'TNITBD STA DE ARTMBNT OF THK INTERIOR

M 'MBRAl.fi MANAGEMENT SBRVICB

Gulf of Mexico ->CS Region

New Orleans, bou|fi.< na

PINAI.

9ITB-SPSCIFIC ENV I RP NMENTAL AS. BSSMPNT

KNDANGBRBD SPECIBS/3TRUCTURB REMOVAL(8)

No. BS/8B 93-047

Structure-Remove1 Activitiee in Hiq Ieland Aree Eaet Addition. Block A-170

Leeee OCS 0 '03

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTEREOK

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SEKVICE

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

New 'leans, Louisiana

FINAL

SITE - SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ENDANGERED SPECIBS/STRUCTURE R!MOVAL'9)

No. ES/SR 93-047

Asdeesment of the Environmental Impacte of the Propoeed Removal of Platform A.,

Caiaeon No. 2, and Caieeon No. J in High Ieland Area Bast Addition, Block A 170

(Leeee OCS G 9103) by Flaah Gae fc Oil Southweet, Inc

Dai' Submitted: February 19, 199 3 Commencement Dace: May 1993

Prepared by Warren J. Barton

•INDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

I have coneidered tie n o t i f i c a t i o n by Flash Gas 4 o n Southwest

I n c . . co remove P l a t fonn A. Caiaaon Nc. . , and Caisson No. i i n

the High Island Area East Addi t ion . B] -ck A - 170 (Lease

OCS-G 9103). SEA No. ES/SR 93-047. Based on -he environmencal

a n a l y s i s contained i n the e i t e - e p e c i f i c environmental assessment

the re i s no evidence t o indicace that che proposed ac t ion w i l l

s i g n i f i c a n t l y (40 CFR 1508.27) a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of the human

e n v i r nt i f the p e n n i t / a p p l i c a t i o n i s approved subject to the

m i t i g a t : measures. Preparation of an environmental impact

statement is not r equ i r ed .

GU:

inal Supervisor fang and Environment

of Mexico OCS Region ru

I *

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i i

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

X. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL(S) AND NEED FOR 1 THE PROPOSAL (S)

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION (S) 1 WITH MITIGATION

B. NBBD FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION (S) 1

I X . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION(S) 2

A. NON - REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE(S) 2

B. REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE iS) BY ALTERNATIVE 2 NON-EXPLOSIVE METHODS

C. REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE (S) AS PROPOSED 2 WITH ADDED MITIGATION(S)

X I X . ENVIRONMENTAL EFPECTS, SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS, 3 AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 3

1. E n v i r o n m e n t a l Geology and 3 Geo 1 og i c Ha za rde

2. M e t e o r o l o g i c a l C o n d i t i o n e 3

3. P h y a i c a l and Chemical Oceanography 3 a . P h y e i c a l Oceanography 3 b . Chemical Oceanography 3

4. Wate r Q u a l i t y 4

5. A i r Q u a l i t y 4

B. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 4

1 . C o a a t a l H a b i t a t e 4

2. P r o t e c t e d , Endangered, a n d / o r T h r e a t e n e d Species 4 a. B i r d s 4 b . M a r i n e Mammals 4 c . Sea T u r t l e s 5

PAGE

3. Birds 5

4. S e n s i t i v e Marine Habitats 5

5. Of t shore Habitats and Biota 5

C. SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS 6

1. Employment 6

2. Economics 6

3. Onshore Support F a c i l i t i e s , Land Uae o and Coaatal Commun it. ies and Service.

D OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6

1. Commercial and Recreational Fiaheries 6 a. Commercial Fisheries 6 b. Recreational Fisheries 7

2. Archaeological Resources 7

3. M i l i t a r y Uae/Warning Areas and 7 Explosive Dumping Areas

4. Navigation and Shipping 7

5. Pipelines and Cables 7

6. Other Mineral Resources 8

7 Human Health and Safety 8

E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 8

IV. PUBLIC OPINION 8

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 9

V I . BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SPECIAL REFERENCES 10

V I I . PREPARERS 13

V I I I . APPENDICES 14

A. FLASH GAS & OIL SOUTHWEST, INC., 15 CORRESPONDENCE

B. NMFS CORRESPONDENCE 3 8

TABLE 1 Explosives Proposed by the Operator f o r the 11 Structure Removal i u High Island Area East Addition, Block A-170

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of t h i s S i te Specitic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is to assess the s p e c i f i c impacts associated with proposed structure-removal a c t i v i t i e s The SEA is based on a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) (USDOI, MMS, 1987) which evaluates a broader spectrum of potential impacts resulting from the removal of structures; e .g . , platforms/caissons across the centra l and western planning areas of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shel f . The PEA/SEA process i s designed to s impl i fy and reduce the s i z e of environmental assessment documents by eliminating repetit ive diacussions of the same i s sues . This SEA conforms to the MMS and other appropriate guidelines for preparing environmental assessments by u t i l i z i n g data presented in the PBA to complete the assessment. I t presents s i te -spec i f ic data regarding the proposed structure removal (s) anc* evaluates the potential impacts. Mitigation measures are contained in th i s document to lessen potential impacts. Preparation of th i s SBA hae allowed the detennination of whether a Pinding of No Significanc Impact (POMSI) ie appropriate oz whether further assessment of the proposal (a) ie necessary.

I . DES IP' OF THE PROPOSAL (S) AND NEED POR THE PROPOSAL (S)

A. DESCRIPTION OP THE PROPOSED ACTION (S) WITH MITIGATION

Plash Gae fc Oil Southwest, I n c . , proposes to remove Platform A, Caiaaon No. 2 and Caisson No.3 in Block A-170 (OCS-G 9103). The structure ia located in a water depth of 60 feet and l i e s approximately 35 miles south of Sabine Peas, Texaa. The operator plans to exploeively eever and remove the etructuree'e four piiee and three "onductore. See Table 1 for epec i f ic data regarding the explosive removal operationa.

Refer to Appendix A Cor etructure epecif icatione for the removal (s), additional data on removal techniques, and sequence of eventa.

MITIGATION

Refer to the operator'a propoaal (a) (Appendix A) for mitigative measure (s) propoaed to reduce the likelihood of death or injury to aea turt l e s and marine mammala.

B. NEED POR THE PROPOSED ACTION(S)

A discussion of the legal and regulatory mandates to remove abandoned oi l and gas etructuree from Pederal waters can be found in the PEA referenced in the Introduction. According to Plaeh Gaa fc Southwest, I n c . , the well hae been depleted.

l

I I . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSEr ACTION(S)

A l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e proposed s t r u c t u r e removal ( s ) w i t h m i t i g a t i o n o r i g i n a l l y s u b m i t t e d a r e :

A . NON REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE (S)

The ope ra to r w o u l d not proceed w i t h t he proposed r e m o v a l ( s ) . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e w o u l d e l i m i n a t e t he p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t sea t u r t l e s , marine mammals, o r o ther mar ine l i f e would be harmed by remova l of the e t r u c t u r e ( s > as p roposed . However, non-removal of t h e s t r u c t u r e ( s ) w o u l d r ep resen t a c o n f l i c t w i t h Federa l l e g a l and r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t e , which mandate t h e t i m e l y removal o f o b s o l e t e or abandoned e t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f one year a f t e r t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e l ease , o r upon t e r m i n a t i o n o f a r i g h t o f use of easement. T h e r e f o r e , non-removal doea not appear t o be a v a l i d a l t e r n a t i v e .

B . REMOVAL OP THE STRUCTURE (S) BY ALTERNATIVE NON EXPLOSIVE METHODS

The MMS hae i i e c u s s e d v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r e - r e m o v a l t echn lquee i n t h e Pinal Bnvi m m e n t a l Impact Sta tement (FEIS) f o r Propoeed O i l and Gas Leaee Sa les 118 and 122 (USDOI, MMS, 1988) and the PEA refe renced i n t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n . Updated i n f o r m a t i o n i e a l e o f o u n d i n the FEIS f o r Sa lee 139 and 141 (USDOI, MMS, 1991) . I t was concluded t h a t t h e moet e f f e c t i v e methode o f s t r u c t u r e removal are the uee o f e x p l o e i v e e , e i t h e r b u l k o r shaped charges , and underwater a r c c u t t i n g . Other methode appear p r o m i e i n g but r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l development t o e o l v e the o p e r a t i o n a l and l o g i e t i c a l problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these t e c h n l q u e e . P r i m a r i l y f o r t h i s reason, t hese methode do not appear t o be f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t h e removal o f t he e u b j e c t s t r u c t u r e ( s ) .

Refer t o the FEIS (USDOI, MMS, 1988 and 1991) and PEA r e f e r e n c e d i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n f o r d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g a l t e r n a t i v e methods o f s t r u c t u r e r emova l .

C. REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE (S) AS PROPOSED WITH ADDED MITIGATION

I t has been d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t he proposed o p e r a t i o n s f a l l w i t h i n the ca tegory o f a c t i v i t i e e covered by the N a t i o n a l Mar ine F i s h e r i e s Serv ice (NMPS) B i o l o g i c a l O p i n i o n o f J u l y 25, 1988, w h i c h addresses " s t a n d a r d " e x p l o s i v e s t r u c t u r e removals i n the GOM.

Refer to the te rms and c o n d i t i o n e o f t he " g e n e r i c " I n c i d e n t a l Take Sta tement (Appendix B) , and any m i t i g a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d by t h i s SEA necess&ry t o reduce the l i k e l i h o o d o f d e a t h or i n j u r y t o sea t u r t l e s and mar ine mammale.

2

In the course of this evaluation, additional protective measure was identified to further mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the proposal. Appropriate regulations and procedures are believed sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts.

Our analysis indicates that there are existing pipeline(e) located within 150 m*tere (490 feet) of the propoeed a c t i v i t i e s . The existing pipeline (s) may pose a hazard to the propoeed operations. Precautions in accordance with NTL 83-3, Section IV.B, w i l l be taken prior to performing the proposed operations.

The lessee w i l l ensure that a l l a i r c r a f t used in support of their OCS operations maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet over a l l national w i l d l i f e refugee and national park lands.

I I I . ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

1. Environmental Geology and Geologic Hazards

A discussion of environmental geology and geologic hazards can be found in the PEA referenced in the Introduction. The proposed structure-removal a c t i v i t i e s are not in an area of sediment i n s t a b i l i t y (mud flows, slumps, or slides). Therefore, geologic conditions are not expected to have an impact on the proposed structure-removal a c t i v i t i e s .

2. Meteorological Conditions

No impacts are expected ae a result of the proposed a c t i v i t i e s . For analysis information, see the PEA referenced in

the Introduction.

3. Physical and Chemical Oceanography

a. Physical Oceanography No impacte are expected as a result of the proposed

a c t i v i t i e s . For analyeie information, see the PBA referenced in the Introduction.

b. Chemical Oceanography

Impacts are expected to be very low as a reeult of the proposed a c t i v i t i e s . For analysis inforwation, see the PBA referenced in the Introduction.

4. Mater Quality

Impacte are expected to be low aa a reeult of the propoeed activitiee. For analysis information, see the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

5. Air Quality

Impacts are expected to be very J ow ae a reeult of the proposed act ivi t ies . For analysis information, aee the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

B. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

1. Coastal Habitats

No impacts are expected aa a reault of the proposed activities. For analysis information, see the PBA referenced in the Introduction.

2. Protected, Endangered, and/or Threatened Speciee

a. Birds

The operator has indicated that helicopter flights and boat traffic would ut i l i z e a shorebase in Sabine Pass, Texas. The PBA referenced in the Introduction delineates sensitive areas along the Texaa coastline where whooping cranes and brown pelicans could be adversely impacted by structure-removal support activitiee. The propoeed work is not expected to impact threatened or endangered birde OL their habitate.

b. Marine Mammals

A diacuaaion of marine mammala occurring acroaa the GOM and an assessment of tha potential impacts of structure-removal activltiea on marina mammala can be found in the PBA referenced in the Introduction. Pritta et a l . (1983) conducted aerial surveys across a 9,514 square mile area of GOM waters. Results of these eurveys indicate that the b**-* ee dolphin is probably the moat likely marine mammal to atructura removal (s) . The MMF for marine mammals prior to ' i at the removal eite(s). If structure-removal site (s) , would be delayed until the In spite of these precautii marine m&mmals c^uld enter ..

ered at the proposed may be utilized to look

jf the primary charge(s) .<tale are detected at the

a of the primary charge(s) are removed from the areata).

low probability exiata that undetected and could jlaet area(o)

be injured or k i l led by the wierwater, subsurface detonation(s) . Such an occurrence is considered highly unlikely and with the indicated protective mitigation meaaure'e), the proposed

4

structure -removal activities are expected to have ..*y a low impact on marine mammals.

c. Sea Tart led

A discussion of sea turtiee occurring acroee the central and weetern GOM and an a -»«str.. of the potential impact a of structure removal ac m sca turtles can Pe found in the PBA referenced in th -t .t . • Action. Studies by Fritts <tt a] . (1983) and Fuller and Tappan (1986) as well as stranding a., a from the 8aa Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (Teas, 1992! indicate that sea turtles occur in the vicinity or the propoeed activities and therefore could be impacted by the atructura-removal operations. Definitive information on the probability of encountering sea turtles at the removal slte(s) during explosive operetione le scarce. The NMFS and/or MMS observers may oe utilized to look for sea turtiee prior to detonation of the primary charge(s). If eea turtles are detected at the structure-removal site(e), detonation of the primary charge(s) will be delayed until the mimals are removed "rom che area(e). As in the case of marine mammals, the possibility exiate that eea turtles could enter the blast area(sj undetected and could be injured or killed by the underwater, eobsurface detonatlon(e) This occurrence i s considered unliitely, and with the indicated protective mitigation meaeure(s), the proposed structure reuoval activities are expected co have only a low impact sea turtles-A cumulative Incidental take has b*en author I zed by the MMP£ for this category actiona, but with i l the precaution* to be taken as mitigating measure(s). it is i.ilikely that any eea turtles will be affected by these proposal operationa.

3. Birds

iapacts are expected to bj very low as a reeult of the prop -wed activities. For analysis information, eee i >.*. PBA referenced in the Introduction.

4. Sensitive Marine Habitats

A dlecussion of eeneitive marine haLltats oc. > :.i.ig in the central and weetern GOM and an assessment of t t.. pot.eut i«l impacta of etructure - removal activitiee on thuee areae can be found in the PBA referenced in the Introduction, tne propoeed activitiee are not neer any eeneitive marina habitata. Therefore, the aubject etructure removal activitiee will not impact any eeneitive marine habitata or their reaident biota.

5. Off ahore Habitata and Biota

Impacta are expected to be low as a reeult of the propoeed activities. For analyeie Information, eee the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

3

C. SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS

1. Employment

Impacts are expected to fc« /try lovr %a a ref.. cf the propoeed activities. Por ana >.«••'is infor.^a. ion, ae<. Lhe PEA referenced in the Introduction.

2. Economics

Impacts are expected to ns very lew at» •* .jn . c o« the propoeed activities. For analysis infonr;».i.:o-1 ««) r' PEA referenced in the Introduction.

3. Onshore Support Facilitiee, Land Uee, %*J3 Costal Communities and Services

Tho operator has indicated t'., iabine Pass, Texas, would be the ehore bare for the propos«d ture-removal activities. No impacte are expected as a result .._ tH«s proposed activities. For analysis information, see the t-EA referenced in the Introduction.

D. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

1. Commercial and Recreational Fieherlee

a. Commercial Fisheries

Por analysis '.put nation, see the PBA referenced in the Introduction. Since i ho PBA was originally written, new concer ia have emerged concerning the impacts of explosive e*ructure removals on reef fiah populations. On May 9, 199*., ttt3 GOM Fi iery Managemen Council expressed concern ovet the declinirj stocks of reef rv,h. especially red snapper. They referred to the antidotal 'icounai of finfish k i l l associated with explosive removals of of t s ^ r e atructures in ord^r cr> link theee activities with thei. conc<r about declining popul&M >ns of v.eel fish. They further sucg?t>ted that the MMS should h Id a l 1 co.1 caive structure removals in abeyance unt' l more ' -rmat.c >*eoiru%s avai'»ble on the effect:.' of theee svtivj..' yr, fish :'.ccks. See the VSh ;3s"Mon on Offshore Hahi.at..' »n<. <t\ '. D fox a discussion z' lion k i l l s in mse c* %tion ..itn err e ructure removals.

The MMS has declined to hold a l l explo. ^ etructure removals in obey anc e citing the regulatory nm. .idates for structure i»movaia and problems with current non-explo?ive structure -removal methods. The MMS has stated a ortmitmen*: to "irry out studies to assess the impacts of o i l a:.a gas structure removals on Gulf fisheries resources and the results of these studies will be used to determine future policies with reepect tc these activities.

6

""he MMS continues consi." 4i he overall l.npacte of • rucr ire removals on coiwi 'rcia" i .vMng to t f -•/. The MMS \ >lxcy of encouraging \n active r x '* - to-reef s pn m wi l l h*rlp

c £ f c e t cumulative etructure removal impacte trr xaheries • .-.lources.

b RecreaL.wif 1 Fisherie*

Impacts are expee'.od to be low ae i reeult of ».he proposed a c t i v i t i e s . ,\.t ^nalypir. information, *«>a th. referenced in tne In - rod i :t*on. See t..e preceding »•-.. ion or « di-.cuseion of f i s h k is in association with explo*. v« :ure r x ,novala.

2. Archaeo. , ii ~ A I Resources

Impacte ar • »xpa. ed to be tow rn a <ilt of tr.e propoeed a c t i v i t i e e . For l y s i s informs ion, § v j che PFA referenced in the Introduction

3. tnilit#-y Uae/Karning Area? and Exp. os ive Dumping Areae

A dV.acription of mi l i tary use/warning *reae and axploaive dumping <reae, their locations and potential impacta of etructure-removal a c t i v i t i e . , on theee areaa car be found in the PBA referenced in the Introduction. The proponed ac t iv i t i ee w i l l not impact or be impacted by any mil ir u y uet/varnin , area or exploeivea dumping areae.

4. Navigation and Shipping

The propoeed etructure - removal a c t i v i t i e e aro not located adjacent to a veese: safety fairwcy or in an anrhorage area. Structurea located r.e \rahore may s< rve as "landmarks* to vessels or helicopter opera: n- in the arr« . l a regular basis. The overal l impacta of \l.m propoaed wc... en navigation and ehipping are expected to be v« iy low. More information on the Impacte of etructure removal* « liavigatir. . *d shipping can be found in tne P"A referenced in the Introduce I or.

5. Pipelines and Cablee

The PBA re)'*roused in the Introduction contains a description oi th« Jroactf of etructure-removal e c t i v i t i e s on pipelines and cab"T rt. There are existing pipelines within 150 meters (490 ft.*'.* of the proposed etructure-removal a c t i v i t i e s . Sine che operator muet adhere to existing awe and regulations 'or abandonment of structures (including procedures required by He-tore CO lessees and Operators No. 83-3), th i proposed work wi l l not poee a hazard to pipel ine (e) and cahle(s) in the area (•) .

6. Other Mineral >. sources

No i*rpactc are expec :ed aa a resul t of the trooosed a c t i v i t i e s . For analyais i n f o m a t i o n , aee the f?A referenced in the In t roduc t ion .

7. Human Health and Safety

The pt*. referenced i n the In t roduc t ion deecribea the hazardo 1 1 . «. -.n&it * ons f o r workers coring st rue t u re-removal a c t i v i t i e s "he operator has p f - o . e d the use of explosives i n v-onjunctioo v i t h \he s t r u c t u r e nmov;.l a c t i v i t i e e . Ex i s t ing l e g a l and regulatory s a f e t y requirements w i l l keep the impacts of tne proposed work on human heal th and sa fe ty at a very low l eve l

E. JNAVOTCABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

A d i s c - i ^ 1 -n of unavoidable AU. arse impacta can be found in the PEA referenced th* In t roduc t ion . Two areaa of ongoing concern have been tho p o t e n t i a l ir.tpact to protected, threatened, anc*./or endangered epecies and p o t e n t i a l loss of hab. tat to the "u i r ine environment. Both copiee are diecueeed i n the PEA and p rev ioue ly i n t h i a document. A more recent issue of concern haa eur faced regarding the impacte of exploeive s t ruc tur re y*» 9 on reef f i e h stocks. This issue hae been previouely d i ed " th-'s document. Although the impacte . commercial ana r ec rea t i ona l f i s h e r i e s i s considered to be low, f u r t h e r s tudies i n f o r m a t i o n about t h i s issue should be ava i l ab l e in the f u t u r e o t h e r unavoidable adveree impacts am considered to be minor.

I V . PUBLIC OPINION

A discussion of p u b l i c concerns ».-.warding s t ruc ture •••hiiv-.le cai. be found in the PBA referenced i n rf*. I n t r o d u c t i o n .

l u May 1991, the GOM F i ihe ry Management Council requested tha t the MMS place a mora cor ium over the explosive removal of o f t s h o r e etructuree w i t h three or more eupporte. Non-t tmova1 f theee s t ruc t ares would c o n f l i c t wi th current Fedezal ?eg«: anc r e g u l a t o r y lequiremente which mandate the t i m e l y remova? of abandoned or obsolete s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n a per iod of ort yC*u a f t e r termination of the lease, or upon te rmina t ion of » r i g h t -o f - u s e or easement.

The ftW bellevee tha t current data on the e f f e c t * : • x r l o » i / e removala on f i s h m o r t a l i t y i s i n s u f f i r ent r.o C.i^w ary conc lun io t* , and a moratorium on a l l but s i n g i - i l e caissois ac t h i s t i i -e a u n j u s t i f i e d . I n order to quar t ' " 4 .-".plosive ef f e c t e , the t-<V i n i t i a t e d an interagency fti> iy w i t h the NMPS to determine .'inh m o r t a l i t i e s from p la t fo rm ten. val operations. I r a d d i t i o n to :he above wcu.iy, the MMS supports an ac t ive r i g s - t o -

B

reef progr**: and encouragee industry to search for method that w i l l Minimize effects on f i s \ from platfarm-removal operationa.

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In accordarc* -#ith the provisions of Section ' if the Endangered Speciu* Act, • ha propoeed etructure-remc-a 1 oper*-ione are covered by t'.ie Biological Opinion ieeued by the i MFS on July 25, i$H t which established a r.itegory of "scam; .rd" ^xplo»-«ve .. ructure-remov?\l opeiatio: Their comment* are xncludeu .u appendix B. The NMPS concluded that thie category ct structure removal act ivit ies will not likely jeopardize the continued ^xistsi ce of an> threetened or endangered speciee u J.-r their purview. Additionally, they concluded that L ie ty»,* ol "standard" atructura-removal activity may result in Mj jry or mortality of loggerhead, Kemp'a ridley, green, hawKsbill, and eatherback turtles. Therefore, they eetablished a cijmul.tive

levwl of incidental take and diecuaced varioue meaaurt. ..?ceesary to moni: und minimize this impact (sse Appsndix B) . Ihe NMPS noted tnat no incidental tsVng of marine mamma le waa - uthorized undsr Section 101 (a) <fi, of tin Marine Mammal Protsction Act of 1972 in connection wiwh this category of structure-remova.. act iv i t ies . Thsrsfors, taking of marine mammals by the operate* would be p*.unibited unless thsy successfully apply or am1 obtain a permit or waivar to do so from the NMFS.

9 •fa

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SPECIAL REFERENCE (S)

Ti.it. T.H., A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Collum, W. He» man, and M.A. McCehse. 1983. Tur*lee, birde, and mamma le in tha northern Gulf of 4exico and neart/ Atlantic watere. U.S. Fi«h and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Servicee, Washington, D.C.

. l l s r , D.A and A.M. TftOpan. 1986 Thr occur rencc of eea t urtles in Louie:ana coastal a'ers Coastal Fieherlee I n s t i t u t e . C.nter for Wetl r J Resources. Louisiana St-te University. Baton Rouge, LA.

''eas, Wendy, G. 3992. 1992 Semi-annual Repot. llse Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvcqe Network. Atlantic and Gu' • CoaetJ of tha iviie d Statee. January - June 1992. National 4**rine Fieher len 3<ti ies. Southeast Fisheries Center. Miami Laboratory, 75 Vt&ejiAla Beach Drive, Miami, FL.

U.S. Department of the Intex or. Minerals Management Service. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Gulf of Mexico Salsa 13 and 141: Ce: rai and Weetern Planning Areas. OCS II8/BA MMS 91 0054. Washington, D.C. Avallabls from NT7«3, Springfield, VA. Volume I, PB92- 125376/AS and Volume I*, PB92-125384/AS.

U.S. Department of r he In rior. Minerale Manageme: Service. 1989. Final Environment Impact Statement. 9uXf of Mexico Sales 123 and 125: CsnLral and Weetern Planning Are*e. OCS EIS/EA MMS 89 C 53. Washington. D.C. Available from NT IS, Springfield, VA. PB-89234900/AS.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Mineral* Management Service. 1988. Final uvironmental Impact Stateme* Propoeed OCS Oil an<* ''ae east Salee 118 and l.' (Central id Weetern Gulf of Msxico) . OCS EIS/MMS 88-004*. Waahington, D.C. Available from NTIS, Springf'»'d, VA: PB89 - 114185/AS

U.S. Pepart.T^nt of the Interior Minerale Management Servics. 1987. programmatic Environmental Aaaesament. Structure-removal activitiee Central ano Weetern Gulf o£ Mexico Planning Areaa. OCS/FA 87-0002. Gulf of Mexi ^ OCS Region, Ne* Or eSAS, LA.

TABLE 1

Explosives Propossd by the Operator for the Structure Removal in

High Ieland Area, Bast Addition, Block A 170 (OCS-Q 9103)

Composition B and Composition C4.

Number and Site Qt QmtttUl* Platform "A"

One (1), 45-pound charge for the caieeon and the caeing of Platfonn "A".

Pour (4), 25-pound chargee, one for each ekirt pile (4).

Mell #2

One (l , 40-pound charge to cut 7 Inches through 26 inch casing

One ( l ) , 50-pound charge for the 60 inch caieeon.

Well #3

Two (2), 50-pound chargee for the well cae ing/conduct or pipe and caisson.

Smplgymtnt. of. QsaKMttl'

Platform "A"

Inside, 18 feet or deeper below the mud line.

Well 82

Inside, 20 to 25 feet deep below the mud line for the first shot. Ineide, 18 feet below the mud line for the eecond shot.

well 83

Inside, 20 feet below the mud line for the first ehot. Inside, 18 to 19 feet below the mud line for the eecond shot.

Note: A minimum of 16 feet below the mud line le required.

i i

Sequencing q{ Petpnafcion:

Pla t form "A*

Multiple shots w i t h a 0.9 second delay between detonations.

Mell tt.

Two 2) single shots. The second shot w i l l be at least two i2) r.ours a f t e r the f i r s t shot on t h i e structure.

Well «3

Two (2) single shots. The second ehot w i l l be at least two (2) hours a f t e r the f i r s t shot on t h i s s t r u c t u r s .

Note: An extra shot may be required for the above Platform "A", Well tt.., and Well a 3 i n caee of incomplete eeparation.

12

V I I . PREPARERS

Author:

Warren J. Barton - Environmental Sc n t i s t

T y p i a t :

Michael B. Wallace - Environm*mtal Operationa Assistant

l i

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMOReJBMM

Tot EoTti I H D U I Opmt laaf Seotion (LE-5)

Prosit Office of Structural and Technical Support, Plsld Operationa, Oulf of Mexico OCS •ssdlWl (OSTS)

Subject: Platfora Reaoval

OPERATOR: F l f l S h

C o n t r o l No: ES/SR q 3 - o 4 1

Flat fore Area/I H i /i I7c

WR 2 1995 ^

Mintfils MAAHAajjat Service laaiiaj 4 r-—nm

Gi>sion r4o ^ ^ |»

CAIJJOV> Mo-3 "

j h o r e Base: ^ q b ' t v i C fcs* J T K

The attached appl cation ia forwarded to your office ao tbat the Finding of Wo

Significant Iapact cao be prepared. «e believe tbla propoaed activity meets

th* requireeeots of tbe generic Endangered Saeeiea Act Sectioo 7 Conaultation

Docuaent. There ar«-/**i • n exiating plpellne(a) within 500 feet of tbe propoaed

removal location.

(OSTS) Extenaion 2891

;J J6X K/icloaur-

AShah: :LEZIT7fE:Dl9k 5 1)16 •• -I

Lt • c 4 7

Fla t ) Gas & Oil Southwes t , Inc . i RODI< TIOM AMD EXPLORATION

V- # .# • '-

February 19, I99i

PKOfcRAL EXPRfff Regional Supervisor, Field Operations (OSTS) Minerals Management Service 1201 Eimwood Park Blvd Nov Orleans, Louisiana 70123

Attention: Mr. Arvind Shah

RE: Revised Application to Remove Offshore Platforms And Weils with Explosives Platform "A" (including Well 'A-I'), Well #2 and Well *> OCS-G 9103, High Island Addition Block 170 Offshore, Texas L - r /

fa* T

Gentlemen:

Flash Gas A OU Souriieejst, Inc. '"Flash') respectfully requests your earliest approval of the attached application to allow removal of well caissons and platform vmczwc oy uae of explosives. Ail woric s4H be performed per current regulatory requirements. We plan to begin work \ lortiy after approval of this permit application, ims lease is currently held by rjroducuon. Since t*ie last producing well <xa*cd production on January 24, 1993, this OCS lease will expire on A;.ni IA, 199i. Plug and abandonment of wells and structure is required within one year of this date. Tha development was authorized by the Minerals Management Service, Lake Jackson District.

Please contact either Randy Chapman or me at (504, 626-8738 should you require further information to process this application.

Sincerely yours, H A S H CAS It OIL SOUTH WEST, INC.

Presid nt

LRCA •

e m i - j . i j

P. O. B O X u i H A N Df£ V I L L E , LOUISIANA 704 70 '1231 I04-SRC-I7M

H I G H ISIAND BLOCK A JTO PLATFORM

PROPOSED OCS PLATFORM* STRUCTURE RfcM'V;

Rcspor.^iblc Para. A. Lease Operaxr Name:_

Address: rU),&Q\ . B

D.

Mandev .le. L K 7QJ"TJfl^g. 629 V illage Lane SoutN Mandeville J4J3Uttaa Contact Person and Telephone Nu'.i**-er L. Randv Chapman, work (504> 626-875>-home (204) ULSZl Shore Base: Safrmc Em. I O M

II . Identification of Structure to be Removed

F*4

DL

A B.

C D E F.

Platform Name: Platform 'A": Braced Caisson Platform with a single well. ' Location (Lease. Area. Block and Block Coord'natesj: 1 ( V ^ - f i

rAddition Block PO. Offrnore Texas. Texas iljimperT Plane Coordinates •rnriflPT"!: SMMBi Souih Zone; X Date Installed (Y Proposed Date of v'ater Depth:

Complex Numbe

IfigLfcan and Y

Month/Year):

516-104

Descriplion of Structure to oc Remov ed A. Configuration (Photograph or Diagram Attached) B. Size: 46' py 46' base ai imirilinr. a single ranann • water line and 2 decks with a

heliport at - "QLmsL •— S c Number of L r >"" ;"r^ P i i ;"f Piarfnrm " v y n i | f ( ^ ' n i j / d r i v e P'P* strTffT

ai center of strucmrc and t skirt piles at pcnmcicr ofW D. Diameter and Wall thickness of Legs/Casmgs/Plllngs:

Platform 'A* Caisson (drive pipe)) 30* x 1" w.t ^

^""tlnfinr -"— -surface casing 1 6 * X 6 6 J # "

intermediate casing 10-3/4- x «L3# *

producQon casing r % 2fc.4# •

tubing — 2 - 7 / f x 6 J # "

skin piles (4) j 24* x 0.623*

E. Are Piles Grouted? .no Are Well Casings Grouted?.

Inside or Outside7. .yes—

Platform A' Removal High Island Block A-170 February 1993

F Brief descripuon of soil composir on anil rendition Depth Below Seafloor Shrir Giicr.yK iLOi Sq f

rv.

v.

Corsistcncy Firm ^and) Firm <S^nd) Stiff Firm Stiff Stiff Stiff Stiff

Purpose Brief discussion -i on for removing the structure: Removal is required by QCS regulations dUS upcoming lease expiration after recent field depletion.

IT 400 601; 10' 600 • . 800 20* 800 • 1000 40 800 60' 800 • 1000 80' 1500 1130' 1300 150* 1500

Removal Method A. Brief descnption of the method used: Cut well casing/condu

piling with explosives so that all remaining structures are at, Remove pipe and structure via barge crane,.

B. If explosives are to be used, providt^tfie^iellowtngT 1. Kind of explosives: Condi t ion "B" or "C-4 2. Number and Size of Ch&Les: 1

iatform • mudline.

cajsson and < cadi if 4 skin piles of Platform ",y, f^otc;- v I D and thc p!a

50._ibs, or. m jrfr fiharggi,1

are the -ame structure. I a 'le Shot or Multiple Shots.' Mul:.o Shots S

fox caisson

»f -nultipie shots, sequence and timing of A ton.iuons.

5 multiple shots 11 for the wgfl-egivun i asing and I for each of the 4 skin nilto wun- at laasi-afo.9 sacundv^v ljeiween shots.

b.

Platform "A' Removal High Island Block A-170 February 1993

An extra si^t may be required for the above structure in case of incom-/ >hte separation _ „—•

Note: Well will be plugged with tubing removed prior to cutting operation.

Bulk or Shaped Charge? Bulk charges of no more ma SQf net CXplQSIVC WCiyhl Of "C4". I lash will avoid rhe use of excessive number or excessive size

s abandonment. Depth of IDetonatiOfl Below Mud Line'* Approximately 18' or deeper in order tf. assure hat rm;ileut depth is at l' asi 15' below mudline per LCgHlatUCi requirements. Inside or )utsii!e Piling ' Inside

fl * Tl

C. Pre-Rc. ;val Monitoring Technique : 1 . thc use of scare charges or «~oustic lev v. i proptxed: As directed by

N_MEi QrLSiic Chief opener

If >es, provide the following: a. Number and Xind: as directed by NMFS Obscrvct b. Size of Charge;: 5' of UAJ uram per fcot detonating rnrrj " c. Brief description of how, where and when scare charges or acoustic

devises will be used: tf and when approved by NMFS Oh«grv«»r charge would be lowered to mid-depti from structure and ctetnnatfd

2. Will divers or acoustic devices be used to cr duct a pre-removal survey to detect presence of tunics and marine mammals? ves K

If yes, briefly describe thc proposed detection method: During pre-detonation work dives, divers will inspect structure and hnetnm of platform (including under mud mats) for "sleeping1 or resting turtles and for marine mammals. Thev will report results of inspection rn jnh tupervianr imnwriiatHy

after each drvc. D. Post-Removal V niiorir?-' techniques:

1. Will trans*h«c»"' w used to measure the pressure and impulse of the detonations? J*Q

2. Will divers be uieu to survey the area after removal to detennine any effects on marine life? yes

VT. Bkilogical Informalion

If availab'e provide the results of any recent biological surveys in the vicinity of the structure. If available, describe any recent observations of turtles or marine n amm ais at the structure site—None are avai'able

DISTRIBUTION SbND THREE (3) COPIES OF THE APPLICATION Ta.

Regional Superv taor, Field Operations (OSTS) Minerals Management Service 1201 Eimwood Park Blvd. New Orleans, Louisiana 7012J

(b/d/M/plaifmnJll)

Platform "A Removal High Isiand Block A-170 February 1993

i) . 0 3

fx A

T O . ( i i ' i l t i J

' .73'. £#m<

i<SSJV Ji*

«3

V

HI A-170 PLATFORM FP;. .NG PLAN -.r. MUDL '. NE EL -VAT. ..:

HI A-170 PLAT PM FRAMING ELEVATION

!C«cks and beat Landing not snown)

HIGH ISLAND BLOCK A-170 WELL #2

PROPOSED OCS PLATFORM / STR UCTVRE REMOVAL

A. Lease Operator Name: Flash Gas A Oil Smith west. Inr B. Address: P. Q. Box 187. Mandevillc. LA -Q470-0187.

629 Village Lane South. Mandeville. LA 70448 C. Contact Person and Telephone Number: L Randy Chapman, wort (504) 626-3758.

home l&LM&Ql D. Shore Base: Sabine Pass. Tr,m

D. Identification of Sirjcnirc LO bc Removed A- Platform Name: Braced Caisson Platform with^ w f ' and p f j B t f standing

crmsnn wf B. Location (Lease, Area, Block and Block Coordinates|: OCS-T, Qlp^

High island Addition Block 1 0. Offshore Texas. Texas (I amberri Plan* Coordinate System. South Zone: X » 1632038 and V - <l«47»

C. Date Installed (Year): 1989 D. Proposed Date of R&moty (Month/Year): May 1993 E. Water Depth: ( 60' F. Complex Number..

III. Description of Structure to be Removed A. Configuration (Photograph or Diagram Attached) B. Size: A free standing 6fT diameter

C. Number of Legs/Casings/Pilings: Onr f 1) raimnn itta inicrnaJ casing strings, D. Diameter and Wall thickness of Legs/Casings/Pilings:

Well 02

OT x 1.73" w.t. Caisson 'drive pine)

Well 02

OT x 1.73" w.t. conductor 26" x 3/4-surface casing 13-3/8- x 5430 ) intermediate casing 9-5/Tx36# ( production casing TxZi0 ( "jbing 2-7/r « « # j

E. Are Piles Grouted? _QQ___ Inside or Outside? — Are Well Casings Grouted? yes

Structure Removal Well t l High Island Block A-170 February 1993 I

F. 1. a. Brief description of soil composition and condition: Pcgfh BdQw Seafloor Shear Strength <Lte. Sq.Fr.) Consistency

0' 400 - 600 Firm (Sand)

10* 6 0 0 - 8 0 0 Firm (Sand) 20' 800 - 1000 Stiff 40' 800 Firm 60* 8 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 Stiff 80' 1500 Stiff 100' 1500 Stiff 150' 1500 Stiff

IV. Purpose Brief discussion of the reason for remov ing the structure: Removal is required by OCS regulations due to upcoming lease expiration after recent field depletion.

v. Removal Method A . Brief description of the method used: Cut well casing/conductor and caisson with

exjioaryq |p that all remaining n m n is at least 15' below mudline. Remove pipe and structure via barge crane. ^ i Q

B. If explosives are to be used, provide the following: / - § 0 * * L Kind cf explosives: Composition "B" or

Number and Size of Charges:. IM. nr lf»r Picliminao charge design is as follows: 4Q*-g6mp MBHM4 at WUtOmj b m l fl Bi Z throng 2fT rasing A wnnd rhWrye nnt^CTcxcccd S0# net explosive weight Of "C4" will be Placed on the inside perimeter of the 60 inch diameter caisson as a flexible linear charge (not a shaped charge). . j t

a. Single Shot or Multiple Shots? Two (2) Single Shots —- C 5

b. If multiple shots, sequence and timing of detonations:

The second shot will be at least two (2) hours after the first shot on this structure.

.An extra shot may be required for the above structure in case of incom­plete separation.

Note: Well will be plugged with cubing removed prior to cutting operation.

Bulk or Shaped Charge7 Bulk charges. Flash will avoid the use of excessive number or excessive size of charges for this abandonment, a Depth of Detonation Below Mud Line? Approximate!* 20* to 25* for

first shot and 18* for second shot in order to assure rhat fin*1 Cjjj depth ;s at least 15' below mudlia^peTregulatory requirements,

b. Inside or Outside Piling?7^ Inside '

/' / ?i> '* .>~f j- *fO * Structure Removal Well *2 /

High Island Block A-170 { p " r****— t " February 1993 2 v ->

or:? /- -t; J

C. Pre-Removal Monitoring Techniques: I . Is the use of scare charges or acoustic devises proposed: As directed by

NMFS On- te Chief observer

II yes, provide the following: a. Number and Kind: as directed by NMFS Observer b. Size Of Charges: S' of 100 pain per font detonating enrrt c. Brief description of how, where and when scare charges or acoustic

devises will be used: If and »hen approved by NMFS Observer charge would be lowered M mid-uVjfh from structure and detonated.

2. Will divers or acoustic devices be used to conduct a pre-removal survey to detect presence of turtles and marine mammals.' yes

If yes, briefly describe the proposed detection method: During pre-detonation work dives, divers will inspect structure and bortom area of perform (including under mad mats) for "sleeping* or resting turtles and for marine

S B S S S ? ^ r C P Q f l r C U > t S ^ f H p g C T i C n t Q n j P g T V " Q r 'mm*ri'a*g'y

D. Post-Removal Mot echniques: 1- Will transdu. >e used to measure the pressure and impulse of the

detonations? no 2. Will divers be used to survey the area after removal to determine any effects

on marine life? yes

vi. Biological Information

if available, provide the results of any recent biological surveys in the vicinity of thc structure. If available, describe any recent observ ations of turtles or marine mammals at the structure site—None arc available

DISTRIBUTION SEND THREE (3) COPIES OF THE APPLICATION TO:

Regional Supervisor, Field Operation? (OSTS) Minerals Management Service 1201 Eimwood Park Blvd. New Orleans, Louisiana 70123

iTi/it/W/plwiirT rn

Structure Removal Well 92 High Island Block A-170 February 1993

QC 5 - & 9 / 02 J t l ) # 2

fret ti+*J;** C*nslen }

fe fiu^uu

4 ^ C_

•6 0m

a c i v * 2 7-4-'

- - NJ

at »' I

I K

c

5 i 2 t 6 :

i a *

%

X

030

HIGH ISLAND BLOCK A-170 WELL #3

PROPOSED OCS PLATFORM / STR UCTURE REMOVAL

III.

Baoaafck P.irr>

- P. Q. Box 187 5 a 5 5 £ LA S m S 5

fa^V V illaar 1 anr South. vt.ind«-Y,||f[ | | A -rm < g

Shore Base: _S,i_ ine Pass, TVy^

B.

C.

D

Identification of Stnicmre f p he R^oYffj A ' Platform wiih «fl anrl nm (7) ftrrWni

L M t a (Lease, Area, Block and Cl-vk Coordinates.: I » ~ r v ^ . Q 1 n a ,

Date Installed ( Y e a n i g m J i ' : L a T -C. D. E. F. Complex .N.umbe^^iWr.7

Description of jama fO hr Pfmnvnl A. Configuration (Photograph or Diagram Attached)

St2e: A free stanHjny afl jnrh ? ^ m n

Caisson 1 drive pipe) v Wcllf 3

X ^ « " X T W.L conductor surtace casing ( 13-3/8- x 54J0 intermediate casing J 9-5/rx36# production casing ] 7*x23# tubing / 2 -7 /TK4S#

Are Piles Grouted? no V

Are Well Casings Grouted?. Inside or Outside? —

Structure Removal Well #3 High Island Block A-170 February 1993

1

1 a. Brief description of soi! composition and condition:

Depth Beta* Scafloox 0" 400 - 600 Firm (Sand) 10* 600 800 Firm (Sand) 20' 800 10tt) StifT 40* 800 Firm 60* 800 UJOO Stiff 80* 1500 Stiff 100* 1500 Stiff 150' 1500 Stiff

IV.

V

Pur.xise Brief discission ol the reason for removing the structure: Removal is require* regulation*!due to upcoming lease expiration after recent field depletion.

Removal Method A. Brief description of the method used: l i l t w d h . g/cunduiior pipe in

with explosives sn that all remaining structure it ar least 15' below mudline. ke- : cture v'\

B. If explosives are tc be used, provide the following: 1. Kind of explosives: Composition "B" and *C-4" 2. Number and Size of Charges: 2 Q i or lea per charge)

Preliminar. charge design ; lat Composition B" act ai 20*. A second SQ lbs. Compoaition "B" charge act at 19* to complete cutting

a b.

inglr Shot or Multiple Shots' Two (2) Single Shots If multiple shots, sequence and timing of detonations.

Two (2) shots. The second shot will be spaced at lease two (2) hours after the first shot for this structure.

An extra shot may be required for thc above structure in case of incomplete separation.

Note: Well will be plugged with tubing removed prior to cutting operation.

Bulk or Shaped Charge? Bulk charges, V .yi wiij jyoiq- thtt ujg nf e mrssrvr number or excessive s i j f j f CfrjtgM ffTT ftlf jfijmPnMML a Depth of Detonation Below Mud Line? Apprnximately 20* fbr fumix*

artrf 18* to 19' for second shot in order to assure that final cut depth IS at leaa 13' hciw mudline per regulatory rcouircmeaw.

b. Jnside or Outside Piling? Inside

Structure Removal Welt * \ High Island Block A 170 February 199i

C. Pre-Rernoval Monitoring Techniques: I . Is the use of scare charges or acoustic devises proposed: A j directed fry

MMFS Qn-Sitc Chief observer

If yes, provide the foiiowing a. Number and Kind: as directed by NMFS Observer b. Size of Charges: 5' of 100 gram per foot detonating cord c. Brief description of how, where and when icarc <arges or acoustic

deviiei will be used: If and when apurjayjjd... NMFS Observer charge would be lowered to mid-depth :rtfTL5lDj£LV , and detonated,

2. Will divers or acoustic devices be used to conduct a pre-removal survey to detect presence of turtles and marine mammals'.' . ca­

lf yes, brief)" describe thc proposed detection method: During pre-detonation vork dives, divers will inspect structure and bottom area of platform

mars) for 'sleeping' or resting turtles and for manne LPi inspection io job iupcrvisor immediately

aftc each dive.

D Post-Removal Monitoring Techniques: 1. Will transducers be used to measure the pressure ano unpulse of the

detonations? no 2. Will divers be used . survey the area after removal to determine any effects

on marine life? yes

VI. Biological Information

If available, provide the results of any recent biological sun e the vicinity of the structure. If available, describe any recent observations of rurtles or manne mammals at the structure site. None are available

SEND THREE (3) < OP IES OF THE APPLICATION TO

Regional Supervisor, f eld Operations (OSTS) Minerals Management Service 1201 Eimwood Park Blvd. New Orleans, Louisiana 70123

(b/d/hi/pi«fonn .01)

Structure Removal Well #3 High Island Block * • /U Feoniary 1993

UNlT 1 0 S T A M f 0 » P - » B ' V I S T Ok C G W C a c t • A r**J"»•"•» Oecst. ie • «« A t - o . o - i r c A - f T . n , , , , # t 0 „

\«*BJT' J l "^ 'OSA*. MAO s« I S~J«£S s c « . 21 • » • • • " < ± s j * w r o » o r

• v . . # w I

A l 2 5 S:;

Mr. Wiliiae D. Settenbero Director Minerals Nanaqaeent Service U . S . Departeent of the Interior Washington, D C. 30240

Dear Mr. I« t t«rb«rq:

enclosed ia the l i o log i ce l Opinion prepered by the National Marin* Plahariaa Sarvica (NMPS) pursuant te Saction 7 of tha Endengered Spaciaa Act (CSA) concerning potential lepacta on endengered and threetened epeciee eeeoeleted vith reeovel of car-tain e l l and gae platforaa end releted etructuree ln tha Oulf of Mexico (OOM) ueing exploeivee.

Thie "etandard" coneultetion covers only thoee reeovel operetlona that eeet epecif ied c r l t e r l e pertaining to the elte of exploalva charge weed, detonetlon depth, end number of blaata per etructural grouping. Coneultetion auet be init iated on a caee-bycaae baaie for e l l dieeentllng operetlona requiring the use of explosives thet do not eeet the eetebllehed c r l t e r i e .

NMPS concludes thet etructure reaevele in the OON thet f e l l .w i th in the sstabllshed c r l t e r l e ere not l i k e l y te jeopardise the continued avlatence of l l e ted epeciee under the juriedlet ion of NMFS. Hovavar, i t ie our opinion that the propoaed ac t iv i t i ee aay reeult in the injury or aortal ity or endengared and threetened aaa turt iee . Therefore, pureuent te Section 7(b)(4) of the ISA, we heve eetebllehed e low level of ineidentel take, whieh l s cuaulatlve far a l l reaovale covered ay thie coneultetion, end terms and conditions neceeeery te a in ia i se and aonitor sny iapacts, ehould tha* occur. The terae end conditione sre oontained in the encloeed incidental take eteteaent. Alee anel oaed le a l l e t ef pending conealtetlona that aeet, with noted exceptions, the c r l t e r l e eatabllehed ln the "etandard" coneultetion. Thie biological opinion and the mitigating aaaauraa end terae and conditione contained ln the re l e ted mcidantal take eteteeent apply te theee propoeed reaovel operations. Therefore, formal coneultetion ia concluded for tness propossd set ions.

% i

' > e » ' ffuittiaf A e t f i t a » P r » | » t n • *>i* i * M

029

Conaultation oust bo r e i n i t i a t e d i f : ( l ) the aaount or axtant of taking apecified in the incidantal taka atataaant la exceeded; (2) naw information ravaala iapacta of tha prcpo»«d a c t i v l t i a a that eay a f fec t liatad apeclee ln a Banner or to an extent not conaidarad thus far ln our opiniona; (3) tha ident i f lad act iv i t i ee ere eodifled ln a Banner that caueaa an adverae affact to Hated epeciee not previouely conaldered. or (4) a naw apaclaa le l l e ted or c r i t l c e l hebltat la dea;q-atad tnat eay ba affected by the project.

Z look forward to your continued cooperation ln future consul tet lone.

Sincerely,

Encloa -raa

0 40

Biological Opinion

Agency: Minerele Menegeaent Servico, U.S. Department of tno Intor ior

Act iv i ty ) Consultation for Peso-*.! of Certain Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Cae structuree ln the dv 1 f of Mexico

Coneultatlon Conducted dy: Metionel Marine FlMierlee f (MMFS)

Dete I-aued:

Beckgrovnd Znforeetlon:

Zn e letter dated *cv.,f.r>*. i .A : • Serv ice (MMS) aede a., i n t i . . rvg/je*" fe- ve . -<reultetlon pureuent te Section 7 of tt>•, inderge- ,d . - r .t (ISA) fer the reeovel ef en offehore C . A MN<S fee -: ' * in the Federel vatsrs of tr*. duxf u" Metei* * rv an«t MMFS detereined thet reeoval c* s i* an <?*• pi»*rer$s an< related etructurea ln the 0OH aey of t e c * manger %d md thr«etened aerine epeciee. Thie "aey ..free*" da .era nation « n eased en e poeelble reletionahlp between endengered ana threetened eea turt le a o r t a l l t i a a and the dleeantWng ef plat f u n s uelne exploeivee On Moveaber 29, I tSd. MMFS ieeued the f i s e t ef e eor lee ef b io logical oplnlone eddreeelng, ln deta i l , the potential iapacta to l leted aarine apeclee thet aey occur ee e reeult ef OCS eeendonaent a c t i v l t i a a .

MMS end MMFI aatabliehed proceduraa far eared It Ing Section 7 cor.ewltetlona on p l e t fora eeendonaent eet iv: tie* ln tho OOM referred to ee " a x» edited eeneultet lone. • f a l loving thoee prooedurea, approximately a« eaneultetlene heve a*en eoapleted for reaoval operationa ln the OOM region. A l . Of na coneultatione heve concludes thet the propoaed abandonee"* a c t i v l t i a a vere nat l i k e l y te jeopardise the eentlnied ealatanca of eny liatad apeclee, aut that the propoaed ac t iv i t i e s aay reeul t ln tha Incidantal teklng of endengered end '.hreetcned aaa t u r t l e s

T-.e dieaentling of platforme and related etructures uairq ••piosivee has evolved to a point where • "etandard" protocol c ir ce establiehed for removal operationa meeting certain*cri ter ia" r j s s d upon reaovel technlquee developed and reviewed :n conjunction with the previouely conducted "expedited conaultatior.a, • KMS hae requeated, by letter of May 24 i«aa « ••generic conaultation- that would ba applicable to e l l future' remove1 operationa that f a l l within a dlatlnct category def'ned cy epecific peraaetere. A category haa baan daalgned to i n c i t e thoaa atructura typee end removal techniques noot coaaonly encountered during th* expedited coneultetione and diaeentlinq operationa already completed, since epprcxlmetely 1000 etructurea that aay be acheduled for fut-re reaoval f a l l within the paraeetere of the eatabllahed categoiy, MMPS agreee that a "generic" coneultatlon la appropriate at tnle t iae . The objective of the coneultetion le to red re the administrative burden on both K : S end MMPS for conducting repetitive coneultetione on ec t iv i t i e e thet aay raeult ln d i a l l e r iepacta to listed, epeciee end that require ldentlcel eit igatlng eeasuraa to aainta'in adequate protection for euch epeciee. Thie biological opinion reeponda to MMS' Mey 24, ItSS* coneultatlon requeet. The opinion la baaed on the beet ec l ent l f l c and coaaercial date preeently evellable end lncorporatee information froa: l) prevloue MMS Suaaary Evaluetlone, 2) previoue MMPS biologlcel oplnlone on platfora reaovel, 1) the s c i e n t i f i c l i t erature , and 4) other pertinent end evelleble information. Coneultetion auet be re lnl t ieted l f nev inforaation becoeee available concerning iapacta to Hated epeciee thet vould alter the conelualone reached ln thie opinion or require aodlflcatlon of the aeeeuree identi f ied ln the etteched ineidentel take eteteaent. Coneultetion v i l l continue on e ceee-by-ceee baaia for thoaa etructure reaoval) thet do not eeet the c r i t e r i a eetebllehed for "etsndsrd" removals.

Deecription of Proposed Action:

The proposed sctlon involves tha reeoval, by exploeive aeens, ef offehore o i l end gaa etructuree located in Pederel wetere in the Cul f of Mexieo. Reeoval af tha etructuree w i l l be eccoapllehed by severing the eupport pillnge, oeleeone, well conductors, s t e , using varying amov-nta af exploeivee ta perait ee lve«e of the structures. This lnvolvee the placement of exploeivee insids or outside of eupporting etructuree end detonetlng chergee pr iaer i ly ueing electronIcel iy controlled aignala.

Thie "generic" coneultatlon coneidere only thoee reaoval operetlone thet aeet certeln c r l t e r l e perteining to the s i t s of ths explosivs chsrgs used, detonetlon depthe, and nuaber of f a s t s psr s tructurs l grouping. The epecif ic c r l t e r l e established to cover euch removala ere ee foi less:

(900 ei l l iaeconde). " c * n i n t « r v o . of O J eeeonde

axploaive) aethode. F M °» , € .enical (non-

The eaxiaue aaount of exploeivee oar a e t M x * i « < exceed 90 pourvde. ^ " p # r "tenetion ie nc to

Speciee Occurring in the Project Areei

t n r j r o J K t 1 : ; . ; ? ' " t h # 1 U r l # d i C t i W °< °ccur in

COMMON MAJjl

right whele

flnbeck whele

huapbeck wheU

eel whele

epera whele

green turtle

Keap'a ridley turtle

ieetherbeck turtle

loggerheed turtle

havkebi l l t u r t l e

iClWMTIWZC MAMJ HATHA LUTED

Eubalaena a l a a i a l i | I s / a / 7 0

•aHenQPtsri ahiAAl^ l S/2 /70

b>x4Al4Xs nove lsna i led t S/2 /70

Be l i t n o p t o r e b o r e a l i * t S/2 /70

ttiYiitir fiaxp^ao £ S /2 /70

T.. fe 7 / 2 I / 7 S

Le f t ldgrh .B . l y , a-aipi I 12/2 /70

ITairaeirndl Y l o a r l e e a e E S /2 /70

• a \ K a \ t I i c a r e t t a Th 7 /2S/7S

irttaochdlyi Iran cat a. I S /2 /70

e a i L ? L 2 ° U , f ' ***** t u r t l « Populetione ere l ieted ee l U t M ^ a r ^ . ^ f l 0 r U # b w d l f t ' P o - ^ t i o n . which i a

043

No c r i t i c a l habitat haa been deelgr.eted In tha project aree far tho above apeciea.

Aaaeaaaent of lapacte:

Baaed upon their known diatribution and abunder.ce ln the GOM endenqered vhelee ere believed unlikely to occur in the v ic in i ty of the propoeed etructure reaovel ec t iv i t i ee , end, therefore unl ikely to be edvereely effected by the propoeed ection.

Prevloue NMPS biologlcel oplnlone (November i t , 19SS end February 14, 19S7) have eddreaeed. ln detel l , reaovel of etructurea in the COM. Accounte of endenqered end threetened epeciee which occur ln the rroject eree, end the "Aeeeeeeent of Iapecte" contelned ln theee prior oplnlone eleo apply to thie coneultetion end are Incorporated by reference

In euaaery, the oplnlone referenced ebove acknowledge the ealetence of e poeeible reletionehlp betveen the uee of underveter eaploelvee ln removing platfores end related etructuree and the occurrence of etrended eee turtiee, aerine aaaaala (XirslflPl truncatua) and f lah. Lla l ted experieente conducted by NMrs, Celveeton Laboratory confirm that eee turt\ea (and other earlne vertebretee) found ln p u x l a l t y te petroleua platforme can be Injured or k i . l e d by reaovel operetione employing underveter exploeivas (Xllea, I t S S ) .

Technology Boat cwaaonly uaed ln the dleaantling of platforaa includeoi bulk exploeivee, eheped exploeive chergee, aechenlcel end abrasive cutters snd underveter sro cutters . The uee ef bulk exploeivee hee becoee the industry's etandard procedure for severing pilings, v s l l conductors end ralstad eupportlng etructurea (approx. tot use) . whan using bulk chergee, the m s Ida of the etructure ean ba jetted out to at l s s s t i t fsst below ths ssdiBsnt f loor to ellow placement ef exploeivee inoide of the etructure, result ing ln s decreeee ln the lapulee end preasurs forcee releeeed into the wetar coluan upon datonation. The uee of high velocity eheped chargee I s reported to heve eoae edventeges over bulk exploaivee end hes been uaed ln coablnstlon with sas l l er bulk chergee. The cutting ectlon obtained by e shaped charge le tocnapl i shed by focuelng the explosivs energy with e eonlesl a e t e l l i c l i n e r . A Baler edvsntsgs sssoclstsd with use of high velocity eheped chergee I B that a Baal ler aaount of exploeive charge le reauired to eaver tha etructure, vhich eleo reeul te ln reductlone In tha iapulse end preasurs forces relesssd into ths vatsr coluan. Use of aechsriesl cuttere end underwater ere cuttere le euccessful in seas circuastcncss end do not produce the lBpulse snd preeeure forcee eeaocieted with detonetlon of evploeivee. however, theee methode sr s , ln aost lnatsncss , aors tiae eoneuaing, coetly end aore heierdoue te d ivere . Aa a reault, theee aethods srs Mt uaed on e routine baels (MMS Report on P lat fora 'eaovel - ternlquee) .

4

i)44

a ed upon deta obtained during previouely conducted "expedited" consultations on platfona removala, tha following la a c :vp« r i»ur c i the typea of explosives eoat l ikely to be uaed ln the propoeed rsmoval operetione:

Eapl-alYt OttanStlnfl VflacIty Brisanes*

PCX approx. t , l t t a/aee. 1.35

C-4 epprox. 1,001 a/aee.

Coop.-S approx. 7,105 e/eec. 1.32

• Brieence le the eeeeure of ohattering power ee coepered to TNT which hee briaence of 1.00. (MMJ Report on Platform Removal Technlquee, IMS.)

Ths propossd reeoval operetlone wil l be eccoapllehed ueing high velocity exploeivee. Uee of thie type of exploeive cherge ehould a ln ia l se the duration of the iapulae end preeeure fercee produced by detonetlon of the chergee, while providing the amount of force reguired to ssvsr tha etructuree. According to RMS, res tr ic t ing the grouping of detonstlons to sight individual blasts per grouo end staggering blasts by 0.9 ssconds (900 Bill iseconds) w i l l a l n l a l t s ths srss s f facted by the blaete and euppreea pheeln> of ehock wavee, thereby decreasing the cumuletive effecte ef the b les t s . Zn addition, since s l l detonstlons w i l l occur st I s s s t 13 fsst below the esdlaent eurfece end no aora then 90 pounds o* exploolvos per bleet w i l l be peraitted, the aaount of residual energy releeeed into the marine environaent ehould be reduced eignificant iy. Aa a reeult , MMFS bellevee thet alnlaal ehock snd iapulae forces w i l l bo r a i eeed ln the v i c i n i t y of reaovel operetione st any given t i a a .

TO dats. of approxiaately 44 previously conr* cted coneultetione covering abendonaent a c t i v i t i e s , about 32 t irvetute rtaovale h# a been coapleted. laeta reaoval ope re t l m vaa monitored by "MPS observers end Was conducted uet*g eppropriete a i t l fSt lng aessurss. At the present t i e* sight tur t laa have been sighted ln srsss neer st-ructuree being d laaan .led, at leeet f o of vhior. were green turt laa . Of tha eight documented aightlnge, one turt le wea reported ta aa floating] on i t ' s back near a pletfora s f t s r detonetlon ef chargee, epperently stunned or Injured. Me other incidents sf sas tur t l e Injury or aorta l i ty hava baan reported. Tn-rsfors, MMPS fc* i ievee thet the proposed set ions sre not l l k s l y to reeult ln s igni f icant adverse impacta to enosngered snd thrsstsnsd see tur t l e populetione.

Conclusions I

Based on tho sbovo, i t l s our opinion thst rssovel of pletforme er.d relets* stiubtutss in ths COM Is not l l k s l y to jeoperdus thi contlnusd sslstones of thrsstsnsd snd sr lingered epeciss undsr ths jurisdiction of KMPf. Howsvsr, KMT. conciudee thet vhs propossd s c t i v i t i s s aay rssu l t in ths injury or oortsl i ty of loggerheed, Xoep'e r id ley . grssn, hevkebill snd leatherback t u r t l s s . Thsrsfors, pursusnt to tsctlon 7(h)(4) of ths CSA vs hsvs sstsbllshsd s lov level of ineidentel tsk<* end teres snd conditions nscssssry to e l n l e i i s end monitor thie lepect Conplience vith theee t e n * snd conditione Is the reeponslbil i* v of KMS end ths permit spplicent. 7

Relnitletlon of Coneultetion:

Coneuitstion euet be re ln l t l e ted l f i 1) the emount or extent of teking epeclfled ln the Ineidentel teke stetement le eet or exceeded) 3) nev information rtveele iapecte of the project thst aay eff sot l isted epeciee ln e aanner er te «n extent not coneldered ln this opinion; 3) the identif ied ec t iv i t i ee ere mod1 fled ln s asnner that caueee en edveree effect an l leted epeciee not previouely considered; or 4) a nev apaelae l s Usted or c r i t i c a l hsbltst l a daelgneted thst aay be effected by the propoeed sc t lv i t l ee .

4

• MB

INC.CENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

on

Section 7(b)M) of tho Enoengered Speclee Act requiree thst when s propossd ejency set ion ls found to be -one latent with Section 7 ( s ) (J ) of ths Act snd as pr posed sctlons esy incldentellv taka individuals of l i s t e d -pecIa. , KMFS wi l l leeus s stateaent the" speclflee the lepect (aaount or extent) of euch Incidental taking. Ineidentel teklng by the Federal agency or applicant that eoapllee with the epeclfled terae and conditione of thie eteteeent la authorised end except froa the teklng prohibit lore of the ESA.

Baaed on atranCln-j recorde. Incidental captures aboard coaaerciel ehriap vesssls ar* h i s t o r i c a l dsts, f l v s speclee of see turt les ere known to occu* ln northern Oulf ef Mexico wetere. Current available inforaation on the reletlonehip between eee turt le aorte l i ty snd the ue of hieh-velocity expleslvee to reaove o i l platforaa ind1-eree thet injury end/or death ef eee turtiee eey reeult froa the pr o-»d ectlone. Therefore, pureuent tc f e c t i 7(b)(4) ef the i t i >* i : eldentei take (by Injury or aorte l i ty) l eve l of one anttd keep's r id ley , green, hevkebill or leetherba-k turt le or tan loggerheed turt les l s aat for s l l rsaovel operrUone w.-ucted under the teraa and conditione of th i e incidental :ako eteteaent. Tha level af taking epeclfled here i t cuec'ative for e l l reaovale covered by thie coneultetion. i f the incidental take aeete or exceeds this specified leve l , KMS auet re in l t i s t s coneultetion. The toutheeet legion, MMFS, v i l l cooperate vith MMJ ln the review of the ineU nt te determine the need for developing further alt lgetlon aeeeuree.

The reaavnable end prudent aeeeuree thet MMFS bellevue srs nscsssery to a l n i a l s e the lapect of Ineidentel tsklngs hsvs been dlecueeed with MMS and v i l l be lncorpoi.ted in the reaovsl dsslgn for 'etandard - s tructure reaovela. Tha following teraa and conditione ere eetabllahed for theae reaevele to implement the identif ied a l t lget lon iteeouree and ta docuaent the ineidentel teke ehould euch taka oooun

11 Quel : fled obeerver(a), ea approved hy MMFS aust be -*»c to aomtor the aree eround the s i t s prior t s , during snd eft*. «a* .nation af chargee. Obeerver coverage v i l l begin 4S no* re pr ior to detonat lor af chargee. Xf eea turtiee a.e observe* in the vicinity ef the pletfora end thought te be reeldent et tne e l t e , pre- snd ooo t-de tons tion diver eurveys auet be conducted.

2) On daya that blasting operationa occur, a J C - * . r u t e s s n s » -rvoy auat Oe conducted within one hour before end on« hour a f t e r eech blaatinq epieode. The NMFS-epproved observer and/or fOI/t on-sits pereonnel (KMFS eeployse only) euet be ueed to check for the presence of turt iee end, l f possible, to .dentify epeciee. If weather condi-lone (foe, exceeslvs winds, etc.) make i t iepoeelble to conduct eer ie l eurveye, bleeting ect iv i t iee pay te allowed to proceel i f epproved Ly the NMFS end/or MMS pereonnel on-sits.

3) I f eee turtles ere obeerved In the v ic in i ty of the pletform - i t h i n 1000 yerde of the elte) prler to detoneting chergee,

b leet ing wil l be de.eyed unt i l stteepte ere euccessful ln removing thea at leeet 1000 ysrds froa the blest s i t s . The e e r i e l eurvey euet be repeeted prior to reeualng detonetlon of chergee.

4) Oetenetion ef exploeivee w i l l occur no eooner then 1 hour following sunrlss snd no l s t e r then 1 hour prior to euneet. However, i f l t le determined by KKPf and or KMS on-elts personnel met epecial clrcuaatancee j u s t i f y s aodiflcetlon of theee tiae ree tr l c t l ena end that euoh aodlflcatlon la not l ike ly te advereely lepect l leted epeciee, bleating aay be allowed to proceed eutalde of thie t i ae freae.

• ) During e l l diving oparatlona (vorking dlvee ee reguired ln the couree of the reaovela) , divere w i l l be lnetrueted to eoen tne eubeurface areee eurroundlng the pletfora (blsstlng) s i t es fer turt iee and aerine eamaala any elghtlnge auet be reported to tha MKPS er KMS on-eite pereonnel. Upon coapletlon ef b lee t ing , divere auet report and etteapt to recever any sighted injured or deed eee turt iee or aerine aaaasls.

5) Charges aust be eteggered O.t seconds (too el l l lsscende) for eech group of etructurea, ta a lnia lse the ouaulstlvs effects of tha blests. I f a reaoval operation lnvelvee au l t lp l s groupings sf st.-uoturee, the lntervel betveen detonetlon of chergee fer ssen group should be alnlalsed to evold the "ohusaalng* effect. Whenever euch lntervsls exceed to-amutes, the e e r i e l survsy auat be repeated.

f ) Tne uae ef ecare ohergee ehould be evo -»d to minimise the "chuaaing effect." Use af a care chergee aay oe allowed only l f approved by the KMFS end/or MMS on-eite personnel.

t ) report suaaarlslng ths rssults of tha reaovsl end a i t i . - ion aessurss muet be aubaitted to the MMJ oulf of Mexico R v \on vltMn 19 working days of the reaovsl. A copy of the report aust bs forwarded to NMFS, Southeeet Region.

t ^ j * ; ^ * * . « * » W » W « and

i

REFERENCES

J U A B i 4nd £ u « u c » r « t t » C I » J V K " J " T V J r t l " L»nl<HwK.i . . .

10

i)5C

1 Operator leatSS M M Black Stj^actttra

40 Hobil Explorat ion and Producing Coapany U . S . I n c . Impawn I and Varmilion

J54 102

41 Korr-McGee Corporation Ship Shoal 204

42 Conoco I n c . • Snip Shoal varmi l ion

204 242

4 ) Hobil Explorat ion napaay U . S . I n c . Muat Caaaina a

111 101 I

44 Tonnoco O i l Bxplm rat ion aaa) Prods* c t i o n aaat r •••• • • ass

4** Mobil Explorat ion

Bxcspt r u p p i i 1

and Producing c • • iiapany U . S . I n e .

(ha1lport) iamaallamSI

a r a i l lam) 7S-S)

us 70

•

40 Mobil Explorat ion and Producing O pnpany U . S . Ino. Vormil ion 70 |

47 Senadan O i l Corporat ion CUilvaarton 241

44 Conoco Inc . •

Grand Xala a •

4) 54 47

;

49 Mobil Explorat ion and Producing Coap any U . S . l a smaa S l a

50 Mobil Bxploratlon and Producing Ci jesaaiiy U »uth Pai to 12 0

51 Exxon Coaxpany • • •

-aaat Dalta

• • •

10

I I •

;

S2 Conoco Inc . Wast Doita SS « - i

11 *ob I Exp?orat ion and Pi oduclng Coapany D.S . Inc . •

auat Caaeron South Mnrea

71 SSS

A S

94 Tenneco O i l Explorat ion and Pioduct ion • H i p Staaal leg

• *•* Conoco I n j . •

• 8. Mare*. PJ. Ad

ISS 47

asi

A 0 A

autoexec Meet caamron r - ie i -e

57* Eicon Conpany U . S . * . Except aUe* Ieleaad aavet baalltIan SJ4S-B

• laa l a . , S. ad A-J4S B

941 BMP Petroleun •leaa Ieland A-SB7 A

54 Mobil Exp lore t ion end P r oduclng OaBxMaBa U . S . l a c . Enat 14 9

•0 PMP opereting Conpeny sheet Caaaarun 444 A

«1 Aaoco Production Coap aay E- aarna I r l e n d SS A

coneultetione whoee wiaafiare incluafe an au t e r Ink (a) a i d not t o t a l l y f a l l teener tho pereeotere of t h i a 'etandard • c o n e e l t a t l o n , thar • f o r e , only tSxeae rueaovele neat lag taa pareaatere a r e epproved end f e r t a u r conaul te t lon w i l l bu aaxnaaaary f o r tha eat opt In no