Environmental Assessment Determinations and Compliance Findings for

Oil and Gas Operations Permit (Drilling Operations)

United States Fish & Wildlife Service Delta National Wildlife Refuge Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................. 2

3.0 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 5

4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Action .................................................................. 6

5.0 Consultation and Coordination ..................................................................................... 35

6.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 36

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 – Other Applicable Statutes, Executive Orders & Regulations…………………39

Appendix 2 – Field Inspections, Other Studies, Analysis or Permits Used to Complete EA or

Processing Permit……………………………………………………………. 41

Appendix 3 - Cultural Resources…………………………………………………………….48

Appendix 4 – Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation…………………………………………55

Appendix 5 – Special Use Permit Applications (Drilling and Production)………………….61

Figures

Figure 1 Parker USA Drilling Company Drill Rig Specifications ................................... 86

Figure 2 Proposed Work Area within Delta National Wildlife Refuge ............................ 88

Figure 3 Vicinity Map for Delta National Wildlife Refuge .............................................. 89

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Date: July 12, 2018

Permit Application Information

Applicant Name: Texas Petroleum Investment Company (TPIC)

Company Contact: Chris Sanfilippo 101 La Rue France, Suite 406, Lafayette, LA 70508

Operations Location: Delta National Wildlife Refuge

Preparer: Delta National Wildlife Refuge and US Fish & Wildlife Service National Energy Team

Consultant (if applicable): N/A

Direct Comments to: Delta National Wildlife Refuge, 61389 Hwy 434, Lacombe, LA. 70445, c/o Acting Refuge Manager Barret Fortier

1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action:

The purpose for the proposed action is to respond to a request by Texas Petroleum Investment Company (Applicant) for an Operations Permit (Permit) for Applicant’s proposed activities of drilling the Delta Duck Club Teal Prospect well. As required by 50 CFR §29.94(b), the Applicant has filed with Delta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) documentation demonstrating that it holds the legal right to conduct the proposed operations. This proposed action is needed to ensure that mineral rights holders have reasonable access to develop their non-Federal oil and gas interests and minimize impacts to Refuge resources to the extent practicable under the Service’s 50 CFR Part 29, Subpart D regulations (29D Regulations) for managing non- Federal oil and gas on Service-administered lands and waters. The purposes of implementing these regulations are:

1. Protecting Service-administered lands and waters, and resources of the refuge; 2. Protecting refuge wildlife-dependent recreational uses and experiences, and visitor and employee health

and safety; 3. Conserving the Refuge for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans; and 4. Implementing technologically feasible and least damaging methods for oil and gas activities on the

Refuge. These methods are determined on a case-by-case basis to protect refuge resources and uses, while ensuring human health and safety. The determination will all relevant factors into consideration, including environmental, economic, and technological factors and the requirements of applicable law.

2

2.0 Alternatives Considered

As the operator’s proposed actions are not in sensitive habitat but rather in an area already highly impacted by non-Federal oil and gas activity, there is no conflict with respect to alternative uses of the resources in this area, so the EA does not need to consider additional alternatives. (43 CFR 46.310 (b))

No Action Alternative:

Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not engage the Applicant in a permitting process. However, the Applicant has the legal right to access their minerals beneath the refuge surface regardless of a permit. Therefore, bypassing the permitting process will result in the Applicant accessing their minerals without being required to comply with the 29D Regulations, and there will be no assurance that the Applicant would use technologically feasible and least damaging methods.

Proposed Alternative: The Service has received an application for a Permit for proposed oil and gas operations on the Refuge (Appendix 5). The proposed action is for the Refuge to issue a permit to the Applicant. The Applicant has demonstrated that through ownership of oil and gas rights, they have the right to access and develop oil and gas resources underneath the Refuge. Therefore, the action being considered is not whether or not to allow this operation to proceed, as it is the operator’s right to access and develop these resources, but rather to ensure that the operator avoids or minimizes impacts from such activities to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the Service is proposing to issue a Permit that ensures that the Applicant is using the most technologically feasible, least damaging methods to conduct operations on the Refuge in accordance with 50 CFR Part 29, Subpart D.

1. The Applicant proposes prop washing a calculated 20,064 cubic yards of sediment material, and

bucket dredging 3,914 cubic yards of sediment and emergent marsh to access the drilling location. 2. Navigating a drilling barge to the proposed well location via existing, and the newly created, access

canal. 3. Drilling the Delta Duck Club Teal Prospect well. 4. Upon successful completion of the well, using a combination of horizontal directional boring and

jetting to install approximately 4,468 feet of dual 3-inch flowlines and a 2-inch gas lift service line between the well and the existing Delta Duck Central Facility.

5. Mitigating for impacts to submerged deltaic flats and emergent marsh. 6. Producing and maintaining the well into the foreseeable future.

For a list of equipment proposed to be used by operator, see Parker Drilling Company_30B Inventory (Figure 1).

The 29D regulations Operations Permit application was determined to be complete, in accordance with 50 CFR §29.101 and is incorporated into this EA by reference.

In order for the Applicant to comply with the Service’s standards and ensure operations are the most

3

technologically feasible and least damaging methods, the operator has proposed to utilize the following methods to avoid or minimize impacts of their proposed operation:

• TPIC will contract a drilling barge that is equipped for full zero discharge operations for work within

environmentally sensitive areas. This would include peripheral coamings completely enclosing appropriate deck areas to contain any spills of hazardous materials that might occur. The contracted drilling barge would operate under its own Spill Preventions, Containment, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan meeting all requirements of 40 CFR, part 112.

• TPIC has proposed a drilling site in an open water pond, thus minimizing disturbance to marsh habitat. TPIC has proposed to install 3008 feet of new flowline by boring beneath the refuge’s surface such that no new disturbance to marsh habitat would occur due to flowline installation.

In order for the Applicant to comply with the Service’s standards and ensure operations are the most technologically feasible and least damaging methods, the Service has proposed the Permit as follows:

1. All work must be completed in accordance with the attached work plan, map and these special use

permit conditions.

2. Work plan and map must be attached to this operations permit at all times and a copy must be aboard each vessel used to complete the work.

3. Access to perform work is only permitted on the routes indicated on the field plat.

4. Once issued, the permit will be valid through October 31, 2018. A permit extension may be requested by

the applicant if deemed necessary. The permittee shall notify the Oil and Gas Specialist and/or Refuge Manager 48 hours prior to entering the refuge to obtain approval for specific dates of operation.

5. Failure to notify refuge staff, or any deviation from the work plan or specified access routes, may subject the operator to monetary fines and/or void this permit.

6. Personnel and equipment may remain on refuge overnight and conduct operations 24 hours per day.

7. When performing oil and gas related work the permittee shall comply with applicable General Terms

and Conditions of 50 CFR, 29.120 and 121 and all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

8. Permittee will use engines that adhere to applicable Federal and State emission standards.

9. Vessels and work zones are required to have refuse containers for the disposal of daily trash. All refuse and equipment shall be removed from the refuge at the end of this permitted operation.

4

10. The littering, disposing, or dumping in any manner of garbage, refuse, sewage, sludge, earth, rocks, or other debris on any national wildlife refuge, except at locations designated by the refuge manager, is prohibited. Furthermore, the draining or dumping of oil, acids, pesticide wastes, poisons, or any other types of chemical wastes; or otherwise polluting any waters or other areas within any national wildlife refuge is prohibited.

11. Persons possessing, transporting or carrying firearms on national wildlife refuges must comply with all provisions of state and local law. Discharging firearms is prohibited on the refuge except within permitted hunting zones and seasons, and in accordance with refuge regulations. (50 CFR 27.42 and specific refuge regulations in 50 CFR Part 32).

12. Killing, harassing, disturbing, injuring, spearing, poisoning , destroying, collecting or attempting to kill, harass, disturb, injure, spear, poison, destroy or collect any plant or animal on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited.

13. The permittee will keep disturbance to fish, wildlife, vegetation, and the environment to an absolute

minimum. Feeding wildlife is prohibited.

14. Permittee will meet all federal and state requirements for noise suppression while operating on the refuge.

15. Drill rig will have inward facing lighting, pointing down; minimizing negative effects of spill lighting

on night sky or surrounding habitat.

16. Permittee will post “warning/safety” signs at public access points (canals) surrounding drill rig. Warning public of increased boat traffic and operations.

17. The permittee has agreed to construct 2 terraces just northeast of the drilling location site to serve as

mitigation for impacts to marsh and deltaic flats within the project area. These terraces will be constructed with on-site native substrate.

18. The failure of the United States or the Service to require strict performance of the terms, conditions,

covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this permit, in the exercise of the permittee’s mineral rights on National Wildlife Refuge lands will not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of the right of the United States to strictly enforce thereafter such terms, conditions, covenants, agreements or stipulations which shall, at all times, continue in full force and effect.

5

19. The permittee will save, hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the United States of America, its agents and employees for loses, damages, or judgements, and expenses on a bodily injury, death, or property of any nature whatsoever, and by whomsoever made, arising out of the actions, or failure to act, by the permittee, its employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents with respect to the exercise of permittee’s mineral rights on the refuge.

20. All refuge regulations will be enforced, and the permittee shall follow all applicable laws and

regulations. The permittee is responsible for the actions of all employees, contractors, and support personnel. A complete list of regulations can be found in the “Code Of Federal Regulations, Title 50 – Wildlife and Fisheries” at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=d9d36ddafb7f99bcf8519c88286bb5ed&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title50/50tab_02.tpl

Throughout the impact evaluation below, we have contrasted the impacts of the proposed action alternative of the Service with the current condition and expected future condition under the No Action Alternative.

3.0 Affected Environment

This section describes the existing environmental and socioeconomic setting in the action area.

Delta Migratory Waterfowl Refuge was established by Executive Order No. 7229 on November 19, 1935, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The initial acres forming Delta NWR were purchased from Joseph Leiter and the Delta Duck Club in 1935 to provide sanctuary and habitat for wintering and migrating waterfowl. The name was changed from Delta Migratory Waterfowl Refuge to Delta National Wildlife Refuge in 1940. Subsequent land purchases enlarged the Refuge to its current acreage of 48,799. (See map at Figure 2).

Delta NWR is located on the east bank of the Mississippi River about 70 miles southeast of New Orleans in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (Figure 3). The refuge encompasses a variety of habitats from freshwater marsh to sandy beach and marine environments. It lies at the southern terminus of the Mississippi Flyway and provides important breeding, stopover, wintering, and year-round habitat for a variety of birds and other species of conservation concern.

Delta NWR has experienced oil and gas activities since the 1940’s. These include the full gamut of activities including exploration, development, production, and transportation pipelines. Over 400 oil/gas wells, 3 production facilities, countless miles of flowlines, miles of dredged canals, and over 50 miles of pipeline ROW have been constructed/placed on refuge lands.

Delta NWR is not located near any urban centers; the closest town is Venice, which is across the Mississippi River from actual refuge lands. The refuge is in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana’s most southern parish, where the Mississippi River meets the Gulf of Mexico. There are no incorporated communities anywhere within the parish. The parish is bisected by the Mississippi River. Most of the population is distributed along a narrow

6

band of land on each bank of the river. Sources of income are the seafood industry, the off-shore oil industry, shipping, and citrus groves. Millions of pounds of shrimp, oysters, crab, and fish are produced annually by the commercial fishing industry. The parish is also considered a “sportsman’s paradise” for sport fishing. Encompassing seventy miles of the Mississippi River, Plaquemines Parish is the eighth largest port in the United States and is noted for exporting coal, petro-chemicals, and grain. In 2005, the parish population was 28,995 and the 2003 median income was $38,173 for a household. In August 2005, the entire parish was devastated by Hurricane Katrina which caused extensive structural damages and flooding, major losses to the commercial fishing industry, and a substantial decrease in population due to post-storm emigration. Residents are slowly returning to the parish as housing and other infrastructure are repaired or replaced, but major questions remain about levee protection and the viability of local communities.

The requested area of operations is within the Delta Duck Field which is located between Main Pass and Raphael Pass on Delta NWR and primarily consists of fresh to intermediate marsh. (See map of area of operations on the Refuge at Figure 2).

The tables below provide additional, brief descriptions of each affected resource.

For more information regarding the affected environment, please see Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/Delta%20Breton%20Final/DeltaBretonFinalCCPdoc. pdf) , as well as the Habitat Management Plan for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges (https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/habitat-management-plan-for-delta-and-breton-national-wildlife-refuges).

4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Action

This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects.

Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.

The tables below provide the following:

1. A brief description of the affected resources in the area of operations; 2. Typical impacts of oil and gas extraction and development on those resources; and 3. Site-specific impacts of the Service’s permitting action on those resources, including direct and

indirect effects.

7

For more information on the Typical Impacts of Well Drilling & Production Operations on National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) lands, see the Service’s “National Wildlife Refuge System Revision of Regulations Governing Non-Federal Oil and Gas Activities Environmental Impact Analysis” (Programmatic EIS). The Programmatic EIS (https://www.fws.gov/refuges/oil-and-gas/pdfs/FEIS-National-Wildlife-Refuge- System- Revision-of-Regulations-Governing-Non-Federal-Oil-and-Gas-Rights.pdf) provides a framework for taking a range of actions under the 29D Regulations, including the requirement that all new operators obtain an Operations Permit for new drilling and production operations to ensure those operations meet the various operating standards outlined in the regulations. The Programmatic EIS acknowledged that actions relating to new non- Federal oil and gas development would require more site-specific analyses before they could be permitted. Therefore, this EA tiers from the programmatic EIS and provides additional site-specific analysis.

NATURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

IMPACT EVALUATION

Geology & Soils Soils on Delta NWR are all formed in recent Mississippi River alluvium, and range from fine sand to clay in texture. Imperfect to poor drainage is the rule, and flooding is frequent.

No Action During site preparation, impacts on geology and soils occur as a result of temporarily removing acreage from natural conditions and transferring that area to an industrial use to accommodate the drilling rig and associated equipment. The primary impact on soils from oil and gas wells in open water is a direct loss of submerged soil productivity in the footprint of the site and through installation of access canals, pipelines, gathering lines, or service lines. Without engaging the operator in the permitting process the well placement, access canals and associated production equipment could be placed in ecologically sensitive habitat and occupy a greater footprint within the refuge. In addition to construction-related impacts, there is a risk of impacts to soils from releases of hazardous or contaminating substances during drilling or production operations, including well workovers and servicing. These releases could occur from leaking equipment. In most cases, however, primary and secondary containment, of hazardous and contaminating substances, if implemented, should prevent the release of drilling muds, diesel fuel, oil and gas, and other substances beyond the drilling barge. Proposed Action To minimize impacts on the landscape the operator has proposed its drilling location within an open water pond, and access routes will utilize existing canals to the greatest extent possible. These proposed actions will only increase the refuge’s current oil and gas footprint (on

8

submerged soil productivity) by approximately 3 acres. This footprint will be for the life of the well. Flowline installation will not impact established, vegetated marsh, and only temporarily disturb waterways with unconsolidated soils. Therefore, direct impacts on soils and geology are limited. Approximately 24,000 cubic yards of sediments will be disturbed and dispersed locally by prop washing and bucket dredging to provide access to the drilling site. If the well is successful, boring the flowlines and gas lift service line will involve additional disturbance and dispersal of submerged sediments at the entry and exit points of the lines. Connecting the lines from the well to the Delta Duck facility will involve jetting in flowlines below the mud line. Given the dynamic nature of the submerged soil sediments, the additional one-time disturbance from prop washing and jetting is expected to have negligible impacts on the sediments themselves or the habitat they provide. Bucket dredging through an existing spoil bank and into an open water pond will have minor habitat impacts. These impacts will be mitigated by the sediment flow provided by the newly formed crevasse, and the operator has agreed to construct 2 terraces in association with the new crevasse, which will expedite sediment deposition within the ponding area beyond the drilling site and create new deltaic flats. The Applicant is proposing to use a zero discharge, self- contained drilling barge that will ensure that leaks and spills of hazardous or contaminating substances entering the environment will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. The operator has submitted the drilling contractor’s SPCC plan for drilling operations and its own Facility Response Plan (FRP) as required under 40 CFR, part 112. Adherence to these plans will help ensure that risks of spills are minimized and any spills or leaks that do occur will be reported to the refuge and responded to in a timely manner. As a result, risks of these indirect impacts to marshlands/wetlands will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent possible. The Applicant is responsible for any damage to marshlands or wetlands as a result of such a spill or leak and must restore habitat to the Service’s standards (50 CFR 29.117(a), 120(g) and 29.151(a)). Therefore, the Service has determined that the operator has proposed the most technologically feasible, least damaging methods in this instance, and has not added any additional stipulations to the Operations Permit.

9

Air Quality: Delta NWR is a designated Class II Clean Air Area, as are most National Wildlife refuges, by the Clean Air Act. This means that limited development (i.e. sources of pollution) can be permitted near the refuge as long as the levels of particulate, matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide do not exceed the class II increments. Air quality on the refuge is influenced by off-site sources including petrochemical industrial facilities along the Mississippi River north and west of Delta NWR. Prevailing southeast winds transport relatively clean air to the refuge for most of the year.

No Action The primary impacts on air quality from well drilling and production include emissions from the barge and heavy equipment during drilling of the well, as well as, emissions released during well maintenance and production activities. The barge and heavy equipment used for the construction and maintenance of the well, flowlines, and pipelines, and well drilling could introduce NOx ,VOCs, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and odors from operating large engines, pumps and auxiliary equipment. This can result in short-term (drilling operations) to long-term (production operations) impacts on air quality. Drilling activities can involve continuous operation of combustion engines over a 15- to 120-day period depending on the depth and complexity of the well drilled. This activity would introduce emissions of NOx, CO, and SO2. Large diesel engines, which are used to power the drill, rigs, pumps, and auxiliary equipment, emit NOx as primary pollutants of concern. Nitrogen oxides are formed in the high temperature, pressure, and excess-air environment of combustion diesel engines. Smaller amounts of CO and hydrocarbons would also be emitted. Some SO2 would be emitted due to the burning of gasoline and diesel (which contain minor amounts of sulfur). The amount of engine emissions depends on the drilling rig size (horsepower), percent sulfur in the fuel burned, gallons of diesel fuel burned per hour, the hours per day, number of days the diesel rigs operate, and the use of any emission control devices. Exhaust from machinery used for drilling will contribute to an increase in particulate matter. As a result of increased particulate matter emissions, visibility may be slightly impacted during construction and drilling in any localized area where these activities are undertaken. There could be some added impact on regional visibility due to transport of fine particulate matter and haze produced by secondary aerosols (i.e., particulate matter formed from gaseous emissions of SO2, NOx, and VOCs, in particular). The drilling barges typical of the proposed operations are equipped with 3 Caterpillar 3516B diesel powered generator sets, which power all of the drilling equipment and ancillary equipment on the barge. Drilling operations are expected to last 45 days with approximately 42 days of actual drilling and well completion operations (i.e., 24/7 operations). Based on manufacturer’s data and 24 hour/day operation of 3 generator sets at 50% load for 42 days, expected emissions for the drilling project are estimated to be: Total NOX: 142,309 lbs Total CO: 8,528 lbs Total HC: 3,538 lbs Total PM: 907 lbs

10

Additionally, hazardous air pollutants that can be released during oil and gas operations are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (known as the “BTEX” chemicals); hydrogen sulfide (H2S); arsenic (As); and mercury (Hg). These pollutants demonstrate a high toxicity and can lead to increased rates of cancer and respiratory disease in humans either acutely or chronically exposed to high concentrations in the environment. Existing concentrations of and potential exposures to these pollutants vary widely depending upon the physical characteristics of the site, the proximity of human populations, the level of oil and gas production, and the type of production equipment employed (Mall et al. 2007). Odors from drilling and production operations could affect visitors and refuge employees. The possibility and extent for odor would depend on wind speed and direction and the nature of the drilling equipment and material encountered during drilling operations (particularly the presence of H2S -bearing zones). Odor would be more noticeable during light breezes and less evident during periods of stronger winds. For both existing and future operations, a leak or spill could cause hydrocarbons to volatize and enter the atmosphere. In the vicinity of the leak or spill, concentrations of gas and other constituents could present health hazards to animal and plant life, and even provide a source for an explosion or fire. Impacts from leaks or spills could be serious on a very local level; however, with mitigation, and prompt response, these impacts would be short-term. Although these impacts may be a localized event they can contribute to regional air quality impacts. Photochemical reactions between hydrocarbons and NOx produce ozone (Bradbury et al. 2013). Although the concentration of all these pollutants would increase as the fields are developed, the levels are expected to be low and are required to comply with Federal and State standards and conform to all local air quality State implementation plans (SIPs). The extent of impacts caused by increases in pollutants may range from areas near each well to longer ranges with low-level contributions to regional impacts, like ozone and haze formation. NOx and SOx in the air can damage the leaves of plants, decreasing their ability to produce food – photosynthesis- and decrease their growth. In addition to directly affecting plants, atmospheric nitrogen deposition acts as fertilizer, favoring some plants, including invasive species, and leaving others at a competitive disadvantage. Sulfur oxides can acidify sensitive ecosystems resulting in a range of harmful deposition-related effects on fish and wildlife; plants; soils; and water quality. This creates an imbalance in natural ecosystems, and overtime may lead to shifts in the types of plant and animal species present, increases in insect and disease outbreaks, disruption of ecosystem processes (such as nutrient cycling), and changes in fire frequency.

11

Nitrogen deposition may disrupt soil nutrient cycling and alter plant communities. Invasive grasses thrive in areas with high nitrogen deposition, displacing native vegetation adapted to low nitrogen conditions. The fire risk subsequently increases due to extensive areas of weedy grasses. The amount of air pollution generated over the productive life of oil or gas wells depends on the characteristics of the product and the production practices used. Emissions associated with production are usually considerably less than the emissions from well drilling. However, over the life of some production operations, emissions could exceed those of drilling operations. Oil and gas production operations release gaseous pollutants such as CO, hydrocarbons, NOx, and SO2. These production operation air pollutants are released from separation facilities, disposal of liquid waste and unwanted gas, burning of waste petroleum products, routine emission of objectionable odors, and venting of noxious vapors from storage tanks. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) regulates air quality in Louisiana. LDEQ does not require drilling rigs operating at one location for less than 1 year to obtain an air permit. The activity is approved by LDEQ as an insignificant activity on the basis of size, emission or production rate, or type of pollutant. (Reference: LAC 33: III. 501.B.5 Table 1.B.4) As such, the pollutants emitted to the ambient air directly or indirectly from the proposed construction activities would not significantly impact the ambient air quality of the region, and would not jeopardize compliance with state and federal ambient air quality standards. Operation of small boats and work boats is expected to be the primary mode of transportation to and from the well site. While vessels associated with the operation would generate emissions such as CO and NOx, they are anticipated to have no significant impact on regional air quality since these vessels are already part of the existing traffic in the area. Proposed Action Since these exhaust emissions would not jeopardize compliance with state and federal ambient air quality standards, and deterioration of air quality would be short-term (i.e. less than 90 days or duration of drilling operation) and not impact designated wilderness the Service has not identified additional mitigation measures as conditions of approval to this permit. Therefore the impacts would be the same under the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives.

12

Water Resources: Hydrologically, Delta NWR is dominated by the Mississippi River. The constant flow of river water through the refuge to Breton Sound creates a salinity gradient from fresh water on the western side to brackish water closer to the Gulf of Mexico. The marshes and ponds of Delta NWR range from fresh where influenced by the Mississippi River to brackish closer to the shoreline with the Gulf of Mexico and Breton Sound. The water flow is open and dynamic and not managed by any control structures on the Refuge.

In the operations area, water quality is good and generally considered ‘fresh’ during higher water periods. As water levels in the river decrease the salinity increases more towards a brackish water environment. During the spring time a much heavier sediment load is observed in most waterways on Delta NWR. During the proposed operational period the sediment load is expected to be fairly high. The sediment load is dependent on the river stage. By late Summer/Early Fall the river stage generally decreases which reduces sediment load and increases salinity.

No Action Without applying technologically feasible, least damaging methods there is a greater chance water resources could become contaminated with hazardous substances during drilling, production, servicing, or transport. There could be accidental spills of drilling mud, diesel fuel, and other chemicals during drilling operations, or leaks from containers or flow lines. If drilling mud, fuels, or other chemicals are spilled in the water, the fluids could result in changes in water quality and possible violations of water quality standards if these are not detected and remediated. Contamination from the release of produced waters that contain salts and other well drilling fluids and chemicals could also impact surface and ground water. For example, such instances of leaks from salt-water disposal wells and flowlines conveying oilfield brine, along with contamination from mechanical problems and improper operating practices have been documented at Hagerman and Aransas National Wildlife Refuges in Texas and the Anderson Waterfowl Production Area in northeastern Montana (M. Maddux and M. Borgreen pers. comm.). Because production could continue for 20 years or longer, the potential for leaks and spills of hazardous substances from production operations (including flowlines and pipelines) is greater than for any other phase of oil and gas operations. Adverse impacts on water quality could occur from accidental leaks and spills of drilling fluids or waste waters, hazardous waste spills (including diesel fuel), well blowouts, ruptures of flowlines and pipelines, and spills from vessels/tanker trucks. Chronic small leaks and spills could spread through various pathways, and over an extended period of time could become substantial and costly to remediate. The chances of undetected spills are greater if routine inspections are not performed. Faulty installation or corrosion of production casing might go undetected and could adversely impact groundwater, if hydrocarbons and/or produced waters migrate into an aquifer and contaminate groundwater. The severity of the impact would depend on the type of substance spilled (hydrocarbons, produced waters, chemicals, solvents, and fuels) and the size of area impacted, but impacts could be substantial. Oilfield brine spills can increase the bioavailability of some heavy metals as well as destroy the soil structure resulting in the significant reduction of infiltration rates (Vavrek et al. 2004). These brine impacted soils are usually devoid of vegetation and are susceptible to erosion. The loss of infiltration will result in increased runoff with impacts to nearby surface water in terms of salinity, and siltation. Impacts to the soils from oilfield brine spills remain for years (Vavrek et al. 2004). Brine spills can produce impacts, even in saltwater habitats. Seawater is considered 35, 000 ppm whereas Brine can potentially be as high as ~450,000 ppm.

13

Proposed Action To minimize surface impacts the operator has proposed to conduct the drilling operations in open water. The Service recognizes that unplanned incidents associated with oil and gas operations, such as well blowouts, present a risk of releasing hydrocarbons, drilling mud, and other contaminants that can adversely impact water resources. However, under this proposed action and implementation of technologically feasible, least damaging methods, accidents and incidents can be minimized. For example, as discussed above, the operator is proposing to use a zero discharge, self-contained drilling barge that will ensure that leaks and spills of hazardous or contaminating substances entering the environment will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Prop washing at the drill site to accommodate the drilling barge will temporarily redistribute approximately 20,064 cubic yards of sediment through the water to immediately adjacent areas. Additionally, connecting the lines from the well to the Delta Duck facility will involve jetting in flowlines below the mud line, which will temporarily displace sediment into water column. Should the well be successful, installation of the dual flowlines and a the gas lift service line using horizontal directional drilling will involve excavation of approximately 37 cubic yards of sediment. The associated increase in turbidity from this phase of construction is expected to be short-term and return to natural conditions within hours of project completion. Therefore direct impacts to water quality from the proposed operations are expected to be very limited. The Applicant has submitted the drilling contractor’s SPCC plan for drilling operations and its own FRP as required under 40 CFR, part 112. Adherence to these plans will help ensure that risks of spills are minimized and any spills or leaks that do occur will be reported to the refuge and responded to within a few hours of discovery. As a result, risks of these indirect impacts to water resources will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, the operator is responsible for any damage to water resources as a result of such a spill or leak and must restore habitat to the Service’s standards (50 CFR 29.117(a), 120(g) and 29.151(a)). In the event that the refuge’s resources or values are damaged, the Service would seek remedy both in the form of reclamation and monetary compensation. Therefore, the Service has determined that the operator has proposed the most technologically feasible, least damaging methods in this instance, and has not added any additional stipulations specific to water quality to the Operations Permit.

14

Marshlands/Wetlands Two basic marsh zones occur within the marsh habitat - fresh marsh nearest the main tributaries and the brackish marsh zone nearest the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately 60% of the Refuge consists of the fresh marsh zone. The predominant plants in the fresh marsh zone are delta duck potato, elephant ear, wild millet, and three- square. The marsh is tidally flooded in depths ranging from a few inches to 2-3 feet. The fertile soil, vegetative composition, and shallow water environment result in a highly productive habitat for fish and wildlife.

No Action Without implementing technologically feasible, least damaging methods there is an increased risk of indirect impacts on wetlands from releases of hazardous or contaminating substances during drilling or production operations, including releases from leaking equipment. As described in Geology and Soils, other hazardous or contaminated materials that may be accidentally released include drilling mud, produced waters containing high concentrations of salts, NORM, hydrocarbons, and other well drilling fluids. All of which have the potential to impact wetland vegetation in the refuge units. These substances may contain relatively large concentrations of dissolved salts, particularly sodium chloride, and can have salt concentrations much greater than ocean water (Vavrek et al. 2004). Salt stress is the major environmental factor that affects all vital plant processes such as growth, photosynthesis, protein synthesis, energy and lipid metabolism, and productivity (Parida and Das 2005). Instances of leaks from salt-water disposal wells and subsequent contamination occurring as the result of mechanical problems and improper operating practices have been documented at Hagerman and Aransas NWRs and the Anderson WPA (M. Maddux and M. Borgreen, pers. comm.). Oilfield brine spills can increase the bioavailability of some heavy metals as well as destroy the soil structure resulting in the significant reduction of infiltration rates (Vavrek et al. 2004). These brine impacted soils are usually devoid of vegetation and are susceptible to erosion. The loss of infiltration will result in increased runoff with impacts to nearby wetlands in terms of salinity, and siltation. Impacts to the soils and wetlands from oilfield brine spills remain for years (Vavrek et al. 2004). Proposed Action Under the proposed action the operator will use a zero discharge, self- contained drilling barge that will ensure that leaks and spills of hazardous or contaminating substances entering the environment will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. This barge will be on the Teal Prospect location for approximately 45 days. This drilling rig barge will be on refuge for upwards of 90 days (drilling a DDC Well No. 130 adjacent to this location). Both wells will be drilled concurrently (45 days each) and both will be in open water. The operator has submitted the drilling contractor’s SPCC plan for drilling operations and its own FRP as required under 40 CFR, part 112. Adherence to these plans will help ensure that risks of spills are minimized and any spills or leaks that do occur will be reported to the refuge and responded to within a few hours of discovery. As a result, risks of these indirect impacts to water resources will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent possible.

15

The Applicant is responsible for any damage to water resources as a result of such a spill or leak and must restore habitat to the Service’s standards (50 CFR 29.117(a), 120(g) and 29.151(a)). Furthermore the proposed gathering lines and service line will be bored underneath the marshlands/wetlands, so there will be no direct impacts from installation. The only impacts to marshland/wetlands from the flowlines would be in the instance of a spill or leak. To partially mitigate for impacts to refuge resources a crevasse/terracing technique will be used to promote and expedite marsh creation. The Service requested a short crevasse to be cut through an emergent Roseau cane marsh from an existing canal to the drill location. The crevasse will be approximately 60’ by 500’ and will facilitate access for oil and gas operations, and act as a conduit for sediment laden river water to flow into the open water pond. After entering the open water pond this sediment will settle out and accrete along constructed terraces; allowing local vegetative colonization, and eventually forming a new deltaic splay and emergent marshlands. This crevasse/terracing technique has been used on the Refuge in the past and proves to be very successful. It is expected that using said technique will convert the deeper open water pond to shallow water vegetated flats and shallow water submerged aquatic vegetation habitat. Therefore, the Service has determined that the operator has proposed the most technologically feasible, least damaging methods in this instance. Additional stipulations specific to marshes/wetlands have been included within the Operations Permit.

16

Vegetation (including species of special management concern):

The predominant plants in the fresh marsh zone are delta duck potato, elephant ear, wild millet, and three-square. Low shrubs include groundsel, wax myrtle, and marsh elder. Scattered throughout the understory where sunlight reaches the forest floor is a herbaceous community of elephant ear and sedges. This habitat is valuable for cover for deer and small mammals. The trees provide an important staging area for migratory birds because of the proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. Predominant trees are black willow (along remnant spoil banks) and red maple.

The proposed work area is located in an ‘intermediate marsh’ area which falls between the predominant fresh marsh and brackish marsh. These areas may contain both fresh and salt tolerant plant species. The predominant vegetation adjacent to the drill site is Phragmites (Roseau Cane).

No Action Without using technologically feasible, least damaging methods there is an increased risk of indirect impacts on vegetation from releases of hazardous or contaminating substances during drilling or production operations, including well workovers and servicing. The presence of oils and other well development chemicals in the water could kill vegetation or adversely impact overall plant health. Additionally, Contamination from the release of produced waters containing salts and other well drilling fluids could also impact vegetation in the refuge units. These substances may contain relatively large concentrations of dissolved salts, particularly sodium chloride, and can reach salinity levels as high as 450,000 ppm, which is more than 12x the salinity of seawater (~35,000 ppm). Salt stress is the major environmental factor that affects all vital plant processes such as growth, photosynthesis, protein synthesis, energy and lipid metabolism, and productivity (Parida and Das 2005). Accidental release of produced waters would likely damage or kill vegetation in the immediate area and possibly adjacent areas in the short-term. Immediate adverse impacts on vegetation could occur through direct contact of aquatic vegetation with the released material. Long-term, systemic impacts could also occur through uptake of the material from the soil by plant roots, thereby reducing the species’ ability to recover and re-establish (Adams et al. 2011). However, because the area of operations is within a hydrologically dynamic system that is frequently flushed with sediment laden water, dilution will likely lessen long-term impacts. Use of barges and ships for construction and maintenance of the well, pipelines, gathering lines, and service lines could lead to an increase in the introduction of nonnative plant species. Invasive species actively outcompete and replace native species and are a threat to the overall ecological health of the refuge unit. Such introductions could negatively affect native plant communities, reduce diversity, reduce forest health and productivity, and degrade native wildlife habitat (Vila et al 2011; Tylianakis et al 2008).

17

Proposed Action Overall the proposed operations will be using existing open water canals, and boring flowlines underneath the marsh surface; thus greatly reducing direct impacts to existing vegetation. The Service has not identified any alternative technologically feasible, least damaging methods to require of operators that would mitigate or avoid impacts to the environment as related to control of nonnative and invasive species. The area of the proposed operation is already highly impacted by the introduction of non-native and invasive species from many sources. Any mitigation measures placed on an operator to control invasive or nonnative species would lead to no notable benefits in reducing the spread of these species in the area of operation or on the Refuge. Thus the permitting action has had no impact on non-native or invasive species in the area of operations or on the Refuge However, as discussed above, the operator is proposing to use a zero discharge, self-contained drilling barge that will ensure that leaks and spills of hazardous or contaminating substances entering the environment will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. The operator has submitted the drilling contractor’s SPCC plan for drilling operations and its own FRP as required under 40 CFR, part 112. Adherence to these plans will help ensure that risks of spills are minimized and any spills or leaks that do occur will be reported to the refuge and responded to within a few hours of discovery. As a result, risks of indirect impacts to vegetation from spills and leaks will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent possible. Furthermore, the operator is responsible for any damages to vegetation as a result of such a spill or leak and must restore habitat to the Service’s standards (50 CFR 29.117(a), 120(g) and 29.151(a)). The crevasse/terracing technique mentioned in the Marshlands/Wetlands section has been used on the Refuge in the past and proves to be very successful. It is expected that using said technique will provide additional quality habitat for emergent and submerged vegetation. Therefore, the Service has determined that the Applicant has proposed the most technologically feasible, least damaging methods in this instance. Additional stipulations specific to marshes/wetlands and vegetation have been included within the Operations Permit.

18

Wildlife (including species of special management concern):

Delta NWR is located in an extremely rich estuary system that is important to wading, sea, and shore birds, migratory waterfowl and songbirds, crabs, shrimp, and both fresh and saltwater fish. Wintering waterfowl populations begin building on Delta NWR in the fall and peak in mid-December and January. Recent surveys document 20,000 to 30,000 snow geese and 80,000 to 150,000 ducks. The most common species observed are gadwall, northern pintail, American wigeon, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, and snow geese. The most common resident marsh and waterbirds are great blue heron, little blue heron, white ibis, glossy /white- faced ibis, great egrets, snowy egrets, tricolored herons, yellow-crowned night-herons, and black-crowned night- herons. The refuge serves as a staging area for many passerine birds during migration, and large concentrations of shorebirds are sometimes observed feeding in the mudflats. Because of the lack of high ground, no large numbers of mammals exist on Delta, but a few white-tailed deer, rabbits, and raccoons survive in this environment. The invasive non- native Nutria is probably the most abundant mammal on the Refuge. Invasive Feral Swine are also very prevalent on the refuge.

No Action If the Service did not engage the operator in the permitting process there is a chance of increased impacts to wildlife and habitat. The degree of impact would depend on the type and amount of habitat affected, the rate at which the site would regenerate after construction, and the frequency of maintenance conducted during operation. Vegetation removal (both submerged and emergent) along with soil disturbance associated with the construction and installation of the well and associated pipelines would affect wildlife both directly and indirectly. Indirect effects would include short term loss of habitat through removal of vegetation. This activity may also affect habitat structure, species composition, and the extent of vegetation available to wildlife. Other indirect impacts may include changes in distribution, stress, or activity caused by increased human disturbances associated with energy development (e.g., traffic, noise, human use) (Sawyer et al. 2002). Fragmentation of existing wildlife habitats, which can occur from oil and gas well development, can also decrease an area’s functional capacity to support wildlife populations at non-impacted levels (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Fragmentation refers to breaking up contiguous areas of vegetation/habitat into smaller patches that become progressively smaller and isolated over time. Direct impacts to wildlife include increased mortality that could result from boat activity, and increased activity associated with construction and maintenance. Aquatic species that cannot escape an area during construction could be killed. These changes and uses of aquatic habitat may result in severe and persistent adverse effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the refuge units Species that inhabit or frequent areas with sites that have had releases of oil or other chemicals could be harmed or killed through direct exposure with the released materials or indirectly through degraded water quality (e.g., low pH, reduced dissolved oxygen, or sediment toxicity). If there are releases into waterways, wildlife and aquatic species occupying or using the water could be directly impacted. The severity of impacts would depend on the type and amount of pollutant released, physical and environmental factors of the site, the method and speed with which cleanup occurs, and the sensitivity of wildlife and aquatic species to these impacts during different stages of their life cycle. The Service recognizes that unplanned incidents associated with oil and gas operations such as well blowouts, fires, and major spills within the boundaries of the Refuge present a risk of release of contaminants that can adversely impact wildlife and aquatic species.

19

In the immediate vicinity of the proposed operation the most common wildlife are marsh, wading, and sea birds (e.g. rails, herons, egrets, and terns/gulls) along with resident fish and invertebrates (e.g. bass, gar, red drum, shrimp, and blue crab).

Federally Listed: Although an extremely rare visitor, the West Indian Manatee can occur at Delta NWR, especially during the summer months when water temperatures rise; and Gulf Sturgeon have been recorded in the Delta waters. Although species can be found at Delta NWR, both would be considered infrequent visitors and neither have critical habitat designated within the refuge. Piping plovers are also found along adjacent barrier beaches and may use some of the refuge’s mudflats, but occurrence is not expected in the near vicinity of the area of operation due to habitat type.

Contamination from the release of produced waters containing salts and other well drilling fluids could impact wildlife resources in the Refuge units. These substances may contain relatively large concentrations of dissolved salts, particularly sodium chloride, and can have salt concentrations greater than ocean water. Releases of produced waters (brine) can create salt licks, which may affect the behavior of large mammals and ungulates (Wiles and Weeks 1986). Oilfield brine spills can increase the bioavailability of some heavy metals as well as destroy the soil structure resulting in the significant reduction of infiltration rates (Vavrek et al. 2004). Due to the extremely high salinity of produced water, even in saltwater habitats these brine impacted soils are usually devoid of vegetation and are susceptible to erosion. Releases of produced water with high salinity levels may cause mortality of aquatic organisms such as invertebrates, freshwater mussels, and fish sensitive to increased levels of salinity (Brittingham et al. 2014). There may be aquatic species habitat degradation from placement of pipelines in areas where these species occur. These effects could decrease the long-term viability of populations as a result of long-term use. Some risk of direct mortality of aquatic species could occur if a pipeline ruptures or if toxic materials (such as diesel fuel or produced waste water) are spilled into the water. Noise from drilling or well servicing operations would also impact wildlife. Potential adverse effects from well drilling and production could include changes in species distribution and use of the area, increased energy expenditure, decreased reproductive success (breeding and nesting success), deafness in species with specialized hearing, and increased stress levels from the noise and disturbance associated with these activities (Sawyer et al. 2002). Increased noise levels during the breeding season can create acoustic masking for species, such as birds, that communicate by sound (Bayne et al. 2008, Francis et al. 2009, Brittingham 2014). Drilling operations introduce noise with the highest measurements in the 90 dBA (A-weighted decibel) range for a period of one or two weeks, up to a few months; with noise coming mostly from multiple diesel engines. Therefore, noise impacts could be severe, but limited to a localized area and of relatively short duration. Longer term noise disturbance could come from compressors and pumps used during the production phase. This type of production equipment could operate continuously for the duration of the oil field’s viability. Noise, and increased human presence during drilling and flowline installations may cause resident species of birds to move away from the immediate area to nearby areas of much the same habitat.

20

Proposed Action To reduce noise and other anthropogenic disturbance, drilling operations would occur when wintering waterfowl populations are not present. Additionally the refuge can close or restrict motorized public access in the area of operations, and limit or restrict airboat operations. With this authority, the Service can mitigate the effects of increased access due to oil and gas activities. Therefore, impacts to birds and other wildlife are expected to be adverse, but short-term, and minimal. The temporary increase in turbidity from prop washing or jetting bottom sediments will also temporarily disturb aquatic species. However, native fish, and other endemic aquatic species, are well adapted for rapid increases in turbidity that occur naturally throughout the area of operations, and are expected to not be adversely impacted. Production equipment (e.g. heater treater units) associated with oil and gas facilities have been documented to cause bat, migratory bird, and raptor mortality through asphyxiation or incineration. The Service can stipulate for operators to cover the exhaust stacks of heater treater units with a mesh or wire screen, thus avoiding or greatly reducing this type of mortality. As discussed above, the Applicant is proposing to use a zero discharge, self-contained drilling barge that will ensure that leaks and spills of hazardous or contaminating substances entering the environment will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. The operator has submitted the drilling contractor’s SPCC plan for drilling operations and its own FRP as required under 40 CFR, part 112. Adherence to these plans will help ensure that risks of spills are minimized and any spills or leaks that do occur will be reported to the Refuge and responded to in a timely manner. As a result, risks of impacts to wildlife from leaks and spills will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, the operator is responsible for any damage to wildlife as a result of such a spill or leak and must restore habitat to the Service’s standards (50 CFR 29.117(a), 120(g) and 29.151(a)). Direct impacts pertaining to the remaining infrastructure, following the completion of the drilling operation, are expected to be minimal as the Delta Duck facility has been operational in the same location for decades and so species sensitive to these impacts to the environment are not present in the area of operation. The remaining wellhead structure (above water surface) will not cause substantial impacts. In fact, bird species have been observed using these structures as a perch while hunting or loafing.

21

Climate Change: Among the most serious consequences of forecast climate change are sea level rise and the likely increase in hurricane intensity and associated storm surge (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2009). Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st century at a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003 (IPCC 2007). Subsidence, or land sinking, also contributes heavily to coastal erosion and land loss in Louisiana and the surrounding Gulf states. Geological modeling has suggested that the weight of Pleistocene sediments on the coast of Louisiana can explain between 0.1 and 0.8 cm (0.04 and 0.3 inches) of sinking per year (NASA 2008). Predicted global sea level rise of 1-2 m, coupled with local subsidence, which the NASA (2008) model predicts would be about 36 cm over the next 90 years in the vicinity of Breton NWR and 50 cm near Delta NWR, could add up to more than 2 m of relative sea level rise by the end of the 21st Century. Absent of beach nutrition on Breton and sediment capture on Delta, both of these refuges will experience shoreline retreat and significant inundation.

Predicted impacts of sea level rise include increased risks of coastal erosion, conversion of wetlands to open water, increase in salinity of estuaries and freshwater aquifers and flooding for coastal communities (CCSP 2009). Rising sea temperatures

No Action Drilling and flowline installation are estimated to consume approximately 170,000 gallons of diesel fuel which results in direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 1,725 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Hydrocarbon ultimate recovery from the proposed well is unknown, but could range from zero for a dry hole to 500,000 barrels of oil and 500,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas for a prolific Delta Duck Club Field well over a productive life of up to 30 years. Consumption of the produced hydrocarbons could result in indirect GHG emissions ranging from zero to 250,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Fugitive methane emissions and flash gas from oil would be insignificant contributors to GHG emissions compared to the actual consumption of products. Proposed Action As noted, the action being considered is not whether or not to issue a permit to allow this operation to proceed, as it is the operator’s right to access and develop these resources, but rather to ensure that the operator avoids or minimizes impacts from such activities to the maximum extent practicable. The Service acknowledges that compliance with State and Federal law for greenhouse gas emissions should provide the technologically feasible, least damaging methods to avoid or minimize impacts to climate change. Therefore, the Service has not put any further stipulations on the operator to reduce the indirect or direct impact of the operation on climate change. The Service’s management and oversight of this proposed non-Federal oil and gas operation (proposed action) is therefore essentially the same as the no action alternative relative to GHG emissions. However, the proposed action could result in very small, beneficial effects on greenhouse gas emissions, because it gives the Service the authority to ensure that operators are complying with Federal and State laws applicable to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, given the relatively short life-span of the well of up to 30 years and its location in open water, climate change, including sea level rise, is not expected to have any notable effect on operations. In regards to GHG and emissions, the operator has to submit a GHG report annually to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report includes the run time hours of drilling rigs, which are used in the calculations for emissions. The drilling rigs runtime hours for each engine will be documented and reported under the rule.

22

are expected to increase the frequency and strength of hurricanes (Emanuel 2005). Stronger storms with higher wind speeds, more intense rainfall, and more powerful surges are expected to cause more severe damage (Knutson and Tuleya 2004). As sea level rises and salinities increase, vegetation zones will migrate inland; present salt marsh will convert to open water, brackish marsh will become saline, freshwater marsh will become brackish, and freshwater swamps and shrub communities will convert to herbaceous systems as episodes of salt water intrusion become more frequent and occur further inland. Also predicted for south-central Louisiana by Karl et al. (2009) are changes in overall precipitation and in seasonal distribution of precipitation, and temperature averages and extremes. Current trends measured over the past century suggest that in southeast Louisiana, warming will continue, with more days over 90°F, fewer freezes, and longer frost-free periods, and precipitation will continue to decrease and to change distribution, with more fall precipitation and less precipitation during spring, summer, and winter. The likely extent of changes to the habitats of Delta and Breton NWRs is unclear.

23

Wilderness: There is no wilderness on Delta NWR.

Typical Impacts of Well Drilling & Production Operations: While Breton NWR is close in proximity to Delta NWR and is designated wilderness, there are no anticipated impacts from this proposed operation on Breton NWR.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

IMPACT EVALUATION

Delta NWR is accessible by boat only. Hunting and fishing are the primary public uses on the refuge. It is open to waterfowl, archery deer, and rabbit hunting. Sport fishing is permitted year- round during day-light hours, and only after 12:00 pm in the waterfowl hunting areas during the state waterfowl hunting season. Species caught most are freshwater catfish, largemouth bass, and sunfish during the spring and speckled seatrout and redfish in the summer/fall. Because of the remoteness and difficulty of access to the main portion of Delta, most other public use activities rarely occur.

Health and Human Safety – No Action The primary source of impacts would be from drilling or production operations, especially if spills or leaks occurred and oil or other chemicals were not quickly cleaned up and removed from the site. Drilling and production have the potential for well blowouts and releases of hydrocarbons or other hazardous substances, including drilling muds and gases such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Visitors could also be drawn to well platforms out of curiosity, resulting in potential exposure to high pressured equipment or stored chemicals. Hunters, in particular, need to keep a safe distance from oil and gas operations; there is an inherent hazard of shooting near drilling rigs and production facilities (i.e., storage tanks, wellheads, and pump jacks) where bullets could penetrate equipment or cause ignition of flammables. There is the possibility of storm damage to drilling and production operations, which could spread hazardous and contaminating substances. Perforating or rupturing a storage tank containing oil or treatment chemicals at a production facility would increase the threat of spills and subsequent harm to the public if they were to venture onto the site. A potential impact on human health and safety is the possible exposure to hazardous substances. Materials stored at well sites include oils, chemicals, and lubricants. Also, oil and gas wells can release hydrogen sulfide gas. If well sites are not fenced and are open to the public, there is a chance of visitor exposure to these substances if visitors enter the unsecured site. Most wells would operate under an emergency response plan that would address hydrogen sulfide releases and other possible scenarios. For those wells that may emit hydrogen sulfide, a radius-of- exposure analysis would likely be performed prior to site selection. However, the Service recognizes that unplanned incidents associated with oil and gas operations such as well blowouts, fires, and major spills within the boundaries of the refuge present a risk of release of contaminants that can adversely impact visitor use and experience by actual exposure to chemicals or from lack of access following an incident, depending on the location of the release.

24

Proposed Action Drilling would occur outside the hunting season and fishing opportunities are plentiful outside the immediate area of operations. However, the Service has stipulated that TPIC post signs at the drilling site warning the public to stay away from the immediate area of operations. Delta NWR regulations prohibit the use of rifled rounds or shotgun slugs and hunting within 250 yards from any oil and gas infrastructure. If the well is successful, there would be the long-term presence of a well and platform during the production phase. The height of the well itself would be approximately 10 feet above water line and would only be visible in the immediate area. A navigation light will be installed and is necessary for safety purposes, and would minimize the risk of human collisions with the well. Additionally, as discussed above, the operator is proposing to use a zero discharge, self-contained drilling barge that will ensure that leaks and spills of hazardous or contaminating substances entering the environment will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. The operator has submitted the drilling contractor’s SPCC plan for drilling operations and its own FRP as required under 40 CFR, part 112. Adherence to these plans will help ensure that risks of spills are minimized and any spills or leaks that do occur will be reported to the refuge and responded to within a few hours of discovery. As a result, risks of indirect impacts to human health and safety will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, the Service’s proposed action will have minor, beneficial impacts to human health and safety. Access No Action The primary effect of well drilling and production is a reduction in access to the area where any well sites and associated production facilities are located. Furthermore, if the Service does not engage the operator in the permitting process stipulations such as safety signs and access restrictions may be absent from construction site, potentially creating an increased risk to refuge visitors. Proposed Action All drilling and production operations would be closed to visitor access. Due to safety concerns, there may be additional restrictions to visitor access immediately adjacent to these sites. Indirect impacts, such as increased traffic, noise, odors, night lighting, and human activity, would not necessarily preclude recreational access, but would decrease the quality of the visitor experience in the vicinity of the operation, especially in more remote portions of the refuges. Workovers and servicing of existing operations could also cause access delays or restrictions. Therefore, the proposed operation may have some minor, adverse impacts on fishing opportunities on the refuge. Drilling would occur outside the hunting season and fishing opportunities are plentiful outside the immediate area of operations.

25

Visual Impacts/Scenic Views/Night Sky Resources No Action Visual impacts on visitor experience from drilling and production operations could be more substantial than other types of impacts on visitors, especially if well sites were placed in relatively undisturbed or popular settings where visitors would be readily able to see the operation and all associated equipment and tanks, and visitors to that area were expecting or desiring a more natural experience. Drill rigs can reach heights of 180 feet, which would most likely be visible from several locations within the refuges. The operations, especially drilling, would increase the presence of work crews and equipment. Since drilling is a 24-hour, 7-day a week operation, these impacts would be continuous, and could last a week or two up to a few months. Production operations, although having a less intrusive human presence compared to drilling, could be visible for 30 years or longer. Coming across an oil drilling rig or production site could be an unpleasant experience for visitors seeking a natural, outdoor experience. The visual presence of oil and gas operations in a natural setting could adversely impact the areas by displacing the visitor or lessening the quality of the visitor experience. The impacts would be less for those visitors who are less concerned with the presence of such operations, and where operations are naturally screened from view. Oil and gas operations are a very common site for recreational users at Delta NWR and do not represent a notable conflict. Site clearing for well pad and access road construction could result in visible removal of Refuge vegetation, creation of a pathway and an overall change in the natural scenery of the area, depending on the amount of clearing, location of the clearing and the refuge unit. Lighting of drilling operations, which is typically provided using fluorescent high pressure sodium or metal halide lamps, could interfere with night sky resources. Depending on where the operations are sited, the design and installation of lighting, and the amount of activity and type of equipment used during the night, impacts include disturbance of night-sky views, increase in overall sky glow and anthropogenic light rations, and disruption of wildlife behaviors like migration, predation and mating. The operations, especially drilling, would increase the presence of work crews and equipment. Since drilling is a 24-hour, 7- day a week operation, these impacts would be continuous, and could last for one or two weeks, or up to a few months. Proposed Action – Most of the visual impacts to the proposed area of operations would be temporary and would occur during the drilling of the well and installation of the gathering and service lines when there would be an increase in ship and barge lights and traffic. The lights of the drilling rig would be visible for miles, but would not be a singular or uncommon site. The drilling barge is expected to be on location for approximately three months. If the well is successful, there would be the long-term presence of a well and platform during the production phase. The height of the well itself would be approximately 10 feet above water line and would only be visible in the immediate area. A navigation light is necessary for safety purposes, and also would not be visible outside the

26

immediate area. Impacts to scenic views and night sky resources during the production phase would result during well maintenance that necessitate a workover barge. Impacts would be similar, but less in intensity and duration, than described for drilling operations, and the refuge may set time or seasonal restrictions on such operations. The proposed area of operation is located in an isolated location away from any local populations. Because it is located so far from local populations, there will be no impacts to scenic views or night sky resources for most of the public, as it will not be visible. The only visitors to this area of operations are hunters and anglers. The proposed operations would have little additional cumulative impacts on enjoyment of visitors to the refuge, because the natural visual setting is already highly impacted by existing oil and gas infrastructure. The Service has added one stipulation to the permit regarding scenic views/night sky resources: The drilling rig will have inward facing lighting, pointing down; minimizing negative effects of spill lighting on night sky or surrounding habitat. Noise No Action There would be increased noise from construction activities barges and ships, drilling equipment, and the drilling or workover crew that could adversely affect human health, visitor use and experience, wildlife, and the overall acoustic environment. These noises would be different from the types of noises common in the visitor use areas, or general background noises elsewhere in the refuge. Most of the adverse impacts associated with oil and gas operations within refuge units would result from the drilling and production phase, because construction of the well necessitates the majority of the heavy construction equipment that have considerable sound levels, and production has a long duration. Potential sources of noise associated with drilling and production include preparation of the drill site, drilling operations, cement work, well servicing, and workover operations. Barge and ship traffic would also add to noise. Predicted levels are representative of noise attenuation at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the sound source (the noise level drop-off rate from a stationary point source purely due to the geometry of the source). Though additional attenuation could be realized due to vegetation cover, intervening topography and meteorological conditions, low frequency sounds commonly produced by mechanized equipment (like vehicles, pumps, and drill rigs) travel great distances. Vegetation, certain meteorological conditions, and topography could reduce the distance at which noise levels from heavy construction equipment would attenuate to the natural ambient level. If the drilled wells are advanced to the production stage, the use of heavy construction equipment to lay pipelines would result in elevated sound levels similar to those described above for the site access, preparation, and drilling.

27

The production phase would necessitate the use of some equipment that produces considerable amounts of noise, including gas compressors and jack pumps. These impacts would be continuous and long term, as pumping or gas compression would occur continuously over the life of the well. Additionally, over the course of time that the well is in production, well servicing and workover operations may be necessary. Depending on the maintenance necessary, well servicing may last only 1 or 2 days, requiring minor equipment and a workover rig (a scaled-down drilling rig). Major workover operations may last more than a month and could require some limited drilling operations. Where proposed operations are located close to active recreation (e.g., motor boating), as it is with Delta NWR, the noise associated with the oil and gas operations would not be as noticeable. Production operations would also cause impacts because of the noise associated with production equipment and the short-term use of loud machinery and workover rigs onsite. These impacts would result from high sound levels while being temporary in nature. However, most noise levels associated with production would have lower sound levels than those generated by a drilling operation, yet would be continuous and could have other impacts to the soundscape, acoustic environment or the wildlife that rely on natural acoustic conditions. The greatest impacts from noise due to proposed operations would be temporary, with the most noise occurring during the drilling of the well and installation of the gathering lines and service lines due to increase in ship and barge traffic and the operating of heavy equipment for construction and installation during this time. However, there would also be continuing noise impacts during the production phase due to some ship and barge traffic during minor maintenance or operation of heavy equipment during any workover operations. The proposed area of operation is located in an isolated location away from any local populations, so any noise from proposed operations will not affect the majority of the public. The only visitors to this area of operations are hunters and anglers. The proposed operations would have little additional impact on enjoyment of these visitors to the refuge, because the natural setting of the area is already highly impacted by noise from existing oil and gas infrastructure. The adverse impacts to the enjoyment of visitors from the additional noise impacts would not be notable. Proposed Action Noise from exploration, development, and extraction activities can be mitigated through a variety of ways including, but not limited to, use of quieter engines, quieter machinery, noise barriers, noise enclosures, and timing of operations to avoid the quietest times of day or certain seasons for which impacts would be greater (i.e., wintering waterfowl populations). However, neither the Service nor the operator has added stipulations to the permit regarding noise, therefore the impacts would be the same as analyzed under the No Action alternative.

28

CULTURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

IMPACT EVALUATION

There are no known cultural resources on Delta NWR. Geologically, the refuge is relatively young and since formation little to no human habitation or development has occurred.

There are no cultural resources in the proposed area of operations, as confirmed through consultation in compliance with National Historical Preservation Act Consultation, Section 106 (see Appendix 3).

REFUGE MANAGEMENT &

OPERATIONS

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

IMPACT EVALUATION

Administration One Full Time Employee (FTE) is responsible for monitoring all oil and gas activities for the Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex. This FTE will be responsible for monitoring the drilling operation and all coordination with the operator during the operational phase through completion.

No Action Because the Service would not be administering, monitoring, and enforcing permits, Service staff and resources for these types of activities would not be impacted under the No Action Alternative. However, when an operation is done without a permit there is a much higher likelihood that refuge resources may be harmed. Unnecessary damages due to an operator not using the most technologically feasible, least damaging methods may require a significant amount of Service time and resources to correct such impacts. For example, accidents associated with oil and gas operations such as well blowouts, fires, and major spills within the boundaries of refuge units could pose a severe impact on refuge management and operations. These type of accidents extended over the operational lifetime of oil and gas facilities can result in continued adverse impacts on refuge management and operations, depending on the number of operations and level of activity occurring within the refuge at any one time. Depending on the degree of response and the amount of resources needed, these incidents could require additional staffing and the use of other refuge administrative and material resources. Proposed Action Engaging the Applicant in the permitting process during the operational phases of drilling and production, would require Refuge staff and resources to evaluate the operation, and thus minimize adverse impacts and unnecessary damages. The effect on refuge resources from problems, leaks and violations would be minimized to the greatest extent possible through base workload inspections and monitoring of a few staff. By working with the Applicant on permit stipulations (e.g. enforcement of timing stipulations for drilling and production operations in special management areas of the refuge units) the chance for unnecessary damages and need for additional refuge staff and resources is greatly reduced.

29

SOCIOECONOMICS

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

IMPACT EVALUATION

Oil and gas operator costs and project financial viability

No Action Even if the Service did not engage the operator in the permitting process, TPIC will still need to have the field bonded with the State of Louisiana to cover the plugging and abandonment, and reclamation cost. However, If not operating under technologically feasible, least damaging methods, the operator may encounter more frequent spills, potentially impacting critical habitat, resulting in fines and higher reclamation costs at the end of the operation. Proposed Action Costs specific to conducting private oil and gas operations under an SUP include the following: 1. Plan of operations preparation or permitting, 2. Compliance with Service permit requirements that exceed other Federal,

State, and local requirements, 3. Compliance with Service reclamation standards that exceed other

Federal, State, and local requirements, and 4. Maintenance of performance bonds or equivalent surety, if required. These costs are normally a small percentage of a typical operator’s total expenses, but for some individual operations, these costs can become economically significant as production declines and profit margins constrict. Although these administrative and operational costs are a part of the decision to develop wells and/or continue production for existing wells, they are not a major factor. The price of oil and gas, however, is an essential factor. The most important component is the operational and geological risk assessment that exploration and drilling will lead to successful and economical oil and gas production, and if so, at what level. TPIC has indicated the costs described above could range up to $20,000 over the life of the project.

30

Regional and local economies Sources of income are the seafood industry, the off- shore oil industry, shipping, and citrus groves. Millions of pounds of shrimp, oysters, crab, and fish are produced annually by the commercial fishing industry. The parish is also considered a “sportsman’s paradise” for sport fishing. Encompassing seventy miles of the Mississippi River, Plaquemines Parish is the eighth largest port in the United States and is noted for exporting coal, petro- chemicals, and grain.

No Action Oil and gas exploration and development support jobs and income in nearby communities for drill rig operators, geophysical seismic companies, construction companies, landmen, and oil and gas support companies that complete wells, among others. Oil and gas production supports industry jobs, including inspecting and maintaining equipment and operations, complying with mitigation standards and other on-going production and operational needs. These residential and nonresidential workers spend their wages in local and regional communities, supporting downstream jobs and income. Oil and gas production also provides economic benefits to oil and gas companies, benefiting economies where these companies are headquartered and the nation overall. Many energy- related jobs provide higher wages and earnings than service sector jobs. During production, the oil and gas value of production is often taxed through severance taxes and ad valorem taxes, although these taxes vary by State. Additionally, local governments often benefit from property and sales and use taxes on oil and gas equipment. These tax receipts typically benefit State and county agencies. Proposed Action As discussed further in the Programmatic EIS, the proposed operations do not have the potential to notably affect local and regional economies. The proposed operations represent a negligible percentage of oil and gas development and production occurring in adjacent parishes and regions. The typical benefits described above would thus be very minimal. Oil and gas activities could interfere with the public’s use of a Refuge reducing the Refuge’s contributions to local and regional economies. However, as discussed above, the impacts to visitor use would be minimal, so the Service’s permitting action would have no impact on the regional or local economy.

31

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

Guidelines for implementing this executive order under NEPA are provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (CEQ 1997) and require the Service to evaluate whether a proposed action has the potential to have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and/or low income populations typically involves the following: (1) identifying any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts; (2) identifying any minority or low income communities within the potential high and adverse impact areas; and (3) examining the spatial distribution of any minority or low income communities to determine if they would be disproportionately affected by these impacts.

Based on the analysis done in the Programmatic EIS, the Service does not anticipate that the Service’s regulation of non-Federal oil and gas on refuges would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts on low-income populations or communities. The Service analyzed the anticipated costs of the regulation on operators compared to data from the U.S. Economic Census and found regulatory costs to represent less than 1 percent of average annual receipts for typical businesses conducting oil and gas operations in the NWRS. Based on this information, the Service does not believe that this permitting action has been a major factor in the Applicant’s decision of where to develop wells on the refuge, and this will not result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts on low-income populations or communities.

32

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES

There are no Indian Trust Resources on this refuge.

This action will not impact any Indian Trust Resources.

Cumulative Impact Analysis:

Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions”.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activity in Area of Analysis

Descriptions of Cumulative Actions

Invasive and exotic species. The area of the proposed operation is already highly impacted by the introduction of non-native and invasive species from a multitude of sources, including the entire Mississippi River system and its tributaries.

TPIC's proposed action is not expected to have any discernable beneficial or adverse impacts related to invasive species, and thus the permitting action has had no effect on the cumulative impacts of nonnative or invasive species in the area of operations or on the refuge.

The Service has not added stipulations to the permit related to the control of nonnative and invasive species.

Wildlife-dependent recreation The area of operation is in an area where recreational fishing opportunities exist, as well as migratory waterfowl hunting during the open hunting season. The Service has stipulated that drilling will occur outside of the migratory waterfowl hunting season and outside of the open waterfowl hunting area, so it will not contribute to the cumulative impacts on hunting opportunities. The Service has not identified any notable conflicts from long-term production of the well with hunting or fishing. Production operations will not cause any long term impairment to the habitat, vegetation, or water quality, so the proposed operation will only negligibly add to the cumulative impacts of wildlife-dependent recreation in the area. In addition, future plugging and reclamation of existing wells is likely to wholly offset any adverse cumulative impacts from the proposed action.

33

Past and Future oil and gas development on refuge and adjacent lands

The proposed operation is in an area that has a long history of oil and gas exploration and development. This has resulted in a highly impacted marsh in the areas where drilling and production have been concentrated. Currently, Plaquemines Parish has over 7,000 active producing oil and gas wells. On Delta NWR alone there are 29 active oil and gas wells , 70 inactive wells, and 77 historic wells that have been plugged and abandoned. The matrix of canals and drilling slips are a legacy of past technologies that highly favored straight holes directly above their bottomhole targets. Existing oil and gas fields could readily be further developed using directional drilling. Further, the number of actively producing wells is declining in Plaquemines Parish as new drilling has been out paced by well plugging and abandonment. Therefore the Service’s permitting of this facility in the proposed location will not lead to additional habitat fragmentation, due to the use of preexisting canals and open water; and thus not contribute to cumulative impacts. Impacts to natural resources and visitor use due to construction activities, such as soils, habitat, noise, air quality, and erosion would contribute only slightly to cumulative impacts since they are typically localized and temporary. No impairment to these resources and uses would result from the proposed operations or the Service’s permitting of that operation.

Furthermore, the Service has put stipulations on operations that will result in beneficial impacts to human health and safety, such as requiring additional signage to inform refuge visitors of the potential hazards of the operation. These signs will help educate visitors about the hazards of present and future development, leading to some minor beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety from the Service’s permitting action. It is reasonably foreseeable that the operator or other operators with non-Federal oil and gas rights may propose other operations to develop minerals on the Refuge and in the local area. The impacts of such activities would be similar to those analyzed above. The largest impacts to the environment from oil and gas development have already happened due to the large scale development of oil and gas infrastructure that has already occurred. The extent of historical exploration in the area (seismic and drilling) reduces the probability that large undiscovered resources will be found and create extensive new development. Rather, economics will likely be the driver of continued low rate of new well drilling. Continued development of oil and gas resources combined with plugging and reclamation activities yield an overall trend of environmental improvements related to oil and gas activities in the area.

34

Commercial Navigation The Port of South Louisiana is the largest tonnage port in the western hemisphere. The lower river adjacent to the refuge maintains a steady flow of marine traffic 24 hours of the day. The additional marine traffic related to this drilling operation will have negligible impacts to the commercial navigation of the lower Mississippi River.

Measures to mitigate and/or minimize adverse effects have been incorporated into the selected action. These measures include:

• Adverse effects to surface/marshland are minimized through: o Use of existing open water canals for access o Placement of drill rig and well in an open water pond o Boring flowlines under marsh surface

• The access canal is being placed in an optimal location (per refuge request) to facilitate water/sediment flow, which will create land growth, marsh construction, and mitigate for loss of habitat associated with this project. The construction of associated terraces adjacent to the well site will aid in sediment fallout and expedite the marsh building process.

Due to the nature of oil and gas activities, there is always a risk to public health or safety, as well as wildlife and habitat; from leaks, spills or emergencies. However, the risk of these incidents occurring is very low, especially when the operator has proper procedures in place for avoiding, mitigating, and responding to such incidents, as does this operator with their SPCC plan, as well as their Facility Response Plan.

The operator has demonstrated that they have a right to develop these non-Federal oil and gas rights on the refuge, therefore, the Service’s action is to issue the operator an Operations Permit that ensures that the operator is using technologically feasible, least damaging methods to do so, as required by 50 CFR part 29 subpart D. This action, which will result in several stipulations placed on the operator in the proposed Operations Permit as well as continued monitoring and enforcement by the Service for the life of the operation, as analyzed in this Environmental Assessment, will result in minimal individual and cumulative beneficial environmental impacts.

35

Monitoring

During all phases of drilling and production, refuge staff will monitor and evaluate drilling and production operations to ensure compliance with permit stipulations, 29D regulations, and protection of refuge resources. One Full Time Employee (FTE) is responsible for monitoring all oil and gas activities for the Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex. This FTE will be responsible for monitoring all operational phases in addition to coordinating with the operator to reduce the chance of significant adverse impacts on the environment. Other refuge staff (e.g. Law Enforcement Officers, Refuge Managers, Biologists) will also assist with monitoring oil and gas activities as part of their collateral duties.

Examples of monitoring efforts include: • Oversight of specific projects or spill response; • Scheduled field and facility inspections with the operator and appropriate agencies; • Periodic site visits of operating fields to ensure operator is complying with permit and refuge regulations; • Pre and post environmental assessments of construction/operation sites; • Monitoring remediation and mitigation projects; and • Maintaining communications and engaging state, local, and other agencies to ensure concurrence

regarding operations.

5.0 Consultation and Coordination List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted:

1. Richard Kanaski - USFWS Regional Historic Preservation Officer & Regional Archaeologist 2. Amy Trahan – USFWS Fish & Wildlife Biologist – Ecological Services – Lafayette ES Office 3. Phil Boggan – State of Louisiana – State Historic Preservation Officer 4. Catherine Collins, Tim Allen, - USFWS Air Quality Branch

Consultation with Tribal Nations

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of Archeology consulted with the following tribes via formal correspondence dated January 26, 2018: The Chitimacha; Coushatta; Choctaw Nation; Jena Band of Choctaws; Mississippi Band of Choctaws; the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe; and the Seminole Nation. As of this date, there has been no response from any of the tribal nations consulted.

36

6.0 References:

Adams, M.B., P.J. Edwards, W.M. Ford, J.B. Johnson, T.M. Schuler, M. Thomas-Van Gundy, F. Wood. 2011. Effects of development of a natural gas well and associated pipeline on the natural and scientific resources of the Fernow Experimental Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-76. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 24 p. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs76.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2015

Bayne, E.M, L. Habib, and S. Boutin. 2008. Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector activity on

abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conservation Biology 22(5): 1186-1193.

Bradbury, J., M. Obeiter, L. Draucker, W. Wang, and A. Stevens. 2013. “Clearing the Air: Reducing Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems.” Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available at: http://www.wri.org/publication/clearing-the-air.

Brittingham, M.C., K.O. Maloney, A.M. Farag, D.D. Harper, and Z.H. Bowen. 2014. Ecological risks of

shale oil and gas development to wildlife, aquatic resources and their habitats. Environmental Science and Technology. 48(19): 11034-47.

CCSP, 2009: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. A report by

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [James G. Titus (Coordinating Lead Author), K. Eric Anderson, Donald R. Cahoon, Dean B. Gesch, Stephen K. Gill, Benjamin T. Gutierrez, E. Robert Thieler, and S. Jeffress Williams (Lead Authors)], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., USA

Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436: 686–688.

Francis, C.D., C.P. Ortega, and A. Cruz. 2009. Noise pollution changes avian communities and species

interactions. Current Biology 19: 1-9.

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 ppKarl, T. et al. 2009. “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United State” Author: U.S. Global Change Research Program. Publisher: Cambridge University Press”

Knutson, T and R. Tuleya 2004. Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and

Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization.

Mall, A., S. Buccino, and J. Nichols. 2007. Drilling Down: Protecting Western Communities from the Health and Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Production. October, 2007. Natural Resource Defense Council, New York, New York. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/land/use/down/down.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2015.

NASA. 2008. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coast-20080131.html

37

Parida, K. and A.B. Das. 2005. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: a review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Volume 60, Issue 3: pp 324–349.

Sawyer, H., F. Lindzey, D. McWhirter, and K. Andrews. 2002. Potential Effects of Oil and Gas

Development on Mule Deer and Pronghorn Populations in Western Wyoming. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 67: 350-365.

Trombulak, S C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18–30.

Tylianakis, J.M., R.K. Didham, J. Bascompte, and D.A. Wardle. 2008. Global Change and Species Interactions in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Ecology Letters 11: 1351–1363. doi: 10.1111/j.1461

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.

Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment.

Vavrek, M.C., H. Hunt, W. Colgan III, and D.L. Vavrek. 2004. Status of oil brine spill site remediation. Paper presented at the 11th Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference, Albuquerque, NM, Oct. Available at: http://ipec.utulsa.edu/Conf2004/Papers/vavrek_hunt_colgan_vavrek.pdf

Vilà, M., J.L. Espinar, M. Hejda, P.E. Hulme, V. Jarošík, J.L. Maron, J. Pergl, U. Schaffner, Y. Sun, and P. Pyšek. 2011. Ecological Impacts of Invasive Alien Plants: A Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Species, Communities and Ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 14: 702–708.

Wiles, G.J. and H.P. Weeks, Jr. 1986. Movements and Use Patterns of White-Tailed Deer Visiting

Natural Licks. Journal of Wildlife Management 50 (3): pp. 487-496.

This analysis also incorporated information from sources referenced in the Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/Delta%20Breton%20Final/DeltaBretonFinalCCPdoc.pdf); the Habitat Management Plan for Delta and Brenton National Wildlife Refuges (https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/habitat- management-plan-for-delta-and-breton-national-wildlife-refuges); and the Programmatic EIS for National Wildlife Refuge System Revision of Regulations Governing Non-Federal Oil and Gas Activities (https://www.fws.gov/refuges/oil-and-gas/pdfs/FEIS-National-Wildlife- Refuge-System-Revision-of-Regulations-Governing-Non-Federal-Oil-and-Gas-Rights.pdf).

List of Preparers:

Barret Fortier – Regional Energy Coordinator – Southeast Region – USFWS Pat O’Dell – Petroleum Engineer – National Energy Team – USFWS James Panaccione – Oil & Gas Specialist – Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex – USFWS Ella Wagener – Policy Advisor - National Energy Team – USFWS

Public Outreach;

This Environmental Assessment will be available for public review and comment for 30 calendar days on the Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex website: (https://www.fws.gov/southeastlouisiana/)

A paper copy will be available at the Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex Headquarters, located at: 61389 Hwy 434, Lacombe, LA 70445

Determination: This final determination will be made after the public comment period.

D The Service's action on this permit application will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. See the attached "Finding of No Significant Impact".

D The Service's action on this permit application may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

Date: 7� 24,�,)$_ _____c___::_

�,�,.,., r, V5f'JJj P .l--1..tY'lt- AlwR.I

Date: --z/2�/4.,1 Ii'

Preparer Signature: • � % Name/Title/Organization: P/}i,lt6I htt,;1�/2 . /t.,&"'111�,41, btv6il6't

Certifying Officer Signature: '---d� � Name/Title/Organization: /Jo;/ /...,a (o P'ld,e ,/-P,..,,0eol LtA/4...- / tLsPWS 54,-Htu.si-t. l �Y.S

38

39

APPENDIX 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

40

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Cultural Resources

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470- 470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810

NHPA requirements have been addressed via USFWS Southeast Region Archeologist R. Kaminski and the State Historic Preservation Officer for Louisiana (see Appendix 3)

Fish & Wildlife

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450

There are potentially three threatened species in the area of operations. A Intra-service Section 7 Consultation was completed by the USFWS regarding the West Indian Manatee, Piping Plover, and the Gulf Sturgeon (Appendix 4).

Water Resources

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977)

Compliance with applicable water resource statutes, executive orders and regulations have been covered within the “Joint Permit for Work within the Louisiana Coastal Zone” via the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (Office of Coastal Management)

41

APPENDIX 2 Field Inspections and Other Studies, Analyses or Permits Used to Complete EA or Processing Permit

42

Field Inspection:

On March 27, 2018 Jim Panaccione (SE Louisiana Refuge Complex Oil & Gas Specialist) conducted a site assessment of the proposed DDC Teal Prospect Well. The drill site is an open water pond, with water depths ranging from 4 to 7 feet. The site of the proposed access canal is a sloping gradient from an exposed mudflat to a water depth of 4 feet. During this site assessment, vegetation was not observed within the drill site and Roseau cane (Phragmites spp.) was the dominant cover species within the proposed access site.

Additional Studies Performed as a Result of this Permit Request or Used in Writing this EA:

N/A

List of Other Permits Applied for/Obtained by the Applicant:

The applicant must have all obtained all other necessary permits before they can begin operations on the refuge. The Operator has applied to or obtained the following permits:

1. Joint Wetlands/CZM Permit – US Army Corps of Engineers & Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (Office

of Coastal Management) 2. Plaquemines Parish Work Permit (Local Government) 3. Application for Permit to Drill from Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

48

APPENDIX 3 Cultural Resources

49

Letter and concurrence of Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer

50

Table 1 lists project coordinates.

Ta ble 1.Coordm.

ates for the Proposed Undertak"mg.

UTM : WGS84 Zone 16N

The proposed undertaking is located within the artificial channels that provide access to Delta Duck Oil Fields, southeast of Main Pass and southwest of Octave Pass. TPIC's operations include the following:

• Mobilization of equipment to the project location via existing canals; • Excavation of two bore pits measuring 10 foot x 10 foot x 5 foot. The entry pit will be

excavated at the DDK Teal Prospect well and the exit pit will be excavated at the DDCF; • Installation of a 3-inch flow line and a 2-inch gas line measuring approximately 9,361

feet (2.85 kilometers) , via directional boring , starting at the DDK Teal Prospect well and ending at the DDCF; and

• Demobilization of equipment from the project location via existing canals.

Earth-moving activities will include propwash operations and excavation of two bore pits. A total of 20,064 cubic yards of propwashing and 3,914 cubic yards of bucket dredging will be required to access the project location. Both bore pits will be 10 feet x 10 feet x 5 feet. Temporary spoil piles measuring 10 feet x 10 feet x 5 feet will be deposited adjacent to the bore pits (Figs. 5-9). The spoil piles will be used to backfill the pits upon completion of operations. Directional boring will be used to install a 3-inch flow line and 2-inch gas line from the DDK Teal Prospect well to the DDCF. The entirety of the bore alignment will measure 9,361 feet (2.85 kilometers), with jetting operations being conducted for the first 1,460 feet (445 meters). Jetting will be conducted via hand jetting. Jetted trenches will measure a maximum of two feet (0.61 meters) across and a three feet (0.91 meter (s) deep.

The proposed undertaking occurs in a man-made canal that runs through the Refuge . The canal was excavated to provide access to the Delta Duck Oil Fields that underlay the Refuge. Due to the substantially disturbed nature of the project location, small footprint of bore sites, age of land forms, and presence of extensive wetlands, the archaeological potential in and near the project area is assessed to be very low to non-existent.

Impact Assessment

The approximately 44,800-acre Delta National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Southeast Louisiana Refuge s Complex with Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge , Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge , Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge , Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge, Breton National Wildlife Refuge , Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge, and Manadalay National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge was established in 1935 in order to provide sanctuary and habitat for wintering waterfowl.

Location Lat/Long UTM DDK Teal Prospect well 29 15' 28.2" N 89 11' 43.T'W 286666.5E 3238550.1 N

Flowline be_gin 29 15 ' 00.9"N 89 J J ' 58. l"W 286262E 3237716.9N Flowline end (DDCF) 29 14' 44.0"N 89 11 ' 57.T'W 286263E 3237196.4N

51

The Refuge contains a complex arrangement of environments, ecotones, and habitats. The Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapped the waterways and wetland environments in and near the project area as seasonally flooded-tidal, emergent and persistent palustrine (PEMlR); seasonally flooded-tidal, broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub palustrine (PSS IR); permanently flooded-tidal, aquatic bed tidal riverine (RlABV); permanently flooded-tidal, tidal riverine with unconsolidated bottom (RI UBV); permanently flooded-tidal, tidal riverine with unconsolidated bottom, excavated (RI UBVx); and regularly flooded, tidal riverine with unconsolidated shore (Rl USQ) (Fig. 10). Unconsolidated bottom includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats with at least 25% cover of particles smaller than stones (less than 6-7 centimeters), and a vegetative cover less than 30%. Unconsolidated shore includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats having two characteristics: (I) unconsolidated substrates with less than 75% areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock; and (2) less than 30% areal cover of vegetation. Landforms such as beaches, bars, and flats are included in the unconsolidated shore class.

Three vegetative communities have been identified within this portion of the Refuge: freshwater wetlands, coastal interfaces, and natural levees. Table 2 lists common vegetative cover found in these communities.

Table 2. Common Ve2etatlon. Vee.etative Communitv Common Name Scientific Name

Freshwater wetlands

Alligator grass Altemanthera philoxeriodes Canouche Panicum hemitomon Cattail Typha snn. Delta duck potato Sa,tittaria latifolia Dog tooth grass Panicum revens Lizard's tail Saururus cernuus Oyster grass Spartina alternifl,ora Pickerel weed Pontedaria cordata Roseau cane Phra,tmites communis Sawgrass Cladium son. Sedges Cvneraceae soo. Smartweed Polv,tonum soo. Spikerush Eleocharis spp. Three-cornered !IT·ass Scirous americanus Water hyacinth Eichornia crassides Wild millet Echinochloa walteri Yellow cutgrass Aizaniopsis milliacea

Coastal interfaces

Black rush Juncus roemerianus Wiregrass Svartina vatens Oyster grass S. altern flora Sawgrass Cladium spp.

Natural levees

Alder Alnus son. Button bush Cephalanthus spp. Cattail Typh a spp. Cottonwood Populus deltoids Cutgrass Leersia spp. Dogwood Cornus son. Elderberry Sambucus spp. False water willow Andrographic spp. Hackleberry Celtis laevigata Live oak Quercus vir,tiniana

52

Roseau can P. communis Swamp privet Forestiera soo. Wax myrtJe Morella ceri fera Willow Salix niRra

Sour ce: Natu ral Resour ces Conse rvanon Servi ce (201 7)

Geomorphology and Soils

The project area is located in the Balize Subdelta CompJex (Complex) of the Plaquemines-St. Bernard Delta in southeast Louisiana. Formation of the Complex began approximately 800 to 1,000 years before present with the increase of depositional discharge from the Bayou Lafourche distributary. The DOK Teal Prospect well and DDCF are located within the present phase of the Complex, which began accreting approximately 400 to 500 years before present when progradation reached the continental shelf (Saucier 1994:284). New distributionary channels continue to develop off the main river and expand the Complex (Fisk 1944:44). Fisk (1944) categorized these channels and the present meander belt of the Mississippi River as stages 17-20, dating to approximately 1765 to 1939 (Fig. 11). Saucier (1994) classified the area in and near the project area as interdistributionary deposits consisting of brackish to saline marsh environments dating to approximately the 16th century (Saucier 1994:284) (Fig. 12). Jackson (1979:8) classified the project location as the Cubits Gap Complex and dated the landform to approximately 1862 (Fig. 13). Historic maps show alluvion at the DDK Teal Prospect location to date between 1893 and the first quarter of the 20th century.

The Natural Resources Conservation Center (NRCS) mapped the soils in and near the project area as very poorly drained Balize and Larose soils (BA) (Fig. 14). Both soils are hydric. Table 3 summarizes these soils.

Table 3. NRCS S01'I.s man d near the Pro.1ectA rea. Name Symbol Lanclf'orm Drainage Slope Hydrologic

Ratin2 Comment

Bali ze

BA

Marshe s

Very poorly drained

0-1 %

BID

Fluid lo a my backswamp deposits. Depth to restrictive feature: >80 i nch e .

Depth to water table: 0 inches. Not prime farmland. Floods freque ntly .

Ponds freque ntl y. Soils are hydric . Very slightly saline to s li ghtly saline (2.0 to

4.0nm1.hos/cm)

Larose

D

Thin herbaceous organic material over fluid clayey alluvium. Depth to

resu·ictive feature: >80 inches. Depth to wat e r table: 0 inches. Not prim e

farmland. Floods freque ntly . Ponds freq ue ntly. Soils are hydric . No n-s al i ne to sli _ghtly sa l ine (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)

Source: Trahan (2000); Natural Res ource s Conserval:Jon Ser vice (2016 ) Historic Maps

An examination of the Bureau of Land Management ' s General Land Office (GLO) records did not yield any historic survey plat maps or issued land patents for Township 20S, Range 20E or

53

the surrounding Townships and Ranges due to the age of local sediments.

The earliest map available to be reviewed is the 1893 East Delta, LA 15 Minute topographic map. The map shows a number of features including waterways, bays, and smaller unnamed waterways. The nearest named geographic feature associated with the delta is Brant Bayou, approximately 3.7 kilometers southwest of the DDCF (Fig. 15). The DDCF is depicted as open water. There are no 15 Minute quadrangles dating to the 19th century depicting the location of the DDK Teal Prospect well. Despite the rapid accretion of the Comp le x, the 1901, 1906, 1924, and 1931 revised versions of the 1893 map are identical.

The 1947 Main Pass, LA and Pass A Loutre West, LA 7.5 Minute topographic maps show the increased alluvion present in this portion of the Complex (Fig. 16). The DDK Teal Prospect well location is depicted as being as being at the head of a small unnamed waterway south of Delta Bend and between Wideon Pond and Dymond Pond. The DDCF is located within Thodule Pond.

The 1953 Breton Island, LA and 1954 East Delta, LA 15 Minute quadrangles show a substantial conversion of wetlands to open water (Fig. 17). The Delta Duck Oil Field has been established and channelization has occurred, likely exacerbating the conversion to open water. The DDK Teal Prospect location is still depicted as being on a wetland landform.

The 1971 Main Pass, LA and Pass A Loutre West, LA 7.5 Minute orthophotographic maps show the project area as located in a heavily degraded wetland and open water (Fig. 18). The degree of channelization has been increased and a number of wells have been excavated. The DDK Teal Prospect well location continues to be solid land; although canals have been excavated around the loca tion.

Color infrared imagery from 1978 shows the DDK Teal Prospect well location to be partially converted to open water (Fig. 19). 1998 Aerial imagery shows more detail of this conversion (Fig. 20). The entire area was converted to open water by 2005 (Fig. 21).

Archaeological Investigations

A review of the Southeast Region Master Site Files, which are based upon the Louisiana Master Site Files and past historic and archaeological investigations, revealed one cultural resources survey (Jackson 1979) for the Refuge. Jackson (1979) conducted a cultural resources survey of the Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges but excluded the Delta Duck Oil Field from the survey. There are no historic properties within a kilometer of the project area; the nearest, 16PL99, is approximately 9.4 kilometers southwest of the project area.

Summary

The project area is located within the Balize or Delta Complex in southeast Louisiana. The formation of the Balize Subdelta Complex began no earlier than the 16th century and continues to present. The geologic age of the project area and the surrounding sediments date to the second half of the 19th century, precluding the possibility of occupations earlier than the late 19th - early 20th century.

54

Archaeological sites and historic properties in this portion of southeast Louisiana are located on natural levees associated with the Mississippi River and large waterways. The project area is a relatively young landform on which low-laying marshes emerged shortly after its creation. Such marshes possess substantially lower archaeologic al potential than the levees based on soil type, landform, drainage, periodicity of flooding and ponding, and depth to water table. Development of the extensive oil and gas infrastructure, such as the canals, wells, and pipelines, lead to the conversion Excavations of the canal network that facilitated access to the Delta Duck Oil Field, well drilling, and conversion of wetland environments in the project area to open water have substantially lowered the already low potential for historic period cultural deposits. TPIC's proposed operations will have "no effect" upon any historic properties on or near the project area.

To facilitate your office's review and comment, I have enclosed topographic maps showing the project area, maps of TPIC's proposed flowline, structures, and propwash, geologic and geomorphic maps of the Balize Subdelta Complex, and the relevant section of the NRCS soil map.

The Servke appreciates your timely review of these findi ngs . Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact staff archaeologist William Brant at (843) 784- 6310 or at willi a m bra nt@fws.gov .

Sincere!¥,

t!,,/vh ard S. ana

Reg10nal Archa logist & Regional Historic Preservation Officer, Southeast Region

References Cited

Bureau of Land Management

N.d. General Land Office Records. Online database accessed December 28, 2017 at http://www.glorecords.blm.gov.

Fisk, Harold N.

1944 Geologic Investigati<, Prepared for the U.S . Army Corps,

Google Earth Pro

N.d. DDK Tea] Prospect Pi

Jackson, H. Edwin, Jr. 1979 A Cultural Resource ,

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. P

No known historic properties will be affected by this undertaking. Therefore, our office has no objection to the implementation of this project. This effect determination could change should new information come to our attention.

Kristin P. Sanders Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Date !03 /06/2018

e

55

APPENDIX 4 –Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation

56

57

58

59

60

61

APPENDIX 5- Special Use Permit Applications

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Special Use Permit Request – Drilling Operations

DATE: November 8, 2017

TO: Barret Fortier — Delta National Wildlife Refuge

FROM: Chris Sanfilippo - Texas Petroleum Investment Company

RE: New Drill Location for DDK Teal Prospect

Proposed Operations - Proposed Start Date: February 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018

Following approval, we propose to drill the DDK Teal Prospect well. There will be a total of 20,064 cubic yards of propwashing and 3,914 cubic yards of bucket dredging required to access this location. The operation is as follows:

Facility Name: DDK Teal Prospect

Repair Work: Equipment:

• Drilling Barge – 6.6’ draft• 2-Shale Barges• 2-Deck Barges• Tug BoatDuration: Approximately 45 days

The following procedure will be followed for all operations:

1. Using the field plat and known water depths, develop a route for the barge to navigate the waterways.(Proposed Attached)

2. Discuss navigation plan with Delta National Wildlife Refuge Representative for approval to proceed.3. Give verbal notification to refuge representative 24 hours prior to entering the refuge.4. Mobilize equipment to location.5. Perform operations on the DDK Teal Prospect Well Location.6. Demobilize equipment out of the field when work is complete.7. Inform the refuge of any changes to equipment inventory in field following operations.

TPIC PERSONNEL CONTACT INFORMATION

NAME TITLE OFFICE PHONE MOBILE

Tommy Lejeune Superintendent (Field Office) 337-232-1702 337-315-7187Rob Matherne Foreman (Field Office) 337-761-9850 985-870-1036

Chris Sanfilippo Environmental Manager 337-232-1702 337-577-8465

70

PART 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR YOUR AREA OF OPERATIONS

22)Describe the natural features including streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, topographic relief, and areas theService has indicated to you are sensitive.

DDK Teal Prospect well location will be near the Main Pass Canal. Natural features include previously dredged waterways and intermediate fresh marsh.

23)Describe the locations of existing roads, trails, railroad tracks, pipeline right-of-ways, pads, and otherdisturbed areas.

Please see attached plats

24)Describe the locations of existing structures that your operations could affect, including buildings,pipelines, producing oil and gas wells, freshwater wells, underground and overhead electrical lines, and otherutility lines.

Please see attached plats

25)Describe the natural resource and cultural resource survey reports for your proposed area of operations.Requested No Objection from SHPO.

PART 4: PROPOSED NEW SURFACE USES

26)Describe and show the method and diagrams, including cross-sections, of any proposed pad construction,road construction, cut-and-fill areas, erosion control, and surface maintenance.

Please see attached plats

27)Describe the number and types of equipment and vehicles, including an estimate of vehicular round tripsassociated with each phase of operation.

• Drilling Barge• 2-Shale Barges• 2-Deck Barges• Tug Boat

28)Describe the estimated timetable for each phase of the proposed operations, including any operationaltiming constraints.

Approximately 45 days for drilling the DDK Teal Prospect well.

29)Describe the type and extent of security measures proposed at your area of operation.Drilling operations will be conducted 24 hours a day.

30)Describe the power sources and their transmission systems for the proposed operations.The barges/tugs will be powered using on board generators.

31)Describe the types and quantities of all solid and liquid waste generated and the proposed methods ofstorage, handling, and disposal.

The barges will be equipped with their own individual sewage systems. The drilling fluids, produced during drilling, will be stored in the shale barges and disposed of properly. Approximately 4,000 BBLS.

32)Describe the source, quantity, access route, and transportation/conveyance method for all water to be usedin operations; and estimations of any anticipated waste water volumes generated and how they will bemanaged and disposed of.

The drilling company will barge in fresh water to use in the drilling operations.

71

PART 6: DRILLING OPERATIONS

39)Describe the well pad construction, including dimensions and cross sections of: cut-and-fill areas andexcavations for ditches, sumps, and spill control equipment or structures, including lined areas.

Please see attached plats.

40)Describe the drill rig and equipment layout, including rig components, fuel tanks, testing equipment,support facilities, storage areas, and all other well-site equipment and facilities.

Please see attached Parker Drilling Company info sheet.

41)Describe the type and characteristics of the proposed drilling mud systems.Please see attached Parker Drilling Company info sheet.

42)List the equipment, materials, and methods of surface operations associated with your drilling, wellcasing and cementing, well control, well evaluation and testing, well completion, well stimulation, and wellplugging programs.

Please see attached Parker Drilling Company info sheet.

PART 8: MITIGATION ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

49)Describe the steps you propose to take to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental impacts on refugeresources and uses, including but not limited to, the refuge’s land features, land uses, fish and wildlife,vegetation, soils, surface and subsurface water resources, air quality, noise, light scapes, view sheds, culturalresources, and economic environment.

TPIC proposes to work closely with the refuge to minimize all impacts.

50)Describe any anticipated impacts that you cannot mitigate.N/A

51)List alternatives considered that met the criteria of technologically feasible, least damaging methods ofoperations, as well as the costs and environmental effects of those alternatives.

N/A

PART 9: SPILL CONTROL AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN

59)Describe the notification procedures and steps taken to minimize damage in event of spill, fire, oraccident.

Forefront Emergency Management and Texas Petroleum Investment Company’s environmental manger will be notified. Please refer to the SPCC plan.

60)Identify contaminating or toxic substances used within your area of operations or expected to beencountered during operations.

During drilling operations, there is expected to be drilling fluids, oil, waste water, etc.

61)Provide a trajectory analysis for potential spills not contained on location.N/A

62)Identify abnormal pressure, temperature, toxic gases or substances, or other hazardous conditions at yourarea of operations or expected to be encountered during operations.

TPIC does not expect any abnormal or hazardous conditions during the drilling process.

72

63)Describe your measures (e.g., procedures, facility design, equipment, etc.) to minimize risks to humanhealth, safety, and the environment.

All personnel will wear the proper Personal Protective Equipment to minimize risk. They will also adhere to all state, federal, and/or local government rules and regulations.

64)Describe the steps to prevent accumulations of oil or other materials deemed to be fire hazards fromoccurring in the vicinity of well locations and lease tanks.

Please refer to the SPCC plan

65)Describe the equipment and methods for containment and cleanup of contaminating substances, includinga description of the equipment available at your area of operations and equipment available from localcontractors.

Please refer to the SPCC plan

66)Provide the storm water drainage plan and actions intended to mitigate storm water runoff.The drill barge for this project has zero discharge. All runoff will be collected and contained for disposal off-site.

67)Provide the material safety data sheets for each material you will use/encounter during operations,including expected quantities maintained at your area of operations.

Products NewGel NewBar NewLig New Pac R NewFlow NewPhalt NewZan NoFoam

X

UOM 100# Sacks 100# Sacks 50# Sacks 50# Sacks 50# Sacks 50# Sacks 25# Sacks 5 Gal Pail

Total 775 1830 311 15 154 75 49 23

Products SAPP Aluminum Tristearate

Lime

NewCarb Fine,

Medium, Course

Sodium Hydroxide

SodaAsh Starch

UOM 50# Sacks 25# Sacks 50# Sacks 50# Sacks 50# Sacks 50# Sacks 50# Sacks

Total 6 2 23 8 46 15 50

*Please refer to the SDS forms on the disc provided with this application.

68)Describe the emergency actions you will take in the event of injury or death to fish and wildlife orvegetation.

Forefront Emergency Management will be notified

69)Describe emergency actions you will take in the event of accidents causing human injury.Forefront Emergency Management will be notified

70)Provide the contingency plans for conditions and emergencies other than spills, such as if your area ofoperations is located in areas prone to hurricanes, flooding, tornados, fires, or earthquakes.

Forefront Emergency Management will be notified

PART 10: RECLAMATION

71)List the specific equipment, materials, methods, and schedule used to meet the operating standards forreclamation.

The well will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with the Office of Conservation 29B.

72)Provide an itemized list of the estimated costs that a third party would charge to complete reclamation.The well will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with the Office of Conservation 29B.

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

Special Use Permit Request – Production Operations

DATE: November 8, 2017

TO: Barret Fortier — Delta National Wildlife Refuge

FROM: Chris Sanfilippo - Texas Petroleum Investment Company

RE: Install Flowlines for DDK Teal Prospect

Proposed Operations - Proposed Start Date: February 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018

Following approval, we propose install flowlines from the DDK Teal Prospect to the Delta Duck Club Field Facility. There will be a total of 37 cubic yards of excavation required for the bore locations and 271 cubic yards of jetting required for the flowlines. The operation is as follows:

Facility Name: DDK Teal Prospect

Repair Work: Equipment:

• 2 - Spud Barges – 120’x30’x6’ with a 3’ draft• Tug – 3.5’ draftDuration: Approximately 3 weeks

The following procedure will be followed for all operations:

1. Using the field plat and known water depths, develop a route for the barge to navigate the waterways.(Proposed Attached)

2. Discuss navigation plan with Delta National Wildlife Refuge Representative for approval to proceed.3. Give verbal notification to refuge representative 24 hours prior to entering the refuge.4. Mobilize equipment to location.5. Perform operations on the DDK Teal Prospect Location.6. Demobilize equipment out of the field when work is complete.7. Inform the refuge of any changes to equipment inventory in field following operations.

TPIC PERSONNEL CONTACT INFORMATION

NAME TITLE OFFICE PHONE MOBILE

Tommy Lejeune Superintendent (Field Office) 337-232-1702 337-315-7187Rob Matherne Foreman (Field Office) 337-761-9850 985-870-1036

Chris Sanfilippo Environmental Manager 337-232-1702 337-577-8465

82

PART 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR YOUR AREA OF OPERATIONS

22)Describe the natural features including streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, topographic relief, and areasthe Service has indicated to you are sensitive.

Please see attached plats

23)Describe the locations of existing roads, trails, railroad tracks, pipeline right-of-ways, pads, and otherdisturbed areas.

Please see attached plats

24)Describe the locations of existing structures that your operations could affect, including buildings,pipelines, producing oil and gas wells, freshwater wells, underground and overhead electrical lines, andother utility lines.

Please see attached plats

25)Describe the natural resource and cultural resource survey reports for your proposed area ofoperations.

Please see attached plats

PART 4: PROPOSED NEW SURFACE USES

26)Describe and show the method and diagrams, including cross-sections, of any proposed padconstruction, road construction, cut-and-fill areas, erosion control, and surface maintenance.

Please see attached plats

27)Describe the number and types of equipment and vehicles, including an estimate of vehicular roundtrips associated with each phase of operation.

• 2 - Spud Barges – 120’x30’x6’ with a 3’ draft• Tug – 3.5’ draft

28)Describe the estimated timetable for each phase of the proposed operations, including anyoperational timing constraints.

Approximately 3 weeks for boring the 3,008’ and jetting 1,460’ of flowline.

29)Describe the type and extent of security measures proposed at your area of operation.N/A

30)Describe the power sources and their transmission systems for the proposed operations.N/A

31)Describe the types and quantities of all solid and liquid waste generated and the proposed methods ofstorage, handling, and disposal.

N/A

32)Describe the source, quantity, access route, and transportation/conveyance method for all water to beused in operations; and estimations of any anticipated waste water volumes generated and how they willbe managed and disposed of.

N/A

83

PART 7: PRODUCTION OPERATIONS

43)Provide the dimensions and the to-scale layout of the well pad, clearly identifying well locations,noting partial reclamation areas; gathering, separation, metering, and storage equipment; electrical lines;fences; spill control equipment or structures including lined areas, artificial lift equipment, tankbatteries, treating and separating vessels, secondary or enhanced recovery facilities, water disposalfacilities, gas compression and/or injection facilities; metering points; sales point (if on lease); tankerpickup points; gas compressor, including size and type (if applicable); and any other well siteequipment.

Please see attached plats

44)Provide a general description of anticipated stimulations, servicing, and workovers.N/A

45)Describe the procedures and equipment used to maintain well control.N/A

46)Describe the method and means used to transport produced oil and gas, including vehicular transport;flowline and gathering line construction and operation, pipe size, and operating pressure; cathodicprotection methods; surface equipment use; surface equipment location; maintenance procedures;maintenance schedules; pressure detection methods; and shutdown procedures.

TPIC proposes to install a 3” flowline and a 2” gas lift line by boring method. All equipment used for the boring operation will be transported to location by tug and spud barges. The operating pressure is unknown at this time. TPIC’s maintenance protocol consist of regular visual inspections and annual flowline integrity testing. Flowline pressure will be monitored by gauges and chart records. Shutdown procedures include manually closing valves and/or compressor shutdown.

47)Describe the equipment, materials, and procedures proposed for well plugging.N/A

PART 8: MITIGATION ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

49)Describe the steps you propose to take to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental impacts onrefuge resources and uses, including but not limited to, the refuge’s land features, land uses, fish andwildlife, vegetation, soils, surface and subsurface water resources, air quality, noise, light scapes, viewsheds, cultural resources, and economic environment.

TPIC is proposing to bore a 3” flowline and a 2” gas lift line to minimize the impacts.

50)Describe any anticipated impacts that you cannot mitigate.N/A

51)List alternatives considered that met the criteria of technologically feasible, least damaging methodsof operations, as well as the costs and environmental effects of those alternatives.

TPIC is proposing to bore a 3” flowline and a 2” gas lift line to minimize the impacts.

PART 9: SPILL CONTROL AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN

59)Describe the notification procedures and steps taken to minimize damage in event of spill, fire, oraccident.

Forefront Emergency Management and Texas Petroleum Investment Company’s environmental manger will be notified immediately in the event of a spill, fire, or accident. Please refer to the Facility Response Plan for more details.

84

60)Identify contaminating or toxic substances used within your area of operations or expected to beencountered during operations.

N/A

61)Provide a trajectory analysis for potential spills not contained on location.N/A

62)Identify abnormal pressure, temperature, toxic gases or substances, or other hazardous conditions atyour area of operations or expected to be encountered during operations.

N/A

63)Describe your measures (e.g., procedures, facility design, equipment, etc.) to minimize risks tohuman health, safety, and the environment.

All personnel will wear the proper Personal Protective Equipment to minimize all risk. They will also adhere to all state, federal, and/or local government rules and regulations.

64)Describe the steps to prevent accumulations of oil or other materials deemed to be fire hazards fromoccurring in the vicinity of well locations and lease tanks.

Please refer to the SPCC plan

65)Describe the equipment and methods for containment and cleanup of contaminating substances,including a description of the equipment available at your area of operations and equipment availablefrom local contractors.

Please refer to the SPCC plan

66)Provide the storm water drainage plan and actions intended to mitigate storm water runoff.N/A

67)Provide the material safety data sheets for each material you will use/encounter during operations,including expected quantities maintained at your area of operations.

N/A

68)Describe the emergency actions you will take in the event of injury or death to fish and wildlife orvegetation.

Please refer to the Facility Response Plan prepared by Forefront Emergency Management.

69)Describe emergency actions you will take in the event of accidents causing human injury.Please refer to the Facility Response Plan prepared by Forefront Emergency Management.

70)Provide the contingency plans for conditions and emergencies other than spills, such as if your areaof operations is located in areas prone to hurricanes, flooding, tornados, fires, or earthquakes.

Please refer to the Facility Response Plan prepared by Forefront Emergency Management.

PART 10: RECLAMATION

71)List the specific equipment, materials, methods, and schedule used to meet the operating standardsfor reclamation.

N/A 72)Provide an itemized list of the estimated costs that a third party would charge to completereclamation.

N/A 85

86

FIGURE 1

87

88

FIGURE 2

89

FIGURE 3