[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ATMOS NOAA No@@ENT ANALYSIS OF THE RISK OF DAMAGE TO THE STATES OF FLORIDA AND TEXAS FROM THE SEADOCK, INC., PROPOSED DEEPWATER PORT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE DEEPWATER PORTS PROJECT OFFICE US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Library 2234 South Taboon Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 ANALYSIS OF THE RISK OF DAMAGE TO THE STATES OF FLORIDA AND TEXAS FROM THE SEADOCK, INC., PROPOSED DEEPWATER PORT MARCH 25, 1976 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE DEEPWATER PORTS PROJECT OFFICE TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... 1 I, INTRODUCTION----- ... ...... 3 A. BACKGROUND .................................................. 3 B. SUMMARY OF THE SEADOCK, INC., PROPOSED DEEPWATER PORT ....... 3 C. SUMMARY OF FLORIDA PETITION ................................... 4 D. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................... 4 Il. NOAA APPROACH TO THE ADJACENT COASTAL STATE RECOMMENDATION ...... 9 III. RISK OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS ........................................ 11 A. RISK OF EXPOSURE COMPARISON ................................ 11 B. COMPARISON OF VULNERABLE RESOURCES- ....................... 35 C. RISK OF DAMAGE COMPARISON ................................... 47 IV. CONCLUSION ...................................... .............. 48 V. APPENDICES U,S, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEAN.IC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE DEEPWATER PORTS PROJECT OFFICE ANALYSIS OF THE RISK OF DAMAGE TO THE STATES OF FLORIDA AND'TEXAS FROM THE SEADOCK, INC., PROPOSED DEEPWATER PORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Results of the NOAA analysis indicate that the risk of damage to the coastal environment of Florida from the proposed SEADOCK, Inc.), deep- water port is equal to or greater than the risk posed to the coastal environment of Texas, 2. This conclusion is based upon the following considerations: (a) Analyses of the relative risk of exposure from oil spill impacts of coastal environments of the two States indicate that the risk to Florida ranges from approximately one half to two times as great as the risk posed to Texas. The risk of exposure analysis involves the calculation of oil spill stranding for the major impact areas (determined by oil spill trajectory analysis) for the two States involved. Near the SEADOCK deepwater port site, the reduction in tanker pollution event probabilities and the extensive clean-up capability*-proposed by the applicant tend to offset, in part, the difference in the potential for pollution events caused by the fewer number of tanker transits through the Straits of Florida than through the Yucatan Passage-- an estimated 10-20 percent of the total will transit the Straits. *Such an extensive cleanup capability is not presently known to be available to the State of Florida. Consideration could be given to rerouting these tankers through the Yucatan Passage, thus minimizing potential impact on the Florida environment. (b) Comparison between the two States of the value of vulnerable resources in the impact areas indicates that Florida has at risk 5 times as great a total value of recreation/fisheries resources and 15 times the value in major environmental amenities. To arrive at this comparison, the value and extent of selected coastal environmental resources vulnerable to oil within the impact area of each State have been tabulated and compared. These resources cover recreation, commercial fisheries, and environmental amenities. The extent of Florida's resource valuation within the impact area indi- cates that the potential for damage is significantly greater than that for Texas. (c) Comparing the relative risk of exposure and the relative value of vulnerable resources exposed indicates that Florida suffers a greater risk of damage from potential oil spills than Texas. In addition, it is concluded that any damage from non-risk activities in Texas (e.g., pipeline implacement, tank farm construction) is offset by the difference in expected damage from oil spills between the two States. 2 INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND On December 31, 1975, SEADOCK, Inc., applied to the Secretary of Transportation for a license to own, construct, and operate a deep- water port in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of the State of Texas. On February 4, 1976, the Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew, Governor of the State of Florida, petitioned the Secretary of Transportation to grant Florida adjacent coastal State (ACS) status for the SEADOCK project, pursuant to Section 9(a)(2) of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (the Act), 88 Stat. 2126, 33 USC 1501 -1524. On February 10, 1976, the Coast Guard notified the Administrator of NOAA that Florida had petitioned for ACS status and requested that the Administrator, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(a)(2), recommend whether the risk of damage to Florida's coastal environment is equal to or greater than the risk posed to the coastal environment of Texas. This document provides an analysis of the relative risk to the two States. B. SUMMARY OF SEADOCK PROJECT The proposed SEADOCK deepwater port would be located approximately 26 miles off the coast of Texas in 110 feet of water and would consist of: (1) a marine terminal consisting of four single point mooring (SPM) buoys and an operations platform (2) large diameter buried pipelines from the marine terminal to a storage facility 5 miles inland (3) an onshore tank farm storage facility. 3 A summary of the SEADOCK application for a deepwater port licens e is provided in Appendix A. C. SUMARY OF FLORIDA PETITION Florida's primary concern is the risk of damage posed to its coastal environment from tankers in transit off its coast to and from the SEADOCK deepwater port. Florida stresses the vulnerability to oil spills of its beach-related tourism which is a major economic activity, and the threat of such spills to its mangrove and marsh shorelines, coastal fisheries, and estuaries. A copy of the letter from the Governor of Florida requesting adjacent coastal State status is provided in Appendix B. D. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Section 9(a)(2) of the Act states that the Administrator of NOAA shall recommend to the Secretary of Transportation whether the risk of damage to the coastal environment of a State petitioning for ACS status is greater than or equal to the risk posed to the State directly connected by pipeline to the proposed deepwater port. Section 3(3) of the Act defines coastal environment to include "transitional and intertidal areas, bays, lagoons, salt marshes, estuaries, and beaches; the fish, and wildlife and other living resources thereof; and the recreational and scenic values of such lands, waters and resources." 4 In formulating its approach, NOAA considered several threshold issues of importance to the Section 9(a)(2) risk of damage analysis. Initial policy guidance was received from the U. S. Coast Guard, as lead agency under the Act, on December 2, 1975, in the form of a legal interpreta- tion of Section 9(a)(2) rendered by its Chief Counsel. In essence, that legal opinion stated that the Congressional intent behind Section 9(a)(2) mandated a thorough evaluation of all possible risks to th e coastal environment of the respective States under consideration including, but not limited to, oil spills occurring at the proposed deepwater port or within the safety zone. Moreover, that opinion also stated that a petitioning State could submit whatever evidence it desired to show the degree of risk posed to that State's coastal environment from the construction and operation of the proposed deep- water port and that such evidence would be considered by the Secretary of Transportation in making his designation. In response to a NOAA request of January 12, 1976, for further guidance and elaboration of policy, the U. S. Coast Guard advised, by letter dated January 20, 1976, that any risk of damage analysis should include, inter alia, an evaluation of the potential risk of damage occurring as a result of tankers in transit to and from the proposed deepwater port. Additionally, the Coast Guard reiterated its position that the Secretary of Transportation would consider evidence of any potential risk of damage to the coastal environment of a State which was raised by that State in its petition for "adjacent coastal State" status. On February 10, 1976, NOAA received a request from the U. S.. Coast Guard, pursuant to Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, for a recommendation from the Administrator of NOAA as to whether there was a risk of damage to the coastal environment of Florida equal to or greater than the risk posed to the respective States of Texas and Louisiana with respect to the SEADOCK and LOOP deepwater port applications.- -Along with its request, the U. S. Coast Guard forwarded Florida's petition for ACS status dated February 4, 1976, which stated that its "primary concern relates to tankers in transit off the coast of Florida to and from the proposed deepwater ports". As a result of the aforementioned guidance and application thereof to the State of Florida's ACS petition, NOAA determined it necessary to evaluate the potential risk of damage to the coastal environment of Florida which would result from tankers in transit off its coast. In this regard, if tankers in transit were not to be properly considered as an aspect of its risk of damage analysis, NOAA has determined that Florida could not qualify for designation as an -radjacent coastal State" pursuant to Section 9(a)(2) of the Act. As a corollary issue to its consideration of risk of damage posed by tankers in transit, it has been suggested that the State of Florida's concern is invalid because it would benefit from the construction and operation of deepwater ports in the Gulf of Mexico, due to the fact that such ports would reduce the number of-smaller tankers transitting the Florida Straits vis-a-vis the use of "supertankers". According to this line of reasoning, Florida receives an ultimate benefit from a reduction in tanker traffic, it is thus pre cluded from raising any claim of risk of damage to its coastal environment resulting from the construction and operation of deepwater ports in the Gulf of Mexico. After duly considering this argument, NOAA has determined that such an approach would be inappropriate. The environmental benefit from reducing the volume of small tanker traffic is one of the main justifications cited by Congress in support of the passage of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974. If one starts with this justification as a premise, the provisions of Section 91a)(2) can be viewed only as an additional environmental safeguard or mechanism for bringing affected States into the deepwater port decision-making process. Moreover, even if one were to assume that such a benefit should be considered in the Section 9(a)(2) risk of damage analysis, that section of the Act nonetheless requires that a comparative or relative analysis be conducted. Therefore, this approach would require an analysis of which State suffers a lesser benefit. Given the mandate of Section 9(a)(2), it is conceptually difficult to formulate a procedure to compare risk of damage between two States within this framework. The NOAA analysis there proceeds on the assumption that if tankers in transit are to be considered, logic dictates that any risk of damage analysis must be conducted in a manner that compares the risk -7- of damage to each respective State without attempting to include the benefits that generally accrue to the Nation as a result of the construction and operation of deepwaterports. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act speaks only in terms of comparing "risk of.-damage" and makes no reference to comparison of benefits. II. NOAA APPROACH TO ADJACENT COASTAL STATE RECOMMENDATION The NOAA approach focuses on risk of damage from oil spills posed both by operations at the deepwater port and by tankers in transit to the port. The methodology employed has the following framework: A. RISK OF EXPOSURE B. VULNERABLE RESOURCE ANALYSIS ANALYSIS C. RISK OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON The level of DWP activity used for the following analyses are for the period of peak DWP throughput-- 1990's; 726 tanker visits, per year; 4 million barrel per day throughput. The data on resource utilization are the the latest available statistics obtainable for the two States. A. RISK OF EXPOSURE ANALYSIS The risk of exposure from oil spills to th e coastal environment'is measured by the annual average amount of oil expected to reach the shore. The projection of risk of exposure considers the expectation of different spill sizes from oil tanker casualities, port operations, and pipeline failure, and the probability of the spill being tr ansported to a particular location. The analyses also include consideration of cleanup potential, average oil spill transit times, and meteorological conditions. -9- The methodology employed by NOAA to determine the average annual stranding of oil is similar to that used by the applicant (SEADO CK Environmental Assissment (EA) Chapter 5) and is discussed in Section III, A, below, along with results for the two States. B. VULNERABLE RESOURCE ANALYSIS Where possible, the value of the major vulnerable resources such as commercial fisheries, and coastal recreation is expressed in dollars. Not all values, however, may be expressed in economic terms. It is difficult to assign a dollar value to a mangrove swamp, a coral reef, or a coastal marsh. For these cases, the risk of damage is reflected by the recognition accorded certain environmental amenities such as parks and wildlife areas exposed to impact. For comparative purposes, a tabulation of vulnerable resources has been prepared,for the two States from qualified sources and is presented in Section III, B, below. C. RISK OF DAMAGE COMPARISON A comparison of risk of damage involves a comparison of both the relative risk of exposure to the.two States and the relative value of the resources vulnerable to damage from oil. A comparison of such relative risks for Florida and Texas is presented in Section III, C. It has been suggested by the U. S. Coast Guard that non-risk impacts from construction and operations (e.g., pipeline implaicement, platform construction, brine disposal) should be considered in comparing risk of damage. NOAA has included such considerations of these non-risk activities in its deliberations. _10- III. RISK OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS A. RISK OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS This section describes the analysis used to evaluate the risk of exposure from oil spills to the coastal environments of Florida and Texas. Risk of exposure involves potential accidents from oil tankers, terminal operations, pipelines, and storage terminals. The risk of exposure attributable to the operation of the proposed deepwater port (including tankers in transit to the port) is the annual average amount of oil expected to be stranded on beaches or in marshes or estuaries of a given impact area. The analytical methodology presented is similar to that used by SEADOCK, Inc. (the applicant) in preparing his Environmental Analysis (Chapter 5 of the SEADOCK Environmental Analysis (EA), and consists of four essential steps as shown below: Analysis of Expected Trajectory Analysis Impact 1. Frequency of Occurrence 3. Probabilities and Transit of a Polluting Event Times 4- 4- Spill Size/Frequency Risk Exposure Analysis (Annual) 2. Distribution Analysis 4. Average Expected Stranding of Oil for Impact Areas) Analysis of Expected Annual Frequency of Polluting Events The analytic procedures used in this section are similar to those appli ed by SEADOCK, in Section 5.2 of its Environmental Analysis. In determining the risk of exposure of oil stranding in Texas, SEADOCK, in its environmental analysis, selected the period of oil throughput in the late 1990's as follows: 726 tanker visits per year - 4 million barrels per day The subsequent analyses and comparisons are based upon such peak period conditions as they affect both Florida and Texas. (a) Tankers off Texas The analysis is presented below in stepwise fashion. Reference is made to Table 1 (for column notation below) and Chapter 5.2 of the SEADOCK, Inc., EA for comparison. A series of statistics on worldwide pollution event probabilities per vessel year is taken from the SEADOCK application as a starting point for this analysis (Column 1) (SEADOCK, Inc., EA Table 5.2-l'). These statistics are broken out for vessels in the 0-30,000 dwt (bunkering and service vessels) and :---70,000 dwt (tanker) classes which are the two categories of concern. The worldwide pollution event probability statistics (Column 1) are first.converted to those event probabilities that more truly represent a coastal or harbor condition as defined by the applicant for SEADOCK, Inc. The application of a multi- plier (Column 2a--fraction of accidents in coastal/harbor waters) and divisor (Column 2b--fraction of year vessel spen4s in coastal/harbor waters) constitutes this conversion factor (SEADOCK, Inc., EA, Table 5.2-2). This conversion yields coastal/harbor event probabilities (Column 3). -12- TABLE I Expected Frequency of Occurrence of a Polluting Event from Tankers off Texas @2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9). SEADOCK Worldwide Pollution Coastal/ Peak Period Event Harbor. Risk DWP Overall Ave. Annual Probability Coastal/Harbor Event Reduction Event Exposure spill Spill Oil Spill Casualty Mode Per Vessel Conversion Factor Frobab. 'Factor P,robab.- (Vessel- Freqq Size ExDectation Tr - -(Fvy) Years) (Annual' (bb1s) (bbls) 'Year Multi- Divis plier Collision 0-30,000dwt .00717 1.00 1.00 ,@.000717 *1350 .00097 6 0058 292 1.696 > 70,000dwt .00604 .72 .136 .03198 .0945 .00302 5.8 .0175 11,447 200.62 Sealane Collision .00604 072 ..136 .03198 .03198 3 .0096 11,447 109.82 Grounding 0-30,000dwt .00745 .45 .27 .01242 .0200 .00025 6 .0015 475 0.71 6.24. > 70,000dwt .00745 .45 .27 .01242 0200 .00025 5.8 .0014 4,331 Structural Failure .00186 .0111 24 .268 0-30,000dwt .00310 1.00 1.00 .00310 .6000 6 - > 70,000dwt .00887 .29 .194 .01326 .3000 -.00398 5.8 .0231 12,190 281.24 Ra=ing 0-30,000dwt .00157 1.00 1.00 00157 .3150 .0.0050 2 .0010 10 .01 > 70,000dwt .00177 .18 .3.94 .00164 .3150 .00052 5.8 .0030 1,336 4.03 Fire .00235 5.076 0-30,000dwt .00235 1.00 1.00 .00235 6 .0141 360 > 70,000dwt .00292 .73 .194. .01099 .3600 .00395 5.8 0295. 360 Explosion 6 .0150 2,490 37,35 0-30,000dwt .00250 1.00 1.00 .00250 .00250 > 70,000dwt .00174 .56 .194 .00502 .00502 5.8 .0291 13,814 402.21 Capsizing 6 0010 332 .339 .0-30,000dwt .00088 .32 .27 .00104 .01600 .00017 33.45 > 70,000 .00088 .32 .27 .00104 .1600 .00017 5.8 .0009 33,927 Breakdown 0-30,000dwt, .00110 .53 .27 .00216 .00216 6 .0130 3 .039 .00216 .00216 5.8 .0127 9 .109 > 70,000dwt .00110 .53 .27 Total ..1893 Total 1083,2 The applicant has calculated a "risk reduction factor" (Column 4) which should apply in the vicinity of his DWP and which essentially reduces the probability of accidents occurring in that area. These factors are based upon geography, DWP geometry, traffic control, regulation, and communications (SEADOCK EA, Section 5) Column 3 multiplied by Column 4 yields the SEADOCK pollution event probability per vessel year. The number of vessel years that will be exposed to the SEADOCK pollution event probabilities is calculated as follows (Column 6). (1) 726 tanker ( >70,000 dwt class) transits/ye ar 3 days/transit = 5.8 vessel years (2) Each tanker spends 4 hours in the sealane crossing 50 miles from SEADOCK and is particularly exposed to such risk = .3 vessel years In the above calculations, an additional collision risk is considered for the more catastrophic spills at the intersection of the DWP Fairway and the off- shore safety fairway 50 miles seaward of the DWP facility. A similar approach was used in the LOOP EA. (3) Six bunkering vessels (0-30,000 dwt class) full time at D14P = 6 vessel years. -14- @The average oil spill size for each casuality mode has been listed in the application (SEADOCK EA) and is reflected in Column 8. Column 7 multiplied by Column 8 yields annual oil spill expectation in bbls (Column 9). The expected annual frequency from this analysis is computed by summing Column 7 and is set forth below along with the annual expected oil spill in barrels. TEXAS Annual Spill Frequency .1893 Annual Oil Spill Expec tation (bbls) 1083 Tankers off Florida The same approach as utilized in (a), above also has been used to calculate annual oil spill frequency for Florida starting from the worldwide statistics. Four tables have been calculated because of the necessity to consider a range of vessel-exposure years. (See below.) Refer to Tables 2 4 forthe following: (1) The Straits of Florida is where the major tanker accident risk occurs and represents a coastal condition similar to that defined for offshore Texas; the Column 1 to Column 3 conversion is applied. (2) The risk reduction factor, that applies at the SEADOCK site, does not apply for Florida. (3) It is unclear as to the precise number of vessel years to which Florida will be exposed to a pollution casuality TABLE 2 Expected Frequency of Occurrence of a Polluting Event From Tankers Off Florida (.15 vessel'exposure-years) worlMde (2) (3) 5*)' (6) (7) rLORIDA Pollution Coactal/ Mk Period Event Harbor Overall Ave, Annual Probability Coastal/Harbor Event Exposure Spill. spin Oil Spill. Casualty Mode Per Vessel -Convertion Factor -Trobab. (Vessel- Treg,_ Size - rXtect tion Year Multi- Divisor MY) YeaFa-) nual-,' (bble) (bb1s) Collision > 70,000dwt 00604 972 0136 .03198 .15 .00479 11,447 54.9 Croundin3 > 70,000dwt .06745 45 *27 .01242 .15 .0018.6 4j331 811 Structural Failure > 70,000dwt 100887 *29 .0194 .01326 .15 ooigg 12,190 24.3 > 70,000dvt 00177 as .194 .00164 .15 .00025 It336 *3 'Fire 70,000dwt .00292 e73 .00165 360 .6 *194 ..,01099. .15 Explosion > 70,000dvt .00174 *56 9194 .00502 .15. .00075 3.398.t4 10.4 Capsizing > 70,000dwt 900088 932 47 .,00104.* i5 .00016 33t927 5.3 ;,Breakdovn >.70,000dwt 053 *27 .00216* .00032 0 Total .0118 103.9 TABLE 2 A Expected Frequency of Occurrence of a Pollutfng Event From Tankers Off Florldn (.30 vessel exposure yeijr@) Worl@,Udo (2) (3) (11) (11) (6) (7) FLORIDA roilution Coastal/ 1'calc Veriod - @ 1 rvent Ifarbor ' .. Overall Avel Annual Probability Coastal/Itarbor Event Exposure Spill. Spill Oil Spill Casualty Mode Pcr Vessel Conver ion Factor Probab.- (Vcsqcl- Freq, Size Ex2ectntion Year Multi- Divisor (M) Years) (Annual (bble) plier Collision > 70,000dwt .00604 M 1136 .03198 .30 .00959 11p447 109.8 Grounding > 70,000 dwt *00745 .45 .27 .01242 30 .00373 4,331 16.1' Structural Failure > 70.000dwt .00807 .29 9194 .03-326 30 00390 12,190 118.5 Rarming > 70,000dwt .00177 .18 9194 .00164 .30 X0049 1,336 .7 -14 Fire 70,000dwt 100292 .73 9194 :01099 .30 .00329 360 1.2*.' Explosion > 70,000dwt .00174 056 .194 ..00502 .30 .00151 13,*814 20.8 Capsizing > 70,000dwt .00088 .32 .27 .00104- .30 .00031 33,927 10.6 Breakdown > 70,000dwt .00110 53 .27 .00216 .30 .00065 9 0 Total 207.7 TABLE 3 Expected Frequency of Occurrence of a Polluting Event From Tankers off Florida (.41 vessel exposure years) WorlWide (2) (3) -(4*) (5) (6) (7) MORIDA Pollution Coastal/ Peak Period .* I Event R4rbor overall Ave, Annual Probability Coastal/Harbor Event Exposure Spill Spill oil Spill CasualtZ Mode Per Vessel- -Conversion Factor Probab. (Vessel- Freq, Size Expee ation Year Multi- Divisor (PVY) Ynars) (Annual: (bble) (bbis) Collision > 70,000dwt .00604 .72 9136 .03198 .41 .0131. nt447 150.07 Grounding > 70,000dwt 900745 .45 927 .01242 .41' ...0051* 4,331 22.05 Structural Failure > 70,000dwt .00887 .29 .194 .01326 .41 .0054 12,190 66.27 Raming > 70.,000dwt .00177 .18 .194 .0016.4 .41 .0007 1,336 .899 Fire > 70,000dwt .00292 .73 0194 .01099 .41 .0045 360 1.6@ Explosion > 70,000dwt .00174 .56 .194 ..00502 .41 .0021 13,814 28.45 Capsizing > 70,000dwt 000088 *27 .,00104 ;41 .0004 33t927 14.51 Breakdown > 70,00O.dwt 000110 53 *27 .00216 .41 .0009 9 .0079 Total .0322 281.9 TABLE 4 Expected Frequency of Occurrence of a rolluting Event From Tankers Off Florida (.55 vessel exposure years) Worl@'-'Ide (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) FLORIDA Pollution Coastal Peak Veriod Event Harbor Overall Ave, Annual Probability Coastal/Harbor Event Exposure Spill. Spill Oil Spill CAstInltX Mode Per Vessel Conver@sion Factor Probab.'@--- (Vessel- Freq, Size _ Expectation Year Multi- Divisor (PVY) Years) (Annual: (bbla) (bbla) Collision > 70,000dwt .00604 *72 .136 .03198 .55 .01.76 11,447 201.32 CroundinS > 70,000dwt .00745 .45 .27 .01242 .55 .0068 4,331 29.58 Structural Failure > 70,000dwt .00837 .29 .9194 .01326 .55 .0073 12,190 88.89 Raming > 70,000dwt .00177 .18 .194 .00164 .55 ooog 1,336 1.21 Fire 70,000dwt .00292 *73 9194 .01099 .55 .0060 360 2.18 Explosion > 70,000dwt .00174 156 *194 .00502 .55 .0028 13,814 38.16 Capsizing > 70,000dwt 400088 932 *27 .00104 i55 .0006 33,927 19.46 Breakdown > 70,000dwt 900110 M 927 .00216 .55 .0012 9 .01 Total .0432 3R0-8L risk. Moreover, there are conflicting estimates between the applicant and, among others, the USCG's independent contractor. This issue is further explained in Appendix C. The range of exposure values estimated by NOAA are presented below: At One Day Exposure Per Transit 55 transits *15 vessel years 110 transits .30 vessel-years 150 transits 41 vessel-years 200 transits .55 vessel-years (4) Overall spill frequency and annual oil spill expectation (Column 5 and 7) are calculated as in A. above. FLORIDA Exposure (vessel years) .15 .30 .41 .55 Annual Spill Frequency .0118 .0236 .0322 .0432 Annual Oil Spill Expectation (bbls) 104 208 284 381 2. Spill Size/Frequency Distribution Analysis This analysis generates a relationship between spill size (from catastrophic to minor) and frequency of occurrence--the total fre- quency summing to the value calculated in the previous section for Texas or Florida respectively. Input to this analysis is the overall frequency of polluting events calculated in Section III, Aj. The results of this analysis will be used in the estimation of the annual average expected stranding of oil in Section III, A,3. The SEADOCK frequency distribution analysis is further discussed in Appendix D. -20- SEADOCK SPILL SIZE/FREQUENCY DISTRIBUT-ION Size, barrels Spill Expectation (barrels) Annual Frequency 0-200 4 .026 200-500 9 .024 500-1,000 20 .02670 1-2 M 52 .03466 2-5 X 119 .03400, 5-10 221 .029470 10-20 14 319 .021270 20-50 m 291 .0008310 50-100 M 186 0002480 100-200 X 112 .0007.47 200-500 14 69 .00.0147 500-10000 H 39 .0*00052.. 1-2 124 22 ..000015 2-5 MH 11 .000003 1,474 .207904 The interpolated values for selected spill size classes are shown below (f rom Seadock, Inc., FKA, Page 5.2-19 and Table 5.5-5.). Spill Size Probabilities 120,000 - 100,000 13.2 E-4. 100,000 - 75,000 12.4 E-4 75,000 - '50,000 12.4 -E-4 50,000 - 25,000 6.9 * E-3 25,000 - 5,000 52.'2 E-3 52000 0 145.'0 B-3. Catastrophic 120,000 - 200,000 7.0 E-4 200,000 - 500,000 1.47 E-4 500,000 - I x 106 5.2 E-5 I x lo6 - 2 x 106 1.5. E-5 -21- TABLE 6 TEXAS tANKER SPILL FREQUENCIES Spill Category Orig.Frec,. Recalculated Texas (bbls) (Table 5) Quotient* -,.Spill Frequency 120-100 .13.2E-4 .911 12.OE-4 100- 75 12.4E-4 .911 11.3E-4 75- 50 12.4E-4 .911 11.3E-4 50- 25 6.9E-3 .911 6.3E-3 25- 5 52.5E-3 .911 47.8E-3 5- 0 1.45E-1 .911 1.3E-1 120-200 6.OE-4 .911 5.4E-4 200-500 1.5E-4 .911 1.3E-4 500- 106 5.2E-5 .911 4.7E-5 lxlo6_2xlO6 1.5E-5 .911 1.3E-5 *Quotient Recalculated SEADOCK Frequency .1893 .9105 Original SEADOCK Frequency .2079 -22- TABLE 7a FLORIDA.TANKER SPILL FREQUENCIES Low Exposure 55 Tankers/yr Spill Category Orig. Freq Recalculated Florida (bbla)- (Table 5) Quotient* Spill Frequency 120-100 13.2E-4 .0568 .75E-4 100- 75 12.4E-4 .0568 .70E-4 75- 50 12.4E-4 .0568 .70E-4 50- 25 6.9E-3 .0568 3.9E-4 25- 5 52.5E-3 .0568 2.98 5- 0 1.45E-1 .0568 8.2E-3 120-200 6.OE-4 .0568 3.4E-5 200-500 1.5E-4 .0568 8.5E-6 500- 106 5.2E-5 .0568 2.9E-6 1Xl06-2xl06 1.5E-5 .0568 8.5E-6 Florida Frequency .0118 *Quotient Original SEADOCK Frequency .2079 0568 -23- TABLE 7b FLORIDA TANKER SPILL FREQUENCIES Low Exposure - 110 Tankers/yr. Spill Categor-y Orig. Freq. Recalculated Florida (bbls) ---(Table 5) .--Quo-t.i nt* Spill Frequency 120-100 13.2E-4 .1135 1. 49 E-4 100- 75 12.4E-4 .1135 1.4E-4' 75- 50 12AE-4 .1135 IAE-4 50- 25 6.9E-3 .1135 7.8E-4 25- 5 52.5E-3 .1135 5.95 5- 0 1.45E-1 .1135 1.6E-2 120-200 6.OE-4 .1135 6.8E-5 200-500 1.5E-4 .1135 1.7E-5 500- 106 5.2E-5 .1135 5.9E-6 1XIO 6_2xlO6 1.5E-5 .1135 1.7E-6 Florida Frequency .0236 *Quotient .1135 Original SEADOCK Frequency .2079 -24- TABLE 7c FLORIDA TANKER SPILL FREQUENCIES Medium Exposure 150 Tankers/yr. Spill Category Orig. Freq. Recalculated.Florida (bbls)- (Table 5) Quotient* Spill Frequency 120-100 13.2E-4 .1545 2.OE-4 100- 75 12.4E-4 .1545 1.9E-4 75- 50 12AE-4 .1545 1.9E-4 50- 25 6.9E-3 .1545 1.1E-3 25- 5 52-5E-3 .1545 8JE-3 5- 0 1.45E-1 .1545 2.2E-2 120-200 6.OE-4 .1545 9.2E-5 200-500 1.5E-4 .1545 2.3E-5 500- 106 5.2E-5 .1545 8.OE-6 lxlo6-2xlo6 1.5E-5 .1545 2.3E-5 Flotida.Frequency .0236 *Quotient Original SEADOCK Frequency .2079 1135 25- TABLE 7d FLORIDA TANKER SPILL FREQUENCIES High Exposure 200 Tankers/yr. Spill Category Orig. Freq. Quotient* Recalculated Florida (bbls) (Table 5) Spill Frequency 120-100 13.2E-4 .2078 2.7E-4 100- 75 12AE-4 .2078 2.58E-4 75- 50 12.4E-4 .2078 2.58B-4 50- 25 6.9E-3 .2078 1AE-3 25- 5 52.5E-3 .2078 10.9E-3 5- 0 1.45E-1 .2078 3.OE-2 120-200 6.OE-4 .2078 1.2E-4 200-500 1.5E-4 .2078 3.1E-5 500- 106 5.2E-5 .2078 I.IE-5 lxl06-2xl06 1.5E-5 .2078 3AE-6 Florida Frequency .0432 *Quotient 2078 Original SEADOCK Frequency .2079 The SEADOCK distribution is presented in The distributions of spill frequencies vs. spill size for both Texas and Florida have been determined by assuming a proportional relationship. The fre- quencies vs. spill size for both Texas and Florida have been determined by assuming a proportional relationship. The frequencies used in this analysis have been determined by multiplying the quotient of recalculated SEADOCK or Florida overall frequency over the original SEADOCK"frequency (.2079) times the original SEADOCK frequency table. The results for both Texas and Florida are presented in Tables 6 and 7a-d. 3. Oil Spill Trajectory Analysis Trajectory analyses are essential for estimating areas of coastline exposed to potential impact and the average times it takes oil to reach selected sectors of the coast. The designation of impact area is important for the subsequent evaluation of the exposure of vulnerable resources. The computation of average times to spill impact is important for estimating the amount of oil that can be cleaned up, where such clean-up capabilities exist. The results of trajectory analyses for both Texas and Florida are presented below. (a) Texas The SEADOCK EA contained trajectory analyses for spills at the DWP site which indicated that spills would reach the coast 95 % of the time and impact on area from Port Arthur to Corpus Christi. The SEADOCK, Trajectory Analysis procedures and results are fully discussed in Appendix E. NOAA trajectory analyses of oil spills at the SEADOCK site -27- Alkiii ffTi1TMjrffflrM-i 5 fff I -[,I Fig. 1 COASTAL IMPACT AREA STATE OF TEXAS He@ont ie-z Orange CAUTION -46, 3Cr- Port Ant oil well structures exist in the water t TR ey West. Florida. to Brazos Santiago. A 11:@- (KXYZ) R Sn ie wells are submerged and capped. Houston 1320 kHz "t" I---$ ,n the 1 1000 scale range (outlined 8) 1@ R R Tr d I 80.C sca'e series charts for (KIKK) a 650 kHz 11 ir ace -;e -@nd -veils submerg@,-d 11 14 e ..4 9. ,nOre. .3, na ;Igation and safety GA.LVES e.;s Mai c- -3-@ed by ;ighted or un- 171 ROX WHISTLE RoRf 29 fA Fl 14 M T le,12 V , - 1 .1 .,* to- 12 -341 0. PA 12 A 2 .@4 11-3 W 0i 191, 1&* 13 .p 13@ 4* --P A -.+.. A 0 L 12 6Y C/S P.m L&-c& 15 - io@0 C. 16 18 16 it TA 0 0 SEADOCK 18 fe 14 Q -L- . . ..:-4*-------41---,--- @---..2 - - 12 17 @@Porto'c-or stA .-- -- -- 21 25 12 Af 22 26 28 F1 2 -% I 18 IS -;7 `21 14 UA,,1P,'1VG C/ 12 32 aw Ma i1A) WHIS i C1 Bank 27- GROUvv OLYP 13" 1. 1 --580 - ,1 36 P.Re" 22 25 27 Af 35 AA Ifs@@ nore Al 40 17 23 1-28 16 36 Roc P. 4- 13 5 31 -53 -28 6i . ..... V :28 Z@ 31 58 65 _ -- - ]@Y 33 -415: 60 10+1 cc- coapvs 17 28 --0-9 ----- CRR,r T 4 co Sh 75 0 -- ---- 170 RO f% jh H.@ 31 12 78 W 27 147 f co 3.,1 73 136 &G 16 j f@s) 01. "1 340 22---- .1.41 @en 31 66 230 L 1 13 -. f@,) ... 330 520 416- =455- 450 207- Sh 60 '10 'Y .22 30 300 410 DjV@)@,V'T@@RSEA 1 .1 -- - -11 -el DISUSED --._455 250 17 39 74 -:"490 t3- 400 229 610 27 540 -560- 63 --,,106 620 32-00 49; 710"-,, 3 -- 17 :; @1@i. Ir DLIAfP'vo ARfA 0 325 25 35: 70 231 L4 796-11 8"- @27:_ 15 381 1075,- '-210 - -@@ 'm - - @-40--:--- 645 8410 88 690 24 75 ;I 1--@ - - , 16 39 .31f 11300 @7 615 270 (s@@ caution note) .9 to 1800 410 56G--'- -23--@ 13 @- i@ AO,.F @4 870 61o 31@ 960 > 27 891 1105., 1269 21 45 740 A, 860 ----775 860 920,-1. .. . .......... f P A 25 ....... vo J000-11 ... Af 3"o 350X- 14 121 44 755 too 1500 .3-3- 174 -3415 t 1-@IIA l 940 -.1 1 1 @,- 1 till V0, ... .. 124@ 1250 \ o 0 M 590 :100. F1 23m, 7.@ ... 3 6--, - V % 441: R 8@ 9@- bo %IV 'j-11-1,?"NOAA 3!--- d 24 i 275 '---26 C", M 11907) n, d@! .411 (formerl GS y C& 33 J400 -Jol 28 confirm in-general, the results in the SEADOCK, Inc., EA and are presented in Appendix F. The designated impact area for Texas is depicted in Figure 1. (b) Florida There are two major considerations in modeling trajectories in the Straits of Florida: (1) conflicting information on tanker routes, and (2) the extreme velocities and horizontal velocity gradients and unpredictable small-scale current meandering and spin-off eddies that characterize the coastal portion of this area where tankers tend to transit. Based upon information.in the application and discussions with several independent sources, the most likely routes for tankers transitting to and from LOOP, Inc., have been plotted and are shown in Figure 2 (see also Appendix C). NOAA analytic procedures, data input, selection of representative spill sites, and results are presented in Appendix F. NOAA has determined that an oil spill along the tanker route inside tlie axis of the Gulf Stream, between Biscayne Bay and Key West, will impact the coast 50% of the time, with an average transit time of 3 days. The impact area that NOAA has designated for further analysis is depicted in Figure 3. 29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - miss. LOUISIANA TEXAS lot New 0 6 FLORIDA, SEADOCK Tampa ............... pro 1 14 W Po t 4,r,, 0 212 IQ 10 C"j-f old ch, 0 . t,A let cQ rULF OF MEXICO Oid, 0 0, @t,66.0 0 ULF STREA14 0.7 Figure 2 h02 ALTERNATE TANKER ROUTES TO AND FROM SM-OCK Bad. @4.v z ...... 9.1c, m.- to G. AtLss .; PIL.t C4.%s A IP C..#Pat A..,(- W.A- ..d J-#h Aol..V: 04..ft 0 (formerly C&GS 1007) Rot. V'1497* 285'. 0 Ei&G AR: 2 Fig. 31 COASTAL IMPACT AREA Vera 193vach f73,' 56 22M AERO A40 tA ft Rot. W&G Bradenton Fort Pierce STATE OF FLORIDA 52 'I 13---,,j290 S--AA -S 310 233 C/ Okeechobee I . .; +521 SWart --I@@; Station Venice R.t.w & C@po St Alet -,20 AERO PA 41 @)7 2 \Rot W&G+j) J.; n.9, N Lake " tN- 2. '2) PD F Anta, G 01-da. Okeechobee st "ie Jupit Gq_@@ 51 1 @Fllme 41 @y ]@@ 13 2." 120 he Cona co hate I t q; caloosa --pah.ke ELI 7 0 h 303, 12 r" Clewiston W, 324 '4@-C. 1-1 asp Ip Wreck -t-_- AEROest0 Fort'Myers 356 :::@7 5 17 13 -%- ' 13 AERO ..."10 -- 0 AERO R Bn RotW&G 1: 227 297 DelrayBeach 16 PA 12 '/90C 31 Cha7rt'-19 25 P PA F123M '281 11 7 vA 14 Re0 3 350 420 % 0 AERORBn Ft.LauderdalI -'q@ 201 eIles 28 17 AERO@!Z',@@ orr - tw&d16 --n\ 23: I 'Ro 31 6071\ Rptl 7): Hd &a04-51. 2f Rr"EB,37 051VES,1 Rot W& G CO +371 'W AAE10 C@ F/ P) 20t. 3% ERO j? Ar,-* *G F@en@W- City b, 40 11"105 DUMPIN 22115 CE ROMANO` AR,fA +071, AERO R Sn AREA 365.7-. 1%4R T, c"" 423- ,1423,@ Bi- 5% n, -j @2 C E FLORIDA 00 R Co Sh R R TRS CWRIZ) 1550 kHz; -.,- 19 F- IF@3m F:1 F1 (2) 2R SEC i 481G --ey 13 1.'1211, .-\:4 . -6 --'I@A3 J* -ji - C. 15', M 12 %%ice-terBay 45 '?w-9 Af 4@ @4 23 4VAL 19 ERA T1' F, ;Cb, Obt Reel' Go Ft[3 R's CV1-372 cR 445 rRAIN&C AR4@ /51 jj@ 1204.95) CAPE SE 15 n, 0 Lt 365 21 C@C- -C i If +261 +221 -Z@ 1. 47 @j-- JS50 (see note A) 9M 142 A' 454 Al 25 1B +24-3 F! f@,,@41 61* 148 @.z 443 is Z0 Y, FPS 11 4Q 13 \AERO 23\11 17 230 116 162' 340', 223 TV F1 @O@A - 1. -, : 468 08 4 @4@6 7 ,"I/S.! 14 PA--- 41 1350 3 125 7- 1k Go. I C',2 441 6:@(, - i 460 1i To.K v I X-1. -V 19 12 jr? - 0 @:451 63 cc 202j1 02 -4-10- @A-c@ R 366 Ra 94 -j -G W4@@- 430 113 8 146 1 12 7 124 1051 t1.971) 136 370 70 47 355093 330- 2 134 1 4 282- 310 -- < 12' 0 ;5 370 333 fS 372 375'@ 459 Re 9 6 7) @rPLOSIVES r 371 404 .S DUMPING I I 1 435 343 450 437 @@2ALRL4477 DISUSED 517 385 2L ;PERA T@i 350 3 291 04 -613 4 NING A PEA % 626 421 CAjYSL 5r 681 V +1 (2G4 9 AS 202 is b"';pIng Ground Bj A X K 656 C 338 ay 54 'e-2T6 6 4 '205 80 (see note,A) 873 907 871 ISUSED 767 644. 115 310@@366'5 0- -)- 594 losi, 9V lkiw 685 3c, S 723 - 301 6 902 50- ot 1118 I G 50 762 0@ c1le, S321 328 57 v' I f@k's! va Go V,.tls 12 '612 A 14 2 40 3,@-; C, 1 56 5 10 481 1,, 362 -41 56E@\C' @31 -ei- --- It"s ec .r V2-'@ 6 10 -@Z-160 to C R. M AS TS 31 4. Risk of Exposure Analysis This section combines the spill size/occurrence frequency results from Section 2 with the results from Section 3. above, along with other information to compute the expected average amount of oil reaching the coastline annually. After an oil spill has occurred, it may (1) be transported either to the coast or offshore, (2) be cleaned up prior to reaching the coast, and/or (3) evaporate, dissolve, or other- wise be removed. The applicant has presented his own analysis of these events which NOAA, for the purpose of this comparison has accepted.* In addition, NOAA has undertaken risk analyses of oil spills reaching the coast (stranding) for the Straits of Florida using the average impact times and frequency of impact resulting from the trajectory analysis discussed above. A summary of the risk of exposure analysis for conditions off both the Texas and Florida coasts is presented below: (a) Texas The procedure for the risk of exposure to oil spill stranding applied by SEADOCK, Inc., in its Environmental Analysis and *(The SEADOCK risk of exposure analysis is based upon an overall spill frequency of .2079. NOAA has recalculated this value to be .1888. The average annual expected stranding of oil calculated by SEADOCK therefore overestimates the amount actually expected.) -32- 'results are provided in Appendix G. This analysis combines the following factors: (1) The frequency (percent time) that the wind is in a given sector (octant) and the frequency that the wind in that octant is in a given speed group; (2) The chance that a spill of the given size occurs (from both tankers and other port-related activities, the latter provided by the applicant); (3) A spill class averaging factor which accounts for the fact that the spill conditions are determined by the largest spill in the size interval. The amount of oil expected at stranding for each spill class is computed using average transit times and the applicant's estimate of clean-up potential (SEADOCK EA, Table 5.5-2). These results are as follows: TEXAS Expected Annual Average Oil Stranding 103 barrels* (b) Florida The Florida analysis has been undertaken in a manner similar to that for SEADOCK and is presented in Appendix H. Unlike the Texas situation, the stranding of oil can occur anywhere along the coast from Key West/Dry Tortugas to Miami, based upon assumed tanker routes. NOAA has not attempted to localize where stranding might occur, but rather, it has taken the results to represent an average annual expected stranding within the impact area. -33- The results of the Florida analysis are summarized below: I Exposure (bbls) Vessel All Spill 75% Spill Transits/Year Ashore Ashore 55 56 42 110 113 85 150 154 115 200 207 155 *(75 bbls from SEADOCK EA plus 28 bbls from NOAA analysis of catastrophic spills at the fairway intersection. Subject to downward revision.) 5. A Comparis.on-of Exposure Between Texas and Florida. The expected exposure in bbls from Section 4(a) and 4(b) Tex as and Florida respectively) can be compared as a ratio. Florida.Exposure Texas Ratio (times as Range (bbls) Exposure.(bbls) great to Texas) 43 207 103 2.40 50 -34- B. COMPARISON OF VULNERABLE RESOURCES To compare the vulnerable resources of the two States, "impact areasit were delimited using the trajectory analyses described above. The impact areas are depicted in Figures I & 3. The general environmental characteristics of the areas are described below, as are selected resources in the areas that are vulnerable to damage by spilled oil. 1. Texas Impact Area The Texas impact area extends from Port Arthur to Corpus Christi. The area measures 200 statute miles along the territorial boundary, and consists primarily of the barrier islands separating the Texas bay system from the Gulf of Mexico. With the exception of the immediate vicinities of Houston-Galveston and Corpus Christi, the impact area is not extensively developed. The Texas bay system consists of an interconnected series of shallow and highly productive bays and estuaries that serve as habitats and nursery areas for many species of commercial and recreational importance. The bays are effectively separated from open waters of the Gulf by the barrier islands, however, and the major effects of oil spills will likely be realized on the seaward beaches of the islands rather than in the bays. 2. Florida Impact Area The Florida impact area extends from Ft. Pierce to Key West, ,a distance of approximately 260 statute miles as measured along the territorial sea limit, and also includes that- _35- portion of the Florida coast surrounding Everglades National Park. The impact area contains small islands, beaches, coral reefs, bays, seagrass beds, estuaries, and extensive coastal marshes. The waters within the impact area are inhabited by a variety of organisms of economic and aesthetic importance, and commercial and recreational harvesting of finfish and shellfish in the region is a major industry. The impact area includes the highest valued coastal properties in Florida, and tourism in the region forms a major segment of the State's economy. 3. Resource Comparison To compare risk of damage from oil spill stranding between two areas, one must compute not only risk of exposure but also the extent and value of the resources vulnerable to oil damage. NOAA selected for comparison three coastal resource categories that encompass the major portion of the vulnerable resource base for the two States. Recreation Commercial Fisheries Environmental Amenities The categories selected here do not include all economic and environmental resources available in the coastal areas under consideration, but do include those resources considered to be most susceptible to oil spill damage. -36- (a) Recreation All recreation that depends on the marine environment could be affected by an oil spill. NOAA selected for comparison three recreation activities that it considers to be most vulnerable to oil damage and to represent the major proportion of recreational activity in exposed sections of the two States: beach use, boating and sportfishing. While other recreational areas could be included in this analysis, NOAA considers that the overall comparison of vulnerable resource values would not be significantly altered by doing so. A discussion of the recreational resources, data sources and values used here is presented in Appendix H. User-occasion statistics for the Florida and Texas impact areas for each of the recreational activities are presented below: 1975 User-Occasions Florida Texas Beach 100,389,000 8,296,700 Boating 28,233,000 3,204,361 Sportfishing 24,399,000 7 786,000 -37- Values of user-occasions for each of the recreational activities were also compiled, and,average values used in subsequent calculations are as follows: Range of User Average Day Valuations Valuation Beach $3.50/4.00 3.75 Boating $11.59/20.00 15.80 Sportfishing $21.00/22.16 21.58 Using the average of the above user-occasion values, the estimated value of the selected recreational resources for 1975 for the two States are: Florida ($) Texas ($) Beach use 376,458,750 31,112,625 Boating use 446,081,400 50,628,904 Sportfishing use 526,530,420 168,021,880 Total $1,349,070,570 $249,763,409 (b) Commercial Fisheries NOAA realizes that all fishery resources may be vulnerable to damage by oil spills--standing stocks, nursery areas, .and the food chains that support commercially important species. In the geographical areas of concern, however, it was possible to identify commercial fisheries resources particularly vulnerable to oil spill damage. These include stocks that are either confined to bay, 3 8'-- estuarine or marsh habitats, or confined to vulnerable nearshore habitats such as coral reefs. To estimate the overall value of vulnerable commercial fisheries resources, landing values of selected stocks in each of the two impact areas were chosen as representative of the most vulnerable aspect of the commercial fishery resource. Landing values for each of the impact areas are given in Table 8 and are summarized below. 1974 Landing Values Florida Texas Selected Vulnerable Stocks $22,449,600 $45,878,500 The total 1974 landing values for Texas and Florida are presented in Appendix I. (c) Environmental Amenities Recreational activities and commercial fisheries have values that can be expressed in dollars. To provide an index for non-commensurate values for the two impact areas, certain environmental amenities were selected for consideration that are particularly vulnerable to oil damage, and that represent areas or biological populations designated by authorities as unique. These amenities include State and national parks, wildlife areas, sanctuaries and preserves and recognized endangered species. _39-. TABLE 8 Selected Vulnerable Commercial Fisheries Landed within Impact Areas Texas Florida Species lbs landed value lbs landed $ value Pink shrimp . n/s2 --- 11,230,500 7,459,200 White shrimp 103"054,000 13,561,300 n/s Brown shrimp 22$249,200 30,010,700 n/s Blue crabs 6$062,900 829,400 40,600 @5,100 Oysters 1,240,400 14-112,000 n/s --- spotted sea trout 1,101,100 365,100 163,500 64,400 Spiny lobster --- --- 10,743,600 12,428,600 Scamp, groupers n/s --- 957s7OO 336,300 Snappers n/s --- 1,472,600 577,600 Sponges --- 18,300 55,900 Mullet n/s --- ls208,100 148s6OO King mackerel n/s 4,367$600 ls373,900 Total selected resources in dollars. 45,878$500 22,449,600 11974 landings. 2Not significant. 40- Public areas exposed to oil damage in the impact areas are presented in Table 9. The Federal category includes lands such as national parks, monuments and wildlife areas. The State categories include holdings such as parks, recreation areas and wilderness'areas. The Florida State land total does not include acreages for several State aquatic preserves located in the impact areas as values were not available. The State land total for Texas includes the area of a planned State park that may be developed for public use in the near future. Exposed State and Federal Lands in Florida and Texas (expressed in acres) Florida Texas Federal 1,561,821 53,233 State 73,503 56,278 Total 1,635,324 109,511 The Federal holdings in Florida are located at seven different sites, while those for Texas occupy four localities. State holdings for Florida represent 15 localities, and State holdings for Texas occupy seven different locations.. -41- Table 9 . State and Federal Lands in Florida and Texas Vulnerable to Damage by Oil Spills Florida Federal Holdings State Holdings Acres Acres Biscayne NM 103,865 John Pennekamp Coral Everglades NP 1,400,633 Reef SP 55,012 Fort Jefferson NM 47,125 St. Lucie Inlet SP 928 Great White Heron NIVR 2,764 Jonathon Dickinson SP 10,284 Hobe Sound NWR 773 Bahia Honda SRA 276 Key Deer NWR 4,642 Bill Braggs Cape Key West NWR 2,019 Florida SRA 900 Broward Beach SRA 244 Ft. Pierce Inlet SRA 338 Long Key SRA 966 Pepper Park SRA 1,002 Hugh Taylor Birch SRA 180 Indian Key SHS 115 Lignumvitae SBS 550 Turkey Point WA 2,500 Bahia Honda EEL prop. 37 Fisher Island EEL prop. 180 Total 1,561,821 Total 73,503 Total Florida State and Federal Holdings: 1,635,3241 Texas Aransas NWR 28,254 Sabine Pass SHS 25 San Bernard NWR 10,086 Sea-Rim SP 15,109 Brazoria NWR 5,863 Galveston Island SP 1,921 Anahuac NWR 9,030 Bryan Beach SRA 509 Matagorda Island Sp2 30,000 J. D. Murphree SWMA 8,407 Goose Island SP 307 Total 53,233 Total 56,278 Total Texas State and Federal Holdings: 109,511 IThis total does not include the following Florida State Aquatic Preserves, for which no acreage values were available: Biscayne Bay, Coupon Bight, Lignumvitae Key, Indian River--Vero Beach to Ft. Pierce, Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet. 2Planned State Park @N=National Monument; NP=National Park; NWR=National Wildlife Refuge; SP=State Park; SRA=State Recreation Area; SHS=State Historical Site; SBS=State Botanical Site; WA=Wilderness Area; EEL=Environmentally Endangered Land. -42- The Federally-recognized endangered species occupying coastal areas of Florida and Texas that are likely to be damaged by spilled oil ara ligtnd in TAbIts- 10, and brief summaries of the survival status of the organisms are provided in Appendix J. Rough estimates of the degree of damage populations of the se organisms inhabit- ing the impact areas could suffer from oil spills are also indicated in Table 10. Species mentioned in the table as having a potential for catastrophic damage are limited in distribution entirely to small sections of the impact areas, and have life habits and reproductive cycles that are wholly dependent upon segments of the coastal marine ecosystem that could be heavily damaged by an oil spill. Survival of those species would be jeopardized by oil spills in that a heavy spill could possibly extirpate the sole remaining reproductive populations of the species. The group of endangered species considered here does not include all endangered species o ccupying southern Florida and southeastern Texas, nor does it include migratory endangered species known to pass through the general regions of the impact areas at different times of the year. The endangered species mentioned here are @43@ .-.1 organisms whose primary habitats, either permanently or only during reproductive seasons, are limited to sections of the Texas and Florida coasts that are highly vulnerable to oil spill damage. Entire popula- tions of these species could be damaged or destroyed by a major oil spill. Although spilled oil could kill individuals of migratory species such as the peregrine falcon that appear periodically in the impact areas, it is doubtful that loss of a few individuals would profoundly effect the reproductive status of the remain- ing populations of the species. It is also doubtful that spilled oil would seriously affect the survival status of endangered species whose feeding and reproduc- tive habitats are restricted to inland sections of the impact areas, hence such organisms are not considered here. Five species of whales recognized as endangered inhabit Florida waters, and occasionally appear in offshore sections of the Florida impact area. Although little is known about the effects of spilled oil on whale populations, whales are mentioned here in that oil spills could be harmful to those present in offshore Florida waters. -44- Table 10 Endangered Species Vulnerable to Oil Spills, Florida and Texas Impact Areas Critical Distribution Area Organism Florida Texas Red wolf Recently extinct L-M Brown pelican S S Leatherback turtle C Not Present Atlantic ridley Not Present C Florida manatee S M American alligator L-M L-M Southern bald eagle M-S M-S American crocodile C Not Present, Key deer L Not Present Key Largo woodrat* L Not Present Key Largo deermouse* L Not Present Whooping crane Not Present C *Species presently candidates for Federal endangered status. Degree of vulnerability to spill oil: L=light; M=moderate; S=severe; C=catastrophic. -4s- It should also be mentioned that at least one semienclosed bay in the Florida impact area serves as a winter :habitat for large flocks of different kinds of ducks and other migratory water birds. Major oil spills in the immediate vicinity of the Florida rafting and roosting areas could damage or destroy entire flocks of game birds. 4. Relative Value of Vulnerable Environmental Resources. The ratios of the values of the selected vulnerable resources are presented below: FLA/TEXAS RATIO RESOURCE (Times as Great for Florida) Total Commensurate Recreation 5 Beach Use 12 0 Boating Use 9 Sportfishing 3 Commercial Fishing .5 Total Non-Commensurate 15 Parks and other designated areas (acreage) -46- C. RISK OF DAMAGE The relative risk of damage may be estimated by computing the product of the relative risk of exposure (Exposure Ratio) to relative value of vulnerable resources exposed (Resource Value Ratio). The Exposure Ratio and Resource Value Ratio of the two impact areas are shown below: Exposure Ratio (from A.5)* Resource Value Ratio (Times as Great for Florida) (Times as Great for Florida) .42 2.0 Commensurate 5 Non-commensurate 15 *Inverse of Ratio in Section III, A.5 The product of the exposure and resource value ratio, for both commensurate and non-commensurate values, are greater than one for the full range of exposure conditions considered: Commensurate (.42 - 2.0) x 5 = 2.1 - 10 Non-commensurate (.42 - 2.0) x15 = 6.3 - 30 -47- IV. CONCLUSION The NOAA analysis indicates that the risk of damage posed to the coastal environment of Florida is from 2.1 to 10 times as great as the risk of damage posed to the coastal environment of Texas for commensurate values and 6.3 to 30 times as great for non-commensurate values. In addition, NOAA has considered the potential damage from non-risk activities in Louisiana (e.g., pipeline implacement, tank farm construction) and has concluded that any unavoidable adverse impacts will not offset the difference in expected damage from oil spills between the two States. -48- APPENDICES A. DESCRIPTION OF SEADOCK, INC., PROPOSED DEEPWATER PORT B. FLORIDA ADJACENT COASTAL STATE PETITION C. SEADOCK TANKER ROUTES D. SPILL SIZE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS E. SEADOCK TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS F. NOAA TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS G. STRANDINGANALYSIS H. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES I. ANNUAL SUMMARY OF C01,21ERCIAL FISH LANDINGS (1974) J. ENDANGERED SPECIES K. NON-RISK IIVACTS APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTION OF SEADOCK, INC., PROPOSED DEEPIVATER PORT S E A D 0 C K LOCATION: 28" 30' 31 .1 950 161 '591, W APPRox,' 26 STATUTE MILES SOUTH of* FREEPORT., TEXAS VIATER DEPTH: -100 FEET CAPABLE OF HANDLING 50010'000 YN'T TANKERS THRUPUT: 2':5 MILLION BBLS/DAY (MAXIMUM 4 MILLION BBLS/DAY) DESCRIPTION: I WI F I NA L PUMPING AND OPERATIONS PLATFORM FOUR SINGLE POINT MUORIliGs (ULTIMATE CONFIGURATION - 6 spm's) 52 1: PIPELINE CONNECTING EACH SNI TO PUMPING PLATFORM @IPFI-INF TO SHOE Two 52" BURIED PIPELINES - 31. M.lLES (ULTIMATE CONFIGURATION 3 52" P IPELINES) ONE 6?' LIQUID FUEL PIPELINE RAL ON IORE TER011,1 28 TANKS 22 MILLION BARREL TOTAL CAPACITY A-1 Lake Charles ri Beaumonto @s Texas Port Arthuro" 13 HOLIStO-11 0 Ij p 50 ft. Frecr,,ort Victoriao V Cor us OKL TEXAS LA. Figure 1 Seadock ProjeCt Location p S ,urc, ""th Po',@ I @mn wfim :MLA A-2 -t-tn- t- I: D"! r F S! L )CI (- u1i Fj C L I K E N S I r A R K J1 pp.1so c 106 Ilk !...... ...... A, J2' . . ........ I 'All AND SALTCRASS OLNEY N@i 1 3 1,; FIGU'@'E 2-1B WO'ER QUALITY SURVEY LOUMONIS, OWES CREEK, JULY 10, M175. A-3 \n A t Oy., 4 -OP -T ;'Y FTY KA@RW T--A W! 2.1 Nji@ TOJAi@ W!H T t -T (SAF.1Y ZI&- I? c ro, RA1,1u, > G=EsTcW AREA DRAZOSAREA XT co! SM wc; 4 PCRT AVIA sr, 0,10CO' RADUS CENTERLINE rF MARINE 'r PIPEL@%Es t I vy. 2G4,468 k LAT 26-,0 31" Y@ 303.332 4 -)C,3.143,590 -@F, E FACILITY LAT 28- 52'pl' LONG 9j, 25 35"\ AREA CENTMINE X:3,142,377 OF CNShORE Y 39C,455 RM.1NES LAT. 28- 52' 3r THIS DRAWING REDUCED X. 3,141.288 LONG 95'25'46* NOT TO Y, @1,97.888 LAT 28*52*47" FiG,;RE H-i LONG 9V2V5V X.3,139.363 OFFSHORE TRACTS CROSSED BY Y. 416.466 SEADOCK FACILITICS,THAT ARE LAT. 20-Z43" UNDER LEASE BY OTHERS LONG. 95* 26'Ge APPENDIX B. FLORIDA ADJACENT COASTAL STATE PETITION STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF GOVERNOR REUBIX O'D. ASKEW February 4, 1976 Rear Admiral R. 1. Price .United States Coast Guard Chief, Office of Marine Environment and Systems Room 7302-A Nassif Building 400 Seventh Street.Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Admiral Price: On January 26, 1976 the United States Coast Guard published notice in the Federal Register of two applica- tions for proposed deepwater ports in the Gulf of Mexico., Designation of thes& applications as "complete" initiated the process for their ultimate acceptance or rejection. The two proposed ports are SEADOCK off Freeport, Texas, and LOOP off the Louisiana coast. In accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, 33 U.S.C. 1504(c)(1), and 33 CPR 148.217, 1 am requesting "adjacent coastal state" designation for the State of Florida in both of these applications. Florida's primary concern relates to tankers in transit off the coast of Florida to and from the proposed deepwater ports. Florida has a lengthy coastline with world-renowned beaches.that are a vital part of the major economic activity, tou-rism. The potential for significant damage to this price- less resource through inadvertent or deliberate oil discharge by tankers poses a danger equal to or greaIter than the risk to the states that would be directly connected by pipeline to the proposed deepwater ports. Also, oil spills of any magni- tude pose a threat to our mangrove and marsh shorelines, coastal fisheries, and estuaries. Rear Admiral R. I. Price February 4, 1976 Page 2 Oceanographic and meteorologic conditions are such that oil spilled offshore any par@,of the Florida coastline could reach shore. Since oil spills from tankers are inevi- table*given sufficient periods of time, it is obvious that the damage potential to Florida is equal to or greater than that of either Texas or Louisiana, the named adjacent coastal states. For your information, I have enclosed publications from the Florida.Department of Natural Resources concerning commercial fishing and from the Florida Department of Commerce concerning tourism and natural attractions for tourists. Besides the State's white sandy beaches, sport fishing is a great attraction for tourists and residents. Our man-* .grove and marshy areas and our estuaries are the nurseries and feeding grounds for most of the marine species of sport and commercial importance. These areas also harbor vast numbers of sea and shore birds that add to the esthetic appeal-of our subtropical State. Oil spills of any origin are not compatible with our fish and wildlife and their habitat or with Florida's. deserved reputation for clean water and beaches. With kind regards, n ely, overnor ROA/frs Enclosure CC: Honorable William T. Colman, Jr. Secretary of Transportation Room 10200 Nassif Building 400 Seventh Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590 ly, I I I APPENDIX C. I SEADOCK TANKER ROUTES I I I . .. I I I I I I I I I I I SEADOCK TANKER TRANSITS THROUGH THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA The SEADOCK applicant has provided revised "supplementary information" dated 2/24/76 which further elaborates on vessel traffic information originally given in Section 5.2 of his Environmental Report dated De@_ cember 15, 1975 (Supplementary Information). In it he concludes that 10 to 12 percent of the VLCC traffic utilizing the SEADOCK facility will transit Straits of Florida. About 2 percent of this traffic will come in from the north by way of Providence Channel. Another 8 to 10 percent originating from the west coast of Africa will utilize the Old Bahama Channel and will skirt along the north coast of Cuba until sixty miles south of Key West before making a direct run for the SEADOCK facility well clear of the heaVily used traffic lanes of the Florida Straits. This is not to say that should a vessel casualty occur for any reason when within 50 miles of Dry Tortugas enroute to the offshore terminal, considerable impact might result to the coast of Florida,' given a major oil spill. The remainder of all crude shipments arriving from the Persian Gulf via the Cape of Good Hope together with a portion of the shipments from West Africa will utilize the major shipping route through the Caribbean Sea and Yucatan Channel. The majority of the ballast-laden tankers, however, will exit by way of the Straits of Flori- da. Although a good argument is presented for careful routing of vessel traffic so as to minimize opportunities for casualties while transiting the Florida Straits, past practice has shown that the actual mechanics of tanker routing has not been well-controlled but left up to the dis- cretion of each particular shipping company. Also, one should not ex- clude the heaviest use of Providence Channel for incoming crude oil in the event that the international situation at the time, or simply prudent seamanship, might dictate the exclusion of utilizing the Old Bahama Channel. Taking into consideration the above factors and using the applicant's estimates of port usage, computations of risk have been based upon four estimates of annual crude laden VLCC transits of the Straits of Florida, as follows: Cl) 55, C2) 110, (3) 150, C4) 200. Only through a positive means of vessel routing, reliable inter-vessel communications, and meaningful identification of VLCC corridors through these heavily travelled waters can risk of environmental damage be mini- mized. C-1 In arriving at prospective VLCC traffic routing through the Straits of Florida bound for Seadock laden with a certain percentage of foreign crude and with reference to present day usage of this inter- national strait, the following agencies and groups were contacted: U. S. Coast Guard Office of Marine Environment and Systems Deepwater Ports Project - Washington, D.C. U. S. Coast Guard Office of Environmental Protection 17th District - Miami, Florida Military Sealift Command Tanker Division - Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of Commerce Maritime Administration Office of Port and Intermodel Development Washington, D.C. National Petroleum Council Washington, D.C. American Institute of Merchant Shipping Washington, D.C. *Reference: Law of the Sea - Particular Aspects Affecting the Petroleum Industry (May 1973) 910. -------------- ......................... MISS. TEXAS LOUISIANA New Or FLORIDA cdj.d o SEADOCK ........... Tamp; --Pt-ojn Fr -_-,Vest co tt Ph '717 C 04@ Ulf Q....9Z ""t ch ell 0 eo, co 'Car. abl. GULF OF MEXICO cl. ol@ 13 P, . . ........ 0 6 0 4. 0 GULF STRrAl@ v Figure 2 10 7? ALTE;LNATE TANKER ROUTES TO AND FROM SEADOCK @4., .1 ...... Pb, m. t*6 - Atl%s .0 Pit-t chatu A cV Al ... I APPENDIX D. SPILL SIZE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS SPILL SIZE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS The frequency distribution of prospective oil spills over a range of sizes as calculated by SEADOCK and LOOP are given in Table D-1. 'The probabilities for the various classes of spill sizes in the two reports have different annual frequencies. For comparison purposes, these probabilities have been adjusted to an annual frequency of one by dividing the annual frequency for each spill size by the annual frequency for a spill of any size. Frequencies for SEADOCK are to be found in Section 5.2.9.2 and for LOOP in Section C.1.7.5 of each application. The frequency for spills ranging in size from 0 to 5,000 barrels is nearly the same in both reports (SEADOCK is .145 and LOOP is .148). However, these frequencies differ considerably when adjusted. Both the SEADOCK and LOOP reports reference a Sea Grant study at MIT. Report No. MITSG 74-20 contains the sample data on tanker spills 42,000 gallons and greater. The a priori reasons for use of th e gamma distribution and the assumptions necessary are included in the report. The report does not indicate how well the gamma distribution described the data in the sample. The report indicate s that the gamma distri- bution allows a positive probability for an impossible event, a spill greater than the largest vessel's displacement. (It is possible that another function, perhaps the beta distribution which is bound above and below would better fit the data.) The cumulative distribution of the data is shown in Figure D-1, and the cumulative distribution of a gamma variable is shown by the smooth curve. The parameters of the gamma density y,@ have been estimated by the approximate maximum likelihood method. The parameter estimates are indicated on Figure D-1. Figure D-2 is the histogram and estimated density (smooth curve). The X2 goodness-of-fit test with ten equally likely intervals has 'a significance level of a<'@005 indicating the gamma distribution did not fit the data very well. The MIT data sample for tanker spills less than 42,000 gallons was based on 1971-1972 U.S. Coast Guard reports. The gamma distribution was assumed to be appropriate for this size spill also. The distri- bution is extremely skewed and perhaps a multi-model density is necessary. The data is not included in the report so further analysis has not' been possible. The sample mean was 318 gallons and the standard deviation was 1.4 x 106 gallons.' The SEADOCK and LOOP reports both mention using a log-normal distribu- tion to estimate the probabilities of extremely large spill s. The MIT report does not use this modification. There are two problems with this technique: (1) The log-normal distri@ution puts more probability in the tail even though spills above tanker capacities are impossible events. (2) Determining the spill size beyond which the log-normal distribution will be used is very subjective and the SEADOCK and LOOP reports do not indicate what point was used or how it is to be determined. Estimates of the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the spill size as great as 42,000 gallons are 13.02 and 1.57. Using these parameter estimates, the median spill size is 451,351, the mode is 38,373, and the expected value is 1,547,963. Another problem which is of interest is how to combine the density of tanker spills less than 42,000 gallons with the density of the larger tanker spills to achieve the most realistic distribution. The SEADOCK and LOOP reports differ considerably in this respect (compare the last 2 columns of Table D-1). The reason for this is that the two densities are estimated from two different data sets. The data sets differ in several ways. They are from different sources, cover different time periods and different geographic locations. They need to be pu t on a comparable basis to arrive at the distribution over the entire range. The MIT report addresses this question by assuming a Poisson distribution on several different size spills. Utilizing and adjusting the mean number of occurrences for the two spill sizes, above and below 42,000 gallons, during a particular time period, perhaps a year, for each specific location would seem the most reasonable approach. The two empirically determined densities could be implemented to estimate the probabilities within these two spill sizes. The specific technique should be determined and results verified with the available data. TABLE D-1 Frequencies from Report s Adjusted Frequencies Size, Barrels SEADOCK LOOP SE.ADOCK LOOP, 0-200 .026 .008 .1251 .0319 200-500 .024 .015 .1154 .0599 500-1000 .02670 .022 .1284 .0879 1-2M .03466 .048 .1667 .1917 2-5M .03400 .0550 .1635 .2196 5-10M .029470 .0376 .1417 .1502 10-20M .021270 .0357 .1023 .1426 20-50M .008310 .0203 .0400 .0811 50-100M *002480 *0072 .0119 .0288 100--200M .000747 .0014 .0036 .0056 200-500M .000147 .00017 .0007 .0007 500-1000M .000052 .000033 .0003 .0001 1-2MM .000015 ..0000093 .0001 .0000 2-5MM .000003 .0000022 .0000 .0000 TOTAL .207904 .2504145 1.0 1.0 FIG. D. I CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF MIT OIL SPILL DATA AND CUMULATIVE GAMMA FUNCTION.* 1.00 0.90- 5 OCCURRED AFJTER THIS POINT 0.80- -0.70- X U- 0.60- .(Maximum likelyhood estimator) 0.50- g, r (r) 0.40- 0.30- 0.?-0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 '2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4DO 4.50 5.00 @.50 6,'00 650 71.00 7'50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 (SPlLL(GALL0NS)/10**6)-.041 2.20 2.00 FIG. D.2 HISTOGRAM OF MIT OIL SPILL DATA AND GAMMA DENSITY FUNCTION DISTRIBUTION.* 1.60- IAO x u- 1.20- 1.00- 0.80- (Maximum likelyhood estimator) 0.60.- OAO p r7r) 5 OCCURRED AFTER 0.20t THiS POiNT 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 1-00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 @00 8'.50 9.00 9.50 (SPILL (GALLONS) /10**G) -.041 I .1 I APPENDIX E-.. I SEADOCK TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEADOCK TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS The following material describing the SEADOCK trajectory analysis has been extracted from the applicant's Environmental Report (Chapter 10.6 pgs. 10.6-1 through 10.6-33). This analysis has been done with reasonable care considering the present state of the art for oil spill trajectory modeling. The approach taken is approximately the same used in the NOAA' trajectory analysis. P-1 10.6 PROJECTED MOVEMENT OF OIL, SPILLS The oil spill modeling described in this section was developed to aid the 0il Spill Contingency Plan of SEADOCK. Planning and organizing the contin- gency program required in estimate of where the slick might go in the event of an oil spill, and how long it would take to get there. This information will indicate which sections of the coast might require protection, and re- sponse time available for control at sea. The movement of oil spilled on the surface of a body of water has been analytically and numerically modeled by several entities. These models, ill general, utilize gross approximations for many of the governing physical phenomena. Although refinement of these approxiriat ions in many cases is questionable, an attempt has been made during the course of this, study to in- corporate, in the models developed, each of the forcing functions known to affect oil spill transport. 10.6.1 ANALYTICAL MODELS Two principal models have been developed and Vill, henceforth, be re- ferred to as the Slick and the Subsurface Models. The Slick Model is applied to the spillage immediately following the spill and simulates the transport of the oil on the surface until it is either totally decayed, impacts the beach, or else is transported out of the primary region of interest. The Subsurface Metel uses the dissolved portion of the total spill. quantity as its -qiq- It simulates the undersea transport of this oil either until - a concen tration of 0.1 ppm of the oil in the water is obtained through diffusion/ dispersion, or it impacts the beach, or is transported out of the primary region of interest. 10.6.1.1 Primary Transport Forcing Functions The transport of both the oil slick and the soluble fractions is depen- dent on the wind and current data gathered from two sources. The U. S. Weather Bureau supplied the hourly wind)and time histories as measured in downtown Galveston. SEADOCK made available data on wind, and on surface, mid-aepth, and bottom water currents. This material resulted from a data-gathering pro- gram at the Buccaneer oil rig approximately 30 miles south of Galveston. The two above sets of wind data were considered to be necessary to account for the variations in overland and overwater wind patterns as caused by the land-sea interface. It is felt that the accuracy of the Buccaeer wind data is questionable when applied in slick transport equation within five miles of the coast; hence, the use of the Weather Bureau wind data within an area as- sumed to be affected by the land-sea discontinuity. Further references to these data sets will be gas "onshore" and "offshore" winds for the Weather Bureau and Buccanner data, respectively. The two wind and three current time histories, although complete to a large extent, have time periods during which instrumentation failure occurred. 10.6-l In order to accomplish continuous simulations of both the oil slick and the soluble fractions, it was necessary to calculate the statistical character- istics of each of the five time histories by month, based on a 17-point com- pass. These probability density functions were the used in a first-order Narkov process to generate statistically valid data for tile missing values in the five data sets. Both of the wind data sets were measured by anemometers placed at about 30 to 33 in (100 to 110 ft).. Since the transport equations require wind vectors at a height of 10 m (33 ft), all of the wind data were converted to this altitude through the equation V 1/7 after Albertson, et al., 1960. The symbology of Equation (10.6) -1 is as follows: Z is the altitude at which the wind speed is desired ; Z is the alti- tude at which the wind speed was measured; V is the desired wind speed; and, Vo is the measured wind speed. A description of the major aspects of each of the transport models is given below, including certain theories used under various transport conditions. 10.6.1.2 Slick Model 10.6.1.2.1 Areal Geometry Geometrically, the area of interest is separated into three specific areal extents, as shown in Figure 10.6-1, which are: 1) Gross Area - the area between the Nearshore Boundary, a line parallel to and five statute miles from the coast, and the Out-to-Sea Boundary; 2) Nearshore Area - the area be- tween the Inshore Boundary, a line parallel-to and two statute miles from the coast, and the Nearshore Boundary; and, 3) Inshore Area - the area between the coast and the Inshore Boundary. As will be seen later, these areas are differ- entiated in order to consider the effects of various phenomena known to occur in certain coastal regions. 10.6.1.2.2 Spreading Upon initiation of the assumed oil spill, several. activities of tile oil begin occurring simultaneously. The first of these to be considered is the spreadinq of the oil on the surface. The expressions derived do not consider the effect of wind on the spreading, phenomemenon. These equations were developed by balancing the various forces acting on the oil slick at early, intermediate, and late times, and then determining experimentally the non-dimensional 10.6-2 coefficients. At early times, generally less than one hour, the Gravity- Inertia regime or inertial spread dominates and is described by 2 1/4 R = K1qi (Aq&VL (10.6) - 2 where R is the radius of the oil slick, K. is the non-dimensional coefficient experimentally determined to be. 1.14 (Fay 1971), is the ratio of the abso- lute difference between the densities of seawater and the oil to that of sea- water, is the force of gravity, V is the original volume of oil spilled, and t is time. When the oil film thickness becomes equal to the viscous layer in the water, then a transition occurs from the Gravity-Inertqia regime to the Gravity-Viscous regime. This viscous spreading is described by R = K q/6qgV2t3/2 1/6 (10.6) - 3 v q-q17q- V1 where K is again the non-dimensional coefficient determined to be about 1.45 (Fay, 1971) and x is the kinematic viscosity of water. The last phase, the Surface Tension Regime, occurs when the oil film thickness drops below a cri- trical level, which is a function of the net surface tension, the masss densities of the oil and the water, and the force of gravity. The surface tension spread is described by R = K q1CF2t3 qI4qA (10.6)-3 tq@ P2V where K is experimentally determined to be 2.05 (Fay, 1971.), a is the sur- face tension and Regime is the density of water. For large spills on the order Of 10,000 tons, inertial and viscous spreading will dominate for about the first week with the surface tension spread then controlling (Fay, 1971). Although the exact mechanisms that can see the termination of spreading are unknown, the terminal areas of several oil slicks have been observed and used to determined an analytical relationship for the final area of a given oil spill based on the properties of the oil (Fay, 1971). This is described by A K CF2V6 1/8 (10.6) - 5 T = a q@,0q@ VqD62) where K was yet, an undetermined constant of order unity, D is the diffus- ivity, and s is the solubility of the significant oil fractions in the water. The simulation of the spreading phenomenon in the Slick Model incorporations all of the above formulations with times of transition from one spreading re- gime to the next, determined by the following: 10.6-3 1/3 K t ~-~-~q2~q@ ~K ~1 (10.6) 6 1/3 ~2qL ~V~- 3) (K ~v ~t (Ag~V) (10.6) 7 ~V~~1~-~t K t) In addition, t~qhe area covered by t~qhe oil slick is not allowed to exceed A T~; therefore, spreading is terminated at the time. 1 / 2 ~q(_~qY~q)~I~- / 4 K 2/3 ~t ~q/~2p~p~1p~ _D a (10.6) - 8 \~S K~t All of the variables listed above are assigned specific values in the Slick Model; however, these values ~may be easily altered by ~an input data option. The values of the variables used are shown in Table 10.6-1. 10.6.1.2.3 Decay In ~nd~qd~4tion to the spreading p~qb~eno~r~.~:n~@~-~-~.~., a decaying process on t~qhe oil ~sli~L~'~m ~l~v~@~-~Z~;i~n~s immediately following the ~spi-~L~i. This process is, for ease or description, separated into five principal phases: evaporation, dissolution, emulsification, precipitation, and biodegradation. Evaporation and dissolution are, in general, t~ql~@e more critical processes of t~qhe five listed. As an example, following t~qhe "Torrey Canyon" spill, it was found that 25 percent of t~he oil, by volume, was lost in the first few days after t~qhe spill (Smith, 1968). Total depletion of t~qhe lighter fractions of the oil can occur in a time span as short as 8 to 12 hours (Krieder, 1971; Kenney, et al., 1969). Thus, these two processes have been accounted for in the Slick by using Moore, Dwyer, and ~Ka tz~'s first order model (1972) to approximate the rates of evaporation and ~qli~asolution. T~he basic equation for each fraction o~qf oil is given by dC ~2qT~t = (K e + K d + K b) C (10.6) - 9 where C is t~qhe concentration, and K ~q@)~, Kd and ~V~, are t~qhe evaporation, dissolu~- ~tbv~ely tio~n, a~nd biodegradation coeffic~qien s re~spe~c ~1 T~qhe solution to Equation 0.0.6) - 9 is C = ~0qC exp ~2q(-K ~q-K (10.6) - 10 0 ~qC d~q-~qK~0qb~2q)t w~4qb~qer~qe C is t~0qhe concentration of a p~qirticu~4ql~qnr fr~qacti o~qn after some exposure 10.6-4 period, t in days, C is the initial concentration. Thus, assuming K b 0 for each fraction, tRe final solution to Equation (10.6) - 9 is C = C 0 exp (-K C_ 11d)t To facilitate the use of Equation (10.6) - 11, the values for K e 1, d, and generalized ratios of dissolution to evaporation shown in Table 10.6-2 are. utilized. The procedure exercised by the, Slick Model is to determine, f or each oil fraction ind-ividually, the total decayed quantity and then to sepa- rate this volume into evaporation and dissolution by using the volumetric ratio of these two processes. Finally, these individual evaporation and dissolution volumes are added for all of the oil fractions to produce the total volume lost due to these decay functions. Table 10.6-3 shows some typical percent compositions of the eight frac- tions in several grades of crude oil. Crude B is the one whose characteristics are currently being simulated. The decay of each fraction is carried out at each time-step during the transport of the oil- slick. Since the evaporation rates are functions of the vve-@:age wind speed, these speeds are averaged over all of the previous steps to generate a value to be used in tvie next time-step. The effects of emulsification and precipitation were considered through a nne-percent rediiction of the vol,,-,(- -remaining in the oil sli.ck. Tlic@czp operations are only included when the slick is within the Inshore Area and the offshore wind speed is greater than 32 kms/hr (20 mph); thus, causing turbidity and, consequently, the proper conditions for sinking to occur. Biodegradation of oil from an oil slick was discussed in Section 3.3.1.2 of Chapter 3. Although it is known that microbial oxidation will occur, par- ticularly after two or three days, no established quantitative data is avail- able for use in the modeling. Further, it is felt that the volumes lost due to this effect would be small enough to disregard in the Slick Model without jeopardizing its validity in predicting the oil spill movement. 10.6.1.2.4 Transport The actual transport of the oil slick is a function of its position at any given time; that is, whether it is in the Gross, Nearshore, or Inshore Area. In the Gross Area, the forcing functions on the oil slick are considered to be the offshore wind and surface current vectors. The actual step move- went of the slick in this area is given by Api 0.03 WFi I- SCH (10.6) 12 1.0.6-5 where AP. is the Positional change vector during the 1st step , is the offshore wind Vector during the: 1 step, and SC Fi is the surface current vector during the 1 Step). The size of the time stop in the Cross Area is variable, since this is an extremely large area. The initial and minimum time-step is 3 hours, and it increases to 6 hours at the end of 5 days travel time, 12 hours at the end of 10 days travel time, and 24 hour for travel times greater than 20 days. For time-steps greater than three hours, all wind and current vectors are summed to produce the resultant vector during that step. In the Nearshore Area, the forcing functions are taken to be the onshore and offshore wind vectors and the positionally dependent current vectors The step movement in this area is described by AP 0. 03 (aW + bW ) + SC (10.6) 13 i. Ni. Fi month, lat, long th where W is the onshore wind vector during the i step, and a and b are theas determined ratios of the distances from the present slick position to the Nearshore and Inshore Boundaries to the total distance between the two boundaries, respec- tively. The resultant wind vector is generated in this fashion in order to account for the land-sea breeze effect created by tqhe locality of the land mass. It is felt that the use of offshore currents in the Nearshore Area is questionable. due to the lack of coastal effects at the current measuring site. Thus, doubly interpolated, positionally dependent current vectors were used from the Central American Waters Current Charts. The forcing functions in the Inshore Area are considered to be the on- shore wind vectors and the longshore current as generated by the offshore wind vectors. This slick movement is given by (10.6) - 14 APqi = 0.03 14 Ni + LCqi th where LC. is the longshore current vector during the i step, as determined from the nomograph shownn in Figure 10.6-2 (Paulus, 1972). Equation (10.6) 14 is considered valid as long as the oil slick center of mass is not in contact with the coast. The time steps during transport through both the Nearshore and Inshore Areas are held to three hours in order to force the accounting for the various phenomena known to affect the oil slick while it is in one of these regions. The transport of the oil. slick in the three different areas is schematic- ally diagrammed in Figure 1.0.6-3. 10.6.1.2.5 Coriolis Effect The effect of the Coriollis force on the transport of an oil slick has been studied to some extent, nt with relatively inconsistentresults Ekman, 1905; Teeson, et al. , 1970). The drift angle Of the slick, being that Angle between the true dirction of movement and th sum of the wild and water current vectors, is caused by the surface shear stress brought about by the wind and the earth's rotation. This angle has been experimentally estimated to be between 5 and 22 degrees to the right for mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere (Teeson, ct al., 1970), as opposed to the theoretical maximum of 45 degrees after Ekman 1905). These experiments were not verified by the "Torrey Canyon" incident, though where the slick apparently drifted dead down wind (Teeson, et al., 1970). However, it is generally agreed that a non-zero drift angle does occur, with its magnitude being the primary question In order to consider the Coriolis effect, the Slick Model has the capa- bility of incrementing the transport wind vector by a specified angle. Cur- rently, under this option, the drift angle is 15 degrees. Thus, the Slick movement is predicted by the vector sum of the altered wind vector and the water current vector, thereby accounting for the Coriolis-induced transport shift. 10.6.1.2.6 Output of the Slick Model The output generated by the Slick Model is determined by the user of the model and can be one of two forms. The first form is a complete time history that includes all decay and transport parameters at each time-step. The second form is a summary of each transport simulation where each line contains slick coastal impact parameters for that simulation. Too, the used can, choose the option of no printed output, if desired. Examples of the printed output are shown in Figures 10.6-4 through 10.6-q7. In addition to the printed output, the model generates a binary output data file containing all of the pertinent information concerning the, oil slick being simulated. 10.6.1.3 Subsurface Model The Subsurface Model is significantly simpler than the Slick Model since past research has been directed primarily toward the latter. 10-6.1.3.1 Areal Geometry The areal geometry for the Subsurface Model includes one area between the Nearshore and Out-to-Sea Boundaries. Since this model is to consider the soluble fraction of the oil spilled, a third dimension, that of mixing depth, is included. This depth, generally considered to be from the surface down to the thermocline, has a constant value in the model of 18 in (60 ft). Although this mixing depth can be altered through an input data option, the accurate detection of the thermocline at any given time of the taer hs not been easily accomplishcd in the past ; thus, reasonableness should be the prime concern for any changes to be made in this depth value. 10.6-7 10.6.1.3.2 Dispersal Volume The volume of oil to be consider in the Subsurface Model is that which is dissolved at each time-step through the dissolution process in the Slick Model. Preliminary studies have shown that, as with evaporation from tile surface slick, the major dissolution of the soluble oil fractions occurs at very early times. Thus, the Subsurface Model has been generated to transport a summed quantity of the amounts dissolved at each-step, until the contri- bution to this cumulative dissolved volume by dissolution at the next three time-steps is less than one, percent of that already dissolved. It is felt that the maximum subsurface concentrations possible tinder the given spill. conditions will be achieved by this method, and that the concentrations produced by tile later dissolutions will be negligible. 10.6.1.3.3 Dispersion Sub-Model The three-dimensional statistical model proposed by Gifford (1957) and extended by Okubo (1962) is considered to apply to the case of relative diffu- sion in a homogeneous turbulent field. This model is based on the assumptions that diffusion proceeds independently at different rates in the horizontal and vertical planes, and that the spatial distribution of the diffusing sub- stances is essentially Gaussian in all directions. The last assumption leads to the equation M 2 C(X,y,z,t) exp X2 y2 - z 2, 2, 2 - 2 - 2 -2 -2 -2 x Y, z 2CI 20 20 (10.6) 15 where c is the average concentration at a point x,y,z at time t, M is the amount of diffusing substances initially discharged from an instantaneous point source, and 2, 2 and 2 are the average variances of the concentration X y z distributions in the x, y, and z directions. It is seen that setting x = y z = 0 in Equation (10.6) - 15 produces an expression for the maximum concenrtra- tion as a function of time as M Cmax(t) (10.6) - 16 2- (a 2 (2. 2) x y z Since C Max is the primary element of interest, Equation (10.6) - 16 is the government, ormulation in the dispersion -sub-model. Once the computed value for C a, becomes less than a specified minimum concentration, currently set as o.1 ppm, then transport of the soluble oil fractions terminates. (Trans-. port termination also occurs if the submerged oil impacts the Nearshore Bound ary or crosses the Out-to-Sea Boundary.) 10.6-8 In the- evaluation of Equation (10.6)-16, estimates of the variances of the concentration distributions in all three principle directions are derived from the "4/3 relationship" shown in Equation (10.6) - 17 (0kubo, 1962), Ao2 11 Yz = K 14/3 xyZ 2At x,y,z (10.6) - 17 where K are the diffusion coefficients in the x, y, and z directions, K are functions of the rates of energy dissipation, and 1 is the effec- enerqy scale of the phenomenon and is proportional to a. In order to remain consistent with the Slick Model, it is assumed that horizontal dispersion is equal in all directions, thus K' = K' K = K and 2 = -2 X aX G . Also, I initially assumes the value of the slick diameter at the time oil ceases to go into solution and K' are assumed to be 0.001, after Wiegel (1964). At later times, 1 takes on the computed diameter of the sub- surface spreading extent.. Since the eddy scale is unknown for vertical diffusion, it is taken to be 1.0 and k is assigned the value 0.01., which obviously produces a constant value of K equal to 0.01 ft2/sec. Thus, using the experimentally determined values in Equation (10.6) - 17, now directional variances may be calculated and Equation (10.6) - 16 may be evaluated for an updated C max It is assumed that horizontal diffusion will continue until the entitle process is terminated. However, vertical diffusion is terminated when the dispersal depth has reached the previously mentioned mixing depth. 10.6.1.3.4 Transport Transport of the subsurface volume of oil is accomplished through the application of the surface and mid-depth current vectors, the proportion of each being determined by the dept of one standard deviation unit, a, in the z-direction. Although other phenomena affect this transport process, they have not been adequately described analytically, and thus have been disregarded. 10.6.1.3.5 Output of the Subsurface Model The output of the Subsurface Model is a printed listing in one of two forms. As in the Soluble fractions, the first form is a step-by-step tabulation of the transport of the soluble fractions, including subsurface Currents, diffu-- sion coefficients, maximum concentration and the dissolved volume's present position. The Second Output form is again a one-line of the transport/ diffusion process as determined for the dissolved oil fractions being simulated. Examples of theseoutput forms are shown in figures 10.6-8 and 10.6-9. An imput parameter specifies either no printed output or the form desired. 10.6-9 The method of generation of these plots was to assume an oil spill at a random time each clay, and to track its path using the previously derived and assumed equations until it intersected the const. This is not to imply that there will be an oil spill each day, but is used to show general trends. Under the assumption of no Coriolis force, there are definite seasonal trends indicated in the figure@;. If an oil spill was to occur in the winter months "December through Febrtiary), the coastal impact could be expected be" Uoeen Corpus Christi. and Freeport. In the spring (March and April.), tile slick would reach the beach within 80 miles to thc west of Freeport. 1-n the early summer (May and June), coastal impact would be very near Freeport. Late summer slicks (July through September) would impact between 80 kn) (50 mi) west of Free- port and the Texas-Louisiana border. In the fall (October and November), impact could be expected to occur at, or slightly west of, Freeport. If the two sets of coastal. impact graphs are compared, both with and without the application of the Coriolis force, it can be that the impact distributions remain approximately the same. Thus, the primary effect of this 15 degree wind vector shift was to move the impact points about 8 to 24 km (5 to 15 mi) to the cast. Also, it should ba noted that, of the 701 simulated oil spills, I 'es.3 than four percent crossed the Out-to-Sea Boundary in the middle of the Gulf. However, about eight percent crossed this boundary on their way to impacting tile Louisi- ana coast east of the primary region of interest in this study. Thus, over 91 Dercent of the simulated oil slicks.reached the beach. Oil slick travel time statistics are shown on the plots to indicate rougb response times for control of the spill, at sea. 10.6.1.7 Occurrences of Oil in Offshore Areas Figures 10.6-17 and 10.6-18 show the nunibers of times that one of the 701 simulated oil slicks reached or traversed through any 10-statute mile area in the western Gulf under the assumptions of no Coriolis force appli.--ation and a 15 degree Coriolis-induced wind vettor shift. Figure 1.0.6-19 shows the same type information for the simulated subsurface plumes. This figure indi- cates that the diffusion of the dissolved volumes was quick enough to preclude their being transported to within 8 km (5 mi) of the coast before the maximum concentration dropped below 0.1 ppm. 10.6.1.8 References Albertson, M. L. , J. R. Barton, and D. B. Simmons, 1960. Fluid Mechanics for Engineers, PrenticeHall, Inc., gqlewood Cliffs, N. J. Ekman, V. W., 1905. "On the Influence of the Earth's Rotation on Ocean Currents," Arkiv for Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik, Vol. 2, No. 11. Fay, J. A., 1971. "Physical Processes in the Spread of Oil on a Water Surface," Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills, New York, N. Y., pp. 463-467. Gifford, F., 1957. "Relative Atmospheric Diffusion of Smoke Puffs," Journal of Meteorology, Vol. 14, pp. 410-414. Kinney, P. J., et al., 1969. "Kinetics of Dissipation and Biodegradation of Crude Oil in Alaska's Cool, Inlet," Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills, Washington, D. C., pp. 333-340. Krieder, K. E., 1971. "Identification of Oil Leaks and Spills," Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills, New York, N. Y., pp. 119-124. Moore, S., R. L. Dwyer, and A. M. Katz, 1973. A Preliminary Assessment of the Environment Vulnerability of Machias Bay Maine to Oil Supertankers, No. MITSG 73-6, Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration, Mass., Institute of Technology Cambridge, Mass., January. Naval Hydrographic Office, 1942. "Central American Waters: Current Charts," H. 0. Msc. No. 10, 690-1. Okulu., A., 1962. A Review of Theoretical Models of Turbulent Diffusion in the Sea, Technical Report 30, Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University. Paulus, W. S., 1972. "Physical Processes of the Marine Environment (Oil Movement Forecasting)," U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office, Washington, D. C. Smith, H. M., 1968. Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects of Crude Oil Composition, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin No. 642, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Teeson, D., F. M. White, and H. Schenck, 1970. "Studies of the Simulation of Drifting Oil by Polyethylene Sheets," Ocean Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. Wiegel, R. L. , 1964. "Mixing Processes," Oceanographical Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 10. 6- 12 TABLE 10.6-1. 1- c S Ilaraniccers Variable Value 9 980.665 cm/sec 2 s 0.001 D 1.0 x 10 cm /sec K 1.00 a K. 1.14 K t 2.05 K 1.45 - v v 0.009825 cm 2/Sec 3 Poil 0.85 gm/cin Pwater 1.03 gm/cm .3 a 30 dynes/cm 10.6-13 TABLE 1-0. 6-2 er Rates foi E-iwht Oil Fractions Trnn@-'f (Moorc, Dwyer and Katz, 1972) Evaporation.b Dissolution Ratio Fraction D,--scription (K e) (K d) (Diss/Evap) Paraffin 0.8e 0.2W 0.1 1/60 C6-C 12 2 Paraffin 0.002 0 0 C13-C 22 3 Cycloparaffin 0.8e 0.2W 0.5 1/12 C6-C 12 c 4 Cycloparaffin 0.002 0 0 C13-C 23 0.2W 5 Aromatic (Mono- 0.8e 1.0 1/6 and di-cyclic) C6-C 11 6 Aromatic (Poly- 0.02 0.001 1/20 cyclic) C12-C 18 7 Naphtheno- 0.02 .0.001 d 1/20 Aromatic C9-C 25 8 Residual 0 0 0 a These values are approximate and are probably all dependent upon temperature and oil film thickness. b W is the wind speed in 1-nots. c Estimated from fraction 2. d Estimated froin fraction 6. 10.6-14 TABLE, 10.6-3 [email protected] P -t --- C0,11posi-2R. -0-Y and Comparison of Solubilities for Various flctroh:um SUbStances (floore _ D_w_y_-e-r__,_a_nd_Ka-t z _,19_7__2_)__ @i2 Crude Crude Fuel Bunker Fraction Deecription. A B Oil Kerosene C I Alkanes (C 6-C 12) 1 10 15 15 0 2 Alkanes (C C 1$ 13- 25 7 20 20 1 3 Cyclo- paraffins (C 6-C 12 5 15 15 20 0 4 Cyclo- paraffins (C 13-C 25 5 20 15 20 1 5 Mono- and di- cyclic aromatics (C 6-C 11.) 2 5 15 lC 0 6 Polycyclic aro- matics (C 12-C 18 6 3 5 2 1 7 Naphtheno- aromatics (C 9-C 25 15 15 15 8 1 8 Residual 65 25 96 Estimated Maxim= X Soluble 10 30 60 65 1 Estimated Maximum Z Soluble Aromatic Derivatives 0.1-10 0.1-:0 1-30 1-20 0-1 1.0.6-15 COASTAL BOUNDARY---,,--1---"-,- INSHORE BOUNDARY NEARSHORE BOUNDARY SEADOCK INSHORE AREA /@@NEARSHORE AREA GROSS AREA OUT-TO-SEA BOUNDARY ]Figure 1.0.6-1 Geometric Areal Extents. 1-0.6-16 H OR E ARE'o 1@r,IN EE A R S HORE ARE 124 2j 10 BREAKER HEIGHT IN FEET 15 10 6 4 3 2 1 9 0- 20 00 .0 W4- M 14- r6M rn 1 7. -- , -.."3 0- > < M 6 cn M .-4M z z .-3 r'n 10- 6-. M z -2 4- 1 0 ;.41 30 25 14120 15 1to 5 0 BREAKER ANGLE IN DEGREES Figure 10.6-2 Longshore Current Nomograph (Paulus, 1972). INSHORE AREA LP C) ,e_- @0 el NEARSHORE Ile AREA o(O.03 wNd C Lot. Long. b (0.05 @%'Fi S.- .1oo, 10, GROSS AREA S. 0.03 vio, StFi Fi Figure 10.6-3 oil Slick Transport Vectors by Areal Exteilt. 10, 6-18 OIL SLICK TRANSPORT MODEL NUMBER OF SLICK$ TRANSPORTED - 1 MONTH OF FIRST SLICK - MAR , 1972 0CN3 I TY KINEMATIC COEFFICIENTS SPREADING.LAW COEFFICIENTS FINAL ..TER OIL VISC OSITY SPREADING dIFFUSIVITY SOLUBILITY INERTIAL vjSCOJS SF TENS104 AAEA 1G.14/CM*-31 jCm..Z/SEC) JOY.%E/CM) CCM--ZISECI 1.030 0.050 0.0098250 30.00 0.000010 0.001000 1.1400 1.4500 2.0500 -1.0000 INITIAL SLICK CMARACTERISTICS - INITIAL SLICK VOLUME - 15000.0 TONS VOLATILE RATE OF RATE OF PATE OF FRACTION EVAPrRATION DISSOLUTION DISS EVAP 10.00 0.80 EX;F. 0.20w@ 0.1000 0.016666T 7.00 0.00 txf F f0.0 W) 0.0 0.0 L5.00 0.80 EXPFf 0.20W) 0.%000 0.0033335 20.00 O.Co EXPFt 0.0 W) 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.80 EXPF( O.ZOW) 1.0000 0.1666670 0 3.00 0.02 EXPF( 0.0 W) 0.0010 0.0500000 15.00 O.OZ EXPF( 0.0 W) 0.0010 0.0500000 D 25.00 0.0 EXPF( 0.0 W) 0.0 0.0 ---- SPREADING REGIME DIFFERENTIATION --- GRAVITY VISCOUS REGIMC SF TENSION REGIME 14 4;EGIME R q Ou (HOU S) IHOU sl 1.5404 36.0672 206.4501 TERMINAL SPREADING ARIA "5.9740 SO. MILES Fi-ure 10.6-4 Slick 'Yodel Tine History putput (,,,To Coriolis Force). PAGE I OIL SLICK RtNSPCRT MODEL INITIAL C r4njTIONS SIMJATC0 SP;LL Ot.C'jRREO rN 26 MAR 1972 AT 1500 HqU;S. P:)SlrlrN IS 21 .45 DEGIEES LAT ITUDE. -q5.20 -)EC-EES LONITTUDE. - ----------------- SLICK TRANSPORT PHENOMENA *---------- 11,10 RESULTANTS CURRENTS - - -- - - -------------- SLICK CHARACTERISTICS OF: F S M5 ONSPDkE SLICK WIND P 0 S I T 1 0-1: L LONGSHORE VOL OSTC-C- VOLUME SLICK - -N[V POSITInt- q Spcr DI PEED DIq tEv DIR SPEED IR SOL L n1r, SPEED DI ,0a S P_ - -A UMESTN B AH LE'FT AREA LATITUDE LONGITUDI DAY HIUq (DEG) I M1,S) (DEG) I 4PS tCEG? I ?1,P S JfDEG) I M . 15 1(DEC) (MPS) (Yr,'15) (TONSI I TONS I (TONS) (SQ MI I (DEG) (DEGI J300 112.5 6d.4- U2.5 66.44 9.6 0.7 4169.9 337.8 0.0 E0491.2 .2.OZI Z8.4715 -15.7292 0400 2125.0 32.9- 225.0 32.9- 254.2 0.6 8.0 0.4 0.0 IC433.11 2.858 78.4793 -15..'267 C900 80 0 32 IEo 0 3 2 9: 280 50 6 7 7 0 4 0 0 0475 a 3 501 28 4959L @.l 56 110 1.2 8 13 5:0 22 : : 1 -9, ': jzoo . 3 5 : 9334 8 0 5 7 7 0 4 0 0 0467 1 4 042 28 50a - 5 24 12 01Soo 112.5 12.7- 112.5 12.7# 30?.S 0.3 7.7 0.4 0.0 10459.7 4.519 2,R.5116 -95.2@71 1 113 . - - I -V5.2' )boo 5 0 3?.9 135.0 3Z.9 260.3 0.6 T.& 0.3 0.0 1045-7 4.95! Za.5ZZ5 :; ?1001350 53 2: 135 0 @3 Z: 325 8 0 4 7 6 0 3 0 0 '10443 a 11 348 28 5113@- -91, 3@04 10l 35:0 32:9 135:0 -2:9 14:2 1:1 7:6 0:3 0:0 10435:6 5:71'f 28:5635 13co 90.0 17.7- 90.0 17.7* 60.3 0.8 7.6 0.3 0.0 L0427.6 6.0@54 23.5733 -135. I6GO 35 0 11 135 0 32 9: 79 5 0 7 7 6 0 3 0 0 04@9 9 6 392 25 5656 -95 i@57 115 27 9 112:5 27:9 74:2 0:9 7:6 0:3 0: 1 q00 2: 0 04,2 0 6 703 20 5939 -95 33@4 111200 157.5 53.2- 157.5 53.2- 67.0 0.9 7.5 0.3 0.0 10404.1 ?.OCZ 28.1,ZoS -95.30,',3 1111,00 157.5 2 T.q- L 57.5 27.9* 87.4 1.0 7.5 0.3 0.0 10396.3 7.8AO 28-312 3 -95. 28qZ IH10 15 1 5 5 8 3: 157 5 5 3 3 :58 7 0 5 7 5 0 3 0 0 10308 4 8 507 20 64,37 -95 2@'7 1 1 93 7 22: 5 9 3 : 7112 : 20: 1 7:5 0: 3. 0:0 10330 6 9 767 ZS 61.4 -95 31Z I l2100 2.15 2013'0 43 1- 135.0 43.1- 50.5 0.3 7.5 0.3 0.0 [email protected] 10.760 23.6265 -95 -36 2300 L12 5 17 7. 112.5 17.7* 73.1 0.6 T.5 0.3 0.0 [email protected] 11.734 -95: 3Z,'S 603 67:5 78:5: 67 5 78 5: 2ZB 3 9@: 3 7 4 0 3 0 0 101,57 2 12 339 21 6160 -9@ 900 67.5 L7.1 67:', IT:-T Z'gT:b @ 4 7:4 0: 3 0:0 10349:4 13:923 2.6 58 - - 0.0 10341.7 -T5." 72 o" qo 0 43.1 90.0 43.1 76.1 0.1 T.4 0.3 L5.017 29.6160 @6q z1500 112.5 43.1- 112.5 48.1- 235.4 ".3 7.4 0.3 0.0 10334.0 16.179 2 6.62 1 ', -95. 1.231 211300 ;o 0 27.9- 90.0 Z7.9- Z22.2 .2 7.4 0.3 0.0 10326.3 17.348 28.6030 -15.4530 72100 10:0 22.8- 90.0 ZZ.8- 241.6 1.6 7.4 0.3 0.0 10310.6 16.544 28.5976 -95.4r." 1090.0 53.2- 90.0 5 3. 2* 2?5.0 0.7 7.3 0.3 0.0 10310.9 19.766 23.5964 -95.5224 3loo112 5 all q: 15 32 @): 277 60 4 7 3 0 3 0 0 10303 2 21 0815 2C.6045 -95.5444 3bDO :5 43:1 112,:5 43:1 264:5 0:8 7:3 0: 3 0:0 10295:6 22:2 3 25 6109 -95 5!63 11 90,0 2 5 2z.a 112.5 22.82TO.2 0.8 7.3 0.3 0.0 10288.0 23.536 25:6 1 47 -95:6-1 713 17 7: 35 0 17 7: 319 7 1:1 T 3 0 3 0 0 0280 4 24 909 20 6325 -95 61 1 7: 18 26 155 Ii I @ 0@1 1157.50 27:9 151:5 27:9 32 3 :2 1 4 3 0:3 0:0 02 72 : 2 8: 6 6 04 -95:4308 310 ou @2 5 3,, 0: 22 5 38.0- 262.3 1.4. 7.2 0.3 0.0 10265.2 27.625 2 R. 6-',2 5 -9 5-6!, @"' 111100 2Z:5 LCR:9 22:5 101.9- 265.7 2.1 7.2 0.3 0.0 10257.7 29.017 23.5965 -95.723B 4022 5 V3 7: 22 5 93:7: 110:1 Z:j 7 2 0 3 13 0 0,250 2 30 1,32 28.5538 -95.7757 4300 9 3: 0 17: 7 1) 0: 0 17 7270 2 7: 2 o: @ 0:0 110- 4 2 : 631:8,D 28.5588 -95. 6! e 3 601)112.5 13.3- 112.5 58.3- 269.0 2.1 712 0.3 0.0 10235.1 33.330 26.5678 -95.S836 1. '900 L3@ 0 53 2: 43 21210 32 5: 2433 1 7 2 0 3 0 0 10227 7 34 Bill 28 56$0 :95 9101 3 35 51032 2522429 1 7 1 0 3 0 0 0220 2 36 3 3 28 5642 95 9330 4200 15F:5 58: : t : I. 41500 9U.0 27.Ll. '414E 31 .534.4 27.5.242.6 1.1 7.1 0.3 75.9 10136.8 37.837 28.5167 -95.96,23 41 U30 !2 5 313 0: N-IF 33 1 550 25 2: 242 4 1 2 %1 0.3 0.0 10124.4 39.381 28.53Z2 - 95. 1901 0 2 52421 1 3 7 0 3 0 0 IoIzz 0 AFO 946 8 5245 -96 O@ 087 7100 lao:o 53 7 N 29 9 leo: 0135.0 532 N 33 .469.4 14.9242.0 1.3 7:1 0:3 0:0 10114:6 42:531 28:5133 -96:.31.5 -i 100 135.0 43.I NE 24 .589.2 22.0242.0 1.3 7.1 0.3 0.0 10107.2 44.136 20.5042 -96.C642 5600 135 0 17 7: N'!E 5 784 5 5 0: 242 0 1 3 7.0 0.3 73.6 10026.2 45.760 20.4952 -96.CP53 5900 135:0 43:L I q:8 q4:6 7:9 242:0 1:3 7.0 0.3 88.9 9930.0 47.404 29.4,967 -9f,.1077 51200 112.5 17.7 SSC 27 .9.15 0 8 24 5: 0.0 0.6 7 0 0 3 112 0 9810.6 49.067 23.504,2 -96.1137 51500 It2.5 32.9 SV 22.6- 135:0 22:6 238.9 2.5 7:0 0:3 172:8 9630.5 50.749 28.4926 -96.1,561, Figure 10.6-4 Slick Model Time Hiscory Output (No Coriolis Force) (continued). moms= M.M @vwftwww so MM mwww.m@ PAGE 2 OIL SLICK TRANSPORT MODEL INITIALNC NO;TION S HOURS. St U@AT C SPILL OCCIJRRED fVv -6 MAR 1972 AT 1500 S 2 . G C I 8 45 05 qE S LAT TUDE, -95.20 OEqEES LC,\GITUDE. SLICK TRANSPORT PMENOMEN4 E_ SUL TA NT S * - ---- CURRENTS SLICK CHARACTERISTICS ON S43R 9 SLICK WIND POSITIONAL LONGSHORE VOLUMES LOST - - VOLUME SLICK - -NEW POSITION- DIR* S.E:.D Of@ SPEED DIR SPEED DIR SPEED Djq SPEED AIR SOLTN BEACH LEFT AREA LATITUOE LONGITUDE DAY HOUR (,Ell;) ("PSI 10f(j) j4pSj ICEG) ImpS) IDEG) ImPS) (DEG) IMPSI ITONS) (TCUSI (TONS) (TONSi ISO MI) (DEG) (DEG, 5 1800 tI2.5 17.7- SSE 27.9- 15T.5 ZT.9- 0.0 0.0 T.0 0.3 190.4 9432.9 52.450 Z8.503T -96.1618 5 1859 112.5 ZT.g. SF 43.1- 135.0 48.1- 238.9 1.0 2.3 0.1 203.0 9227.5 53.014 28.5060 -96.1721 0 @_j Fi-ure 10.6-4 Slick Model Time History Output (,4o Coriolis Force) (continued). mm mom 04 SIL:C. TRANSPORT MODEL NV"6ER OF S'.ICKS TRANSPORTED 31 MONTH OF FIRST SLICK - MAR , L97Z DENSITY IMEMATIC *INSPREADING LAWCCnEFFZCIENTS, FINAL A" , ; COEFFICIENTSS R R DIFFUSIV[TY OLUSILI TIAL VIS OUS SF TENS. C, AREA :ATER OIL VYI.SCOS!TY, T*Y ,CM*$ ) to N@/CM) (Gli 3 Cm-*Z/SEC Y - (CMV*Z/SEC) 1.030 0.850 0.0098250 30.00 0.0000io 0.001000 1.1400 1.4500 2.0500 1.00CO - - - - - -- INITIAL SLICK CHARACTERISTICS --- INITIAL SLICK VOLUME - 15000.0 TONS VOLATILE RATE OF RATE OF RATE OF FRACTION EVAPORATION DISSOLUTION OISS I EVAP 10.00 0.80 EXPF( 0.2091 0.1000 0.016666T T.00 0.00 EXPF( 0.0 W1 0.0 0.0 15-00 0.30 EXPFI 0.20W) 0.5000 0.0833335 20.00 0.00 EXPF( 0.0 W1 0.0 0.0 5.00 O.eO EXPFt 0.20WI 1.0000 0.1666670 3.00 O.CZ EXPFC ).) W) n.0010 0.0500000 15-00 0.02 EXPF( 1.0 W) 0.0010 0.0500000 25.00 0.0 EXPFt 0.0 W) 0.0 0.0 SPREADING REGIME DIFFERENTIATION GRAVITY REGIME VISCOUS REGIME SF TENSION REGIME (HOURS) (HOURS) (HOURS) 1.5404 36.06T2 206.4501 TERMINAL SPREADING AREA 95.q?40 SO. MILES Figure 10.6-5 Slick Moeel Summazy Output (No Coriolis Force). OIL SLICK TRANSPCRT MODEL PAGE t SLICK -INITIAL CHARACTERISTICS-* * DISTANCE TRANSPORTED * TIME OF- * VOLUMES LCST---- -CCO D1 A-ATES I r@ENT IF IC A 7 1 ON-* DE- LONG I TUDE VOLUME - LATITUDE LrNGIYUDE - BEACH.INst - AIR 0 SOLIJ710,4* R LATITU BEACP- LAT1TU;E'LCNGI,,o*, TH DAY YEAP inV IDE(',j (DEG) TONS I t MILE S) (MILES) I HIUR S TONS I (TONS) f TGNS 1 COS31 f C q 1.! MAR I I cY ?Z 1500 28.4500 -95.ZOOO t5ooo.00 63.91 90.58 131.95 4486.37 352.21 651.bZ 28.27Z3 -96.56-33 4 -IR 2 1972 600 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 53.96 8T.TZ L18.1Z 4453.95 350zT5 539.69 Z3.2553 -96.5800 MAR 3 1972 IZOO Z8.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 37.98 70.30 81.94 4367.46 346.04 3Z5.56 Z8.434L -96.StSe MAR 4 1972 600 2B.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 32.41 64.15 81.31 4365.93 346.77 344.25 29.4$96 -96.2026 MAR 5 1972 1500 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 38.25 72.93 83.1,L 437L.03 341.00 1071.93 28. 3023 -) 6. 3S " 6 '972 0 28.4500 -95.2000 15CO0.00 45.32 ?5.14 96.74 4403.12 348.45 1526. To Z.1.4416 -96.Z9ZO -A Lk 7 1q7Z 2100 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 le.52 38.65 61.21 4316.81 344.54 @55.60 28.026 -95.8011 " @ R@ 8 1972 600 28.4500 -175.2000 15000.00 18.4@ 41.03 58.31 43D9.66 31,4.21 188.6z 28.6690 -95.8094 MA't 9 197Z 1200 28.4500 -95-2000 15000.00 32.24 2@'. 16 71.17 4341.25 345.65 198.66 73.9143 -95.5325 M %It to 1972 0 28.4560. -45.2000 1"000.00 3q.15 24.33 8?.99 4382.09 34T.50 433.23 ZL.90-' -';5.ZS94 -AA it 197? 300 28.1500 -95.2000 15000.00 161.99 182.40 $10.56 5255.16 3B6.13 IZZ1.71 Z3.T604 -95.6239 M IR 12 1972 600 28.45CO -95-2000 15030.00 161.61 235.67 611.51 5439.44 393.98 934.72 ZC.59T? - % 5 . 97 1@6 44q 13 1972 1000 20.4500 -95.2000 I5COO-O 16T.T9 245.64 630.33 5457.03 394.TZ 1265.43 28.5ZZI -96.1421 44k 14 197? 1200 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 146.05 234.L9 567.66 5353.58 390.34 940.35 28.5157 -qb.1539 It 3 q 15 1972 300 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 140.19 227-36 554.64 5331.49 389.40 698.73 25.4514 -96.2737 MIR 16 1972 2100 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 143.19 213.24 50Y.Sr 5250.42 3e5.92 1252.23 2f3.4137 -96.3433 MAR 17 19?7 0 78.4500 -95.2000 15000.09 133.21 210.68 504.81 5245.03 335.67 1332.97 2C.4163 -)6.3390 MAP, L 3 19?2 1500 28.1,500 -95.2000 ISCoo.oo 110.45 133-87 3S6.29 496T.82 373.65 1529.89 ZS-2884 -96.5420 M@a R 19 19t? 300 23.4500 -95.ZOOO 15000.00 109.40 136.72 332.46 4920.43 371.51 1130.33 26.2948 -96.5269 .4q 20 1972 2100 26.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 se.20 W-93 277.92 -480e.77 366.63 2133.79 2 8 . 3 7 11 -96.31713 MA14 21 1972 600 ZR.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 $8.43 111.OZ 268.61 4789.24 365.77 2996.50 28.3793 -96.383T 4 Aq 2Z 1972 IdOO 78.4500 -1)5.2000 15CO0.00 74.5t 9T.64 232.27 4711.75 36?.32 1457.00 28.568Z -96.0459 -4 A It 23 072 1100 2B.4500 -95.200a 15000.10 4,7. 6 1 94.t2 206.02 4654.43 359.76 1176.60 ZO.5TIZ -96.067 Figure 10.6-5 Slick Model Surtmary Output (No Coriolis Force) - (continued). @mw mom PAGE 2 OIL StICK TFANSPORT MCOEL FINAL S"CK -!'!IT1AtGCHA%ACTERISTICS-- 0 DISTANCE TRANSPORTED - TIME OF- VOLUMES LOST---- C -COCRDtNATES TIFIIATIZ;'.-- L! I U0E-L NGITWE VOLUME * LATITUDE # LONGITUDE 0 BEACHING- AIR * SOLUTION- BEA H- LATITUDE LCNGI TUDE A I @ S, I 10 0 y YE (D=G) ITONI) (M LES) (MILES) (HOURS) A P HJUA '014 tTONS) TONS (VEGi t0EG) 14AR 21. 1172 500 2a-500 -95.2000 t5000.00 61.20 79.07 IC6.71 4611.49 357.84 2241.66 ZZ. 525 5 -96. !,58 @!Att 25 1q?Z t300 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 4T.94 53.29 160.03 4551.20 355.13 Z235.38 C.5515 -96.M3 MAR 26 1977 1530 2a.45CO -95.ZOOO 15COO-00 41.87 62.94 138.99 4502.75 352.95 916.64 29.5060 -96.172, milk 27 J07? 900 26.4500 -q5.2000 15000.00 38.08 60.07 120.80 4460.25 351.04 501.74 28.5Z97 -96. 1 Z79 M A R 28 Iq72 900 2-3.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 33.89 61.45 122.72 4464.77 351.74 783.51 28.4064 -16.2006 MA R 29 1972 600 2a.-500 -95.2000 15COO-00 5t.93 103.35 209.07 466L.16 360.06 1147.04 28.5431 M AR 30 1972 1200 23.@500 -95.200') 15000.00 4 T. Z 8 '06.86 189.82 4618.47 358.15 933.94 2 D. 5 32 1 -96.1233 mAq 31 lq?Z 0 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 45.32 87.63 215.05 4674.21' 360.65 1133.08 20.6598 -95.8269 Figure 10.6-5 Slick Model Sumary Output (No Coriolis Force) (continued). M M.M M M aw M M M MON m M OIL SLtC@ TRA-14SPORT MODEL NUMBER OF SLICKS TRAN'SPORTED - I MONTH OF FIRST SLICK - MAR , 1972 ()ENS ITY K AT ;C COEFFICILNTS - - SPPEADING LAW COEFFICIENTS FINIL @IATE R 0 L VIN@' S, 11AD11C DVFFU1IVITY SOLUBILITY INERT VISCOUS Sr fENSION AREA CM!:11111 CGM/cm*. Z/SEC YNE/CM) ICM--@/SEC) 1.03c) 0.850 0.0098250 30.00 0.000010 0.001000 L.1400 1;4500 2.0500 1.0000 - INITIAL SLICK CHARACTERISTICS ---- ---- INITIAL SLICK VOLUME - 15000.0 TONS VOLATILE RATE eF kATE CF RATE OF FRAC.TtUN EVAPOrAl 1 ON 0 1 S SnL UT SON DISS / EVAP 10.00 0.80 EXPF( O..'Owl 0.1000 0.016666T 7.00 0.00 Exp@f 0., ') 0.0 0.0 15.00 U. 110 EXPFI O.:Oldl 0.5000 0.0333335 20.00 r.00 EXPFI 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.00 E X-F I 0.20WI 1.0000 0.16666TO 3.00 0.02 EXPFI 0.0 W) 0.0010 0.0500000 15.00 O.OZ EXPF( 0.0 W) 0.0010 0.0500000 25.00 0.0 EXPF( 0.0 W) 0.0 0.0 CORICLIS-INOUCED WIND SHIFT - 15.0 DEGREES. SPREADINGS:E ?ME DIFFEkENTIATION r.:AVITY PEGIME V1 C;GJS REGIME SF TENSIrN REGIME (HOURS) (HnURSI (HOURS) 1.5404 36.0.72 206.4501 TEPRI%AL SPRtAOING AREA 95.9740 S". MILES Figure 10.6-@ Slick'Model Time History Output (Coriolis Force included). PAGE I 1,41 T I AL@CC\O IT I ONS OIL SLICKU*r:.'4SPORT MCOEL SI ULATED SPIL: OCCURRED ON 2h 4AP 197Z AT 1500 "0 t PO5ITI@:.'l TS 28.45 OFGRECS LATITUDE. -95.20 OTGkEES LC.NGITtj'OF.. ---------- - ----- SLICK TRANSPORT PHENOM -ENA 'CS ----------- - --------- W1110 RESIJ@ TANTS CUrRENTS - - ------------ SLICK CHARACTERIST, CFFSHORE ONSHIRX SLICK WIND POSITIONAL LONGSHCRE - -,VOLUMES LOST,-,-, V01 UME SLICK :4-NEWoPCS I T ;z S tREA Dip SPEED III SPFF. DIR PEED OIR SPEED VIR SPEED IR SOLTN SEA LEFT TITV L'NC.1 7 j@E I IEGI ,mPS1 to cc 'S) ` C. E 11 1 DAY Houw tOEGI (4S1 IOEG) tMPS r (MP 5 ) (DEG) (MPS1 CTONS) I TONS I ITCN TON t" @1) @C@ '49 68.4* 127.5 68.4- 9.6 O.T [email protected] 337.8 0.0 !04q2.2 2.011? -95.2, 2?5.0 32.9@ 240.0 32.90 254.2 0.6 0 0 0 4 0 0 10413.8 2.65.3 ,1..331 --25.Z!';7 15 0 3 2 9: zac 5 0 7: T 0:4 0: 0 10475 It 1:111 1@ .4111 -91:2_41 "oo INO 0 32 1 0.0 10 4 6 7 : 7 4 042 -95 .3.,6 0 1700 135:0 2Z:98: 150: 0 2 2: 8 3 3 4 :3 o: 5 7 ? 0 (11 1500 11 Z. 5 12.7- 127.5 12.7- 307-8 0.3 7.7 3.4 0.0 10459. 7 4.519 2 8.5 1 Q? -95. 24.7 7 0 1800 35:0 150 0 '32 9: 260 3 0 6 7 6 0 3 C.0 1045 4.951 76 @30.1 - q 5 .5 1, 32:9: ':7 48 5 ', 5 5 - q!;: 2 0 2100 31, 0 53 2 110:0 53:2 325:0 0:4 7 6 0 3 0.0 10 48 5.@ 2 e. 50 0 32 9: 14 2 1 1 7 6 0 3 0 0 10435 a 5:,717 26 5618 -5 0 1 0 135.0 3 2 9: 1 :T 60:8 0:8 'S 59J 1 -95 t 7:6 0:3 0:0 10421:8 6 64 :27 - 300 90.0 17:7 105:0 17 9.1. boo 35 0 32 9: So 0 32 9: 1) 5 0 7 7 6 0 3 0 C 10411@ 9 6 3-72 2 Q6?43 2.,4 I 1 0:3 0:0 C41,:O 6:7C3 .5.7723 11 11@;o :5 ;7: 9 121:5 2 7: 9 4:Z 0:9 7:6 - 1 1200 157:5 53:2: 72 5 53 Z. 6? 0 0 q 7 5 0 3 0 0 01;04 1 7 002 26..432 -95. 16 1-,, 1 7473 172:5 27:9- 87:4 1:0 7:5 0:3 0:0 10 116:3 7:JeO 28.6559 -1,.' 1 00 157 5 27 9 0.0 L03e,3.4 8.807 2a.6740 - - 158.7 Q. 5 7.5 0.3 I b 00 157.5 50.3 1711.11 5a. 3 2100 22 5 9 3 7: 3? 5 9 3 7: 112 2 0 1 7 5 0 3 0 0 0336 9 T5 7 23 S410 -95 2'3@ 0 13 5: 0 4 3 : 1 150: 0 4 3: 1 50: 5 0: 3 7: 5 o: 3 o:o 1.37@:6 10: TtO 2 8 :6 6 0 1 -9 5: 2,-- 00 112 5 17 7@ 127 5 17 7: 73.1 0.6 7.5 0.3 0.0 10365.0 11.784 23.6672 -95.2792 2 -95 z.? 5 2 t-^0 67:5 TC:5: 8 25 70:5. 28 .1 0 3 7 4 0 3 0 0 0357 z 2 a,39 Zd .5@9 3, z "00 67.5 IT .7 825 17 .7 ?9?:6 0:4 7:4 0:3 0:0 1.349:4 113: 9..3 2 1200 90-0 43.1- 105.0 43.1- 75.1 0.1 7.4 0.3 0.0 LC341.7 15.037 Z8-66"? -95-35@i 7 1500 tIZ:5 40:1: 27 5 48 1: 235 4 0 3 7 4 3 0 0 103!4 0 6 179 29 byt9 -95 311-1 qo 0 27 9 1 :0 103,5:3 17:343 2 9:6614 -9S:4C'13 7 300 105:0 27:9 zzz:z 1:2 7:4 0:3 0 0.0 22 .8 IC5 0 2 2 8: 241 6 L 6 7 4 0 3 0.0 1o 3 1. 0: 1, '8:@44 6563 -111, 4??) 2 100 1 -95 1 3 90.0 53 .2 105:0 53:2 275:0 0: 7 T:3 0:3 0.0 10310 9 9 166 1 300 1112.5 32.9- 127.5 32.9- 277.6 0.4 7.3 0.3 0.0 10,03.Z 21.0115 26.675, -qS.4@56 3 boo 112.5 43.1- 12?.5 43.1* Z64.5 0.0 7.3 0.3 O.o 10,95.5 22.2,38 26.6@155 -15.5250 3 130 25 22 275 22 6: 770 2 0 8 7 3 0 3 0 0 Was 0 23.516 20 6916 -95 5@113 1 0 0 102?0 4 24.90q Z3:7106 -;5: 5641 3 zC11 135:0 0:7 150:0 17:7 319:7 1:1 7 : 3 Q: 3 : 10272:a @6 2@15 zi @394 -95 5002 90 323 2 1 4 7 3 0 3 0 0 1 3 .500 151.5 27 .q- 172 5 27 1 540 47:8* 24d:1. 0: 4 7:2 0:3 53:9 102 1:4 Zd: -75:6062 . .;243 -1;5 . 7 0 3 67 5 10136 3 9 eir 28 D?b 6370 08 90: q: 247.7 0 5 I 1,qo) 2Z.5 'j 8 Ne 54.0 3 100 ?25 1 NE 41.4 464 64 450 te .7. 21.7.10 6 7 2 0 3 0 0 Ic1113 8 30.432 2F b 78 -,)5 6694 4 20 5 9@ I NE 44 4 1 '4 4 11,0) 900 17 .7. NE 43:1 79a 4.4 Z46 4 0:6 7: 2 0:3 0:0 0121:3 31.870 28:67,9 -95:6701 4 t, 0 0 1 Z: 5 5 9: 3 : ImE 3V: 8 9 7: 2 3 6: 4: Z46 0 0 7 7 2 0 3 0 01133 33 330 28 6710 -95 7134 4 9 00 jl@ 0 53 N 43 Z 38. 8 24.2. 2 4 5:6 o: 7 7:2 0: A 103:@ 11 C 0 3: 1 3 4: 6 111 Z3: 6587 - 9 5: 1 5 58 2 91.@ 9"902. .3 2a.6573 -95 ." ;'3 3 7 245 3 0 7 7 1 0 3 1 2 363 4 200 .3- NE 35 .5 106 a 24 4 1500 90:0 27:q- '!@jE 31:5 42:11 21) 7: 244 9 0 T 7 0 3 129 9 97649 37 337 26432 -95 77q,' I I , t 4 744 1 1 4 boo 12 5 38 0 @NF 33 1 I'D 20: :6 0:8 :1 0:3 122:9 9634: 5 39:101 2::6303 -95 8017 4 ;1100 79 9 150 14:1,: ?44 3 0 a 7 0 3 1 1 9505 a 40 946 28:6L8? :95 t!1,60 7 1 S U :1 :531 2a 6096 '35 0 53 7 4 30 4 569 56 @441 0 1) 0 3 10 1 93393 4, 95 0 54 100 1Is o 4'4:,1: '@N@ ;11. 5 90a 21 3: 2438 0 9 7 1 0.3 112 , 92698 44136 28 6039 -95 8595 5 600 1 3":o 17 py F 5:7 61:9 4:7 243:5 1:0 7:0 0.3 133:, 9123:T 45:760 28:5967 -95:8756 900 1 j0 43.1- N .9.8 50.4 6.7- 243.3 1.0 7.0 0.3 138.3 S*33. 1 47.401, 28.5885 - 9 5. 8 1? 2 1) 200 It T. SSE 27 9: 25 9: 3511.7 0.5 T 0 0 @ 140 0 0335 0 4q 067 26065 : 1) 5: A 9 !, 10 500 1 b": '8 245.0 2.9 7:0 0 3 142: IS, : 3z 9 SC 2@ 8 50 zz a 8 06657 50 749 25972 95 944 (continued@ Figure 10.6-6 Slick model Time History Output (Coriolis Force Tncluded) OIL SLICK TRA4SPCRY MODEL INITIOL Cf1%r)f?I-)'.S Sf@'JLAT!rt SPILL liCCURZED CN 26 MA P 197Z AT 1500 HOURS. f 0 'S I I 1;4 1S ZR .45 1JEGPE i S L AT ITJ.E -95.Z7 r@Fr:@ESS LONGITUDE. ------------ ----- SLICK TRANSPORT PMENCMENA --------- - !IjU ;FS-JLTtNTS - * --- CUPPENTS ----- - ---- - -------- SLICK CHARACTERISTICS CFFS @@E (;NS19jQF SLICK WIND POSITIC4AL LONGSHORE v - VOLUMES LOST - v VOLUME SLICK * -NEW POSITION- Dl@ S-F@0 SPEEn UIR SPESO DIP SPEED DIR SPEED AIR SQL7N BEACH LEFT AREA LATITUDE LC14G[tUOIE (DEG) IDEG) %-f "OUR ICE',) (-S) I OE,;) I,tPS) tCEG) IMPSI (DEC) (MPS) (DEG) (MPS) tTONS) (TONS) (IONSI (TONS) (SO MIJ 5 (Ij i7 71 SSj ?I.q- 172.5 27.9* 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.3 188.3 8490.1 52.450 23.6092 -95.9459 2 1 0.1 8351,.Z 52.478 26.6094 -95.9464 5 D3 12 SF [email protected] 150.0 48.1- 245.0 0.0 135.8 _j Figure 10.6-6 Slick Model Time History Output (Coriolis Force Included) (continued). OIL SLICK ';kANSPOPT MODEL N',;m2EA OF SL: K. TCANSPCPTFD - 31 MONTH OF FIRS@ -'LICK - MAR , 1972 nENS IT Y KjNEMAT;C ------- COEFFICIENTS,-- * vSPREADING LAW COEFFICIENTS FINAL IWEII OIL V Sp READING GIF:@SJIVITY OLURILITY INERTIAL VISCOUS SF TENSION AREA I S@"IEYI 10 YNE/C M) (C4 2 S-C) (G.4!Cm..3) rm 21S C 1.030 0.350 0.00,18250 30.00 Q.GCOOIO 0.001000 1.1400 1.4500 2.0500 1.01cla ---------- INITIAL SLICK CHARACTERISTICS --------- INITIAL SLICK VGLU--E - 15000.0 TONS VULATILE KATE C15 RATE OF RATE OF FQ AC T I ON EVAPORATION DISSCILUTION OISS / EVAP 10.00 0.80 Exprt 0.20.11 0.1000 0.0166667 7.00 0.00 EXPFt 0.0 WI 0.0 0.0 15.00 0.80 EXPFf 0.2cw) 0.5000 0.0833335- 20.00 0.00 EXPF( 0.0 0' 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.80 CXPF( O.Zcdl t.0000 0.16666TO 3.00 0.02 EXPF( 0.0 W) 0.0010 0.0500000 15.00 0.02 EXPF( 0.0 W) 0.0010 0.0500coo Cx, Z5.00 0.0 EXPF( 0.0 W) 0.0 0.0 CO'tl()LIS-?Nf)UCEO WIND SMIFt 15.0 DEGREES. SPREADING PfGMF OlFpCqENTIATION --- L;RAVITY REGIME VISCCUS REGIME SF TENSICN REGIME (MOUPSI [HOURS) (HOURSI 1.5404 36.0672 206.4501 TERMINAL SPAEADING AREA 95.9740 $0. MILES Figure.10.6-7 Slick Su=nary Cutput (Coriolis Force Included). PAGE I OIL SLICK TRANSPORT MODEL _C, FI@AL INITIAL CHARACTEqISTICS-* * DISTANCE TRANSPOATED - TIME OF - - ------ VOLUMES LOST----- 109.0,%ATES 1:)EN Y IF IC ATI@4- LATITUDLILONGITUDE VOLUME # LATITUDE LONGITUDE * BEACHINC- AIR I SCIUTION'- DEAC@'* LATITUIE LONG@TL12r Mr,11TH DAY YEIR Houl MG) (DEG) t TONS) (MILES) [MILES) 1HOURS) (TCNS) I TONS TONS I CIIEG) (^EGI MAR I Iq72 1500 28.4500 -q5.2000 15000.00 63.49 ?7.31 its.82 4455.59 350.82 411.42 28.395t _q6. 364;2 W. A q 2 1972 600 28.450'J -95.2000 15000.00 57.27 85.11 113.41 4442.82 350.25 551.03 28.2626 -q6.SF42 'AAR 3 1972 1200 2d.4500 -95.2003 15000.00 34.31 57.53 73.32 4346.50 345.09 218.29 28.5418 -96. IC52 MAR 4 1qTZ ADD 20.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 26.60 60.97 77.1, 4355.76 346.31 108.99 29.53C2 -96.1269 MAR 5 1972 1500 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 19.1t. 40.32 52.24 4294.65 343.53 174.86 2C.6471 -95.9555 Mk;t 6 191`2 0 78.4500 -qS.2000 ISCOO.00 23.8L 34.11 5Z.00 4294.06 343.50 255.01 78.T232 -95.6158 M%R 7 1972 2100 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 1q.15 32.86 55.13 4301.81 343.66 247.26 2-.701T -95.7411 A2. 8 1972 600 2S.4500 -95.2000 ISCOO.00 20.30 37.91 55.16 4301.89 343.8t, L70.98 ze.11019 _?5.14011 M%A 9 1q?2 1200 20.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 36.6 3'..35 75.60 4352.05 346.14 235.70 Z8.8484 -95.4745 MAR 10 1972 0 2U.4500 -95.2000 15CO0.00 40.7-- 24.04 e6.44 4378.34 347.33 330.35 29.02!1 _95.2C63 MAR It !917 300 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 163.04 164.04 511.11 5256.13 386.17 1612.7q 20.8$11 _q5.@190 MAR 12 Iq72 600 28.4500 -95.7000. 15000.00 L4Z.73 179.73 480.73 5202-L2 383.84 1697.35 28.7104 -95.7227 MAQ 13 1972 LU00 28.4530 -95.2000 15000.00 139.75 177.67 455.70 5156.?Z 381.88 945.26 28.6ZI16 -95.2996 MAR 14 1972 1200 2d.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 128.80 161.63 428.73 5106.83 379.72 1568.97 Ze.633T -;5.13373 .Aq 15 1.972 30D Z8.4500 -95.2000 15000-00 130.54 158.15 414.?7 5079.69 378.54 1675.50 Z8.5923 -95.93Tb PAR 16 1972 2100 28.1 500 -95.2000 15000.00 125.07 14Y.04 372.05 4998.69 375@00 2100.70 Z8.4!.85 -96.2605 maq 17 19 77 0 Za.4500 -95.2000 15CO0.00 1.?2.87 147.45 369.14 4993.02 374.75 2110.20 ZC.1496 -96.2771 %A9 IS 19T? 1500 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 L111.13 127.39 331.41 4913.46 371.43 2090.32 2.3025 -96.5086 Y144 Iv Iq7Z 300 ?8.45CO -95.2000 15000.00 109.26 123.05 320.64 4S96.63 370.52 1644.46 28.3947 -96.36qS Aq 20 19?2 2100 2.9.4500 -95.200D 15000.00 91.61 113.47 278.53 4810.03 366.69 4765.02 28.3981 -96.3S64 XAk 71 19?2 600 28.1.500 -95.2000 15000.00 89.59 111.10 Z66.40 4788.80 365.75 5451.24 20.4301, -16.3134 22 1972 1900 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 73.32 91.56 231.14 4709.31 3622.21 2234.ZA. 28.6@23 -95.9634 MAR 23 1972 ZIOO 28.45CO -95.2000 ISCCO.00 T2.4( 86.79 Z04.19 4650.38 359.58 2104.75 28.5936 -95. 9T25 Figure lo.6-7 Slick Model Su,=ary Output (coriolis Force Included) - (continued". OIL SLI1K TRANSPCRT -CDEL g IMA L S L -II!TI:L,CH-'11.1.CTSPISTICS-; D!SrANCE TRANSPO@TED T14E OF 04UMES LOST------ -COORDINATES TIICX T L W',ITU E VCLUM LATITJOF LCNCITUDE ------ V. E N F I r. 4 T 4 aEACt1t%G AIR SCLU T I ON- BEACH- LATTJOE LOSCMD! ",;j 2 U@IJO A Y v E C (D=G; T ON S IM LESI (MILES) 1@10U S) (TONS (TO 3) TG14SI (11EG) (DEC) 4.1 A @ 4 1 1; 1@ 1500 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 59.81 68.96 106. is 4613.30 357.79 3350.86 28.59@@S -95.4@6'75 44;L 25 IqT? 1,30 Zd.4530 -95.2000 15000.00 52.26 56.40 159.32 4549.56 355.06 2q,?3.GS Z 0.51,%Q -qb.cc2e MAI ?o 1@72 1500 -1.4100 -95.7@000 ISCOO.00 4t.qo 52.06 131.05 4500.57 352.S5 1712-2 28,6094 -9@.;464 4AA 27 1912 j30 Zd.4500 -1?5.2000 ISO00.00 40.10 118.55 12.0.64 4457.dB 351.02 8?1.55 ZO-55C6 -96.0691 ttz 2e 197? qOJ 28.4500 -95.2003 15CO0.00 30.47 55.25 97.45 4404.83 348.53 389.80 28.5498 -96.0903 MIA zq 0TZ 1113T 7b."500 _9S.2000 15000.00 28.06 49.95 84.18 4372.88 347.08 36,2.37 20.5e29 -9b.CI04 "R 30 Iq?2 12aO 23.4500 -95.2000 15000.00 44.35 79.38 173.74 4593.63 357.04 996.83 2 72 -95.7715 @1 1472 0 2'-500 -95.200,) 15000.00 42.18 76. 77 173.99 4582.91 356.56 569.52 20.6892 -9%T6T3 Figure 10.6-7 Slick Model Summary OutTut (Coriolis Force Included) (continued). PACE I SOLUBLE FRACTION TRANSPORT MODEL INITIAL 1,114DITIONS Sr jLaTSO SIL, Or iS000 0 TONS OCCURRED ON 26 MAR 1972 AT 1500 HOURS. POSITION IS ZS .45 DEGQEE; LATITUVE, -95.20 DS,-,REES LONGITUDE. FRACT!0% PA-AMETERS Hovq is 201. (PELATIvE TO SPILL INITIATION). POWIC14 IS 23.4? IIEG-EES LATITUDE, -95.23 DEGREES LCNGITUDE- WFISHT IS 338.9 T04S. S@ICK A:t=A IS 2.03 SQUARE MILES. &Sn@U3LE F:t3CTIC-i TR-ANSPORT PHENOMENA* - ------- Cj2RE.NT RESULTANTS - 0---------------- --- DIFFUSION RESULTS ------------- - ---- S:Y@r ICE MID-OFPTH TRANSPORT $---- COEFFICIENTS ---- - - SPREADINr, EXTENTS* MAY.TMV-. _N EY POSITION- DIP SrEcl DIR SPEED D:R SPEED X Y z X Y z CONCEWRATION LAT,TUDE LS4,^!TV0F CA Y HOUR (DEG) t-,S) (DEG) (MPS) (DEG) I MPS ) .-- (FT**2/SEC) - (411 1 HT I I FT) tPPM) ICE, ) (DEG) C 601 254.2 0.6 253.1 1.3 255.9 0.7 172.92 172.92 0.01 Z.17 2.17 29.39 11.051 28.46") -q!@ . 2A 13 c @31 [email protected] 0.6 272.3 1.2 276.1 0.8 258.81 258.81 0.01 Z.82 2.82 41.57 4.653 2$.4701 --q5 . Z 541 C IZ01 334.a 0.5 301.9 0.9 316.0 0.7 365.66 355.66 0.01 3.53 3.53 50.91 2.418 20.4771 -95.Z6.31 0 1501 307.3 0.3 Z36.7 0.9 ZQZ.4 0.6 494.26 474.26 0.01 4.3t 4.31 5e.T9 2 S. 4 P 03 -9 5 .7 7 011 1.0 645.24 f@ 4 24 0.01 2 S. 4 7q3 -1@5 2 875 0 1 @.,. 0 1 0.6 Z-,,). ? 1.4 262.0 5.16 5.16 65.73 0.873 0 7.101 325.8 0.4 n6.4 0.9 304.3 0.6 819.08 o1q.08 0.01 6.0& 6.06 65.71 0.635 2C.4350 -91@ 21, 61 1 1 14'.2 1.1 325.6 0.8 350.8 0.0 1016.18 IC16.18 0.01 7.02 7.07 65.73 0.473 Z3.4971 -95. 29.13 1 3 0 1 60.8 0,1 301 8 ' 0.4 24.6 0.3 1236.95 1236.05 0.! 1 8.01, e.04 65.73 0.361 Z2.5010 -75-2962 1 611i 79.5 0.7 36:5 0.1 71.9 0.4 14,31.38 1401-38 0.01 9.11 9.11 65.73 0.231 28.11D27 -1;'. ""C4 1 9Q1. 74.2 D. 9 63.5 0.4 72.4 0.6 17',9.97 1749.9T 0.01 '0.23 10.23 455.13 0.2Z3 28.50,13 -95.?30R 1 1201 67.0 0. 1@ 42.6 0.4 53.2 0.6 2042.83 2042.03 0.01 11.1.0 11.40 65.73 0.179 29.510? -95.2710 1 1501. 87.4 1.0 49.3 0.4 75.3 0.6 2360.12 2360.12 0.01 12.62 12.62 65.73 0.147 ZR.5125 -95.2@17 1 11301 156.7 0.5 147.9 0.3 154.4 0.4 2 7 01 . q 3 2701.98 0.01 13.89 13.69 65.73 0.121 29.5075 --175.2590 1 2101 112.2 0.1 255.6 0.3 234-4 0.1 3068.54 3068.54 0.01 15.19 15.19 65.73 0.101 2 9.5C56 -95.26-05 2 1 50.5 0.3 315.4 0.4 349.5 0.3 3459.91 3459.91 0.01 16.55 16.55 65.73 0.085 28.5103 -175 .7&11 Figure 10.6-8 Subsurface Model Time History OutPut. PACE 1 SOLUBLE FRACTIO14 TRAIS -oRr MODEL --- SOLUBLE FRACTT04 TAANSPORT RESULTS --- 0 IN ITT AL SOL 13-11 FRA' T ION PARA'@CT E it S- D! ST A.11C E IN!T!tl. T E 214 1 A,, c INITIAL OIL APACTERISTICS SLICK TRANSPOIT-D F INA L I C11:1 R@, , N 7 E 5 SPILL CH W '%ITU)E LATITUDE LONGITUIE E IGHT LATITVOE LIW,17UDE WE I GHT AREA LAT. LONS. TIME C ONC . I LA T I0D @ LON, MONTH DAY YEA:@ HOVR (Ot G) (DEG) tIONS) HOUR fOEGI (DEG? (TONS) (SO M1 I tMI) (411 (mcul's) ML11 1 19?2 15ro 28.4500 -95.2000 15003.0 129. 28.45,99 -1;5. 19' 9 331.3 2.1546 0.61, 13.62 45.43 10. ',0 7 r, . 43 @) 5 -q5-3'76 * 11 1972 600 Z1.4500 -95.2000 15003.0 301 5 Z8.4124 -15.2003 33C.9 2.0257 5.51 16.22 45.02 20.4- 81 -95.4572 (0 091 * 4 It 3 197, 1200 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 322 Z8.4653 -95.2486 339.3 2.1182 4.55 12.35 48.37 10:4s 2 8 .4.'l 5 7 -95.4435 ( 0.01.11 * 1. A 4 Iq72 600 23.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 304 28.1,743 -95.?OQ5 [email protected] 2.0396 4.50 IS.Z9 4!.OT -11.01 2C.475, -q5.50,14 10: O'@ ' WAR 5 1972 1500 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 301 28.4363 -95.2431 338.9 2.0257 4.45 tB.32 48.0, 11 D" 2,1.5010 -15.53-37 ( 0.09) MAR 6 1972 0 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 301 28.4313 -95.2551 338.9 2.0257 4.15 13.34 4 S. CQ 11.05 28.4917 -95.4423 t 0. G^1 ! m Aq 7 19T2 2100 Z8.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 30T 23.4754 -95.2121 339.3 2.0530 5.21 27.29 4S.12 10. '?4 20.5511 -q5.6614 IC.09) MAR 8 19?2 600 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 453 28.4686 -93.2206 339.6 2.5132 4.56 28.11 46.30 -22 2'6.534@ -9S.6V34 q0io ) M AR 9 1972 1200 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 416 20.4720 -95.2536 339.6 2.3428 4.68 0. 53 46.27 q:79 23.53'1 -q5.4753 10.10) MAR 10 1972 0 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 543 Z3.1,784 -95. 2372 340.3 2.7204 8.08 9.89 47.72 3. 63 28.5946 -95.3133 tc"017) MAR 11 1972 300 20.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 746 Ze.4642 -95.1975 340.7 3.12T4 9.66 9.99 49.77 7.66 2a.6036 -95.03P3 c0.071 4V 12 1972 600 29.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 301 28.4427 -95.2277 336.9 2.0257 6.96 7.28 4e.02 11-i 2 8. 540 1 -9 S. 1' 29 A q 13 Iq72 71800 Z8.4500 -95.2300 15000.0 520 28.4526 - 95. 14'. 8 339.6 2.6495 5.40 5.50 47.33 e:@ql' ZS.521C - 5.0 59 6 w MAq 14 1172 1200 28.4500 -95.2000 150CO.0 752 28.4755 -q5.1.616 341.0 3.124? 5.T9 6.40 49.37 7 63 23.5401 -q5.06ZI t0 MAR 15 1972 300 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 T01 Ze.4781 -95.1396 330.2 2.9523 4.41 11.04 49.02 B:@.70' 21.5241 -94.9571, c0.09) MAR 16 197Z ZIOO 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 331 28.4347 -95.1753 33q.3 2.1635 7.85 21.52 45.52 10.46 28.4905 -94.3207 t 0.10) MAR 17 19TZ 0 2-3.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 308 28.4398 -95.1817 339.3 2.0560 8.61 21.05 43.13 1 t). @, 28.4716 -q4.3350 ( 0.09) MAI 18 E972 1500 28.4500 -95.2000 ISOOO.O 402 28.4503 -95.2039 339.6 2.2920 T.Ta 7.00 46.03 ').'7 20.5233 -;5.2T35 (0.!0) MAA 19 19TZ 300 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 302 28.438B -q5. 2034 333.9 2.0316 7.42 7.10 4C.03 11.02 28.5271 -q5.2076 ( 0.09) MAR 20 1972 2100 20.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 302 28.4312 - 15. 1910 338.9 2.0316 4.5T 7.04 48.03 11.02 28.4237 -95.2901 1 0 09) MAR 21 1972 600 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 333 28.4716 -95.2414 33q.6 2.1709 3.63 6.01 45.55 10:44 28.4675 -9S.2qI8 10.101 MAR @Z 19?2 1800 ZB.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 301 2B.4235 -95.2268 338.9 2.0257 4.15 IM6 4P.02 11.05 28.4311 -q4.q9q6 ( 0.09) MAR 23 1972 2100 28.4500 -95.2000 L5000.0 442 28.4566 -95.LT32 339.6 2.4791 5.76 16.61 46.70 9.32 20 ."S 2 -94.8q96 10.10) MAR 74 1972 1500 28.4500 -95.2000 150CO.0 302 28.4269 [email protected] 338.9 2.0316 0.53 11.99 49.03 11.02 2A.51T2 -94.-M3 ( 0.091 MAR 25 1.972 1400 28-4@500 -95.2000 15000.0 326 28.4?98 -475.2360 339.6 2. L271 7.01 7.66 40.43 IO.hZ ZS.573q -95.2903 1 0.03) Figure 10.6-9 St.b3urface Model Summary Output. SOLUBLE FRACTION TRANSPORT MODEL --- SOLUBLE FRACTION TRANSPORT RESULTS INITIAL SOLUBLE FRACTION PARAMETERS* DISTANCE INIT I At. TER41NAL SLI C.@ TRANSPORT EO F t4A*, I Cr'nRoINATES ---- INITIAL OIL SPILL CHARACTERIS r1CS --- * NC. LATITUDE LONGITUDE WEIGHT LAMUDE LONGITUDE WEIGHT AREA LAT. LONG. TIME CC LATITUDE L0NC:7UCF P3.-iTH DAY YEAR HOUR (DEGI (DEG) tTONS) HOUR tDEG1 tOEGJ (TONS I (SO M,' IM11 (MI) t POURS I (PPS) (DFG) (DEG) MAR 2619?2 t5OO 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 301 28.4715 -95.2293 338.9 2.0257 3.93 6.72 4e.02 11.05 28.5103 -95.2613 t 0.0171 .A q 2T 1972 900 28.4500 -95.2000 t5000.0 322 28.4720 -95.2223 340.0 2.0900 4.41 4.43 48.37 10.76 23.5016 -95.2019 1 0. 011 AR 28 11972 qOO 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 301 25.4116 -95.2157 338.9 2.0257 5.16 10-32 48.02 111.05 78.43PI -95.3T3T ( O.0q) M AR 29 1972 600 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 533 28.4327 -95.2563 340.3 2.654t 4.16 21.69 47.55 4.rl 2 S. 4 6 7 t - 15. 613 8 1 0.0?1 MAR 30 19T2 1200 28.4500 -95.2000 1500D.0 301 28.4126 -95.2523 338.q Z.OZ5T S. 18 14.55 48.02 11.05 28.3914 -95.4782 1 0.091 MAP 31 1972 0 28.4500 -95.2000 15000.0 302 28.48,@3 -q5.2329 338.9 2.0316 5.06, 6.72 48.03 11.02 28.4437 -95.3196 t 0.09) Figure 10.6-9 Subsurface Model Summary 0 .utput (continued). + p A + FWT+ C C + OIL SLICK SIMULATION FOB 3 /26/1972 MIGHT ISOM UTZ. MIMI 11:039 Wl". Figure 10.6-3.0 T@Tical Oil Slick Tnuisport Pith oqo Coriolis Force). J.0.6-34 C C + OIL SLICK SIMLJLRTION'FCJB 3 /26/1972 IM W-TCT M.CS WXM. Figure 10.6-11 Typical Oil SliL'.',@ Transport Path (Coriolis Force Included) 10.6-35 + P A + FIVT C C + SUBSURFACE PLUME SIMULATION 3 /26/1972 MIGHT" K- 3 T M. TMWEL TUa - EL. I PN POURS. Figure 10.6-12 Typical Subsurface Phune Transport Path. lo.6-36 COASTAL PRO@FILE TRAVEL Tli',',ES C c FRPTGqL P R (HOURIS) 0. 0 MAX 12'22.0 MIN BiX m 10@0 MEAN 5s5. o cr m MEDIAN = 553.5 STD. DEV. = 379.4 20.0- (50 SLICKS) (L 30.0 a.) Month of January CORSTAL PROFILE C c FRPTGRL P A TRAVEL TIMES 0.0 (HOURS) MIN = 51.0 MAX = Q90.0 10.0 cc MEAN = 193,5 m ri MEDI;'jN = 165.0 cc: 0. 20.0 STD. DEV. = l0q.9 cr- (57 SLICKS) 30.0-1 b.) Month of February COASTAL PROFILE BRk4N c c FBPTGRL P A TRRVEL TIMES 0.0 (HOURSi ------------ MIN = 33.0 10.0 MAX = 609.0- MERN = 175.7 rz MEDIRN = 109.5 CL 20.0 STD. DEV. = lq8.0 U cr OL (62 SLICKS) 30.0 C.) Month of mil-irch No 0( 'l- Co,---tal Tl@li)act bil ti C(TRUAL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES c C FRPTGAL P R (HOURS) j+, 1 141 1 t i I- - - - - -- - - - - - - - 0.0 MIN = 42.0 MAX = 297.0 10.0-- MEAN = 105.8 MEDIAN = 79.5 STD. DEV. = 62.1 20.0- (60 SLICKS) 30.0 110. 0 j d.) Month of April COASTAL PROFILE TRRVEL TIMES BR14N c C FnPTGAL P A (HOURS) 0.0 1 1 11 1 2-1j-L1j-Lh-Lu1 141 1 @ I I I -- u T MIN = 57.0 MAX = 465.0 t 10.0 MEAN = 146.2 cr MEDIAN STD. DEV. = 102.q a_ 20.0 (55 SLICKS) cr e.) month of May COASTAL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES BRWN C C FHPTGAL P R (HOURS) hl@-ff - ------------- MAX 333.0 MIN 48.0 (XI 10.0 MEAN 140.2 MEDIAN = 12-6.0 ED STD. DEV. - 75.1 20.0 cr 153 SLICKS] 010.0 f.) 1-briLli of June Figure 3.0'. 0--.13 Oil. Slick. 1-lonthly Coar::tal Trip,.1cL Probabilities (No Coriolis Force) (conLinued). 4 u CORSTAL PROFILE TWIVEL TIMES BRIAN c c FRPTGnL P A 0.0 WIN = 48.0 MRX = 351. D L MEAN = 185. 0 m 10.0 MEDIAN = 171.0 GO ED STD. BEV. = 84.9 20.0 (LI ISLICKS) C-3 cr, a- 1,1011til of July 30.0 COASTAL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES DRWN C c FRPTGAL P (HOURS) 0.0 th L I I I 1 1. Ll I I1-@l 1-1 -1- IN = 108.0 m----------- MAX = 363.0 10.0 MEAN = 2110. 1 cr MEDIAN = 2110.U m STD. DEY. = 73.1 (L 20.0 (42 SLICKS) cr n- 30.0 h.) Month of AuRust CORSTAL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES BR;4N C C FRPTGAL P R (H TURS) 0.0 +, I , I , t4, 1 , I------------ M [ij Ujj MIN 96.0 MRX 576.0 ca 10.0 MERN 306.3 cr co MEDIAN = 273.0 U STO. DEV. = 146.0 20.0 (30 SLICKS) cr 30.0 L month Of Sep FigLirc 1.0.6--13 Oil Sjjj@ @jojjt.,,jjv, c(@,,stnl Trnpact P17obab U-ities (No CoriLA.-is Force.) - (continued). 10.6--39 Q, COnSTfl. FRO'J"FILE TRAVEL TIMES BRWN C C FRPTGAL P A (HOURS) 0. 0 _r!:Lj_Lf_ J__ - ------------- MIN = 5q.0 KRX = 513.0 in 1u.u 11EERN = 179.0 Ir HIEDIRN = 129.0 C-0 L3 STD. DEV. = 113.5 cc (62 SLICKS) cr 0- >: 30.0 J.) Month of October. COASTAL PROFILE BRWN C C FRPTGRL P R TRAVEL TIMES 0.0 1+1111 1111111101ftl it] [it 1111 141 li i i i - - _(HOURS)--- u u MIN = 30.0 MRX = 834.0 fo 1u.u MEAN = 35q,7 Cr MEDIAN = 26?,0 rc STD, DEV. = 254. 7 20.0 Cr tGO SLICKS) @c 30.0 1. Month of Nov0rlber COASTAL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES BRWN C C FPiPTGRL -P A (HOURS) 0.0 ----------- -- 14IN = 21.0 MAX = 549.0 Cr 1u.u MEAN = 239.6 MEDIAN = 190.5 jq4.7 20,0 STD. DEV. (q2 SLICKS) n- 30.0 1.) Month of December Fijure 10.6-13 Oil Slick Monthly Coastal Impact Probabilities (No Coriolis Force) - -'continued). JO.6--'40 C51STAL PROFILE TRAVEL UNIES C C FFiPTGn!- P A (HOURS) 0. 0 It MIN = 72.0 MAX - 1377.0 10.0- MEAN - SS2.7 MEDIAN = 501.0 STD. DEV.. = 398.2 20.0 U (T- (57 SLICKS) 30.0 a.) Month of January CORSTRL PROFILE BR',,IN C C FRPTGRL -P A TRAVEL TIMES >- 0.0 141 1 1 LIU-1-LLUI .1.01 1 1 1 1 rh I f 1.@- (HOURS) MIN = 51.0 MAX = U71.0 10.0 MEnN = 181.5 ro to MEDIAN :- 159.0 rc 20,11 STD. DEV. = 96. 6 (57 SLICKS) 30.0 b.) Month of Februiry COASTAL PROFILE BRWN C C FRPTGnL P A TRAVEL TIMES 0.0 jlf3.1, (HOURS) 1+1 f- - ------------ MIN = 45.0 MAX = 1159. 0 10.0- MEAN = 159.2 (n MEDIAN 20.0 STD. DEV. = 109.8 U Cr n- SLICKS) 30.o c.) Month of March Figure 10.6-1.4 Oil Slick 1101ILh-ty CoaStal 1.mpjct Probal)-ijitieS (Coriolis Force Included). 10.6-41, CO,-15fnL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES DRNIN C c FRPTGAL P A (HOURS) -- ------------ MIN = 38.0 MAX = 291.0 10.0 MEAN = 105.3 MEDIAN = 78.0 Cr- STD. BEV. = 63.4 C!- 20.0 160 SLICKS) 30.01 d.) Month of April U COASTAL PROFILE C. c FRPTGRL P R TRAVEL TI14ES 0. 0 4 14, .t�l I I I I t---[HOURS)--- U MIN = 60.0 MAX = 276.0 m 10.0 cc MEAN = 12LI.11 0-1 MEDIAN = 112.5 sm. DEV. = qq.Lj 2..? cy (50 SLICKS) 30.0 e.) Month of May COASTAL PROFILE BRWN c c FRPTGRL P A TRAVEL TIMEF (HOURSI tt- mu- MTN m 54.o MAX = 372.0 ca 10.0 cr MEAN = 164.7 MEDIAN - 1117.0 cc 20,0 STD. BEV. - 88.3 cc 152 SLICKS) f.) Month of June 30.0 Figure 1.0.6-14 oil slick 1,1onthly Coastal Impact Probabilities (coriolis Force Tncliided). 10 6 -.4 2 CORSTRL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES C C FRPTGnL P A (HiOURS) BRAN ------------ 0 fflli 48.0 HIRX 396-0 HERN = 200-9 m 10.0- 14EDIRN = 192.0 Cr STD. BEV. = 99.5 CL 20.0 I-- (III SLICKS) U Cr CL I g.) Month of July 30.0 CORSTAL PB OFILE BRWIN C C FRPTGRL P R TRAVEL TIFIES 0.0 --- (HOURS)--- MIN = 103.0 14AX = 336.0 m L MEAN = 208.6 MEDIo`k'.',' = 216.0 T 5TD. BEY. = 64.2 20.o Itl I SLICKS) 3 0.0 j h.) 11onth of August CORSTAL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES BR14N C C FRPTGRL P A (HOURS) 0. B -hl 14, Ito it-fill I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - MIN,= 81.0 - KRX 579.0 MEAN 301. 5 10.0 M- cr EDIAN = 279.0 STD. BEV. = W9.8 a- 20*0 SLICKS) Cr i.) lionth of Septedber 30.0 Figure 10:'6-14 Oil Slick Monthly Coastal Impact Probabilities (Coriolis Force Included). L1.1 j- L+- Pi 1 9 vtilftlill 10.6-43 CORSTAL PROFILE TRAVEL TIMES BRIiN C C FRRTGqL P A 0.0 tLJ-L,-Ll- MIN = 54.0 MAX = 387. 0 I-A 10.0 HEAN = 153.1 cy: MEDIAN = 11q.0 rr.) STD. DEV. = 92.3 20.0 tj (62 SLICKS) Cr 30.0 j-) Month of October COASTAL PROFILE TRAVEL T114ES BRINN C C FRPTGRL P A (HOURS) 0.0 - V! :jjja,_, I I 1 14, 14IN = 30.0 MAX = 609.0 co 1U.U - MEAN = 237.5 cc m MEDIAN = 210.0 STD. DEV. = 140.1 u Cr E60 SLICKS) 30.0 k.) Month of November COASTAL PROFILE C C FRPTGAL P R TRAVEL TIMES 0.0 ...... (HOURS) -- u 9�A- L MIN = 60.0 HRX = 1701.0 t m 10.0 MEAN = 559.0 a j p V.3 MEDIAN = 214.5 STD. DEV. = 607.5 a- 20. G' Cc (58 SLICKS) ;t; 30.0 1.) Month of December F@ 'Montlily CoLrtal Impact Probabilities 10.6-14 Oil Slick (Coriolis Force Includad). 10.6-44 MHURL. PROIF ILE TRAVEL TIMIES C, C, FRPTORL P F1 (HOURS) >- 0.0 ir4 - - ------------ MIN = 42.0 MAY = 1272.0 -j L 10.0 MEAN = 277.5 Cr MEDIAN = 171.0 M C) STD. DEV. = 256.8 20.0 U (339 SLICKS) Cr CL 30.0 Figure 10.6-1.5 Oil. Slick coastal Impact Probabinties for the Year 1.972 (No Coriolis Force). CORSTM PMFILE BRPIN C C FRPTGAL P R ..;.-L TIMES 0.0 --- (HOURS.)--- UJA=M444A 14IN = 36.0 MAX = 1377.0 cc MEAN = 2117.9 M 14ED,.nN = 165.0 STD. DEV. = 238.9 a_ 20.0 U Cr (3111 SLICKS) Bm Figure 10.6-16 Oil Slick Coastal Impact Probabilities for the Year 1972 (Coriolis Force Included).- 10. 6--45 PORT ARTHUR 8 8 10 17 LI 12 13 17 16 13 23 13 29 20 21 120 I I'l I@ 15 17 19 CALVESTON I 1 321 2 8 _2@ 23 .9 23 2C '213 6 33 14,10 331 Z'15 34128 135 34 34 25 16 12 78 \ 47---. 61 S 15 51 4C.1,1 40 42 41 35 20 20 12 7 FREEPORT'\@@, - ___ - I- - 21 @s 72 177 Er, S 46 39 33 23 13 6 4 5 5 132 BAC ;30 IM 95 83 55 4 4 32 20 12 4 4 _G 5 68 101 1@3 192 !Z11-1 1;2 97 64137 W, 11-2 6 __2 3 4 2 7c"! t?", 100,55 36 23 151 a 5 2 2 41 Kv 16G Icoll IF, 46 -1 123 12211341-0 1173 q G6 ZO 24 t4 9 4 4 2 73 75 G7 1-9 7 9-2 1 _8 8- 7 9 65 G@, 4 9 2r, 16 13 7 6 6 4 1 5714G 41 42 45 55 55153 41 19 30 31 14 11 '1 5 2 2 CORPUS CHRIST 15 32 23 17 27 30 40 "1 33 35 _', 4 37 23 10 6 3 3 2 1 441241--- 13 14 Is 19 1! 16 13 16 21 2.0 24 30 123 28 195 4 3 2 5 14 7 5 610 14 7 11; 25 31 32 29133 16 62 2 2 3-0 9 2 1 3 9 14 21 3,', 38 3f, Be 2.2 P 9 n 55 2 1 17112 12 9 13 21 24 24 28 28 23 9 33 1 to 410 9 to 910 11 21 23 22 po! 9 1 21 17 10 it 11 10 to 16 2 2 1 14 G 4 44 5 9 12, 15 11 10 5 12 4 3 54 4 3 54 7 4 1 1 2 3 44 6 6 32 BROWNS- VIUE NO'f E, A TOTAL OF -101 HYPOTHETICAL *OIL SPILLS SIMULATED Figurc- 10.6-17 Oil Slick Occurrctices in thc-@ Offshore Arca (No Coriolis Force). 10. (,--4 TIS- :28 PORT ARTIIUR 1 5 7 9- 7 5- 15 12 IT. 9 IG 2 II_ Q ?7 30 24125 222 2G 228!22 v@i 1 13 GALVESTON' "I-,- - --I-, 2 0 35 3,12r.'29 31 32 ?0, 2-3 2-1,27 41 115 41 35 135!__'vO! 28.23127140; 29; 241 52 @' 3 56 50 133! 30 151 F R E E P ORT ", I X72 5, 4 4 @2,3 31 34 14 '11.71 .1 611 4 6: 37 1361261 15, 8 6 20 - 0 11 e 3-1 71 -56! .38 82" 'r, 117 -t E; ffl 15,11:3 55173 55.4c: Ilk q 19 it IF, 2 Ex 13 6 3 4 4 60 ! : !4- 179197;2@@ @?3111@,0101 72 451 0,24 1 2 261\ 13@!4_iIE420dY@1701!2G_,@@ 111 6- 2 40,31 17 9 6 4 2 1 41 10' Z, i? 20 11 5 14 3 C. 13( 9211 P3 6G 52 64; 60; GG'63 47 53 11,4! 29 12 7 4 14 2 48 3 CORPUS J9 44 24; 17 125 i 311'43i 41139 30 321:'(,:29 13 G 3 2 1 f CHRISTI 52 Is 29jM1812-0@2'3129'25 303G, 36130'29 t5 5 2 1 18 12 is 1-31 :16 11 L19 32i371135,28 Do;34 18 It 2 16- 0 2 8 io 19 15 to; 19 25 13 G!1 311 27 30;26 22,20 19 10 2 1 4 10 19 115 1219 13- 23 32 30 24;-211 19 14 11 2 1 1 2 51 IG 14 9 G 613 18 23 10 14 1-10 -3 1 2 4 __I?] 12 9 _4 7] 5; 11 19 19 121 6 1 2 I__3 10] 11 112 12 11 110 '9 611 15 6 1 2 1 2 2 11 13 10 to 10 10 17 16 12 9 1 2 3 5 51 9 81 a 5 3:S2 1 2- 1 2 1 2__ .I BROWNS- VILLE NOTE TOTAL OF 701 HYPOTHETICAL OIL SPILLS SIMULATED Figure 10.6-18 Oil Slick Occurrences in tlie Offshore Area (Coriolis Force Included). 5 71 5 0 3 .3,126 2, 10.6-47 Mq T GALVESTON' FREEPOR 3 4 2 4 1 10 I'll) 26 Is a 2 2 13 9 43 12 5 5 97 2"'2im 2 :;!; c co t7 c' 3 1 7 'ZI 45 4-1 G I I I I CORPUS CHRISTI -4- - BROWNS- VILLE NOTE A TOTAL OF 701 HYPOTHETICAL OIL SP;LLS SWULATED Figure 10.6-19 SUbsurface PlLune OccurrC-IlCuS in the Offshore Area. APPENDIX F. NOAA TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS NOAA TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION An analytical technique has been developed to determine the extent of coastal impact from an offshore oil spill. The oil spill model employed uses a statistical summarization of oil spill trajectories computed from a climatological data base of wind and surface cur- rents. The following appendix summarizes these analysis techniques. Oil spill trajectories were initiated at various offshore locations from which oil spills might be expected. Such locations included the deepwater port site, intersections of offshore tanker routes with customary shipping lanes, and critical points along various prospective tanker routes adjacent to U.S. coastal waters. BACKGROUND INFORMATION An oil spill occurring at a proposed deepwater port site can be advected by wind and local currents. The purpose of this sec- tion is to determine which nearshore locations will be most affec- ted by such an event. Accordingly, calculations will be made, based on a simple oil spill trajectory model, of the risk of shore- side exposure. The twentieth century has seen a marked advance in the sciences of meteorology and oceanography. Notwithstanding, it is clear that there is no universally accepted theory concerning the movement of the water surface (i.e., surface currents) available. To complicate the problem to an even greater extent, even if such a theory existed, there is little understanding of how wind-waves passing under oil, the wind blowing over it and water motions just below the oil com- bine to move a slick. In 1905, Ekman presented a rather simple theory that proved to be the forerunner to future contributions dealing with the pro- blem of wind-generated currents. Ekman assumed homogeneous water on a flat rotating sea of infinite depth with constant wind and viscosity coefficient. The model predicted surface currents de- flected 45' to the right (in the northern hemisphere) of the wind with greater deflection and exponential decay of current with depth. Using these theoretical results, he further predicted a "wind- factor" (i.e., the ratio of surface drift current, W,, to wind speed, U.) of W. C@- 177 U. _@:5 _ill 0 which is a function of the geographic latitude, F-1 Therefore, at latitude 40' N he predicted a surface wind drift current of 1.5% of the wind speed directed 45' to the right of the wind. In shallow water, Ekman's theory gives a deflection angle of less than 45'. A number of investigators have attempted to measure this wind factor. A summary of the more recognized efforts were presented in James (1966)@k The range of values indicated a factor from about I to 4.5% with a characteristic deflection angle of 20' from the wind. In addition to the wind's direct effect on surface water move- ments (i.e., wind drift), wind also drives surface wind-waves. These waves result in a wave induced drift current (i.e., Stokes drift) that is directed approximately downwind and may be additive to the wind drift current. James implies that a "wave-factor" may be approximated by Ww = 0.007 U_. where W,, is a wave-induced (Stokes) type surface drift current. In addition to the above-mentioned factors, Smith (1974) has measured a leeway effect for oil slicks. Leeway is defined as the motion of an oil slick relative to the water a few centimeters be- low the sea surface. He indicated that this effect acts downwind and may be predicted by the simple linear relationship WD = 0.0179 U. - 0..0196 for the range of wind 5-25 knots. The combined wind effect may also be estimated by equating the stress in the air to the stress in the water: but IP4. UO air density , 1/900 water density thus IV. is about 3% The exact manner in which wind-drift, wave-current and leeway combine to move the centroid of a slick has not been resolved. In the absence of more definitive information, letting W. = 0.031 U., represents a reasonable basis for estimating total wind induced surface drift under the combined effect of wind-drift, wave-drift and leeway. It is also concluded that the drift deflection angle, (see Fig. F.I) F-2 PERCENT 1 MOHN 1.32 2 DINKLAGE 1.69 3 WITTING 1.29 4 THORADE 1.63 5 PALMEN 1.47 6 NANISEN 2.45 57.2 7 SVERDRUP 2.26 8 BRENNECKE 3.46 9 EKMAN 1.69 10 HUGHES 3.30 15 10 92*0 11 DURST 0*91 12 12 GALLE 4.40 14 8 13 ZUBOV 2.00 14 ROSSBY 2.80 6 15 VAN DORN 3.60 7 46.8 16 LAWFORD 1.75 16 4.25 13 41.6 36.4 9 2 4 31.2 0 1-5 CC cc 1 26,0 3 cc 20.8 15.6 10.4 5.2 0.0 0 260 520 780 1040 1300 1560 1320 2080 CC-1) WIND SPEED (cm s Fig. F:l Various Cal@ulations of Wind Factor (After James', 1966), F-3 a direct result of the Coriolis force, can be assumed to be 15'. These conclusions agree with the laboratory experiments on wind driven currents conducted by Wu (1968) and the observations of oil slick movements given by Smith C1968). Besides wind-driven currents, a forecast technique for spill trajectories might consider a prediction of the effects of tidal currents, geostropic currents, Kelvin shelf waves, inertial cur- rents and the effect of river flow. In the diagram below, some idea is given of the various processes that one might include in an oil spill model. SURFACE OIL SPILL MODEL DE E:SPREADING SURFACE CU WINDWAVE WIND ANENT TIDAL OTHER INDUCED DRIVEN RENTS CURRENT CURRENTS CURRENT.S A. Oil Leeway B. Shelf Eddies 6. Long Shelf Waves D. Coastal Jets E. Tropical Storms STOKES B. LONIGSHORE F. Inertial Currents rDRIFT WAVE-INDUCES FLOW There is little possibility of modeling these combined effects. Let us reduce the problem to a more manageable level of difficulty by the following argument. A major driving mechanism for surface currents (neglecting tides) on shorter time periods than weeks is the local wind. In this analysis, short term changes in surface cu rrent are assumed to be wind-driven. Tidal currents, shelf waves, inertial currents and river flow will not be included. A permanent current.is added to the wind-driven current vector to estimate surface currents. No attempt is made to remove the mean wind-drift currents from the permanent current. T? A TRAJECTORY MODEL The surface transport of the center of gravity of the oil slick occurs in time steps according to Z. = 0.031 + rC where is the surface drift vector taken adjusted 150 to the right of the wind direction and is a wind vector from a rela- tively lon_g(8-10 year) wind record taken at a nearby meteorological station. PC is a permanent current vector taken from the best avail- able source for the site under consideration. A hypothetical path of transport for oil is generated by computing subsequent transport from each third hourly observation. After each tfiree-hour step, the geographical position of the hypothetical oil mass is computed and compared to coastal beach locations. When the bil position and beach location coincide, an impact event is assumed. Upon assumed impact, the wind record used in these computations is advanced 72 hours and a new spill event is considered. If no beach impact is found within a modeling time of 1200 hours, the oil mass is assumed to be degraded and a spill scenario is terminated- Estimates of the direct wind driven sea surface current are modeled from historical records of wind observations from coastal observation sites. It is particularly desirable to use the records of sequential observation rather than summarized data because the use of actual observation sequences preserves the inherent persistence in serial data record. Simulation of observation sequence from summarized Cwind rose) data would be possible if the serial correlation function of the original sequence was known. Fay (1971) has developed an analysis for the spreading of a one-dimensional axi-symmetric oil slick as a function of time. He did not consider the effect of wind, waves, or ocean diffusion. After about one hour, a balance between gravity and viscous forces dominate the spreading and the slick radius, R, is related to the time after the spill begins, t , by R = G C io) I , K where P., is the water density, Q. is the oil density, g is the ac- celeration of gravity, V is the volume of oil, G= 1.45 and K is the kinematic viscosity of water. A final spreading phase occurs when the oil thickness drops below a critical level, which in turn is a function of the net surface tension, c- , the mass densities of the oil and water, and the force of gravity. This, so-called, surface-tension spread is given as R = S et. K where S 2.05 The time at which the transition from gravity/viscous to surface-tension/viscous spread occurs, T, can be found by equating the spill radii from the above equations and solving for T as C, V z T = [ ]' /:' [( e" - e' 5 T Q.- )3K] For large spills, on the order of 10,000 tons and larger, gravity 0 0 spreading will dominate for about the first week with the surface tension spread then controlling spill growth. Williams et. al. C1975) have developed a simple technique to account for the processes that would reduce the concentration of a spill after it had occurred (Fig. F.2). The five principle com- ponents are evaporation, dissolution, emulsification, precipitation and biodegradiation; the most critical of these are the first two. Accordingly, slick concentration, C, would theoretically decay with respect to these two processes as C = C.e -( Ke + Ica) tM where C. is the initial concentration at the time of the spill, Ke and K. are the evaporation and dissolution coefficients, respectively, and tD is decay time in.days. In this analysis, no attempt is made to account for emulsification, precipitation and biodegradiation. 100 2500 Ui 80 2000 < D z 0 ou cc: EVAPOqATION Uj LL < 40 1000 0 < Ui U < 0 I I-- SOLUT ION 500 - 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TRAVEL TIME !NIDAY@IFOR 15,000 TON SPILL Fig. F.2 Time History for Spreading Evaporation and Dissolution (After Williams, et al, 1974) PERMANENT CURRENT INPUT TO MODEL In coastal regions, surface current patterns are complex both in space and time. Available measurements averaged over periods of weeks or greater generally indicate a residual drift after tides are removed. This non-tidal semi-permanent surface drift is equiv- alent to values given on regional currentatlases. Such data must necessarily include mean wind-drift currents superimposed on mean baroclinic currents related to the density field. Other factors such as river outflow currents may also complicate the picture. Coast of Texas - Gulf of Mexico The permanent flow in the region near the proposed deepwater C. port site off Freeport, Texas, was discussed in the license ap- plication submitted by the Seadock, Inc. Some of the conclusions given were as follows: CI) Water flows west from the Mississippi Delta area towards a.zone of convergence off the Texas coast (which is near southern Texas in winter, shifting to the Corpus Christi-Freeport area in early summer). (2) The movement of this convergence conforms with the wind pattern shift (which changes from southeast in summer to north- east in winter) . A-sketch of current patterns given in the Seadock report in- dicates that a shift in current direction off Freeport, Texas occurs in June and July. CFig. F.3) A table listing mean currents by month for the Galveston area is also presented in the report. The currents were taken from Central American Waters Current Charts, a set of data collected and tabulated by month. The current speeds given are in the range 0.2 and 0.4 knots and set toward the west except from April to June when a reversal is indicated. These values are based mainly on ship drift and include wind effects. Coast of Florida - Straits of Florida The permanent current pattern-.-.observed off the southern and eastern Florida coast is generally the well-defined Florida current, the extension of which is termed the Gulf Stream. The swift flow in the Gulf Stream/Florida Current system prevails throughout the year with minor meanders in direction and slight seasonal variations of speed. Mean speed of the current system is about two knots with a maximum speed at the core of up to five knots. 7' 0.8 to 1 knot t Galves on-,' 10 0.7 knot 20 2 0 CorPLIS Christi 50 Icnot 10 20 50k Fig. F.3 Currents off the Texas Coast (Atter Corps of Engineers, 1973) The origin of the Gulf Stream can be traced to the Yucatan Strait where a well-defined current enters the Gulf of Mexico. The posi- tion of this strong current between Yucatan Strait and the Straits of Florida is variable, ranging from close inshore off northwest- ern Cuba to a "loop" penetrating over 300 miled northward into the Gulf. This part of the flow is termed the Loop Current from which an occasional detached eddy has been observed. After entering the Straits of Florida between Cuba and the Florida Keys, the current becomes less unstable. The major variations of the current from off Key West to off Little Bahama Bank appears to be a meandering of the axis of the flow within the relatively narrow Straits of Florida. The current in the Straits and north is referred to as the Florida Current. After emerging from the Straits of Florida,' the current is joined by the Antilled Current which moves north- westerly along the open ocean side of the West Indies. The com- bination of these currents produces the extension of the Florida current characterized by slightly reduced velocities and a great- er meandering tendency. As the-flow continues northward, then northeastward (paralleling approximately the general trend of the 100 fathom isobath as far as far as Cape Hatteras), meandering does not generally exceed the stream width about 90 km. The following information concerning the Florida Current is ex- tracted directly from the U.S. Coast Pilot No. 4, Cape Henry to Key West (197S), a guide to mariners (Chapter 3., pgs. 66-67). "Throughout the wh8le stretch from the Florida Keys to past Cape Hatteras the stream flows with considerable velocity. Characteristic average surface speed is on the order of 2.5 knots, increasing to about 4 knots, off Cape Florida where the cross sectional area of the channel is least. These values are for the axis of the stream where the current is maximum, the speed of the stream decreasing gradually from the axis as the edges of the stream are approached. The speed of the current varies with an annual cycle, tending to be greatest in July, and least in November throughout this region. Both the speed and position of the axis of the stream fluctuate also from day to day, hence description of both position and speed are averages. Crossing the stream at Jupiter or Fowey Rocks, an average allowance of 2.5 knots in a northerly direction should be made for the current. Crossing the stream from Habana, a fair allowance for the average current between 100-fathom curves is I knot in an east- northeasterly direction. A vessel bound from Cape Hatteras to Habana, or the Gulf ports, crosses the stream off Cape Hatteras. A fair allowance to make in crossing the stream is 1 to 1.5 knots in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 40 miles from the 100-fathom curve---- "The lateral boundaries of the current within the Straits are fairly well fixed, but as the stream leaves the Straits its eastern boundry becomes somewhat vague. On the western side the limits can be defined approximately since the waters of the stream differ in color, temperature, salinity, and flow from the inshore coastal waters. On the east, however, the Antilles Current combines with the Gulf Stream so that its waters here merge gradually with the waters of the open Atlantic. Observations of the National Ocean Survey indicate that, in general, the average position of the inner edge of the Gulf Stream as far as Cape Hatteras lies inside the SO- fathom curve. At the western end of the Straits of Florida the limits of the Gulf Stream are not well defined. Between Fowey Rocks and Jupiter Inlet the inner edge lies very close to the shoreline. Along the Florida Reefs between Alligator Reef and Dry Tortugas the distance of the northerly edge of the Gulf Stream from the edge of the reefs gradually increases toward the west- ward. Off Alligator Reef it is quite close inshore, while off Rebecca Shoal and Dry Tortugas it is possibly 15 to 20 miles south of the 100-fathom curve, Between the reefs and the northern edge of the Gulf Stream the currents are ordinarily tidal and are subject at all times to considerable modification by local winds and barometric conditions. This neutral zone varies in both length and breadth; it may extend along the reefs a greater or less dis- tance than stated, and its width varies as the northern edge of the Gulf Stream approaches or recedes from the reefs." The values used for the permanent current input for modeling pur- poses was extracted from the Atlantic Coastal Currents Chart. In actual oil spills, it is clear that knowledge of the exact posi- tion of the variable loop current (possibly through remote sens- ing techniques) is essential to accurately predict oil spill ad- vection. For this climatological analysis, atlas currents may be considered as a first order approximation to actual conditions. Although our oil spill trajectory procedures are quite ide alized, we have combined the two most probable types of currents Clocal permanent currents and wind-driven currents) in a first order manner. Neglected are such potentially important factors as coastal spin- off eddies and tidal currents. These transport mechanisms, it might be argued, are oscillatory in nature and thus do not produce a net drift. In reality, this may not necessarily be the case. Non-linear interation between permanent flow, wind-driven currents, eddies and tidal currents may indeed produce unmodeled transport. One Must also realize that even if a sBstem is completely oscil- latory (in the onshore/offshore dirctions), onshore oil transport has the probability of "sticking" to beaches. One might assume that neglecting oscillatory currents underestimates actual impact by some undeterminable amount. Calculation of oil spill trajectories were undertaken at probable spill sites near the Florida coast. These calculations were sub- jectively combined with the above mentioned considerations. A conclusion was reached that about 50% of the offshore spills im- pact the shoreline with average impact times on the order of 2 to 4 days depending on spill site. Gulf of Mexico The surface circulation of the eastern Gulf of Mexico is dominated by the LOOP current. This current flows through the Yucatan Straits from the western Cayman Sea. The path and intensity of .the LOOP current changes both seasonally and on an annual basis. The an- nual cycle, proposed by Leipper (1970), is composed of a spring intrus ion of the current into the Gulf. Maximum penetration occurs in the summer. During this time-frame, separation of an anti- cyclonic eddy from the main flow is a characteristic feature. During the fall, the system recedes, with a minimum penetration occuring in the winter. (Fig. F.4 and F.5). Typically, the high- est velocities are found to the left of the current's center facing downstream. The width of the current is approximately 100 km in the Yucatan Strait. As the current flow turns anticyclonically, it slows down and spreads out to about 150 km (Chow, 1974). As the current continues its turn south, its width again decreases reaching a minimum in the Straits of Florida of about 75 km. F-12 4ONCIMOC 980 960 940 920 goo 880 860 840 020 800 780 3 OU 4% N <- -ASS #-A" w <- ASWM 2 8'*. - 260-- 0000 0OR .0;1 AM, 24 P,;17 Ak SWAS .2 2* A. <-. VAOW` TIN SWAMP <-v pow" 2 o*-- ""0000 0 Fig. F.4 -Idealited Surface Curnnts Gulf of Mexico,.Juna (Af-ter 40N61MOr 9GO 940 9212 900 880 860 840 820 800 780 A, N .AO, 280- 1--, A I-0000 V-1001 40.. 00;7 14 /00, 200-- Fig. F. 5 Idealized Surface Currants Gulf of Maxicol'Dacember (After Leipper) RESULTS OF NOAA TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS The method employed in the modeling process was to assume that an oil spill occured at a random time. A given meteorological record that might be expected to give representative wind conditions for the spill site was obtained from the National Climatic Center at Ashville, North Carolina. 7he meteorological records obtained were: Gallieston, Texas New Orleans, Louisiana Palacios, Texas Biloxi, Mississippi Freeport, Texas Ft. Myers, Florida Port Arthur, Texas Key West, Florida Burrwood, Louisiana Miami, Florida Havana, Cuba In addition to these records, the meteorological and oceanographic record for the NOAA Environmental Data Buoy IIEB1011 (located at approximately 270 30', 88OW)was obtained from the National Oceano- graphic Data Center in Washington, D.C. Hypothetical oil spills were tracked using the-model previously discussed for the LOOP and Seadock sites. Various other offshore oil spill along the Florida coast and in the Gulf of Mexico were also tracked. The results of these calculations are summarized into diagrams indicating probability in a 10-mile coastal segment (Figs. F.6-F.10). In addition to the scenarios depicted in the following diagrams, spill sites at the center of the Straits of Yacatan (22 N,86 W) and at 26 N,88 W were tracked. The result of the calculations was no coastal impact within the 1200 hour running time of the computer program. Index to . Diagrams Fig. F.6 Spill at Port Site Fig. F.7 Spill Offshore Texas Fig. F.8 Spill off Key West Fig. F.9 Spill off Florida Keys Fig. F.10 Spill off Miami PROBABILITY OF CENTER OF OIL SLICK REACHING 10 MILE COASTAL SEGMENTS N r 0 5 10 15 20 bL./Port Arthur -3oo 11 -T..L ....... Probability in Percent It I -t Galveston Freeport -29' GULF OF MEXICO .0@ Corpus Chris i -28' Z Coriolis Deflection = 150 -27' = Lessthan one percent Brownsville 26 0 W 0 96- 97- 96- 95- 94- 93' 92 - HOURS TO COASTAL IMPACT N 1?0 200 300 . r I _, -L-@ * ./Port A thur -30' Time in Hours Galveston Min Avg Freeport -29' Corpus Chris@ -280 i GULF OF MEXICO -27 0 Coriolis Deflection= 150 Brownsville -26 0 'o 'o 'o 93 980 97 9'60 95 94- 92 - Fig. F.6 Spill at Port Site t i @ p G oa t, @@@es @/tn 0 Free -uL Corlo Is Deflection , @Ie F-16 PROBABILITY OF CENTER OF OIL SLICK REACHING 10 MILE COASTAL SEGMENTS 10 Pori Arthur WN . . . . . . 1 11, *New Orleans Probabilrty in Percent Galveston Freeport 29- -28' -27' Coriolis D fiection 15* @Less thanoTne percent 261N 97-W 91? 95- 94- 93- 92' 91, 90, 891W HOURS TO COASTAL IMPACT 0 100 200 300 4DO 500 illoo t I ' I Tint. in He.. *Port Arthur *New Orleans -30-N Galveston *Morgan City MIN. AVG Freeport Or 290 280 -271 Coriolis Deflection 15' - 264N 970 IN 960 950 90 931 920 91. ge. 89. IN Fig. F.7 Spill Offshore Texas F-17 PROBABILITY OF CENTER OF HOURS TO COASTAL OIL SLIC REACHING 10 MILE IMPACT COASTAL SEGMENTS Fm m,, ze C@66. 001.6o. 151 Coriolis DOWtion 15' wjo,. Fig. F.8 Spill off Key West PROBABILITY OF CENTER OF HOURS TO COASTAL CIL SLICK REA M IMPACT 'HNG " ILE Ir COASTAL SEGMENTS trI c@ W v- &.1 Tsrw 27- Coriolis Deflection TV W. W. Fig. F-9 Spill off Florida Keys F-18 JACKSONVILLE JACKSONVILLE,- PROBABILITY OF CENTER OF HOURS W COASTAL 11,1'ACT OIL SLICK REACHTIIG 10 MILE COASTAL SECI'T.N.rS 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 40 50 PAYTIONIk BEACH * . I I I I I I I 1 10 PROBABILTY IN PE2RCENT DAYTCNA BEACH 29. TIME IN FOURS 29.- ..III AVG CAPE M-%EDY CAPE Mf',*MY 28- VERO BEACH VERO PEACH 27' 27' FORT MYERS YCRT Kl.@T,3 26- 26* MIAMI MIAMI 25' 25*- SOMBRERO xr)@ @SOMBRERO YM. KEY VEST c@ W WEST C:,. MY Tor, DRY 7'@'RTIIGAS CA 24o 24* Coriolis Deriectiork- 150 Coriolis Deflvctioll@ 15* *w 83 82* 79'W Fig. F.10 Spill off MiaM31 COMPUTER PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION The computer programs which are utilized in the operation of the oil advection model are written in Fortran. A diagram of oper- ations procedures is given in Fig. F.11. input to the program are files of historical wind records from either a disk storage or tape files. Geographis coordinates de- fining the beach or impact meridian is input from cards. These coordinates define and orient beach and coastal water areas (10 x 10 miles) in which the impact of oil will be considered. Results of modeling will be couched in terms of the frequency oil is ex- pected to enter each of the 10 x 10 mile areas. Availablilty of data on the quasi-permanent ocean currents varies from one proposed port site to another. Use of the current data in the oil advection model required wide variation in pro- gramming for operations at the different sites. Current data were selected" from the computer data files in operations on a basis of the geographic location of the hypothetical oil mass or on the month from which the historical wind records were taken. Computational procedures in the model permitted the computation of about 123 hypothetical oil movement paths from each spill site per year of historical wind record. About 40 minutes of Central Processing Unit Time (IBM 360/195) was required to run the oil ad- vection model with 10 years of historical wind record. 0_1 0 ("In-out 0@ A Disk da t a read', @-:1 rh@c coord. from dis, _e [email protected] beach -,-@erlyicte.' of fj crd!. !0,@ lo X 101- nila areas; ton beaoh Uccumzulate the Compute geograp i- IS 1_@@al IVS and F/4,W ical -_oor@_i-ate @er;--_LnL@s /t @h;` S \ti 7, e .+ f \ ti?_-.4nus ..dvecti"q- Imi . 0-1 Yo -oveme-t of oil of the 04_ f b 4 1\,i@ @a t X% of Wind,with advection after @n a eac .-.n- ac- a c,@@Tent, over AT +4T re, r e ac. h e d, 2 + I?* S Ye'! 03 .,as Acc=alate the th'- frecuency of oll of the ------ imiact. in each of' - 4 , \/off -.` -c- e x m i e bea,3- h 6L Irs Frint frequerciy ---;>jof beach im:oac Fig. F.11 Lnd REFERENCES Chew, F. (1974). The turning process in mean dering currents: A case study. C, Jour. Phys. Ocn, 4 (1), pp 21-57. Ekman, V. (190S). On the Influence of the Earth's Rotation on Ocean-Currents. Arkiv Math. Astr. Fy-@ik 2. No. 4. Fay, J. (1971). "Physical Processes in the Spread of Oil on a Water Surface," Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills. -- -- 0 American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. James., R. (1966). "Ocean Thermal Structure Forecasting." SP-105, Vol. 5, U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, Washington, D.C. Johnson, D. (1974). Louisiana Superport Studies, Report No. 4, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Leipper, D.F. (1970). A sequence of current patterns in the Gulf of Mexico. Jour. Geo. Res. 75 (3), pp 637-657. Louisiana Offshore Oil Port Application (1975) prepared for LOOP, Inc. by Dames and Moore., Atlanta, Georgia. Naval Hydrographic Office, 1942, Central American Waters Current Charts,H.O., MCS, No. 10, 690-1. Seadock Offshore Oil Port Application (1975) prepared for Seadock, Inc. by Dames and Moore., Atlanta, Georgia. Smith, G. C1974). "Determination of the Leeway of Oil Slicks." Report No. CG-D-60-75. U.S.C.G. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.0 20590. Smith, J. (1968). Torrey Canyon Pollution and Marine Life. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1975) Appendix F, Volume III of V, Environmental Assessment Western Gulf United States Coast Pilot (1974) Atlantic Coast Cape Henry to Key West Thirteenth Edition. National Ocean Survey, Washington, D.C. Williams, G. Hamm R. and W. James (1975). Predicting the Fate of Oil in the Marine Environment. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil.Spills pp. 567-572. Wu, J. C1968). "Laboratory Studies of Wind-Wave Interaction," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 34 pp 91-111. APPENDIX G. STRANDING ANALYSIS STRANDING ANALYSIS The following pages present results of stranding analyses for both the SEADOCK site off Texas and the Florida situation: 0 Texas: A description of the SEADOCK stranding analysis technique from the SEADOCK Environmental Analysis (EA), pages 5.5-11 to 5.5-13 Tabular results from the SEADOCK EA, pages 5.5-16 to 5.5-46 NOAA stranding analysis for a catastrophic spill at the offshore fairway intersection. Florida: - Tabular results of stranding assuming 25% spill decay for four levels of tanker exposure--low (.15 and .30 exposure years); medium (.41 exposure years); and high (.55 exposure years). - Tabular results assuming no spill decay for .30, .41, and .55 exposure years. r-I This distribution assumes that about 25 percent of all oil spilled is evaporated or dissolved in the water and that about an additional. 20 percent of the small spills (less than 1,000 bbl) is lost to recovery by dispersion fine enough to preclude stranding. However, some of it may eventually turn up as tar balls. The same eventual. fate - natural paths of degradation would apply to oil escaping into the open Gulf. The expectation of loss to the marine environment (including the atmos- phere). duo to processing the oil. through SEADOCK, would be approximately 1,357 bbI annually or just under 1 bbl. per 1 MMIbp of the oil handled. Of the 1,169 bbl expectation spilled in the terminal, about the same fraction would be evaporated and some would soak into the upper soil layers to undergo even- tual natural degradation. The remainder would be recovered. 5.5.7 COMPUTATION METHODOLOGY FOR STAND1NG EXPECTATION Tables 5.5-4 through 5.5-39 exhibit the separate components of the expec- tation. The procedure involves the following distribution factors- a) probability that the trajectory will intercept a given coast sector in a given month (Section 10.6); b) the distribution of spill sizes; c) the distribution of significant wave heights (which does not add to 100 percent because the fraction of time SEADOCK is estimated to be shut in by bad weather is deleted from the available time); d) the annual frequency of a given spill size (the annual frequency must be divided by 12 to obtain the appli- cable rate for one month); e) an averaging factor to compensate for computing spill. effects from the larggest amount in each spill size group; f) spill transit time group distributions to determine potential recovery time, estimated from the maximum, minimum,mean, median, and standard deviation of the transit times of the individual trajectories (Section 10.4) and a description of the shape of the. spectrum of transit times for each month, supplied by Texas A&M, to distinguish differences in the time groups appli- cable to the geographic sectors. g) the mount of oil which is left in slick in each category at the time of standing; and, h) the annual expectation of stranded oil from each category. 5.5-11 The procedure is equivalent to computing the following amount: Given that a certain size spill will touch the shore zone in t hours when the weather is of a certain class, how much oil is still in the slick at the time of stranding? The product of that amount and the joint probability of all of the above items a) through g.) is the expectation for the given case. The total expectation of spill volume reaching the shore zone is the summation of all possible cases. The amount of oil considered for pickup is not quite all of the projected marine spillage. The frequencies selected for the small spills have the effect of clipping off the bottom of the distribution. The expectation of oil considered spilled for computational purposes is (4 MMpd case): Tankers 1474 bbl annual SPM 180 bbl annual Platforms 560 bbl- annual Pipelines 62 bbl annual TOTAL 2276 bbl annual The remainder of the projected marine oil spillage of 3,516 bbl annually, all in small spills, is considered to be contained in the boom deployable at the site, or to be totally dispersed by rough weather. The calculation method as exhibited appears to imply that if a spill occurs, in a given class of weather, then that weatber class will persist for the whole period of travel- time. In actuality, all types of weather may apply to a given spill, and it has been assumed that the time apportion- ment may be interchanged in the calculation. For good weather, cleanup can usually be completed before stranding. The time difference between end of this hypothetical cleanup and the stranding is effectively discarded by the calculation. In real spills, where some of the cleanup is delayed by bad weather, the remaining time would be utilized in skimming. Consequently, the error introduced by assuming interchangability,of wave classes is towards overprediction of the oil stranding. The assumption that night cleanup is as effective as day cleanup, impli- cit in the calculation since no special allowance was assumed for night periods, tends towards underprediction of oil stranding. However, in the early stages of large spills, which is the most important period for achiev- ing efficient recovery, night skimming is nearly as effective as daylight efforts. In the later stages of slick dispersion, slick patches are harder to locate at night. As an example of the computation, consider Table 5.5-8, Freeport Sector in April, 50 - 25 Mbbl spill, "C" weather, medium time group (70 hour average): The amount of oil unrecovered in 70 hours would be 12,1400 bbl, interpolated from Table 5.5-2. The joint probabilities are: 5.5-12 1) probability of hitting- Freepc>rt sector in that inonth 2) probability of wave state "C" .06 3) annual frequency of 50 - 25 Mbbl spill, divided by 1.2 to obtain all average monthly rate .0069 @ 12 4) averaging factor (25 + 50)/ 2.@ 50 .75 5) fraction of spills averaging 70 hours .25 6 JOINT ANNUAL PROBABILITY PRODUCT 5.7 x 10 Thus, the annual expectancy is 12,400 bbl x 5.7 x 10- 6 = 7.09 X 10-2 bbl. The necessary unit for adding up the contributions of the various cases is a millibarrel, or about 5.3 ounces of oil - literally by the teacup. Tile pattern of the tables indicates that the most likely expectation of spillage reaching the shore zone results from spills of around 25 Mbbl in bad weather. The contribution of spills around this size to the stranding expectation is on the order of 2 to 2.5 times that for spills around 100 Mbbl. The last spill size group is the contribution from the site sources other than tankers. These contribute about 35 percent of the oil involved in the calculation, but make up roughly 1 to 2 percent of the stranding ex- pectation. Clearly, tanker spills domina te the oil spill risk. 5.5-13 M mow M M M M M M MON TABLE 5.5-2 MARINE SPILL,,GE CLEANUT (3 Skirmers) TAViKER SPILLS b 120,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 5,000 5,000 bbl bbl bbl bbi bbl bbi bbl A. Wa,,,e State 0 hrs 120,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 5,000 5,OCO (0-4 ft) 4 hrs a 1.15,200 96,000 72,000 48,000 24,000 4,800 4,800 10 hrs 74,000 56,000 34,000 14,000 (5 hrs)O 0 350 30 hrs (26 hrs)O (22 hrs)O (17 hrs)O (13 hrs)O 350 B. Wave State 0 hrs a 120,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 5,000 5,COO (4-6 ft) 4 hrs 115,200 96,000 72,000 48,000 24,000 4,800 4,800 10 hrs 91,000 73,000 51,000 -18,000 6,000 0 2,400 '110 hrs 43,000 27,000 7,000 (23 'hrs)O (14 hrs)O 350 50 hrs 7,000 (45 hrs)O (34 hrs)O 350 100 hrs (55 hrs)O 350 200 lirs .330 300 hrs 3-30 C, C. Wave State 0 hrs a 120,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 5,000 5,000 (6-8 ft) 4 hrs 115,200 96,000 72,000 48,000 24,000 4,800 4,800 10 hrs 105,000 8-11,000 64,000 42,000 19,000 3,400 4,000 30 hrs 86,000 70,000 50,000 30,000 10,000 400 Soo 50 hrs 74,000 59,000 41,000 16,000 4,000 0 600 100 hrs 58,000 49,000 29,000 7,000 1,800 400 200 hrs 48,000 41,000 23,000 2,400 1,0C0 400 300 hrs 44,000 38,000 21,000 900 400 400 D. 8 Feet and Over - No cleaning a Start of cleanup. b One ski= er with barriers. C 0-,e ski=er without barriers. TABLE 5.5-3 EXPECTATION OF OIL REACKENG SHORE.LINE (in borrels) CALVESTON FREEPORT CORPUS CHRISTI Total Total Total Expec- Weathered Expec- Weathered Expec- Weathered tation Oil tation Oil ta t ion Oil TOTAL January 1.6 0.9 4.1 2.1 2.8 1.5 8.5 Fe brtary 0.0 0.0 7.4 1.4 4.4 3.4 11.8 Marcli 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 10.8 April 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.8 0.2 8.3 May 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.3 0.1 5.3 june 0.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.7 July 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 August 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 September 1.1 0.5 3.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 October 0.3 0.1 6.4 1.3 0.2 0.1 6.9 November 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.8 0.3 0.3 6.3 December 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.7 2.3 9.2 TOTAL 4.0 1.5 57.2 9.4 14.1 8.1 75.3 5.5-17 TABLE 5. 5-4 11fl)LX. FOP, EXPECTATION TABLES Freepo.:t Sector Galveston Sector Corpus C111--j-';ti Sector January 5.5-5 5.5-17 5.5-24 February 5.5-6 a 5.5-25 March 5.5-7 a 5.5-26 April 5.5-8 a 5.5-27 May 5.5-9 5.5-18 5.5-28 June 5.5-10 5.5-19 5.5-29 July 5.5-11 5.5-20 a August 5.5-12 5.5-21 a September 5.5-13 5.5-22 a October 5.5-14 5.5-23 5.5-30 November 5.5-15 a 5.5-31 December 5.5-16 a 5.5-32 &Tndi-a@es that there is negligibl- or no expectation of varine oil spillnpe stranding for the Galveston or Corpus Christi sectors for the referenced mon t h. 5.5, 18 TABLE 5.5-5 E)TECTATION OF MAaliE OIL SPILLAGE STRV,4DI\'G - JANUARY. 7FREEPORT SEC-OR - (monthly sector a:rLval probability - 46.7%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GRO'JPS IN BARRELS Wave 20% - 80 hours 26% - 120 hours 547 300 iio,ir@ Av;::g,!a8 Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual spill Size (1000 bbl) Spill Size Wave Class Annual b C ,,,a Factor Frequen y r at Share Expectation at Shore Expectation at F 1-20-100 A .59 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 13.2 E-4 .917 64,400 4.9 E-2 56,000 5.5 E-2 44,0110 9.0 E-2 D .07 13.2 E-4 .917 99,000 6.6 E-2 96,000 8.3 E-2 96,000 17.2 E-2 100-75 A .59 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 12.4 E-4 .875 53,000 5.6 r-2 47,400 4.2 E-2 38,000 7.0 E-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .875' 82,500 5.1 E-2 SO'000 6.1 E-2 E0,000 12.6 E-2 75-50 A .59 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 C C .08 12.4 E-4 .833 33,300 2.2 E-2 27,500 2.3 E-2 21,000 3.6 F-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .833 62,000 3.5 E-2 60,000 4.4 E-2 60,000 9.1 F-2 0 50-25 A .59 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 B .22 6.9 E-3 .75 3 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 6.9 Z-3 .75 10,500 3.4 E-2 6, 080 2.5 E-2 900 D.E D .07 6.9 E-3 .75 41,250 11.5 E-2 40,500 14.6 E-2 40,000 30.2 E-2 25-5 A .59 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 52.2 E-3 .60 2,680 5.25 E-2 1,640 4,2 E-2 400 2.1 E-2 D .07 52.2 E-3 .60 21,000 35.8 E-2 20,000 44.3 E-2 20,000 92.1 E-2 5-0 A .59 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 D .07 145.0 E-3 .30 4,100 9.7 E-2 4,000 12.3 E-2 4,OCO 25.6 F-2 5-0' A .59 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.5 E-2 350 0.6 E-2 350 1.3 H-2 B .22 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.5 h-2 C .08 10.0 E-3 .30 480 0.1 E-2 400 0.1 Z-2 400 0.2 E-2 D .07 10.0 E-3 .30 4,100 0.7 E-2 4,000 0.9 E-2 4,000 T-2 TOTAL 93.1 E-2 110.5 E-2 2il.c E-2 aWave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-9 ft D - >8 ft bMonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. m mmm m man mm TABLE 5.5-6 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRAIN'DING - FEBRUARY, FREEPORT SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 59.7%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS IN'7.,@@.RRFLS---- Wave 21% - 40 licurs 57% - 1).0 he-irs 22? - 210 hot!r!; + Sri!! Size Wave Class FAnnual b Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Size A 3 re Expectation at Shore Ex2,c@ati(jn SlIc bb!) Class Factor _quecy Factor at Shore 120-ICO A .50 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 13.2 E-4 .917 25,000 8.2. E-2 0 0 0 0 C .09 13.2 E-4 .917 80,000 9.1 E-2 56,000 17.2 E-2 47,600 5.7 D .09 13.2 E-4 .917 104,400 11.8 E-2 96,000 29.5 E-2 96,000 11.4 E-2 1,10-75 A .50 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 1 B .26 12.4 E-4 .875 9,000 2.6 E-2 0 0E-2 40, 000 4.4 r-2 C .09 12.4 E-4 .875 64,500 6.6 E-2 47,400 13.2 D .09 12.4 E-4 .875 87,000 8.9 E-2 80,000 22.2 E-2 80,000 3.6 F-2 75-50 A .50 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 12.4 E-4 .833 45,500 4.4 E-2 27.800 7.3 E-2 21,FDO 2.3 r-2 D .09 12.4 E-4 .833 65,300 6.3 E-2 60,000 15.8 r*.-2 60,300 6.1 30-25 A .50 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 3 .26 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 6.9 E-3 .75 23,000 11.1 F-2 6,080 8.0 E-2 2,250 1.1 F-2 D .09 6.9 E-3 .75 41,500 21.4 E-2 40,000 53.3 E-2 40.'500 20.6 '--'-2 25-5 A .50 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 52.2 E-3 .60 7,000 20.6 E-2 1,640 13.1 E-2 940 2.9 E-2 D .09 52.2 E-3 .60 21,BOO 64.3 E-2 2.0,000 160.0 E-2 20,800 67.5 E-2 5-0 A .50 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 145.0 E-3 .30 200 0.8 E-2 0 0 0 0 D .09 145.0 E-3 .30 4,400 18.0 E-2 4,000 44.5 E-2 4,000 17.2 E-2 5-0, A .50 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.55 E-2 350 1.5 E-2 350 0.6 r-2 .26 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.3 r-2 350 0.8 r-2 350 0.3 7-2 C .09 10.0 E-3 .30 700 0.2 7-2 400 0.3 E-2 400 0.1 E-'@ D .09 10.0 E-3 .30 4,400 12.3 E-2 4,000 3.0 E-2 4,000 1.2 E-2 207.5 E-2 386.7 E-2 144.3 E-2 AL "Wave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 fc D - >8 ft bYonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annuel rate. Cpl-,tf.*rm, Fipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-7 F-\TECTATION ')F MARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRANTING MARCH, FR',-E:ORT SECTOR - (monthly sector arriva.'. probability - 93.7%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS IN BARRELS Wave 52% - 30 hours 43% - 30 hours Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Size Wave Class nualb at Shore Expectation at Shore Expectation at Shore (1000 bbl) Classa @actor Ft cy Factor 120-100 A .64 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 B .21 13.2 E-4 .917 43,000 44.3 E-2 0 0 0 0 C .07 13.2 E-4 .917 86,000 29.5 E-2 64,400 20.4 E-2 0 0 D .06 13.2 E-4 .917 108,000 32.0 E-2 99,000 27.1 E-2 0 0 100-75 A .64 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 27,000 25.0 E-2 0 0 0 B .21 12.4 E-4 .875 0 C .07 12.4 E-4 .875 70,000 21.5 E-2 53,000 15.0 E-2 0 D .06 12.4 E-4 .875 90,000 23.9 E-2 83,000 20.3 E-2 0 0 75-50- A .64 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 .833 1100 6.15 E-2 0 0 0 L -B 21 12.4 E-4 50,000 14.6 E-2 33,800 9.1 E-2 0 0 C 07 12.4 E-4 .833 67,..00 17.2 E-2 62,000 14.5 E-2 0 0 D .06 12.4 E-4 .833 50-25 A .64 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 B .21 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 C .07 6.9 E-3 .75 30,000 43.7 E-2 10,600 14.2 E-2 0 0 D .06 6.9 E-3 .75 45,000 56.2 E-2 41,300 47.6 E-2 0 0 25-5 A .64 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .21 52.2 E-3 .60 22.0 E-2 0 0 C .07 52.2 E-3 .60 10,000 88.9 E-2 2,680 D .06 52.2 E-3 .60 22,500 172.0 r-2 20,600 145.4 E-2 0 0 5-0 A .64- 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 B .21 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 C .07 145.0 E-3 .30 400 4.95 E-2 0 0 0 0 D .06 145.0 E-3 .30 4,500 47.7 E-2 4,100 40.1 E-2 0 0 E-2 350 2.5 E-2 0 0 5-0 c A 164 10.0 E-3 .30 350 2,7 350 0.8 E-2 0 0 B .21 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.9 E-2 C .07 10.0 E-3 .30 Soo 0.7 E-2 480 0.4 E-2 0 0 D .06 10.0 E-3 .30 4,500 3.3 E-2 2.8 E-2 0 0 660.5 E-2 368.0 E-2 "OTAL 'Wav .e class significant height: A 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft c - 6-9 ft D - >8 ft bvo,@ hly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform, pipeline, and SPN spills greater than 1,000 bbl. an M..M,m m -TABLE 5.5-8 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL SPTLLACM STRANDING APRIL. FREEPORT SECTOR - (monthly s2ctor arrival probability - 88.4%) SPILL TIZAVEL TDIE GR@:,LTVS IN 3AIRRELS 25V 251' 140 I!,ours + Wave -50% - 40 hours Snill Size w3ve Class 1 I.> Averaging Spill Size Annual - S?i1l Si2e Annual S P 11.1 1, Size A.nnual Allnu- Ex2e@taLon@ it � e @x ncy Expectation at Shore _p t,@, (loco b!,I) Class' Factor Freque Factor at Sbore _ _ __ _ _t@_ i20-i0o A .64 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 1 24.5 E-2 0 0 0 7.3 0E-2 .22 13.2 E-4 .917 25,000 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 80,000 21.6 E-2 67,600 9.1 E-2 54,000 D .05 13.2 E-4 .917 104,400 23.2 E-2 99,600 11.0 E-2 95,0,')0 1-0.7 E-2 !V-75 A .64 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .875 9,000 7.9 E-2 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .875 64,500 15.5 E-2 55,000 6.6 E-2 45.8-00 5.5 E-2 D .05 12.4 E-4 .875 .87,000 17.4 E-2 83,000 8.3 E-2 80,000 8.0 E-2 75-50 A .64 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 S33 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .833 45,500 10.5 E-2 36,2CO 4.2 F-2 265,600 3.1 K-2 D .05 12.4 E-4 .833 65,300 12.4 E-2 62,300 5.9 F-2 (10 C-010 5.7 K-2 0 0 511-23 A .64 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 P, .22 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 C o6 6.9 E-3 .75 23,000 26.45 E-2 12,400 7.1 F-2 5,1(,0 3.0 E-2 D .05 6.9 E-3 .75 4?,500 40.8 E-2 41,500 19.5 F-2 18. S F-2 0 0 25-5 A .64 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 52.2 E-3 .60. 0 0 0 10.8 E-2 S.4 F-2 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 7,000 48.3 E-2 3,120 57.P F-2 D .05 52.2 E-3 .60 21,800 126.0 E-2 20,800 60.1 F.- 2 20.ooo 5-0 A .64 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 B .22 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 E-3 .30 200 1.9 E-2 0 0 0 0 D .05 145.0 E-3 .30 4,400 35.2 Z-2 4,200 16.8 E-2 4,0100 16.0 F-2 350 2.5 E-2 350 1.2 E-2 350 F-2 5-0c A .64 10.0 E-3 .30 B .22 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.9 E-2 350 0.4 E-Z' 35 r) 0.4 E-2 C .06 10.0 E-3 .30 700 0.5 E-2 520 0.2 U-2 11 @11 1) 0.1 .05 10.0 E-3 .30 4,400 2.5 E-2 4,200 1.2 F, 2 4 , 001 0 1.1 418.1 E-2 162.4 E-2 E-2 0-1 Al, aWave class significant height: A 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 f, blicnthly prcba'aility assigned 1/12 of annual rate. CFI,atf,orm, pipeline, and SPM spills grcater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-9 EXPECTATION OF @LNRINE OIL SPI"T @GE ST&AMING - N'-t%Y, FREEPOIT SECTOR - (monthly sector arriv&I probability - 88.8".) SPILL Tr,,VEL T!@!E GROUPS IN BAR11ELS Wave 56Z - 60 hours 42% - 150 hours 0-., Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Size "In 1'.' Sze Annual Spill Size Wave Class "a' Expectalion "t S. orv (!000 bbl) Cl,,,,a Factor F,.,., b Factor atio at Shore at Shore Expect, n :y 120-100 A .71 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 70,800 22.2 E-2 53,000 12.0 E-2 0 0 D .04 13.2 E-4 .917 90,000 18.8 E-2 84,000 12.7 E-2 0 0 100-75 A .71 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B i7 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .875 57,000 15.9 E-2 45,000 9.1 E-2 0 0 D .04 22.4 E-4 .875 75,000 13.9 E-2 70,000 9.4 E-2 0 0 75-50 A .71 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 .06 12.4 E-4 .833 :.8.600 10.3 E-2 26,000 5.0 E-2 0 C C 6.8 E-2 0 0 D .04 12.4 E-4 .833 56,300 10.0 E-2 52,500 50-25 A .71 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 6.9 E-3 .75 14,200 1.9 E-2 4,700 4.5 E-2 0 0 D .04 6.9 E-3 .75 37,500 33.4 E-2 35,000 22.6 E-2 0 0 25-5 A .71 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 3,560 28.7 E-2 1,400 8.2 F-2 0 0 D .04 52.2 E-3 .60 18,800 101.1 E-2 17,500 68.1 E-2 0 0 5-0 A .71 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 145.0 r-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 C. D .04 145.0 E-3 .30 3,800 28.4 E-2 3,500 18.9 E-2 0 0 5-0' A .71 10.0, E-3 .30 350 3.2 E-2 350 2.3 E-2 0 3 B .17 10.0 E-3 .30 35D 0.8 E-2 350 0.6 E-2 0 0 C .06 10.0 E-3 30 560 0.4 E-2 400 0.2 E-2 0 D C4 10.0 E-3 .30 3,800 1.4 E-2 3,500 1.3 E-'- 0 0 290.4 r-2 181.7 E-2 @OTAL awave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft b,onthly probabilicy assigned 1/12 of annual rate. X cPlatform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1.000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-10 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING JUNE, FREEroRT SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 85.4%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS IN BARRLLS Wave 25% - 60 hours 40;,' - 100 hours 35% 150 + Spill Size Wave Class Annu raging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual (1000 bb!) Cl,,,a Factor Frc,.:,lcyb Ave actor at Shore Expectation at Shore xt @tt a (@i at Shore Ex@,cctat [on c _ :on 120-103 A .83 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .12 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 13.2 E-4 .91.7 70,800 3.0 15-2 58,000 3.9 E-2 5-3,000 3.15 F-2 D .02 13.2 E-4 .917 90,000 3.9 E-2 85,800 6.0 E-2 84,000 5.1 E-2 100-75 A .83 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 12.4 E-4 .875 57,000 2.1 E-2 49,000 2.9 E-2 45,000 2.4 E-2 D .02 12.4 E-4 .875 75,000 2.9 E-2 71,500 8.2 E-2 70,000 3.8 E-2 0 0 0 0 A .83 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 B .12 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 12.4 Z-4 .833 38,600 1.4 E-2 29,000 1.7 E-2 26,000 1.4 F-2 D .02 12.4 E-4 .833 56,300 2.1 E-2 53,600 3.1 E-2 52,500 3.0 E-2 50-25 A .83 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 6.9 ':-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 6.9 E-3 .75 14,2CO 2.5 E-2 7,000 2.0 E-2 4,700 1.15 E-2 D .02 6.9 Z@3 .75 37,5(0 6.9 E-2 35,800 10.5 E-2 35,000- 9.0 Z-2 23-5 A .83 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 52.2 E-3 .60 3,560 4.0 E-2 1,800 3.2 E-2 1,400 2.2 E-2 D .02 52.2 E-3 .60 18,800 21.0 E-2 17,900 32.0 E-2 17,500 27.4 E-2 3-0 A .83 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .12 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .02 145.0 E-3 .30 3,800 23.6 E-2 3,600 8.9 E-2 3.500 7.6 E-2 5-0 A .83 10.0 E-3 .30 350 1.55 E-2 350 2.5 E-2 350 2.2 E-2 B .12 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.4 E-2 350 0.3 E-2 C .02 10.0 E-3 .30 560 0.1 r-2 400 0.1 E-2 400 0.1 E-2 D .02 10.0 E-3 .30 3,800 0.4 E-2 3,600 0.6 E-2 3,500 0.5 E-2 TOTAL 75.7 E-2 86.0 E-2 69.4 E-T "Wnve class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - -8 EL b, xonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. CPlatf..'rm, pipcline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-11 EXPECTATION OF 14ARIIIE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING -JULY, -R-?EPORT SECTOk (monthly sector.a:r-;val probability - 42.7".) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS TNI BARRELS Wave 50% - 90 hours 50% - 180 hcurs Spill Size Wave Class A Averaging Spill Size Anituil Spill Size Arn-@al Spill Size A j7F- Fr:;u (1000 bbl) Classa Factor :..Yb Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore Exoecracion at Shore -!,X,) C C t Zi @011 120-100 A .89 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 01 C .03 13.2 E-4 .917 61,200 4.0 E-2 50,000 3.25 E-2 0 G D 0 13.2 E-4 .917 86,400 0 94,000 0 0 0 100-75 A .89 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 12.4 E-4 .875 51,000 3.1 E-2 42,600 2.6 E-2 0 0 D 0 12.4 E-4 .87@ 72,000 0 70,000 0 0 0 75-50 A .89 12.4 E-4 .833 1) 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 12.4 E-4 .833 3_40 1.7 E-2 24,206 1.3 E-2 0 G D 0 12.4 E-4 .833 54,oOO 0 52,500 0 0 0 50-25 A .89 6.9 E-3 .75 A 0 0 0 0 C B .08 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 6.9 E-3 .75 8,800 2.4 E-2 3,320 0.9 E-2 0 0 D 0 6.9 E-3 .75 36,000 0 35,000 0 0 0 25-5 A .89 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 .0 0 C .03 52.2 E-3 .60 2,240 3.7 E-2 1,160 1.9 E-2 0 0 D 0 52.2 E-3 .60 18,000 0 17,500 0 0 0 5-0 A .89 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .03 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 a D 0 145.0 E-3 .30. 3,600 0 3,500 0 0 G 5-0c A .89 10.0 E-3 .30 350 1.7 E-2 1150 1.7 E-2 0 0 B :08 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.15 E-2 350 0.15 E-2 0 0 C .03 10.0 E-3 .30 440 0.1 E-2 400 0.1 E-2 0 0 D 0 10-0 E-3 .30 3,600 0 3,500 0 0 0 TOTAL 16.9 E-2 12, E-2 a, Wave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 fc bMonthly probability assign6d 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-12 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL SPILLACE STRA%DTAG - AUCUST, rREEFORT SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 74.2%) SPILL TRAV Wave 07 50% 150 bours 5c@'f "@Co Spill Size ""ave Class Annual b Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Size A:@n,:al (1000 bbl) Class, Factor Frequency Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expnctntion at Shore ExrectaLi.0-n 120-100 A .90 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 53,000 4.0 E-2 44,000 3.3 K-2 D 0 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 84,000 0 84,000 0 100-75 A .90 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 45,000 2.9 E-2 3S,000 2.5 E-2 D 0 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 70,COO 0 70,CDO 75-50 A .90 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 26,000 1.7 E-2 21,000 1.4 E-2 D 0 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 52,500 0 52,300 0 5C-25 A .90 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 .08 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 4,700 1.5 E-2. 9110 0.3 Z-2 9 E-3 .75 0 0 35,000 0 35,()00 0 D 6 25-5 A .90 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 1,400 2.7 E-2 400 0.8 E-2 D 0 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 17,500 0 17,5CO 0 5-0 A .90 145.0 F-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B . 031 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,500 0 3,500 0 5-0- A .90 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 2.9 E-2 350 2.9 E-2 B .08 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 1350 0.3 E-2 350 0.3 E-2 C .02 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 400 0.1 E-2 400 0.1 E-2 D 0 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,500 0 3_5"'o 0 TOTAL 16.1 E-2 11.6 E-2 3'4a,.e class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-Q ft L, - >8 ft bMonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. c pipeline,. and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-13 E\[PECTArION OF KNRINE OIL SPILIAGE STRANTING - SYPTM EI, FREEPORT SECTOR - Omonthly sector airival probability - 76.7%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GRCUPS IN BARRELS Wave 50% 180 5,)": Spill Size Wave Clnss Annual (100,1 b@l) b Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Si.:, ClasS3 Factor Frequenc at Shore Expectation at Shore Expec ation at 1,1. @re 1:X7, :It 'On 120-100 A .63 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .18 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 50,000 11.5 E-2 44,000 10.i E-2 D .04 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 84,000 13.0 E-2 S4,000 13.0 2 100-75 A .68 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .18 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 C6 1-2.4 E-4 .875 0 0 42,600 8.9 E-2 33.000 8.0 D .04 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 70,000 9.6 E-2 70,COO 9.6 H- 2 75-50 A .68 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 rj B .18 12.4 E-4 .333 0 0 0- 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 24,200 4.8 E-2 1, 0 Of.) 4.2 F-2 D .04 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 52,501) 7.0 E-2 52,@Gf) 7. 0 50-25 A .69 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 B i8 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C C .06 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 3,320 3.3 E-2 K0 C.9 Z-2 D .04 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 35,000 22.75 "--2 35,000 22.75 E-2 25-5 A .68 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B aa 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 1,160 7.0 E-2 400 2.4 7-2 D .04 52.2 Z-3 .60 0 0 17,5500 70.0 E-2 17,500 70.0 5-0 A .68 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .18 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 Z-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 D .04 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,500 19.4 E-2 3.50J 19.4 E-2 5-0' A .68 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 2.3 E-2 350 2.3 E-21 B i8 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 0.6 E-2 350 0.6 K-2 C .06 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 400 0.2 E-2 4 C, 0 0.2 F-2 D .04 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,500 1.3 E-2 3,500 1.3 TOTAIL 171.4 E-2 171.3 E-2 awave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft bN, n ..a thly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlat-@orm, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-14 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL S?ILLA02 s'nwmINC - OCTOBER, FREEPORT SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 91.87) SPILL MAXEL TIME GRO'@"!'S IN BARRELS Wave 1@% - 75 hours 43" - 140 hours -22;,. 300 hours Sn�ll Siz@ Wave Class Ann '11 Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual bbl) Classa Factor 're b e (ICOO gency Factor at Shore Expectation at Shor Expectation at Shore ExDectntion 120-100 A .66 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B i9 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 66,000 12.9 E-2 54,000 13.0 E-2 44,000 5.4 E-2 D .06 13.2 E-4 .917 88,200 17.1 E-2 84,000 20.0 E-2 84,000 10.2 E-2 ico-75 A .66 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C c6 12.4 E-4 .875 54,000 9.45 E-2 45,800 9.3 E-2 38,000 4.2 E-2 D o6 12.4 E-4 .875 73,500 12.9 E-2 70,000 15.0 E-2 70,000 7.7 E-2 15-50 A .66 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 12J E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .633 35,000 5.8 E-2 26,600 5.4 E-2 21,000 2.2 'z- 2 D o6 12.4 E-4 .633 55,125 9.1 E-2 52,500 10.7 E-2 52,500 5.5 E-2 A .66 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 6.9 i@- 3 .75 11,301) 9.7 E-2 5,160 5.3 E-2 900 0.5 E-7 D .06 6.9 E-3 .75 36, 750 30.9 E-2 35,OCO 36.1 E-2 35,000 lf,. 5 E-2 25-3 A .66 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 2,900 14.6 E-2 1,480 9.2 E-2 400 1.3 E-2 D .06 52.2 E-3 .60 18,375 92.6 E-2 17,500 108.4 E-2 17,500 55.4 E-2 5-0 A .66 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 H-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .06 145.0 E-3 .30 3,675 25.6 E-2 3,500 30.0 E-2 3,500 15.3 r--2 1.85 E-2 350 2.3 E-2 350 1.2 Z-2 -0, A .65 10.0 E-3 .30 350 B .19 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.5 E-2 350 0.7 E-2 350 0.3 E-? C .05 10.0 E-3 .30 500 0.2 E-2 400 0.2 E-2 400 0.1 E-2 D .06 10.0 E-3 .30 3,675 1.8 E-2 3,500 2.1 E-2 3,500 1.1 E- TOTAL 245,0 E-2 268.2 F-2 128.9 F-2 aWavc class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft Montbly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatForr, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-15 EXPECTkTION OF v-RINE OIL SPTLLACE STRANDINC - NOVDIB7R, FREEPORT SECTOR - (monthly secto: trrival probability - 95.0%) SPILL TRAVEL TTINE CROVPS IN BARREI's 07 300 50% - 100 hours Wave Aver _in& spill Size Annual spill Size Annual Spill. si:@e pm@u ExpectaLion Z. t Spill Size Wave Class Annual, b or at Shore Expectation at Shore (1000 bbl) Clas a Factor Frequen y a:g 0 0 0 120-100 A .611 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 In B .26 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 10.6 Z-2 C .05 13.2 E-4 .917 58,000 13.9 E-2 0 0 44,000 - D .05 13.2 E-4 .917 97,800 23.5 F-2 0 0 96'GOO 23.! E-2 0 0 0 100-75 A .61 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 .B .26 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 C .05 12.4 E-4 .875 49,000 lo.5 F-2 0 0 33,000 8.2 E-2 D .05 12.4 E-4 ..875 81,500 17.6 E-2 0 0 80,000 17.3 E-2 75-50 A .61 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 B .26 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 4.3 Z-2 C .05 12.4 E-4 .633 29,000 5.9 E-2 -0 0 21,000 12.2 E-' D .05 12.4 E-4 .833 61,100 12.4 E-2 0 0 60,j00 0 0 0 0 C 50-25 A .61 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 B .26 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 E-2 0 0 9GO 0.9 C .05 6.9 E-3 .75 7,000 7.0 41.3 D .05 6.9 E-3 .75 40,800 42.1 E-2 0 0 40,00 0 25-5 A .61 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 400 2.5 E-2 C .05 52.2 E-3 .60 1,800 11.2 E-2 0 0 D .05 52.2 E-3 .60 20,400 126.2 F-2 0 0 20,000 11.3.3 E-2 0 0 0 5-0 A .61 145.0 Z- 3 .30 0 0 0 B .26 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 C .05 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 D .05 145.0 E-3 ..30 4,100 35.2 E-2 0 0 4,C.00 34. 350 2.5 E-2 0 0 350 2.5 :"-2 5-0 c A .61 10.0 E-3 .30 1.1 E-2 0 0 330 1.! 1-2 . B .26 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0 400 0.2 E-' C .05 10.0 E-3 .30 400 0.2 E-2 0 2.4 E---7 4,100 2.4 E-2 0 0 D .05 10.0 E-3 .30 311.7 E-2 TOTAL aWave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft c - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft bmonthly probability assigned 1112 of annual rate. cplatform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-16 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING - DEMBER, FFX-.ZPOIT SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 49.3%) SPILL TRAVEL T114E GROUPS IN B,%@RRELS 0% 250 hours + Wave 50% - 90 hours - - @ -1. , i L -e- Ariruml Spill Size Wave Class Annual b Av;raging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annu, a I TP111, a ation at Shor _%.Lctation r (1000 bbl) Cla ,,a Factor Frequency actor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expect c M-100 A .61 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .0a 13.2 Z-4 .917 61,200 12.2 E-2 0 0 46,000 9.2 E-2 D .07 13.2 E-4 .917 98,400 17.2 E-2 0 0 9@,,000 16.8 S-2 1.00-75 A .61 12.4 B-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 B .2.2 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 12.4 E-4 .875 51,000 9.2 E-2 0 0 39,500 7.1 E-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .875 82,000 12.8 E-2 0 0 80,000 12.4 E-2 75-5D A .61 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 12.4 E-4 .833 31,400 5.3 E-2 0 0 22,000 3.7 E-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .833 61,500 9.1 E-2 0 0 C0,000 8.9 E-2 50-25 A .61 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 .22 6.9 @-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 -2 8.800 7.5 E-2 0 0 1,650 1.4 E C .08 6.9 E-3 .75 .75 41.0(0 30.3 E-2 0 0 40,000 29.6 E-2 D .07 6.9 E:- 3 25-5 A .61 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 3 .22 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 52.2 E-3 .60 2,240 11.5 E-2 0 0 700 3.6 E-2 D .07 52.2 E-3 .60 20,500 92.5 t-2 0 0 20,00 90.2 E-2 5-0 A .61 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 145.0 E-3 .30 .0 0 0 0 0 C .08 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 D .07 145.0 E-3 .30 4,100 25.7 E-2 0 0 4,000 25.1 5-0' A .61 10.0 r-3 .30 350 1.3 E-2 0 0 350 1.3 E-2 B .22 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.5 E-2 0 0 350 0.5 E-2 C .03 10.0 E-3 .30 440 0.2 E-2 0 0 400 0.2 E-2 D .07 10.0 E-3 .30 4,100 1.8 E-2 0 0 4,000 1.7 E-2 234.1 E-2 211.7 H-2 TCTAL awave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft c - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft bmonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform,pipeline, and SFIM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. V-1 M'A M M TABLE 5.5-17 EXPECTATION Cr @LLRINE OIL S?ILLAGE STRANDIFC - JANjAZY, GALVESTON SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - SPILL TRAVEL TIME CRCU1' I.,' BARRELS Wave 20% - 120 hours 267 180 h0Urs 54-,@ Ave:aging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Srill sizo Ann@:al Spill Size Wave sa Class Annual b F '.@ -pectation at Shore Expectation Shore @%7ecr.l* ion (1000 bbl) Clas Factor Frequenc at Shore Ex It 120-100 A .59 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 13.2 E-4 .917 56,000 1.7 E-2 50,000 1.95 E-2 44'oco 3.6 T-2 D .07 13.2 E-4 .917 96,000 2.5 E-2 96,000 3.3 E-2 96,000 6.9 r-2 100-75 A .59 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 12.4 E-4 .875 47,400 1.3 E-2 42,600 1.55 E-2 38'0qO 2.9 7-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .875 80,000 1.9 E-2 80,000 2.5 E-2 80,000 5.2 @-2 75-50' A .59 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 .B .22 12.4 E-4 .833 @ 1 0 0 0 0 0 C OS 12.4 E-4 .833 27,800 0.7 E-2 24,200 0.8 7-2 21,00 i.5 H-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .833 6-j_100 1.i@ E-2 60,000 1.8 E-2 60,00.0 3.7 E-2- 50-25 A .59 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 6.9 E-3 .75 6,080 0.7 E-2 3,320 0.5 F- 2 900 0.3 E-2 40,000 4.6 E-2 40,000 6.0 E-2 40,000 12.4 E-2 D .07 6.9 E-3 .75 25-5 A .59 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 .0 C C .08 52.2 E-3 .60 1,640 1.3 E-2 1,160 1.2 E-2 400 O.S E-2 D .07 52.2 E-3 .60 20,000 13.7 E-2 n.000 17.9 E-2 20,000 37.1 K-2 5-0 A .59 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 P .22 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 C C .08 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .07 145.0 E-3 .30 4.000 3.8 E-2 4,000 5.0 E-2 4,rjO 10.3 F-2 5-0, A '.59 .0.0 E-3 .30 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.3 E-2 350 0.5 W-@ .22 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.1 E-2 350 0.1 E-2 4;Q 0. i ii_; C .0s 10.0 E-3 .30 400 0.0 E-2 400 0.0 E-2 D .07 10.0 E-3 .30 4,000 0.3 E-2 4,000 0.3 E-2 4,000 0.7 E-2 TOTAL 34.2 E-2 43.3 E-2 86.2 E-2 al,@ave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft c - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft bMonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-18 EXPECTATION or mARiNE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING - MAY, GALVESTON SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 5.6%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS IN BARRKLS- Wave 58% - 120 ours 42% 200 hours spill Size 0@ Annual Spill Size Wave Class F@nual b, Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Size A@n%@Il Exz!@c on '.e, i000 bbl) Ci @ctor Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expectation at shcre a SS a _y 120-100 A .71 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 56,000 1.1 Z-2 4S,0000 0.7 E-2 0 0 D .04 13.2 E-4 .917 84,000 1.1 E-2 84,000 0.8 E-2 0 0 0 1-00-75 A .71 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .875 47,400 0.8 E-2 41,000 0.5 E-2 0 0 D .04 12.4 E-4 .875 70,000 0.8 E-2 70,000 0.6 E-2 0 0 A .71 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 i2 4 E-4 .833 27,800 0.5 E-2 23,000 0.3 E-2 0 0 D .04 12:4 E-4 .833 52,500 0.6 E-2 52,500 0.4 E-2 0 .0 50-25 A .71 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 6.9 =-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,400 0.1 F-2 0 0 C .06 6.9 E-3 .75 6.0CO 0.5 E-2 1.9 E-2 35.000 1.4 E-2 0 0 D .04 6.9 E-3 .75 35,0(0 25-5 A .71 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 .17 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 .06 52.2 E-3 .60 1,640 0.8 E-2 1,000 0.4 E-2 0 0 D .04 52.2 E-3 .60 17,500 5.6 E-2 17,500 4.3 E-2 0 0 5-0 A .71 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .17 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .04 145.0 E-3 .30 3,500 1.7 E-2 3,500 1.2 E-2 0 0 -S-1)c A .71 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.15 E-2 0 0 B .17 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.05 E-2 350 0 0 0 C .06 10.0 E-3 .30 400 0 400 0 0 D .04 10.0 E-3 .30 3.500 0.1 E-2 3,500 0.1 E-2 0 0 TOTAL 15.8 E-2 11.0 1.;-2 Wave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft c - 6-8 D - >8 ft bMenthly probability assigned 1112 of annual rate. 'Platfnr@, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-19 EXPECIATION OF Y*tRINE CIL SPIL,-AGE STRANDING - JUNE, CALVESTON SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 12.8%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS IN BARRELS Wave 25% - 70 hours 40% - 120 hour@; 35.' 22C '-ot,r, Spill Size Wave Class Annuac Ave::7in8 Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual @T@ (1000 bbi) Cla ,a Factor Frequen y b F or at Shore Exoectation at Shore Expcct !@ior@ "t shrre I on 120-100 A .83 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 13.2 E-4 .917 67,600 0.4 E-2 56,000 0.6 E-2 47,200 0.4 D .02 13.2 E-4 .917 88,800 .6 E-2 84,000 .9 E-2 84,000 0.7 E-2 100-75 A .83 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 12.4 E-4 .875 55,000 0.3 E-2 47,400 0.4 E-2 40,400 0.3 F-21 D .02 12.4 E-4 .875 74,000 0.4 E-2 70,000 0.7 E-2 70,000 0.6 E-2 75-50 A .83 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 6 C .02 12.4 E-4 .833 36,200 0.2 E-2 27,800 0.2 E-2 22,600 0.2 'r.-2 D .02 12.4 E-4 .833 5Z.800 0.3 E-2 57,500 0.5 E-2 57,500 0.1 i:-Z 50-25 A .63 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 13 C .02 6.9 E-3 .75 1::,400 0.3 E-2 6,080 0.3 E-2 2,100 0.1 E-2 D .02 6.9 E-3 .75 37,000 1.0 E-2 35,000 1.6 E-2 35,000 i.4 '@-2 25-5 A .83 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 01 B .12 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 52.2 E-3 .60 3,120 0.5 E-2 1,640 0.4 E-2 SSG G.2 E-2 D .02 52.2 E-3 .60 18,500 3.1 E-2 17,500 4.7 E-2 17,500 4.1 ',-2 5-0 A .83 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .02 145.0 E-3 .30 3,700 0.9 E-2 3,500 1.3 S-1- 3,500 1.1 :'-2 5-0' A .83 10.0 E-3 io 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.4 E-2 3`10 0.@ Z-2 B .12 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0 350 0.05 E-2 350 0.05 E-2 C .02 10.0 E-3 .30 520 0 400 0 400 0 D .02 10.0 E-3 .30 3,700 0.1 E-2 3,500 0.1 E-2 3,500 0.1 E- 2 TOTAL 8.3 E-2 12.2 E-2 9.8 E-2 awave class significant height: A 0-4 ft B 4-6 ft C 6-8 ft D >8 ft bmonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform, Pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-20 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDTNG - JULY -CALVESTON SECTOR (monthly sector arrival probability - 57.3%) SPILL TRAVEL T1X-- GROUPS 1N BA,,1,!-LS Wave 50% - 110 hours 240 hours Cl'@ Spill Size Wave Class Annual Averaging Spill Size Annual TDill Size Annu-il spill Size Annuz@l (1000 bbl) Cl,.,,,a Factor Frequency Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore ExEectation at Shore Exroc'.ation 120-100 A .89 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .03 13.2 E-4 .917 0 .0 0 0 0 0 C .03 13.2 E-4 .917 57,000 4.8 E-2 46,400 3.9 E-2 0 D 0 13.2 E-4 .917 84,600 0 84.000 0 0 0 100-75 A .89 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B OS 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 12.4 E-4 .875 48,200 3.9 E-2 39,SOO 3.2 E-2 0 0 D 0 12.4 E-4 .875 70,500 0 70,000 0 0 0 75-50 A .89 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 12.4 E-4 .833 28,400 2.1 E-2 22,200 1.7 E-2 0 0 D 0 12.4 E-4 .833 52,900 0 52,500 0 0 0 50-25 A .89 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 6 9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 6 .9E-3 .75 61540 2.4 E-2 1,800 0.7 E-2 0 0 D 0 6.9 E-3 .75 31,300 0 35,000 0 0 0 25-5 A .89 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 .0 0 0 0 B .08 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .03 52.2 E-3 .60 1,720 3.9 E-2 760 1.7 E-2 1) 0 0 51-2 E-3 .60 317,600 0 17,500 0 0 0 5-0 A .89 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0. 0 C .03 145.0 S- 3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 145.0 E-3 .30 3,500 0 3,500 0 0 0 5-Cc A .89 10.0 E-3 .30 350 2.2 E-2 350 2.2 E-2 0 0 B .08 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.2 E-2 0 0 C .03 10.0 E-3 .30 400 0.1 E-2 400 0.1 E-2 0 0 D 0 10.0 E-3 .30 3,500 0 3,500 0 0 0 19.6 E-2 13.7 E-2 "Wave class significant heightt A 0-4 ft B 4-6 ft C 4-S It D >8 ft bMonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlateorr., pipeline, and SPM spills Braater than 1,000 bbl. TALLE 5.5-21 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRA."'DING - AUGUST, G.1VESTON SECI-OR - (monthly sector a:r-val probability - 25.8'.) SPILL T%,.VEL TIME GROUPS I.N..BI.PURELS Wave 0% 50% 150 hoi@rs Spill Size Wave Class Annual b Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual S,;], si:@e (1000 bbl) Cla ssa Factor Frequency Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expectation at Sho'c Exou-t.1tion 120-100 A .90 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 53,000 1.4 E-2 44,OOG I.1 E-2 D 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 84,000 0 84.000 100-75 A .90 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 r. .02 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 45,000 1.1 E-2 38,000 0.9 D 0 12.4 E-4 .675 0 0 70,000 0 70,000 75-50 A .90 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .03 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 .C .02 12.4 E-4 .833 0 26,006 0.6 E-2 21,-,J0 C.5 E--2 D 0 12.4 E-4 .833 0 52,500 0 52,530 0 50-25 A .90 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 4,700 0.5 E-2 900 0.1 E-2 35,000 0 35,000 0 D 0 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 25-5 A .90 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .08 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 .0 0 C .02 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 1,400 0.9 E-2 400 0.3 E-2 D 0 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 17,500 0 17,500 0 5-0 A .90 1.5.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .05 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 145.0 E-3 .30. 0 0 3,500 0 C 5-0c A .90 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 1.0 F-2 350 1.0 r--2 B '.03 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 0.1 E-2 350 0. 1 C .02 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 400 0 .00 0 D 0 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 @3,500 0 3,500 0 TOTAL 5.6 E-2 aWave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >6 ft "Monthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlazform, pipeline, and SPM spill greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-22 EXPECTATION OF YARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING SEPTEMBER, GALVESTON SECTOR - (monthly sector crrival probability - 23.3%) SPILL Tv,%VEL TIME GROUPS iN BAF-RELS Wave 0% 50% 150 hours h @7 + Spill Size Wave Class Annual. Averaging SpIll Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Size Ann";'- Cl,,,,,a ", b (1000 bbl) Factor Frequ @y Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expectation at Shole Exrectation i2o-ico A .68 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 1 1, 0 B .18 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 (1 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 50,000 3.5 E-2 44.100 3., 17-@ D .04 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 84,000 4.0 E-2 84,@-O L.3 E-2 100-75 A .68 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .18 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 42,600 2.8 E-2 38,000 2.5 E-2 D .04 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 70,000 3.0 E-2 70,000 3.0 E-2 75-50 A .63 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .13 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Oor 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 24,200 1.45 Z-2 21,000 1.3 *7-2 D .04 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 52,500 2.1 E-2 52,500 2.1 E-2 50-25 A .68 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .18 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 6.) E-3 .75 0 0 3,320 1.0 E-2 900 0.3 E-') D .04 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 35,000 7.0 E-2 35,000 7.0 E-2 25-5 A .68 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .18 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 1,160 2.1 E-2 1.00 0.7 F-2 17,500 21.4 21.4 E-1. D .04 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 E-2 17,500 5-0 A .68 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .18 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .04 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,500 5.95 E-2 3,500 5.95 7-2 3-0c A .68 10.0 2-3 .30 0 0 350 0.7 E-2 350 0.7 B .18 10.0 E-3 .30 0 C 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.2 E-2 C .06 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 400 0.1 E-2 400 0.1 E-2 D .04 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,500 0.4 E-2 3,500 0.4 E-2 10TA7. 55.4 F-2 5 4 E-'@ aWave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft bMonth3y probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. C pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-23 EXPECTATION OF MARINE OIL SPILLAC2 STIUNDINIG - OCTOBE-, GALVESTOX SECTOR - (monthly sector Lriival probability - 4.9L) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS IN BARRELS - 190 hours Wave 35% - 100 hours 43% hnurL: Spill Size Wave Class Annual Averiging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill sizc .%n r. (1000 bbl) Clas sa cv b F., at S' a -- Factor Frequen r nore Expectation at Shore Expectation t S..C-o E'@ I., L--:1 - 0 -1 1-1-0-100 A .66 13.2 r-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 C. B .119 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 In C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 58,000 0.6 E-2 49,000 0.6 E-2 @'@'C'00 0.3 D .06 13.2 E-4 .917 85,800 0.9 E-2 84,000 1.1 E-2 11,000 0.5 E-2 '00 -75 A .66 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .875 49.000 0.5 E-2 41,800 0.5 E-2 3&,000 O.-@ 7-2 T .1 E-2 .06 12.4 E-4 .875 71,500 0.7 E-2 70,000 0.8 E-2 0. 75-50 A .66 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 12.4 E-4 .833 9 0 0 - 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 F-4 .833 29"DOO 0.25 E-2 23,600 0.25 E-2 21,000 0.1 K-7 D .06 12.4 E-4 .833 53,625 0.5 E-2 52,500 0.6 E-2 52,500 0.3 E-2 50-25 A .66 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 1, t C .06 6.9 E-3 .75 7,000 0.3 E-2 2'so 0.2 E-2 900 0 D .06 6.9 E-3 .75 35,750 1.6 E-2 35,000 1.9 E-2 35,000 '.3 E-2 25-5 A .66 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 1,800 0.5 E-2 l'OSO 0.4 E-2 400 O.i E-2 D .06 52.2 E-3 .60 17,875 4.8 E-2 17,500 5.8 E-2 17,500 2.95 E-2 5-0 A .66 145.0 F-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 14 5. 0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 C G C .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 1) D .06 145.0 r-3 .30. 3.575 1.3 E-2 3,500 1.6 E-2 3,500 0.6 -.-2 5-0' A :66 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.1 E-2 350 0.1 E-2 350 0.1 E-2 B .19 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0 350 0 350 0 C .06 10.0 E-3 .30 400 0 400 0 400 0 D .06 10,0 2-3 .30 3,375 0.1 E-2 3,500 0.1 E-2 2,500 0.1 E-2 TOTAL 12.2 i.:- 2 14.0 E-2 6.9 E-2 aWave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft b, Monthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-24 MPECTATION OF @URINIE OIL SPILIACE STPULN'DING - jANTARy, cORrUS CHRISTI SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 34.5%) SPILL Tr,,%VEL TIME GROUPS I1Z Bi%,--TLS s 20% - 150 nours 26% 220 homrs Wave Snill Size Annucl Spill Size AT:ri!,31 Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Sile wav:'a class An J:n":Yb Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expectation at mr @- Euj@statinn Cl, F@ c;u Factor 120-ioo A .59 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 B .22 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 C .08 13.2 E-4 .917 53,000 3.0* E-2 47.200 3.4 E-2 44,000 6.7 E-2 D .07 13.2 E-4 .917 96,000 4.6 E-2 96,COO 6.0 E-2 96.000 IC-0-75 A .59 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 12.4 E-4 .875 45,000 2.25 E-2 40,400 2.6 E-2 3S,000 5.1 F-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .875 80,000 3.5 E-2 80,000 4.5 E-2 80,000 9.3 E-2 75-50 A .59 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 1.4 0 2.7 E-2 C .08 12.4 E-4 .833 26,000 1.25 E-2 22,600 E-2 21,OCO D .07 12.4 E-4 .833 60,000 2.5 E-2 60,000 3.3 F-2 r10,090 6.,^, 7-2 5C-25 A .59 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 B .22 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0.66 E-2 900 0.6 F-2 .75 4,700 1.1 E-2 2,100 C .08 6.9 E-3 8.1 E-2 40,000 10.6 E-2 40,000 22.0 E-2 .07 6.R E-3 .75 4,),000 D 25-5 A .59 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 B .22 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 C .03 52.2 E-3 .60 1,400 2.0 E-2 880 1.65 E-2 40 1.6 E-2 D .07 52.2 E-3 .60 20,000 25.2 E-2 20,000 32.S E-2 20,000 58.0 E-2 5-0 A .59 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 B .22 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 C .08 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 D .07 145.0 E-3 .30 4,000 7.0 E-2 4,000 9.1 E-2 4,000 19.0 E-2 5-0c A .59 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.4 E-2 350 0.5 E-2 350 1.0 E-2 B .22 10.0 Z-3 .30 350 o.1 E-2 350 0.2 E-2 1150 0.4 E-2 C .03 10.0 E-3 .30 400 0.1 E-2 400 M E-2 400 0. 2 7-2 D .07 10.0 E-3 .30 4,000 0.5 E-2 4,000 0.6 E-2 4,000 1.2 E-2 55.4 E-2 77.5 E-2 147.1 E-2 -- 10 T,'@ L class significant height: A 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft c - 6-o Z, D - >8 ft b@Iomthly prot@a,ility assigned 1/12 of annual rate. crxa:flrjr-., pioeline, and SPM gpills greater than 1.000 bbl. TABLL !.5-25 EXPECTATION OF MARINN ( IL SPTLUGE STRANDING - FEBRUARY- CORPUE CHRISTI SECTOR (monthly sector arrival probability - 40.3%) Wave SPILL T?,%VFL TIME GIOUpS 1N BARRUS SP411 Size 21Z - 110 liours 79Z - 300 hours + TA'a V C Class Annual Averaging Spill Size Annual assa Factor Factor at Shore Expectation at sho;e Expectation at st"ore" , 'i" i@ Fre, b Spill Size Annklyf-- Cl, (1000 bbl) cy 120-100 A. .50 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 13.2 E-4 .917 57,000 4.4 E-2 44,000 12.9 E-2 0 D .09 13.2 E-4 .917 96,600 7.4 E-2 96,000 27.8 E-2 0 100-75 A .50 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 12.4 E-4 .875 49,200 3.3 E-2 38,000 9.9 E-2 0 0 D .09 12.4 E-4 .875 80,500 5.6 E-2 80,000 20.9 E-2 0 0 75-50 A .50 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 B .26 12.4 E-4 0 0 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 12.4 E-4 .833 28,401) 1.8 @-2 21,000 5.1 E-2 0 @1 D .09 12.4 F-4 .933 60,410 4.0 E-2 60,000 14.8 E-2 0 0 50-25 A ..50 6.9 r-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C B .26 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 6.9 E-3 .73 6,540 2.2 E-2 900 1.1 E-2 0 0 D .09 6.9 E-3 .75 40,300 13.2 E-2 40,000 49.3 E-2 0 0 25-5 A .50 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 52.2 E-3 .60 1,720 3.4 E-2 400 3.0 E-2 0 0 D .09 52.2 E-3 .60 20,loO 40.0 E-2 20,000 149.8 E-2 0 5-0 A .50 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .09 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .09 145.0 E-3 .30 4,000 11.0 E-2 4,000 41.5 E-2 0 0 5-0, A .50 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.4 E-2 350 1.4 E-2 3 0 B .26 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.7 E-2 0 0 C .09 10.0 E-3 .30 400 0.1 E-2 400 0.3 E-2 0 0 D .09 10.0 E-3 .30 4,001) 0.8 E-2 4,000 2.8 E-2 0 0 T IOTAL 94.4 E-2 341.3 E-Z aWave class significant height.: A 0-4 ft B 4-6 ft C 6-6 ft D >8 ft bXonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatfor=, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-26 EXPECTATION Or X&RINE OTL SPULAGE STRANDINC - WtCll, CORPUS CHRISTI SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 6.3%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS 1@ BARRELS W3 v e 0% 52% - 130 hours 48Z 2eO nnu7g Spill Size Wave Class Annual b Averaging Spill Size -Wr-,-.@ual Spill Size Annual Spill Size A n r. Lin (1000 bK Class', Factor Frequency ractor at Shore Expectation it Shore Expectation n!: Shore Exrectntion 120-iOo A .64 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 C 0 0 0 B .21 13.2 Z-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 01 C .07 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0. 55,000 1.1 E-2 44,800 0.9 E-2 D .06 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 96,000 1.9 E-2 96,000 1.7 E-2 100-75 A .64 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .21 12.4 E-4 .375 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .07 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 46,600 1.0 E-2 38,600 0.7 E-2 D .06 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 80,000 1.6 E-2 So'c-00 1.4 E-2 75-50 A .64 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .21 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .07 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 27,200 0.6 E-2 21,400 0.4 E-2 D .06 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 60,000 0.9 E-2 60,000 0.9 E-2 50-23 A .64 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .21 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C C .07 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 5,620 0.6 r-2 1,200 O.i E-2 D .06 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 40,000 3.4 E-2 1.0, om 3.2 E-2 25-5 A .64 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 .21 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .07 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 1,560 1.0 E-2 520 0.3 E-2 D .06 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 20,000 10.1 Z-2 20.000 9.4 E-2 5-0 A .64 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .21 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .07 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 4,000 2.8 E-2 4,000 2.6 E-2 5-0c A .64 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.2 E-2 B .21 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 0.1 E-2 350 0.1 E-2 C ..07 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 400 0 400 0 D .06 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 4,000 0.2 E-2 4,000 0.2 E-2 TOTAL 24.6 E-2 22.1 E-2 Wave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-3 ft D - >3 ft bMonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform, pipeline, -and SFM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-27 EXPECTATION.OF MARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING - APRI',, CORPUS CHRISTI SECTOR - (monthly sectcr arrival probability - 11.6%) SPTLL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS IN BARRELS Wave 50% - 70 hours 25% - 200 h.@L@Ts Spill Size Wave Class An nual b Av.0raging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual SP111 .e, .c .L1COO bbl) ,.,,,,a Factor Freq Y actor at Shore Expe tation at Shore Expectnticn 120-100 A .64 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 C. B .22 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 c 0 0 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 67,600 2.4 E-2 48,000 0.8 E-2 4,4,0001 D .05 13.2 E-4 .917 99,600 2.8 E-2 96,000 2.7 E-2 96,000 1.4 E-2 100-75 A .64 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .875 55,000 1.65 E-2 4-1,000 0.6 E-2 3@'000 11.6 D .05 12.4 E-4 .875 83,000 2.1 E-2 80,000 1.0 E-2 sc" cluo E_ 75-50 A .64 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 - 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .833 36,200 1.1 E-2 23,000 0.3 E-2 21,000 0.3 E-2 D .05 12.4 E-4 .833 62,300 1.6 E- 2 60,000 0.8 E-2 60,U(jO 50-25 A .64 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 6.9 E-3 75 0 0 0 0 G 11 C 06 6.9 E-3 :75 12,400 1.9 E-2 2,400 0.2 ---2 9011 0.1- F-21 D :05 6.9 E-3 .75 41,500 5.2 E-2 40,000 2.5 E-2 40'0c'o 2.5 r-2 25-5 A .64 52.2 E-3 .60, 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 3,120 2.8 E-2 1,000 0.45 E-2 400 0.2 E-2 D .05 52.2 E-3 .60 20,800 15.6 E-2 20,000 7.5 E-2 20,000 7.5 E-2 5-0 A .64 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .05 145.0 E-3 .30 4,200 4.5 E-2 4,000 2.1 E-2 4'0r'O 2.1 z-2 5-Oc .64 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.3 E-2 350 0.2 E-2 350 0., B .22 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.1 E-2 350 0.1 E-2 350 0.1 E-2 C .06 10.0 E-3 .30 520 0 400 0 400 0 D .05 10.0 E-3 .30 4,200 0.3 E-2 4,000 0.2 F-2 4,000 0.1 E-2 TOTAL 42.4 E-2 19.5 E-2 17.7 E-2 "Wave class significant hcieht: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft bMonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPlatform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-28 EXPECTATION OF YARINE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING - MAY, CORPUS CHRISTI SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 5.6%) SPILL TRAVEL TIME GROUPS TN BARRELS Ohl 58Z - 105 hours 4-)-, :@jo Wave 0 hours S?ill Size Wave Class Annual Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Size Aniw.il a P I? ". ion '.en'y (.1COO bbl) Clas s Factor Fre actor at Shore Expectation at Shore Exnectation at 120-ICO A .71 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 13.2 E-4 .91.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 0 57,500 1.1 7-2 44,, 00 0. A, K-2 D .04 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 85,2CO 1.1 E-2 84,000 0.8 ::_2 '00-75 A .71 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 48,500 0.8 E-2 38,000 0.5 F-2 D .04 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 71,000 0.8 E-2 70,000 0.6 F-2 75-50 A .71 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 28,700 0.5 E-2 21,100 0.3 Z-2 D .04 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 53,300 0.6 E-2 52,500 0.4 E-2 50-25 A .71 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 6.@ E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 6,770 0.55 E-2 900 0.05 Z-2 1.4 E-2 D .04 6.9-E-3 .75 0 0 35,500 1.9 E-2 35,CGO 25-5 A .71 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .17 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 1,760 0.9 E-2 400 0.15 E-2 D .04 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 17,800 6.1 E-2 l7t50O 4.3 E-2 5-0 A .71 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .17 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .0" 145.0 E-3 ..30 0 0 3,600 1.7 E-2 3,500 1.2 E-2 51-0C A .71 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 0.2 E-2 350 0.15 E-2 B .17 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 0.05 E-2 350 0 C .06 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 400 0 400 0 D .04 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,600 0.1 E-2 3.500 0.1 E-2 T07AL 16.5 E-2 10.7 E-2 '@wave class significant heiZht: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-6 IL D - >8 ft hly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. cPla,fc@-m, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-29 FXPECTATION 0? I-LA-RINE OIL SPILTAGE STR-4NDING - JL"@, CORPUS CHRISTI SECTOR - (Monthly sectcr arrival probability - 1.8%) SPILL TRAVFL TIME GROUPS jN Wave 25% - 80 hours- 40% - 180 h0lil-S Spill Size Wave Class Ann" :n":Yb Av;.,r:ging Spill Size Annual Spill Size Annual Spill Siz, (1000 bbl) Cla ,a Factor Frequ tor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expectation a, sl:orc- ion 120-loo A .83 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 13.2 E-4 .917 64,400 0.1 E-2 50,000 0.1 E-2 44,000 0.1 E-2 D .02 13.2 E-4 .917 87,600 0.1 E-2 84,000 0.1 E-2 S4,000 0.1 100-75 A .83 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 12.4 E-4 .875 53,000 0 42,600 0.1 E-2 38,COO 0 D .02 12.4 E-4 .875 73,000 0.1 E-2 70,000 0.1 E-2 70,000 0.1 E-2 75-50 A .83 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 C .02 12.4 E-4 .833 33,800 0 24,200 0 21,000 D C2 12.4 E-4 .833 54,800 0 5'@,500 0.1 E-2 52,500 0.1 50-25 A .83 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 C C .02 6.9 E-3 .75 10,600 0 3,320 0 900 0 D .02 6.9 E-3 .75 36,500 0.9 E-2 35,000 0.2 E-2 35,000 0.2 F-2 25-5 A .83 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 52.2 E-3 .60 2,680 0.1 E-2 1,160 0 400 0 D .02 52.2 E-3 .60 18,300 0.4 E-2 17,500 0.7 E-2 17,500 0.6 E-2 5-0 A .83 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .12 143.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .02 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .02 145.0 E-3 .30 37,000 0.1 E-2 3,500 0.2 Z-2 3,5". 0.2 E-2 5-0' A .83 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0 350 0.05 E--', 350 O.C5 E-2 B .12 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0 350 0 350 0 C .02 10.0 F-3 .30 480 0 400 0 .001 0 D .02 10.0 E-3 .30 3,700 0 3,500 0 3,500 0 TOTAL 1.8 E-2 1.7 E-2 i.5 E-2 aklave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft bmonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. CPlatform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-30 EXPECTATION OF MARINTE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING - OCTOBER, CORPUS CHRISTI SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 3.3%) SPILL TRAVEL TIXE CROUrS IN BARRELS 190 lieu 65,@ 300 ho'Irs+ Vnvc W. 35Z rs spill Size Wave Class Annual Averaging Spill Size Annual Spill Si a Annual Spill Size A,inual Frc'." Fy@pc@@ta.' icLn bbl) Class Factor Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expectation at Slj<jr@__ 120-100 A .66 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 .19 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 49,000 0.3 E-2 44. "CC 0.6 F-2 D .06 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 S4,00C 0.6 F-2 F,4,00 !.I F-2 100-75 A .66 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .19 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 41,300 0.3 E-2 38,000 0.4 E-2 D .06 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 70,000 0.4 E-2 70,000 0.8 E-2 .75-30 A .66 12.4 r-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 23,600 0.1 E-2 21,000 0.2 E-2 D .06 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 52.500 0.3 E-2 52.500 0.6 E-' 50- 2 3 A .66 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 6.9 E-1 .75 0 0 0 0 01 0 C .06 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 2,360 0.1 E-2 900 0.05 F-2 D .06 6.9 E-3. .75 0 0 35,000 1.0 E-2 35,000 i.9 E-2 A 6 6 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 1,080 0.2 E-2 400 0.1 E-2 D .06 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 17,500 3.2 E-2 17,500 5.9 E-2 5-0 A .66 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .19 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 C D .06 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,500 0.9 E-2 3,500 1.6 r--Z 5-0c A .66 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 0.1 E-2 350 0.1 E-2 B .19 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 350 0 350 0 C .06 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 400 0 400 0 D .06 10.0 E-3 .30 0 0 3,500 0.1 E-2 3,5CO 0.1 E-Z 7.6 F-2 13.5 TA L Gj;ave class s-Ignificant height: A 0-4 ft B 4-6 ft C 6-8 ft D >8 ft b, .1 -bly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. CP-',at'cr-, gipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TkBLE 5.5-31 EXPECTATION OF MARINTE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING - NOVEMBEP, @ORPUS CHRISTI SECTOR - (monthly sector arrival probability - 5.0%) SPILL T11-AVEL TIXE GkCUPS 1N BARRELS Wave 10% - 146--hours 01@ Spill Size Wavesa. Class Annual b Averaging Spill Size Annual- TP-111si., Annual Spill Sizo Annu'll (1000 bbl) Clas Factor Freg ency Factor at Shore Expectation at Shore Expectation at S'.nore Exn,@ctat;Dn 120-10o A .61 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .05 13.2 E-4 .917 54,000 0.1 E-2 0 0 44,000 1.0 D .05 13.2 E-4 .917 96,000 0.3 E-2 0 0 96,000 2.2 E-2 100-75 A .61 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 12.4 E-4 .675 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .05 12.4 E-4 .875 45,800 0.1 E-2 0 0 38,000 0.3 E-2 D .05 12.4 E-4 .875 80,000 0.2 E-2 0 0 80,000 H-2 75-50 A .61 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 6 0 0 C .05 12.4 E-4 .833 215,600 0.1 E-2 0 0 21,000 0.4 E-2 D .05 12.4 E-4 .833 6),000 0.1 E-2 0 0 60.00C 1.1 --,--2 50-25 A .61 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 26 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C :05 6.9 E-3 .75 .5.160 0.1 E-2 0 0 500 0.1 D .05 6.9 E-3 .75 40,000 0.4 E-2 0 0 40,000 3.6 E-2 25-5 A .61 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .05 52.2 E-3 .60 1,480 0.1 E-2 0 0 400 0.2 E-2 D .05 52.2 E-3 .60 20,000 1.3 E-2 0 0 20,OGG 11.7 '-'-2 5-0 A .61 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .26 145.0 E-3 .10 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .05 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .05 145.0 E-3 .@O 4,000 0.4 E-2 0 0 4,000 3.4 5-Oc A .61 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0 0 0 350 0.2 S-2 B .26 10.0 E-3 .30 MO 0 0 0 350 C .05 10.0 E-3 .30 @00 0 0 0 400 0 D .05 10.0 E-3 .30 ei,000 0 0 0 4,000 0.3 2 TOTAL 3.2 E-2 1-6.9 K-2 Z. Wave class significant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft bMonthly probability assigned 1/12 of annual rate, C?latform, pipeline, and SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TABLE 5.5-32 EXPECTATION OF MRINE OIL SPILLAGE STRANDING DECEMBER, CORPUS CHRIST! SECTOR (monthly sector arrival probability - 50.7%) -SPILL TRAVEL TIMME GROUPS IN BARRELS Wave 50% 120 hours 0-'- 50%, 300 + S?ill Sze Wave Class Annual Aver,23 Size Annual b ing Spill ST)ill Size Annual Spill Size Ann-_,31 Mco bbi) lpsga @actcr Frecuency or a' S,,.ore Exnectation at Shore "x-.ectit'on k .t at Shore EY pectation i^0_100 A .61 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 13.2 E-4 .917 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 13.2 E-4 .917 56,000 11.5 E-2 0 0 44,000 9.0 E-2 D .07 13.2 E@4 .917 96.000 17.2 E-2 0 0 96,000 17.2 E-2 100-75 A .61 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .875 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 12.4 E-4 .875 47,400 8.8 E-2 0 0 38,000 7.0 E-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .875 80,000 12.8 E-2 0 0 80,000 12.8 F-2 75-50 A .61 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 12.4 E-4 .833 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 12.4 E-4 .833 27,SOO 4.9 E-2 0 0 21,000 3.7 E-2 D .07 12.4 E-4 .833 60,000 9.1 E-2 0 0 60.000 9.1 E-2 50-25 A .61 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 r, .22 6.9 E-3 .75 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 6.9 E-3 .75 6,080 5.2 E-2 0 0 9100 0.8 F-2 D .07 6.9 E-3 .75 40,OOC 31.1 E-2 0 0 40,000 31.1 7-2 i3_5 A .61 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 52.2 E-3 .60 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .0s 52.2 E-11 .60 1,640 8.7 E-2. 0 0 400 2.1 E-2 D .07 52.2 E-3 .60 20,000 92.6 E-2 0 0 20,000 92.6 E-2 5-0 A .61 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 B .22 145.0 F-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .08 145.0 E-3 .30 0 0 0 0 0 0 D .07 145.0 E-3 .30 4,00C 25.7 E-2 0 0 4,D09 25.7 E-2 5-0, A .61 10.0 E-3 .30 350 1.35 E-2 0 0 350 1.35 E-2 B .22 10.0 E-3 .30 350 0.5 E-2 0 0 350 0.5 E-2 C .08 10.0 E-3 .30 400 0.2 E-2 0 0 400 0.2 E-2 D .07 10.0 E-3 .30 4,000 1.8 E-2 0 0 4,C00 -!.S 1'1-2 243.6 E-2 227.2 E-2 aw:-ve class sirnificant height: A - 0-4 ft B - 4-6 ft C - 6-8 ft D - >8 ft b',cn*hly pr@bability assigned 1/12 of annual rate. c?Iatfcrn; pfpeline, are SPM spills greater than 1,000 bbl. TEXAS OFFS11ORE CATASTROPHIC SPILL CLEAN UP !Perliod 3 Skituners Amount 5-10 hours 6000 bbl/hr 30,000 10-50 hours 3600 bbl/hr 144,000 50-100 hours 2700 bbl/hr 135,000 100-200 hours 900 bbl/hr 90,000 200-300 hours 300 bbl/hr 30,000 429,000 Spill Class tPrequency Start Unrec. Expected 120-200 6.OE-4 110,000 0 200-500 i.5E-4 350,000 0 500-lx4O 6 5.2E-5 750,000 250,000 13 6 6 lxlO 2xlO 1.5E-5 1,500,000 1,000,000 15 28 bbls FLORIDA STRANDING ANALYSIS Exposure: Low - 25%'Oil Spill Decay Expected Spill Oil at Annual Average Spill/Class (bbls) Frequency Stranding Oil at Stranding 120,000-100,000 .75 L:7-11 82,500 6.18 100,000- 75,000 .70E-q 65,265 4.57 75,000-50,00d .70 F- 4 50,625 3.54 50,000-25,000 3.9 E-Lj 28,125 10.96 25,000-5,000 3. 0 F- 11,250 33.75 5,000-0 8.2L,-j 1,875 [Catastrophic Spills) 120,000-200,000: 3.4U-5 120,000 4.08 200,000-500-000 8.5E-6 262,500 2.23 500,000-1X10 6 2-9E-@) 562,500 1.63 6 6 lX10 WO 8.5E-7 1,125,000 .91 83.28 Impact timq:= 50/'= 41.64 G-3 EXPOSURE:j LOW 25% oil spill decay FLORIDA STRANDING ANALYSIS Expected Spill Oil at Annual Average Spill/Class Frequency Stranding Oil at Stranding 120,000-100,000 15E-4 82,500 12.38 100,000- 75,000 1.4E-4 65,265 9.19 75,000-50,000 1.4E-4 50,625 8.09 50,000-25,000 8.OE-4 28,125 22.50 25-000-5,000 6.IE-3 1 11,250 68.63 5,000-0 1.7E-2 1,875 31.88 [Catastrophic Spills) 120,000-200,000 6.9E-5 1:20,000 82.52 200iOOO-500-000 1.7E-5 262,500 4.46 6 503,000-lxlo 610E-6 562,500 3.38 6 6 1XIO 2X10 1.7E-6 1,125,000 1.91 169.67 Impact time 50% 84.8 G-4 EXPOSURE: MEDIUM 25% oil spill decay FLORIDA STRANDING ANALYSIS Expected Spill Oil at Annual Average Spill/class (bbls) Frcqucnn Strand@R?,_ Oil at Stranding 120,000-100,000 2.1r,-4 82,500 17.33 100,000- 75,000 1.9E-4 65,625 12.47 75,000-50,000 1.9E-4 50,625 9 ..62 50,000-25,000 @1. IE-3 28,125 30.94 25,000-5,000 8.2E-3 11,250 92.25 5,000-0 2.3E-2 1,875 43.13 [Catastrophic Spills) 120,000-@00,000 9.4E-5 lm,000 11.28 200,000-500-000 2.4E-5' 262,500 6.30 6 500,000-1XIO 8.14-6 562,500 4.56. 1XIO 5 2xlO6 2-3t-6 1,125,000 2.59 230.47 lmp@ct timie',; 50%!: 115.24 G-5 EXPOSURE: J111GH @5% oil spill decay FLORIDA STVIIDTNG ANALYSIS Expected Spill Oil at Annual Average Spill/class (bbls) Frequency Strandin@, Oil at Stranding. 120,000-100,000 2.8E-4 82,500 23.10. 100,000- 75,00 0 2.6E-4' 65,625 17.06 75,000-50,000 2. 6E--;4 50,625 13.16 50,000-25,000 1.4E-3 28,125. 39.38 25,000-5,000 I.IE-2 11,250 123.75 5,000--0 ME-2 1,875 58.13 [Catastrophic Spills) 120,000-200,0100 1. 3B-4 120,000. 15.60 200,000-500-000 3.1B-5 262,50d 8.14 6 500,000-lxlO 562,500 6.19 1xio 2xl0 6 ...3.2 E-6 1,125,000 3.60 308.'11 4. Impact time 50% 154.0 r A EXPOIURr:,.:; L1161 FLORIDA STRANDING kNALYSIS Expected Spill Oil at Annual Average Spill/Class (bbls) r7requency Stranding Oil at Stranding 120,000-100,000 E-4 110,000 16.84 100,000- 75,000 1.4E-4 87,500 12.58 75,000-50,000 1.4E-4 67,500 9.71 50,000-25,000 8.OE-4 37,500 30.01 6.IE-3 15,000 90.82 5,000-0 1.7E-2 2,500 42.05 [Catastrophic Spills) 120,000-200,000 6.9E-5 16b,000 11.13 200,000-500-000 1.7E-5 350,000 6.09 500.000_lxlb6 6.OE-6 750,000 4.52 IX106 2xlO 6 11.7E-6 1,500,000 2.61 226.35 Impact time 50% 113.18 G-7 r EXPOSURE: MEDIUM FLORIDA STMIDING ANALYSIS Expected Spill Oil at Annual Average Spill/Class (bbls) Frequency Stranding Oil at Stranding 12 0,000-100,000 ME-4 110,000 22.79. 100,000- 75,000 1.9E-4 87,500 17.03 75,000-50,000 1.9E-4 67500 13.14 50,000-25,000 LIE-3 37,500. 40.'8 25,000-5,000 8.2E-3 15,000 122.93 5,C-O-- 2.3E-2 2,500 -56.91 [Catastrophic Spills] 120,000-200,000 ME-5 160,000 15.07 200,000-500-.000 2.4E-5 350,000 8.24 500,000-lxlO 6 8.lE_6 750,060 6.12- lXl(j 2xlO 6 2.13E-6 1,500,000 3.53 306.56 Impact time.- 501% 153.56 G-8 EXPOSURL, HICH FLORTDA STRANDING tONALYSTS Expected Spill Oil at Annual Average Spill/Class (bbls) Frequency Stranding Oil at Stranding -120,000-100,000 2.8E-4 110,000 30.78 100,000- 75,000 2.6E-4 87,500 23.00 75,000-50,000 2.6E-4 67,500 17.55 50,000-25,000 1.4E-3 37,500 54.8 25,000-5,000 1.1E-2 15,000 165.99 5,060-3 3.1E-2 2,500 76.85 (Catastrophic Spills]- 120*000r200,000 1.3E-4 160,000 20.-35 .200,000-500-000 3 A E -5 350,000- 11.13 6 500'000-lxlo LIE-5 750,000 8.27 6* 6 WC WO 3. 2:E- 6 11,500,000 4.77 413.49 lmpa@t time 0 -)O%,!n 206.8 APPENDIX H. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Basis for Quanitative Estimates of Vulnerable Recreation Activities Recreational user days and value estimates have been derived from several sources. These estimates are subject to variation depend- ing upon the source, the methods used in deriving the estimates, and the time and place in which they were made. There is at the present time, no standard methodology widely accepted among experts in the recreation establishment for quantitively evaluating use values for the activities of interest here. However, NOAA feels that the recreational values presented in the text of this report are representative of the best estimates available. The following sources provided estimates on tjie economic values of the indicated user day activities: Boating Day Values (A) Per trip or marginal costs per day, exclusive of amortised capital investment in vessels, maintenance, insurance and berthing costs were estimated for Dade County Florida by Dr. Bruce Austin, Assistant Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Dr. Austin found the average value to be approximately $20,00 per boat- ing day. (B) Thomas Brown, Cornell University, in a personal com- munication, estimated the value of a boating day to be $11.59 based upon a recent study of Long Island Sound boating recreation. This value represents expenditures on fuel, berthing and maintenance, but not capital ex- penditures for the purchase of vessels. (C) A mean value of $15.80 was.taken from the above two user day estimates as a reasonable proxy (shadow price) for the value of a boating day. *Fishing Day Values (A) One estimate of $20.00 @per fisherman day was provided by Dr. William Brown :Ln a personal communication, March 1976. This value is the result of a recent study cur- rently pending publication from the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, entitled: "Improved Economic H-1 Evaluation of Commercially and Sport Caught Salmon and Steelhead of the Columbia River," by Brown, Larson, Johnston, and Whale, 1976. This value is de- rived from actual dollar expenditures of fishermen as solicited in personal interviews. With few studies estimating sport fishing user day values having been made, it was decided that this study, though for a different region of the U.S., could be applied as a reasonable estimate of Gulf Coast fishing day values. (B) A similar estimate of $22,16.per day was made in a recent study by Donnie L. Daniel, entitled: ."A Survey of Sport Fishing Related Expenditures In a Selected Portion of the Mississippi Gulf Coast," University of Southern Mississippi, Bureau of Business Research, School of Business Administration,, Hatties- burg, Mississippi, 1974. CC) A mean value of $21.'58 was taken from the above two user day estimates as a reasonable proxy (shadow price) for the value of a sport fishing day. 'Beach Day Values (A) In a recent study by Kenneth E. McConnell, entitled: "Congestion and Willingness to Pay: A Study of Beach Use," University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Is- land, 1976; the author estimated the value of a beach day to be worth $4.00 to the overall beach user. (B) In a study by Wal ter J. Mead and Philip E. Sorenson, entitled: "The Economic Cost of the Santa Barbara Oil Spill,: University of California, December 1970, the authors estimated the value of a beach day to be $3.50 (C) A mean value of $3.75 was taken from the above user day estimates as a reasonalbe proxy (shadow price) for the value of a beach day. The following sources provided estimates of actual user day participation in areas of concern along the Texas, Louisiana, and Florida Coast: CA) Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana Superport Studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1973. (B) Louisiana Parks and Recreation Commission, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. CC) Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, Texas Outlook Recreation Plan, Austin, Texas, 1974. (D) Florida Bureau of Natural Resources, Divis- ion of Parks and Recreation and the State of Florida Division of Tourism. Florida's Interest In Gaining Adjacent Coastal State Status Based Upon Recreational Considerations The following is taken verbatim from a report given to NOAA by the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks documenting recreational activity in Florida's Coastal Zone. In it will be found user day estimates for four planning -regions in Florida. However, the area of concern is region X only, the bound@ aries of which approximate almost precisely the "Coastal Impact Area" (Figure 3) as determined in NOAA's spill trajectory analysis. 'Oev',q, rwe4@ ov, Mnturql 4jouptes vy ffeerc@tljo)7 41nd A-r)rs FLORIDAS INTEREST IN GAINING ADJACENT COASTAL STATE STATUS BASED UPON RECRrATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Coastal recreation is very important in Florida, not only economically but for the mental and physical well-being of the residents and millions of tourists who annually flock to the beaches and other attractions. This is especially true of the coastal area between Tampa Bay and Daytona Beach as this is where the majority of Florida's residents reside and tourists visit. In order to demonstrate the recreational importance of this 17-county area, this analysis consists of three parts. The first is the demand (projected to 1990) for selected coastal activities such as beach activities, sport fishing,, boating and.visiting archaeological and historic sites. The second sect ion pertains. to fhe supply necessary to saticfy fhe demand detailed in the first section. It consists of the tabulation of designated recreational beaches as well as general discussions'on the extent and vul- nerability of natural areas and archaeological and historic sites in the coastal zone. Documentation makes up the 3rd section. Source materials are provided, including the draft of the 1976 State Comprehensive Outdoor [email protected] Plan, maps inventorying :t"he recreation areas in the 17-county area and the Florida Environmentally Endangered Land Plan. I. DLMANDl) Beach Activities Regions VI VIII Ix X Total Thousands of - 1975 30,319 31,444 42,579 100,389 204,731 User-Occasions2)-1980 33,927 35,237 47,943 112,189 229,296 -1985 37,663 39,152 53,427 124,440 254,682 -1990 41,575 43,260 59,218 137,244 281,297 Saltwater Sport Fishing Regions VI Vill ix X Total Thousands of -1975 5,922 12,830 12,230 24,399 55,381 User-occasions -1980 6,675 140506 13,77G 27,611 62,568 -1985 7,443 16,206 15,356 30,864 69,869 -1990 8,255 18,009 17,024 34,320 77,603 Saltwater Power Boating Regions VI Vill ix X Total Thousands of -1975 1,242 3,913 8,366 _24,209 37,730 User-occasions -1980 1,409 4,425 9,515 27,302 42,651 -1985 1,577 4,944 10,667 30,455 47,643 -1990 1,757 5,495 .11,899 33,790 52,941 Saltwater-Sailing3) Regions Vi Vill ix X Total Thousands of -1975 209 3,713 1,701 4,'024 9,674 User-Occasions -1980 238 4,229 1,938 4,433 10,838 -1985 267 4,746 2,176 4,874 12,063 -1990 298 5,299 2,430 5,324 13,351 Regions Visiting Archaeological and Historic.Sites4Y Vi Vill ix X Total Thousands of -1975 3,949 1,293 2,181 3,767 11,190 User-Occasions -1980 4,334' 1,428 2,412 4,164 12,338 -1985 4,752 1,572 2,658 4,588 13,570 -1990 5,176 1,720 2,911 5,022 14,829 NOTES 1) Source for all demand figures is the enclosed preliminary draft of the 1976 Florida Comprehensive outdoor Recreation Plan. (P. 105 for Beach Activities; P. 106 for Saltwater Sport Fishing; P. 109 for Saltwa ter Power Boating; P. 128 for Saltwater Sailing and P. 118 for Visiting Archaeological and Historic Sites.) The text in this draft has been altered in the as-yet-to-b6 completed final draft which is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Governor and Cabinet on blarch 9, 197G for adoption as the H-5 official State Outdoor Recreation Plan. The statistics, however, shouldn't be altered at all and are applicable for this analysis. 2) A usor-occasion = one instance of participation in a single outdoor recreation activity by one person. 3) other saltwater boating activites that have a high degree of participation but cannot be separated from freshwater activities include water skiin'g and other boating. Additionally, saltwater ramp usage contributes a great deal of boating boating activities but the statistics aren't included here as many are already included within the fishing category. Among these three activities, additional millions of user-occasions contribute to Florida's overall saltwater recreation picture. 4) These demand figures are total demand for the entire four regions. Obviously, some of the archaeological and historic sites are inland and would be unaffected by an oil spill or some similar difsaster; but it is not possible to separate the demand for coastal sites from that for inland sites. TEXAS RECREATIONAL USER-DAY ESTIMATES The following represent user-day estimates for recreational activities taking place in the projected "Coastal Impact Area" of the Texas coast (as determined in the NOAA trajectory analysis). TEXAS RECREATION USER-DAYS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES, BY COUNTY, 1975 County Activities. Beach Boating Sportfishing Jefferson 240,000 317,000 298,000 Chambers 154,200 242,361 475,000 Galveston 5,747,000 1,708,000 4,579,000 Brazoria 1,851,000 568,000 1,313,000 Matagorda 163,500 80,000 728,000 Calhoun 141,000 289_,000 393,000 Total 8,296,700 3,204,361 7,786,000 User-days estimates for the six-county coastal region were obtained from the Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Comprehensive Planning Branch. The boating activity includes water skiing. Beach activity includes surfing., County totals include activities taking place in both rural and urban localities and of out-of-State use. H-7 APPENDIX I. ANNUAL SMiVARY OF COINR4ERCIAL FISH LANDINGS (1974) GC-1 L CURRENT FISHERIES STATISTICS NO. 6719 Florida Landings, 'S 0 Annual Summary 1974 "`4'rE In cooperation with the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FLORIDA LANDINGS, ANNUAL SUMMARY, 1974 Commercial landings of fish and shellfish at ports along Florida's 1,200 mile coastline during 1974 were 174.2 million pounds, worth $68.1 million at dockside. Compared to 1973 the volume increased by 6 percent and the value increased by 9 percent. The increase in volume was due mainly to improved landings of king mackerel and blue crabs. The increase in value was a result of price increases of many species and heavier landings. In quantity, black mullet and menhaden were the leading finfish; shrimp continued to be the leading shellfish in both volume and dockside value. SHRIMP. Landings of shrimp were 32.5 million pounds (heads-on weight)-l I percent more than ' 1973. The dockside value of shrimp was $24.7 million-I 5 percent lower than in 1973. The average dockside price of 26/30 count shrimp began the year at $2.04 per pound (heads-off) and declined erratically until September when 26/30 count were only $1.18. A slight recovery occurred during the last 3 months when 26/30 count shrimp climbed to an average of $1.23 per pound to the fishermen. The Tortugas grounds yielded 16.7 million pounds or 51 percent of the total shrimp landings in Florida during 1974. Landings of shrimp on the East Coast of Florida were 4.0 million pounds, an increase of 30 percent over 1973. Landings of rock shrimp increased substantially on both coasts. East Coast landings were 506,000 pounds in 1974 (heads-on), compared to only 296,000 pounds in 1973. West Coast landings were 2,305,000 pounds in 1974, compared to 900,000 pounds in 1973. FINFISH. Total landings of finfish were 106.5 million pounds, valued at $23.4 million, an increase of 1.1 million pounds and $3.8 million over 1973. The 6-million-pound drop in menhaden was compensated by a substantial increase in landings of king mackerel combined with an upturn in production of major species such as grouper, red snapper, pompano, and spotted trout. Black mullet production declined from the 29.3 million pounds in 1973 to 27.9 million pounds in 1974. The dockside average price for all species combined (except menhaden) was 24.5 cents per pound in 1974, compared to 22.0 cents per pound in 1973. January 16, 1976 Washington, D.C. CIL-, r - _10K @. I NATIONAL OCEANIC AND NATIONAL MARINE noaa ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION FISHERIES SERVICE Page 2 C. F. S. No. 6719 FLORIDA LANDINGS, ANNUAL SUMMARY, 1974 - Continued SPINY LOBSTER. Total landings of spiny lobsters were 10.9 million pounds worth $13.4 million at dockside. Landings were down 0.3 million pounds from 1973, but the value increased by $1.7 mil. lion. Production improved in the Florida Keys, but was more than offset by lower catches from waters off the Bahamas. CRABS. Landings of blue crabs were 17.6 million pounds-30 percent higher than in 1973. Dockside value of the crabs was $2.2 million, a $0.5-million increase. Average price to the fishermen for live crabs was 12 cents per pound. Landings of stone crabs were 2.6 million pounds worth $1.9 million at the dock. This compares to 2.1 million pounds valued at $1.4 million in 1973. In 1974 the average price paid to the fishermen was 73 cents per pound, compared to 68 cents per pound the previous year. OYSTERS. Oyster landings yielded 2.8 million pounds of meats with a dockside value of $1.6 million, a 0.3-million-pound increase in volume and a slight increase in total value:- Shellstock continued to be shipped into Florida from neighboring States for shucking owing to scarcity of locally produced oysters. The average price to the fishermen was 58 cents per pound of shucked meats. SCALLOPS. Production of calico scallops was 1.1 million pounds of meats in 1974 @alued at $0.6 million to the fishermen. This substantial increase over the 1,600 pounds harvested in 1973 is the record for landings since the commercial fishery began in 1967. MISCELLANEOUS. The fishing fleet began the year combatting the fuel crisis. At some ports, vessels lost considerable time waiting for fuel deliveries. Most of the problems with fuel supply had been eliminated by April. BY J. ERNEST SNELL SUPERVISORY FISHERY REPORTING SPECIALIST MIAMI, FLORIDA PAGE 3 S, NO, 11-119 F40RIDA LANDINGS By DISTRICTSA 1974 SPECIES 1974 1973 EAST COAST WEST COAST TOTAL TrJTAL FISH POUNDS OML L Act P13UNDS QOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS P r)uklp OrLCAR ALEWIVES A 8 R C 8*73365 11:003 178 - 1, 177 7355 IIjOO3 168,286 91176 M E JA 39*139 31-717 5 J5 4 393 921,67 5 110 75al2l 6,032 ANGELFISH 4s63i 451 6p483 $23 IloI14 974 14, 4151 1- .,8;4344 BALLYHOO 177&655 41s648 214PO66 410716 391,721 83*364 44oj608 28 BARRACUDA z7z 3 12 z84 3 27o 23 BLUE RUNNER OR HARDTAIL 77#340 6JO73 658#634 59#366 735,974 b5o439 IP484sl4i) 930923 BLUEFISH IsZ72j4S3 210486 300064 54PS42 lo773#447 269jo3o 2oo79j438 2AO;323 BQNITO '14 98#769 7j625 104#163 0#006 10 956 S@_6 A7FISHoFRISH (1) 187 "1 B: C 113 3 J'T 1, 447J-769 201300 7#230 1#733o487 4540999 10749033A 405!6 CATFISHPSALT 590962 30202 IOZj779 78326 162,741 lOo730 lll,n6e 8j4o6 CIGARpISH 50 724#863 1100313 7240913 1100313 510,199 79,463 COBIA 110610 2,011,911 9,166 too;::; 11;764 9f.8162 CREVALLE Be4 13 'e 1 ",:7;142 0 (JACKS) 1210211 k39113 14l 6 73 2*209 43 226 2 143 1431 0 CROAKIR 65;137 14-190 Isa7q0Oz3 273,637 1,943,160 287,807 2p460,49; 313- 194: 7 9 DOLPH N 150313 4,524 69o947 16P937 85o260 210461 87P A6 71 DRUMs BLACK 92#348 11j49 590854 61377 152;202 61 ,I j 1,19 ZJ7;8 121.11, 2@093 DRUM ED 137#318 3 so o#433 258&664 10327 753 6 939 1, 1 0:33 23 i7sl EELS I I iZ79 313#597 84,641 67@ 10417 319,268 1 47 6 FLOUNDERS 2100935 99iO64 3p 6,041 272 5 ON: 4:z,'7B Is8j2s6 226t33 6 4370 1:6; COATFISH 62,864 ;4J4 "1",774 64 "68 11,03; ,,840213 25.564 GROUPER$ AND SCAMP 39op069 242lii09964 6,11ol 1 8 493 6, 00,227 21352 58 36 1''7 2 1 GRUNTS 170; 057@ 1 290359 ]IP81�4 2590364 S3p3o6 287,723 5 1 $27 HIRRINOP THREAD 36@i,234 731#543 34,980 767,777 374517800 395032,(S)@2 43'; 246 HOG 4 4,3jo Ii92 1 30492 16#434 Oo417 le'n9m 5t563 JEWN111H 46 3 0 13#3FIO o,761, 7,717 Zo7 146 3IjII7 177: , 2 635 1 139 R;099 KING MACKEREL 70 3, "S , 4 to, 155 3,27 5p -1 712 4,26 3 1,677;730 6,13 94 1 9 401, 1 879 929 A46 2, 3 , KING WHITING 962#425 161*437 1530452 120308 ljll9jS77 173p745 1,3070142 251, 162 MENHADEN 12,636#900 4ooj7s9 7020238 390291 13P339,138 46opo5o 190263,217 627;636 MISCELLANEOUS 52 20 82 20 MULLET* BLACK 2063,70 281;2733 2501190353 301530211 271883pob2* 3j434#444 29,279PI90 31215;967 MULLETs SILVER 579sIO2 44 5 9 6C60862 930411 1#185p964 137,990 806#436 103-498 PERMIT 30487 1,078 530061 lIaZ45 58,548 12023 74P@54 j4iO67 PIGPISH 14#774 671 12#944 1*694 27,718 2j365 26o333 2-032 POMPANO , 22 D 227@p964 265,24) 11204,373 IoWnTo IP432,337 108020513 10251 7 1*484*'407 SAN PERCH (MOJARRA) 172,437 17P737 128,074 17#245 3000531 30982 3610289 40.935 SCUP 73,735 21j649 79,356 l6o5eg 155,091 3so23a 155 720 'As.035 SEA BASS 950097 19,lql 50,505 7sO3I 145#662 36;222 18IN528 44.59943 11 A TROUT, GRAY 128,936 5i346 to#422 zq'I'pI 206133 40jo SEA TROUT* SPOT 658,339 22660691 2,2 0 ,soz 884"-002 219'3199,1141' 1,150 693 2,892,115 1.1n4.504 SEA TROUT, WHITE 2&234 .646 224,125 30083 2260359 34079 2250721 21;764 1HA 0 99,968 230514 120325 369 1121293 230863 90, (106 p7,553 MARKS JjS33 70 25,081 1#282 26,616 1,352 339P;IA l6j4j6 SHEEPSHEAD 302#447 44#370 284#60D 32#154 587,047 760524 611110 52 79;330 SNAPPER* LANE 13,817 0546 18#914 7#36a 320731 11,908 35,701 11;700 SNAPPgRa MANGROVE 131019 71i472 566#847 2050541 718,566 z77;oIj 672,407 2441-140 SNAPPIRj MUTTON 201s767 152;4ql 256,983 1190378 458#750 271 86 34A 342,492 SNAPPBR* RE D 8: 324 557,498 388;843 0611,420 3s5M445 5,168,918 3*9760288 4008 416 3.-093;133 SNAPPER, VERMILLION 101#407 75066 177#585 106#474 278,992 l8Zj440 260#872 171,952 SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL 104p7T6 69j9,43 9370865 577,335 IP042o641 6470268 9421730 5'10220 IF AN;:H MACKEREk 2#346#277 439'_015 8,265#746 1.443jB27 10#612j023 Ij902j842 903970233 I.-5S6;601 SPAN H SARDINE 2,229 786jo90 590108 788,319 59plos 154on75 9,-246 SPOT lo747,835 259o3SI 143#999 13o767 IP891,834 2730118 1, 104p 02P 169,913 STURGEON 0224 401 4,224 401 8*587 1,087 1WORDFISH 49#806 85,86o 49,006 850860 TINPOUNDER (LADYPISH) 11746 lo968#879 870245 1#970#625 87o245 IP526,093 76833 TILAPIA (NILE PERCH) 1#20o 360 1OP674 Ij662 110874 2#022 TILEFISM 87,42$ 31,2ae 14,895 4agOe 102,320 360196 41,1111 16,997 TRIGGER FISH 17#393 3#028 53#816 5#869 71,409 80897 62,992 6J92 TRIPLITAIL 1OZ55 10@6 1,255 63 2,310 231 3PO27 401 WAHOO 745 111 41 227 WARSAW I'll 1 '5'1 ' 79 00 600099 lefolle JIB049 26 17.,, 43ol34 177al7o 35A665 I.UNCLASSIFIED . FOOD 266011 31PO67 1,3000761 1990521 1,767#472 23OJ588 IP54 qFk Z,UNCLASSIFIED . MISC. 1750692 3,149 629,562 330838 803jZ54 38#987 $75,716 43,-527 T nTAL FISH. 33PB97j5oo 6PO56;036 72,644#194 17j3140984 106,541,604 23#3730020 IoSo377,910 ig,556;917 SHELLFISH ET AL CLAMS HARD 94,131) 94j23B 94,130 94*258 139,103 101,237 CLAMS, 3UNRAY VENUS 7s387 20127 7,387 2jI27 244.034 33.310 CONCH CRABS, BLUE; HARD 52 26 7,471009 917,049 LOP133j727 102800430 17,605,436 20197#549 130511#913 1,676;901 CRAlls 1@8EJ SOFT 135 16 146 153 281 169 CRA # Ni 66#766 50,990 2#523P864 Ij54Bj6Z3 20990,630 1#899j6l3 Zso$7066 1,4z5,464 LOISTS: 1PANISH 8P76s J;7115 I"'.jIll'194 1400 3,770 LO ST 401:.8 SsO55'5&3 W )89 '70P PINY (CRAWFISH) 5 4, 2117 :;It 61731'l 11 32 1313i"M 11,1751 jj-661,14@ OYSTERS 24 2 2o653:66! 1'523,@1166 2,751,385 1,609,239 20531,125 1,592 ,96 SCALLOPSo DAY 56#960 31#328 16#284 l8s426 73sZ44 49j754 52,999 62,698 SCALLOPSo CALICO 1*074#354 5A7099 1#074j354 587#799 Is6Z4 20055 1HRIMPs EAST COAST 319910507 302910864 0643 40250 3#9960150 302960114 3anbg#611 3@662 Oll SHRIMP* CAMPECHE 3*169p454 107520011 3#16go454 1052POll 2,242allb 23001:150 SHRIM;: CARIBBEAN 100 -14 SHR M CENTRAL WEST COAST 1#797#686 , 5 A 0' SHRIMP& TORTUGAS 1*405#603 10797,686 lo405o6O3 897 m 8 4.712',79 16#6020250 1207450249 106820250 120749#249 16#916,812 14jO43j25S SHRIMP, UPPER WEST COAST 6o8o8#365 5#538#336 6,808,365 5o538,336 6oo7o;016 4o679#586 IPnNGEl: 2RASS 3,720 9005 1&179 30875 40999 120970 7 SC3 16,070 SPONGE HEEPSWnOL 41715 30,419 6#576 69#074 110291 990513 901147 76,_812 SPONGES# YELLOW 3#662 9j3c3 20036 8,113 50698 17,416 5,431 15,216 SQUID 22,442 10672 46P966 90311 69,40$ 10#983 42PI34 6j477 TURTLE, GREEN 91154 18470 170512 40368 26,666 SoB46 34JI,19e 9-045 TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD 7,605 IjQ94 7,605 1#094 42P63t, 4,777 TOTAL SHELLFISH ET AL. 17oo5l,862 jos179'_640 50,60-140 34#540&406 67,661,002 44o720,056 59,064,67S 421936657 GRAND TOTAL So.-949p5bz I6p237j6m6 123o2530244 31#855#39o 174,202,606 680093*076 164,462,591 62j495i374 (1) THE PRODUCTION OF FRESHWATER CATFISH REPRESENTS THAT PORTION HANDLED BY DEALERS OF MARINE SPECIES. NOTE: _-DATA ON LANDINGS OF FRESHWATER CATFISH SOFT-SHELL TURTLES AND TILAPIA (ALSO KNOWN AS NILE PERCH OR PERCH IN FLORIDA) NOT HANDLED BY MARINE DEALERS ARE AS FOLLOWS: FRESHWATER CATFISH-8,924,900 POAS VALUED AT $2,561:446; SOFT-SHELL TURTLES, 123,000 POUNDS VALUED AT $18.450; AND TILAPIA 828,ooo POUNDS VALUED AT $99,360. 2)ROCK SHRIMP TOTALS THAT ARE INCLU ED I NSHRIM STATISTICS WITHIN THIS PUBLICATION ARE: EAST COAST--505,841 POUNDS (HEADS ON), VALUED AT $172,241 A4D WEST CQAST--2,305,133 POUNDS (HEADS ON@ , VALUED AT $828.000. --- THE EAST COAST IS DEFINED AS THOSE COUNTIES BORDERING THE ATLANTIC OCEAN FROM NASSAU COUNTY SOUTH THROUGH DADE COUNTY. THE WEST COAST 15 DEFINED AS THOSE C NTIES BORDERING THE GULF OF MEXICO FROM MONROE COUNTY NORTH THROUGH ESCAMIA COUNTY. THE 19-74 DATA INCLUDE REVISIONS SINCE PUBLICATION OF MONTHLY BULLETINS. ALL SPECIES ARE SHOWN IN WEIGHT AS LANDED, EXCEPT UNIVALVE AND BIVALVE MOLLUSKS. WH ICH ARE REPORTED IN POUNDS OF MEATS. WEIGHT OF SCALLOP MEATS IF EIGHT OF SHELL-CLOSING MUSCLE. VALUE OF LANDINGS REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR THE CATCH DELIVERED TO THE DOCK. WEIGHT OF SPONGES 15 PAGE 4 C. F. S. NO. 6719 FLnRID4_LANDINGS :Y_MDNTHSo-1974 SPECIES ----------- JANUARY -------*- ------- - FEBRUARY -----------m ------------ MARCH---- EAST COAST WEST CDA;;-- TOTAL EAST COAST WEST COAST TOTAL EAST COAST WEST COAST TOTAL FIRL ---------------------------------------------- 19 Y-N DI ---------------------------- -------- ALEWIVES AMBERJACK 2,755 7,494 lOo249 1*992 41823 60815 7j660 7PS34 i4,994 ANGELFISH 186 Z11 397 807 514 1;40J 2" 144 1-172 BALLYHOO 64o286 72#973 137PIS9 30#714 260965 37 67 12,858 2.137o 43;228 BARRACUDA BLUE RUNNER OR HARDTAIL 10#754 782 11#536 IP390 985 2#375 601oz 722 6i824 BLUEFISH 198,986 42P580 231A574 1900919 300593 2210512 33OJ340 4Sj89I 374j-231 BONITO 496 10100 1#596 38 63 101 220 7,662 7iB 11 CATFISHoFRESH (1) 281P773 10139 2830111 190*402 226 190*626 336JI04 1*374 339;418 CATFISHPSALT 6j348 76 6j624 2j653 144 ZP797 100368 12,998 23j366 CIGARFISH 10900 10800 75Z -752 COBIA 1,851 4p 182 6PO33 777 5,034 50811 20962 14,56V 17*531 CREVALLE (JACKS) 11 917 73;1317 179;134 4##7:3 1410,075a 14502831 33@314 1320521 162;835 CROAKER 3,935 140 23 44 50 4 2 0 39 00 430a 514 204 '6 18 210;132 DOLPHIN 1;367 463 20215 2P680 lisle 9*746 7j. 4 93 oj065 6 002 8P923 J402o6 23*232 3#016 2"2 DRUMo BLACK 15#W 410236 2 50283 -.266 DRUM, RED 27P064 1100124 137,188 110823 86PI3 71980 310508 23a 637 2620145 EEhS 12,584 120584 532 111832 -10 FL UNUERS 40882 ZIP923 26,805 il 2, 31je'lg 23097z 51'859 5;370 17,414 2 7 4 Gj6 41 0 GOATFISH 3PJ40 3#240 367 5#367 9#578 9@-576 GROUPERS AND SCAMP 34,77 465*747 5000724 68P384 3090838 378oZ22 120f719 IOM44JO29 IjI64iT4e 0 GRUNTS 40030 430946 47J976 2*o43 241722 26#765 0362 65o4la f,9;78 HERRING, THREAD HOGFISH 233 10700 0933 475 IP443 1,918 20012 zP566 4;578 JEWFISH 183 30;07 14*090 520 9,185 9;705 5#284 210370 26;654 KING MACKEREL 102080012 J11 OR 106890320 624j457 902J388 10526 843 594;1981 40161POS3 40755JZ64 KING WHITING lolo371 14,08A 1160259 107P774 16,049 1230823 250 1 4 2IP438 271j632 MENHADEN 77,055 101111 780866 102o314 53 102067 164j444 InP287 174.731 MISCELLANEOUS 82 -. 82 MUL4ETo BLACK 218jl2O 4o472,912 4j69jjO3Z 143P449 l,o79o5I8 10222j,967 308J946 10496oao? l,8m5,753 MULLET, SILVER 9j4o2 49phol 590005 6o612 33P908 4oo520 40800 50o442 103@242 PERMIT 411 40984 50395 473 922 1#395 290 96: 11298 PIGFISH 469 347 IjOI6 210 80 290 6#054 43 61492 PUMPANO 63,189 500001 1130190 11,850 soo971 620821 16j75O 14PA946 1651696 SAND PERCH (MOJARRA) 150853 2PI57 180010 9,967 31774 131741 ':;J72 9;154 17;326 Scup 3,873 7,A37 11,510 6,193 4,021 10,21 20 9 288 23 808 SEA BASS 6o7ol 170182 230083 3#633 3A191 60844 21j664 I?j2Q4 33,866 SEA TROUTO GRAY 210012 ja3 21,195 16*703 l6o703 22,214 12 22P--226 SEA TROUTP SPOT 59joO4 307j,637 366j641 57*341 168,611 2250952 941501 329o439 423, 940 SEA TROUT, WHITE 20o66A 2Uj668 131206 13P206 7#041 7-041 SHAD 45o877 45o877 25PS92 25o592 27#540 27x540 SHARKS 3002 3p7OZ 30s96 3PS96 70252 7j252 SHEEPSHEAD 23432 420941 66j47) 18*162 27o483 45p645 32#086 4@P$38 76;424 SNAPPEA@ LANE 3*728 749 4*477 10002 767 lp769 3jj6o 952 4;112 SNAPPERP MANGROVE 7so9o 530143 6oo233 8;002 41;!64 49PS66 12 910 87o276 IOOA.186 SNAPPER, MUTTON 37; 16 ;4#736 6,77z 13, o;40J @1' 2;;J6 44j!407 SNAPPER* REQ 40 97167 431%04@ 4 b#666 25 550 334 WS 326D 43 5 4461;:905' 533j390 SNAPPER* VERMILLION 5o373 ISpq9l 21#364 2POll 6P419 9@230 90251 4,o84 l3j335 SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL 6oJ83 @04 2,21047 e-40 320 6603 67 12j7a4 440161 @5710459 SPANISH MACKEREL 480o932p7'562;%'7' 3,1:13; 50 01510 Iflol '2 49 1#351p759 643j634 211131, 35 21 75,46 SPANISH SARDINES 38,234 6p 652 440886 410228 6,S73 4718ol 90j649 91714 99,363 STONGEON 419 419 952 952 975 975 SWORDFISH 49,#686 49,696 TENPOUNDER (LADYFISH) 10-549 1#546 1#848 10848 7SP397 75J3Z7 TILAPIA (NI4E PERCH) 017 817 2,052 2-052 j TILEF SH 10678 In 2,4 96 3o597 $60 4*457 120500 748 13J248 TRIGGER FISH 921 40422 50343 883 1,894 20767 49632 3o746 80378 TRIPLETAIL 182 182 83 83 94 94 WAH?O WAR AW 11546 110389 12P935 3,737 230 26PS64 19#27a 13;862 33;14 p '@27 I'UNCLASSIFIED FOOD 38 872 130P607 169j479 15#348 107 96 1230144 26 402 251 897 278 298 2,UNCI,ASSIFIED MISC. 9,280 500436 59*716 15*474 431115 58,509 23038 47,228 7o:966 TOTAL FISH. 30196#802 1000550-471 13*-252P173 20041@961 4,766*389 6#80OP250 3j531#542 110463.455 j31-014j-997 SHELLFISH ET AL CLAMS HARD 8i595 8#595 Salle 3i'lle 9J-828 9i828 CLAMS# SUNRAY VENUS 0473 4#473 CONCH CRASS, BLUE; HARD 535o439 66IP997 IoI971436 550*993 686,442 112370435 98OP726 1#1030 117 2*080243 CRABSP BLUE; SOFT Do 100 CRABS, STONE 7,912 287,081 295,893 5,820 377,668 383,488 9,548 684,685 694.2:3 LOBSTERP SPANISH 55 55 as s LOBSTERo SPINY (CRAWFISH) 266,557 2590325 5250882 2500674 184PZ16 4340890 6570348 3191846 977j194 OYSTERS 16,862 490,03 5o7,725 11,091 361,671 372,762 25,242 347,612 372,894 SCA4LOPSo BAY SCALLOPS* CALICO 380856 38o856 93j320 93P320 254,224 254j224 SHRIMP, EAST COAST 3o2o727 1#565 304PZ92 13OP775 130#775 900295 90.295 SHRIMP* CAMPECHE 473oR5A 473o856 634,001 634POOL 548j412 148,412 SHRIMP# CARIBBEAN SHRIMP, CE14TRAL WEST COAST 42j?15 42P215 85A419 85o419 15n,341 150o341 SHRIMP* TORTUGAS 3P449P423 3o449o423 10558,454 lo558#454 1036*143 1; '2160-143 SHRIMP, UPPER WEST COAST 203P'546 203,546 290,461 280,461 465,522 465.522 SPDNGESo GRASS 323 40 372 225 68 293 284 43 327 SPONGESP SHEEPSWOOL 127 464 591 166 304 470 372 682 11054 SPONGES* YELLOW 285 75 360 260 9 269 335 66 4ol SQUID 10529 661 20190 899 2087 3#686 416 14,068 3#484 TURTLE, GREEN 392 A0970 9P362 480 7,907 8,395 1,806 1-806 TURTLE# LOGGERHEAD 10828 1#820 2,960 2*960 IP696 1,696 TOTAL SHELLFISH ET AL- 1,181j432 5PROO0992 7jo62o424 10052p789 4PI83,935 5#236#724 Zj032,120 5ol6-0122 70'02,242 GRAND TOTAL 4,378,234 l5P9360363 2003140597 31094o650 8j95OP324 1200440974 Sj563P662 16#643AS77 22"207"239 SEE FOOTNOTES ON PAGE 3. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) I. I. S. NO. -11, FLORIDA LANDINGS Y MONTHSp 1974 PAGE 5 SPECIES ----------- @APRIL---m ---------- ------------- MAY -------------- ---------- "JUNP ----- EAST COAST WEST COAST TOTAL EAST COAST WEST COAST TOTAL EAST COAST WEST taAST TOTAL FISH ---------------------------------------------- POUNDS ------------------------------------ ------ ALEWIVES 85p @175 85PO75 62jO97 62oO97 - AMBERJACK 4PO72 301,61 7,453 0373 5P965 100538 2P433 4,289 6024 ANGELFISH 97 212 309 75 504 579 431 352 783 BALLYHOO 50000 50792 1OP792 3j857 6P729 IoP586 2jOO0 25*71D 270to BARRACUDA Is 12 3b 38 38 BLUE RUNNER OR HARDTAIL 1OP332 j%q982 224#314 2;035 343;9o7 345o942 3p2ll 117*628 120#639 BLUEFISH 147,048 1 7 "A 18,841 11 7 005 24 273 141.-278 8jIO3 190012 27,'115 BUNITU IsI84 1#184 96 12P975 130071 23 4*602 4@625 CATFISHjFRESH (1) 104#362 3#262 io7,624 1320199 IP574 133#773 BBP523 2PO52 9OP575 CATFISH,SALT 13,149 55'.9's 67,045 4,227 7,37o 11,597 20000 1 312 3-312 CIGARFISH 66059 66#759 451340 49o390 376;139 376;#139 COBI A 813 90A52 lo#46@ isoal 30409 0490 616 3P434 4jo3Q CREVALLE (JACKS) 19o994 240J754 260P748 4#43@ 213#654 218PO67 30365 7S#993 77P268 CROAKER 2,736 8.9p512 92p2628 3,187 144,771 1 1,959 4,215 13416 6 is 1191 DOLPHIN 922 "300 6,22 2075 7,007 #782 3,174 26,641 2is I DRUMP BLACK 20866 2,Q53 4#919 90600 3P431 13PO31 1,656 775 2P431 DRUMP RED 7,#459 580 P45 660 304 60402 75,152 81,554 5J267 54,973 60240 EELS 1 497 IJ497 35 35 FLOUNDERS 3;820 17,A39 21*459 6p944 150080 22;024 5,02822 230874 29*696 GOATFISH 4 977 0977 80423 1,139 9 562 338 3P238 GROUPERS AND SCAIAP 5IJ268 4950440 546P958 59 46 661,306 720;4:2 70;351 653;7:4 724;iol GRUNTS 20190 Is0an 2p77o 1:122 2OP143 21 6 5 1 o62 I't 3 0 19 2 HERRING# THREAD 16")9p 168098 7,575 7*573 lop,622 108;622 HQGF ISH 246 781 10027 235 958 10193 277 589 $66 JEWFISH 3#006 130 0 10 160916 2o576 170269 190845 20134 16093: 19,072 flll@ @01@EREL 8j;g97 96;;64 177;661 207;736 16,325 264#063 :4;514 1 NI ING 3 37 19 07 55 044 63 024 10616 740640 9 53 1 41;i9j 1PIP6604 6 A 4 MENHADEN 2*4630835 240151 2*4801186 204080601 57p367 204650968 780108 1440981 222J989 %SCE@LANEOUS M LLE , ILACK 1720316 700-134 5760847 179#148 8281804 100070952 196P688 9o9j67j 11106A359 MUL11T, SILVER ZOP075 33A12 53 04 04 8*665 3BA093 46P758 260839 410000 67,839 PERMIT 197 175 732 298 652 950 787 30123 3j@qho PIGFIS 104 401 605 150 10619 1,769 1,321 667 109 8 POMPANO 11*792 77061P 890410 15PO37 IIIs840 1260877 100642 On*067 90,7o9 SAND PERCH (MOJARRA) loo665 ISP753 290418 160 Zi 1 291171 450382 208233 240153 440386 UP 5,172 3,r,45 217 1,184 q,200 17 3s4 6 P&4o7 14;6o6 As 2 #' 320 12,307 ,7 1s "?9 1,367 6a62O ASS 4,684 $636 2 59 1419 4 5J4 3 SEA TROUT GRAY a# 863 Bo863 10*020 3P659 136 3i-797 lio0ozo SEA TROUT; POT 44,896 57,761 140:322 ;:083 401230 166 840 11:0242 160,136 1260618 SEA TROUT, WHITE 097P 6,972 7 739 739 ;o27 SHAD 13,027 13J SHARKS 392 65 457 20108 20108 89 89 SHEEPSHEAD 21027 130 167 350094 160025 13P43a 29P463 l3j516 120520 26jO36 SNAP;ER: LANE 442 1,658 10024 410 '0116 4 597 14#125789 6'0"4'4'0 126'P'0'030 3o 38 SNAP ER MANGROVE 50 360 7 6 661 51390 731i, 4713 SNAPPERP MUTTON 7P513 16"3 11,76 40:961 ;7J4 ig;611 44; 8 8541 SNAPPER, REO 30,520 30,"' 0' .2 ;54; 461-11 2',130 20'1'55100 6 33; 424 o15 4194 3 2 276 SNAPPER# VERMILLION 11,268 10AS67 2lsBS5 9,008 15P670 24,678 7o649 2,9;398 l7j039 SNAPPERP YELLUWTAIL 4-377 611W 650586 170357 1451945 1630302 260824 3i:67 240,791 SPANISH MACKEREL 212,836 194,73, Wo0i 58,966 740261 1330227 140282 42 71 56,-553 SPANISH SARDINES 24;850 241-570 5-4 10:5:4 301;998 3a 71098 11 075 IS' 1,5 24 3 5 oi',994 SPOT 923 116,151, a, 1 114,777 14 957 17 73 STURGEON 236 236 230 230 SWORDFISH TENPOUNDER iLADYFISH) 154P-57 154*857 500*362 50OP562 IOPsI62 1080162 TILAPIA cNiLE PERCH) 4P160 4#169 TILEFISH 2*313 lo142 3P455 4PZ40 2s665 6p9O3 7s246 1#294 BP540 TRIGGER FISH 1PO60 2sA52 30912 20o69 7,891 90950 1,607 0012 SA619 TR PLETAIL 131 131 95 95 103 Io3 WAHUO 71 56 127 82 sa WARSAW 4,282 5,664 9#946 Bo683 6#360 170043 5#843 9P96o 11-803 l.UNCLASSIFIED - FOOD 18#973 85p690 1040663 17#569 130PIR7 147076 2SP097 115*442 1401539 ,UNCIAISIFIII , IISI, 14,111 11111141 441176 71718 161492 4411,11 41060 ",5'1 91 "' 11 TOTAL FISH. 3,655#128 3027OP919 60926OU47 30704*344 41453,082 3,137j426 101080018 40536,982 31644;400 5HELLFISH ET AL. CLAMS HARD 70063 7PU63 4,493 0493 7s243 7,-243 CLAMS# SUNRAY VENUS CUNCH CRABS# BLUE; HARD 617o932 983,212 lobOloI44 669P381 X,123PB60 1,793,241 759*178 492P205 11*651,383 CRAbS: WE; SOFT 10 10 CRABS NE 100158 268AS42 278#7oo 31884 lo7,803 1110687 iSo644 6,644 LOBSTERo SPANISH mos 503 242 242 193 193 LORSTERs SPINY (CRAWFISH) 185,623 113053P 2990t63 17l#335 132,913 304*248 245j661 116,915 362p574 OYSTERS 6o626 S12,649 3190275 IP702 118,495 1200197 1,190 10190 SCALLOPS, SAY 156,960 56*960 2j732 203j SCALLOPS, CALICO 87,316 87#336 16,912 116,912 1530456 153,45 SHRIMPs EAST COAST 62P437 60437 1900442 190,441 2520479 212P479 SHRIMP, CAMPECHE 347P552 3470552 2360208 25 91,179 91 179 SHRIMP# CARIBBEAN SHRIMP, CENTRAL WEST COAST 1210685 121*685 16J;624 161pBZ4 2364#810 234 #1 10 SHRIMP, TORTUGAS IP22001133 102200633 1,14 475 IP14 475 A 6,831 866*831 RIMP, UPPER WEST COAST 7320159 73z#359 653P435 653o435 62PO771 6280771 SPONGES, GRASS 390 41 431 454 37 491 09 SPONGESo SHEEPSWOOL 445 481 926 748 10195 10943 992 POO 1*792 SPONGESP YELLOW 418 93 511 313 J67 -10, 361 460 117 SQUID 169 Rp196 90065 696 41,0 "4 16 1. 973 B41 61814 TURTLE: GREEN 6:466 6:46,8 TURTLE LOGGERHEAD 1 12 1 1 12 TOTAL SHELLFISH FT AL. 986s188 0110P194 5jogb,382 10217J320 30110394 4#928P714 1#423,028 21846,379 4j269,-407 GRAND TOTAL 4,641,316 7081P113 12#022,429 4p921s664 8,164,476 13poe6ol4o 20531,046 70,821761 9,913,sn7 SEE FOOTNOTES ON PAGE 3. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) PAGE 6 FLMRIOA LANDINGS BY MONTHS, 1974 C. F. S. NO. 6719 SPECIES ------------ JULY --- ---------- * * ------------ AUGUST ------------ ---------- SEPTEmBFR;-:----@L-@-L* EAST COAST WEST COAST TOTAL EAST COAST WEST COAST TOTAL EAST COAST WEST CU4ST TOTAL FISH ---------------------------------------------- POUND -----------I----------------- qm- ALEWIVES 28 810 200810 AMBERJACK 2P411 70587 9*998 lo927 4:737 6P664 Ij790 10268 3"058 ANGELFISH 313 (.12 925 624 478 10102 995 Is405 2,400 BALLYHOO 1#285 479 1*864 1$657 41740 6#397 2#571 50063 7,634 BARRACUDA 80 80 :LUE RUNNER OR HARDTAIL 865 116J,97S II7j438 30303 22#305 25jsoa 6o689 26#640 33@-329 LUEFISH 6P042 14*203 200325 9P363 24;248 33p6ll 37ollo 5OP245 950355 BONITO 570 36#752 37j,322 1#234 14 290 150524 lj232 450 1, 682 CATFISHoFRESH (1) 109i34l 1,040 1110181 86PS77 1,070 87p647 107PI65 20261 In9j426 CATFISHPSALT IP820 2024 40144 3,580 2P448 6pO2s 30069 1,09R 4,167 CIGARFISH 140367 144#367 6IP640 61@i,640 995 995 COBIA 231 60505 60736 449 9P410 9*859 483 AP28i 6764 CREVALLE (JACK$) 4,916 65op.14 70#530 7#028 IS5067 142P795 80299 2z7*376 235,675 CROAKER 4,995 194,767 1990752 13,643 249,034 264,677 I0j28O 171,95o IP2,230 DOLPHIN 2s5ol 4o347 7P040 919 7*311 OP230 1#022 5 2;110 6;1432 DRUM* BLACK 3P243 5P204 80447 Ij,933 790 2,#683 50805 942 8 7 7 DRUMe RED 5*455 500681 60136 40566 980114 IC2p66o iojii6 1230412 "3' 528 '9;0 0924 190651 24,575 1"61120 1,;58 4"99 'g, 41, 11,997 200 0 2 P4 102 1 GOATFISH 269 2:7733 52;273 2o273 7sI84 7-J'14 GROUPERS AND SCAMP li;5120" 568j,113 616 63 1 07o 4400088 4910158 230323 379#634 402"9 GRUNTS 446 100419 10#863 461 loo779 IIJ1240 2oI69 Is$ 085 8,254 HEARING# THREAD 29*439 269.-401 298,84? Ij63O 180,007 181*637 5*165 16*265 21-430 HOOFISH 233 'j5b 7a 24 342 366 50 446 496 J6013" 110441 16.-985 280426 1,,974 13;449 24023 So478 5.600 14;078 KING MACKEREL 151,695 3lo362 1830057 1 40 56 36 418 2210 04 137jio5 33o443 170 $48 KING WHITING 530591 9,309 62j9OO 420289 4P474 46*763 190412 50850 25026z MENHADEN 30369*127 2230323 305920450 20468o656 920766 20561#422 7550445 1210872 88031.7 M6111@,LANtffl - M LAC 202#903 10406*775 lo6o9j678 2150212 1,772p741 1,907*953 292#717 10838j724 2,131 '441 MULLET* SILVER 67*441 IO;;?SA 168#727 60.-@35 55P392 115P627 250277 5Ro985 30-.262 PERMIT 92 522 7#614 491 933 I.P424 663 10360 4-223 pjGFISH 3#313 10190 0503 14: 9,325 521 1;48: 10*344 85P202 95#546 '5104 140,24 14 0 41 111,:6; 11 POMPANO 9p 76 981 a 6 46 SAND PERCH IMOJARRA) I:sI'32 7o246 250378 2jo 390 1 5$3042 26o723 17P550 6P374 23,924 SCUP ,0 6 8,R65 14,923 ,3 1 9, 66 18p457 2J611 40196 7j007 SEA BASS 6j279 471 60952 5,-N 1,320 5P661 4-143 327 4,470 SEA TROUTp GRAY 50502 101146 60851 2091 025 3,942 2J569 2U6 2.775 SEA TROUT, SPOT 41;;47 Ijj;9g7 16j,1194 65,163 lp'1717 2J@1,892 45,577 12"IJ88 167,765 SEA TROUTo WHITE 1 33 1) 0 313 2 0 6 a 2 13 4, 13,743 $HAD 00 100 12*325 12o325 SHARKS i0o 235 535 69 69 SHEEPSHEAD 10,747 110415 22,162 21*282 14*404 35,686 36#997 160743 53,-730 SNAPPERp LANE so 32 82 47 9o740 9s787 30 734 764 SNAPPER,p MANGROVE 18*990 Ill-0449 1380439 15;51: :BP36o 53#886 13;1208 3n;9g3 44PJ31 SNAPPIRo MUTTON 964 X,268 3 0232 16 4 5o665 42;JS@ II'j:2 12 3 3 23i 43 SNiPPIRo RED 111;175 20200 454o375 64,270 473,616 537 8 51 2 9,709 3nl' 31 SN PPER# VERMILLION 5o446 220017 z70463 11,997 150018 27polS 8.516 LIP229 19"2747 SHAPPERP YELLOWT&IL J6;916!11 1!%44 IOJ;"96 6,1411 37, a 1114 1336 1,7,9,0 6 3D J3 SPANISH :ACKEREL 54 1 24 7oB 0 1 4 61 2 1'1'0*5'961 49; a ,, 41 25j449 SPAN ISH ARDINES 236PP51 236*651 700280 7op28o 56D 560 SPOT 126483 31R48R L58*o7l 245P390 6,176 251*566 247sI55 1AP374 261,529 STURGEON SWORDFISH J29 TENPOUNDER ILADYFISH) 1,227 34,1'100 351 3 Soo 30,84o 59,34o 19 253,846 253,865 TILAPIA (NILE PERCH) 1,2oO 162 1.362 110 110 368 368 TILEFISH 1#096 '106 1#602 4#434 21241 6#673 50126 20031 7@*157 TRIGGER FISH 740 5#244 5P984 10981 5,169 7olSD 201 4*202 4p4o3 TRIPLETAIL 30 5 35 156 156 3 1.242 1;245 WAHOO 2g4 34 23B -7 35 -122 WARSAW 6 0 .,.13 1" 49 6 77 "1 917 lo#64 4 5,7 7 4#72 go 4 114 4 241 I.UNCLASSIFIED FOOD 10645 7os44o 85JO85 15#537 93-849 1090356 18#759 ioft.o77 I?6j836 ZnUNCLASSIFIED MISC. l6o699 62s A56 79PS55 21o577 66,021 87P598 3PI33 74#267 77,4oo TOTAL FISH. 4j5ooso67 4*7300554 9;23OP621 3PY61#489 4,603,652 SP365p341 20232,075 4s304.547 60-5116,622 SHE6LFISH IT AL. CLAMS HARD 1,370 1,370 168 168 19p609 19,609 CLAMS# SuNRAy VENUS 21914 2j914 CONCH CRABSs BLUE; HARD IP239o3to 976#472 2#215#982 740,965 983PO25 1,023P990 36lj278 767PS49 1,128,827 CRABS, BLUEj SOFT 36 !!16 CRABS# STONE 002 802 IjO56 0o412 44#466 LS:STIR; WNISH L ST A JNY (CRAWFISH) 270#287 4"113' 10,96,2, 5231746 ip7o6,642 ZP230P369 385P064 964ol53 1,249,217 DYSIERS as7 800 800 877 1630698 IP4,575 SCALLOPS# BAY a84' 2JS96 1, 90644 9,64 .ZP596 312 Ij3I2 SCALLOPSo CALICO 123p4oo L23*400 100P640 loop648 27j424 27,424 SHRIMPO EAST COAST 657P484 657#484 388--326 3880326 4590571 439,571 SHRIMP, CAMPECHE 41P236 41P236 SHRIM% CAAI:jEAN SHR M p CE T L WEST COAST 551*302 5510382 183,356 1850356 330397 33j597 SHRIMPs TORTUGAS 539,137 538oL37 447.753 447053 4800863 08#863 SHRIMPP UPPER WEST COAST R14051s 810515 516plilo3 518@803 489.675 09,675 S;ONGII: VASS 417 24 441 276 02 3798 143 119 262 S ONG EEPSWOOL 531 A04 1013 348 141 68 215 628 843 SPONGES* YELLOW 6R2 225 9o7 @'414 51 2J5 71 460 SQUID 50952 4*506 100538 18 41971 7s6 9 413 ?0206 3;96"1 TURTLEP GREEN 35 35 TURTLE# LOGGERHEAD TOTAL SHELLFISH IT AL- 2,3oop52O 20985P555 5,286*075 1#758PI59 3,850,442 5o6o8o6ol 10256,121 2iR79.622 4.115;743 GRAND TOTAL 6AS00,587 70724,109 14#524j696 5#519,64s 8,454,294 13*973P942 3j4s8,l96 7Pi84,169 io,672.365 SEE FOOTNOTES ON PAGE 3. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID Washington. D.C. 20235 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-21 0 U&MAIL OFFICIAL BUSINESS At.mmjut 4@ 0,%JTIOV &/0 % NOAA--S/T 76-2065 PAGE 11 C. F. S. NO. 6719 FLORIDA LANDINGS,:Y COUNTIES - 1974 SPECIES FRANKLIN GULF Y WALTnN nKALOOSA SANTA ROSA ESCAMBIA ELJH POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNP POUNDS POUND IUND PL ALEWIVES 175 590 290162 AMBERJACX 6oo 15*302 12044 6or,12 ANGELFISH 35 24 2P97? : ALLYHOO 11903 ARRACUDA 12 BLUE RUNNER OR HARDTAIL 57 1560030 3860759 804019 78 OP354 BLUEFISH 1#757 53jO62 1100221 92 82,268 454 55,316 BONITO 77#467 IIj227 IATIIS41 IR114"WATERIII 3,418 0444 1,440 300 1096 225 SEA Ip430 48@041 IoZ60 133 27,114 429 130746 CIGARFISH 752 182i406 228#174 2740900 75 38#356 COBIA 83 7o997 3,481 lo493 CREVALLE (JACKS) 4008 Z50jQ17 40SP208 112,456 12;411 CROAKER 10,728 720172 120#690 5,930 107,917 116,467 1,,404,042 DOLPHIN 607 192 DRUM$ BLACK 2004 4*194 ?s240 1#608 4:907 EELS RED 28,022 9,799 3#749 92 4,99 6 10042 15 304 FLOUNDERS 550022 80035 16PI26 306 9,352 649 37,0387 GDATFISH GROUPERS AND SCAMP 252sI34 57j8no 347o655 60 53JZ31 711#402 GRUNTS 25 30 700 44 HERRINGjp THREAD HOGFISH 503i341 217o674 JJWFISH 145 79 840 146 KING MACKEREL 806 57#437 j4jO34 018 KING WHITING 106*207 12#836 5#322 786 SP280 MENHADEN 68p828 333o2AI 1100800 10452 Soo M,ICELLANEOUS MULLETI BLACK 645ol44 375*-308 415olD7 640972 2890081 1110355 958043 SILVER 50131 150 625 PERMIT pIGFISH lallo 100 2,55i POMPANO 302 5o916 30297 6,919 85 7,926 SAND PERCH (MoJARRA) scup 8,536 ale llpg4e 3,861 22,021 S:A TA SA RS3Tl GRAY SPOTTED 75,586 40,119 106,946 7,818 21 731 16,697 83,407 815 16 7s238 11 SHAD WHITE 12P325 1504 8*801 179*%64 SHARKS SHEEPSHEAD 2P707 2055 60780 589 4p457 2#067 30293 SNAPPERI LANE 575 MANGROVE 1#443 175 0196 80 3J302 MUTTON RED 116*036 40,740 1,887PO40 150 331,466 542,612 VERMILION 319 065 77#077 9#094 86o257 YELLOWTAIL 5JO SPANISH MACKEREL 50198 24lo-307 174#9 3 37#029 2#286 25RP333 SPANISH SARDINES I.P924 358j24l 220728 150,665 50032 SPOT 18,869 27,548 9,040 663 2,181 32,466 STURGEON 115 288 30AZI SWORDFISH 48o732 TENPOUNDER CLADYFISH) 162 10127.865 SL20590 136o771 20o075 34,P83 TjLA;jA (NILE PERCH) T LE SH TRIGGER POSH 17 13,289 13,203 24,01 TRIPLETAIL 36 5 WAHOD WARSAW 673 27#393 SoI53 170136 UNCLASSIFIEDS FUR FOOD 20 16 W89 FOR MISC. 79 20,525 31P555 IIA09 TOTAL FISH 1,413,p5e 4,040,435 5,673,357 80,292 l,s02p7gl 285,092 3,925,362 SHELLFISH.-E-T-AL CLAMST-Rwvo-- -- SUNRAY VENUS 4s068 405 CONCH CRABSI 8LUEj HARD 104430753 1113 77p9II 37*745 3*275 ISP733 20,Flt; SOFT STON6 1028 710 SPANISH 1,106 30 LOBSTERI SPINY OYSTERS 2,453,995 7,644 70,436 7,78o 578 Z7,862 36,536 SCALLOPSI BAY Tj479 8#749 CALICO SHRIMP(HEADS-ON)IEAST COAST CAMPECHE 778,160 158,519 30,646 CARJRBEAN CENAL WEST COAST 38,513 90062 3,954 TORTUGAS 108o202 17#055 125P673 6,03S UPPER WEST COAST 3s038 ,728 711,707 1, 397P57I 29HP812 944pno 9 TOTAL SHRIMP 3063P603 748j7012 1#69o,845 298,912 964,647 SPONGESI GRASS SHEEPSWnOL YELLOW SQUID 5095 3.41 40960 232 110A91 TURTLES1 GREEN 35 LOGGERHEAD TOTAL SHELLFISH ET AL, 7PB73j648 764o429 lo8520921 45#525 3D3,607 44sooo ijo55P727 GRAND TOTAL 90287s506 0804,8h4 7,5Z0278 125$817 201061390 3290092 4,q8l,,)89 SEE FOOTNOTES ON PAGE 3. C. F. S. NO. 6719 SPECIES -------- OCTO :,InIDA LANDINGS By MONTHS, 1974 PAGE 7 AS COAST WE: 04S TLITAL ET COAST WEST COAST ST COAST W!ST COAST TOTAL PZSH EST C------ - ------- NEMMBER ---- -- ----- - --- ------------------------- ALEWIVES EQU D------------------- ;-; -------------- AM ER4ACK 2,578 175 ANINL@111114 N17 1,866 "0'9 6- 63 350 1 1: 173 :A,Y Do 3,2 127 1,7,4 7,2 4108$ 2,968 7.053 714 '4492188 BARRACUDA IS, 19,202 34 996 a $71 1212`06 Zo '77o 19,119L 526 LIE RUNNER 742 19,7 57 A747 OR HAKDTAIL 3,8 32 a 9 b@`E 123 64 IFEI)SH 111,1161 11, L36 T 4o 158o 56,j39 62,645 91,6112 CATF H FRESH (1) 53 149 27 3;46o1@6'96--, ,g,,., 59,7 J619-6 921 9.545 CATF@1125ALT '1711:4 8o:57 94:39 1,721 '49 172 CAGA rl' 3,015 16,11, 420 03,339 32D,Dag 24,284 IN I M1 4 lql C SIA 441 Ij,,41gj 3,334 204 0 CREV 321 411114 So 14 Is -i'm ALLE 4JACKS) 7:,.45. 44o W711 81'2'146 .1.. CROAKR 41538,2126@ 559,673 13, BIG n4165o 22B13 10,9o2 079 P 6 93 A oI 3o DOL Him 144,411 4 41 D 9 913 '55: 1,118 131,12D 119i2as DRUM LACK 665 :3"1,14 374@622 ' a 71526 J,E 99 DRUM "ED II1To4 94 061 101012 6947 /14 ';071' 7:01o.3 110,380 EELS 69;27o 97,21F lo6;488-59 1, 4 14; 13,06 5, 6"19I'D 37137, 867 O;6-G ";.67 FLOUND 1 7,623 67 6231Dog I. to ..ATljsl@111 4o,7o4 24,9716G;..131 GROUP,I AND SCAMP 14,4414,441 71451 71042 67,327 24:11:05 L41o7218Z5 7,4514_ 7 G UNT b,ILL 31,546 6'21 4,150 NF 561394, 11 ING, THREAD 2561679 19,525 406;019 427 HORR1 3IL43 0,2 9;9 11,971 374,3244 G, IH 105,125o5,325 28,230 1 @4 31 14,424 ob;i941, 1. Is" 315 N 41 8 `4 39 Zoo126,250 ';".4' -;-12 6 9119 10 20206o9 7,264 9,107 831723 IZ 61200' ,14 AWHITING 1, 1370 KIW9 MACKEREL 24 165 III Nm DEN I%41oO7016347 42,289 It I I m 15,%7 7130812,576177 7IBM;336 11022la25 213,153 267 630 41 1,9,78,066 ML LA.NEOUl 88,17 01252 3,310 41210 2 R32 90,592 65,963;910 MULLET, SILVER '367;6,7,o' '"10'6,;@,: Z'A32j'6?03 2581487 4.700,g36 4'9561223 ' 934o66J;1372 P1101mill 414 11,159 11,47'43 '70 4, 35 39,1353 &CMW" 440,298 566987 7 9,99 11,047 662 0,463 39112J SANG PERCH (MUJARRA) 7, AD 7;nzl 4,19, .1 24 6935159 P 16 D5,341 271A629 ';7464 12 21 774 14"396111 Scu 1137 15 56 3g4 110783 27,527 13 436 SEA BASS 31 2,4023 a, a A1.41, ".0 7 47 :26, '423 291, 1,13368 3,282 9, 2,387 6,755 ';11 901 14,465 3,373 le,oas 7,025 4,332 I,T27 SEA TROUT, GRAY 21 111 IP 6,421 4;3 731 3;1 3,996 11,021 A19 717 2123,;J266' 616 6A 1,R111T, 1140, 36 341 t,44 22 IAT OUT W ITE 4172'1 2!;" .6 81 ISOT 4655 7,80 a 391.6 9,,351 SHAD 11 74 3 94,3 7 33257#6226 IHIRK1 3732, 6'32'1970 SHEEPSHEII 9859859 363 `"a"7A 8 SNAPPER, LANE 35,013 24"N 39,57910 3944"30 13110'.1 61,14' 3 42 4o.7597 7j,17? INRMANGROVE 16' 089 195 3. 1 I'P'ETTON 31:1-64 SNAPPER; MU 9'o65 301 6391492 14,1949, 4:2 2111' NA pp ERA RED 19,475 I4,qI6 99 '2246o3 4"3'1Ia0B4 IVERMILLION 3.13;. L075 1016 [email protected] l:'.'o a1024 417,330 IS. 13'[email protected] SNAPPER, 45,340 3�111 G451972 37R,'39 33#717 NAPPIRA YELLQWTAIL 13,620 :;34 38,454 3,24 4: 3'0 4 1116 21 124 2,3'54*0 13J 21,971 '32802 241 ANI:H'SARGI11I 1131,912 :3:o :993 36;RD7 IPANI HMACKEREL 12237. 6' '6'o" '0: IF AS,5"'.'42 IP 253921 4o4,390 '@-"'17 411 1,453,003 TOT 91;331 91,1337 8.6 478oo633019211 64 29A717 5 322,397 21312 30 SWuRGFG 149 44 :42 264,8462@2 ISM All 12 2092 27 118,428 1,958 J@J'9 TENoRPOUNDER (LADYFISH) 6 0boo A 86 TIt 673:037 673,037 1FIIH(NILE PERCH) 666 6 6104,272 104,272 2,000 2#000 T fpI 11-94o1o6 TR IG FISH 107 13, 47 6530 930 'ER 20,544 02 29,346 I'soo 1;3300 TRIPLITAI1 $46 S,oss 6,932 505 5,387 '9 4.711 1 9' WIN Do A30 12, 21148 21931 163340 WARSAW 4ZIa1409 "UN 114 41"93 6,3421116662 C@AIIIIJEED 1001 go7 21929 16 NC AS F 0MISC. a o2j 141,@, 61,,35020 1698 19,627 11523 0,031 91554 U51 19, " 31 19;.391 1110229 1461;120 26;177 1343;9J6 644:1 35 941,1 24 o2o 12 414 4 7 716@;G93 TOTAL FISH. 115491,237 61162,551 7;911,7 9115 211 73;532 SHE4LFISH ET AL. 521023,613 71480,487 9,512,10o 21593,324 6,38o,5op CLAMS HARD 0,178 6,178 17,463 CLAMS SUNRAY VENUS 17,463 3,002 5;Oo2 CONCH' CRABS, BLUE; HARD 410,,061 739,734 1,169,795 341.3o4 564,244 903,548 244,942 651,47o 896;412 CRABS, BLUE; SOFT ASTONE 1130,499 141,396 8,344 237,171 265,515 135 Lo BSIR, SPANISH 10'9o 9,143 338,6411 10JN IST 38 92 LOBSTER, SPINY (CRAWFISH 592 8,,676 690 91366 I " 439o979 lo492o 3RI 11932,480 355, 37 3o5::22 961,1 898 034 1,3377. 32 OY TE 4ADo$ 259 11 , 19 '3993869 ,;o 263 312 6 6242 17 234,91 1" :91, SIALLII;,,,,'Ay 37433,,143 52;.88 ICLLO CA L"D 12,568 12,560 50,544 5o,544 15,666 15,666 SHRIMP, EAST COAST Sol,$52 1,715 So3#567 438o344 11363 45 SHAIIF, CAMPECHE 469,707 496,775 496,775 SHRIMP; CANTIRAILEAW, 5o,121 50,120 3461234 3 1234 17611541 378,446 MR,,, IT COAST 6'96 1 IS 11,617 11,657 111141 11;1,1.41 92 ';R4 2,2,3, 1",7 '65 11'#443 SHRIMP, I'CRIL' EST COAST 178 722,317 722'1317 51,o 2,271, "J3 'SI 14 3,-Io 473,816 N 0124 302 13 98 2LL 428 'S"O'HGES" '5RHANEIIII-L 26 407 474 9G2 IF SPONGES, YELLOW 667 90 137 227 421533 14 IQUID 273 147 420 :32 52 84 26 211 47 222, 3792AA, 76, TURTLE: GREEN 1,684 2"35 3,719 31314 Z's Go 611,43871 TURTLE L, GGERHEAD 60o 600 TOTAL SHELLFISH ET AL- 1,4o9,942 03051q5I 51793,893 11247,773 511o21567 6,35o,340 11186,470 3,911,987 6,698,457 GRAND TOTAL 219591179 10174m,5og 1317071688 3,271,386 12,391,034 15,862,44o 3,779,794 12,692,495 i5,672;289 SEE F-OTES ON PAGE 3. 00NNWERSION FACMMR- THIS REPORT SpEcIES DATA COLLECTED AS CONVERTED TO AND - I SNZD By WLTIPLYING BY IN POLMS AS CLANS . . . . . . . . . .GA LONS HEATS V, U.S. SUSNELS oySTERi :: , , :::::DO ED GA LONS DO N., j SEAEOk' EA6@0.* . . .. .. GiLL 13@ ELS Do ONS DO DO. . . . . . . . .U.S . -ELS*G EPAES: Go .Lu,. . . . . . . .. ROUND WIGHT R.. GNT ST. DO '. : : : : ., :-2 DO: EL SN@j NP Do ON POVIND OF TAILSD " -:::: : : :Do Doo Ro.. Do DO IOYAL 1E6:,::.w SEA DoG Do go, I ITE DoD Sp- LD@Sj,j R- WIGHT DO DTD SPOD"i! . . .AIL WIGHTo G-E: o PIEDCE CLEDNED (DGY) WIGHT DS GRASS'o:-, DIvING. DOwZ NOOK ' No Go Do SHEEP .2o': No. DO GO :..::: : :. Do YEL-'No DO DO R VD"@N TB` I REPORT IPLY L:'_ @SY N`L ATS `y:T LDo SN o-D o 7-D 'P'C I'S L A M' GAL LMS HE US `SNEL yTEPS GALLONS EDL-U.S- GU-ELS @CAL S' UL110 GAL LONS DoU.SW-ELS GoG PA. ELUE R_NDGNo W, NT ST-EDo I HT ROUG IS NS Do NPADo1 AP2 _S _ T.. Do HDO Do 0`1 Go TACT- IS E-TA-T @A- IS G-SED @-R- PAGE 8 FLnRIDA 4ANDINGS BY COUNTIES. 1974 C. F. S. NO. 6719 SPECIES NASSAU MUVAL PUTNAM ST JOHNS VOLUSIA &REVARD INDIAN R1VFR ST CUCIE ALEWIVES FISH POUND POUND POUND POUNDS POUNDS POUND POUNDS POUNDS AMSER4ACK Zj712 22 71 6j30Z 20169 18A913 ANGELFISH 77 BID IJ628 136 892 BALLYHOO 11 ARRA@UDA etU EUNNER OR HARDTAIL 119 100250 1#176 4#029 21,865 BLUEFISH 90p750 841 890551 112#463 IZ?0318 320J-065 BONITO 20952 103 756 CATFISH$ FRESH-WATER(l) Sp664 11077 IP690#895 0536 SEA 399 570317 CIOARFISH COBIA 2q9 139 10255 20801 10552 2.537 CREVALLE (JACKS) 25j342 330923 @084 6,00 ;8*110 CROAKER 17,860 576 2,943 4,629 11-66 DOLPHIN 474 367 339 Z060B bat 7"211 DRUMI BLACK 6o699 22j249 275 130810 150833 9#063 Sj927 RED 10818 52j277 718 22 51j452 200807 50357 1"769 EELS too 313#212 zes :LOUNUERS 8047o 33#30 28#745 28*111 46#596 729 11.619 GUATFISH W44 431 -426 GROUPIRS AND SCAMP 61196 61,4 1802 68,496 11j;709 330907 IM8,697 GRUNT 44 95 605 24 363 HERRINOP THREAD HOGFISH 342 61 JEWFISH FIT 77 112 17#916 691 12016 KING MACKEREL 606 l6j5S6 566 28,740 7830609 10470#421 1,160JO70 KING 4520350 113#187 9:;06; 151:53 ,849 i6:293 WHITING 640439 12 T I MENHADEN j1p562j357 ImZ75 5 44 351 8 7 6102, 43 3 120 MISCELLANEOUS 82 - MULLETI BLACK 23*594 153J966 120000 55 9010369 6370275 364*943 160,288 SILVER 634 z74 6060 312#662 1#470 67.876 PERMIT 165 930 Sol 607 1,'542 PIGFISH 21 300 1,411 719 10991 POMPANO 477 1#02 165 17joZ3 37,656 41j77S 36,862 SAND PERCH (MOJARRA) 100 Too 425 404 16,443 SCUP 143 30,664 13,496 6,823 10913 942 -140 SEA BASS 20560 17#6-9 9#541 23*433 26o292 7,728 20990 SEA TROUTI GRAY 594 36,743 10036 3034 100239 20sl73 37JS03 SPOTTED 4,597 77,556 1,624 258,812 115,855 70,plo 77A-316 WHITE lj6q3 36 465 SHAD 90071 14#769 11028 SHARKS 843 92 SHEEPSHEAD 30188 26j646 IJ554 42j824 6lo945 OP971 j7;478 SNAPPERI LANE 4 42 lAZZ3 MANGROVE 6#673 4#263 12#979 IOJ598 SP471 30292 MUTTON R50190 10930 27 33PIS6 5#443 Boo RED 0965 112i625 5IP235 70&434 119,677 29,459 23jose VERMILION 66#641 180772 7,937 10190 410 2*-972 YE4LOWTAIL 2#313 98 lm3o9 SPANISH MACKEREL 1#184 5*7Ql 20583 940004 1840174 1260419 777j749 SPANISH SARDINES SPOT 30945 63;194 269 820603 334PO75 596jm65 3F'2#398 STURGEON SWORDFISH TENPOUNDER (LADYFISH) 1#217 10 TILAPIA (NILE PERCH) 18200 - TILEFISH 552 3'o 57 8*342 20656 60,953 TRIGGER FISH 366 6*145 1084 4#240 10991 20582 TRIPLETAIL -)0 80 40 78 WAHOO 46 79 360 WARSAW 3ol39 10052 314 14*030 1,979 04,794 UNCLASSIFIEU1 FUR FOnD 445 13*355 10150 610 62,343 47PI62 220323 300389 FUR MISC. 6,815 17@5-56 1#200 496 76,431 Z16 TOTAL FISH 110709#042 10642;284 2PO33*018 2770499 ZP137s907 3#8960425 30647,732 3151!14@513 S HE HkLFISH ET At. CLAMS$ @D lp679 4,994 850524 10933 SUNRAY VENUS CONCH CRABS1 BLUE; HARD 8710784 1614546 IP762p387 692o787 189P380 3j195#874 537oloO 9A226 SOFT 133 STONE 15 6#639 SPANI SH LOBSTERI SPINY 15 Web 609 OYSTERS 2,875 19JO27 47,429 1,916 21,539 4,938 SCALLUPSi BAY 56#960 CALICO 10070354 SHRIMP(HEADS.UN)IEAST COAST 6950548 1#550911 502P692 393#929 544#427 CAMPECHE CARIBBEAN CENTRAL WEST COAST TORTUGAS UPPER WEST COAST TOTAL SHRIMP 695,548 1,554j9ll 502,692 393,929 644,427 SPONGES$ GRASS SHEEPSWnOL YELLOW SQUID 227 1,204 13,616 7#395 TURTLES1 GREEN 90154 LOGGERHEAD 2s664 4j941 ,434 1,758,4q 522 10245o791 603,s5O 5,306,822 544,565 9,835 TOTAL SHELLFISH FT AL. 10570 a 11762, GRAND TOTAL l3p2790476 3p4oQj77Z W95P540 1*5230290 20741s757 902030250 40192J?97 31314,348 SEE FOOTNOTES ON PAGE 3. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) C* F* S* NO* 6719 PAGE 9 FL13RIDA LANDINGS UY COUNTIES. 1974 SPECIES MARTIN PALM 9EACw BKnWARD DADE MONROE COLLIER LEE 6HARCOTTE FISH POUNDS POUNMS POUNP POUND POUND POI)NDS POUND POUNDS ALEWIVES A14BERJACK 712 30636 602 120889 80 : NOELFISH 933 145 226 75 ALLY 40a A6 I7TjS69 212*163 BARRACUDA 216 56 BLUE RUNNER OR HARDTAIL 180288 150928 5j685 3#512 617 130723 80 BLUEFISH 363s47z 159J866 6jI57 33j365 l4j344 44,940 354669 BONITO 10195 348 103 SP614 4jl5R CATFISHI FRESH-WATER(I) its 136 SEA 2#070 176 CIGARPISH '90 COB:A 1#329 779 929 11,956 2P621 59o845 CREVALLE (JACKS) 26#766 7j525 IPI61 lj953 87#833 289if-24 178#082 CROAKIR 22#653 4#705 99 DOLPHIN 304 11269 2;053 68,336 DRUMI BLACK 16P762 4j6h2 1 968 20217 298 4 j 115:223 RED 1,125 1 921 32 58 14 333 492,q3l 284 EELS 5,671 FLOUNDERS 97o 32PI48 36 3 1 74PI23 4,121 GOATFISH 440075 90378 265 GROUPM AND SCAMP 16#891 30P696 133;7996 667;716 116o737 8190632 14,232 GRUNTS 6#502 404 17 28 24 748 230 M!:RjN0* THREAD 36o234 9,938 590 H F SH 240 3P665 10082 23 JJWFISH 7#043 7#05 1#073 230785 Zo749 1190335 IjOOB KING MACKEREL 22o636 616j876 97;440 2#4ooo546 2j66SPI03 915#M87 KING WHITING 47p738 6j6?2 1 331 34 2,614 40800 ME NHADEN lilig zn,ooo MISCELLANEOUS MULLETO BLACK 268o364 4:2366 4J5 3j236*315 SP913o523 208-53j364 SILVER 29,760 4 47 11105 0 481j934 43o33 9 21,247 PIRMIT I,234 606 430 4PZ09 24,427 PIOFISH 417 9pog7 771 POMPANO 67*:22 1:10,4A5 6#945 73#645 1500350 7460915 46#619 SAND PERCH JMQJARRA) 137113 1 0992 2lo671 38.SS4 Scup 20 369 1,235 428 207 2p785 687 SIA BASS 20290 2i5q4 SgA TROUTI GRAY 100285 OJ829 350 216 2oI42 233 SPOTTED 20,765 280221 2,783 34,370 47,511 1,023,230 153,520 WHITE -10 1#420 12P(162 6;422 IMAI Ino SHARKS 600 13,785 2,374 S,F46 28 SHEEPSHEAD 124PI77 10844 620 480 59,143 72j548 SNAPPERI LANE 3#148 24926 6o474 4#181 19oP62 840 MANGROVE 6o753 330916 13*758 295#921 0788 225oA67 6; 76 MUTTON 811 36PI17 38#233 192,605 171 580082 RED lj678 0051 140#416 250723 2pIS4 220oI32 915 VERMILION Be 1;042 20335 10400 YELLOWTAIL 12#731 22 357 65,968 798,565 1301 nes SPANISH MACKEREL 495o272 352A762 306,349 5,o223o441 100330040 $45,378 1 r@2, 5 39 SPANISH SARDINES 2#229 SPOT 1181999 16WO5 22 51 lj297 STURGEON SWORDFISH 256 T!NPOUNDER,(LADYFISH) 519 3,025 T LAPIA (N LE PERC ) TILEFISH 8,6$5 20526 694 14,393 TRIGGER FISH 6q5 067 TRIPLETAIL 939 ?8 1#214 WAMOD 24 57 25 WARSAW IOo296 100 4A9'59 10,178 417 112 UNCLASSIFIED1 FO 11 FOOD 20o?92 31#6018 16o474 183,911 lo9o339 8 ISO 085 28,960 Fall MISC. 72*878 100 29,090 48,448 3floM52 TOTAL FISH 2,059,456 1,819,690 lpl6gjg2g 10,870,530 7,600,731 13,m52,@75 3,6900849 IME"FUM ET AL- CLAMS1 HARD SUNRAY VENUS CONCH CRAOSI BLUEl HARD Z5o63o 827 4j82O 45 4j447 328,261 SOFT 36 STONE IP333 3,999 54#781 855,344 lol45,933 196#526 68,859 IPAMISH OP768 690 LOBSTERI PINY 3,125 IRO,721 25,510 3P919,937 6o6o6o127 116j059 9,120 4*161 OYSTERS SCA6LOPSI BAY CALICO SHRIMP(HEADS-UN)IEAST COAST 4,564 79 CAMPECHE 335,419 1#010699 CARIBBEAN jSNj5Ak,WEST COAST 17,oIOO 32,SP249 IOj638 R a 100814 $88 ISj422 4,40 P779 199,653 UPPER WEST COAST 58,577 53A931 251 TOTAL SHRIMP 11P230048 l5j422 5PS04,737 210,-562 SPONGES1 GRASS )P720 4171 SHEEPSWnOL 4j715 4,261 YELLOW 3j662 844 SQU ID 4,668 16#752 7 TURTLES; GREEN 17,477 LOGGERHEAD TOTAL SHELLFISH ET AL. 3O,DS8 193,546 250318 4,000j403 18,721,o75 Ip2SIj86I 6,027,135 611.866 GRAND TOTAL 2PO89o546 2,013#2116 250518 Soj%P332 29,591o605 808820592 19,079o7ln 03m2J715 SEE FOOTNOTES ON PAGE 3. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) PAGE 10 C. F. S. NO. 6719 FLORIDA 'A'D'NG'S:YR"U'T'E'.r4':74 SPECIES SARASOTA MANATEF HILL 0 OUGH PI E LAS PASCO-CITRUS LEVY DIXIE.TAYLOR WAKULCA POUND POUNnS POUND POUND POUND POUND POUND ELI 'Air) ALEWIVES 146,788 AMBERJACK 472 996 7P628 613 ANGELFISH 252 10545 124 370 812 BALLYHOO BARRACUDA BLUE RUNNER OR HARDTAIL 2jlZ3 5 11747 710 Issoo BLUEFISH 23P691 25al6l 60658 4#823 537 606GS losal BONITO CATFISHI FRESH.WATER(l) 243 1#383 30169 @4 CIGARFISH SEA 9jI83 10443 CRBIA 5u 338 987 92 35 C EVA4LE (JACKS) 310994 2360175 60582 67#677 1480536 70131 IT0218 211jOZ9 CROAKER la;746 30 Ij4O6 190895 DOLPHIN 612 DRVMl 84ACK 2;1781 214j004 6;164 1#624 773 Z:0678 616 8173 RED 1 2 021 77,707 44 39 48,P 7 60 - o4 23 6 5 0 663 8 119 3 0 EELS FLOUNDERS 158 1@425 0688 30381 377 486 30908 6,787 GOATFISH 1*139 GROUPERS AND SCAMP 111OR24 746#,g38 1110479 2063@#547 72;17@ 71157 11 30081 GRUNTS 90 So 57 11 'a 32 93 9 40 ,5 ;91 4,3i HERRINGP THREAD HOGFISH IP719 JEWFISH 40U 195 9j884 2&200 KING MACKEREL 190042 12;467 IP645 400943 0151 212 lj344 KING WHITING Z#543 20053 68800 30223 174 790 MENHADEN 265 33 IjI79 4jOOO 3#655 13801 65 %SCJ@LANEOUS 387o754 zo6o7,572 jj9b9po53 l#V30883 1#613j094 6oOj496 724#734 819#835 M LL I BLACK SILVER ZP337 15.814 ZP600 110029 19,923 IJ151 1;500 PERMIT 3P923 14,449 3P450 10923 250 PA,GFISH 263 8,o640 280 P PANO 32P321 60,395 IP452 390933 7,468 34496 14 442 1,030 SAND PERCH IMUJARRA) lOo342 7#469 z3oo66 20878 3,685 129 SCUP 10,740 25 13#901 1,341 SEA BASS 7 32#061 14,178 685 30109 345 SJA TROWTI GRAY 78291 170 SPOTTED 23,568 134,038 211,483 60,460 119,942 34,273 133,506 lie,-295 WHITE 2a874 3o448 Is 73 368 SHAD SHARKS 48 SHEEPSHEAC 10148 4.859 S*o73 36,478 120901 3#396 10*144 90342 SNAPPERI LANE 16 240 MANGROVE 2#249 2i774 141 36#691 20344 MUTTON 94 1;129 4#329 al 212 RE u 44#612 394056 780300 896#608 141024 36 710 15#168 VERMILION 2#196 377 YELLOWTAIL 16 @24 567 SPANISH MACKEREL 64#667 129.03 97#3z8 23#644 50535 6*577 150118 SPANISH SARDINES SPOT 602 20POR9 20028 4#295 594 6oO32 SP247 14il?7 STURGEON SWORDFISH 796 TENPnUNOER ILADYFISH) 878 3jjl6 3#675 125,819 TILAPIA (NIlLE PERCR) 60 5,62b 4,966 TILEFISH 293 209 TRIGGER FISH 1#479 TRIPLETA16 WAHUO WARSA4 46;bf)l 7PZ13 115 UNCLASSIFIEDS FOR FOOD lIP97u 217 252 OP758 46015 25,816 16,389 26#653 IJ388 FOR MISC 2j3OO 595 113 78,325 Z8j237 130539 224,395 TOTAL FISH 813,620 4,938,351 2,267jlL4 5,836,967 2,363,431 773,837 1,155,009 2,039,103 SHELLFISH ET A CLAMS1 HARD CONCH SUNRAY VENUS 2,914 CRABS1 BLUE, HARD 20,972 34084 5#350 1,652090 713,179 IoB71039 3j872-623 SOFT 30 so STONE 280 2,340 230791 61#336 80#570 65#277 13J390 S;AIIIS. LQB5TERl S INY oYlTEljS. 50 22o899 71347 I8;5j4 SCAL j BAY 56 CALICU SHRIMP(HEADS-ON)IEAST COAST CAMPECHE 703o443 148P568 CARIBBEAN CENTRAL WEST COAST 41#2t'Z 793P190 486o84l .66,897 TORTUGAS 1;59 617P541 365 924 2#480 16,87, 0 131 21-378 UPPER WEST CCAST 9 136 927 105 960 305 4 TOTAL 54RIMP 59J676 202310 101 is 107PZ93 74,881 131 21,378 SPONGES1 GRASS 108 SHEEPSWOOL Zs315 YELLOW 10192 SQUID 710 TURTLES1 GREEN LoC,GERHEAD TOTAL SHELLFISH ET AL. 280 A20908 2*286p625 1,140210 1,819#202 820779 IP940363 3,928"899 GRAND TOTAL 813agoo 5,0411-319 4*553p739 6o977jl77 4,182,633 IJ5980616 3;loool72 5,968-,002 SEE FOOTNOTES ON PAGE 3. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) GC-5 q CURRENT FISHERIES STATISTICS NO. 6723 Texas Landings, S"47-ES 0* V@@ Annual Summary 1974 In cooperation with the TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, AUSTIN, TEXAS TEXAS LANDINGS, ANNUAL SUMMARY, 1974 Commercial landings of marine fish and shellfish were 94.0 million pounds, valued at $71.8 million-down 4.3 million pounds in volume and $21.5 million in value compared with 1973. The shrimp and oyster fisheries were responsible for the 1974 decrease. SHRIMP. Shrimp trawlers unloading at commercial facilities in Texas made 67,073 trips into bay waters and 33,394 trips into Gulf waters, and unloaded 78.7 million pounds of shrimp (heads-on weight) with a value of $67.7 million to fishermen and/or vessel owners. Compared with 1973 this was a decrease of 4 percent in volume and 22 percent in value. Brown and pink shrimp accounted for 76 percent of the total volume; white shrimp, 22 percent; and seabobs and rock shrimp, 2 percent. Landings include 52.0 million pounds of shrimp from adjacent Gulf waters; 12.9 million pounds from waters off Mexico; and 8.0 million pounds from waters off Louisiana. 'fhe dockside value of headless shrimp averaged $1.37 per pound-32 cents per pound below 1973. Exvessel prices ranged from $1.59 per pound in ports with long-range vessels working throughout the year, to $1.12 per pound in ports with a large bay fleet. The price paid for good-guality shrimp is usually consistent for a given size along the entire coast. VESSELS. Vessel construction dropped sharply in 1974. About 55 new large trawlers entered the shrimp fishery compared with 91 in 1973. Nine vessels were lost at sea, and 70 to 80 vessels were sold to foreign flag interests or transferred to other domestic fisheries. OYSTERS. About 62,600 barrels of oysters were harvested commercially yielding 1.2 million pounds of meats valued at $1.1 million. This was 47 percent below the volume and 38 percent below the value of landings in 1973. The decline was due largely to heavy mortalities from freshwater kill in fall 1973 and spring 1974. Out-of-State vessels that usually operate oyster dredges in Galveston Bay did not work the spring or fall season. December 9, 1975 Washiagton, D.C. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND NATIONAL MARINE noaaATMOSPHER,C ADMINISTRATION FISHERIES SERVICE Page 2 C. F. S. No. 6723 TEXAS LANDINGS, ANNUAL SUMMARY, 1974 - Continued BLUE CRABS. Commercial crab landings of 6.1 million pounds, valued at $0.8 million were 12 percent below the volume, but almost unchanged in value from the 1973 level. The exvessel price averaged 14 cents per pound for live crabs, compared with 12 cents in 1973. Select male crabs were flown to East Coast markets throughout the year. FINFISH. Commercial, landings of edible finfish were 7.5 million pounds, valued at $2.1 million. This was 10 percent above the volume and I I percent above the value of 1973 landings. The 1974 increase was in black and red drum and flounders. Commercial landings of fish and shellfish do not include the ever-increasing volume of fishery products, both fresh and frozen, sold by bait camps, roadside markets, and door-to-door enterprises. ORMAN H. FARLEY SUPERVISORY FISHERY REPORTING SPECIALIST GALVESTON,TEXAS C* F, S* NO, 6723 PAGE 3 TEXAS IANDINGS, CATCH BY WATERS, 1974 GALVESTON AND SPECIES GULF OF MEXICO SABINE LAKE TRINITY BAYS FISH POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS CABIO (LING) . . . . . . . . 20,000 2 993 - CROAKER . . . . . . . . . . 95,300 5:856 28j9OO 2,840 DRUM: BLACK 67,300 8,091 2-7,600 3,720 RED (RiDhiH) 140,700 45,050 34,900 10,792 FLOUNDERS 319,500 87,293 20,100 6,710 GROUPER . : : : 85 000 10 950 - - KING WHITING . . . . . . . . 125:800 12:678 - - 6,100 566 MULLET . . . . . . . . . . . 82,800 4 924 - - 24,500 1,464 POMPANO . . . . . . . . . . 4,400 2:393 - - - - SEA CATFISH . . . . . . . . 14,400 1,707 - - 33,200 1,828 SEA TROUT: SPOTTED . . . . . . . . . 284,400 91,526 Z72,900 87,689 WHITE . . . . . . . . . . - - 1,000 146 SHEEPSHEAD . . . . . . . . . 73,700 7 549 - - 28,500 3,283 SNAPPER, RED 742,900 415:792 - - - - UNCLASSOIFIED: ' * * * ' * ' FOR F OD. : . . . . . . . 99,000 8,716 - - 41,80o 3,525 FOR BAIT, REOUCTION, AND ANIMAL FOOD . . . . . . . 130,900 6,452 - - 60,400 3,019 TOTAL FISH . . . . . . 2,286,100 711,970 - - 5-79,900 125,582 SHELLFISH CRABS, BLUE . . . . . . . . 39,900 3,475 560,800 7-7,090 11983,000 273 301 OYSTER MEATS 836,800 753:292 SHRIMP 1HEADi-6N):* BROWN AND PINK . . . . . . 57,194,700 50,641,03-7 1,422,600 378 773 WHITE . . . . . . . . . . 12,066,200 12,216 269 2,392,400 11432:538 OTHER . . . . . . . . . . 1,43-7,400 335:493 - - SQUID . . . . . . . . . . . 10,400 1,735 - - 3,700 792 TOTAL SHELLFISH . . . 70,748.600 63.198,009 560,800 77,090 6,638,500 2,838,696 GRAND TOTAL 73,034,700 63,90(),979 560.800 77,090 7,218,4oo 2,964,778 MATAQORDA, EAST MATA- SAN ANTONIO MESQUITE, ARANSAS AND COPANA SPECIES GORDA AND LAVACO SAYS ESPIRITU SANTO BAYS, BAYS AND GREEN LAKE FISH POUNDS DOLLARS POUNIDS DOLLARS POUINDS DOLLARS CROAKER . . . . . . . . . . 1,100 133 300 45 5,600 291 DRUN: BLACK 14,700 2.101 log 700 15,g 118,400 16 674 RED (REDIFlifil 52 500 17,685 168:600 58, 2",000 79:488 FLOMERS . . . . . . . . . 22:800 8,788 27.600 11.1go 43'600 13.863 KING WH ITING . . . . . . . . - - 100 3 MULLET . . . . . . . . . . . 600 115 3.500 210 POMPANO . . . . . . . . . . - - 300 147 SEA CATFISH . . . . . . . . - - 2 900 443 8,ioo 1266 SEA TROUT, SPOTTED . . . . . 130,100 44,390 103:800 37,185 202,500 66:588 SHEEPSHEAD. 5,700 801 9,000 1,109 52,300 2,730 UNCLASSIFIED: @01@1 WT: k: DUCTION, AND ANIMAL FOOD 109,400 8,299 11,200 607 TOTAL FISH . . . . . . 227,500 74,013 531,300 132,Z79 689,600 181,867 SHELLFISH CRABS, BLUE . . . . . . . . 959,300 132 032 1,124,300 152,447 1,079 300 147,628 OYSTER MEATS lq7,100 157:815 196,600 189,627 9:900 11,295 SHRIMP (HEAD@-6N):* BROWN AND PINK . . . . . . 469,800 117,4779 67,100 16,322 210,900 53,874 WIAITE . . . . . . . . . . 1,418,,7oo 1,121,585 815,300 474,806 706,300 540,552 SQUID . . . . . . . . . . . 8oo 149 - - - - TOTAL SHELLFISH . . . 3,045,700 1,529,060 2,203,300 833,202 2,006,400 753,349 GRAND TOTAL . . . . . 3,Z73,200 1,603,073 2,734,600 965,481 2,696,000 935,216 SEE NOTE ON PAGE 4. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID Washington, D.C. 20235 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICIAL BUSINESS COM-21 0 PAGE 6 C. r. S. NO. 67M TEXAS LANDINGS BY MONTHS, 1974 - Coati-d SPECIES JULY AUGUST 5EPT'EHBER POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS D%LARS POUNDS DOLLARS CABI (LING) . . . . . . . . @ COG '1:9 8@ 4 "00 1,6111 GRGAOKER . . . . . . . . . . 13:700 i:2,`8 0 = @4:700 78 DO 780 B CK DS B. 614 128.7- 28.Q, 1@G R" jRiDil@Nj i1.:@ qS1:068 '.'- X:200 6,;S34 FLOUNDERS . . . . . . . . . 44.ODD 14,160 Ao'@ 12.(5S2 'lS IGO 15 GROJRER 6. SOO 7 GCO 1 3 H, NG @::::::: 6 000 W ":DOO i:83" 4:. 1.- @LET. 1:100 199 11. 300 83 15,1W. 544 - : '. .' ." ". .' '. .' ". .' 3 111 500 2192 2. - CAT", SH . . . . . . . . 11. 800 1871 n.7. 1,3- 7'S"' 68S SEA TROUT: SPOTT ED . . . . . . . . . 205,@00 7@'7.AG 153,300 54.@n 155,300 S8, -In 3OG 'iS -1.6..- -. .- -.::-. .-: 15,7GO 1202 23 1. 2:088 SN Owo 4': 1. 200 AD 741 9@ UNAP11j'R1: . . . . . . . 66.7 898 '6 CK)o S;:" CLASSI.. 402 26.900 2.183 8,300 " 'r W FOR - IT: IiOSUETi.@ 416 3'9 119 '8,300 Qv ANINIAL FOOD . . . . . . . 61,IW 3 055 8, tao TOTAL FISH . . . . . . -zDD 201,09 @1'7co 201.036 606,B00 lv,- SHELLFISH CRABS, BLUE . . . . . . . . 713 200 9B 919 681 AGO @2:58G 468 AGO 6 @2 OYSTER NEATS. @:OBO SS:- 48 SOO 22:300 %,600 IRUNP INCA $-):* I .R- AN'D PINK: 11.1:000 6,1:.D 1@:IO4 GO 82,72:1 1 AGO 1:11:62 ,H ':Z. 1:5 " Z ':001: OHITE 961 1W V7;'505 1 3 @ ZOO 1 574 -9 TH . . . . . . . . . . . 3.- 485 2 WD 1.178 - - SWI . . . . . . .I.... , ,100 21D 1:@ 191 8- 131 TOTAL SHELLFISH... 12,12,400 8,547,920 14,526.700 9,853,@ lO'AOl'l 0 8'30'5@ GRAND - L. . . . . IS,229,600 8,749,859 15,198,400 10,054 @ 8,590,%KI SPECIES OCTOBER NOVENBER DECENBER FISH -NOG DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS POLINDS DOLLARS CABIO (LING) . . . . . . . . 1 5 BE CNG@@M . . . . . . . . . . ,S:6W. 3, 183 1.486 5.800 zi 2 DRU : 8, 5 DO 10 3 1.4.1. 17 13 :'-w 71 '3: @'4E iS7:000 `17:108 86.- 4E:816 REDC(R6h;.):::::: - - I I-OLINDER5 . . . . . . . . . 80,7w 26,850 74,900 20,@@ 5. 10,55G GROIJ R. . . . . . . . . . 400 ;'107 961 7500 KI W ITING . . . . . . . . 17:8. .9 @73 'AW 1, @ 8 ADD HULLET . . . . . . . . . . . 19,1. 1,2- 3 ROD 81l S:WO 2SB . i . . . . . . . . . I w 1,220 S@ 102 ':- 48 SEA CAM SH . . . . . . . . 8,1w 005 2. GO 310 2 200 216 SEA TRUAIT: SPOT ED . . . . . . . . . 160,00) 59,226 114,300 32,503 1@,300 50,416 1 ITE 7 - - SNEEPSHE@D: 21, DO :5 21:800 1 3@ 55 '3 0;6 @'l 3@' 3M A, 6 PER, NED . . . . . . . . 4- GO 251 88 Ew 2 9 2 UNCLA SIFIED: FOR FOOD ' IiEISU@TiC@ @N6 1"100 1 "M D,700 1.Oil S'6w 52E FOR, BA I T; AN HAL GGG . . . . . . . S.Sw 315 21,SOO 1 'W2 2'Sw 110 TOTAL FISH . . . . . . 729,800 @l 012 SGS'8oO 14B,567 S,8.7. lw,380 SHELLFISH CRIIS LIE . . . . . . . . 548 83 3 0 STEA I @ :0 .:92' MBOG E8 @5 2-B 200 39 4@ YNEATS Ol: 236:725 11:2w - A2 SHRI-P (-E-i4-1: C- AND PINK . . . . 4:@5 383S,- 3.@@,SOO 2,880,617 . . . . . . . 2:'822 947 COO 1833 OS1 1.3 7`lS - OR '2:418:'15-. :lw .ITE. 0 OR . . . . . . . . . . 82 1,49. 10.OGG 8 :000 M:OGG SQUID . . . . . . . . . . . 1. ADD 4. 61 TOTAL SHELLFISH S,418,300 8,.,,,l. 5,969,310 S.312.100 3,@,@S' @AND TOTAL . . . . . 10,1A8.100 8.8772,- 8,S@I,SOO 5,.l." 40094@0@ 11.11-ATA I.C1 E REVISIONS SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF MONTHLY BULLET !NS OYSTERS ARE SUC- IN iWEIGHT OF HEATS IS .1 PCL,HDS PER LLON). ALL OTHER SPECIES ARE REPORTED IN ROUND GNi. THE KIGHT OF NEADS-ON SHRINIP WAS C'ERMI ED By MULTIPLYING HEADS-CIFF @IGPIT BY THE FOLLOWING FACTORS -, 1.61; PINK, 1.60; WITT, 1.5,l; ROYAL RED. 1.80; AND SEA BOBS, 1.53. DATA DO NOT INCLUDE I-ANDINGS OF FR-TER FISH TAKEN CONIHERCIALLY IN THE COASTAL DISI'DICTS. 0'uTI0'v NOAA--S/T 76-2029 ';76-19 16 PAGE 4 C. F. S. NO. 6723 TEXAS 1ANDINGS, CATCH BY WATER, 1974 - Continued SPEC I ES CORPUS CHRISTI AND BAFFIN BAY AND CENTRAL AND LOWER NUECCES BAYS UPPER LAGUNA MADRE LAGUNA MADRE FISH POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS CROAKER . . . . . . . . . . 12,300 -72-7 3,000 155 25,500 DRUM: 1,277 BLACK 201,100 34,893 498.000 101,182 320,000 39,015 RED (RED@&) 214,100 -74 168 398,700 134,351 668,000 194 272 FLOUNDERS . . . . . . . . . 3-7,8oo 11:182 g'300 31221 26,400 6 834 KING WH [TING . . . . . . . - - - - 1,600 244 MULLET . . . . . . . . . . 11100 105 400 29 300 28 POMPANO . . . . . . . . . . 500 225 2,100 946 4,8oo 2,157 SEA CATFISH . . . . . . 10,000 1,180 4,600 337 4,400 652 SEA TROUT, SPOTTED . . . 1-78,loo 60,563 331,500 112,920 492 8oo 144,263 SHEEPSHEAD . . . . . . . . . 91,300 4,979 81,50o 4,426 UNCLASSIFIED, FOR FOOD . . . - 2-7:800 1,620 - 600 44 TOTAL FISH . . . . . . 746,300 188,022 1,329,700 357,611 1,571,600 390,362 SHELLFISH CRABS, BLUE . . . . . . . . 326,300 ",339 2,000 277 12,700 1,778 OYSTER MEATS. - - - - 3,300 3,755 SHRIMP (HEADS-6N):* ' ' BROWN AND PINK . . . . . . 154,900 41 852 WHITE . . . . . . . . . . 320,300 308:486 - - TOTA L SHELLFISH . . . 8ol.500 394,677 2,000 277 16,000 5,533 GRAND TOTAL . . . . . 1,547,800 582,699 1,331,700 357,888 1,587,6oo 395,895 SPECIES 1973 TOTAL 1974 FISH POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS CABIO (LING) . . . . . . 16,000 2 436 20,000 2,993 CROAKER . . . . . . . . 122,500 859 172,000 11,324 DRUM: 8: BLACK 1 207,900 154,350 1,356,800 221,396 RED (RiDhiH) 1:677,500 539,316 1,921,500 614,094 FLOUNDERS . . . . . . . . . 341tgOO 105 275 50-7,100 149,081 GROUPER . . . . . . . . . . 100,300 14 498 KING WHIT.ING . . . . . . . 85,000 10,950 90,400 9,451 133,600 13 491 MULLET . . . . . . . . . . 158,000 8,432 113,200 6 875 POMPANO . . . . . . . . 2,100 912 12,100 5,868 SEA CATFISH . . . . . . . 67,500 8,539 77,600 7,413 SEA TROUT: SPOTTED . . . . . . . . . 1,968,c)oo 645,900 1,996,100 W 124 W ITE . . . . . . . . . 6,400 831 1 000 146 SHEEPSHEAD . . . . . . . . 269,400 24,500 369:800 26,49-7 SNAPPER, RED . . . . . . . . 781,4oo 401,532 742,900 415,792 UNCLASSIFIED: FOR FOOD . . . . . . . 132,100 10,617 141,400 12.285 FOR BAIT, REDUCTION, 41)' ANIMAL FOOD . . . . . . . 330,700 20,399 311,900 18,377 TOTAL FISH . . . . . . 7,M 000 1,955,84,7 7,962,000 2,161,706 SHELLFISH CRABS BLUE 6 881 1 0 2 348 0000 1,812,554 1 243,700 OYSTEA MEA 830,440 6 C67,600 832,367 TS : : 1,115,784 SHRIMP (HEAH-6NI:' BROWN AND PINK . . . . . . 5-7,669,800 63,571,837 59.520,000 51,249,33-7 WHITE . . . . . . . . . . 23,015p200 23,034,619 17,719,200 16,094,236 OTHER . . . . . . . . . . 1,035,300 272,999 1 4.3-7,400 SQUID . . . . . . . . . . 1 335,493 5,400 783 14,900 2,676 TOTAL SHELLFISH . . . 90,954,800 89,523,232 86,022,800 69,629,893 GRAND TOTAL . . . . . 98,22-7,800 91,479,079 93,984,8oo 71,791,599 NOTE:--DATA DO NOT INCLUDE LANDINGS OF FRESHWATER SPECIES TAKEN COMMERCIALLY IN THE COASTAL DISTRICTS. SEE NOTE ON PAGE 6. C, F* S, NO* 6723 PAGE 5 TEXAS LANDINGS BY MONTHS, 1974 SPECIES JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH FISH POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS CABIO (LING) . . . . . . . . 100 10 200 21 - - CROAKER . . . . . . . . . . 1,300 67 5,500 430 1,800 104 DRUM: BLACK 183,000 22,-742 95,700 11,477 182,100 26,176 RED (REDFI@H) 223,100 60,616 141 000 41 216 236,100 70,394 FLOUNDERS . . . . . . . . . 25,000 6,965 12:800 3:280 22,600 5,693 GROUPER 4,500 533 5,500 714 12 500 1,563 KING WHITING: 9 200 68o 2,200 204 6:800 683 MULLET . . . . . . . . . . 16:800 850 12,300 641 26,600 1 354 POMPANO . . . . . . . . . . 900 396 900 497 2 400 1:079 SEA CATFISH 3,200 454 1,300 167 6:000 94.5 SEA TROUT: SPOTTED . . . . . . . . . 150,800 42,317 155,300 45,297 202,700 60,990 WHITE . . . . . . . . . . 100 15 - - - - SHEEPSHEAD . . . . . . . . 42 000 3 009 44,900 2,99-7 49,400 3,678 SNAPPER, RED . . . . . . . 67:800 34:280 77,000 40,953 42,500 23,663 UNCLASSIFIED: FOR FOOD. 9,900 667 16,700 1,141 16,400 1,183 FOR BAIT, k6U&iO@,'A@D* ANIMAL FOOD . . . . . . . 18,400 -n4 48,ooo 3,840 16,700 1,3o8 TOTAL FISH . . . . . . -756,100 174,375 619,300 152,785 824,600 198,813 SHELLFISH CRASS, BLUE . . . . . . . . 258,300 30,960 413,600 49,302 281,300 33,666 -OYSTER MEATS . . . . . . . . 204,500 165,567 55,600 54,192 131,000 130,144 SHRIMP (HEADS-ON): BROWN AND PINK 2,647,800 4,051,349 2,189,100 2,934,401 1,645,300 2,133,611 WHITE . . . . 1,029,500 710,142 1,045,300 620,761 805,300 704,435 OTHER . . . . . . . . . . 475,100 126,357 585,400 156,601 39,600 8,669 SQUID . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 127 900 207 3,500 694 TOTAL SHELLFISH . . . 4,616,200 5,084,502 4,289,900 3,815,464 2,906,000 3,011,219 GRAND TOTAL . . . . . 5,372,300 5,258,8-n 4,909,200 3,968,249 3,730,600 3,210,032 SPECIES APRIL MAY JUNE FISH POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS DOLLARS CABIO (LING) . . . . . . . - 200 21 1,200 182 CROAKER 4plOO 375 5,400 524 6,900 694 DRUM: BLACK 150,400 25,338 78,800 14,494 91 800 16 961 RED (REDFI@H) 159,300 52 '747 8g,goo 30,490 88:300 32:284 FLOUNDERS . . . . . . . . . 29,600 8:538 40,700 11,453 44,500 12,703 GROUPER 10,400 1,232 4,300 503 7,700 875 KING WH ITING: 7,500 852 17,400 l,9Z7 12,600 1,385 MULLET . . . . . . . . . . . 500 34 300 59 400 59 POMPANO . . . . . . . . . 1 600 -709 200 112 3 100 1,832 SEA CATFISH . . . . . . . 71,600 898 3,300 441 1:000 138 SEA TROUT: SPOTTED . . . . . . . . . 205,300 64,841 162,100 52,783 206,600 69,640 WHITE . . . . . . . . . . - - - - 100 15 SHEEPSHEAD . . . . . . . . . 32,300 2,661 2-7.100 21068 17.400 1,225 SNAPPER, RED . . . . . . . . 46,700 25,625 47,700 23,785 59,900 35,372 UNCLASSIFIED: FOR FOOD. 17 866 1,754 3,600 665 4 500 453 FOR BAIT, @6UETiO@ , A;D* 21:800 1,502 51,400 2,578 37:700 2,477 ANIMAL FOOD . . . . . . . TOTAL FISH . . . . . . 694,900 187,lo6 532,400 141,903 583,700 176,295 SHELLFISH CRABS, BLUE . . . . . . . . 442,400 55,775 815 000 109,886 826,700 116,257 OYSTER MEATS . . . . . . . . 101,700 102,192 5:800 5,976 12,400 16,cn4 SHRIMP (HEADS-ON): BROWN AND PINK . . . . . 1,38o 200 1,788 566 2 666,000 2,329,188 4,232,100 3,0771,599 WHITE . . . . . . . . . 805:500 874:206 1:821,900 2,492,060 900,400 11399,32-7 OTHER . . . . . . . . . . 5 900 1,400 9,300 4,577 4 500 725 SQUID . . . . . . . . . . . 1:800 _302 400 87 3:000 455 TOTAL SHELLFISH . . . 2,737,500 2,822,44 1 5,318,400 4,941,774 5,979,100 4,605,337 GRAND TOTAL . . . . . 3,432,400 3,009,547 5,850,800 5,oB3,677 6,562,800 4,781,632 SEE NOTE ON PAGE 6. APPENDIX J. ENDANGERED SPECIES ENDANGERED SPECIES The following endangered species occupy sections of the Florida and Texas coasts that are vulnerable to damage by spilled oil. 1. Red Wolf The entire remaining population of pure-bred red wolves (i.e., not C. hybridized with coyotes), estimated to be 300 individuals, occurs in marshes and coastal prairies of Brazoria, Galveston, Chambers and Jefferson Counties, Texas, and probably Cameron Parish, Louisi- ana.. Their principal food appears to be nutria, with rabbits, muskrats, and other medium-sized vertebrates also taken. No major problems should occur to this species with an oil spill, but habi- tat alteration from pipelines, etc., could have a harmful effect upon the species. 2. Brown Pelican Of the estimated 23,000 Eastern brown pelicans surviving in the U.S.A., approximately 6,100 pairs breed in nesting colonies on the Florida Coast from Cape Canaveral to Seahorse Key. The total population of pelicans in this area, counting immatures, may number 17,000 birds. Small colonies with continued heavy mortality from pesticides have been reintroduced onto the Louisiana Coast (now about 200 birds), and less than 50 birds with low reproductive success are hanging on in Texas in the Aransas and Corpus Christi areas. Pelican nesting colonies always occur on coastal islands, nests being built on ground or on tops of mangroves. Nesting season usu- ally begins in March, and young are fledged in May-July. C> After nesting season and throughout the winter, pelicans disperse from nesting colonies and may be seen all along Gulf Coast from Florida to Mobile Bay. They roost on mudflats, mangroves, etc., on island or on shore. Principal food appears to be menhaden, threadfin herring, mullet, and other non-commercial species. Pelicans would be highly vulnerable to oil spills at all seasons of the year, since they feed exclusively in coastal waters and roost and nest on low islands often barely above high tide levels. 3. Leatherback Turtles A small breeding population of this worldwide species still nests on the east coast of Florida, with only 25 nests/year. This species could be eliminated from U.S. with a major oil spill coating beach nesting areas. T-1 4. Florida Manatee The estimated 1,000+ msnatees in the U.S. have a distribution pattern dependant on both seasonal climatic changes and short- C, term weather fluctuations. In the spring and summer they are distributed primarily from South Georgia to the Swanee River, with. occasional stragglers wandering as far north as Cape Hatteras and as far west as Padre Island, Texas. Within the coastal areas of concern, estimated summer numbers are as follows: Cape Canaveral to Naples -450 Naples to Destin Dome -350 Destin Dome to Alabama line -occasional stragglers Alabama line to Brownsville -occasional stragglers During the winter, the manatee range contracts sharply, as the C> animals concentrate in southern Florida. Estimated winter dis- tribution in coastal areas of concern are as follows: Naples to Destin Dome (actually only to the Swanee River Mouth) - 400 Dui@ing the winter cold spells Ctemperature less than 10-15'C), manatees congregate at specific refugia near natural warm springs, power plant discharges, etc. Coastal warm water refugia, with nuribers of manatees commonly seen, include: Cape Canaveral to Naples -600 Naples to Destin Dome (actually only to Swanee River Mouth) -400 Manatee utilization of habitats appears to be closely related to the availability of seagrasses, their primary food source in coastal environments. Species grazed include Thalassia testud- -ium, Syringoduim filiforme, Diplanthera wrightii, and RLIppia marLtima. Manatees ten concentrate where these seagrasses, are abundant, and long coastal stretches lacking these may form a significant barrier to dispersion. This species could be significantly affected by a major oil spill in Southern Florida. J-2 S. American Alligator Approximately 750,000 alligators occur in the U.S. An overall, estimate for the number of these inhabiting coastal areas with- 0 in the area of concern is not available, but the number is con- siderable. State Total Numbers Louisiana 201,000 Florida 408,000 Mississippi 5,00 0 Alabama 13,000 Texas 27,000 Althoug, ,h it is difficult to predict damage to this species from a major oil spill, habitat modification� in coastal wetlands re- sulting from an oil spill could be harmful to alligator populations. 6. Southern Bald Eagle Florida supports the largest nesting population of Southern Bald Eagles in the U.S., at least 274 breeding pairs. In northern , an d Atlantic Florida, these nesting pairs are concentrated along the St. John River and other inland areas; to the south and west, however, most nests are located along the coast. A few addition- al nests arecxattered along other parts of the Gulf Coast. The distance that eagles forage away from their nests is unknown. When fish are plentiful, they may confine most feeding to an area of a few square miles, However, given the large size and food requirements of adults and the very large foraging areas sometimes observedfor smaller raptors, it is quite possible that under cer- tain circumstances eagles might forage 25 or even 50 miles away from their nests. This species could be heavily damaged by a spill in southern Florida, or by a spill along the Louisiana coast. 7. American crocodile All of the 200-300 remaining American crocodiles, of which less than ten are breeding females, occur in or around Florida Bay and adjacent parts of the Florida Keys and the Everglades. Adult crocidiles are much more tolerant of salt water than American alligators and primarily frequent brackish to saline environments. Few data are available on food habits. This species could be eliminated by a major spill in the Florida Keys or Florida Bay. J-3 8. Key Deer This species, smallest of the white-tailed deer, is primarily found in the lower Florida Keys, Monroe County, Florida. The present population of approximately 700 animals is significant- ly affected by development, hurricanes and fire. Road kills have also become a problem. The following keys are occupied by the key deer: Big Pine, Big Torch, Little Pine, Howe, No Name, C, Middle Torch, Cudjoe, Johnson, Knock-em-down, Sugarloaf, Summar- land, Grassy, Water, Racoon, and Annette. The deer freely swim be- tween the@i. The chief habitats of the key-deer are hammocks and pinelands, with open landscapes preferred. Availability of freshwater is an important factor affecting the distribution of this animal. This species could be directly affected by an oil spill as they swim between keys, and would be seriously effected if its freshwater supplies were contaminated by oil. 9. Key Largo Woodrat This small rodent is found only in the climax hammock vegetation on the northern portion of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. This is the only species of wood rat in South Florida. The species builds a very large stick nest on the ground which is reused and added to by successive generations. Two litters per year averaging two young per litter are produced by mature females. The major threat is habitat destruction by private and commercial development. Approximately, 700 to 800 individuals comprise the total population. The species would probably not be directly impacted from an oil spill, unless its water supplies were contaminated by oil, but heavy traffic from a major clean-up operation could harm the population. 10. Key Largo Deer Mouse This small rodent is found only in the clima' hammock vegetation on the northern portion of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. Two to three litters per year averaging four young per litter are produced. No estimate of population numbers is available. The major threat to the species is habitat destruction by private and commercial development. The mice would not be directly im- pacted from an oil spill, but heavy traffic from a major clean up operation could harm them. J-4 Whooping Crane The entirenatural breeding population of whooping cranes (now up to more than 50 birds) winters at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent parts of Matagorda and St. Joseph Islands. The birds arrive in November and leave in April. While at the wintering grounds, they feed heavily on blue crabs and other shore invertebrates, often within sight of the hea#y oil tanker traffic moving along the intra-coastal waterway. When inverte- brates are scarce, they may temporarily move inland to seek grain or freshwater invertebrates, but these are not.preferred food. Proposed ckitical habitat for the whooping crane includes Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent parts of San Antonia Bay, Espiritu Santo Bay, Matagorda Island, St. Joseph Island, Aransas Bay and Lamar Peninsula. This species could be eliminated with a major oil spill occurring in the above critical habitat. J-5 APPENDIX K. NON-RISK IMPACTS SUINP4ARY OF NON-RISK IMPACT TO TEXAS FORM THE PROPOSED SEADOCK DEEPWATER PORT Construction Impacts Onshore construction impacts will be limited to roughly 900 acres of natural habitats and pasturelands that will be devoted to the onshore oil terminal and underground pipelines leading to the term- inal . Although the area will be dramatically altered during con- struction, the overall regional environmental effects of doing so will be minimal and generally not detrimental to the health of local ecological systems. The onshore environmental impacts will be most noticeable during the one to six years necessary to complete the on- shore facilities,and will consist primarily of destruction of rela- tively small sections of natural habitats during construction activi- ties. Certain limited areas outside the immediate vicinity of the construction sites will be used for dredge spoil disposal but the overall environmental effects of that activity are also expected to be minor. The dredge spoils will be rapidly colonized by natural elements of the regional biota. The source will be true of areas devoted to underground pipelines. Offshore construction impacts will consist primarily of disruptions of the sea floor during installation of platforms, mooring buoys and submarine pipelines leading to onshore facilities. The environ- mental effects of these activities will include temporary destructions of small sections of the demersal habitat, and increases in turbidity in the water column in construction areas. These will be short term effects, however, that will end with termination of construction. The disturbed sections of the ocean floor will be recolonized im- mediately by the local beuthic fanna. The overall effects of the offshore construction upon both the demersal and pelagic biota of the construction area will be insignificant and probably not measur- able. Effects of construction upon ambient water quality conditions will be minor and will cease with completion of the offshore facility. Operation and Maintainance Impacts The environmental effects of operating the SEADOCK facilities should be minimal. Wastewaters generated on platforms in the docking area will be discharged into the ocean in an ecologically harmless fashion. Solid wastes will be transported ashore for appropriate treatment and disposal. Waste materials generated at the onshore facility will also be treated and disposed in a manner meeting EPA waste disposal standards, hence will not cause ecological problems. It will be possible to main- tain the facilities with virtually no adverse effects upon surround- ing environmental systems. @ N@j @ fl@@,[@N 1@1111@f ll @1111 11111, 3 6668 14102 4044