Reinjection of produced water was discounted for several reasons—infeasibility
because of local geologic conditions, unacceptably high air emissions and energy requirements,
very high aggregate costs, loss of production, and limited information characterizing the
presence of radium in the offshore subcategory.
For deck drainage, no discharge of free oil was selected to reflect BCT, BAT, and NSPS levels
of control; the zero discharge option was not considered. Zero discharge was not specified for
well treatment, completion, and workover fluids as long as treating the effluent with produced
water met oil and grease discharge limitations of 29 mg/L monthly average and 42 mg/L daily
maximum. The option prohibiting discharges of free oil under BAT and NSPS would achieve no
incremental removal of pollutants over and above the existing BPT requirements, and would
ignore an economically and technologically available treatment alternative.
Onshore disposal of domestic waste was not considered in that BCT, BAT, and NSPS
limitations are already in either existing NPDES permits or Coast Guard regulations. Onshore
disposal of sanitary wastes was not considered because it would result in transporting the
wastes to shore for treatment and subsequent discharge by POTWs back into surface waters
4-14
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
and would incur additional non-water quality environmental impacts and compliance costs (58
FR 12473-12487).
The above conclusions are based on analyses for the entire offshore subcategory of the oil and
gas industry and do not necessarily pertain to an individual facility. Zero discharge for all or
selected waste streams may be a viable option for some operators to comply with NSPS
limitations; it may allow an operator to locate in more sensitive marine or nearshore locations.
Zero discharge may be considered in locations near areas of biological concern, state waters,
and other conflicting conditions.
4.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
NPDES general permit issuance for discharges from oil and gas extraction activities would have
unavoidable minor impacts on local areas. For the most part, these impacts would be short-term
in nature. Unavoidable adverse impacts for non-effluent discharge OCS activities, such as oil
spills or vessel and helicopter traffic, were evaluated in the FEIS for the 1998 General Permit.
The 2004 Final SEIS did not repeat these findings since the changes in these activities resulting
from the issuance of NSPS and Effluent Limitations for SBM discharges were not considered to
be significant. For this EA, EPA concluded that there are no material changes in the information
base to warrant additional evaluation of unavoidable adverse impacts. The major impact factors
likely to result in unavoidable adverse impacts to some resources include effluent discharges
and anchoring and structure placement.
As discussed in Section 4.2.1, the potential impacts of effluent discharge would be minimized by
the effluent discharge limits established in the general permits. Monitoring parameters would be
applied to determine concentrations in discharges and surrounding waters. Resultant data
should help adjust limitations in the future to prevent adverse impacts.
In most circumstances, the most serious impacts from anchoring and structure emplacement,
including well drilling, platform construction, and pipeline placement, will be avoided because of
the requirements of live bottom stipulations, a geohazards stipulation for deep water
chemosynthetic biological community protection (NTL 2000-G20), ROV Survey requirements
(NTL 2008-G06) CZMP consistency stipulation, archaeological resources protection (NTL 2005-
G07), and MMS operational regulations. However, for other resources, particularly trawl areas
for fish resources, minor unavoidable adverse impacts may occur. These geophysical impacts
are expected to be temporary in nature. Localized impacts due to siltation may occur from
trenching related to pipeline emplacements.
Notwithstanding the possibility of these unavoidable adverse impacts, EPA has determined,
based on the findings of the ODCE for the 2004 NPDES general permit and the identical or
more stringent conditions of the proposed NPDES general permit, that the re-issuance of the
proposed NDPES general permit will not result in unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment with all permit terms, limitations, and conditions in place.
4.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Serious irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources due to general permit issuance
may occur. The majority of these impacts would result from very low probability events (e.g., a
large oil spill reaching a critical coastal area), or from the failure of a mitigating measure (e.g.,
deep water chemosynthetic biological community NTL 2000-G20), which is also anticipated to
be a very rare event. Effects of oil spills were discussed in the FEIS for the 1998 General
Permit. The 2004 Final SEIS did not to repeat these analyses since the changes in these
activities resulting from the issuance of NSPS and Effluent Limitations for SBM discharges were
not considered to be significant. For this EA, EPA concluded that there are no material changes
4-15
-------
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
in the information base to warrant additional evaluation of irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources resulting from the NPDES general permit issuance.
Low probability events that might result in an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources include structure placement or blowouts in areas with live bottoms or deepwater
benthic communities. These events have been estimated to be extremely uncommon.
However, some small probability of impacts remains.
A potential irreversible and irretrievable impact to deepwater benthic communities may occur
from hydrocarbon depletion. However, little data exist to estimate the probability of this impact
or to develop mitigation measures to avoid or prevent this impact. Current and planned studies
of these communities by MMS may provide information that will lead to the resolution of this
issue.
4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
To a large extent, it appears the short-term uses of the environment that are considered in this
EA, including issuing NPDES general permits and the cumulative development of OCS oil and
gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico, are compatible with the maintenance of long-term
productivity in the Gulf. Unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated to be primarily short-term
and localized in nature, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are
projected to be uncommon. However, evidence is insufficient to reliably conclude with a high
confidence that long-term, cumulative impacts will not occur on a regional scale.
4-16
-------
CHAPTER 5. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
5. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
EPA is publishing a joint notice of availability of the EA and Draft General Permit in the Federal
Register and commencing a public review and comment period. During the comment period,
comments are solicited from Federal, state, and local agencies, groups, and individuals on the
EA and Draft General Permit. EPA will respond to written comments in preparing the Final EA.
Comments and comment responses will be presented in Section 5.3; comment letters will be
included as an appendix to the EA. EPA will consider all comments received during the review
periods in making its decision on the NPDES general permit action. A Record of Decision will be
issued that will document the end of the NEPA process and EPA's final permit decision.
5.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION
5.1.1 Consultation Under the Coastal Zone Management Act
The proposed NPDES general permit or any individual NPDES permits authorize discharges in
Federal waters outside the boundaries of the coastal zones of the states of Alabama, Florida,
and Mississippi. However, because these discharges could occur in close proximity to state
waters, creating potential for impacts on state waters, EPA initiates coastal zone management
program consistency consultations with each of the states. In addition to EPA's consultation,
activities undertaken by MMS (lease sales, exploration plans, and development and production
plans) are also subject to consistency review provisions under the CZMA.
On the date of the Agency's Federal Register public notice of the availability of the EA, EPA
submits the draft general permit, the EA, and a consistency determination to the agency
responsible for each state's CZMP. These agencies include the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Mississippi
Department of Marine Resources. EPA will carefully consider state comments to make the
activities authorized by the general NPDES permit consistent to the maximum extent practicable
with the enforceable policies of affected state CZMPs.
5.1.2 Section 7 Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act and Consultation
Regarding Essential Fish Habitat
EPA is writing to FWS and NMFS to coordinate on endangered species. In preparing the EA,
EPA reached a preliminary conclusion that its preferred alternative is not likely to adversely affect
listed species.
EPA is coordinating with NMFS regarding the potential impact of the proposed general permit on
Essential Fish Habitat within the Gulf. EPA will carefully consider all comments in reaching a
decision on the proposed permit.
5.2 DISTRIBUTION OF THE EA FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT
EPA is sending a Notice of Availability of the Draft General Permit and the EA to the Federal,
state, and local governmental offices and elected officials listed below. These agencies and other
organizations, public groups, and interested individuals may request copies for review.
• Member of Congress
o Representatives of all Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coastal districts.
5-1
-------
CHAPTER 5. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
Federal agencies and Offices, including:
o Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
o Army Corps of Engineers, DOD
o Coast Guard, DHS
o Council on Environmental Quality
o Department of Defense, (all branches)
o Department of Energy
o Department of Transportation
o Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
o Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI
o Minerals Management Service, DOI
o National Park Service, DOI
o Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, DOC.
State agencies and Offices, including:
o Mississippi Department of Archives and History
o Mississippi Department of Natural Resources
o Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation
o Mississippi Department of Coastal Ecology
o Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
o Alabama Department of Environmental Management
o Alabama Historical Commission
o Geological Survey of Alabama
o Florida Department of Environmental Protection
o Florida Department of State.
Local Agencies, including:
o South Alabama Regional Planning Commission
o West Florida Regional Planning Council.
5.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
EPA will fully consider comments received during the public review of the EA and the draft
NPDES general permit prior to a decision to issue the proposed NPDES general permit as a final
action. The Agency will respond in the Final EA to comments that it receives during the comment
period. EPA will make its findings public in a Finding of No Significant Impact unless the decision
of the Agency is to prepare an EIS.
5-2
-------
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES
6. REFERENCES
Boehm, P., D. Turton, A. Raval, D. Caudle, D. French, N. Rabalais, R. Spies, and J. Johnson.
2001. Deepwater program: Literature review, environmental risks of chemical products used in
Gulf of Mexico deepwater oil and gas operations; Volume I: Technical Report. U.S. Dept of the
Interior, Minerals Management Services, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS
Study MMS 2001 011. 326 pp.
Brown, T.H. 2004. "Designing Protective Coatings Systems for Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms."
January 2004. ppgamercoatus.ppgpmc.com/.../PC_designOffshore_Oil%20Rigs.pdf. Ameron
International.
Collard, S. 1990. Leatherback turtles feeding near a water mass boundary in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 50:12-14.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1997b. Radionuclides, metals, and hydrocarbons in oil
and gas operational discharges and environmental samples associated with offshore production
facilities on the Texas/Louisiana continental shelf with an environmental assessment of metals
and hydrocarbons: A report prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bartlesville, OK.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2006. Effects of oil and gas exploration and
development at selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume I: Technical report.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New
Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-044. 51 pp.
Continental Shelf Associates. 2004. Gulf of Mexico Comprehensive Synthetic-based Mud
Monitoring Program Final Report. Prepared for the SBM Research Group. Submitted to Shell
Global Solutions, US. October, 2004. Volume 1 Technical (224 pp), Volume 2 Technical (358
pp), and Volume 3 Appendices (2158 pp)
Continental Shelf Associates. 2006. Effects of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development at
Selected Continental Slope Sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume I: Executive Summary (51 pp),
Volume II (Technical Report (638 pp), Volumes III Appendices (938 pp). USDOI/Minerals
Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-
045.
Correa, ICS, Toldo Jr, EE, and Toledo, FAL. 2009. "Seafloor geological impacts associated with
drilling disturbance." Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 56 (1-2):4-
11.
CSA International, Inc. 2008. Deepwater Program: "Synthetic-Based Fluid Spill of Opportunity,
Environmental Impact and Recovery. Final Cruise Report, Green Canyon 726 Spill - 2008."
Prepared for USDOI/ Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 11 pp +
Appendices
Darnell, R.M., J.A. Kleypas. 1987. Eastern Gulf shelf bio atlas: a study of the distribution of
demersal fishes and penaeid shrimp of soft bottoms of the continental shelf from the Mississippi
River delta to the Florida Keys. OCS Study/MMS 86 0041. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 548 pp.
Davis, R.W. and G.S. Fargion, eds. 1996. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the north-
central western Gulf of Mexico: Final report. Volume II: Technical report. OCS Study MMS 96-
0027. 355 pp.
6-1
-------
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES
Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Wursig, eds. 2000. Cetaceans, sea turtles, and seabirds in the
northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume I: Executive
summary. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division,
USGS/BRD/CR-1999- 0006 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,
New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-002. 40 pp.
Ditton, R.B. and A.R. Graefe. 1978. Recreational fishing use of artificial reefs on the Texas
coast. Texas A&M University, Department of Recreation and Parks, College Station, TX. 155
pp.
Ditton, R.B. and J. Auyong. 1984. Fishing offshore platforms central Gulf of Mexico An
analysis of recreational and commercial fishing use at 164 major offshore petroleum structures.
OCS Monograph/MMS 84 0006. Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional
Office, Metairie, LA. 158 pp. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA: PB84 216604.
Dugas, R., V. Guillory, and M. Fischer. 1979. Oil rigs and offshore fishing in Louisiana.
Fisheries 4(6):2 10.
Fisher, C.R. 1990. Chemoautotrophic and methanotrophic symbioses in marine invertebrates.
Reviews in Aquatic Sciences. 2(3/4): 399-436.
Fritts, T.H., A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Collum, W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGehee. 1983a.
Turtles, birds, and mammals in the northern Gulf of Mexico and nearby Atlantic waters. U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, DC.
FWS/OBS-82/65. 455 pp.
Fritts, T.H., W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGehee. 1983b. The distribution and abundance of marine
turtles in the Gulf of Mexico and nearby Atlantic waters. J. Herpetol. 17:327-344.
Gallaway, B.J., L.R. Martin, and R.L. Howard, eds. 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental
slope study, annual report: Year 3. Volume II: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS
87-0060. 586 pp.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1988. Thirty-eighth annual report (1986 1987) to the
Congress of the United States and to the governors and legislators of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Ocean Springs, MS. 90 pp.
Jefferson, T.A. and A.J. Schiro. 1997. Distributions of cetaceans in the offshore Gulf of Mexico.
Mammal Review 27(1 ):27-50.
Jochens, A., D. Biggs, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P.
Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, J. Wormuth, and B. Wursig. 2006. Sperm whale
seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Summary report, 2002-2004. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS
2006-034. 353 pp.
Kennicutt II, M.C., ed. 1995. Gulf of Mexico offshore operations monitoring experiment, Phase I:
Sublethal responses to contaminant exposure, final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 95-
0045. 709 pp.
Kramer Industries, Inc., 2005-2009; http://www.kramerindustriesonline.com/blasting-media.htm
Lowery, T. and E.S. Garrett. 2005. Report of findings: Synoptic survey of total mercury in
recreational finfish of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries Service,
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Seafood Inspection Laboratory, Pascagoula, MS.
6-2
-------
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES
MacDonald, I.R., ed. 2002. Stability and Change in Gulf of Mexico Chemosynthetic
Communities. Volume II: Technical Report. Prepared by the Geochemical and Environmental
Research Group, Texas A&M University. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Mgmt. Service, Gulf
of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002 036. 456 pp.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990. Gulf of Mexico
Sales 131, 135, and 137: Central, Western, and Eastern Planning Areas—final environmental
impact statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 90 0042. Washington, DC. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA: PB90 273590.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. Gulf of Mexico
Sales 142 and 143: Central and Western Planning Areas—final environmental impact
statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 92 0054. New Orleans, LA.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Development
scenario 157/161. New Orleans, LA.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996a. Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 1997 2002—final environmental impact
statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 95 0061. Herndon, VA.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996b. Gulf of Mexico
Sales 166 and 168: Central and Western Planning Areas—draft environmental impact
statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 96 0007. New Orleans, LA.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. Gulf of Mexico
Deepwater Operations and Activities: Environmental Assessment June 2000. OCS Report MMS
2000-001.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 2002a. Outer
Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2002-2007 Volume I April 2002. Volume II April
2002. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-006. New Orleans, LA.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 2002b. Stability and
Change in Gulf of Mexico Chemosynthetic Communities, July 2002. MMS 2002-035 and MMS
2002-036. New Orleans, LA.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003. Gulf of Mexico
OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 189 and 197 OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-056. New Orleans, LA.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007a. Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012.
Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218. Central Planning Area Sales 205,
206, 208, 213, 216, and 222. April 2007. MMS 2007-018.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007b. Proposed Final
Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 2007-2012. April, 2007.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007c. Gulf of Mexico
OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 224, Eastern Planning Area. Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement. MMS 2007-060. October 2007.
Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012. Central Planning Area
Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222. Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218. MMS
2008-041. September, 2008.
6-3
-------
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES
Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Draft Proposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 2010-2015. Considering
Comments of Governors, Section 18 Factors, and OCS Alternative Energy Opportunities.
January, 2009.
Mullin, K., W. Hoggard, C. Roden, R. Lohoefener, C. Rogers, and B. Taggart. 1991. Cetaceans
on the upper continental slope in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Gulf
of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 91-0027. 108 pp.
Mullin, K.D., T.A. Jefferson, L.J. Hansen, and W. Hoggard. 1994a. First sightings of melon-
headed whales (Peponocephala electra) in the Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 10:342-348.
Mullin, K.D. and W. Hoggard. 2000. Visual surveys of cetaceans and sea turtles from aircraft and
ships, chapter 4. In: Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Wursig, eds. Cetaceans, sea turtles and
birds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II:
Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division,
USGS/BRD/CR-1999-005 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New
Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-003. 364 pp.
Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental Impacts of Synthetic Based
Drilling Fluids Volume I: Sections I-X. Report Prepared for MMS by Robert Ayers & Associates,
Inc. August 2000. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Services, Gulf of
Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-064.
Neff, J.M. 2002. Fates and Effects of Mercury From Oil and Gas Exploration and Production
Operations in the Marine Environment. Report Prepared for American Petroleum Institute July
2002.
Netto, SA, F. Gallucci, and G. Fonseca. 2009. "Deep-sea meiofauna response to synthetic-
based drilling mud discharge off SE Brazil." Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in
Oceanography, 56 (1-2): 41-49.
Pivel, MAG, Freitas, CMJS, and Comba, JLD. 2009. "Modeling the discharge of cuttings and
drilling fluids in a deep-water environment." Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in
Oceanography, 56 (1-2):12-21.
Pozebon, D, Santos, JHZ, Peralba, MCR, Maia, SM, Barrionuevo, S, and Pizzolato, TM. 2009.
"Metals, arsenic and hydrocarbons monitoring in marine sediment during drilling activities using
NAFs." Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 56 (1-2): 22-31.
Rabalais, N.N., B.A. McKee, D.J. Reed, and J.C. Means. 1991. Fate and effects of nearshore
discharges of OCS produced water. Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,
New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 91-0004, 91-0005, and 91-0006. 3 vols.
Reggio, V.C., Jr. compiler. 1989. Petroleum structures as artificial reefs: a compendium. OCS
Study/MMS 89 0021. Fourth International Conference on Artificial Habitats for Fisheries, Rigs to
Reefs Special Session, November 4, 1987, Miami, FL. 176 pp.
Roberts, D.J. and Nguyen, A.H. 2006. "Degradation of Synthetic-Based Drilling Mud Base Fluids
by Gulf of Mexico Sediments. Final Report." U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-028. 122 pp.
Roberts, K.J. and M.E. Thompson. 1983. Petroleum production structures: economic resources
for Louisiana sport divers. Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Louisiana State University,
Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, LA.
6-4
-------
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES
Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II, eds. 2007 (Final Draft) Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental
Slope and Benthic Ecology. Final Report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-00.
Santos, M.F.L., P.C. Lana, J. Silva, J.G. Fachel, and F.H. Pulgati. 2009. "Effects of non-aqueous
fluids cuttings discharge from exploratory drilling activities on the deep-sea macrobenthic
communities." Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 56 (1-2): 32-40.
Sparks, T.D., J.C. Norris, R. Benson, and W.E. Evans. 1996. Distributions of sperm whales in the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico as determined from an acoustic survey. In: Proceedings of the 11th
Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 14-18 December 1995, Orlando, FL.
Pp. 108.
Trefry, J. H. 1998. Forms of mercury and cadmium in barite and their fate in the marine
environment: A review and synthesis. Report to Exxon Production Research Co., 32 pages.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007a. Information and databases
on fisheries landings (latest data for 2006, accessed October 30, 2007). Internet website:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annualjandings.html.
U .S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007b. Report to Congress on the
impacts of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas fisheries. 133 pp. Internet website:
http://www.nmfs. noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/Fisheries_Report_Final.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Wetlands and 401 certification—opportunities and
guidelines for states and tribes. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Diffuse NORM: Waste characterization and
preliminary risk assessment. Draft. Air and Radiation (ANR 460).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Biological assessment for the NPDES general
permit for oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities of the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico OCS. Region 4, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993a. Biological information report on the Gulf sturgeon.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b. Development document for final effluent
limitation guidelines and standards for the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction
point source category. Office of Water Regulation and Standards, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993c. Scientific literature review: effects of drilling
fluids, cuttings, and produced water discharges on marine sediments and benthic environments.
Region 4, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Potential Environmental Benefits from Regulatory
Consideration of Synthetic Drilling Muds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. Final Environmental Impact Statement- National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting for Eastern Gulf of Mexico Offshore Oil and
Gas Extraction. EPA 904/9-98-003. Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. Ocean discharge criteria evaluation for the
NPDES general permit for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS. Draft. Region 4, Water
Management Division, Atlanta, GA.
6-5
-------
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. Environmental Assessment of Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids and other Non Aqueous
Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. EPA-821-B-00-014.
Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Development Document for Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids and other Non Aqueous
Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. EPA-821-B-00-013.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001a. Overview of Final SBF Effluent Limitation
Guidelines, March 8, 2001. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/sbf/gulfcoastpres.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001 b. Federal Register. Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category;
OMB Approval Under the Paperwork Reduction Act: Technical Amendment. 40 CFR Parts 9 and
435.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting for Eastern Gulf of
Mexico Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction. EPA Publication No. 904/9-04-004. July, 2004.
Vittor & Associates, Inc. 1985. Tuscaloosa trend regional data search and synthesis. Volume 1
synthesis report. Contract No. 1412 0001 30048. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans,
LA. 477pp.
6-6
-------
CHAPTER 7. LIST OF PREPARERS
7. LIST OF PREPARERS
This EA was prepared for EPA by Avanti Corporation, a subcontractor to Gannett Fleming, Inc.
under an agreement between EPA and Gannett Fleming. EPA defined the scope of services that
were provided to Gannett Fleming, who directed Avanti Corporation to prepare this EA. All
materials submitted by Avanti Corporation to Gannett Fleming and EPA have been reviewed and
independently evaluated by EPA.
Primary responsibility and direction for preparing this document rests with the following EPA
Region 4 personnel:
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief, NEPA Program Office
Ntali Kajumba, Life Scientist, NEPA Program Office
F. Theodore Bisterfeld, Life Scientist, NEPA Program Office
Karrie-Jo Robinson-Shell, Environmental Engineer
Gannett Fleming key personnel responsible for directing this EA is:
William M. Plumpton, Program Manager
Avanti Corporation key personnel responsible for preparing various EA sections are as follows:
Gary Petrazzuolo, Ph.D, Project Manager and Senior Environmental Scientist
Richard M. Montgomery, Senior Environmental Scientist
Nerija S. Orentas, Senior Environmental Scientist
Lynn K. Petrazzuolo, Senior Environmental Scientist
7-1
------- |