UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Of TNC INTERIOR

I NERAIS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

Gulf of Mexico OCS Rtgion

New Oritent, louisi en.

FINAL

SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ENDANGERED SPECIES/STRUCTURE REMOVAL(S)

No. ES/SR 89-031

Structure-Reeoval Activities

Vt rel Hon Arte, Block 22

Least OCS-G 2865

Mey, 1989

UNITCO STATCS DEPARTMENT OF THC INTERIOR

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SCRVICC

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

New Oritant, Louisiana

FINAL

SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ENDANGERED SPECIF1 'STRUCTURE RCMOVAL(S)

No. -5/SR 89-038

Assessaent of the Environmental Iapects of the Proposed Reaoval of • iat fora J - l Satellite and Wells J - l , J-6, and J - U 1n Verailion Arte, Block 22

(Lease OCS-G 286S) by Conoco Inc.

Oate Submitted: April 26. 1989 Commencement Date: Julv, 1989

Prepared by Dennis Chew

FI NOING Of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

I k m comldtred the epplicetion by Conoco Inc. to remove Pletfora J - l

Satellite end Wells J - l , J - e , end J - U in Vermilion Arte, Block 22

(OCS-G 2865). SEA No. ES/SR 89-038, end btttd on tht environmentel anelysls

contained i t tht si te-specif ic environmental assessment and any mitigation

neesure(s) contained therein, find that there is no evidence to indicate

thet tht proposed tction(s) will significantly (40 CFR 1508.27) affect tht

quelity of tht human environment, end the preparation of an environaentel

iopect stetement is not reguired.

Leesing Gulf of

end Environment Mexico OCS Region

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 11

INTRODUCTION ANO BACKGROUND

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL(S) AND NEED FOR TNE PROPOSAL(S)

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

B. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION(S)

I I . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION(S)

A. NONREMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE(S)

B. RENOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE(S) BY ALTERNATIVE NON-EXPLOSIVE METHODS

C. RENOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE(S) AS PROPOSED WITH AOOEO MITIGATION(S)

III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS, ANO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

1. Environmental Geology and Geologic Hazards

t. Meteorological Conditions

3. Physical and Cheaical Oceanography a. Physical Oceanography

b. Cheaical Oceanography

4. Water Quality

5. Air Quality

I. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONNENT 1. Coastal Habitats 2. Protected, Endangered, and/or Threatened

Species a. Birds B. Marine Mammals c* Sta Turtles

3. Birds

pm 4. Sensitive Merlne Hebttets 4

I. Offshore Hebitets end Hote 4

C. SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS S

1. Eoployotnt S

2. Economics S

3. Onshore Support Fed 11 t ies . Lend Use, end

Coastal Cosexini ties end Services S

0. OTHER CONSIOCHATIONS S

1. Coeeordel and Recreetionel Fisheries S a. Cceeerdel Fisheries S

b. Recreat1 one1 Fisheries S

2. Archeeologlcel Resources S

3. Military Use/Warning Areas and Explosive

Ousel eg Areas 8

4. Navigation and Shipping 9

8. Pipelines and Cables 8

8. Othtr Miners1 Resources 8

7. Hueen Health and Safety 8

E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE INPACTS 8

IV. PUBLIC OPINION 8

V. COMSUt AND COORDINATION 8

VI. BIBLIOG ANO SPECIAL REFERENCES 7

VII. PREPARERS 8

VII I . APPENDICES f

A. CONOCO INC. CORRESPONDENCE 10

8. NMFS CORRESPONDENCE 20

TABLE 1 Explosives Proposed by tht Operetor f t r tht Structure Reoovel In Vereilion Aree, Bitch 22 19

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Tht purpose of this Site-Specific Environmental Assessment (SEA) is tt assess tht specific Iaptcts associated with proposed structure-removal activit ies. Tht SEA Is based on a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (REA) (USOI. MMS, 1987) which evaluates a broader spectrum of potential impacts resulting froa tht reoovel of structures; e .g . , platforms/caissons across tht central and western planning areas of thr Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. Tht PEA/SEA process 1s designed to simplify and reduce tht size of environmental assessment documents by eliminate- repetitive discussions of the sat* issues. This SEA conform to MNS tnd otht jropriate guidelines for preparing environmental assessments by utli ng dttt presented in tht PEA to complete tht assessment. It presents site-spec.fie dete regarding tht proposed structure removal(s) tnd evaluates tht potential impacts. Nitigetion measures are contained in this document to lessen potential impacts. Preparation of this SEA has allowed tht determination of whether a Finding of Nt Slgnlflcent Iopect (FONSI) Is appropriate or whether further assessment of the proposal(s) Is necessary.

I. DESCRIPTION OF TME PROPOSAL(S) AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL(S)

A. Description of tht Proposed Action(s) with Mitigation

Conoco Inc. proposes to remove J - l Satell ite Platform tnd wells J - i , J -6 , end J - U in Vermilion Aree, Block 22 (Lttst OCS-G 2885). Tht structurss tr t located In a water depth of 38 feet end l ie approximately eight niles south of Verailion Perish, Louisiana. The operetor plans to use explosives to sever the piles of the J - l Satellite Platforo 20 feet below tht aud 11ns snd to stvtr tht three well casings 30 feet below the aud l ine. The structure is being removed because tht wells htvt been depleted end will be plugged end abandoned. No scare charges are proposed prior to detonation. Divers will bt available to conduct pre- and post-removal surveys to Inspect for the presence of see turtles end marine tastJtals, i f required. See Table 1 f t r specific dttt regarding the explosive reaoval operations.

Refer to Appendix A for structure specifications f t r tht removal(s), additional data on reaoval techniques, end sequence of events.

MITIGATION

Refer to the operator's proposal (Appendix A) for mitigative tctsure(s) proposed to reduce the likelihood of deeth or Injury tt stt turtles end aarina maaaals.

B heed for the Proposed Action(s)

A discussion of the legal and regulatory aandatts to remove abendoned oil end gas structures froa Federal waters can be found 1n the PEA (USDI, MMS, 1987).

1

I I . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTIOH(S)

Alternatives to tht proposed structure removal(s) with mitigation orlglntl ly subtil tted t r t :

A. Non-Removal of the Structure(s)

Conoco Inc. would not proceed with the proposed removal(s). This alternative would eliminate the possibility that sea turtles, narine mammals, t r othtr narine l i fe would be harmed by roooval of tht structure(s) ts proposed. However, non-removal of the structure(s) would represent e conflict with Federal legal and regulatory requirements, which oandatt tht timely removal of obsolete or abandoned structures within a period of one year after termination of tht leese, or upon termination of a right-of-use or easement. Therefore, non-removal does not appear te bo a valid alternative.

B. Reeoval of the Structure(s) by Alternative Non-Exp1os1vt Methods

The MMS hes discussed various structure-removal techniques in tht Finel Environmentel Impact Statement (FEIS) for Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sales UO and 112 (USOI, MNS. 1986) and the PEA (USOI, NMS, 1987). It was concluded thet tht tost effective methods of structure reoovel are the use of explosives, either bulk or sheped charges, and underweter ere cutting. Othtr methods eppeer promising but requi rt additional development to solve the operatione1 and logistical problem associated with these techniques. Primarily for this reason, thty dt not appear t t bt feasible alternatives for tht removal t f tht subject structurt(s).

Rtftr to tht FEIS (USOI, MNS, 1986) and PEA (USOI, MNS, 1987) f t r detailed information concerning alternative methods of structure removal.

C. Removal of the Structure(s) as Proposed with Added Nitigetion

It has been determined that the proposed operations fal l within tht category of act ivi t ies covered by the National Narine Fisheries Service (NNFS) Biological Opinion of July 25, 1988, which addresses "standard" explosive structure removals In the Gulf of Hexico.

Refer to the term and conditions of the "generic" Incidental Take Statement (Appendix 8 ) , and any mitigation identified by this SEA necessary to reduce the likelihood of death or injury to sea turtles and marine mammals.

Our analysts indicate that there are existing pipel ine(s) located within ISO meters (490 feet) of the proposed act iv i t ies . The existing pipelines my pose a hazard to the proposed operetlons. Precautions in accordance with NTL 83-3, Section IV.B., wil l be taken prior to performing the proposed operation.

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

A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

1. Environmental Geology and Geologic Hazards

A discussion of environmental geology end geologic hazards can be found in the PEA (USOI. MMS. 1987). The proposed structure-remvel activit ies t r t not In

2

«n area of sediment instability (mud flows, slumps, or slides). Therefore, geologic conditions art not expected to hava an Impact on tht proposed structure-removal activities.

2. Meteorological Conditions

No Impacts art expected as a rtsult of tht propossd activities. For analysis information, see tht PEA referenced in ths Introduction.

3. Physical snd Chemical Oceanography

S. Physical Oceanography

No ispscts art sxpected ss s rtsult of tht propossd activities. For analysis information, see ths PEA referenced in ths Introduction.

b. Chemical Oceanography

Impacts art expected to bt very low ss a rtsult of tht propossd activities. For analysis information, see tht PEA referenced in tht Introduction.

4. Water Quality

Ispscts srs expected to bt low ss s rssult ef ths proposed ectivitiee. Fer analysis information, see the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

5. Air Quality

Impacts art expected to be very low as a result of the proposed activities. For analysis information, see the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

B. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

1. Coastal Habitats

No ispscts sre e jected as a result of the proposed act iv i t ies . For analysis lnforootlon, sse the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

2. Protected, Endengered, and/or Threetened Species

a. Birds

The PEA (USOI, MMS, 1987) delineates sensit ive areas elong the Texas coast l ine where whooping cranes and brown pelicans could be adversely impacted by structure-removal support ac t i v i t i e s . Tht operator has Indicated that helicopter f l i g h t s and boat t r a f f i c would u t i l i s e a shorebase In Cameron, Louisiana. No Ispscts on threatened or endengered birds snd the i r habitats s r t expected.

b. Marine Mammals

A discussion of marine mammals occurring across ths Gulf of Mexico (GOM) snd sn assessment of t h t potential Ispscts of structure-removal s c t i v i t i s s on asr ins mammals can be found in the PEA (USDI, MNS, 1987). F r i t t s , et s i . (1983) conductsd ssr is l survsys serosa a 9,514 squere-o11e area of GOM waters. Results of these surveys indicate that the bottlenose dolphin Is prcbebly the aost l i ke ly

3

Mrlne H B N I to bc encountered at the proposed structure removal (s ) . MMS observers ooy bt uti l ized to look for narine mammals prior to detonetlon of the *> prlnary charge(s) at the roooval s i t e ( s ) . I f oarine mammals art detected et the structure-removal s i te (s ) , dstonation of the prlnary charge(s) would be delayed w> until the animals art removed from the area(s). In spite of these precautions, a low probability exists thet oarine mammals could tnttr tht blast area(s) undetected and could be Injured or kil led by the underweter, subsur*tct detonation(s). Such en occurrence is considered highly unlikely and with tho indicated protective Mitigation ooesure(s), the proposed structure-removal v. activities art expected to have only a low impact on oarine mammals.

c . Sot Turtles £

A discussion of set turtles occurring across tht central and western GOM ^ and an assessment of tht potential impacts of structure-removal activit ies on sea turtles cen be found in the PEA (USDI, MMS, 1987). Studies by Fr i t ts , et a l . w

(1983) end Fuller end Teppan (1986) as well as stranding dete fron the See Turtle Stranding end Salvage Network (Werner, 1988) indicate thet see turtles occur in tht vicinity of the proposed activit ies and therefore could be iopacted by the structure-removal operetlons. Definitive lnforootlon on the probability of encountering set turtles at the renoval site(s) during explosive operations is -scarce. NNFS and/or HNS observers may be util ized to look for see turtles prior to detonation of the primary ciiarge(s). If sea turtles art detected at tht w

structure-removal s i te (s ) , detonation of the primary charge(s) w ; , l be delayed until the animals art removed froa tht area(s). As In tht cast of marine mammals, tht possibil i ty exists that sta turt l ts could tnter tht blast arot(s) L undetected end could be Injured or killed by the underweter, subsurface detonation(s). This occurrence 1s considered unlikely, and with the indicated -protective mitigation ootsurt(s), tht proposed structure-remove1 act ivi t ies are expected to have only a low Iopect on see turt les. A cumulative lncidontol teke hes been authorized by NMFS for actions in this category, but with a l l tht m

precautions to be teken es mi tig.ting neasure(s), i t is unlikely thet eny see turtles will be effected by these proposed operations. —

3. Birds

Impects ere expected to be very low es e result of th . t iv i t ies . For analysis information, see the PEA referenced in the Ir _

4. Sensitive Marine Habitats

A discussion of sensitive narine habitats occurring in .it central and western GOM end an assessment of tht potential impacts of v* rueture-removal -activities on those areas can bt found In tht PEA (USOI, MNS, 198 ) . Tht proposed act iv i t ies are not neer eny sensitive oarine habitats, rhereforo, the subject structure-removil activit ies will not iopect eny sensitive marine habitats or their resident blote.

5. Offshore Habitats and Biota

Iepacts art expected to be low as a result of th • proposed act iv i t ies . For analysis information, set tht PEA referenced in the Introduction. r

c. SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS

1. Employment

Impects ere expected to be very low es l result of the proposed activities. For analysis lnforootlon, see the FIA referenced in tht Introduction.

2. Economics

Impact* ere expected to be very low es i result of the proposed act ivi t ies. For analysis information, sec the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

3. Onshore Support Feci 1 i t ies. Lend Use, and Coastal Communities end Services

The operetor hes indiceled thet Cameron, Louisiana, would be the shorebase for the proposed structure-removal ar tWit ies . No iaptcts art expected es e result of the proposed act iv i t ies . For analysis information -«e tht PEA referenced In tht Introduction.

0. OTHER CONSIDERATE

1. Commercial tnd P lonal Fisheries

t . Commercial Fisheries

Impacts tre expected to be low es a result of the proposed act iv i t ies, re­analysis lnforootlon, ste the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

b. Recreational Fisheries

lopacts ere expected to be low as a result of the proposed act iv i t ies . For analysis information, see the PEA referenced in the Introduction.

2. Archaeological Resources

Iaptcts are expected to be low as a result of the proposed act ivi t ies. For analysis lnforootlon, sat tht PEA referenced in the Introduction.

3. N111tary Use/Warning Areas end Explosive Dumping Areas

A description of military use/warning areas end explosive dumping areas, their locations, and potential inpacts of structure-reoovel activit ies on these areas can be found in the PEA (USDI, MMS, 1987). The proposed structure-removal activit ies will not taka place in any of these areas. No iapact is expoctod.

4. Navigation and Shipping

The proposed structure-removal activit ies art not located adjacent to a vessel sefety fairway or in an anchorage area. Structures located nearshore toy serve as "landmarks" to vessels or helicopters operating in tht arte on a regular basis. The overall iapacts of tht proposed work on navigation and shipping art expected to be very low. More information on the iapacts of structure removals on navigation and shipping can be found in the PEA (USOI, MMS, 1987).

5

" - " » >Ili *r9 «••» . * » '

5. Pipelines end Cables

The PEA (USOI, MNS, 1987) contains a description or • •:. .i*,>icts of structure-removal activit ies on pipelines and cablet. The: existing pipelines within 490 feet of the proposed .tructure-reeoval a r i d i t i e s . Preceutlone in eccordence with NTL No. 8J-3. Section IV.B., will be uVen prior to conducting the reaovel act iv i t ies; therefore, the proposed work will not pose e nazerd to pipe1ine»(s) and eable(s) in the ?«"tt.

6. Other Mineral Resources

No iapacts are expected as a result of the propos'*1 act iv i t ies . For analysis inforaation, see the PEA referenced in tn* !ntreduction.

7. Huaan Health and Safety

The PEA (USOI, MMS, 1987) describes the hazardous .-ondit.ons for workers during structure-removal act iv i t ies . The operator has (.'.posed the use of explosives in conjunction r i < tie structure-removal act iv i t ies . Existing legal end regulatory safety requirement* will keep the iapacts of the proposed work on human health and safety et a v?:y low level .

E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

A discussion of u v? a i titbit adverse iapects r an be found in the PEA (USDI, MNS, 1987). Two areas >t primary concern are the tttfttlBl impact to protected, threetened, and/or endeic,»-ed species and potential "o<? rf habitat co cka aarine environaent. Both topi:s IPS discussed in the PEA and previously in this document. Other unavoidaole adverse iapacts ere con>(.'«: «* to bv »in«r.

IV. PUBLIC OPINION

A Ji scission of pub he :oncems regarding struct j r = -> "novel activit ies can b* o n r the PEA (USOI, MMS, 1987). The proposed atrv^-re-reeoval activit ies ha** ^•r.-rated no comments from tne public.

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Ar. as aaended, the proposed structure-remo/al operations are covered by tke J log ica l Opinion issued by NMFS on July 25, 1988, wt.ich established a category of "standard" explosive structure-reaoval operations. Their cootie its art included in Appendix B. The NMFS concluded that this category ol structure-reaoval activit ies will not l ikely jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species undo* heir purview. However, th > concluded that this type of "standard" structure af.tl activity aay result '• 1njur> or mortality of loggerhead. Keep's ridley, &reen, hewk«bi n , anu leethtrueck turtles. Therefore, t>ey established a cumulative level of Incident'1 take and discussed various measures necessary tc monitor and minimize this impact (sat Appendix 8). The NMFS noted that no incicental taking ef aarine mammals was authorized under Section 10>{aH5) of the Marine Maaaal Protection Act of 1972 in connection with this ct'sgory of structure-removal tctlvlttfct. Tn*rsfore, t. king of werlne aaaaals by the operator vould bc prohibited loijtf < they successfully apply for and obtain a perait or taiver to oo so froe NMFS.

6

VI. BlBLIOGR>P*> AND SPfX'al REFERENCE(S)

Fr i t ts , T.H., A . l . Irvine, R.C. Jennings, L A Colluo, W. Hoffaen, tnd N.A. McGehee. 1983. Turrit*, birds, end mamma : -n northern Gulf sf Mexico end iwarbv Atlent.. e*tt * U.S. Fish and wild i f f Service, Division of Biological Service. *n»»:rgton, D.C.

Fuller, D.A. and A.N. Tappan. 1986. The occurrence of sea turtles In Louisiana coastal voters, f t t f tal fisheries Institute. Center for Wetland Resources. Louisiana State Ui*: vers ity Baton Rouge. I A.

U.S. Oeoartietnt of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 1980. Final Env ronmental Impact Statement. Proposed OCS oil and gas lease sales UO and 112 (Central and Western Gulf of Mexico). OCS EIS/HNS 8600087. Washington, D.C. Available fron NTIS, Sp:in;field. VA: PB87-.18360/AS.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals fenageeent Sorvico. 1987. Programmatic En 'ironmental Assessment. StriK»ture-resW'e'. act ivi t ies Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. OCS/E; 97.0002 Gul' of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

Warner, A.A. 1988. 1918 'hird quarter reonrt of the see turtle stranding and salvage network. Atlanet. and Gulf Coast the United States. January -September 1981. Natioial rine Fisheries Service. Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory 7S Virginia Bead D.i / . Miami, FL.

7

VIII. APPENDICt>

A. CONOCO INC. CORRESPONDENCE

8. NNFS CORRESPONDENCE

APPENOIX A

CONOCO INC. CORRESPONDENCE

IC

•mmm .mi "

'.*:.'ITS) STATES ::vEF:.rs:.T . . ^ ( . . . MEMORANDUM 2')

0ECEIVEO Clu^

eafcvje

Tot Environaental Oparatlona Saction (LE-5)

From: Off lea of Structural and Technical Support, Field Operetione, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region (OSTS)

Subject: Platfora Reeorel *' ̂ C£ / y ^

OPERATOR: C O N O C O * * « 2 6 /cog

^ % t e ^ Control Ko: f S l

P i « t f o m Artf/flocH

Shore Baae: C a v ^ f - y a r ^ t-ft

The attached application ie forwarded to four office CO thet the Finding of lo

Significant Iapact eee be prepered. We be 'ere thie propoeed activity neat a

the requireaenta of the generic Sadangered Spec lea Set Section 7 Coneultation

Docuoent. There are/ai • ei exieting pipeliae(e) withla 900 feet of the propoaed

removal looation.

Arvind Shah (OSTS) Extenelon 269*

Eneloeure

co:

AShah: :LEXITTPE:Dlak 5

11

(conoco) km

• 0 t w l l l t t U t l l l M . LA 1 I31I I2M tOOO

Apr i l 12, 1989

U. S. Department of t h t In ter ior Mintre Is Management Service 1201 Elmwood Perk Bouleverd

Orleans, Louisiana 70123*2394

At tent ion: Mr. J . Rogers Peercy Regionel Director

RC: Pletform Reaoval - V t re l l l on 22 J - l Sa te l l i t e (XS 2885)

Gentlemen:

Conoco Inc. 1s requesting epprovel t t remove t h t Venal 11 on 22 J - l S t t t l -l l t t (OCS 2885) at p t r t h t etteched eppl icet ion.

I f you hava any questions pleese ca l l Mr. ho roan LeBlenc at (318) 238-5080.

I r L r

L

I :

Very truly yours,

141 0. L. Doolty Supervisor Environmental I Reguletory A f f t l r s

MCl:Jap

attachment

r

-

I

MCL/034

12

PROPOSED X S PLATFCW/STRUCTURE REMOVAL

X. RMpjWIllill P i r n

A. L N N Operator Nome CONXO INC.

Addreo. p - 0' 51266 LAFAYETTE, LA 70505

C. Contact Par ton and Talephone Nuaber NORMAN LcBLANC

(318) 236-5080

XX. IdatrtlflMtlat i f ItnsStMri fn HI aaaaeal

A. a — VERMILION 22 J - l Satel l i te y

I. Leeatlea (Leeeo. Area* llock. aad flock Coord ine tee) QCS 2865 i.«s,?i,o .61 iei ssT-iX

VERMILION BLOCK 22 X • I.599i061.4e-. Y • 4 M T W ' J ' 1

(eooca

C. Oate Xnttallod (Year) » K

0. Propooed Oate of Reaoval (Month/Year) J u 1 * 1 9 9 9

E. Meter Oepth 3 8 F — *

i l l . Qfjcrlitlai if Itnonari ta U

A. Configuration (Attach a Photograph or a 01egraa)

I. Hag 4 Pile Protector: Olmenilona at »20' ELEV. 26' x 26'

C. Nuaber of lege/Ceelnga/PIl Inge 1 B J t c k , t

4 Bearing P1U

(See Attacked Sheet For Mali Casing)

13

0 . 0l44B«t*r and well Thickness of logs/Cesfngt/PU Inge P 1 1 i n 9

36" O.D. x 1.000 Wei1 Thickness

E. Am Piles Grouted? gg Inside or Outside? _ _

F. Br ie f deecription of se l l composition end condit ion Vory S t i f f

To Firm Gray S i l t y Clsy.

B r ie f discussion of the roeeon for removing the st ructure

Heve been depleted end w i l l be plugged end abandoned.

A. Br ief deecript ion of tho method to be used Bulk cheroe explosives

w i l l be oleced Inside p111no 20 feet below mudline end detonated to

cu* iatb

B. I f explosives ere to bo ueed* provide the fo l lowing:

I . Kind of Exploeivee Compound B

2. Number end Sizes of Chergee 4 C h m r * * * 9 5 0 1 • > c h

e. Si igle Shot o- Multiply Shots? ofrljjojf,

b. Xf Ob't'ple shots* sequence end timing of detonetione DBidJ

fi.O) , Bt h w Q ioemottl i n •eeMBmwow MM f h * B a « h f l t t BM sequence.

14

3

3. Bulk or Shaped Cherge? Bulk Charges

a. Depth of Detonation Below Mud Line 20 Feet

D. Inelde or OutBldO H I l o g ! I f j j f j f .

C. * r i Beee II el Monitoring Technlquee

1. Ia tho uao of ecare chergee or ecouatlc devlcee propoaed? H o

I f yee* provide the following:

a. Number and Kind N / A

b. Slxo of Chergee N / A

c . Brief deecription of how* whore* and vhen eeere ehargee or

acouatic devices »111 be ueed W/A

2. Mill divert or acouatic devlcee be utod to conduct e pro-romoul

survey to detect preeenco of turtloo and oerlno meawnels? I B

I f yee* briefly deacribe the proposed detection method If required

divers will Inspect both the Interior snd ox-.trior of the Jacket

for tho presence of sea turtles and sea marwujls prior to explosive

detonation.

0. Post-Remove! Monitoring Techniques

I. Mill transducers be uaed to mooouro the preaaure and Impulse of the

detonetione? N o

15

2. Will divert bt uttd to survey tht aree after removal to determine

tny ef facta on eerine l l f e t If required

BlBlQglfill InfQfPJtlflB

Zf available, provide the reeulta of any recent biologleel aurveya

conducted In the vicinity of the atructure. Xf available, deacribe

any recent observations of turtlee or oerlno eotustlt at the atructure

alto.

16

WELL CASING

WELL

Vermilion 22-J-WELL # 1

Vermin on 22-J-WELL « 6

Vermilion 22-J-WcLL # 11

C«>mg bi/e

48". CO", 13 3/e", 9 5/8"

48", U', *0 3/4"

48", 16", 10 3/4"

WELL Depth of Detonation

30' BML

30' BML

30' EA

$evCv*eL a . i t j l a r a i ^

V C e * . * * * !

Explosive Type snd Quantity (Bulk Charge,

ov*-

NCL/034

17

UIUPOKT

ii il WW*

PROMT EL&V. *?IDI? E U C V .

18

Table 1

Explosives Proposed by the Operator for the Structure Removal In

Vermilion Area, Block 22 (OCS-G 2B65)

I n i Of EfiPlOilVtf:

Compound "B" bulk charges.

Number and Size of Charges:

Seven 50-pound bulk charges [one or each of the four piles of Platform J - l Satellite and one for eeeh of the three wells ( J - l . J-6, and J - 1 D J .

E»)qywnt of Charges:

Inside • 20 feet the mud line for the four pile: and 30 feet below the mud line for the t-. . *.!ls.

SMutfttlpq 0 r T ttonetlcn:

The four 1er;s will be severed In sequence with a 0.9-second delay between each detonation.

The three wtlls will be severed 1n sequence with a O.J-second delay between each de tons ti ori.

APPENDIX B

WFS CORRESPONDENCE

20

- , . W , T , 0 A T A T « « OtPOnTMtNT OS COMMCACf

w«*fMt|UM oc aotM

JUL 2 5 IS88

Mr. willloo 0. Bottonboro Dlroctor Minerals Management Sorvico U.i. Department of tna Interior Waahington, D.C. 20340

Door Mr. Bettenberg:

Encloaad io tho Biological Opinion prepared by tho National Marino Plahariaa Service (MMPS) purouont to Section 7 of tho Endangered Specloo Act (ISA) concerning potential impacta on endangered ond threatened opooioo aeeociated with removel of ce.-ain oil end gee platforma end related atructuree in the Oulf of Mexico (OOM) uaing exploeivee.

Thifl "atandard" consultation covera only thoee reoovel operetione thet ooot specified erltorio pertaining to tho else of exploeive cherge ueed. detonetlon depth, end number of blooto por structural grouping, consultation anaot be initiated on e case-by-esse beeio for e l l dismantling operations requiring tho uoo of oxplooivoo thot do not meet tho eetabliehed erltorio.

KMFS concludoe thot etrueture rossovolo in tho OOM thot f e l l vlthln tho eetabliehed criterie oro not likely to jeopardise tho continued exlotence of lieted opooioo under the jurindict ion of NMFS. However, i t ia our opinion that} tho propoeed eetlvitioe aay rooult ln tho Injury or mortality af endangered end threatened oee turtleo. Therefore, purauant ta Section 7(b)(4) of tho ISA, ve hove eetabliehed a lov level af lneidental teka, vhlch ie cumulative far s l l renewals covered by this eoneultetlon, and terae and oonditions neceeeery to niniaito ond aonitor any iapacte, ehould they occur. Tho terae end conditiona ere contained ln tha encloeed lncidontol teka eteteaent. Alao encloeed ia a Hot af pending coneultetione that aeet. vith noted exceptIone, tho criteria eetabliehed ln the "etandard" eoneultetlon. Thlo biological opinion end the mitigating aeeeuros end terae and conditiona contained ln tho releted incldontel toko eteteaent spply to theee propoeed reoovel operetione. Therefore, formal coneultation io concluded for these propooed setions.

"? Yf»f» SnfTu.il,nj America t P f f j f f l i • !9I Vl9| l t

21

•,•...,.« S a o a a a B S S S — : ^ ^ ^ M l l l l I

Consultation nuet be reinitiated i f : (i) tho amount or oxtont of taking opacified in tho lncidontol eoke etateaent lo exceeded; (3) new lnforaetlon roveolo lapecte of tho propooed activitiee thet aay effect lieted species in a aenner or to an oxtont not coneidered thus for ln our oplnione; m the identified ectivitiee oro modified in a aannar that cauaea on adveree effect to lieted apeciee not previouely coneidered; or (4) a now opooioo lo lieted or eritloal habitat le doelgnetod thet aey be ef lieted by tho project. ' w a

X look forward to your continued cooperation in future conoultetiono.

Sincerely,

ydaaio V. Sronnen /Xeeietent Adalniotrotor " for Fisheries

tnolooureo

22

Biological Opinion

Agency: Minerele Management Service, U.S. Depertaent of the Interior

Activity! eoneultetlon for Keaovel of Certain Outer Contlnentel Shelf Oil end Ooo Structures ln tho Oulf of Mexico

eoneultetlon Conducted By* National Marina Pieheriee Sorvico (MMFt)

Date Issued: _ _ _ _ _ I

Background Inforaation:

Xn e letter doted Noveaber IB, 1BBS, the Minerele Management Servioe (NMS) made an lnitiol requoet fer foraal coneultation pure*tent te Section 7 ef the Endengered Spoclee Aet (ISA) fer the reaovel ef an offehore ell ond gee platform loc-tad in the Federal vetere of tho Oulf of Mealoe (OON). MMS end MMFS deteralned thet reaovsl ef ell end gaa pletforae and related etrueturee in the OOM aey effect endangered end threetened eerine apeciee. Thlo "aay affect11 doteralnatlon vaa baaed on o poeeible reletionohip between endangered end threatened eea turtle aortalitiee end the dismantling] ef pletforae uelng exploeivee. On November IS, 1BBS, MMFS issued the firet ef S earlea ef biological oplnione addreeelng, in detail, the potentlel iapacte to lie .ed aarina epeciee thot nay occur as s reeelt of OCS abandonaant activitiee.

MMS end NMFS ootebllehed proceduree fer expediting Section 7 consultetione en platfora abandoneaont sotlvltlee in tho OOM referred te ae •aapedited coneultetione.- Fallowing] theee proceduree. approxiaately 44 conouitations neve been coapleted for reaeval eperetloae In the OOM region. All ef the coneultetione have concluded thet the propooed ebendonaont activities vero net likely to jeopardise tho continued exletonce of eny lieted epeciee, but thet tho propoeed eetlvitioe aay result ln the incldontel teklnf ef endangered and threetened sea turtles.

23

mmm

The dismantling of pletforae ond related otmeturoo uaing axploaivaa haa ovolvod to a point whore o "etanderd" protocol can bo oatobllehed fer rooovoi operetione moating cortoln criteria, •aaod upon removal technlquee developed ond reviewed in conjunction with the previously conducted "expedited conoultetiono," KNO hoe reajueeted, hy letter ef Key 24, uss, a "generic eoneultetlon1* thet would be applicable te e l l future reaovel oporetlone the': f a l l within e dlotlnet cetegory. defined by epecific pereaetere. k category hee been designed te include thooe etrueture types end reaeval technlquee aeet eeaaenly encountered during the oay edited eoneul tot lone end dieeentllng operetione already completed, finoe approximately 1000 etrueturee that aay be echeduled for future roaoval f e l l vlthln the pereaetere ef the eetebllehed] category, MMPS agreee thet e "generic" coneultation le appropriate et thlo tiae. The objective ef the coneultation io te reduce the adainiatrative burden on both MM end hMTS for conductIno repetitive consultetione en activitiee thet aey reeult in oiailer lapecte te lieted epeciee end thet require identical mitigating aeeeuree te maintain adequate protection fer euch epecloo. Thle biologleel opinion reepenea te MMJ' May 34, isaa, eoneultetlon requeet. The opinion lo based en the boot eclentlflc end coaaerciai data presently evelleble end lneerporeteo infonsetlon fraat 1) previous MMS Su aai ary Sveluotlone, 3) previoue MMPS biological oplnione on platfora reoovel, 3) the eclentlflc literature, end 4) ether pertinent end evelleble Inforaation. eoneultetlon auot be reinitiated i f now information bsaaaaa evelleble concerning Iapacte to Hated epeeies that vould alter the conelualone reeehed la thlo opinion er require modification ef the aeaauree identified ln the attached lneidental tobe etateaent. eoneultetlon w i l l continue en e eaee-by-eoee beela fer thoee etrueture reaovele that ale net aeet tbo orlteria eetabliehed for "standard" reaovele.

Description of STOpesed action»

Thi propooed eetlon involvee the reserve1, by exploeive aaano, of offehore e l l end eee otruoturee leeetod la foderel voters in tho oulf of Mexico, henevel of the etrueturee v i l l ba eccoapllehed by eeverine the eupport pilInge, eeleoeno, vail conductera, etc., uaing verylnq eaounta ef expleeivee te perait eelvege •* the etrueturee. Thie Involvee the plaamasnt ef expleeivee Inelde or outeldo ef aiipperttag atructuree end detonating emerged primarily uolnq oloetrealeolly controlled olemelo.

Thle "generic" eoneultetlon eoneidere only theee removel oporetlone that ooot certain crlterle pertaining to tbe else ef tho exploeive eharge ueed, detonetlon depths, end number ef bleete per structural groupinq. The epeeiflc erltorio ootebllehed te eever euoh roee vale ere ee followmt

a

24

1) UM of hiqh velocity oxplooivoo (detonation rata) greater then 7,tOO netere/aecond).

1) k aaxloun of eight individual blaate per group of dotonotlono with en a rgeo otoggorod ot on interval of O.t eeeende (too alllleeeonde).

3) Chorgoo ouot ho oot ot a nlnlaun depth of it foot below the oodlatent eurfece. Severing ef otruoturee above tho eediaent eurface "open veter" auet bo accomplished hy aechenlcel (non* exploeive) aethode.

4) The aaxiaua aaount ef exploeivee SO

par detonation le net to

Species occurring ln tho Project hreot

Lieted e the proj Lieted species under tho jurledlccion ef HHPS that aey

loot a root ln

irTIhTIflC •sett

right vhale

finback vholo

huapbeck vhale

eel vhale

opera vholo

green turtle

Heap's ridley turtle

loo tho reach turtle

turtle havkehlll turtle

•all of the O.t. three tan ad except lieted ee

I

t

t

I

I

Th so

I

e/l/*0

e/I/?0

e/l/70

• / ! / * •

e/a/70

0/1/70

f / i o / M

•71/70

greea turtle the ner Ida

latlene svo lieted oo lag population, vhlch le

Ho critical habitat hob boon do© lona tod in tho pro j oot oroo for tho abovo apaclaa,

Aeeeeeaent of lopoctot

•oood upon tholr known diatrlbutlon ond abundance in tho con, endangered vhalee oro believed unlikely to occur in tho vicinity of tho propoeed etrueture reaoval ectivitleo, end, therefore, unlikely te he edvereely effooted hy the propoeed eetlon.

previoue MhTf biological oplnione (November 21, ltd* end February 2d, 1M7) have addreaaod. in deteil, ranevel ef otruoturee ln the OOM. aooounto ef endengered end] threetened epeciee vhlch occur ln tho prejeet eree, end tho "Aeeeeeaent af lapecte* contained ln theee prior oplnlono alee apply ta thia eoneultetlon end aro incorporated by reference.

In auaaery, the oplnione referenced ebove acknowledge the oxlotoaoo ef e poeeible reletlonehla between the aoo of underwater oxplooivoo in raaavino pletforae end releted etrueturee end the occurrence ef otrendod aee turtlee, aerlne aeaaele fTuralope tmneitui) and fleh. Liaited experiaente conducted by NMPS, Oelveeton Laboratory confirm thet eea turtlee (end ether aerlne vertebra tee) found in proximity to petroleum plotformo eon be Injured er killed by removel operetione employing underweter exploeivee (Nllme, DM).

Technology aeet e ana only ueed ia the di meant ling af pletforae lncludeoi bulk exploeivee, eh apod exploeive ch areee, aochanloel ond ebreolve cuttere and underweter oro cuttere. The uoo of bulk expleeivee hee becaae the lnduetry'e etandard procedure for covering pilInge, well conductore and releted eupporting etrueturee (epprox. §0% uoo)• amen uelng bulk chorgoo, the inelde of the etrueture ean be jotted out to et leeet l i foot below the eediaent fleer to ellow plaeeaent of oxplooivoo inelde of the etrueture, reeult ing In a dooroeeo la tbo lapulee end preeeure foreee reloeeod into the weter column upon detonetlon. The uee ef high veleeity akaped chergee lo reported te have eoae advantegeo ever bulk exploeivee and boo been ueed in coablnetion with eaeller balk ohergee. The cutting ection obtained by a ahaped cherge lo oaooapllohod by focuelng tho exploeive energy vith a conical aotellie liner. A aajor advantage aeeociated witb uoo ef high veleeity eheaed eharioe io thot o emaller amount of exploeive emerge le reguired to eever the etrueture, whioh eleo reeulte in reduetlono in the lapulee end preeeure forooo releeeed into the weter coluan. Dee ef aechanical cuttere end underweter ere cuttere ie aueeoeaful la eoae elrcuaotaneee and de not produce the lmpulee and preeeure forooo aaeoclated with detonetlon of eaploolvee, however, theee aethedo ore, ln aeet lnetenoee, aore time conoualng, eoetly end aero heaardoue te dlvere. Ae e rooult, thooe aethedo ore not ueed on a routine baele (MMS hoport en Platfora sea oval Toohniajuee).

4

26

Based upon dete obtain** during proviouoly conducted "expedited" conoultetiono on pletfern removals, the following Id a cooperiaon of tho typee of oxplooivoo coot likely te be ueed ln tho propooed removal oporetlonet

r*PlQilVi Pmefli»«»<nT Veleeity Qrl««i%«»«*

RDX epprox. B,ltt o/aec. I. IS

C-4 approx. a,001 a/aec. 1.11

coap.-l epprox. 7,B03 a/eee. 1.32

• Brieence ie tho neaoure of chattering power ee coopered te TNT vhlch hee brieence ef 1.00. (NNB Report on Pletfora Removal Technlquee, 19S4.)

The propoaed reaoval operetione will be accompliahed uaing high velocity exploeivee. Oee ef thle typo of exploeive cherge ehould alniaise the duration of the lapulee and preeeure foreee produced by detonation of the ehargee, while providing the amount ef force required to eever the etrueturee. According to MM, restricting tho grouping ef detonetione te eight individual bleete per group and eteggering blaete by 0.B eaaenda (BOO nlllloooende) will alniaise the eree ef footed by the bleete end suppress phaelng of ehoek wevee, thereby decreesing the cuaulativo effecte ef the bleete. Zn eddltlon, elnee ell detonetione will occur et leeet IS feet below the eediaent eurfece end ne aore then BO poundo ef expleeivee per bleet will be permit tad, the amount ef residual energy releeeed into the aarine environaent ehould bo reduced eignificently. Ao a result, NaTS believes that ainiaal ehoek end iapulae foreee will be releeeed in tho vicinity of reaeval operetione at any given time.

To date, ef approxiaately 44 previouely conducted conaultationa covering abandonment ectivitiee, about 33 atructure reaovele have been coapleted. lech reaeval operation woo nonltared by knTS obeervere ead woo essamistsd uaing epproprlate mitigating aeaauree. At the preeont time, eight turtleo have been sighted ln ereee neer etrueturee being dlaaentled, ot leoet two of whioh were green tart lee. Of the eight deoumonted eightInge, one turtle wao roport oi to bo f looting on it'e book neer e pletform after detonetlon ef ehargee, apparently etunnod er Injured. No ether incidento ef oee turtle Injury or aortelity have been reported. Therefore, KMFS belleveo that the propoaed aotleno ere net likely te reeult ln aignificant adveree iapacte to endangered and threetened eee turtle pepuletlene.

B

27

Htt

Cone1usionsi

Based en tho ebove, l t le our opinion thet rooovoi of plotfome • nd releted etrueturee in the OON lo not likely to jeopardise the continued exietenee ef threetened end endangered epeciee under the jurisdiction of KMFS. Hovsvor, MMFS concludes thet the

froposod ectivitiee aey reeult ln tho Injury er mortality ef oooerhead, xsmp's ridley, green, hawksbill end leetherbeck turtlee. Therefore, pureuent te Section 7(b)(4) of the ISA, ve heve eetebllehed e lev level ef ineldentel teke ond terae end condltlone neceeeery te alniaise and monitor thlo impact, compliance with theee tome end condltlone lo the reeponolhlllty of MMS and the permit applicant.

Reinitiation of Coneuli f \

eoneultetlon auet be re......... toted 1ft 1) the amount er ej tent of teklnf opacified in tho incidental take atatament io aet er exceeded) 11 ne%r information reveala impacta af the project thot aay effect lieted epeelee ln e manner er te ea extent net considered in thle opinion; 3) the identified activitiee ore modified in a aenner that eeueee en edveree effeot om lieted epeeiee net previouely conaidered; or 4) a nom epeelee le lieted er critical habitat la dealgnated that aay be affected by the prepaeei activities.

s

28

INCIDENTAL TAXI STATEMENT

Section 7(b)(4) Of tho Endangered Species Act requires thet vhen e propoeed agency action le found to b*. consistent vith Sectior 7(e)(2) of the Act end the proposed actions ooy incidentally te individuals of lieted epeciee, NMFS " i l l io-ie a eteteaent thet •pacifies the iapact (aaount or extent) of h lncidontol tekinq. incidental tekinq hy f e Federal eqency or applicant thet coapllee vith the epecifled terae end condltlone ef thie stateaent le authorized end exempt fron the tekinq prohibitlono of the ISA.

Based cn stranding recorde, ineldentel captures aboard commercial ehriap veeeele end historical dato, five epeelee of oee turelas ere knovn to occur ln northern Oulf of Mexico vetere. Curre**. available information en the relationship botvoen eee turtle aortelity end tho uae ef hlah-velocity exploeives te reaove ell platforaa indieateo thet Injury end/or death ef eee turtlee aay reeult frost tho propoeed ectlene. Therefore, purauant to section 7(b)(4) ef the SSA, an ineldentel take (by Injury er aortelity) level ef one documented Beexe'e ridley, green, hevkebill or leatherback turtle or ten logg rhead turtleo lo oot for ell reaoval eperatlono conducted under the terae end conditiona of thia lneidental tahe eteteaent. Tho level ef taking epecifled here ie cumulative fer a l l removals covered by thle consultation. Xf the Ineldentel teke aeete ar exceeds thle epecifled level, MMJ auet reinitiate eoneultetlon. The Southeast Region, NNFS, will cooperate with MMS ln the revlev ef tho incident to determine the need fer developing further mitigation meeeuros.

The reeeoneble end prudent noeeureo that MMFS believes ere neceeeery to minimize the lapect ef incidental teklngo heve been dlecueeed vith MNS and v i l l be Incorporated In the reaovel deelgn for "etandard1* structure ran ovale. The fallowing to raa and condltlone ere eetebllehed fer thooe ran ovale te lap lea ant the identified aitiqetion aaaauree end te ieeiaiaat tho incidental teke ehould euch tahe acourt

1) Qualified obeorver(o), eo approved by MMFS, auot bo used to monitor the aro* oround the olte prior to, during and after detonation of eherqee. Observer oovaraqe will begin 40 houre prior te detonation of eherqee. Zf ooo turtles aro obeorvod ln tho vicinity of the pletfern end thought to be roeident ot tho olte, pro- and poet-detonation diver eurveye auet be conducted.

29

..^momiMm: • ••• a n I —~~..

2) On days that blaating operations occur, a JO-einute aan*: aurvey aruet be conducted within ono hour before end one hour after oech bleetlng epieode. The NMFS-approved oboervor and/or NMPS on-olte pereonnel (HfcTS enployoe only) ouot be uaed to chock for tho presence of turtlee end. If poeeible, te identify epeciee. Xf voether condltlone (fog, exceeeive vinde, etc.) nake it iepoeelble to conduct eeriel eurveye, blaating activltiee eey be allowed to proceed if epprovod by the NMFS end/or MMS peroonnol on-olte.

3) Xf oee turtlee ere oboerved in tho vicinity ot tho pletfora (vithin 1000 yerde of the elte) prior te detonating chergee, bleating v i l l OO delayed u n t i l attaopta are auccaaafui In removinr then et leaet 1000 yerde frea the bleet elte. The eeriel eurvey auet bo repeated prior te reeualng detonetlon of chergee.

4) Detonation of expleeivee v i l l occur no sooner then 1 hour following eunrlee end ne later then 1 hour prior to euneet. However, If l t le datamined by NMPS end/or MMJ on-eite pereonnel thot opeclal olreaaatenceo juetlfy e aadlfleetlen ef theee tine reetrlet lone end that euch codification le net likely to edvereely lapect lieted epeelee, bleating aay be elloved te proceed outoide of thie tine fraae.

•) During el l diving oporetlone (vorklng divee ae reguired ln tho oeuree ef the renovale), dlvere v i l l be lnetrueted to ecan the eubaurface areaa eurroundlng the platfora (bleetlng) eitee for turtleo end aarine aaaaale. any eightInge auot be reported te the MMFt er MM on-aite pereonnel. Open eenpletlon ef bleetlng, dlvere auet repert end ettenpt to recover eny eightod Injured er deed oee turtleo or narine «T

t) Chargeo nuet bo ategejerod o.t eeeonde (too alllieoconde) fer eeeh group ef etrueturee, to ainialae the eunuletlvo effecte of the blooto. Xf e reaeval operetlea involvee eultlple groupinge of etrueturee, the interval kaOwean detonation ef ohergee fer eeca group ehould be alalalaod te evold the •ohuawlng" eff eon. Mboaover one* lntervela aaeaad to-alnutee, the eeriel eurvey auot be repeated.

3) The uoo of oeore ehargee ehould be avoided te nlnlnlae the •cauaaing effeot.* bee of oeore nhtrssi ooy be alloved only if epprovod by tho MMFt and/or mm on-aite pereonnel.

f) A report auaaarlilng the reeulte of the reaoval ond altifotlen aeaauree auat be eubaltted to the MM Oulf of Mexleo heglen vlthln It vorklng deye of the renewal. A oepy af tho repert auet be forwarded te MMFt, southeaet hogion.

t

30

Thie incidental take atatenant applies only to endanqered and threatened aee turtlea. Zn order to ellow en Ineldentel take ot a oerlno Mesial apaclaa, the tekinq auat bo authorised under Section 101(0)(S) of the Merino Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Although interoot hoe hun expressed ln obtaininq en exception authorising 0 United take of dolphino ineldentel te abandonaant activitiaa, n* marine mammal teka io authorized until epproprieto OMII take regulations era ln piece and releted "Letters of Authorisation" ere issued.

31

REFERENCES

Caillouet, CM., A.N. Landry, N.J. Duronslet, t.A. Manzalla, C.T. Fontaine, O.t. Ravera, K.L. Indalicato, T.D. Willlaas, and 0. Forcucci, I t t t . Prallainary Evaluation of Bio logical Iapacts of Underveter Explosions Associated vith Reoovel ef en Oil Pield Structure Froa the Cu*. of Mexico Near Crystal leech, Texee. Notional Narine Pieheriee Service, southeast Pieheriee Center, Celveeton Leboretory 12 pp.*

Duroneiet, M.J.. CM. Ceillouet, s. Manzalla, K.N. Xndellceto, C.T. Fontelne, O.S. Severe, T. Mill leee end 0. Boas. I t t t . Tho Effocto ef on Underveter Explosion on the Turtlee LpniaachaiYa kaUall and caretta caretta with Observation of Effecte on Other Merino Organ leaa. Unp-bl iahed Trip hOport - Reaoval of Tenneeo Oil Platfora on Juno 21, ISSt. NNFS, SEFC, Oelveeton Laboratory, l t pp.

Fontaine', C.T., It t t . Obeervet iona Off) the Reaovel of Tenneeo Oil Platfom 4S2-I, Moot Cameron Field, 10-12 July I t t t . Unpublished Trip Bepert te NMFS, SEPC, Oelvooten Laboratory top.

Kllee, K.P., ISSt. Suaaary Report on 1101001001 Xapacte ef Offohore Petroleua Platfom Severance Uelng Explosives. Unpuhl lehed Report te NMFS, SSFC, Oelveeton Laboratory is pr-

Mineral a Manageaent Servioe, I t t t . Platfom Reaovel Technlquee. Unpubliehed Repert, MMS Oulf of Mexico Region, 14 pp.

Netlonel Merino Fieherlee Servioe, ItSS. Biologleel Opinion Concerning Iopects of Frcpoaad Reeovsl Of Citiee Servicea Oil end Ooo corporation's Offehore Platfom B-l, Loeoted In oelveeton llock 144, Oulf ef Mexleo. 14 pp.

National Merino Fieheriee Servioe, ISST. Biologicsl Opinion Concern inf Propooed Reaovsl ef Pennsoll Coapeny' s Pletfern A, Loeoted ln voralllien Sleek 228, Oulf ef Mexleo. 14 pp.

Ranaud, M. and 0. Gitschlag, ltd)?. Study Of Biologleel lapacta ef the Exploeive Reaovel ef an Offshore Platfom (Pennsoll Pletfern - Vemll lien 22SA). UtujabX lehed Trip Report te NMFS, SEPC, Oelveeton Laboratory. tpp.

10

32

40 H o b i l Exploration and P

• oinaj Coa apoowy u . p . I n c .

J o ^ l i o o 1 * -

l t d 101 2

41 Korr-WoCaa corporation s n i p anooi l t d Sj

42

• Sbip Sboel T o n i l i o n

too 141 J

43 Hob 11 Exploration aad Pi alaxa aba apanw 0 . 0 . loo . ooot raeoa aa i l l : M

43 Hob 11 Exploration aad Pi a saaaj tan

apanw 0 . 0 . loo . o

i l l : M c

44 Toranoco O i l Ix^locat ioo m t m i tion soot ranaain i t s p

4S* Mobil Exploration and Pl l ino Coa anoory 0 . 0 . aaW. t i t TO

•

4S* Mobil Exploration and Pl m m

l ino Coa anoory 0 . 0 . aaW. aaaeeaoi ieioavj • o r a l 1 l o o

a

t i t TO

• a

44 Nob) 11 Exploration and Pl :ino Co. apany U . I . I n o . • o r a l l i o n TO •

47 Soaadan O i l Con orat ion Saileoeten 141 Sj

41 Conoco Ino. • r a n d Ze l e a a

S l td 4T

A 2 S

49 RJotjil Explorat ion and Pi tloNjCoa OMMiy 0 . 0 . I n e . Nolo roao t l 1

54) Hobi l Exploration and PTiadOObai COO aaooy U . S . l e e . Soutn Pe l to 11 •

51 Exxon conpany • • • - Maot D e l t a

a a •

20) a

11 a

t 0 1 N

92 Conoco Inc. Neat Do I to 41 s - l

— I

1 , 4 m . . . i. ..-•"kii

51 Mobil Explorat ion and Pro#JMlPJf Ouasjoiiy O . S . I M . M o t QSSaMfOO 71 A • ISSjSSj aaaaxah SSS t

94 TOOMOOM O U Exploration and Prod • c t i o o Sbip Sboal too 1

90* Conoco I n c . a • ^ t a r a T T Jof

I S S 47

SOI

A 0 A

97 • Exxon ClOOlM'f O . S . S . KMBlit KioO Ia land Boot Add A t l M U 4 M

attad* la . , •• Ad A-142 •

90 B H P Potroleuo attoft Ia land A-507 A

90 Hobi l Bvf l o r e t i ooawlaoj Ccxapa-ny 0 . 0 . Zl 14 S

SO PHP Oaar«* In* Wmmt i 404 A

01 AjM>jo Produc , oap iny 0 . K i n d Ia land 13 A

C O O M l t o t l o M ohoM MafHMfO lMliaoa an a a t a r i a k (•) par aetata ra of t h i a •etandard • c o n a a l t a t l o n , t h a r a f o r a , Mroowtoro aro approvad and further coneul ta t ion w i l l M