UKITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORAHDUM

J u l y 1 1 , 1985

Tot Regional Supervisor, Ruler and Production, COM OCS Region (RP)

From; Regional Supervi.. Leasing aud Environment, COM OCS Region (LE)

Subject- Site-Specific Environmental Assessment (SEA), Prepared for Exxon Company U.S.A., Plan of Exploration. Lease OCS--' '3, Deatln Dome, Block 115. Plan Control No. N-2163

Exxon Company U.S.A. proposes to d r i l l exploratory Veils A through R in block 115, Deetln Doae area.

Our SEA prepared for the subject cut ion i s complete. Four additional protective measures have been identified to htlnimtie potential Impacts:

1. Due to the p o s s i b i l i t y of the presence of H.S gaa, sensors should be operstional by a depth of 792m (2,600 f t ) ,-,ub•-•.•«.

2. I f an independent leg jnck-up d r i l l i n g r i g Is used, s o i l borings should be taken prior to taplacement of tha r i g at Locations 0 end C due to the presence o* the hard material at or near tha seafloor In the v i c t n i t v of these v e i l s .

3. In compliance v i t h the leaa* stipulation regarding control of electromagnetic emissions and operations of boat & d-'or a i r c r a f t t r a f f i c into the designated m i l i t a r y warning area W-151, the operator must enter into an agreement with the Ccmoand^r, Armament Division, Attention: Howard Dimmig/CCV Sglin AFB, Florida 32542, Telephone- (»04) 882-3558.

4. Tha lease area la within the Naval Coastal Svecenu Center Area (NCSC); therefore, in order t-» provide control of electromagnetic emissions and the opera­tions of boat and/or a i r c r a f t t r a f f i c entering into the NCSC area, the operator ahould consult with t h * NCSC Canter, Code 30, Attention: Commander Burfciv or Mr. C. M. Callhan, Panama City, Florida 32407, Telephone- (904) 234-4462.

Neither Florida's Coaatal Zone Management comments nor Florida Governor's comment!* were available prior to plan approval; therefore, i f necf usarv, our SEA may be amended to r e f l e c t Florida's reaponaes.

iOrig. Sgd.) j . Ksnnstn Adam.

H. P. Sieverding

cc: HI A-3 (LE-5) Office c Lease OCS-G 6413 POD F i l e (OPS-3-2) f f t 1 ;aS OPS-3-4

CHllltaer J A " "J ' " '

Infc.-mation Services Section

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

Metairie, Louisiana

FINAL

SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

No. N-2163

Explora to ry A c t i v i t y

Des t in Dome Block 115

Lease OCS-G 6<*li

Ju ly 11 , 198^

1 !

j

a mi

1 1 1 1 ]

I •1 —

•1

Commodity Oil and Gas SEA No. N-2163

United States Department of the I n t e r i o r Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

Metairie, Louisiana

OCS SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

July 11, 1985

Operator Exxon Company U.S.A. Plan Type Plan of Exploration

Area Destin Dome Block 115 Lease 6413

Date Submitted June 5, 1985 Plan Commencement Date August 1, 1985

Prepared by Charles W. H i l l , Jr.

Related Environmental Documents

Final EIS for OCS Lease Sale Nos. 72. 74, 79; 81. 84

EA Nos. 494, N-1626, N-1768. N-1863, N-2015

Areawide EA for Exploiatlon A c t i v i t i e s in the Northwest Section of the Eastern Planning Area

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DETERMINATION

In my opinion, approval of Exxon Company U.S.A.'s Plan of Exploration described in SEA No. N-2163 pursuant to the specific mitlgatIon/speclal protective measures outlined therein, does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment i n the sense of The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 102(2)(c). In rendering this opinion, I have given special consideration to 30 CFR 250.34-4 (compliance v i t h NEPA).

7-jt-jr Chief, Environmental Operations Section Ouif of Mexico OCS Region

Date

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

" I have considered Exxon Company U.S.A.'s proposed Plan of Exploration ln the context of Site-Specific Environmental Assessment (SEA) No. N-2163 and find based on the analysis of environmental considerations provided therein, no evidence to indicate that the proposed action v i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y (40 CFR 1508.2 ) impact the quality of the human environment."

Therefore, I determine that an environmental impact statement v i l l not be prepared for this action.

«4g • -Regional Supervisor for Leading and Environment Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

Date

i

1 3 3

!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STrt

-rEMENT DETERMINATION

FIGURES v i i

ABBREVIATIONS ANT) ACRONYMS v i i i

INTRODUCTION

I . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. GENERAL

B. EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

C. SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

D. TRANSPORTATION ROUTES

E. PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

F. TECHNOLOGY

G. CONTINGENCY PLANS

H. DISCHARGES AND EMISSIONS

1. General

2. Solid Wastes

3. Liquid -tastes a. Sanitary Wastes b. Domestic Wastes c. D r i l l i n g Fluids

(1) Freshwater Maker Blowdown (2) Deck Drains (3) Ballast (4) Blowout Preventors

(5) Service Water and Test Fluids

4. Gaaeous Wastes

I . STATE CERTIFICATION

J. MEASURES FOR COMPLIANCE 10

i i

1 PAGE

K. NEARBY PENDING ACTIONS 11

I I . ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION 13

I I I . DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 13

A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONS 13

1. Environmental Geology and Hazards 13 a. General Description of Geology 13 b. Potential Geologic Hazards 13 c. Petroleum Geology 15

2. Meteorological Conditions 15 a. Temperature 15 b. Cloudiness and V i s i b i l i t y 15 c. Wind 15 d. Precipitation 15 e. Severe Weather 15

3. Physical Ocpsuography 15 a. Sea Temperature and Salinity 15 b. Currents 15 c. Tides and Sea State 15

1 B. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 15

1. Coastal Habitats 15

2. Offshore Hab.itate 15 gm a. Pelagic Environment 15

b. Benthic Environment 15 c. Sensitive Underwater Features 16

3. Endangered or Threatened Specie.* 16

4. Breeding Habitats and Migration Routes 16

5. Protected Areas Of Biological Concern 16

C. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS 16

1. Economic and Demographic Conditions 16 a. Related Employment aud Unemployment 16 b. Location and Size of Related Population Centers 16 c. '.ocation and Size of Related Industry Centera 17

2. Land Use 17 a. Existing Community Services 17 b. Existing Transportation Systems and Fa c i l i t i e s 17 c. Supply and/or Existence of Coastal Resources 17

1 i i i

PAGE

3. Onshore Support F a c i l i t i e s 18

A. Public Opinion 18

5. Navigation 19

6. M i l i t a r y Warning/Use Areas 19

7. Commercial Fiahlng 19

8. Recreation 19

9. Cultural Resources 20

10. Water Quality and Supply 20

11. Air Quality 20

12. Other Commercial ses 20

13. Other Mineral Uses 20

14. Pipelines and Cables 20

15. Oct n Dumping 21

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 22

A. OIL SPILLS 22

1. Oil S p i l l Accidents 22

2. Vulnerability of Coastal Land Segments to Oil Spill6 22

3. Effects of Oil Spills on the Environment 23

B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY 23

1. Impacts Concerning Geologic and Oth ia 23

2. Impacts Concerning Meteorology 23

3. Impacts Concerning Physical Oceanography 23

4. Impacts on the Biological Environment 24 a. Impacts on Coastal Habitats 24 b. Impacts on Offshore Habitats 24

(1) Impacts on the Pelagic Environment 24 (2) Impacts on the Benthic Environment 24 (3) Impacts on Sensitive Underwater Features 24

c. Impacts on Endangered or Threatened Species 25

iv

PAGE

d. Impacts on Breeding Habitats and Migration Routes 25

e. Impacts on Protected Areas of Biological Concern 25

C. IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS 25

1. Impacts to Economic and Lemographic Conditions 25 a. Impacts on Local Employment 25 b. Impacts on Local Population and Industry Centera 25

2. Impacts on Land Use 26 a. Impacts of Increased Demands on Community Services 26 b. Impacts of Increased Boat and Air Traffic *' r. Impacts of Competition for Scarce Coastal Resources .»

and Demands for Goods and Services (1) Supplies and Equipment 26 (2) Water 27 (3) Aggregate Energy 27 (4) Other Resources 27

3. Impacts of Construction of Onshore Support F a c i l i t i e s 27

4. Impacts of Public Opinion 27

5. Impacts on Navigation 27

6. Impacts Concerning M i l i t a r y Use 28

7. Impacts on Commercial Fishing 28

8. Impacts on Recreation/Tourism 28

9. Impacts on Cultural Resources 29

10. Impacts On Water Quality 29

11. Impacts on Air Quality 29

12. Impacts on Other Commercial Uses 30

13. Impacts on Other Mlnaral Uses 30

14. Impacts Concerning Pipelines and Cables 30

15. Impacts of Ocean Dumping 30

D. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 30

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 31

VI. BIBL1 V<tAPHY 32

V I I . PREPARERS 33

v

PAGE

VII I . APPENDICES 34

A. LEASE STIPULATIONS 35 B. REVIEWS FROM MMS 43 C. REVIEW FROM OTHER AGENCIES 49

FIGURES

I - ! Geographic Location of Destin Dome Area, Block 115

1-2 Geographic Location of the Proposed D r i l l Sites ln Block 115

I I I - l Bathymetry Map of Block 115

v i i

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AEA Areawide Environmental Assessment

AER Areawide Environrental Report

BOP Blowout Preventer

CGA Clean Gu?f Associates

CZM Coastal Zone Management

FRU east Response Unit

GOK Gulf of Mexico

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

MMS Minerals Management Service

NCSC Naval Coastal Systems Center

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

POE Plan of Exploration

RD Regional Director

SEA Site-Specific Environmental Assessment

SER Site-Soecific Environmental Report

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

v i i i

INTRODUCTION

This Site-Specific Environmental Assessment (SEA) submitted in support of an Areawide Environmental Assessment (AEA) l s written for exploration a c t i v i t y proposed for Destin Dome Block 115. The SEA contains site--jp«clfic and updated information for the proposed a c t i v i t i e s in the subject blocks that is not contained in the A-/.. The SEA was prepared using the AEA dated May 1984, entitled "Area-Wide Environmental Assessment for Exploration A c t i v i t i e s i n the Northwest Section of the Eastern Planning Area" as a base document. This base document can be obtained through the Public Records Office of the Minerals Management S^'-vice (MMS), Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Outer Continenta 1

Shelf (OCS) Region Office. Those sections of the AEA that are referenced in the SEA are indie.ited throughout the text.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this AEA/SEA concept implements the t i e r i n g process ou»:%lned in 40 CFR 1502.20 which encourager agencies to t i e r environmental documents to eliminate repetitive discuss io.is of the same issue. By use of referer * to the AEA, the SF.A con­centrates on the issues specific to the proposed action. The SEA conforms to the guidelines for preparing environmental assessments in compliance with the requirements of 30 CFR 250.34 and NEPA using information presented in the AEA.

I

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. GENERAL

Exxon Company I'.S.A. f i l e d a Plun of Exploration (POE) and Site-Specific Environmental Report (SER) on June 5, 1985. for Deatln Dome Block 115, Lease OCS-G 6413. An Area-Wide Environmental Report (AER) which c ered the subject block was submitted by Shell Offshore Inc., on March 30, 1984. The area for which the exploration a c t i v i t i e s are planned is locateo approximately d2km (51 mi) southwest of Panama City, Florid.:, in water depths ranging fiom 73m (240 f t ) in the northeast corner to 93m (305 f t ) in the southwest corner of Block 115 (Figure I - l ) . Block 115 was acquired by Exxon Company U.S.A. (50Z) anc Getty Oil Company (SOZ). Exxon Company U.S.A. was designated the operator for Destln Dome Block 115 (CSA, 1985b). Getty has subsequently assigned i t s interest in the lease to Texaco Producing Inc.

The objective of the proposed operation lb to evaluate the hydrocarbon potential of Destin Dome Block 115. A jack-up d r i l l i n g r i g , a sexisubmersible d r i l l i n g r i g , or a d r l l l s h l p would be used to d r i l l as many aa five exploratory wells. Final r i g designation w i l l accompany the Application for Permit to D r i l l . The surfsce locations for the proposed wells are shown l n Figure 1-2. The wells would be d r i l l e d , svi>lw«ce.', and either temporarily or permanently abandoned in accordance with OC. Order No. 3. The operator plans to commence d r i l l i n g at Location A prior to August 1, 1985, dependent upon permit approvals, r i g a v a i l a b i l i t y , and other 'riustry a c t i v i t y in the area. The remaining wells would be d r i l l e d contingent, upon the res' ,-s of the f i r s t well (CSA, 1985b). This action i considered routine for thm GOM. For additional Information concerning the pr nosed action, refer to Exxon's POE (Exxon, 1985).

B. EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Exxon proposes to d r i l l the proposed wells from a typical d r i l l hip such as the Glomar Pac i f i c , a typical semisubmersible d r i l l i n g It. eucr as the Zapata Yorktown, or a jack-up r i g such as the Atwood </Lc*J(*' Final r i g designation w i l l ac comoanv the Application for Permit t -. frill (C'JA, 1985b). The d r i l l i n g r i g ultimately used for d r i l l i n g the exploredry veils would be equipped, pursuant to OCS Orders 2, J, and 7, with sate-- " t i pollution pre­vention and rontrol features. Standard industry equlr-.qc. ' iuch as a Blowout Preventer (BOP) stack and a diverter system would be eiv:'.- ed throughout the peration (CSA, 1985b). The r i g would be equipped with h/j i *en sulfide (H S)

detectors. Details of the safety systems available are r •. tained in Exxon's SER (I b i d ) . Other actions proposed by the operator to l i m i t pollution effects sre presented in the operator's POE, SER, and Shell Offshore Inc's AER (CSA, 1984).

The supply terminal and helicopter base would 'e located In Panama City, Florida, and w i l l u t i l i z e existing f a c i l i t i e s . No new construction: dredging, or f i l l i n g would be involved (Exxon, 1985). Additional Information on this f s c i l i t y and the proposed ac t i v i t i e s expected to o r i f l a , t a ftom i t sre included In Sections IIT.C.3. and IV.C.3. of this SEA.

C. SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

Exploratory d r i l l i n g ls scheduled to begin prior tc Au .-st 1, 1985, on Wall "A". D r i l l i n g of the remaining four t e l l s would be contingent upon the

F L O R I D A

MOBILE AREA

* ONE 16)

V I O S C A KNOLL' AREA

(ZONE 16) •140

"* i t *

OESTIN DOME »"»£A l / O N E 16 )

VI0*?C A RN -* M ARE".

(ZONE 16)

IC I S t . CAN • ON

AK . f t

'20 ME 16}

CULF OF MEXICO

Or * 0 T 0 '. \ N ^ 0 N A R E A (ZONE 16)

Q - t n

m p io to to 40 mtytf. an ei ••• TOO

— w

c.

no

tr.

Ui J <

NE

O < N o cc o J Ik

4C4LC

Figure i

Sc-ree:

•1 Geographic Location of Destin Dome Area. Block 115

Exxon, 1985.

2 -:

V 10 .860 .400 .00

Exxon

i

1

i

- 1

i—• Blk. 115 /too'

n m

2 1 J Y 1

74OV

.634.660.00

Chevron

nee

158

fx:

o o

O.C.S.Gf416 •tan

"our

1 Pigu. 1-2 i-eographic Location of the-Proposed D r i l l Si.' in BlocV US

Source: L xcn, 1985.

succass of d r i l l s i c "A". The proposed d r i l l i n g schedule would require a maximum of 160 days to complete each well; 800 days or 2.25 years totu.1 i f j • I of the proposed wells are d i t i l e d (CSA, 1985b).

D. TRANSPORTATION ROUTES

Onshore f a c i l i t i e s sunporting the planned oft.nore act. : would include boat and air c r a f t operations. Two vessels would operate jut af an existing s i t e in the- Panama City Harbor area. A 61m (200 fc) work ooat vould make about 16 trips per month between the proposed d r i l l sites and a supply boat terminal dock at the Panama City Port Authority and a 30m (100 f t ) crewboat would a* .Ice approximately 30 t r i p s per month. The route followed by a l l vessels from the dock site to Bloc* 115 would cover approximately 82km (51 ml). Vessels would normall :u ke the most direct route, we a thu*1 and t r a f f i c conditions permitting (CSA, i >iol /.

A \« icopter would be used to transport personnel and small supplies fiom the Paniia City-Bay Co nt Airport d i r e c t l y to the lease are . Helicopter t r a f f i c would also follow the most direct route, weather and t r a i f i c conditions permitting. Approximately 30 helicopter f l i g h t s per month would originate from the Panama Ciry-Bay County Airport. Because the roposed action would be exploratory, no onshore movement of o i l and gas pro lucts would be involved (Ib i d ) .

E. PERSONNEL HEQUIREMENTS

The operator esMmates that up to 171 persons for a d r i l l s h i p to fewer than 153 for a semisubuersible d r i l l i n g r i g would be assigned to the d r i l l i n g operation aid related support a c t i v i t i e s . D r i l l i n g operations for a typical dr'llship (e. tt., Glomar Pacitic) would require two crews of up to 64 men t v h tor a t o t a l ct*.» rtq 'rement of up to 128. D r i l l i n g operations for a typical semisubmerfij*a o . ' i i < . v r i g (e.g., Zapata Yorktown) would require two crews of up to 56 iv»n :$.<ih f - r a t c t a l crew requirement of up to 112. Crew size for a 1ack-up r i g turn >s *he Aiwood Vicksburg would be somewhat less. These crews would work a »'• •iays-on/7-d ivs-of £ schedule. A breakdown of these crews by job t i t l e for l . yp.'cal ;uck-Uf. d r i l l i n g r i g i s given in Section (2)(g.-. of the SER. Some o* the service firm employees may be hired locally (CSA, l9-°5b).

Acti-. 1: cs ac the onshore supply base in Panama City, Florida, woild revolve 't . id supplying and delivering food, vater, f u e l , d r i l l i n g mud materials, 1 ement, d t i . ' l pipe, d r i l l casing, and other eq 'pment to the d r i l l i n g vessel, Supply base personnel vould conduct these day-to-day operations, and ancillary industry personnel (mud companies, v e i l loggers, cement suppliers, etc.) wt l i d provide services and equipment from existing f a c i l i t i e s ' I b i d ) .

I t is estimated tunc up -o 15 people would be u t i l i z e d at the onshore supply basi. In support of d r i l l i n g vessel operations. Eight of these people would bt -nployees of well logging, rental t o o l , mud, and cement companies. Such ef&t>jr.g vould probally not occur u n t i l area a c t i v i t y increased s i g n i f i ­cance ? M employee voulJ be placed at the supply base by Exxon to coordinate the ctisr. ie supply base ope- 'io'.s. The remaining six positions are estimated to be re "ulrtd Mi an as-n'»e..- is.s to support work boat operations (vefueling, loading, and unloading). Sou. of the onshore supply rase positions could be f i l l e d by local residents, iepeuc'ing upon personnel a v a i l a b i l i t y , q u a l i f i c a ­tions, aid other faccors "ley specialty service employees 'ind the Exxon repres-. .i cat ive vould be experi :n.-ed company employees (Ibid)

Eight personnel would be recv.rsd to operate the work boat at any one Clue during normal operations. T , e pe: sonnel would work a 7-days-on/7-day of f achedule. The crew bo-fc wo Id o-^rate with five personnel ind rotate one additional member for a tot a l * olx. Accordingly, 22 employees would be required for work snd crew bos* i f r a t i o n s . Up to 10Z of these employees may be h<re~ from the local labor 'or e. The vessel crewr. would usually accompany t h e i r respective vessels whe i the • cxve to th<- si t e from snother area ot the Gulf ( I b i d ) .

Repairs to boats or Ci.c d r i l l i n g ./esse I may t>* , roeured i re* local firms. Supply boats may be brought into nearby po>*« having che capability for dealing with specific problems. D r i l l i n g vessel tap- Irs may present a more specialized type of repair Job, necessitating the trsnsffti" of quBlifi*d people to the d r i l l s i t e . Extensive repairs may require shipyar-' facii.'• i«s. requiring removal of *-he vessel from the d r i l l s i t e . Major prob)ems of th.'. type ara not expected (Tbid).

i--o pilots snd one mechanic would operate the Bell 212 twin-turbine helicopter, or similar type a i r c r a f t , m a 7-daya-cn//-dayt- i f f basis for a t o t a l r f six helicopter personnel. The he.icopter vould be based at the Panama City-Bay Countv Airport. The small quantity of supplies transported by s i r to the r i g would ?iot require any significant storage area. Due to the specialized nature of helicopter operations which support offshore d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s , the p i l o t s sud mechanics would not be hired locally ( I b i d ) .

F. TECHNOLOGY

«*o new oi unusual technology would Le employed in the Implementation ( f tne proposer, ic t i . ^ . i (CSA, !985b).

G. CONTINGENT PLANS

In accordance with OCS Order No. 7, Exxon f i l e d a detailed O i l S p i l l Contingency Plan for a l e r t , reporting, and clean up )., oc*t'ures for o i i s p i l l s or s p i l l s of arardous materials. Exxon's Oil Sp i l l Contingency Plan was approved by the MMS on January 9, 1985. This plan includes requirements for reporting an o i l s p l l i to the State of Florida (CSA, 1985b).

A Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) Fa jL Response Unit (FRU) Model UT. would be at the support base in Panama City. The ideal maximum recovery capacity of tri-< FRU Model I I I 1" approximately 8,5?1 bbl/12-h day, but actual recovery due to off i c e r i n g **c«m time, antra.ned water, o i l blick characteristics and adverse sea conditions would more li.irel.y be ln th» 1,000 bbl/dav range. The storage capacity of the FRU Model I I I i t 200 bbl. Additional storsge msy he obtained. Response time to Destin Dome Ar«o "lock 115 would be proximately t . ' j hours. Additional CIA ••quirnent would be moved i n er- needed from CGA' bases in Alabama, Louisifnt, and Texas. Response Mr* from these location; world be spproxlr-tely l'j to 50 hours, d«pendinr, v»r -he equipment transporter'. bol<d and li q u i d wastes from a s p i l l , l a c l c d l a t o i l contsmlnsted debris, would be disposed s*i ln accordance with spolicp'ui . regulations ( I b i d ) .

Exxoo's H?S Contingsncy °lan includes the requirements for sate opere­tlons ln areas of "unknown" potential for H S release. This plsn w i l l be ln f u l l compliance with OCS Order No. 2, paragraph 8. The exact duties, responsi­b i l i t i e s , and training of r i g personnel along with the equipment checklist w i l l be outlined ln this plsn (CSA, 1985b). Operations would be la accordance with a l i applicable OCS Orders, Notices to Lessees snd Operetors (NTLs), snd Lease Scipulat Ions. Rsference i s msde to Exxon's "0L snd SER, and Shell's AER (CSA, 1984) for additional detai's.

6

H. DISCHARGES AND EMISSIONS

I . General

Solid and liquid discharges and gaseous emissions would be generated by offshore and onshore a c t i v i t i e s and transportation operations resulting from the proposed plan of operation. At t i I r l l l sites, Destin Dome Bloc'' 115, a l l discharges to the ocean would be uiicV ' * ional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. FL 0G3V. r-.gulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (Exxon,

2. Solid Wastes

A l l discharges from these a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be in compliance wit! son's USEPA NPDES Discharge Permit No. FL 0039161. Solid waste discharged Et»a the d r i l l i n g riR during the exploration phase would consist of d r i l l i n g cuttings and d r i l l i n g muds. The t o t a l amount of the d r i l l i n g cuttings that would be discharged during the d r i l l i n g of each well (approximately 160 days) is estimated at 4,710 bbls. D r i l l i n g mud discharges would t o t a l 30,952 bbls for the same period. The ultimate quantity of such discharges would be dependent upon the actual number of wells d r i l l e d as a result of this proposal I f a l l fiv e wells are ^ r i l l e d approximately 23,550 bbls of d r i l l i n g cutting! and 154,760 bbls of d r i l l i n g muds vould be expected (CSA, 1985b).

A one-time discharge per well of d r i l l i n g cuttings (473 bbls/well) would take place at the seafloor while d r i l l i n g the structural hole. A l l other d r i l l i n g cuttings generated nt the d r i l l b i t would be brought to the surface by d r i l l i n g muds. Once at th* surface, the cutting* woeid be separated from the m-jds by fine screen shakers and centrifugal separators and would then be dicchfc.-g»d 7m (23 f t ) below tb» water surface from the d r i l l s h i p , 5m (15 f t ) b<!low the watei surface from the semisubmerslble r i g , or above the water surface for a jack-up r i g . Section I.H.3. gives a discussion of the types and disposal of d r i l l i n g muds.

Solid wastes other than those generated at the supply base and d r i l l i n g cuttings generated off.- i rc would include combustibles (mud sacks, plastic containers, rags, mlscellaneoue timber, and paper from the office and galley) e-,d rru«-nia (cp-sing protectors, used d r i l l b i t s , cut d r i l l l i n e , and metal scaps fron the machine/weldisig shop). The combustibles, which average about 100 ibs/day would *>e compacted and/or shipped to Panama City for incineration or dispose! at an approved disposal f a c i l i t y such as the Bay County Disposal Site. Approximately 1,200 lbs of scrap metal would be expected per week. Some c i the metal, such as casing protectors and used b i t s , mav be reused or re­worked. The regaining met wastes would be sold as scrap iron ( I b i d ) .

Approxlma:ely 85 lb.day (6.8 tons/w^ll) of solid wastes would be gener­ated from workboat and crew boat operations. These wastes, consisting of garbage and refuse, would be returned to shore for reclamation at an approved disposal f a c i l i t y such as the Bay County Disposal Site located 18km (11 ml) north of Panama Citv ( i b i d ) .

Solid wastes g<- w.-..ced at the supply base would be variable depending on a variety of factor including the levels of d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t y , the number of supply boats operat: • • md their travel frequencies, and the number of supply base personnel. wastes consisting primarily of packing materials, containers, clothes, diLH3, cables, spools, and domestic refuse would be re­cycled or rec la J - I'd. The *-emaining material would be delivered to an approved

disposal f a c i l i t y 6uch as the Bay County Disposal Site. Any solid wastes containing o i l would be delivered to an approved disposal f a c i l i t y such as Chemical Waste Management, Inc., located in Emelle, Alabama ( I b i d ) .

3. Liquid Wastes

Treatment of l i q u i d waste effluents would be in compliance with the NPDES permit. The estimated daily quantity, content, and description of the dis­charges are as follows:

a. Sanitary Wastes

The sanitary wastes aboard the d r i l l i n g vessel would originate from commodes and urinals in the l i v i n g quarters. These wastes would be treated in a I'SCG-approved sewage treatment plant and then discharged overboard. The model of sewage treatment plant to be u t i l i z e d would be dependent upon the type of r i g used. Each would have a capacity of 5,000 gal/day of effluent. A chlorine residual of at least 1 mg/1 would be maintained in the effluent through contact with hypochlorite tablets. The average discharge rate from the sewape treatment plant would be approximately 2,000 to 2,500 gal/day for a t o t a l of 1,600,000-2,000,000 gallons for the entire exploration phase.

A t o t a l of approximately 350,000 gallons of sanitary wastes are expected to be generated from the workboat and crew boat operations during the 800 day exploration phase and would be dumped overboard after treatment. Additional information on other ancillary sources of sanitary wastes ls contained ln Section ( 2 ) ( k ) ( i i ) of the SER (CSA. 1985b).

b. Domestic Wastes

Domestic wastes from sinks, showers, washing machines aboard the d r i l l i n g r i g would not contain any floating solids. Domestic wastes from the galley would be free of solids because food scraps are collected in garbage cans as solid wastes. The composition of the li q u i d domestic wastes is freshwater used for cooking, drinking, and washing and is discharged overboard. The t o t a l volume of these wastes would average 7,500 gal/day, depending on the size of the r i g crew and the number of other company and service personnel on board. An approximate t o t a l of 1,200,000 gallons would be discharged during the d r i l l i n g of one well (160 days) for a t o t a l of 6,000,000 gallons during the entire exploration phase. A t o t a l of approximately 350,000 gallons of domestic wastes would be expected to be generated from the workboat and crew boat operations during ths 800 day exploration phase. Additional Infomiation on other ancillary sources of domestic wastes i s contained ln Section ( 2 ) ( k ) ( i i ) of the SER. Al* domestic wastes would be dumped overboard (CSA, 1985b).

c. D r i l l i n g Fluids

The composition of the d r i l l i n g muds used by Exxon w i l l depend upon the conditions encountered while the well i s being d r i l l e d . However, the mud program and a l l discharges w i l l be in compliance with the NPDES permit. A l i s t of the basic mud components to be used i s found in Section F of Ex.con's POE (Exxon, 1985). Components of Exxon's d r i l l i n g muds may include any or a l l of these d r i l l i n g f l u i d s . Approximately 31,000 bbls of d r i l l i n g muds would be discharged during the d r i l l i n g of one well (160 days). These discharges include occasional excess cement slurry. A two-time discharge per well of

8

d r i l l i n g muds (761 bbls/vell) and a small quantity of cement (60 bbls/well) would take place at the seafloor while running and cementing the structural and conductor casing. A l l other water based muds would be discharged 7m (23 f t ) below the water surface from the d r i l l s h l p , 5m (15 f t ) below the water surface from the semisubmersible r i g , or above the water surface from the jack-up r i g . Any o i l contaminated muds would be transported ashore for dlspossl st an approved f a c i l i t y such as Chemical Waste Management, Inc., in Emelle, Alabama (CSA, 1985b).

(1) Freshwater Maker Blowdown

The d r i l l i n g r i g would be equipped with a desalination unit capable of producing the majority of the freshwater necessary for the personnel and pro­posed d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s . These units typically discharge two gallons of con­centrated seawater (brine) for each gallon of freshwater produced. The desalination unite are capable of producing from 14,400 gal/day ( d r i l l s h l p ) to 20,000 gal/day (jack-up r i g ) depending on the type of d r i l l i n g r i g used. The average discharge rate is expected to be between 25,800 gal/day to 30,000 gal/ day with a maximum rate of 31.500 gal/day ( d r i l l s h l p ) to 48,000 gal/day (semi-submersible) depending again on the type of r i g used. The blowdown from the desalination unit i s cooled by heat exchange with the incoming seawater, and ls then discharged overboard (CSA, 1985b).

(2) Deck Drains

Deck drains would be of two types: (1) those discharging from heliports, building roofs, and solid decked areas not subject to contamination by hydro­carbons, and (2) thoae discharged to a gravity separator from deck areas which are subject to contamination. The volume of each dlacharge would depend primarily on the rate of r a i n f a l l and the footage of decking Involved. Wash-down operations would also contribute to the overall volume, but to a lesser extent. Contaminated deck drainage would average 11,100 gal/day (Including bilge water in the semisubmerslble) and would be discharged overboard after gravity separation processing. The discharge from the gravity aaparator would contain no free o i l . I t Is estimated that an average of 42 gal/mo of o i l would be collected from the gravity separator. This o i l would be transported to the supply base and then transported by truck to an approved disposal site such ss Chsmlcal Waste Management, Inc., ln Emelle, Alabama (CSA, 1985b).

(3) Ballaat

Although the amount of ballast dlschsrged ls d r i l l i n g vessel dependent, i f the semisubmerslble d r i l l i n g r i g lndiceted for use l n this proposal Is used, sn sversge of approximately 662,000 gal/day would be dischargsd st the vater surfsee to maintain s t a b i l i t y . Thla ballaat vater Is seawater pumped ln and stored ln dedicated tanks and Is not exposed to sny contamination (CSA, 1985b).

(4) Blowout Preventers

An sversge of 200 gal/day (maximum 500 gal/day) of BOP operating f l u i d mixture w i l l be discharged at the seafloor during weekly BOP testing (required by the MMS). This mixture i s biodegradable and nontoxic at the concentration ln use on d r i l l i n g vessels. BOP f l u i d would not be dlschsrged i f a jack-up r i g ls used (CSA, 1985b).

9

• m

j

I

3

:

m

(5) Service Water and Test Fluids

Service water includes seawater, noncontact cooling water, and f i r e system test water. I t is not exposed to any contamination and would be discharged to surface waters at an average rate of from 1,800,000 to 3,002,100 gal/day (maximum A,004,200 gal/day from the d r i l l s h l p ) (CSA, 1985b).

Test fluids include formation treating f l u i d s and formation water. Three tests are assumed per well. Test f l u i d s are estimated to be discharged to surface waters at an average rate of 16,800 gal/cest ( I b i d ) .

4. Gaseous Wastes

As per the a i r quality regulations stated in 30 CFR 250.57 [Federal Register, 45(47), Friday, 7 March 1980], Tables 2.3 and 2.4 of the SER (CSA, 1985b) provide the maximum emissions expected ( d r i l l s h l p ) ftom a l l phases of the proposed exploratory a c t i v i t i e s in Destin Dome Area Block 115. Emissions from both onshore and offshore f a c i l i t i e s have been estimated using the EPA standards and guidelines referenced in the tables. The estimates are based on a 160-day d r i l l i n g e f f o r t for one well. A l l emission exemption calculations are based on worst-case assumptions, and are given ln Section ( 2 ) ( k ) ( i l i ) of the SER (CSA, 1985b) and _^n Appendix B of this SEA. . The resulting exemption values are 34,626 tons yr for CO and 1 ,082 tons yr for sash of the remain­ing pollutants. The emissions from both onshore and onshore f a c i l i t i e s f a l l below the allowable amount determined by the emission exemp:ion calculations ( I b i d ) .

I . STATE CERTIFICATION

The State of Florida has an approved Coastal Zone llanagement (CZM) Program; therefore, a Certificate of Coastal Zone Consistent •• i s required for the proposed a c t i v i t i e s . In accordance then, with the requirements outlined tn 15 CFR 930, Exxon has submitted a State of Florida Coastal Management Consistency C e r t i f i c a t i o n and Findings of the Consistency Assessment to MMS on June 5, 1985. The operator's POE, SER, and AER were submitted to the Office of the Governor, State of Florida, and the Federal coordinator for Florlda'6 CZM Program in accordance with 30 CFR 250.34. Neither Florida Governor's comments nor Florida's CZM Comments were available prior to the plan approval date. Refer to Section V, Consultation and Coordination.

J. MEASURE? FOR COMPLIANCF

No special monitoring programs, over and above those required by OCS Orders, Notices to Lessees and Operators, and applicable regulations, are required for the proposed action. These regulations provide for training of employees and the design, i n s t a l l a t i o n , operation, and maintenance of equipment in a manner which conserves and protects other resources or a c t i v i t i e s . Inspections are conducted regularly by MMS personnel to enforce a l l OCS Orders and Regulations, Notices to Lessees and Operators, etc. Monitoring programs for detection and control of o i l and hazardous waste s p i l l s have been addressed in Section I.G. Actions to be taken by Exxon to l i m i t pollution effects are contained in the POE and SER. The discharges from the d r i l l i n g r i g w i l l be monitored as required by the USEPA NPDES Permit. Exxon's f i l e number for this application Is FL 0039161. The operetor states that f u l l compliance v i t h the

10

NPDES permit and Sale 79 Lease Stipulations Nos. 1; 2; 4(a), ( b ) , ( c ) , (d); 5; and 6 during a l l d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s in Block 115 w i l l be maintained (CSA, 1985b).

K, NEARBY PENDING ACTIONS

At the present time, tbe nearby pending actions related to exploratory d r i l l i n g prospects are as indicated:

Company Area

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Destin Dome

Shell Offshore Inc. Destin Dome

Mobil Oil Exploration & Destin Dome Producing Southeast Inc.

Amoco Production Company Destin Dome

Texaco Inc. Destln Dome

Sohio Petroleum Company Pensacola

Block(s)

116, 158, 159

160

161

204, 205

285

948, 949

The specific d r i l l i n g plans of these other lessees are described in their POEs. An Eastern Gulf of Mexico lease offering i s currently scheduled for December 1985.

11

I I . ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION

Alternatives to approval of the proposal as or i g i n a l l y submitted are: »"» Nonapproval of the proposal - Exxon Company U.S.A. would not be allowed

to undertake the proposed Plan of Exploration a c t i v i t i e s in Destin Dome Block 115. This alternative could prevent discovery and development of much needed

^ hydrocarbon resources and would result in loss of royalty income for the United States. Considering this aspect and the fact that minimal impacts are

^ anticipated, this alternative was not deemed necessary. Approval with additional mitigation - In the course of this evaluation

process, the following protective measures were ident i f i e d to further mitigate the environmental Impacts associated u i t h the proposal.

v. I . Due to the po s s i b i l i t y of the presence of H_S gas, sensors should be operational by a depth of 792m (2,600 f t ) subsea.

2. I f an independent leg jack-up d r i l l i n g r i g is used, s o i l borings should be taken p r i o r to emplacement of the r i g at Locations B and C due to the presence of the hard material at or near the seafloor in the v i c i n i t v of these wells.

3. In compliance with the lease stipulation regarding control of "J electromagnetic emissions and operations and boat and/or a i r c r a f t t r a f f i c into ^ the designated m i l i t a r y warning area W—151, the operator must enter Into an

agreement with the Commander, Armament Division, Attention: Howard Dimmig/CCN, m Eglin AFB, Florida 32542, Telephone (904) 882-3556. s

4. The lease area is within the Naval Coastal Systems Center Area; therefore, in order to provide contiol of electromagnetic emissions and the operations of boat and/or a i r c r a f t t r a f f i c entering into the Naval Coastal

M Systems Center Area, the operator should consult with the Naval Systems Center Area, Code 30, Attention: Commander Buckley ( Mr. C. M. Callhan, Panama City,

- Florida 32407, Telephone: (904) 234-4462.

In addition to these measures, appropriate OCS Orders, regulations, and procedures are believed sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts. Measures which Exxon proposes to implement to limit pollution effects are

— discussed in the plan and SER. Outer Continental Shelf Orders, Notices to Lessees and Operators, and Sale 79 Lease Stipulations Nos. I ; 2; 4(a), (b), ( c ) , (d); 5; and 6 were identified throughout this assessment as existing

^ mitigation for potential envii ••nmental impacts associated with the proposed POE.

1 12

I I I . DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. PHYSICAL CNVIRONMENT

1. Environment i Geology and Hazards

a. General I * L^cription of Geology

Destin Dome Block 115 lies approximately 82km (51 mi) southwest of Panama City, Florida. (Figure I - l ) located along the northeast flank of a major reentrant in the shelf. This shelf area displays remarkably well preserved r e l i c t topography due to the rel a t i v e l y low input of fine-grained sediment across the sandy coasts.

The seafloor in Block 115 ranges in depth from 73m (24P f t ) in the north­east corner to 93m (305 f t ) in the southwest (Figure i . I - l ) . Seafloor topography gently .slopes to the southwest. Throughout most of the block, the seafloor undulates with gentle slopes and broad mounds. Some of the re broad mounds may be aiv ' • "< or the seafloor expression of buried algal mounds. Most of the moi I T S than 0.6m (2 f t ) of r e l i e f . Several are between 0.9 ar. ., 1985b).

A sovith • -ing escarpment [9m (30 f t ) cf r e l i e f ] , appar­ently related co a;: underlying fault rone, crosses the southern part of the lease area. An area of sand waves is present along th i s gently sloping escarp­ment. Seafloor materials appear to be predominantly sands, and sand waves are present in a portion of the survey area (McClelland Engineers, Inc., 1985). Seafloor r e l i e f in the area of the sand waves is less than 0.9m (3 f t ) (CSA, 1985b).

b. Potential Geologic Hazards

The following is a summary of the potential geologic hazards for Block 115 that were discussed in the hazard studies prepared by McClelland Engineers, Inc. (1985).

Twelve shallow faults are apparent in the northwest to southeast trending u l t zone. Proposed D r i l * Sites A, B, D, and E are located within this fault -e and are located 122m (400 f t ) northeast, 61m '200 f r ) northwist, 91m (300

1 southwest, and 427m (1,400 f t ) northeast of the closest faults to each s t e , respectively. D r i l l Site C is located greater than 2.13'm (7,000 f t ) northeast of the fault zone. The faults are believed to be inactive and the potential for future fault movement during exploratory d r i l l i n g operations is considered negligible (CSA, 1985b).

The sand waves in the southwest portion of the • . * aire indicative of strong current a c t i v i t y . This poter.cicl for curren l».y w i l l be an important consideration for seafl«?«"-supported eqi'ipmunc and structures used for exploratory d r i l l i n g (Ibid

Possible hard material at or near the seafloor in board areas within the block. TM Mems fcr anchoring and conduction i n s t a l l a t i o n , and should bt anning d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s . The possible hard material may r . nds or broad areas of carbonate-cemented sand. Proposed Dri. C are within areas where possible hard material is within a few meteio o. the seafloor. Some small mounds, possibly composed of hard material, are scattered throughout the lease area. They may be rocky patches of broken reef material or r e l i c t patch reefs. The

13

lack of water column anomalies in Block 115 suggests that the mounds are probably r e l i c t features ( I b i d ) . See Section III.B.2.b for a summary of the Live-Bottom Survey for Block 115.

No man-made features were observed within Block 115; however, some c e

w r j s could represent seafloor objects or debris from passing S'I ' m. '* y a c t i v i t i e s . No magnetic anomalies believed to represent serous ma'e. xal were noted in the block. There was no evidence of possible ga.-, i n the s e c a n t s or of any ot'ier potentially hazardous geologic conditions in Block 1.5 (ibid'*.

c. Petroleum G< ology

information in thi s section is Included in the AEA.

2. Meteorological Conditions

Information in the following sections i s included in the AEA.

a. Temperature

b. Cloudiness and V i s i b i l i t y

Wind

f. Precipitation

e. Severe Weather

3. Physical Oceanography

Information in the following sections is included in the AEA.

a. Sea Temperature and Salinity

b. Currents

c. Tides and Sea State

B. BIOLOGICAL FNVIRONMENT

1. Coastal Habitats

Information i n thi s section i s included in the AEA.

2. Offshore Habitats

a. Pelagic Environment

Information in this section i s included in the AEA.

b. Benthic Environment

Information i n this section i s included in the AER and also the Live-Bottom Survey for Destin Dome Area Block 115 (CSA, 1985a).

The Live-Bottom Survey for Block 115 was required by Leaae Stipulation No. 2 as the d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s w i l l occur in water depths greater tha^ 70m (230 f t ) and less than 100m (328 f t ) . Underwater television and s t i l l camera data showed the predominant bottom type throughout the survey area to be a medium-co-coarse sand and shell fragment substrate. This sand bottom was unevenly covered with a very thin (less than 1cm) layer of s i l t along the southern edge of the survey area. Small rock outcrops were observed betveen potential D r i l l Sites A and C and l,8C0v (5 ?04 f t ) northeast of potential D r i l l Site C (CSA, 1984b). These outcrops exhibited v e r t i c a l r e l i e f of less than 0.5m (1.5 f t ) and appeared to have a diameter of less than 2m (6.5 f t ) (CSA, 1985a). Small anthozoan corals (Telesto sp. and ?Bebryce parastellata) were scattered throughout the entire survey area (CSA, 1985b). Other biota observed in the coarse sand bottom area included various species of crust -ceans, asteroids, ophiuroids, echinoids, and fishes (CSA, 1985a).

c. Sensitive Underwater Features

As discussed i n the AEA, live bottom aree- la the eastern GOM have been determined to be Important enough for protection by MMS in the form of special lease stipulations. As part of the requiremer. s of the lease stipulation, Continental Shelf Associates (1985a) conducted a ive botton survey including photodocumentatlon of the proposed d r i l l sites i n :iock 115. As mentioned in Section III.B.2.b above, tvo small areas of low r e l i e f rock outcrops were detected by the survey. These areas had very limited amounts of attached biota, and are thus not considered as exhibiting characteristic live-bottom assemblages.

3. Endangered or Threatened Species

Information in this section i s Included i n the AEA.

4. Breeding Habitats and Migration Routes

Information ln thi s section i s Included i n the AEA.

5. Protected Areas of Biological Concern

Information i n thi s section i s included i n the AEA.

C. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS

1. Economic and Demographic Conditions

a. Related Employment and Unemployment

Onshore support f a c i l i t i e s for the proposed plan vould be located at Panama City, Bay County, Florida, (Exxon, 1985). Average employment and unemployment data for Bay County, Florida and the surrounding area are given i n Section I l l . C . l . a . of the AEA.

b. Location and Size of Related Pop; ion Centers

Panama City i s located on St. Andrews Bay l n Bay County, Florida. The population of Panama City is 34,196. Pensacola i s located on Pensacola Bay i n

16

•A

Escambia County, Florida. The population of Pensacola i s 59,563. Fori Walton Beach ls located on Choctawhatchee Eay in Okaloosa County, Florida. The population of Fort Walton Beach is 21,560. Panama City i s located 164kt (102

<«i mi) east-southeast of Pensacola and 109km (68 mi) east-southeast Fort Walton Beach (CSA, 1984). Population growth for the coastal counties within the surrounding area is given in Section I l l . C . l . b . , Taole 111-10 of the AEA.

A c. Location and Size of Related Industry Centers

Refer to Section ( 3 ) ( f ) ( i i ) of CSA (1984) and Section I l l . C . l . b . above ** for a discussion of the location and size of related industry centers. Addi­

tional information i s included ln this section of the AEA.

J 2. Land Use

1

ml

a. Existing Community Services

Table 3.26 of the operator's AER (CA, 1984) gives a l i s t of those community services in the Panama City-Bay County area.

b. Existing Transportation Systems and F a c i l i t i e s

Several major highways serve the Panama City-Bay County area. U.S. High-J way 98 offers a major eact-vc-at route and U.S. Highway 231 runs north-south

providing four-lane access to Interstate Highway 10. Interstate Highway 10 l s ^ located 21km (13 mi) from the northern protior of Bay County and 80kn (50 mi)

from Panama City. Also serving the Panama City-Bay County area are Florida Stite Routes 77 and 79. These are additional northern routes and provide access to Interstate Highways 10, 65, 5, and 85 (CSA, 1984).

The Atlantic and St. Andrews Ba • Railway Company (popularly known as "The ci "ia> Line") provides r a i l freight service to and irom the Pana.a City-Bay County

area, with tracks to and frcm in c u s t r i a l and port f a c i l i t i e s , sat The airport serving the Panama City-Bay area i s Panama ' ity's Fannin i j Field. Service is provided through Republic Airways, Provincetcwn Boston

Airlines, and the commuter a i r l i n e . Air New Orleans. In addition, two charter services offer single and twin-engine charter f l i g h t s and a third offers helicopter charter f l i g h t s ( I b i d ) .

— I n t e r c i t y bus transportation l s provided by Southern Greyhound and Trailways. I n t r a c i t y bus transportation is not available ln the Panama City-Bay County area. Small package express service Is available through Federal Express, Purolator, and United Parcel Service, which maintain terminals l n Panama City ( I b i d ) .

c. Suppl and/or Existence of Coastal Resources

The Federal project for Panama City Harbor provides for a j e t t l e d entrance cut through Shell Island 10m (34 f t ) deep in the bay. Waterborne commerce consists mainly of general cargo, paper and petroleum products, s h e l l , steel and iron products, marine supplies, chemicals, f e r t i l i z e r s , and small amounts of f i s h (CSA, 1984).

The deep-draft f a c i l i t i e s of Panama City are located at Dyers Point, west of Panama City; on th* waterfront just west of Massalina Bayou; and at Bay Harbor. The Panamr City Port Authority owns and operates the docks at Dyers Point. These f a c i l i t i e s consist of a west and south dock with 79,248m

17

(260,000 f t ) of covered storage and 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of open storage. Southwest Forest Industries owns and operates the docks at Bay Harbor. These f a c i l i t i e s consist of Dock Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and an Oil Dock ( I b i d ) .

F a c i l i t i e s at Dyers Point and Bay Harbor have r a i l and highway connections and water and e l e c t r i c a l shore power connections. Cargo l s generally handled by ship's tackle. Floating cranes to 225 tons are available by special arrangement. Conveyors, gantry cranes, crawler cranes, hose handling booms, and stevedore furnished equipment are also available. Bunker C is available to oceangoing vessels on an emergency basis at the Southwest Forest Industries Dock No. 1. Diesel fuel and Bunker C can be supplied by truck to vessels at their berths. Tugs up to 1,700 HP are available. Port of Panama City has been awarded Foreign Trade Zone Status and i s l i s t e d as Zone No. 65 ( I b i d ) .

Large municipal yacht basins are located at the head of the main ship channel in Panama City and in St. Andrews. Other small craft f a c i l i t i e s are on Watson and Massalini Bayous, Lake Ware, and at the Hathaway Bridge near Dyers Point (Ib i d ) .

There are no f a c i l i t i e for making major repairs or dry docking deep draft vessels at Panama City; the nearest f a c i l i t i e s are i n Mobile, Alabama. However, there are machine shops in the c i t v , and above- and below-vaterllne repairs can Se made to sm»>il vessels. The largest msrine railway can handle vessels up 46m (150 f t ) long and 250 tons ( I b i d ) .

More specific information regarding the dock f a c i l i t i e s available i s given in Section 3 . f . ( v i . ) of Frxor, s AER (IMd).

3. Onshore Support F a c i l i t i e s

Exxon would use an onshore support base locateu at Fanama City for activ­i t i e s in Block 115. Existing docks and warehouse space located at the Panama City Port Authority woulr* be uti*Ized (CSA, 198jb). Exxon would have available 2,000 feet of dock space. indoor warehouse storage space is available but would not be u t i l i z e d by Exxon (Exxon, 1985). The base i s equipped with the necessary loading docks and cranes for convenient and safe operations. A c t i v i ­t i e s at the onshore supply base in Panama City, Florida, would revolve around supplying and delivering food, wrter, f u e l , d r i l l i n g mud materials, cement, d r i l l pipe, d r i l l casing, and other equipment to the d r i l l i n g r i g . No extra land Is expected to be needed under the proposed a c t i v i t i e s for f a c i l i t i e s , storage, rights-of-way, or easements (CSA, 1985b). A l l f a c i l i t i e s ate consid­ered adequate; no f a c i l i t y expansions other than a temporary t r a i l e r for the, Exxon dispatcher would be needed. This temporary t r a i l e r would require 300 f t " of space, would require no pad, and would u t i l i z e regular t i e - i n s available for sewage, water, and e l e c t r i c i t y (Exxon, 1985). Ample parking, sewage, water, and e l e c t r i c i t y i s available at the Panama City Port Authority f a c i l i t y . Helicopter operations would originate from the existing f a c i l i t i e s at the Panama v , --Bay County Airport ( I b i d ) .

4. Public Opinion

The State of Florida's concerns and potential issues discussed during the public hearing for Sale 79 held in Tampa, Florida on October 7, 1982, were as follows: (a) coastal related tourist economy, (b) coastal recreation, (c) commercial fishing and related coastal and offshore ecosystems, (d) endangered and threatened w i l d l i f e (manatees and sea t u r t l e s ) , and (e) designated environ­mentally unique, sensitive, and/or important areas. The State of Florida's

18

comments related to several specific concerns: environmental studies, o i l s p i l l s , and nearshore-onshore impacts. The S«-ate of Florida has reque ted that the Environmental Studies Program be timed to coincide with t h * occurrence of lease siles ln th* eastern "•uli of Mexlc so that necessary data are available to make informed decisions. The State and local governments expressed particu-l s r cone*rn about the poss i b i l i t y that an o i l s p i l l would damage the sensitive coastal environment aod tourist associated Industries in Florida. The State aloo expressed concern over learshore and onshore Impacts that may result from OCS development (CSA, l$84/. '.efer to the operator's Findings of the Consistency Assessment fcr a dis..u.;•>.'• n of Florida's Coastal Management Program (Exxon, 1985).

5. Navigation

The fairway nearest lo Clock 115 parallels the Florida coastline from Walton to Bay County a r i i . " located about 48km (30 n i ) northeast of the pro­posed action (USDI, MM?, 193.1, Visual No. 11). Cargo and crew boats supporting t h i s a c t i v i t y would u t i l i z e the nearshore portion of the shipping fairway leading from Panama City, Florida. Additional information l s included in this ssction of the AEA.

6. Mili t a r y Warning/Use Areas

Destln Dome Block 115 ls located within M i l i t a r y Warning Area No. W-151 (USDI, MMS, 1983, Viaual No. l i ) . Therefore, i n accordance with Stipulation No. 5, the timing cf placement eni location of surface structures as well as planned periods of surface struct., operation within this block art subject to approval by the Regional Director RD) after reviev of the Plan of Exploration. Prior to approval of the plan, .-tie RD shall consult v i t h thr Commander, Armament Division, Eglin Air Fore: Use. Florida, to determine plan compatibi­l i t y v i t h schedulea l i l i t a r y op ».tions in the area. *n addition, tvo explo­sives dunring areas identified in the Information to Bidders and Lessees, paragraph 14(g) of the Notice of Lease Sale, are located In the v i c i n i t y of the subject block. Due to the potential for dumped e>plosives to d r i f t from a disposal s i t e , the presence oc the unidentified anomalies discussed ln Section I I I . A . l . b . could be considered potential unexploded ordnance. The lease block I t within the Naval Coastal Systems Center aiea (NCSC) and the plan indicates that boot and or a i r c r a f t t r a f f i c v i l l traverse this area. The NCSC conducts testing hetvt-er. A p r i l and Oc :ober v i t h peak operating months during the summer. During this period, o i l companies may be requested to stand aown from a c t i v i t y for 5- to -0-day periods ('.o a maximum of 15 days), as determined by the NCSC testing 62hed:;*c CorapaM.es v i l l be able to operate essentially unrestricted during '.he Noverber to /larch time frame. Additional Information i s included i n t h i * section of the AEA.

1. COTM * r c i a l Fishing

'nformation ln this section i s Included in the AEA.

b. Recreation

'nfoccation i n this section is included ln the AE/.

19

9. Cultural Resources

Block 115 l l e 6 outside of both the Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources High Probability Lines. These lines arc a reflection of "high proba­b i l i t y " limits based on a zonatlon map developed as a synthesis of the known archaeological record for the entire Gulf Coast; an interpretation of possible prehistoric settlement patterns based on the geomorphology of the Outer Continental Shelf, and data in the occurrence of known historic shipwrecks ln the northern Gulf of Mexico from 1500 A.D. through 1945 A.D. (CEI, 1977). Based on the study by Coastal Environments, Inc., a cultural resource survey and report for the proposed action ere not required. Table 111-2 1 of the AEA indicates that no h i a t o r i c shipwrecks are known within or adjacent to the subject blocks. No evidence of known cultural resources exist within or adjacent to the subject blocks. Additional information is Included in this section of the AEA.

10. Water Quality and Supply

Information ln t h i s section is included i n the AEA.

11. Air Quality

Onshore - The onshore area affected by this operation Includes a support terminal at Panama City, in Bay Countv, Florida. Bay County is included In a i r qual:' control region Number 5. The area la a Class I I attainment area. The Pan-aa Ci:, area hp.r, higher levels of particulates SO , N0j-t CO, and VOC rela­tive to surrounding undeveloped areas. However, no problems w th a i r pollution ln Panaua City have been reported. At certain times during the summer months, the lev*ls of pollutants are elevated but remain within acceptable l i m i t s (CSA, 1' -.4). Because the supply base is an established base under use, no s i g n i f i ­cant differences are expected in the concentration of pollutants due co storage or transfer of f u e l . Additional information i s included in this section of the AEA.

Offshore - Operations would be conducted on the OCS 52kr, (33 mi) from the nearest onshore area located in Walton County, Florida (CSA, 1985b). The a i r quality of the offshore area is considered better than the national standards for a l l air pollutants; however, due ro the lack of data, the area l s unclassi­fied (CSA, 1984).

12. Other Commercial Uses

Information i n t h i s section Is included in the AEA.

13. Otner Mineral Uses

Information i n t h i s section ls included in the AEA.

14. Pipelines and Cables

Since the proposed operations are exploratory, there would be no pipe­lines constructed as a result of this a c t i v i t y . Additional information is included ln th i s section of the AEA.

20

1 I

15. Ocean Dumping Infonnation in this secLion i s included in the AEA.

m

1

—

i ]

:

i

]

J

il —

J

1

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. OIL SPILLS

1. Oil S p i l l Accidents

A complete discussion oi the causes of both major and minor o i l s p i l l s resulting from exploration a c t i v i t y in the Gulf of Mexico is Included in Section IV.A.l. of the AEA.

2. Vulnerability of Coastal Land Segments to Oil Spil l s

A summary of the trajectory analysis (for 10 days) simulated as a part of the C i l S p i l l Risk Analysis is presented in Table IV.4. of the AEA. Refer to Section IV.A.2. of the AEA for background Information concerning these hypothe­t i c a l o i l s p i l l trajectories.

Destin Dome Block 115 f a l l s within the o i l s p i l l area 9A, (see Figure IV-1 of t'.e AEA). Impacts from an o i l sp.111 occurring in this o i l s p i l l ares would be f e l t in the coastal land segments extending from Baldwin County, Alabama, to Bay County, Florida. Coast-. land segment 24 (Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida) would be the most vulnerable with a 13Z chance that an o i l s p i l l occurring in o i l s p i l l area 94 would contact this area within 10 days. The percent chance that an o i l s p i l l occurring in o i l s p i l l area 94 would contact Baldwin County, Alabama i n this same time span i s 1Z; Okaloosa County, Florida - 10Z; Walton county, Florida - 6Z; and Bay County, Florida -1Z (USDI, MMS, 1984). Refer to Section IV.8.3.4, of the Final Regional Environmental Impact Statement (MMS, 1983) for a discussion of the factors affecting the severity of an o i l s p i l l . « The prospect of there being an o i l s p i l l ls guarded against through u t i l i z a t i o n of state-of-the-art d r i l l i n g and blowout prevention equipment and through the use of best possible d r i l l i n g practices by thoroughly trained personnel. These safeguards would be reinforced by operations curtailment

_ programs enforced whenever sea state and weather conditions require. In the unexpected event than an accidental o i l s p i l l should occur, Exxon would conduct an emergency response to contain and cleanup the spille d o i l . Solid wastes from a s p i l l would be disposed of in an approved l a n d f i l l area. In accordance v i t h OCS Order No. 7, general resource mobilization and response plans are

— outlined in Exxon's approved Oil S p i l l Contingency Plnn for the Gulf of Mexico, .long with the CGA s p i l l plan (Exxon, 1985).

In summary, the risk due to the proposed a c t i v i t y appears small. Most s p i l l s would be naturally dispersed within 60 days. In addition, most s p i l l s would be subjected to containment and cleanup e f f o r t s . The operator i s a member of CGA and w i l l u t i l i z e CGA's equipment to nssist in any cleanup efforts. CGA u t i l i z e s the most up-to-date cleanup equipment available tc the o i l Industry. A CGA Fast Response Unit Model I I I ls proposed to be located at the supply base in Panama City, Florida. I f an o i l s p i l l occurred, additional CGA equipment would be moved ln as needed from CGA's bases ln Louisiana (CSA, 1985b). Details of Exxon's a l e r t , reporting, and cleanup procedures are contained in the POE and SER. In addition, MMS conducts reviews of the various applications for compliance with OCS Orders, Notices to Lessees, etc., to insure safe d r i l l i n g operations.

:

_

3 j

:

22

3. Effects of Oil Spil l s on the Environment

Refer to Section IV.A.3. of the AEA for discussions of o i l s p i l l impacts to coastal habitats, benthic communities, endangered or threatened species, other w i l d l i f e including migratory waterfowl, commercial fis h i n g , recreation/ tourism, cultural resources, water quality, and ai r quality.

Due to distance from shore [52km (33 mi)] and the water depth [73 to 93m (240 to 305 f t ) ] , existing measures, regulations, and cleanup procedures outlined in Section IV.A.2., should be suf f i c i e n t to effectively mitigate any potential o i l 6 p i l l impact or. the environment to an insignificant level.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THF PROPOSED ACTION

1. Impacts Concerning Geologic and Other Hazards

In order to ident i f y potential geological hazards, the available geolo­gical and geophysical data for Destin Dome Block 115 was reviewed by the Metairie D i s t r i c t s t a f f which resulted in a recor-nendatlon of approval (Appendix C). The Metairie D i s t r i c t Supervisor (Appendix B, Hazards Review) recommended that H S sensors be installed and operational by 792m (2,600 f t ) subsea.

The proposed well locations are located on the northeast flank of an anticlinal/domal structure. There are several dormant shallow faults in the block (McClelland Engineers, Inc., 1985). Several areas of possible hard material are present near the location of Wells B and C, so s o i l borings are to be taken i f a jack-up r i g is to be used at theae locations (Appendix B, Hazards Review). Exxon has indicated that compliance with NTL 83-3 w i l l be maintained throughout the d r i l l i n g operations (CSA, 1985b).

2. Impacts Concerning Meteorology

Mitigation to be taken by Exxor. during hurricanes, i6 discussed ir. Section IV.B.3. of this SEA. In conditions of high win Is and reduced v i s i b i ­l i t y due to fog or ra i n , helicopter t r a f f i c and/or boat t r a f f i c between the r i g and shorebase would be temporarily suspended (CSA, 1984).

Interferences due to weather conditions are expected to be short-term and infrequent, producing only an insignificant effect on the movement of supplies and personnel to and from the f a c i l i t i e s . The effect on offshore operations should be minimal. Additional information i s Included in th i s section of the AEA.

3. Impacts Concerning Physical Oceanography

Oceanographic conditions which could adversely affect the operation have been taken into consideration during the planning and designing of the proposed action. However, although d r i l l i n g rigs are designed to operate i n rough sea conditions, precautions would be taken by Exxon i f a hurricane apprcached Block 115. Activities would be nalted, protective measures taken, and f a c i l i t i e s secured (CSA, 1984). No significant impacts from normal physical oceanographic conditions would be expected during the implementation of this exploration plan.

23

4. Impacts on the Biological Environment

Due to the distance from shore of Block 115 [52km (33 mi)] and the use of an established onshore support base requiring no new construction, dredging, or f i l l i n g , impacts other than those from o i l s p i l l s on the crea's biological environment would be insignificant. Further site-specific discussion of potential impacts to the benthos and sensitive underwater features .ire Included under their respective v.««»uings. Refer tc Section IV.A. of th i s SEA and the corresponding section of the AEA for a discussion of o i l a p i l l impacts to the biological environment.

a. Impacts on Coastal Habitats

Additional information is Included in this section of the AEA.

b. Impacts on Offshore Habitats

(1) Impacts on the Pelagic Environment

Additional Information is included ln th i s section of the AEA.

(2) Impacts on the Benthic Environment

Impacts to the benthic environment are discussed In Section IV.B.A.b.2. and 3. of the AEA. No further impacts resulting from the proposed a c t i v i t y are expected.

(3) Impacts on Sensitive Underwater Featu*-

Live-bottom areas have been determin 'US to be worthy of protec­tion by lease stipulation. Exxon has cox .th the stipulation which requires i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of possible live-botto from geophysical data and further requires photodocumentatlon of the subs. '.round the proposed d r i l l sites out to 1 ,820m t5,970 f t ) . The results o> .J survey are in Sections III.B.2.b. and c. Since no live-bottom patches were detected, no further Implementation of the Live-Bottom Stipulation i s necessary.

The National Research Council (1983) concluded that effects on the benthos are limited to t o x i c i t y and smothering. Toxicity effects from the proposed operations in Block 115 are not expected to be significant since toxic muds are regulated and since the muds are greatly diluted at the release of the effluent. Therefore, t o x i c i t y is not expected to cause any adverse Impacts.

The severity of Impacts from smothering resulting from the deposition of effluents on benthic organisms i s determined by the extent the organisms are exposed to natural sediment flux and the a b i l i t y of those organisms to with­stand the small incremental increase of sediment flux due to the d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s . The Live-Bottom Survey mentioned above did not detect typical hard bottom communities which would be sensitive to such an Increase. Therefore, smothering i s not expected to present any environmental problems in Block 115.

No additional mitigative measures for ths protection of biota in Bloc. 115 from the proposed a c t i v i t y are warranted. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the proposal and does not recommend further protective measures (Appendix C).

24

c . Impacts on Endangered or Threaten id Speeds

Add i t iona l i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n c l u d e ! i n t h i s sec t ion of .nt. EA.

d . Impacts on Breeding Habitats and M i g r a t i o n Routes

A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s inc luded i n t h i s sec t ion of the AEA.

e . Impacts on Protec ted Areas of B i o l o g i c a l Concern

A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s included i n t h i s sec t ion of the AEA.

C. ACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS

1 . I r p a . - s to Economic and Demographic Condi t : >ns

£. . \ t ; ts on Local Employ

Most of the employees required for this exj; 'ration a c t i v i t y would be transported by Exxon from another a-«.a of the Gull. ioine contract positions at the supply base cculd be f i l l i by local residents, depending upon personnel a v a i l a b i l i t y , qualifications, and other factors. Up to 10Z of the 22 employees required for work and crew boat operations may be hired from the local labor force in Panama City. Repairs to boats or the d r i l l i n g vessel may be procured from local firms. In addition some of the service firm employees u t i l i z e d offshore may be hired locally (CSA, 1985b). Due to the low number of persons u t i l i z e d in the d r i l l i n g and related support a c t i v i t i e s that would be hired locally (up to 12), impacts on local employment would be insig n i f i c a n t . Addi­tional information is included in this section o l the AEA.

b. Impacts on Local Population and Industry Centers

At the end of their respc- ve tours of duty, the supply base employees would return to thei r place of ret lance. Local housing would not be r e t i r e d . The Exxon employee placed at the supply base to coordinate the onshore supply base operations would be housed in a temporary t r a i l e r at the onshore supply oase. Vesse? crews would -ot require local housing, as they would liv< on the vessels and would return to their resioenccs upon coapletion of each tour of duty. The pilot? and mechanics would be housed in a local motel by the con­tract operator while on duty and would return to their residences during :heir days off. Most of the employees required to operate the d r i l l i n g r i g would typically be assigned to the r i g and would stay with the r i g when i ; is moved to the proposed d r i l l s i t e . Most of the offshore r i g employees would return to their place of residence on their days o f f . **o new employees or families would move permanently into the area (CSA, 1985b).

Because most of the personnel are expected to return to their homes during off-duty s h i f t s , no significant effects to population centers and industry are expected to result from the exploretion a c t i v i t i e s . Expenditures for port requirements, supplies, fu e l , and u t i l i t y needs coulJ contribute funds to the economy of the Panama City area. Expansion of existing f a c i l i t i e s to support the offshore and onshore a c t i v i t i e s is not expected because there would be l i t t l e incentive on the part of industry to establish extensive f a c i l i t i e s prior to the proven existence o f commercial quantities of hydrocarbons (Herbert and Lampl, 1983).

25

2. Impacts on Land Use

a. Impacts of Increased Demands on Community Services

Increased demands on community service vould be insignificant. Ko nev families are moving into the area and the occasional demands of transient employees per d r i l l i n g operation on local services vould be insignificant (CSA, 1984).

b. Impacts of Increased Boat and Air Traffic

Employees vould be transported from the airport d i t e c t l y to the d r i l l site by helicopter. Helicopters vould also be used to transport specialty per­sonnel such as casing crevt, engineers, e t c , and small supplies (CSA, 1984). The 30 additional round-trip f l i g h t s per month as a result of the proposed operations in Block 115 vould be insignificant compared to the t o t a l number of f l i g h t s normally serving the area. The cargo and vorkboats servicing these a c t i v i t i e s vould follow the most direct route to the d r i l l s i t e . The addi­tional vessel t r a f f i c (46 trips/month) supporting the proposed e c t i v i t i e s vould not s i g n i f i c a n t l y affect existing vessel t r a f f i c (CSA, 1985b).

c. Impacts of Competition tor Scarce Coastal Resources and Demands for Goods and Services

Exxon vould use ar. onshore support base located at Panama City for a c t i v i t i e s i n Destln Dome Block 115. These f a c i l i t i e s vould consist of commercially available public or private dockage. No new land areas are expected to be occupied and no Increased demands on existing dock space vould be an icipated (CSA, 1983b).

(1) Supplies and Equipment

Slgnlflcanc amounts of commodities to be purchased vould Include materials specialized for v e i l d r i l l i n g , e l e c t r i c i t y , and groceries. Major supplies and equipment needed for the proposed d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s per v e i l In Destin Dome Area Block 115 are as follows:

ITEM TOTAL

Pipe 2C.400 feet (600 tons) Cement 5,460 sacks (273 tons)

D r i l l i n g Muds 33,000 sacks (1,650 tons)

The vendors and contractors vho vould provide these materials have not a l l been determined, but i t i s expected that the majority vould be located outside the Panama City Area. Specialized services and materials vould only be u.ed during exploratory operations. Many would be Imported especially for the operations or exist in the area only for servicing exploratory operations. Their use would not affect community demando for goods and services. Demands on typical local services and materials would be periodic and relatively small. These demands would not be expected to affect supplies in the area of the onshore base s i g n i f i c a n t l y (CSA, 1984 and 1985b).

26

:

(2) Water

Approximately 19,950 gal/day of freshwater would be required during the proposed a c t i v i t i e s i n Block 115 exclusive of ballast vater. Approximately 5,500 gal/day of freshwater would be required for the d r i l l i n g vessel from onshore sources. The freshwater demand at the onshore base would be approxi­mately but not more than 7,000 gal/day during the proposed a c t i v i t i e s . The percent increase on the local water system's 50,000,000 gal/day maximum capacity would be 0.02Z. Based on this number, the percent increase should not have a significant effect on the onshore water supply in Panama City (CSA, 1985b).

(3) Aggregate Energy

Approximately 170,000 gallons of diesel and 6,000 gallons of j e t fuel would be purchased each month from local d i s t r i b u t o r s . Present supplies ln the area are adequate to handle the demand. The only uae of e l e c t r i c i t y anticipated i s that for office rpace. The rate of consumption should not exceed 6,OOOkw/mo. The Impact on local supplies from this use would be negligible. These estimates are based on the requirements for one d r i l l i n g r i g (CSA, 1984).

(4) Other Resources

Other services and materials that may be needed to support offshore exploratory d r i l l i n g are li s t e d l n Table I I I - l 2 of the AEA. Additional details of the types of vendors/contractors and specific demands for goods and services which could be required to concuct the planned a c t i v i t i e s are discussed in Shell Offshore Inc's AER (CSA, 1984).

3. Impacts from Construction of Onshore St.pport F a c i l i t i e s

Helicopter operations would originate form the Panama City-Bay County Airport. The onsho'-i support f a c i l i t y for marine operations would be an existing site in the Panama City area. Refer to Section III.C.3. of this SEA for a description of these f a c i l i t i e s . The supply terminal and helicopter base, both i n the Panama City locale, would u t i l i z e existing f a c i l i t i e s . No new construction, dredging or f i l l i n g would be Involved. The proposed temporary structure (e.g., t r a i l e r ) would u t i l i z e existing f a c i l i t i e s ; consequently, che establishment and use of this temporary f a c i l i t y at the onshore base would be expected to have an insignificant Impact on the Panama City Area (CSA, 1985b).

— j

4. Impacts of Public Opinion

No significant public opposition to the planned operation has surfaced to date.

5. Impacts on Navigation

Exploratory a c t i v i t i e s in Block 115 should have an insignificant effect on shipping. Block 115 is located 52km (33 mi) offshore and lies outside of

_ any major shipping lanes or anchorage areas in the Gulf of Mexico (USDI, MMS, 1983, Visual No. 11). Marine t r a f f i c in support of the proposed a c t i v i t i e s i s not expected to signif i c a n t l y affect ehipping a c t i v i t i e s i n the Panama City

1 27

il

J

Area, in part, because of the established port f a c i l i t i e s already in existence and the temporary nature of the proposed a c t i v i t i e s . The impacts of the d r i l l ­ing rig on marine transportation (fishing and pleasure boating) could be both adverse and beneficial, because stationary structures could represent obstacles to navigation, but they also could serve as navigational aids. The operator ls required to comply with U.S. Coast Guard regulations related to the ssfety of personnel and the display of prescribed navigational l i g h t s and signals for the safety of navigation. Exxon ls also required to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent obstructions to navigation. Additional information is Included in t h i . section of the AEA.

6. Impacts Concerning M i l i t a r y Use

No objections to approval of the a c t i v i t y proposed for Destln Lome Block 115 vere raised by the Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Armament Division, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in their l e t t e r dated June 20, 1985. In accordance v i t h Stipulation No. 5, further time specific considerations v i l l be evaluated by the Department of the Air Force upon receipt of Exxon's Application for Permit to D r i l l . In compliance v i t h the lease stipulation regarding control of electromagnetic emissions and operations and boat and/or aircraft t r a f f i c into the designated m i l i t a r y varning area W-151, the operator must enter into ar agreement v i t h Commander, Arnament Division, Attention: Hovard Dimmig/CCN, Eglin AFB, Florida 32542, Telephone: (904) 882-5558. The lease area io within the NCSC; therefore, in order to provide control of electromagnetic emissions a». the operations of boat and/or a i r c r a f t t r a f f i c entering into the NCSC area, the operator should consult v i t h the NCSC Center, Code 30, Attention: Commander Buckly or Mr. C. M. Callhan, Panama City, Florida 32407, Telephone: (904) 234-4462.

Conducting the exploratory operations in accordance v i t h existing Stipulations Nos. 4 and 5 and Rider of Lease Form MMS-20G5 (August 1982) is expected to reduce potential impacts to a minimal level.

7. Impacts on Commercial Fishing

Direct effects of exploratory operations on commercial fishing in Block 115 vould be the removal of a limited area of seafloor from use and the temporary degradation of vater quality at the immediate area of each d r i l l site (CSA, 1984). Although some commercial fishing vould be l i k e l y to occur v l t h i n the v i c i n i t y , no significant c o n f l i c t of use l s expected to develop in the area of the proposed action due to the distance from shore [52km (33 m i ) ] . Refer to Section IV.A. of this SEA and the corresponding section of the AEA for a discussion of o i l s p i l l impacts to commercial fishing. Additional Information is Included in thi s section of the AEA.

8. Impacts on Recreation/Tourism

:

]

] Due to the distance offshore [52km (33 mi)] and the temporary nature of

_ the proposed a c t l v i t i e r , impacts to the aesthetics and recreati • l a l resources of the coastal area vould be ins i g n i f i c a n t . Refer to Section IV.A. of this SEA and the corresponding section of the AEA for a discussion of o i l s p i l l impacts to recreation/tourism. Additional information i s Included in this section of the AEA.

28

9. Impacts on Cultural Resources

No evidences of known or potential cultural resources exist in Block 115 (USDI, MMS, 1983, Visual No. I I ) . Therefore, no impacts to offshore cultural resources are expected. The operator states that existing onshore support f a c i l i t i e s would be u t i l i z e d ; therefore, no Impacts to onshore u l t u r a l resources are anticipated. Stipulation No. 1 of Lease Sale 79 provides further safeguards for the protection of presently unknown c u l t u r a l resources. The operator is required to report, upon discovery of any s i t e , structure or object of h i s t o r i c a l or archaeological significance, to the RD, MMS and make every reasonable e f f o r t to preserve and protect that cultural resource. Additional information is included in the AEA.

10. Impacts on Water Quality

According to Ex:- SER the t o t a l amount of d r i l l i n g cuttings that would be discharged during d r i l l i n g of the exploration wells i s estimated at 23,550 bbls. D r i l l discharges for a l l five wells would t o t a l 154,760 bbls (CSA, 1985b). Liquid and solid wastes from the a c t i v i t i e s would temporarily degrade the water quality i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of the veils ln Block 115 (CSA. 1984).

Implementation of the proposed a c t i v i t y vould alter the vater quality by resuspension of bottom sediments during placement of the d r i l l i n g r i g and the discharge of d r i l l cuttings and muds and other l i q u i d vastes. Rig in s t a l l a t i o n has the potential to disperse pollutants entrapped in the bottom sediments into the vater column and create a t u r b i d i t y plume. These a c t i v i t i e s vould be of short duration and any pollutants vould be rapidly dispersed over the block under consideration. At most depths typical of the continental shelf the majority of discharged fluids and cuttings are i n i t i a l l y deposited on the seabed v i t h i n 1,000m (3,281 f t ) of the point of discharge. This material, may persist as i n i t i a l l y deposited or may undergo rapid or prolonged dispersion, depending on the energy of the bottom ooundary layer (National Research Council, 1983).

Because vater quality is expected to quickly return to normal In the area after d r i l l i n g operati ns have been completed, no significant Impacts to vater quality of the area ar-. expected as a result of the proposed a c t i v i t i e s . As discussed in Section I . ., a l l discharges vould adhere to the standards Imposed by the NPDES Permit. Kefer to Section IV.A. of this SE/ ™d the corresponding section of the AEA for a discussion of o i l s p i l l imp., cs to vater quality. Additional information is Included i n this section of the AEA and Shell Offshore Inc.'s AER (CSA, 1984).

11. Impacts on Air Quality

Onshore - The effects of the ai r emissions onshore vould be negligible due to the distance of the d r i l l sites to the northwest Florida coast. The percent increases i n ambient concentrations contributed by the onshore secondary emissions from the proposed a c t i v i t i e s would be insignificant (CSA, 1985b). Additional information i s included in thi3 section of the AEA and in the operator's SER.

Offshore - Data presented in the operator's SER indicate that the t o t a l emissions expected from the proposed a c t i v i t i e s in Block 115 would be well below the calculated exemption levels, qualifying these a c t i v i t i e s for exemp­tion from further a i r quality review. The site-specific a i r quality review

29

conducted by MMS as a part of this environmental anelysis concluded that there could be no significant effect on a i r .aality from the propoaed action. The emissions exemption calculations used i n this analysis are given i n the Air Quelity Review (Appendix C). Additional information l s Included in this section of the AEA and ln the operator's SER.

12. Impacta on Other Commercial Uses

There are no other commercial uses in Block 115 to be affected by the exploration a c t i v i t y .

13. Impacta on Other Mineral Uses

There are no plans or proposals for mining other mineral resources other -.nan o i l and gas ln Block 115; therefore, no con f l i c t of use l s expected.

14. Impacts Concerning Pipelines and Cables

No con f l i c t of use is expected because there are no known existing pipelines ln the esstcrn Gulf snd because pipelines csnnot be proposed as s part r. this exploration a c t i v i t y (Appendix C).

15. Impacts of Ocean Dumping

No conflict of use Is expected because there are no existing ocean dumping areas designated in the eastern Gulf. The operator has stated that compliance with the USEPA NPDES permit w i l l be maintained (Exxon, 1985). Additionally, OCS Order No. 8 requires that the operator locate and retrieve any large debris lost overboard as a result of the proposed a c t i v i t i e s .

D. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Information in this section is included in the AEA.

30

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In accordance wit!, provisions of 30 CFR 250.34 and DM 655, and the Memorandum of Agreement (1983) between the Department of Defer<-e and the Department of the I n t e r i o r , copies of the plan were forwarded to tue U.S. Fish «nd Wildlife Service, the State of Florida, and the Commr-der, Armamenr Division, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Copies of the corns ents of the* agencies are Included ln Appendix D. Florida Governor's comment; and Florj ..*s CZM comments were not available prior to plan approval, ther fore, l i nec­essary, this SEA may subsequently be amended to reflect Fiorina's responses. No controversial issues were ident i f i e d relative to Exxon's proposed a c t i v i t y i n Block 115.

31

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Coastal Environments. Inc. (CEI). Cultural Resources Evaluation of che Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf, U.S. Department of the I n t e r i o r , National Park Service. 1977.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). Area Environmental Report - Gulf of Mexico: Florida - Destin Dome Area Block 114, 115, 116, 158, 159, 160, 161, 203, 204, and 205. Prepared for Shell Offahore Inc., Tesquesta, FL. 1984.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). Live-Bottom Survey of D r i l l Site Locations in Destin Dome Area Block 115. Prepared for Exxon Company, U.S.A. Tequesta, FL. 1985a.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). Site-Specific Environmental Report, Julf of Mexico: Offshore Florida, Destin Dome Area, Block 115 (OCS-G 6413), Prepared for Exxon Company, U.S.A. Tequesta, FL. 1985b.

Exxon Company, U.S.A. Plan of Exploration. Destin Dome Area, Block 115, (OCS-G 6413) Houston, TX. 1985.

Herbert, T. A., and L. L. Lampl. The Travel and Residency Patterns of Rig Workers: the Getty Oil Company East Bay Project, S».nta Rosa Councy, Florida: Presented at the 1983 Minerals Management Service Information Transfer Meeting. New Orleans, LA; November 15-17, 1983.

McClelland Engineers, Inc. High-Resolution Geophysical Survey and Assessment of Potential Shallow D r i l l i n g Hazards and Live-Bottom Report, OCS Block 115, Destin Dome Area, Offshore Florida, Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for Exxon Company, U.S A. Ventura, CA. 1985.

National Research Council. D r i l l i n g Discharges in the Ma.ine Environment. Wash igton, D.C.: National Academy Press. 1903.

U.S. Department of the Inte r i o r . Minerals Management Service. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Propossd OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 81 and 84 (Central and Western Gulf of Mexico). Washington, DC: Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. 1983.

U.S. Department of the Inte r i o r . Minerals Management Service. Final Area-Wide Environmental Assessment, Exploration A c t i v i t i e s ; Northwest Section of Eastern Planning Area, Gulf of Mexico Region. Metairie, LA. 1984.

32

PREPARERS

Author Charles W. H i l l Jr p ..

I " . Jr. - Environmental Specialiat

Typist

Myra E. Rader - Secretary

33

V I I I . APPENDICES

Appendix A - Lease Stipulations

Appendix B - Reviews from MMS

Appendix C - Reviews from Other Agencies

34

2 APPENDIX A - LEASE STIPULATIONS

1 1 i J

i 1 2

1 r

tWI ivC STATES DEPAKTMEHa C? • i t INTERIOR MINERA'.S NAN. 31 1EXT SERVICE

Outer C o n t i n e n t a l She t - « t « m C u l f e f Mexico O i l and C M Lease ) i f - r l n g (January 1984)

ocs-c 6113 STIPOtATlOR RO. 1 - CULTURAL RESOURCE

(a) "Cultu...; laac-irce" M ; U aay alta. atructura, or object of historic or prehistoric arena*- oglcal significance. "Oparatlona" means any drilling, mining, or constm .Ion or placaaant of any atructura for exploration, devel­opment, or production of tha laaaa.

(b) If tha Rational Manager (IM} believes a cultural reeource aay exist ln tbe leaaa area, tbe IM 11 uotlfy the leaaee ln writing. The lesaee shall then comply with subparagraphs ( P through (3).

(1) Prior to conenclc* any operatlona, tbe leaaee ahall pre­ps' » s report, as >eclfied by the IM, to deterwiue th* potential exiatence at any cul :ural reeource t'.at aay ee sffscted by operati- ,s. The report, prepered by aa arch­aeologist and geot:.yelclet, jh-.U be baaed oa an assess­ment of data froa remote sc..-Ing eurvcyi end other perti­nent cultural and environment 1 inforvtion. The leesee shall submit this report ti t*a IM for review

(2) If ths evidence suggests • a cultural resource aay be present, tht lasses shsll either:

(1) Locate the site of eny operat? .i so as aot to adveiaely (.'fact the eree wh«ra she cultural resource asy be; er

(11) Establish to the setlsfsctlon of the IM that a cultural raaourca does not exlet or w i l l not be advaraaly affected bv operatlona. Thla shall be dnne by further archaeologlcel investigation, conductsd by sn archaeologist and a geophyel-Clat, ualng survey equlpaent and techniques detaad neceaaary by the IM. A report on the investigation shall be submitted to the IM for review.

(3) I f the IM determines that a cultural reeource la likely So be prsssnt on the leess and aay be adversely affected by operations, hs will notify the leeaee laaedlately. The lesoes shsll take no ection thet aay advaraaly affect the culturel reeource until the IM haa told tha leeaee how to protect I t .

(c) I f the leeaee discovers any cultural reeource while conducting operatloaa on the leeae aree, ths leasse ahall report the discovery laaedlately to the IM. The leaaee ahall aake every reasonable effort to preaerve the cultural resource until the IM haa told the leaaee bow to protect I t .

STIPULATIOB 10. 2 - LIVE BOTTOMS

Prior to any drilling activity or the construction or placement of any atrueture for exploretion or developaent on thle leese, including, but not limited to, well drilling snd pipeline and platfora placeaent, the leeaee will submit to the IM a bethyaetry aap prepered utilising reaor.e sensing sad/or other survey tschnlquss. This aap will Include interpretations for tha presence of live bottom areac wlchln a minimum of 1,820 eetera redlua cf a proposed exploration or production activity site.

F I T the purpose of t h i s s t i p u l a t i o n , " l i v e b o t t o a erees" sre defined es those ess which eontsln b i o l o g i c a l aaaeablagea c o n s i s t i n g of surh s e s s i l e I n v e r t e ­

b r a t e * ss ses fans, see whips, h y d r o l d s , sneaones, e s c l d l s n s , sponges, bryc-sosns, sesgrasses, or co r a l s l i v i n g upon snd sttsched t o n a t u r a l l v o c c u r r i n g hard or rocky formations w i t h rough, broken, or eaooth topogrephy: or whoe» l l t h o t o p e fevors the accumulation of t u r t l e e , f l e h e s , end other f e a r s .

I f I t l s determined t h e t the rewrote sensing dsts I n d i c a t e t h ; presence of herd r l i v e b o t t o n erees, the lessee w i l l s l s o submit t o the \M photo-docummnta-

t l o n of the aea bottoa near propoaed e«p'oratory d r l i l ' . n g a l t e a or propoaed p l a t f o r m l o c a t i o n s . For s c t i v l t i s s l n wst r depths g r e s t s r than 70 meters, t h i s photo-documentation w i l l be r e q u i t e d ' r t e r d l a a a o f tbe reaote sensing dats I n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

I f I t l s determined t h e t the l i v e b o t t o a areas a l g h t be advereely Impacted by rhe proposed e c t i v i t i e s , then the RM w i l l r e q u i r e the lessee t o undertake any aessure deemed economically, e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y , end t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e ro pro­t e c t l i v e b o t t o a ereas. These aeeeuree aey I n c l u d e , but ere not H a l t e d t o , the f o l l o w i n g :

(a) the r e l o c a t i o n of ope r s t l o n s t o svold l i v e b o t t o a erees; (b) the shunting of s l l d r i l l i n g f l u i d s snd c u t t i n g s l n such s

asnner es to svold l i v e b o t t o a erees; (c) the t r e n s p o r t s t l o n o f d r ' . l l l n g f l u i d s snd c u t t i n g s t o

approved d l s p o s s l s i t e s ; snd (d) the moni t o r i n g of l i v e b o t t o a erees t o esseee the adequacy

of eny m i t i g a t i n g measures tsken end the impact of lessee-I n i t i a t e d e c t i v i t i e s .

M o n i t o r i n g requireaents l n (d) sbove w i l l be r e q u i r e d f o r e l l blocks or por­t i o n s of blocks locsted eouth of 26*N. l e t i t u d e .

STIPULATION NO. 4 - MILITARY WARNING AREAS

WARNINC AREAS W-1S1, W-168. W-470. AND ECLIN WATER TEST AREAS 1-5

(e) Hold Harmless

Whether compensation f o r such dsasge or I n j u r y a l g h t be due under e theory of s t r i c t or absolute l i a b i l i t y or othe r w i s e , the lessee assumes s l l r i s k s of dsasge or I n j u r y t o persons or p r o p e r t y , which occur l n , on, or sbove the

- r C o n t i n e n t a l S h e l f , t o any pciaona or t o eny property o f any person or .OPS who sre agents, emplovees. or I n v i t e e s of the lessee, i t s sgents,

independent c o n t r s c t o r s or subcontractors doing business w i t h the lessee i n connection w i t h anv a c t i v i t i e s being performed by the lessee i n , on, or ebove the Outer Continental S h e l f , I f such I n j u r y or damage t o auch person or pro­perty occurs by resson of the a c t i v i t i e s of any agency of the U.S. Government, I t s c o n t r s c t o r s or subcontractors. Oi sny of t h e i r o f f i c e r s , egents, or em­ploye's , being conducted es s p s r t o f , or i n connection w i t h , the prog.ans and a c t i v i t i e s of the Nevel Coestsl System*, Panama C i t y , F l o r i d a .

Notwithstanding any l i m i t a t i o n s of the lessee's l i a b i l i t y I n eec t l o n 14 o f the l e s s s , the lessee sssuaes t h i s r i s k whether such I n j u r y or dsasge l s csused i n whole or l n p e r t by sny set or o a l s s l o n , regardless of negligence or f a u l t of the United Stetes, i t s c o n t r s c t o r s or subcontractors, or any of l t a o f f i c e r s , egents, or employees. The lessse f u r t h e r sgrees t o Indemnify and aeve harm­less the Dnlted States s g s l n s t s l l claims f o r l o s s , dsasgs, or I n j u r y sus­tained by the losses, snd t o Indemnify snd ssvs harmless the United Ststes e g s l n s t s l l c l a m s f o r l o s s , dsaage, or I n j u r y auatalned by the egente, saployees, or I n v i t e e s of the lessee, i t s sgents, or any Independent contrac­t o r s or subcontrsctors doing business w i t h the lessee l n connection w i t h the progrsas snd a c t i v i t i e s of the aforementioned a l l l t a r y i n s t a ' l a t l r n , whether the saae be caused l n whole or l n p a r t hy the negligence or f a u l t of the United S t s t e s , I t s c o n t r a c t o r ! or su b c o n t r s c t o r s , or sny of i t n o f f i c e r s , sgsnts, or eaployees snd whether such claims a l g h t be sustslned under s theory of S t r i c t or sbsoluts l i a b i l i t y or i.'herwlse.

Jb) Electromagnetic Emissions

Tht l t t t t t agrees to oontrol h i t own electromagnetic emissions and thoae of l t t agenta. eaployeea. invitees. Independent c--.tr tora or subcontrsctors etanatlng from individual designated defenss wsming srsss ln accordance with requirements specified by the commander of ths command headquarters mentioned above to the degree neceeeary to prevent damage to, er unacceptable I n t e r f e r ­ence with. Department of Defense f l i g h t , testing, or operstlonsl e c t i v i t i e s , conducted within Individual designated warning areea. Neceessry monitoring control snJ coordlnstton with the lessee. I t s agants, employees. Invitees, Independent contractors or subcontractors, w i l l bs effected by the commander of the epproprlate onehore m i l i t a r y Installation conducting operetlons l n the particular warning area, provided, however, that control of such electromag­netic emission ahall ln no lnatance prohibit a l l manner of electromagnetic ccmmunlcstlon during sny period of time between e lessse. I t s agents, em­ployees. Invitees, independent contractora or aubcontrectora and onshore f s c l l l t l s s .

(e) Operational

The lessee, when operating or causing to ba operated on l t a behalf, boat or aircraft t r a f f i c Into the Individual designated warning areaa, ahall enter Into an agreement with the commander of the Individual command headquarters mentioned above prior to commencing such t r a f f i c . Such an agreement w i l l pro­vide for positive control of hosts and a i r c r a f t operating Into the warning areaa at a l l times.

(<•) Evacuation

When the a c t i v i t i e s of the Armament Development end Tsst Center et Eglin Air Force Bsse, Florida, msy endanger personnel ot prnperty, the lessee agrees, upon receipt of s directive from the Secretary, to evacuate a l l personnel from e l l structures on the l'sse and te shut-in snd secure a l l wells and other equipment. Including pipelines on the lesss, within 48 houra or within such longer pnrlod es msy be specified by the directive. Such directive shsll not require evacuation of pereonnel and ahuttlng-ln and securing of equipment for s period of time greeter then 72 hours; however, such period of time mav be extended by a subsequent directive from tht Secretary. Equipment snd struc­tures nev remain in place on tha leeae during auch time ss the directive remain effe c t .

STIPULATION NO. 5 - RESTRICTION OP EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES

The timing of placement and location of aurface etructurea (rlga and platforms), as well aa planned perloda of aurfaca structure operation within this araa d u r l " the exploretion atage, are subject to approval by the RN after review of tne lessee's Plans of Exploration (POE). Prior to approval of the plan, the RN ahall consult with the Cnmmsndar, Armament Dlvlslor, Eglin Air rorcs Ness, Florida, or the Commanding Offlear, Naval Coaatal Systems Csntsr, Panama C.'ty, Florida, aa appropriate to the affected area, to determine plan competlblllty with scheduled mili t a r y operatlona ln the area. Siting of d r i l l i n g rlga and platforms aasoclsted with exploretory d r i l l i n g may not be approved I f auch si t i n g w i l l result in Interference with aeheduled milit a r y mission" i n such s manner aa to possibly Jeopardise th latlonal defense mission or to poss unacceptable risks to l i f e end prop. try. To promote e predictable and orderly distribution of eurfece etructurea through­out the leaae area at any one given time, applications to Implement approved POE't through the Application for Permit to D r i l l (*>•>) procesa w i l l serve aa the beals for approving the location and density ef surface structures. Approvsl of these APD's w i l l be baaed on marlmirlr.g e f f i c i e n t exploration and minimising c o n f l i c t s to Department of Defense e c t i v i t i e s . Approvsl of some APD's may be delayed as s re -ult of ongoing exploretion ln the mili t a r y impact tone. This action may b* necessary to provide for location of structures ln which sxplorstlon can be aafely accomplished without Interruption te or Interference with the nstlonsl defense missions or ths crsstlon of unaccept­able rlaka to l i f e end property. I f i t la ln the Interest of national security or defenae, operatlona may be suspended ln accordance with 30 CFR 2 5 0 . 1 2 ( a ) ( l ) ( l l l ) with notification to tht lesaee by the •**. The term of the

lease W i l l b« extended to cover tba period of such susr-: U ia recoj ' i that tha laauance of a laaaa conveys tha right to tbe leaaee, as provide ider section 8(b)(O of the OCS Lands Act, to engage l n exploration, development, snd production s c t i v l t i s s pursuant to a l l other statutory and r e g u l a t o r y requirements.

STIPULATION NO. 6 - OIL AND CAS TRANSPORTATION

(a) Pipelines w i l l be ree il r e d : ( i ) i f pipeline rights-of-way can be determined end obtelned; (2> I f laying of auch pipeline l s technologically feasible and environmentally preferable; snd O) i f , l n ths opinion of ths lsssor, pipelines can be laid without net soclsl loss, taking into account any Incremental costs of pipelines over alternative methods of transportation and any Incremental benefits i n the form of lncreaaed environmental protection or reduced multiple-use c o n f l i c t s . Tha laaaor specifically reserves the right to require that any pipeline uaad for transporting production to shore be pieced ln certain designated management araaa. In selecting the means of trensportstlon, consideration w i l l bs given to any recommendation of the Reglonel Technlcel Working Croup with the p a r t l c l p a t l o i of Federal, State, and locel governments and the lnduetry. A l l pipelines. Including flow lines and getherlng lines for o i l end gaa, ahall be designed and constructed to provide for adequate protection from water cur.enta, atorw scouring, aad other hazards aa determined on e case-by-case basis.

(b) Following the developaent of sufficient pipeline cepsclty, no crude o i l w i l l bs transported by aurfaca veaael froa offahore production altae except l n the case of emergency. Determination of emergency conditions and appropriate responses to these conditions w i l l bs aade by tha Regional Manager.

(c) where the three c r i t e r i a set forth l n paragraph (a) of thla stipulation are not aet snd surfsce trensportstlon aust bs employed, a l l vsasals used for carrying hydrocarbons to shore froa the leaaed area w i l l conform with a l l standards established for such vessels, pursuant to the Porte end Waterways, Sefety Act. 33 U.S.C. 1221, et. seq., (1980).

Rider of Lease Form MMS-2005 (August 1982)

The Navy advises that Its Naval Coastsl Systems Center (NCSC) conducts testing between April snd October with pesk operating months during the summer. During this period, oil companies mav be requested to stsnd down from sctivlty for 5- to 10-day periods (to s maximum of 15 days), as determined by the NCSC testing schedule. Companies wil l be able to operate essentially unrestricted during the November to March time frame.

APPENDIX B - REVIEWS FROM MMS

UNITED STAT-; - ? •

lo: Suptrvi

Fros: DUtrict Suptrv.»or.

Subjtct:

,or. £xp^rit1on/0.yeiop»«nt mm ***%

to*** «. our r.v1.w of th. pUn

Omrict Supervisor

Encio*ur«

i

FOR U. S. GOVERNMENT USE ONLY

CONFIDENTIAL 44

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

JUL Dete:

To: Supervisor, Explcration/Devel* ment Plans Unit (RP-2-1)

From: D is t r i c t Supervisor, rvv3n~~ic>,-. g D i s t r i c t , (DO- S )

Subject: Hazards Review/Recommendations fc r Approval

Plan of Exploration ( X J i • vrfvelopn-£,n;/Product1on ( )

— Area'',) y^r^Srrr o ;£f^gm

- j Blocfc(s) | / S

3 Lease(s) Q C 2 > S > - < S a 4 - 1 *

Ope-ator(s^ E v : < o ^ Q . ^ - t V

" The subject proposal includes plat forms,

T-~-?; V f 5 ( S ^ wells, anc p ipe l ines.

• Seafloor Hecarcs: C 3 = 4 * ^ - ~ C j L ^ & ^ i - - , T i i <C

1 i I —1

"1

Subsurface Hazards: ^ ^ ^ / ^ ^ T ^ ^ ^ g ^ t ^ ^ ^ i ^ l ^ ^

p 7-2)- ~ 6 7

1 J

Othtr Kaiards (Pipeline, Sunken Ships, Cables, tte.)

Other Kno-rr, Mineral Resources (Sand, Gravel, Shall, tte.)

2 i

Kecocrnend*t1on for approval —

77

.ne t Supervisor

•1 46

A ! Q U A L I T Y REVIFW

CER/E, No. r > J ~ X l 6 -3 Due Date ( < - . - / ? - g ] Leai.e(s) OCS-G £ V / 3

Block f s ) / / C Area -jPg-s//** ^£)e>^j g_

Onshore Emissions

Onshore Base:^j j jgjggaaa^ C < - ^ ^ , New or Revised: Yee No 2 ^

Onshore Emissions C a l c u l a t i o n . ( I f onshore base l s new or r e v i s e d ) :

NO^ t o n s / y r ; CO t o n s / y r ; VOC t o n s / y r ;

TSP t o n s / y r ; SO^ t o n s / y r

Offshore Emissions

Major Sources - Offshore Emissions C a l c u l a t i o n s :

N0 x /</</, f t o n s / y r ; CO J t o n s / y r ; VOC t o n s / y r ;

TSP fc. t o n s / y r ; S0 0 t o n s / y r

Minor Sources - Offshore Emissions C a l c u l a t i o n s :

BO,, < P ^ . T t o n s / y r ; CO / £ / t o n s / y r ; VOC t o n s / v r ;

TSP 7 . r tons/yr; S00 C-*/ tuns/yr

Tota l Of f sho re r . i s s ions :

V O ^ J - A f A t i . . . / . r ; ;.: * / -> / • / tons /y r ; VOC ^ £ j g t o n s / y r ;

T S P / V ^ £ t o n s / y r ; , /-•»'-7 t ^ n s / y r

Enissions Exemption Calcuia- . : . f s

Distance t o Nearest Land -n S ta tu te M i l e s : 3—3 . O

Exemption: For CO; E - jAOOD 2^ 3 « 3 ^ J t £ t o n s / y r

For KO . V C, TSP, S 0 2 ; E - 33.3D - t ons /y r

There w i l l be s i g n i f i c / i r t e f f e c t on s i r q u a l i t y f rom the proposed a c t i o n :

Yes No *

Information Source (s): ^

Coapjents/Recommends t i o n s :

a UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Supervisor, Exploration/Development Plans Uni t , Plans, Platform and Pipel ine Section, Rules and Production, Gulf of Mexico Region (RP-2-1)

Fron: Supervisor, Platform/Pipeline Uni t , Plans, Platfonn and Pipeline Section, Rules and Production, Gulf of Mexico Region (RP-2-2)

Ob jec t : Plan of.Exploration for r tfcTJVV «*i *««*>«: Plan of^xr . 1 Wkl Area, Block US' , Lease OCS-G t S y / i

30 CFR 250.34 Control No. IV -

~~! Proposed Well/Platform:

Ident i f i ca t ion and Location Exist ing Pipelines Within 500 Feet

| VJiU Ar \&oo ' f i l ^ 1000*PSL M K ^

JUi. ifi 1985

Remarks:

Robert F. Kelly

FTorres:lv:D1sk 5 48

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE H E A D Q U A R T E R S A R M A M E N T D I V I S I O N i A F S O

E G L I N A I R F O R C E B A S E . F L O R I D A 3 2 5 4 2

JUfV 20 1985

U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Managewer-t Service Gulf of Mexico Region Attn: Mr D. W. Solanas

Regional Supervisor, Rules and Production Imperial Office Bldg/ 3301 N. Causeway Blvd P.O. Box 7944 Metairie LA 70010

Dear Mr Solanas

The Armament Division interposes no objections to your approval of the Plan of Exploration for Block 115/ Destin Doue Area/ forwarded by your letter of 11 June 1985/ Control No. N-2163.

MXCRAIS HAXACtlian SERVICE

Ml % 1885

RUI.ES w wmami

50

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SFPV1CE

7 Division of Ecologies' Se-vices 1612 June /wene

Panama Ci ty , Florida 32405

June 27, 1985

auarrp*ts

Jiii ;: | jggr. Memorandum

To: tegional Director, Gulf of Mexico CJS •, I Service, Metairie, Louisiana attn: RP-2-[

Minerals Manafnment

Froa: Field Supervisor, Ecologies.' Services, U.S Service, Panama City, Florida

Fish snd V i l d l i f e

Subject: I n i t i a l Plan of Exploration, Exxon Conpany, U.S.A., Lease OCS-G 6413, "lock 115, Destir Dome, DM 65W715

The Fish and W i l d l i f e Service has reviewed .he subject document xn accordance v i t h 655 DM 1. The document covers the pr.posed exploratory d r i l l i n g of wells A, B, C, D, an'* E i n block 115, Destln Done Area.

Review of the Live-Bottom Survey indicates a coarse aand and shell substrate at a l l the proposed d r i l l sites with two smalL rock outcrop areaa wi th in 1,800 meters of Site C. The exploratory d r i l l i n g a c t l v i t .es as proposed should not have a s ignif icant impact on the biota found near the d r i l l s i t e s . Therefore, we have no objection to the proposed operations.

We appreciate the opportunity provide comments.

Sincerely,

James M. Barkuloo Field Supervisor

cc: NMFS, Panama Ci ty , FL

LAS/bp 2/D

51