HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCS_OIL_GAS_LEASING11111111 1111 11111111 lillill 11111111111111111111
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
0 o y C+ \
MINUTES
September 28, 1987
(b) Julie F. Waugen for personal
injuries, Orange County Superior
Court, Case No. 51-16-09. Claim
was denied by City Council on July
14, 1987.
Waugen
8. RE�UEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES: (66)
(Report from the City Manager)
\CO
Utilities Specialist
I Department.
(b) ALibrary Clerk I,
Lartment.
9. STAFF SION REPORTS -
For Cormation and approval:
(a) Report from a Planning Department CDBG/HAP
recommending transmittal of (1) a (87)
one-year HOUSIN ASSISTANCE PLAN
(HAP); and (2) t e 1986-87 Grantee
Performance Repor to the
DEPARTMENT OF HOUS NG AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) a required by
HUD in order to rece ve next year's
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $LOCK GRANT
FUNDS. \
(b) Memorandum from City Libr rian Library
recommending acceptance of it
(50)
Dukane Filmstrip/Cassette Projector
to the Newport Beach Public Projector
(Mariners Branch) from Madelin@
Foreman. \
(c) Report from the City Attorney Lido Is C/A
regarding construction of planter (33)
in street -end and leased to Lido
Isle Community Association.
(d) Reoort from the _City Manager OCS/Gas
concerning opposition_to.the OCS Leasg
OIL_AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM. (87)
(e) Report to the City Manager IPlanning
regarding ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER (68)
0, 1987.
Volume 41 - Page 366
r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
ti 3
J1G�y�`GJ�
September 28, 1987
'ALL INDEX
(d) Application to Present Late Claim
Friend
of Robert Friend alleging personal
injuries as a result of fall when
his bicycle wheels went into storm
drain grate that was near "A"
Street and Main Intersection on May
24, 1987.
( Rena Kerr alleging personal
Kerr
injuries as a result of trip and
fall on raised sidewalk at 607
Marguerite and Pacific Coast
ighway on June 10, 1987.
(f) lliam F. Mattson alleging City
Mattson
P ice Department had his vehicle
to ad away in error (claimant
pur hased overnight parking permit
for he subject location) from the
Rend s parking lot on June 3,
1987.
(g) Elly-sa McKeever alleging
McKeever
persoinjuries as a result of
slip fall near 2765 N. Anchor
Stree( orner of Domingo and
Amigon June 4, 1987.
(h) DavidMi ler for Rusty Miller
Miller
allegLi guard Jeep ran over
claim's p sonal belongings,
\be
seekieimb rsement for
presction g asses which were
brokeAugus 17, 1987.
(i) Sharond Louis H. Wolf, Jr., for
Wolf
persoinjuries as a result of
beingruck by g f cart in golf
coursunnel, all ging poor
lightconditions at Newport
Beachlf Course, 00 Irvine
Avenuon June 6, 1 \\87.
(j) Villa Balboa Associatipa for
Villa Bal
damages to property to ted at 220
Assn
and 240 Nice Lane, 260, 270, 280
and 950 Cagney Lane,
7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For d nial and
(36)
confirmation of the City Clerk'
referral to the claims adjuster:
(a) Ray H. Highwarden for person 1
Highwarden
injuries and property damage,
Orange County Superior Court, ase
No. 53-28-98. Claim was denie by
City Council on July 13, 1987.
Volume 41 - Page 365
14
COUNCIL AGENDA NO. F-9(d)
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
September 28, 1987
TOt MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT; OCS LEGAL CHALLENGE
Three years ago local jurisdictions in Central
and Northern California contributed to a fund for the
purpose of challenging test drilling in the Outer Continental
Shelf. This program was very successful inasmuch as the
applicants for test drilling withdrew their proposal rather
than litigate it.
• There is a balance of approximately $15,000 in
this fund administered by the County of Santa Cruz. Mr.
Richard Charter, who has been active with the cities in the
past to oppose OCS drilling, has suggested that we join a
pool effort to oppose Interior Secretary Hodel's new Five-
year OCS oil and gas leasing program. It appears at this
stage that Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, San Clemente, and
possibly Orange County, will join as recommended by Mr.
Charter. It is my belief that we should join this coalition
at a cost of only $200.00. Attached, is Mr. Charter's pro-
posal.
0
Attachment
2
ROBvv /
ERT L. WYNN
0
NO
September 16, 1987 REC
(Urgent)
SEEP Z
To: Local Officials Interested in Litigation
Over Hodel 5—Year OCS Program
From: Richard Charter �, G
Re: Opportunity to Join Suit Challenging Interior Department
A number of'local elected officials have asked me if it is possible.for local
jurisdictions to join with the State of California in -.pursuing litigation challenging
Interior Secretary Hodel's new Five —Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
The purpose of this communication is to recommend that local agencies promptly take
steps to act jointly with Attorney General John'Van deKamp, who has filed suit
challenging the OCS Program on behalf of the people of California, the State Lands
Commission, and the California Coastal Commission. While the Governor has not joined
in this suit, the states of Oregon, Washington, Florida, and Massachusetts have filed
similar actions, as have several environmental organizations from around the country.
I believe that it is important for California local agencies to pursue all available
avenues, including the courts, in attempting to moderate Interior's agressive OCS
leasing plans. This is particularly true in the likely event that we once again need
isto return to the Congressional arena requesting moratorium protection through the
Appropriations process next year. Congress is going to want to restore the moratorium
only as a last resort, and for local jurisdictions to forgo the opportunity to mount a
legal challenge tends to send out the wrong message.
I am fully cognizant of the significant fiscal constraints facing local governments at
this time. For this reason, I am going to suggest a scenario which I believe can
result in low cost, and in some specific instances no cost, collective legal
representation which will enable strong local participation in this suit.
Approximately three years ago, local jurisdictions in central and northern California
contributed jointly to a legal defense fund for the purpose of challenging the planned
McClelland Engineers program of test .drilling offshore. This legal fund was utilized
to retain the San Francisco law firm of Roger Beers to challenge the various permits
acquired by McClelland Engineers for conducting their test drilling program. As you
are all aware, our legal and administrative challenges to the McClelland proposal were
very successful, and the applicants eventually withdrew their proposal altogeter.
The balance of the original legal war chest established to fight the McClelland
proposal is still in existence, administered by the County of Santa Cruz. This
account contains adequate funds (approximately $15•,000) which could readily be
•redirected for the purposes of mounting a challenge to the Hodel Five —Year OCS
Program. The original and continuing purpose of this fund has been,for the legal
defense of coastal resources threatened by offshore drilling impacts. It is my
recommendation that those agencies which contributed to the fund originally now
authorize that the remaining funds be utilized for the purpose of retaining the Roger
Beers ffhm to act as counsel in a local government challenge to Hodel's Five —Year OCS
Leasing Program. Legal intervention on behalf of local governments will not cost more
than $10,000 collectively, so it is clear that the present funds available will be
more than adequate for this purpose.
Additional local agencies which were beyond the geographic influence of the original
McClelland Engineers drilling plan may now want to also join in the suit on the
1FJ.ve4ear OCS Program. It seems logical to me that these additional agencies wishing
tomchallenge the Hodel OCS Program could also be accomodated at this time simply by
formally authorizing their participation and contributing to the fund.
•For this scenario to come together, a number of prompt actions need to be taken by
your board or council to assure that your agency is included as a named intervenor in
this action. Our papers will need to be filed by September 28, which means that we
need to know who all of our players will be by Friday, September 25.
If your agency was an original financial contributor to We McClelland Engineers legal
fund, all your board or council will,need to do is:
(1) Send a letter authorizing redirection of your remaining portion of the McClelland
Engineers legal fund.to a legal challenge to'the DOI Five —Year OCS Program to: Mr.
Dwight Herr, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA
95060.
(2) Send a copy of this letter to Mr. Roger Beers, Attorney at Law, 380 Hayes Street,
Suite One, San Francisco, CA 94102.
(3) Telephone Richard Charter at (707)875-3482 with notification of your intent to
participate.
If your agency was not a.participant in the original McClelland Engineers test
drilling suit, you will need to do the following quite quickly:
(1) Send a letter authorizing your participation in the suit challenging the DOI
Five —Year OCS Program to Mr. Dwight Herr, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz, 701
•Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.
(2) Send a copy of this letter to Mr. Roger Beers, Attorney at Law','380 Hayes Street,
Suite One, San Francisco, CA 94102.
(3) Forward your funding share to Mary Ann- Johnson, CA0 Olffice,:County of Santa
Cruz, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. The suggested funding guidelines for
new participants for the initial action are $2000 per County and $200 per City.
(4) Immediately telephone Richard Charter at (707)875-3482 with notification of your
intent to participate.
As I mentioned, for this to come together in time, prompt action will be required on
your part. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions about this
action.
Agencies which have already contributed to McClelland legal fund:
Counties:
Cities:
Pacific Grove
Monterey
Arcata
San Mateo
Capitols
Santa Cruz
.
Pt.Arena
Mendocino
Del Mar
Sonoma
Salinas
Monterey
Carmel
Santa Monica
Santa Cruz
A.M.B.A.G.
•
•
C]
Sacramorew. CA
(Sac G1Cr1vn-to Co.)
EEL`
(Csr. D. 2�%39290)
dCir. S. 274,i00j,•
AUG 2 0 1987 I
,Allen f P. C. B ' r". 1888 l
State officials to sod
over coastal oil plait
1
McCarthy, Davis a majority
on lands body;,
By Rick Kushman
Bee Capitol Bureau
.:• .
t
Two members of the state Lands
It will jeopardlZPr,,, Y
Commission said Wednesday that
our
they will sue the U.S. Department of
the Interior to block the leasing of
i
environmentally
huge tracts off the California. coast
I
for oil and gas exploration.
t
sensitive maritime
Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy and state
Controller Gray Davis, who reprc-
'
ecosystems and ==- i :
sent two-thirds of the commission,
said they will file suit in federal
our economical) X '
court by the end of August to stop
U.S. Interior Secretary Donald Mo-
VItaI tourism and'., t
del's plan to lease up to 19 million
T
acres for drilling, a plan they culled
fishing industry. y'
a "wholesale giveaway to the oil
companies."
_ Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy ••I.
It will -jeopardize our environ-
mentally sensitive maritime ecosys-
tems and our economically vital
ing to block the leases. But Inteli6t
tourism and fishing industry," said
Department spokesman Bob Walker
McCarthy, a candidate for the 1988
said he expects the courts to upprdvd
Democratic U.S. Senate nomination,
Model's plan. 1.
at a Capitol press conference. "And
"We were sued on our last
fivg;,
the problems endemic off -she
year plan, and the courts upheldll,";
oil drilling will impact a entire
Walker said. "We carefully obsecvett;
state."
all the requirements of environmen-
Davis, also a Democrat, said one
tal law and went through extraordl+
of his concerns is that the liodel de-
nary efforts in working up this plan.*,
cision "appears to be a deathbed act"
McCarthy and Davis said they be.
of a Republican administration cum-
lieve the environmental studies.11u,
ing to the end of its term.
del conducted do nut meet required.
Hodel announced his plan in April
standards because they dd not•in.1
to offer 759 million acres for drilling
elude the impact on coastal ecuuo••
;long coasts from New England to
rates, air quality and onshore'
Alaska by 1992 . The first tracts In
ecosystems.
California are scheduled to be of-
"hopefully, we will win on'tht`
fered starting in 1989 and could con-
merits," Davis said. "but at the very
tain more than 2 billion barrels of
least, it will allow time fora new adi
oil, according to Interior Depart-
ministration to come into power and
ment estimates.
hopefully take a more benign and,
Model has argued that the leases
enlightened view of the coast slates.'^
are vital to national security, espe.
The third Lands Commission
cially in light of declining domestic
member. Deukmejian administra!
oil production. The Interior Depart-
aon Finance Director Jesse duff.'
nlent estimate~ Thal 17 billion bar-
had no comment oil the suit. '
rely of oil — equal to half of the
But McCarthy and Davis said they
existing U.S. of reserves — can be
will ask Attorney /,enertl John von
found in the areas Ilodcl wants to of-
De Kamp today to handle the suit;
ter for lease.
because that decistun requires only'
One other state, Florida, is also so-
a majority vote , .
_,
to sues U.S. in bid Suit Filed to Be
ago st offshore plans
By Carol Bentell s•
The Tribe"
SAN FRANCISCO — As se
lions barked in the distance an
waves battered the rocks below,
state Attorney General John Van
de Kamp stood beside San Fran-
cisco's famed Cliff House and
announced he had filed a lawsuit
to stop federal plans for new oil'
drilling off the California c 39V.1 —
"If (Secretary of the Interior)
Hodel has his way, (those) who
stand here . will soon Ve
watching oil derricks and smell-
ing the fumes of offshore drill-
ing," Van de Kamp said.
The lawsuit, filed yesterday in
the U.S. Court of -Appeals in
Washington. D.C., alleges Hodel
acted "arbitrarily and capri-
ciously" in deciding to open 6.5
million acres of California off-
shore lands for oil development
during the next five years, be-
ginning with the Mendocino
coast in 1989.
The suit asks the court to re-
view and reject the plan and re-
quire Hodel to come up with a
different one.
Van de Kamp acknowledged
that the Reagan administration,
including Hodel, will probably
be out of office before the law-
suit is resolved.
Gov. Deukmejian has not
joined in the lawsuit, Van de
Kamp said. "They (the adminis-
tration) have said they do not
think this is the way to go and
prefer to negotiate with Hodel:'
Among other things, the suit
claims Hodel failed to consider.
reasonable alternatives to off-
;,•,; shore drilling and based his de-
%' ision to allow drilling on an in -
a adequate and biased environ-
d mental impact report.
The leasing program will "un-
necessarily and improperly
place at risk environmentally
sensitive portions of the Califor-
nia coastline, threaten the air
quality of communities located
along the California coast, en-
danger major commercial and
sport fisheries (and) adversely
impact marine mammal and
bird. -populations," the suit al-
leges.
Officials with the Department
of the Interior's regional office
in Los Angeles could not be
reached for comment.
However, in announcing the
five-year lease plan in February,
Hodel said it was "necessary,
and in the best interests of the
nation to proceed with a bal-
anced and certain federal oil and
gas leasing program offshore
California."
"Failure to do so puts not just
California, but the entire nation,
one step closer to being held cap.
tive by a foreign oil cartel," Hod -
el said.
The Van de Kamp suit is
brought on behalf of the people
of California, the state Lands
Commission and the California
Coastal Commission.
Similar suits have been filed
within the last few days by four
other coastal states — Oregon,
Washington, Florida and Massa-
chusetts — and eight environ-
mental and fishery organiza-
tions.
'1 -1" By Date Champion
'Nine environmental organi-
zations sued yesterday to invali-
date Secretary of Interior Don-
ald Hodel's five-year plan for
widespread oil and a tg_asing
f� in the waters off California and -
four other states.
The action brought in the U.S.
Court of Appeals in Washington,
D,C., was expected to be followed
with the filing of similar legal
moves today by five coastal states:
California, Oregon, Washington,
Massachusetts and Florida.
California Attorney General
i John Van de Kamp has scheduled a
.press conference hereto announce
a petition filed on behalf of his of-
fice, the Coastal Commission and
the State Lands Commission.
"The basis for our challenge,"
said Deputy Attorney General John
Saurenman, "is going to he that the
environmental.' eff4cts of Hodel's
leasing program have been inade-
quately analyzed. The plan will put
at risk sensitive areas off Humboldt,
Mendocino, Sonoma, San Mateo and
San Luis Obispo counties."
Monday is the deadline for peti.
tions. to be filed in the Court of
Appeals against Hodel's proposal
for opening 750 million acres, in-
cluding 6.5 million off the Califor-
nia coast, to drilling.
Taking the lead in the court
attack on the leasing plan was the -
Natural Resources Defense Council,
a major national environmental or.
ganization. It was joined by the San
11al
two other California groups, the Pa-
cific Coast Federation of Fisher-
men's Associations and Friends of
the Sea Otter. Other organizations
joining in filing suit were the Con-
servation Law Foundation of New
England, Florida Public Interest Re-
search Group, Greenpeace, Oregon
Natural Resources Council and
Trustees for Alaska.
"We are asking the court to In-
validate the entire five-year leasing .
program and to send Secretary of
Interior Hodel back to the drawing
hoard," said James Thornton, a San
Francisco attorney with the Natural
Resources Defense Council
"Hodel's 'drain Amerfca first'
plan will not secure the nation's en-
er;y future. The Interior Depart—
ment's own estimates show that
leasing off northern and central .
California, Georges Bank, Bristol
Bay, Washington, Oregon and the
Straits of Florida, all together, will
generate no more than 41 das of oil
at curreni levels of consumption;' '
Thornton said. .
The lawsuit specifically con-
tended that Hodel had not complied ;
with a legal requirement to balance .
the potential for adverse coastal im-
pacts with the potential for discov-
ery of oil and gas resources.
Bob Walker, speaking for Hod -
el. said it was premature to assert ;
that sensitive ocean areas were in
jeopardy because the Interior De-
partment has not yet decided where
specifically to allow drilling. Before
a lease sale can be made, he said, '
studies, taking up to two years, must
4_ .._... .
' D
C
M
LV
co
to
avo
This document is on the disk as EIS.WPF (for WordPerfect 4.2)
and EIS.STR (for WordStar 3.3). It should be sent to the
following address:
Debra Purvis
Minerals Management Service, Mail Stop 644
381 Elden Street
Herndon, Virginia 22070
The package it is sent in should be marked as follows:
"Scoping comments on the Proposed 5-Year
Leasing Program EIS"
The package should be sent so that it will be received by August
28, 1989
Y RECE,
nrr g8 D
AU02 j �989 Z
Nay RTEr
CACIjr. 0H
Comments
of the
County of Orange
City of Huntington Beach
City of Newport Beach
City of Laguna Beach
City of Dana Point
City of San Clemente
on the
Scone of the Environmental Impact Statement
for the New 5-Year
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Oil and Gas Leasing Program
The County of Orange, California, and the Cities of
Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, and
San Clemente offer the following comments in response to the
Request for Comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact
Statement for the new 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil
and Gas Leasing Program published by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Minerals Management Service at 54 Fed. Rea. 29831 et
sea. (July 14, 1988).
For the reasons described below and in the accompanying
technical reports, these jurisdictions are opposed to any oil and
gas leasing, exploration, development, or production -in the
waters off orange County between the mean high water mark and
Santa Catalina Island. (The accompanying technical reports are
incorporated into these summary comments by reference.)
"Accordingly, these jurisdictions recommend that the "Proposed
Action" in the environmental impact statement specifically
exclude leasing in this area.
Southern California is a non -attainment area with respect to
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Exploration, development, and production from the area offshore
of Orange County will create significant new sources of air
pollution in a severely overburdened air basin. Meteorological
conditions found offshore of Orange County, coupled with the
large quantity of pollutants emitted by offshore oil and gas
operations indicates that OCS operations off Orange County will
exacerbate an already bad situation. This conclusion is
confirmed by experience with other OCS development projects in
Southern California.
Winds in the Orange County area are driven by the dominant
land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind pattern are
dominated by daytime on -shore sea breezes. At night the wind
generally slows and reverses direction, traveling toward the sea.
This pattern means that any air pollutants produced by offshore
operations will tend to be blown onshore during the day. At
night breezes are offshore, but at lesser speeds, meaning that
pollutants will not be pushed away from the population centers
of Orange County at night.
The Southern California Association of Governments has
calculated that a single average -size platform will emit 200 tons
per year of NOx during the development phase. This is more than
the combined NOx emissions of 184.4 tons each year from the Long
Beach and Orange County airports. If OCS operations are allowed
off Orange County, some method must be found for compensating for
the emissions resulting from them, given that the air quality in
the South Coast Air Basin is so poor. A better alternative than
compensating for OCS emissions onshore is not to generate the OCS
emissions at all: Do not lease the Orange County OCS and do not
allow exploration, development, or production to occur there.
The Department of the Interior's regulations regarding air
pollution from OCS exploration, development, and production are
no solution to the problem. In fact, they exacerbate it. They
grant an exemption to lessees with emissions of less than 100
tons per year for each air pollutant. This exemption level
increases with the distance of the pollution source from the
shore with a ratio of 33.3 times the distance from the shore in
miles.
The basis for the distance based formula is not sound.
Several studies have indicated that dispersion of emissions over
water is substantially less than occurs over land, due to both
the relatively smooth contours of the sea surface and the lack of
significant temperature differences over the surface. Thus the
implicit assumption that emissions farther from shore will have
less of an effect is not scientifically supported.
Moreover, the exemption level is very close to the emissions
that result from uncontrolled operations from a single platform.
As a result, some platforms may be downsized or so controlled as
to barely meet the exemption threshold. This results in less
than full mitigation of platform emissions.
These shortcomings in the regulatory structure will result
in substantial adverse effects on onshore air quality. For
example, ozone impacts increase downwind from the emissions
source due to the chemical reactions that take place in the
atmosphere as the pollutants move. Unregulated emissions
offshore may increase onshore ozone levels since the dominant
wind direction from the subject blocks generally is onshore.
2
Importantly, the further offshore the emissions source is, the
worse the problem onshore may be because of the increased
exemption thresholds and the greater distance over which chemical
reactions may take place.
As already noted, the South Coast Air Basin can be
characterized as having seriously degraded air quality. Ambient
levels of pollution generally are far above levels at which
serious health effects occur. The impacts of each stage of OCS
operations can be very substantial, with even a single project
resulting in violations of federal and state ambient air quality
standards.
The county and the coastal cities depend to a substantial
degree (as will be described more fully later) on the recreation
and tourism industries fostered in significant part by the
relatively clean air at the shore. A key characteristic of the
clean air at the Orange County coast is that it is dominated by
winds from the south and southwest, that is, from offshore.
Adding a major source of pollutants directly upwind from the
coastal cities by opening the Orange County OCS to oil and gas
exploration, development, and production will degrade the air
quality in the coastal zone of the county and have a deleterious
effect on the economies of the county and the coastal cities.
For these reasons, the blocks between the mean high water
mark and Santa Catalina Island should not be offered for leasing
or opened to OCS oil and gas exploration, development, and
production and they should be excluded from the 5-year leasing
program.
0
on the Orange County OCS.
Orange County has a 42 mile coastline that provides
substantial resources for the development of recreation and
tourist dependent economies. Within Orange County's coastal
region there are five state beaches, one state park, sixteen
county beaches, seven marine life refuges, three ecological
reserves, and three pleasure craft harbors. These resources are
used by local residents and provide a tourist destination for
visitors from other parts of the state, the country, and the
world. r
In addition to the opportunities for recreation and a
tranquil respite that the physical geography of the coastal zone
provides, it also provides a basis for many businesses. For.
example, in San Clemente alone approximately 50 retailers are
directly linked to marine related activities.
According to a recent study, coastal tourism generated $637
million in Orange County coastal communities. Numerous studies
have shown that coastal recreationists and tourists place a high
value on the aesthetic benefits of the coast, including pristine
views, clean air, and lack of industrialization. For example,'
tourists staying at the Ritz -Carlton hotel in Laguna Nigel pay
from $185 to $335 per night, depending on the location and view.
Tourists are willing to pay the $150 premium for a direct ocean
view accommodation due to the benefits they gain from seeing the
beauty of the ocean.
The high premium that tourists and recreationists place on
the aesthetics of the coast, and with it the large amount of
money that they generate for the local communities and the
region, are likely to be reduced by the opening of the Orange
County OCS for oil and gas exploration, development, and
production. Recent surveys have shown that resident and non-
resident beach users would return 17 to 35% less if their views
were degraded by oil and gas platforms. If these figures are
representative of Orange County beach users as a whole, this
could mean an annual reduction of $108 million to $223 million
out of the $637 million spent each year by coastal tourists in
the County. These surveys indicate that there may be changes in
the spending patterns for those who do return to the beaches as
those returning may tend to be younger and less educated.
In addition to the losses to the local economy from
recreation and tourist dependent sectors, recent studies indicate
that coastal property values may decline as the views of the
ocean are degraded by increased air pollution and the presence of
platforms. A survey of residents of Orange County indicated that
they expected some effect on their property values from oil and
gas activities on the OCS, with an average decline of 6% being
indicated. If this is representative of the total coastal
population of Orange County, this would be a substantial negative
effect that would far exceed the benefit to be gained from the
oil and gas operations.
Beyond these market losses to the economy, the aesthetic
resources damaged would result in non -market losses to those who
use them. Again referring to the recent surveys of Orange County
recreationists and tourists, there is substantial evidence that
visits to beaches whose views include platforms are valued less
by both residents and tourists. These surveys indicate that the
lost aesthetic value for offshore oil development for each person
who visits the beach in Orange County would be $24.61 per year
for residents. The equivalent loss for tourists (who visit the
beach many fewer times per year than do residents) would be $2.50
per person per year. Multiplying these values by the appropriate
user populations would produce very substantial losses from oil
and gas operations.
4
Other economic losses may result in Orange County from
opening the Orange County OCS to leasing and the concomitant
exploration, development, and production. Air quality damages
may result, including property damages, health damages, and
aesthetic and intrinsic values lost if air quality is reduced due
to OCS operations. Studies of economic losses attached to air
quality damages in Los Angeles County have shown that they are
indeed significant, and similar losses should be expected in
Orange County.
Costs could be expected from lost recreation value in the
event of an oil spill. For example, the Santa Barbara oil spill
resulted in about $10 million in recreation losses, based on
studies using relatively crude analytic techniques. Importantly,
this spill occurred in the winter when such losses would be
expected to be at their lowest. Many recreation dependent
businesses in Prince William Sound in Alaska are reporting losses
of half or more of their business due to the recent oil spill
there. Current state-of-the-art statistical techniques likely
would show substantial losses in recreation amenity values,
aesthetic values, and intrinsic values.
Based on these factors, the Orange County OCS should not be
opened for oil and gas operations. The likely damages to both
market values (as reflected in recreation and tourism
expenditures and in property values) and non -market values are
too high to justify taking the action of allowing oil and gas
exploration, development, and production to proceed in this
area.
The waters of the Orange County OCS between the mean high
water mark and Santa Catalina Island include areas that are
significant fishing grounds in important recreational and
commercial fisheries. Opening this area to OCS oil and gas
activities will interfere with these fisheries and exacerbate the
cumulative effects of other oil and gas related fisheries
losses.
Many of the commercial fishermen that rely in part on the
fisheries found in the Orange County OCS area are residents of
Orange County. Of the 156 licenced commercial fishermen who
reside in Orange County, only 47 have fishing vessels registered
in the County. The boats the remaining commercial fishermen who
mainly are docked in Oceanside and San Pedro/Long Beach.
Fishermen use a variety of fishing methods. Major gear
5
types include hook and line, trap, drift and set gill net, purse
seine, lampara, and harpoon.
Hook and Line
Hook and line gear is used to harvest rockfish, sablefish,
white croaker, bonito, bottom and sand sharks, and thornyhead.
The lines may be stationary or drift for short distances over
deep water rocky outcrops or hard seafloor.
Hook and line fisheries may be affected by OCS oil and gas
operations in a number of ways. Geophysical surveys affect
rockfish eggs and larvae and fish behavior, and drilling muds and
cuttings cover and contaminate rockfish habitat. Also, rockfish
and sablefish may be susceptible to damage from oil spills. Hook
and liners. have to abandon fishing in areas where geophysical
surveys and exploratory drilling are taking place, and sometimes
lose gear because of gear marker buoys are cut off by transiting
support vessels. Fishing grounds are lost by being blocked by
platforms and associated buoys.
Set Gill Net
Set gill nets primarily are used to fish for halibut, white
sea bass, and shark. They generally are set in shallow water no
deeper than 40 fathoms (240 feet). Rockfish may be caught in set
gill nets in waters as deep as 200 fathoms (1200 feet).
Set gill nets may be affected by oil spills, drilling
discharges, and geophysical surveys. Transiting support vessels
can cut off gear marker buoys. If substantial amounts -of gear
are lost there may an impact on the resource since the derelict
gear will continue fishing until it deteriorates, a process that
can take many years. Fishing areas may be blocked by geophysical
survey activity, exploratory drilling vessels, and construction,,
operation, and abandonment of platforms and pipelines.
Trap Fishery
Southern California trap fishermen target Pacific spiny
lobster, rock crab, and shrimp. The traps are marked by surface
buoys and are set either individually (for lobster and crab) or
are connected by lines (for shrimp). The traps are baited and
are set for a few days, retrieved, and then reset. Trapping for
lobster occurs out to 15 fathoms (90 feet), while crab trapping
occurs out to 30 fathoms (180 feet). Shrimp trapping occurs out
to 100 fathoms (600 feet).
Shellfish have been demonstrated to be harmed by oil spills,
drilling discharges, and possibly by geophysical surveys.
Trapping activity could be harmed by vessel traffic, and
1.1
m
displaced by exploratory drilling vessels, and by construction,
operation, and abandonment of platforms and pipelines.
Drift Gill Net Fishery
Drift gill nets are floating walls of netting that are held
vertical in the water column by weights and buoys and are
attached to the fishing vessel. They can be up to a mile in
length. The sets last from two hours after sunset to two hours
after sunrise. After the nets are deployed the vessel drifts, is
subject to winds and currents, and cannot maneuver until the net
has been retrieved. The boats and nets travel an average of six
miles per set with in a range of two to fifteen miles per set.
The majority of drift gill netters fish for thresher shark and
swordfish.
Biological impacts to the fisheries can occur from oil
spills, geophysical surveys, and drilling discharges. Because
the boats and nets require such large expanses of ocean to
operate and cannot maneuver while the nets are deployed,
performance impacts to the fishery can be great. The boats and
gear would be precluded by geophysical surveys, drilling vessels
and related anchor lines, construction, operation, and
abandonment of platforms and pipelines, and transiting vessels.
Fishermen would risk drifting into offshore vessels and
structures unless they avoid the obstacles and surrounding waters
in area equal to the distance of the sets. This can have the
effect of closing off entire drift gill net areas.
Harpoon Fishery
Harpoon fishermen target swordfish generally in the same
areas that shark/swordfish drift gill netters use. Because thy
use harpoons rather than nets to catch the fish they require
smaller areas in which to operate and their boats are quite
maneuverable as they chase their prey. Many boats use airplanes
to aid in locating the fish.
Biological impacts to the harpoon fishery can come from oil
spills, geophysical surveys, and drilling discharges.
Performance impacts could be caused by surveys, drilling vessels,
construction, operation, and abandonment of platforms, and
pipelines blocking access to fishing areas. Transiting vessels
could interfere with the fishing boats, and OCs-related
helicopter traffic could interfere with spotter aircraft
activities.
Purse seine Fishery
Purse seiners generally target pelagic species,
concentrating on anchovy, mackerel, sardine, and bonito. These
schooling fish range over wide areas and do not depend greatly on
7
bottom topography or seabottom conditions. Purse seiners fish by
locating a school of fish and then launching a skiff to drag a
net around the school and then back to the vessel. The purse
line of the net is rapidly winched to close the bottom of the net
and prevent the fish from escaping. Purse seiners operate from
Monterey to the Mexican border and out to 100 miles offshore.
Favored areas include the nearshore waters between Huntington
Beach and San Onofre. Other areas also are popular with purse
seiners.
Biological impacts to purse seine fisheries could come from
oil spills, geophysical surveys, and drilling discharges.
Performance impacts could come from preclusion from favored
fishing areas by survey activity, drill rigs and associated
anchors and lines, and construction, operation, and abandonment
of platforms and pipelines. Vessels and gear could run afoul of
transiting support vessels, and nets could be snagged on seafloor
obstructions and debris.
Recreational Fisheries
Virtually the entire Southern California shoreline and
nearshore waters are used by recreational fishermen. In the
Orange County OCS, fishermen target such species as rockfish,
white sea bass, sea bass, barracuda, sand bass, bonito, mackerel,
yellowtail, and sculpin.
Biological impacts to these fisheries could come from oil
spills, geophysical surveys, and drilling discharges.
Performance impacts could come from preclusion of areas due to
geophysical surveys, drilling vessels, and platforms.
The Orange County OCS is subject to numerous geological
hazards and constraints that will affect OCS oil and gas
operations in the area. These include seismic activity,
faulting, seafloor instability, steep slopes, shallow gas, and
hydrocarbon seeps. As described below, these hazards and
constraints add to the risks associated with offshore oil and gas
operations and contribute to the conclusion that the Orange
County OCS is not a suitable area for offshore oil and gas
operations.
Seismic Activ_it
Seismic activity of the Southern California offshore region
imposes certain potential hazards on offshore platform
structures. Ground movement and seafloor ruptures are examples
M
m
of immediate and direct hazards, while indirect hazards include
tsunamis, liquification, and mass movement of sediment. The
Orange County OCS is located in the Continental Borderland
geomorphic province, which is characterized by scattered
interbasin lows bounded by ridges and plateaus that locally
extend above sea level as islands. For the past ten million
years the continental borderland has been an integral past of a
complex boundary between the Pacific plate to the west and the
American plate to the east. Both of these plates are in motion,
which translates into earthquake activity at this boundary.
The Orange County OCS area has been subject to numerous
earthquakes in historic times. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone,
which runs through the area, has generated a number of
significant earthquakes, including earthquakes in 1812 (magnitude
6.9), 1920 (4.7), 1933 (6.2, with 12 aftershocks of magnitude 5
or greater), 1941 (4.9), and 1941 (5.4).
Recent studies have shown that the area is subject to
earthquakes with magnitudes up to 7.3. Ground movement could be
as high as 0.6 g. There is a ten percent chance of horizontal
movement as high as 0.37 g and a 90 percent chance of 0.12 g
growth in peak horizontal acceleration. Major earthquakes could
produce disastrous tsunamis. Tsunamis are particularly
dangerous close to shore since they tend to increase in height as
they enter shallower water. For example, a three foot wave at
sea can increase to 60 feet high in shallow water under the right
conditions.
The entire Orange County OCS is subject to the effects of
seismic activity. These can include damage to and loss of
platforms and pipelines, possibly resulting in loss of life and
oil spills.
Faulting
An active fault is any fault rupture which shows evidence of
displacing Holocene age sediments or historic seismic activity.
Three major fault systems run through the Orange County OCS.
These are the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the San Clemente
fault, and the Palos Verdes fault zone. The Newport -Inglewood
fault is partly concealed beneath shelf and slope deposits, but
is an active fault comprised of a family of discontinuous but
parallel fault segments. It runs along the mainland coastal
shelf. The San Clemente fault lies farther offshore and runs
near San Clemente Island. The Palos Verdes fault also lies
farther offshore. It is an active fault cutting Holocene
sediment having as much as nine feet of displacement at the base
of the section and having a three foot scarp in the sea£loor. No
single fault trace continues for any great distance but instead
the Palos Verdes fault in made up of a system of lesser fault
traces.
0
These faults should be avoided in order to reduce the risks
associated with faulting including seafloor instability,
liquification, and tsunamis. The consequences of these include
damage to or loss of pipelines and platforms, possibly resulting
in loss of life and oil spills.
Seafloor Instability
seafloor instability arises from the tendency of water -
saturated, incoherent sediment cover on slopes to move down
gradients•in response to gravity. Slopes with gradients of less
that four percent have been shown to be subject to movement of
sediments. The shelf break area between Newport Beach and Dana
Point has been the primary area of past slope instability. In.
submarine canyons the problem of seafloor instability is
particularly acute since they generally are in close proximity to
sources of sediments and have relatively steep slope angles.
Canyons channel rapid mass transport of sediments from higher
shelf regions to the lower depths of the ocean floor. These
movements, often triggered by earthquakes, are sometimes
catastrophic, moving very large quantities of sediments at high
speeds.
The seafloor of the Orange County OCS is cut by major
submarine canyons, including the Newport Canyon. Numerous
smaller canyons are found in the area as well.
Sediment movement in canyons and elsewhere has been shown to
be a significant risk to platforms and pipelines. Major sediment
movements could destroy platforms and rupture pipelines. Loss of
life and oil spills could result from such episodes.
Steep Slopes
steep slopes and steep -walled canyons, with a degree of
inclination greater than ten degrees are considered to be
potential hazards. Like areas of sediment instability, steep
slopes are unstable'and are likely sites of mass transport.
Starting at the 100 meter bathymetric line, the shelf region
descends rapidly to a depth of 250 meters. The slope is
moderate, at about five degrees, and in some scattered places is
steep. Steep slopes also occur in the submarine canyons
described above, and at local mounds and knolls. These steep
slope areas are likely sites of sediment transport and can bring
about the same problems as described above with respect to
seafloor instability. '
Shallow Gas and Hydrocarbon Seeps
Shallow gas pockets buried in sediment cover on the ocean
floor reduce the shear strength of the enclosing sediment,
10
increasing the potential for failure. In addition this gas -
bearing sediment is more prone to liquification during violent
ground movement associated with earthquakes. Sometimes
hydrocarbon/gas bubbles that emanate from faults originate from
hydrocarbon accumulations at great depth and seep to the surface
along paths of weakness. Alternatively, these seeps can suggest
a region of overpressurized conditions and a reduction in the
sediments' load -bearing capacity.
Shallow gas zones and hydrocarbon seeps occur at various
scattered locations throughout the Orange County OCS. Drilling
in shallow gas zones can result in gas flow rapidly becoming
uncontrollable. If not handled properly, it can result in
cratering at the seafloor and ultimately collapse of the platform
into the crater.
The Orange County OCS is rich in important biological
resources and habitats. The coastline in the area is
characterized by some of the least disturbed coastal wetlands in
Southern California. The area also has rich and diverse
intertidal habitats, kelp forests, and pelagic habitats. The
most noticeable inhabitants of these habitats are numerous
seabirds and marine mammals, but these areas contain a wealth of
planktonic, nektonic, and benthic species as well. All of these
contribute to an important and valuable natural environment.
Offshore oil and gas operations would subject the living
resources of the orange County OCS, and their habitats, to
unwarranted risk of damage from even routine OCS oil and gas
operations. For example, the water column is subject to oil
spills, other water pollutants, noise, air gun blasts, vessel
traffic, and disruption from structure emplacement and removal
and other operations. These agents will affect bacteria
throughout the water column, and at the water surface will affect
some plankton, invertebrates, fish, surface feeding birds, and
marine mammals. In the near surface zone these agents will
affect phytoplankton, zooplankton, (including protozoa, eggs and
larvae of benthic and nektonic forms), invertebrates such as
squids, and pelagic red crabs, fish, both juvenile and adult, sea
turtles, diving seabirds such as pelicans and cormorants, and
marine mammals. In deeper water beyond the light zone these
agents will work on detritus feeding plankton, squids, mid -depth
and abyssal fish, and deeper diving marine mammals such as
elephant seals and sperm whales.
Similar statements can be made regarding the agents of
biological harm that affect other habitats and their residents,
11
including benthic habitats, intertidal habitats, estuarine
habitats, and terrestrial habitats. Each of these agents affects
biological resources in one or more of these habitats and in one
or more ways.
The types of biological damages from offshore oil and gas
operations have been demonstrated to be numerous. They include
short term mortality to individual organisms (death) from
poisoning, asphyxiation, pressure or energy pulse disruption, and
fatal injuries from crushing and other physical destruction.
Longer term impacts to individual organisms include low
level poisoning and bioaccumulation, displacement, non -fatal
injuries, interference with feeding and survival abilities, loss
of food or energy sources, loss of habitats, and interference .
with transitional behaviors or requirements such as migration or
molting.
Reproductive impacts include reproductive toxicity leading
to reproductive cellular or organ damage, mutations, and fetal
poisoning, reproductive behavior changes, alterations in
reproductive habitat requirements, and impacts on survival of
pre -adult life stages. Community impacts include
biomagnification, changes in species composition, food chain
alterations, and lost biomass. Ecosystem impacts include
alteration to basic physical and biological parameters, lost
diversity, alteration to trophic level energetics, and lost total
productivity.
These agents, working through these avenues of impacts, will
affect the biological resources of the Orange County OCS should
this area be made available for oil and gas exploration,
development, and production.
E.
Shoreline
Oil spill response capabilities are limited in the area that
might be affected by spills from operations on the Orange County
OCS. This is true despite the existence of an oil spill
cooperative, Clean Bay, in the Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor
area. Experience has shown repeatedly that oil spill contingency
planning of the type presently existing for the Orange County OCS
area is inadequate and provides no real protection except in the
case of very small spills.
The existing state of the art in Southern California fof-oil
spill containment and cleanup is inadequate for all but the
smallest spills under the most benign of conditions. Experience
from other areas has shown that in the best conditions, only a
12
M
small portion of any spilled oil is able to be recovered. The
remainder, except for a fraction (usually less than 25 percent of
the amount spilled), will be left in the environment to wash up
on beaches or foul marine habitats.
As was very clearly demonstrated in the Exxon Valdez spill,
the equipment of the type available in Southern California simply
is not up to the task of protecting the Orange County OCS and
coast from oil spills of any source. (The often -made statement
that the Exxon Valdez spill bears no relationship to offshore oil
and gas operations because that was a tanker spill and not a
platform spill is without merit. First, from the standpoint of
containing and cleaning up spilled oil, it makes no difference
whether the spilled oil originated from a platform or a tanker:
spilled oil is spilled oil, no matter its source. Second,
experience and plans for past lease offerings indicate that any
oil produced from most of the Orange County OCS will be
transported to shore by tanker.)
The flaws of the contingency planning for spills in Prince
William Sound are the present in the existing contingency plans
for the orange County OCS area as well. Details of the areas to
be protected in the event of a spill are almost wholly lacking,
as are details of exactly how to protect them with booms or other
protective measures. Types and quantities of response equipment
and supplies are insufficient for responding to significant
spills, and provisions for transporting additional supplies from
other locations and from contractors are poorly defined and
overly optimistic. Quantities of dispersants are insufficient
and demonstrably adequate means of applying them in the critical
few hours of optimum effect are lacking.
Responsible planning authorities have not created oil spill
response plans designed to deal with the magnitude of spills that
could be generated from OCS operations on the Orange County OCS.
What oil spill response equipment there is is physically located
at sites remote from much of the Orange County OCS, and
accordingly response time would be so long that effective
response, to the extent that it is possible, would come only
after substantial transportation delays. And much of the coast
in the areas adjacent to the Orange County OCS or subject to
spills originating in the area, is either physically isolated or
bounded by cliffs and other physical barriers. This will further
delay oil spill response. 1.
The poor state of oil spill response capabilities indicates
that any substantial spill originating on the Orange County OCS
would endanger the important economic, fishery, and biological
resources of the Orange County OCS, the adjacent coast, and other
any areas to which the spill might be expected to go.
13
The environmental and economic costs of bringing ashore
whatever amount of oil might be found off of Orange County far
exceed the benefits that might accrue from it. In making this
determination, the following factors must be considered:
> The oil industry has limited funds for exploration and
development. These funds are carefully budgeted in the
industry's operating plans. To the extent they are not able to
be used off of Orange County, they will be used elsewhere. To
the economy as a whole, then, whatever benefits come from the
expenditure of these funds will accrue regardless of where the
actual production and exploration occur.
> Residents of and visitors to the Orange County coast and
coastal zone place a definite value on their experiences and on
the opportunity to have those experiences. Importantly, these
values are tied to the specific geographic site at which they
occur: they can not be transferred to some other site without a
substantial loss. As has been shown in several instances, and
has been shown specifically with respect to Orange County, these
values will be reduced should offshore oil and gas operations
occur on the Orange County OCS. These losses are measurable by
state-of-the-art economic techniques, and the values and the
losses should be included in the estimation of the values of the
resources contained on the OCS and•of the impact of OCS
operations on the resource values of the coast. A sample
estimation of these values and losses is included in the
accompanying technical reports.
> Leaving in the ground whatever oil and gas are to be found
under the Orange County OCS does not entail the loss of that oil
and gas or of its value. Those resources will still be there and
available for future use should a real need for them arise.
Offsetting amounts of energy production, or offsetting
conservation, will occur in lieu of producing oil and gas from
the Orange County OCS, so there will be no net loss of energy or
energy equivalents.
These factors usually are missing in the determination of
costs and benefits of offshore oil and gas operations as
conducted by the Minerals Management Service. Including them,
however, will result in a more accurate picture of the costs and
benefits of offshore energy development.
14
As has been shown here and in the technical reports
accompanying these comments, leasing of the Orange County OCS,
with the possibility of damages from the resulting exploration,
development, and production, has significant risks. Importantly,
these risks are heightened in importance by the fact that most of
the Orange County OCS does not face them today. In other words,
the marginal risks of OCS operations in this area are extreme in
that the risks will go from relatively low to relatively high.
At the same time, there are areas of the OCS where
exploration, development, and production pose substantially
lesser marginal risks. Specifically, in the Western Gulf of
Mexico, Central Gulf of Mexico, and parts of the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico OCS Planning Areas, the marginal risk of OCS oil and gas
operations are relatively small. This is because these areas
already have very substantial numbers of OCS facilities on them,
with the consequence that adding to this number at the margin
will produce limited effects.
Importantly, regardless of whether offshore oil and gas
operations occur off of orange County or in one of the Gulf of
Mexico planning areas, the marginal benefits will be the same.
Thus the cost:benefit ratio for the Orange County OCS is much
higher than those for the Gulf of Mexico planning areas. Thus
leasing the Orange County OCS would result in an inequitable
distribution of the costs and benefits of OCS operations among
the regions. Accordingly, it is in these marginally less costly
areas where any future offshore oil and gas operations should
occur.
Conclusion
The Orange County Coast, from the mean high tide line to
Santa Catalina Island, is too important to be put at risk from
OCS oil and gas operations. The Minerals Management Service
would have a heavy burden to demonstrate that the benefits of
offering this area for leasing, exploration, development, and
production outweigh the potential costs to the exceptional
natural resources and resource -dependent economies of the
surrounding areas. The overall well-being of the affected
counties, the region, the state, and the country would be better
served by leaving this area out of the new 5-year leasing program
and any future OCS lease sale.
15
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER - May 25, 1989
The search for offshore, oil
A presidential task force is examining the proposed
leasing of 12,000 square miles off Southern
California for oil exploration and production: Two
other proposed lease-5—in Northern California
and Florida — also are being studied.
Santa Barbara
Santa Monica
444 0 Orange County
Channel islands r
Areas proposed for Q San Diego
offshore oil drilling
MEXICO
Pacifica Ocean
50 miles
„..........
Officials urge panel
to scrap oil lease
'Alaskan spill cited
in offshore rig issue
By Ronald Campbell
The Register
LOS ANGELES Two months
after the Exxon Valdez blundered
onto Bligh Reef and caused the
worst oil spill in US history, its
ghost sailed into the debate about
offshore drilling in California.
"California experienced its own
similar tragedy in the Santa Bar-
bara blowout of 1969," Sen. Pete
Wilson told a presidential task
force Wednesday. "The lessons
learned in Santa Barbara were ob-
viously never heeded."
Wilson, R-Calif., was one of 10
public officials who urged the task
force to scrap Lease Sale 95, the
proposed leasing of 12,000 square
miles off Southern California for
oil exploration and production.
Wilson, a possible. Republican
nominee for governor next year,'
was joined by two potential Demo-
cratic candidates, Attorney Gener-
al John K. Van de Kamp and Con-
troller Gray Davis.
The task force, appointed by
President Bush in February, is re-
viewing Lease Sale 95 and two oth-
er proposed leases off Northern
California and Florida. Its report
is due January.
Both sides of the offshore -drill-
ing issue cited the Alaskan disaster
during a daylong hearing.
Davis called it "the most appall-
ing, destructive environmental ca-
tastrophe in US history" and de-
manded that oil companies post a
$500 million "superfund" for spills.
But drilling contractor Paul Kel-
ly said the Alaskan spill was a ter-
rible accident that highlights the
near -perfect record offshore drill-
ers have in California. Offshore
drillers have paid $121 million into
a Coast Guard cleanup fund since
1978, he said, and it has never been
needed.
A federal staff report, disclosed
Wednesday, said that Lease Sale 95
would bring a one -in -seven risk of a
1,000-barrel spill along the South-
ern California coast in the next 31
years. The Exxon Valdez spilled
240,000 barrels.
Speakers at the hearing also ar-
gued over the extent of offshore oil
fields and potential air pollution.
'0If we threw up hundreds of rigs
and drilled every puddle of oil
along the entire California coast,"
Van de Kamp said, "we might find
barely one -fifth of what was found
in one field at Prudhoe Bay."
The Southern California Associa-
tion of Governments said that
Lease Sale 95 tracts would yield no
more than 607 million barrels of oil
— a 37-day supply for the nation. A
consultant retained by Orange
County and five coastal cities esti-
mated that the Orange County por-
tion of the 12,000-square-mile lease
would produce a 76-hour supply.
But Kelly said the oil industry
believes it could find anywhere
from 2.5 billion to 10 billion barrels
of oil off California.
Wilson and Supervisor Harriett
Wieder took aim at the US Interior
Department's proposed air -pollu-
tion regulations for offshore drill-
ing rigs, which Wilson said are a
third as strict as the comparable
onshore rules.
"At a time when the Los Angeles
area is going to ban the use of char-
coal lighter fluid on barbecues,"
Wilson said, "it is senseless that
the offshore oil industry is allowed
to operate under a considerably
weaker air -quality rule."
ideo takes aim
:J line of oil rigs' THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
"•"
ing means "If Orange County sacrificed its May 16, 1989
rilcoast to oil drilling," the videotape
'tourism says, offshore wells probably
ry� ' uld produce 52.8 million barrels
vµ� study warn
wohour supply for the
United States.II
3 T,
mpball The offshord wells would pro.
$G , duce at much smog as 250,000 new
},. cars, a report supplementing the
CJounty politicians videotape said, and disappointed
olknsiveintheirwar tourists would shun the county's
(shore oil drilling Mon- ' coast, costing businesses from $108
million to $223 million annually.
'$ttnisalo-minutevid- Those figures, likethet+ideotape,
icefl,by 375 pages of re- come from Townsend Environ-
mental, a Vienna, Va., consultant.
dials from five coast- California, the county and the cit-
the county said that ies of Huntington Beach, Newport
oil will be found off Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Point
'lty coast. And ex- and San Clemente paid $243,500 for
8p Said, will carry a the consultant's work. The state's
nd environmental $134,000 share came from
federal OlU3
q s. ❑poo 4) b oeo R �
o �y52otl�tlo NN>� o'.NJf�NN:O.� a+a.EGD� D° N 'r �"
.�'5N`aqanl 'Y3va+ '°3 °W,y.0>q .p,'O •, Rf
i✓ bm AK+ yw d W •°W '.W V O yU A0 Aw ,O
' °Pq O yyp
yOpq F
r 0 (d C, K
�;p
B
v3 n oqr" oG d oomro�u�o� °m��es>�VV
2W�.". '10-pcoiyoo� >o� Dc oRA e;2Elr°gavgo m❑k do o .
s•7 N o v) aqi o:; Rt aqi vi oo c�'� v°i 'mow P,.°op > 0 � T �'G�," ,qF p �'2r m �a 3
ti W O q W e W W 4 m 0. W pN
at 8 oo c u• a�' p� o a� U 0 3 W o. W m W o '60 o : o q � .�a ❑ G
W m a7 m o Ci ,q a+ i" ttl m o q '.G o p' CD �-' W zi 37 tt3 '-' .�y n• q O'-> o rn O W O'v ty o
•.'� o °' ['�-, q W q ° c°i £? " q. ° °'7 i'. C� • •`� K ''a v oD � aE QW E ;N " 19 =3 0 q'n 0 -A Y
y.gg o o m R o° .o W o ° a°' H x ° o C^w UqqA o x cam o
raB� Cxyq q"�Ja>0 o o �0n°w~oW' od oox �i�yq�coo °�QayP
r°'6C °. r"ki, OUa�+� FFa7>7NN�wO t�.dw°°^ 6U°Vqc� r•y Tb t000F mbvf�+.N-iU c) N>'yq 6U.q CD
q W 5 g o o H'C ° q H.
v P+ g �t 0 o rn
so.p = '= a"�og�p q go,Vo� S w,0WW-a "0—,Oo
pr� Sc HWo�c°`�q"ac°5�°0°' 4U' ao ooF a°4 a nno�wo^ y
.5A,ga oWaxi a�iN�omo�o ��oa Cg0�v+f7pm �3oon�o�,$
qq
•' � , ., !s;rJ �0Om>`��+p 'go�aoU'.GWgNb.CN ..m° qoW �NVt0 c'��A•, �^pai �C�O�yN aa.P`FWo.i p�,bm fotl o>IC �''�'dWy❑❑❑_bND yTcFgl .aW..yL..wtiopQW{.�r.,�NN�•qNW7o U.�0 �aWmo�b.C°ctl�a' ..�q�r�r °�^7w000 �:oi�od,�cwyWq��+ U,'dto0.�
F�ot'd1A�."�qCo. •a7°g;'60 ' °N 0o
qt "E m% o aa op W�gacqroNpWown
�aUay,cmV�-••,�¢s•Wa A 04. o,a
oW°vM V. Q)2
U. -um°Its �o� �
A Tr�o �,yga°oq 30
° qW ro allo
0DV70V�O�o�Co yy"v
oijyoo 'oU:CEwV zoaT�
!o i0=a q;8 0
y l0 W O O00
O �
(0rAWaW oW LW O•Foq G 'q
VW0'9C0 WrJ aaw❑oCiCdUpgU'-o
oW6SiOoWW 4)w0oaSo,
N�o0�QWWJ�o:�1n
sQ2't.W,�°UQ�°�°,5+,''',
'9
ANo,Fp to Oi SNwA �.>oWNgo m
No «°ro wro¢u.4,j qaaty
i.
coo
'bu0aO°vWo o
,qWCd
do oI
WPAcO �N 8 200500 am'$0Evq 0O N�x A C
co El8o"F QW��oa0Sv
HOT LINE REPORT
Date: February 14, 1939
To: Ken Frank, Laguna Beach
Jim Hendrickson, San Clemente
Cindy Jacobs, SCAG
Tim Neely, Orange County EMA
Jim Palin, Huntington Beach
Bob Wynn, Newport Beach
r RECEBWED
EEB 171989 w-
$nnLier:• F
From: Richard Townsend, Townsend Environmental (formerly RT&A)
Subject: Delay of Lease Sale 95
Last Thursday President Bush delivered his budget address to
Congress. As a part of his environmental package he stated that
he was going to postpone three lease sales. These three, one off
south Florida in the area of the Everglades and the keys (Lease
,Sale 116, part 2), one off northern California (Lease Sale 91),
and one off southern California (Lease Sale 95), were to be
"postponed indefinitely."
Actually, the northern California sale will be postponed for
some unknown period of time. In any event this sale could not be
held before October 1990. As for Lease Sale 95, it is "delayed"
pending the result of a task force study to identify whether the
sale poses an unnecessary risk of environmental harm. For
reasons described below, we believe that the task force will
conclude that the risk is minimal and that the lease sale will
proceed.
The primary reason we believe that the sale will be held is that
the task force is made up of members who are sympathetic to
offshore oil development. These members are:
> Manuel Lujan, Secretary of the Interior. Part of his job
is to promote offshore oil development. Moreover, his
record in Congress shows him to be pro -oil development.
> Henson Moore, Deputy Secretary of Energy (designate). He
is a former Congressman from Louisiana, where he staunchly
supported the offshore industry, which made up a
substantial part of his constituency.
> At least two members of the National Academy of Sciences
panel that recently evaluated offshore drilling discharges
and found that they pose no danger. The panel is highly
political and is made up primarily of industry scientists
and scientists from academic institutions such as Texas
A&M that do a great deal of work for the dil industry and
MMS. This panel is notorious for being one-sided and
having no balance of viewpoints.
While Lujan and Moore themselves likely will not sit on the
panel, their designates undoubtedly will reflect their views.
For these reasons we conclude that the make-up of the task force
will be heavily biased in favor of offshore oil development. We
note that there is an effort by some conservation interests to
add one or more persons with an environmental viewpoint to the
task force, but no one is very hopeful of a meaningful result no
matter what the outcome of this effort may be.
In addition, the motivation for the task force study appears to
be merely an attempt to meet a campaign promise at minimal cost.
According to the MMS, the EIS process will go forward without
waiting for the results of the task force study. No dates have
been set for the release of the DEIS at this time, but the mid -
Spring date still appears to be possible. MMS is being very
closed -mouthed about this, as they have been all the way on Lease
Sale 95.
Assuming that the DEIS comes out in mid -Spring as presently
anticipated, say in April, the earliest feasible sale date, even
without considering the task force, would be in February. Thus
the task force study would not cause any real delay in the
schedule for Lease Sale 95 if the President elects to "delay"
only the sale itself pending the release of the task force study.
However, if the President or MMS decides to hold off on any .of
the preliminary pre -sale steps, then there could be real delays
in the sale, perhaps as much as nine or ten months. While this
administration has been in office less than a month and
consequently there is little to base firm predictions on, we do
not believe that delays of this extent are likely at this time.
The fact that the President's actions regarding offshore leasing
delays relate only to these three lease sales, and not to other
lease sales such as Lease Sale 119 in Central California,
indicates further that it is a mere political ploy, not a genuine
reevaluation of leasing in environmentally sensitive areas.
These three sales happen to be the ones that were far enough
along to have been political issues during the 1988 presidential
campaign.
In sum, we believe that Lease Sale 95 will go ahead early in
1990, more or less as presently scheduled, preceeded by a press
barrage in January touting the fact that a blue ribbon panel has
determined that there is no risk to the environment from offshore
oil and gas operations.
BZPARTMENT of the INTBRIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
For Release February 9, 1989
news release
Andrei Bogolubov (202) 343-6416
LUJAN STRONGLY ENDORSES PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
REGARDING OIL LEASING AND LAND PURCHASES
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan today applauded President Bush's
action indefinitely postponing California offshore oil and gas lease
sales 91 and 95, and sale 116, part 2, in the Gulf of Mexico off the
southern portion of Florida. Lujan also expressed his enthusiasm for the
President's decision to allocate $200 million for land acquisitions.
Under the previous budget, $17 million was allocated for land
purchase. "This dramatic increase reflects our plan to provide for
America's future by preserving our natural treasures and expanding
recreational opportunities for all Americans," commented Lujan.
"The President has made clear his commitment to environmehtally sound
management of America's natural resources.
"I will immediately move to carry forward George Bush's agenda. In
support of the President's task force on offshore leasing, I have
instructed the Department to create a 'Clean Seas' initiative to identify
and study environmentally sensitive areas off our coasts.
"The President and I believe it is important that we build a national
consensus by listening and working with all sides. Clean seas --like clean
land, clean air and clean water --are vital to our Nation's future."
-DOI-
NTIli i1111 niminesii80
Summary of Progress
Joint Study on Offshore oil
According to the scope of work contained in the proposal of
Richard T. Tinney & Associates to provide consulting services
related to OCS Lease Sale 95, there are four main areas of focus
(Program Management and Support, Technical Analysis and Review,
Strategy Formulation and Coordination, and Public Participation)
and twelve products:
1) Monthly status/activity reports
2) Response to Notice of Intent
3) Press release comments for- public officials for
public hearings scheduled in October of 1987.
4) Research required for an analysis and assessment
of drilling impacts on Orange County including a
library and data base
5) Report on Lease Sale 95 alternatives, mitigation
measures, and stipulations
6) Issue papers on air quality, tourism and recreation,
biological resources, local services and resources,
contingency planning, and fisheries, and executive
summaries of each
7) Public informational workshops on Lease Sale 95, in-
cluding a video and a slide show
8) Response to public view of draft EIS
9) Coordination of public hearing testimony before MMS
10) Response to public review of final EIS
11) Comments to Proposed Notice of Sale
12) Comments to Governor (under Section 19 Consultation
requirement)
A review of all the material received from RT&A to date indicates
that items 1 through 4 and item 6 have been completed. The issues
actually covered in #6 were air quality, geological impacts,
socioeconomic impacts (including tourism and recreation and local
services and resources), biological resources, and fisheries. In
addition, a volumes Report and Strategy Document were prepared.
Item 5 has not appeared as a separate report. Items 7 through 12
remain to be produced, although the video and slide show are in
Summary of Progress
Joint Study on Offshore oil
Page Two
process. At an additional cost of $2,887.50 RT&A prepared com-
ments to MMS related to the supplemental call for information on
17 new tracts located off Oceanside.
0
Revenue Budgeted
SEA Grant $134,000.00
Matching funds (4 cities) 34,000.00
County contribution 67,000.00
TOM BUDGET $235,000.00
Revenue Received as of 12/27/88
SEA reimbursements: $ 29,780.00
Quarter 1 - 0
Quarter 2 - $ 4,347
Quarter 3 - 6,817
Quarter 4 - 18,616
$29,780
Matching funds: 34,000.00
Huntington Beach
$ 8,500
Newport Beach
8,500
Laguna Beach
8,500
San Clemente
8,500
$34,000
County Contribution(g02n) $60,300.00
TOTAL RECEIVED $124,080.00
?0
9 7 yi p
tures as of 12/27/88
Tinney & Assoc.
Oct. 87-Sept. 88 $164.949.50*
Elected officials'
briefing and dinner 485.00
$164,464.50
*Total contract: $217,887.50
Spent to date: 164,949.50
Remaining: $ 52,938.00
No invoices received yet for
October, November or December
TOPAZ EXPENDED $164,949.50
PROPOSED BUDGET
PROJECT NAME: ORANGE COUNTY HOTEL SURVEY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
To develop an appropriate Hotel Client survey form to
be distributed by the target hotels. These forms will
be collected and analyzed with the resulting
conclusions documented as an addendum to the
Socio-economics Technical Report.
PROPOSED COSTS:
LABOR
R. Townsend
(40
hrs @ $60)
2,400.00
R. Hageman
(27
hrs @ $50)
1,350.00
M. Witkowski
(20
hrs @ $25)
500.00
Total
Labor
4,250.00
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Telephone, Typing & Mail 300.00
Reproduction 100.00
Local Travel 150.00
Total ODC 550.00
Fee @ 5% 240.00
Total Estimated Cost 5,040.00
,Y" 1 - Lei
Mp�Z8'��nr
` Monthly Report �� N� Cl ?I
(rr9-
0� SUP Doty 1
Report No.: 14
Period of Performance: January 1, 1989 through January 31, 1989
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No.: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Objective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 to be
conducted by the Department of the
Interior's Minerals Management Service.
Report Overview:
This report covers work conducted by Townsend Environmental
(formerly Richard Tinney & Associates) during the month of
January, 1989. During this period a review meeting was held with
the sponsoring jurisdictions, the technical reports were revised,
and the slide show was modified to apply to each jurisdiction
individually. In addition, Townsend Environmental closely
monitored the new administration for developments regarding Lease
Sale 95.
Task Status:
1.0 Program Management
Townsend Environmental managers continued the project management
and administration functions. Monthly reports 11 through 13 on
project activities in October, November, and December 1988 were
provided to the project sponsors.
2.0 Techical Analysis and Review
Final draft copies of the technical reports were provided to the
sponsoring jurisdictions during the January review meeting.
Revisions to these reports were initiated in January, and were to
be completed in the following month.
During the review meeting participants discussed the possibility
of undertaking the hotel survey as an additional project.
Townsend Environmental presented a proposed budget for this
undertaking.
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
During January, President Bush was inaugurated and he began the
process of nominating key appointed officials. One of his first
Y
appointments was of retiring Representative Manuel Lujan to be
Secretary of the Interior. He is regarded as being staunchly
pro -offshore oil development. Additionally, President Bush
nominated William Reilly to be Administrator of the EPA. He is
regarded as a moderate. Formerly he was head of the Conservation
Foundation/World Wildlife Fund.
Other appointments include Robert Mosbacher as Secretary of
Commerce, the agency that oversees NOAA, the National Marine
Fishery Service, marine protected species programs, and the
marine sanctuary program. Mosbacher made his personal fortune in
oil. He is not expected to be sympathetic to marine sanctuaries
in general and to any restrictions on oil development in
sanctuaries specifically.
James Watkins, former Chief of Naval Operations (i.e. the Navy's
chief of staff, the highest uniformed position in the service)
was named as Secretary of the Interior. He has little background
in fossil fuel issues, but is very knowledgeable in nuclear
matters, having been a protege of Adm. Hyman Rickover. Henson
Moore, former Congressman from Louisiana, is expected to fill the
number two slot at Energy. He is a stong advocate of offshore
oil development.
In other develoments, the California League of Conservation
Voters has prepared a "Draft Plan for Mobilizing Grassroots
Forces against Lease Sale 95". A copy of this plan is included
with this report as Attachment A. In essence it is a plan for
getting as many people as possible to attend the public hearings
on the DEIS for Lease Sale 95. It is an effort to build on the
success of the grassroots turnout at the Lease Sale 91 hearings
in Ft. Bragg.
Also, just to let you know that there is only one California, and
that northern California and southern California are on the same
side, Attachments B and C are resolutions of the Cities of Half
Moon Bay and Pacifica against including the 17 new tracts in
Lease Sale 95 as described in the Supplemental Call for
Information recently issued by MMS.
4.0 Public Participation
At the January review meeting Townsend Environmental presented
the completed video and the slide show. The video was approved
with the proviso that the credits would be modified. This was
accomplished. Changes in the slide show were initiated to make
five differsent slide shows, each with key elements tailored to
the individual jurisdictions.
CLCV
CALIFORNIA LEPGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
TO: OCS Allies
From: Doug Linney, Political Director, CLCV
Date: December 14, 1,988
DRAFT PLAN FOR MOBILIZING GRASSROOTS FORCES
AGAINST LEASE SALE SO
I left our meetino last week with an irresi=_tabla need to
write down some basic thoughts about how we might construct _.
conesive camoaidn td stoo Lease'Sale 95. Herer:ith is a -First
draft of a campaign plan for your review and comments. It :__
intended as a tool for fundraising, planning, and further
discussion ano not as a pr000sal that CLCV take on this
orGinizind nroj=ct.
CAMPAIGN GOALS: To orchestrate a major turnout of Lease Sale
95 opponents at Southern California hearings this spring,
dramatically reversing the traditional pro -drilling balance of
the debate in Southern California. In so doing, we would begin
to build a bigger and stonger Southland constituency for
permanent protection for the coast.
OVERVIEW: The Ft. Bragg hearings, in many ways, set the
standard for what "opposition" to coastal drilling really means.
While L.A. is not Ft. Bragg in terms of the depth and breadth of
public commitment and concern, it is a city/'region that has
proven time and time again that it values its coast and its
beaches. The obvious advantages that L.A. has over Ft. Bragg are
population and e::•:gectation: population meaning a bigger pool from
which to draw our hearing attendees, expectation meaning anything
we can do will be better than what we've been able to do in the
past.
While we will certainly not meet the Ft. Bragg standard in
terms of percentage of town residents that attend the hearing,
with concerted work we can e:.pect to match its fervor, media
color. and number of attendees. This should be our working goal.
TIMETABLE: December 15th to hearings (mid -May)
CAMPAIGN COMPONENTS:
1. Grassroots Outreach to boost visibility of Lease Sale 95 and
identify and turn out volunteers for hearing. Involves
systematic outreach to activist groups, canvassing, tabling, and
telephone calls, all coordinated by a f_illtime staffer and
Steering Committee.
2. Outreach to public officials and coastal constituency groups
to ink up top officials/groups to testify at hearing. Involves
using Steering Committee and Coordinator's time to mail and do
12234 WEST PICO BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES, CA 9M4 (213)826-8812
2131 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 436, BERKELEY, CA 94704 (415) 845.1965
phone follow up to key groups and individuals. Groups that agree
to testify and participate in public outreach will be funneled
into grassroots operation (see #1)
S. Outreach to media in L.A. region to insure coverage of the
issues (environment, energy, politics) and the human interest
stories_ of the fight. Involves Steering Committee and
Coordinator's time in organizing press events and briefings,
meetino with editorial boards, answering information requests,
perparing press packets, etc.
4. Good research will be central to all of the above but should
not be a orimary focus of the Coordinator's role. The Steering
Committee should see to it that the message we present to the
press, the public and the hearings is compelling, interesting and
accurate. Involves compiling existing research from a variety of
places and bringng it together into one succinct set of issue
materials. Involves making sure we have "e:-,perts" available by
phone to answer complicated press questions and double checking
that all Frey toppics will be covered at least once in our
testimony at the hearings.
S. The Steering Committee must adopt a basic budget (see
attached) and fundraising plan. This should ideally be done
before staff are hired.
CHARACTERISTICS AND PREMISES OF THIS CAMPAIGN
1. To be truly successful, the turn out to the hearings must
be massive beyond e::pectations. (For this reason we also need to
downplay expectations with the media so that everyone is blown
away when a riot scene develops at the hearing).
2. It must be broad based and non -partisan. There must be
the perception that people of every persuasion are opposed to
this, not ,lust coastal activists. Specifically we need to have
some prominent Republicans, minorities, people representing every
Congressional District in S. Calif., and people who don't usually
come to hearings.
S. The campaign should have a bandwagon effect (it becomes
the thing to be involved in) such that politicians_ and
celebrities are contacting us to get involved. The key to
creatino this effect is visibility and obvious popularity.
4. Supporters feel an almost religious fervor about this
issue. Our strategy should reflect this strength. On balance,
we do not need to emphasize why people should be opposed to this,
as much as emphasize what they can do to stop it.
5. We probably won't have more than a month in advance to
publicize the exact dates_ and locations of the hearings.
that last month of massive publicity. People should be primed to
come to hearings, awaiting only the final details. The entire
campaign should be timed to continue building and building upon
itself, finally exploding with a massive turnout on the hearing
date.
5. We can't afford to limit ourselves to DOI's rules and
agenda. Our longer term goal is to pass_ legislation for an ocean
sanctuary that will permanently protect the coast. Everyone who
is part of this campaign should understand this and know that the
hearings are more than anything else a building block: or
organizing tool for action by Congress.
DETAIL OF LOBBYING AND GRASSROOTS COMPONENTS
I. GRASSROOTS•
A. OBJECTIVE: To ensure that -we get manimum turnout at the
hearings by systematically contacting individuals, obtaining
commitments, and following up.
The centerpiece of this aspect of the campaign is the Pledge
to the Coast card. The Pledge is basically a card or petition
that gets people involved by having them pledge to "do everything
I can to stop efforts to drill for oil along• --our coast and to
work for ocean sanctuary protection." The pledges are used to
build a huge database of people we can later recontact about the
enact dates of the hearings and future volunteer work. Included
with each pledge should be a postcard to DOI requesting to be
notified about the hearings.
Benefits to using the Pledge:
1. It is something concrete that average citizens can do to
help the campaign.
2. It is something concrete that volunteers can ask: others
to do to boost turnout at the hearings.
3. It is an excuse to engage people in a discussion of the
OCS issue and educate them.
4. It is an opportunity to ask someone to volunteer.
5. It is an opportunity to ask someone for money.
6. It is a way to begin to line up participants for the
hearings.
The key to the success of the Pledge to the Coast card is to
make sure that when people sign it, they realize- they are being
asked do more than sign their name to a petition. They are
promising to be involved in stopping OCS drilling and perhaps_ to
actually attend the hearings. The card will have bones for them
to check which indicate how they might become more involved ;n
the future (I'm interested in attending the hearing; I will
donate; I will volunteer; I will hold a house party; etc.) The
cards will be distributed at every opportunity we get.
w. _ f I L J .. • 1
those who require immediate follow-up can be contacted. Every-
one will be entered into a computer and coded according to the
bones they checked off. Once the hearing locations and dates are
announced, notices will be sent out and phone banks activated to
recontact everyone who tool: the pledge.
Although there should be one database built to track all the
people who have taken the pledge, the campaign does not need to
be overly centralized. Groups and individuals should be
encouraged to be creative and do whatever they feel most
comfortable doing as long as they understand the importance of
getting people tc take the pledge.
B. METHODS =OR GETTING COASTAL PLEDGES:
CANVASSING: Contacting people, neighborhood by neighborhood,
door-to-door to get them to take the pledge. CLCV and Greenpeace
are already doing this with their canvasses.
TABLING: This basically entails contacting people by setting up a
table at a shopping center or college campus, or any heavily
traveled location. It can be done by anyone with a minimum of
training and some decent written materials. This is probably the
most time efficient method for collecting names (pledges).
HOUSE PARTIES: This is a good way to get new people signed up in
a more educationally intense setting. House parties are
essentially a meeting in which a host invites a number of friends
over and a presentation is given (either in person or by video).
People are then asked to make a donation, take the pledge and
host their own house party. House party kits should be put
together which would include all the materials and instructions
to host a party.
PHONE BANKS: Call targeted lists (either membership or otherwise)
and get them to take the pledge over the phone.
C. RECONTACTING PLEDGES:
Clearly if we've talked to people who are interested in
attending the hearing we need to get back to them, tell them when
and where the hearings will be held and to motivate them to
attend. Hopefully, a lot of these people will have contacted the
Dept, of Interior and will now also be on their list, out we must
contact them ourselves as well.
A mailing followed by systematic phone banks would be the
best way to recontact this database in the four weeks prior to
the hearings (assuming we know that far in advance). Mail i=
expensive but it is the only way way to reach everyone. On the
other hand, mail will not tell you who will actually attend.
Additionally, phone banks, if organized well in advance.
lower cost. This assumes that we can get ❑hone bank locations
donated by businesses and calls made by volunteers. Perhaps some
of the major organizations or businesses could each sponsor a
phone bank nor 5 to B people. In this way we would contact
between 10,000 and 25,000 people with 5 to 10 phone banks in the
L.A. area for the last 2 to 4 weeks.
II. LOBBYING PUBLIC OFFICIALS =•ND GROUPS
A. OBJECTI'JES: 1) To get ;:colic oV ir-ials and city govern-
ments to go on reco-d in opposition to Lease Sale 95 and commit
to sending someone to a hearing to testify to that Oact. 2) To
get Jrganizso mclitical and n= ooiitical groups to go on recter.
in opposition to Lease Sale 95 and commit some portion of their
resources (including volunteere) to our education and turnout
campaign.
A lot of this organizing should be done by geographical
area. We need to find someone or assign someone we already know
to organize each area. Perhaps we could split things down by
Congressional District and then further within each Congressional
District where appropriate.
B. METHODS:
1. PUBLIC OFFICIALS: Systematically contact all officials/
governments and'submit a resolution for .hem to pass. Get
elected officials to help with their campaign lists, or other
resources. Make sure that those who have passed resolutions are
orepared to make statements at the hearing_.
2. BUSINESSES: Contact businesses, starting with those who would
be most affected by the drilling (hotels, surf shops, beach
concessions, etc.) Get them to take the pledge; display
signs/pledge cards -in oppo=_iti•cn to drilling and donate some
money.
S. ORGANIZATIONS: Contact special interest organizations and get
them involved at some level. We should go after endorsements_
from groups_ who are directly involved in this islue
(environmentalists, fisherman, divers, surfers, lifeguards,
coastal homeowners, boat owners, etc.) as well as groups who are
less directly involved (senior-, Blacks Hispanics. Asia-F.
labor, children, dem/rep parties...1 Depending on their
enthusiasm, groups_ should:
o Pass a resolution in opposition
o Contact their mailing lists
o Commit to turning out a=ertain number of people to the
hearing
FIVE MONTH BUDGET
DEC. 15 - MAY 15
Monthly Costs:
Coordinator ($1500 - $2000/mo.)....................7,500 - 10,000
Office(2400/mo.)..................................2,000
Phone($150/mo.)................................... 750
10,250 - 12,550
Materials Costs:
Mail (@ $.20 to 40,000 pledge signers) ...........10,00o
Printing: 50.000 pledge cards ................... 2.500
50,000 fact =_heets ..................... 2,500
7500 Window/Table Signs ................ 750
Press Packet (200 @ s5 each) ...................... 1,000
House Party Packets (200 @ $5 each) ............... 11000
List Maintenance (.025/name using vols.)........... 1,000
IS,750
TOTAL 29,000 - 31,500
95 RESOLUTION NO. 66-88
RESOLUTION OF THE (CITY/GOUN'M OF nALE MOON BAY
IN RESPONSE TO
THE SUPPLEMENTAL CALL FOR INFORMATION AND NOMINATIONS FOR OCS LEASE SALE #95
an
ional 17 blocks
areasAoriginallyaproposed ffor tinclusion rior pineOCSoLease eSale a#95tbeyond
offshore southern
California; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Interior has asked for public comments in response to their
Supplemental Call for Information and Nominations for Lease Sale #95 published on
November 17, 1988 in the Federal Register; and
WHEREAS, the affected environment supports a crucial economic resource important to all
Californians including: a renewable commercial and sport fishing industry, and an
annnual multi —million dollar tourist and recreation industry; and
WHEREAS, the coastal waters provide a habitat for abundant and diverse.species of marine .
mammals, fish, and birds, including several endangered species; and
WHEREAS, proposed oil and gas exploration and development activities threaten fishing
activities due to seismic survey exploration, displacement of fishing grounds,
competition for limited harbor facilities, and disposal of toxic wastes into prime
fishing grounds; and
WHEREAS, oil platforms, offshore storage and treatment facilities, marine terminals and
onshore processing facilities would profoundly diminish the scenic quality of the
coastline and could lead to a serious decline in. tourism and recreation activities; and
WHEREAS, prevailing winds would blow offshore drilling emissions on —shore, thereby
interfering with theability
ofstandards;coastal
om u communities to achieve and maintain state and
federal air quality
ess alternative energy
andRenergyuefficiencyrprogramsysuchiaseimproved automobile fuel s fail to adequately refficiency standards;
and
WHEREAS, oil and gas exploration and drilling operations in the proposed area will
jeopardize unique and valuable coastal resources;
WHEREAS, significant unresolved problems resulting from the proposed sale and conflicts
with California coastal zone managmeltt policies and approved local coastal management
plans are anticipated to occur; and
WHEREAS, leasing, exploration, development, and transportation activities resulting from
Lease Sale #95 conflict with the mandate of the OCS Lands Act as amended, the Clean Air
Act, and the Endangered Species Act;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that for the reasons stated above, all tracts located in
aseenvironmentally sensitivettractslandrdeletedafrom furthericonsiderationdfor defined
easing;
and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (City/J9,0,0Pty) of rebf
entaloCallsfor
negative nominations for all tracts proposed for inclusion in the �uPP
Information and Nominations for Lease Sale #95; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to: Regional
Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, Minerals Management service, Pacific OCS
Region. 1340 West Sixth Street. Los Angeles, CA 90017, and to: Chief, Offshore Leasing
Management Division, Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior, 18th and C
Streets, N.W., Washington, DC 20240, as well as to -California Governor George
Deukmejian.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Half Mocn
Bay, California, at a regular meeting thereof held. the 20th day of December, 1988,
by the following vote:
AYES Councilmemberd: Bedesem, Beer, Eriksen, Mello, Patridge
NOES, Councilmembers: None
ABSENT OR ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
None
Ralphena ,fI/ Guest
City Cl
City of Half Moon Bay, California
P(+:�C �
1 RESOLUTION NO. 68-88
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
IN RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL CALL FOR INFORMATION
3 AND NOMINATIONS FOR OCS LEASE SALE NO. 95
4 WHEREAS, the Department of Interior proposes to lease an
5 additional 17 blocks beyond areas originally proposed for
6 inclusion in OCS Lease Sale No. 95 offshore southern California;)
7 and
8 WHEREAS, the Department of Interior has asked for public
9 comments in response to their Supplemental Call for Information
10 and Nominations for Lease Sale No. 95 published on November 17,
11 1988 in the Federal Register; and
12 WHEREAS, the affected environment supports a crucial economic
13 resource- important to all Californians including a renewable'
14 commercial and sport fishing ildustry and an annual multi -million
15 dollar tourist and recreation i dustry; and
16 WHEREAS,•the coastal waters provide a habitat for abundant
17 and diverse species of marine mammals, fish and birds, including.
18 several endangered species; and
19• WHEREAS, proposed oil and gas exploration and development
20 activities threaten fishing activities due to seismic survey
21 exploxatiori, displacement of fishing grounds, competition for
22 limited harbor facilities,arid disposal of toxic wastes into prime
23 fishing grounds; and
24 WHEREAS, oil platforms, offshore storage and treatment
25 facilities, marine terminals and onshore processing facilities
26 would profoundly diminish the scenic quality of the coastline'and
27 could lead to a serious decline in tourism and recreation
28 activities; and
1
• 'y1 •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
- 15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, prevailing winds would blow offshore drilling
emissions onshore, thereby interfering with the ability of coastal
communities to achieve and maintain state and federal air quality
attainment standards; and
WHEREAS, current federal energy policies fail to adequately
address alternative energy and energy -efficient programs such as
improved automobile fuel efficiency standards; and
WHEREAS, oil and gas exploration and drilling operations in
the proposed area will jeopardize unique and valuable coastal
resources; and
WHEREAS, significant unresolved problems resulting from the
proposed sale and conflicts with California coastal zone
management policies and approved local coastal management plans
are anticipated to occur; and
WHEREAS, leasing, exploration, development, and transporta-
tion activities resulting `from Lease Sale No. 95 conflict with the
mandate of the OCS Lands Act as amended, the Clean Air Act, and
the Endangered Species Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that for the reasons stated
above, all 'tracts located in the Lease Sale No. 95 Supplemental
Call for Information and Nominations should be defined as
environmentally sensitive tracts and deleted from further
consideration for leasing; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Pacifica hereby offers negative nominations for all tracts
proposed for inclusion in the Supplemental Call for Information
and Nominations for Lease Sale No. 95; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be
2
2
3
4
5
6
8
n
1d
11
12
13
14
15
if
1?
18
iE
2(
2]
z
2t%
24
20
2(
24
W
forwarded to: Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and
Environment, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, 1340I
West Sixth Street, Los Angeles CA 90017, and to: Chief, Offshore
Leasing Management Division, Minerals Management Service,
Department of the Interior, 18th and C Streets, N.W., Washington
D.C. 20240, as well as to California Governor George Deukmejian.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Pacifica at their meeting of December 12, 1988 by the following
vote of the members thereof:
AYES, Councilmembers: Schneider, Curry, Jaquith, Loeb, and
Mayor Howard
NOES, Councilmembers: None
ABSENT, Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
Daniel V. Pincetich, City Manager -Clerk
i
,ae�dH8wardl Mayor
3
TOWNSEND ENVIRONMENTAL
INVOICE #14
LABOR
RICHARD TOWNSEND ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.5
2
HOURS
TASK
2.3
20
HOURS
TASK
2.4
10
HOURS
TASK
3.1
2
HOURS
TASK
4.1
8
HOURS
EUGENIA LAYCHAK
($35/HOUR)
TASK
2.3
28
HOURS
TOTAL LABOR
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE
TYPING AND REPRODUCTION
TELEPHONE/TELEX
TOTAL ODC
SUBTOTAL
FEE @ 5%
TOTAL
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 1-1-89 TO 1-31-89
PURCHASE ORDER NO.: P.O. No. 08384
DATE: February 14, 1989
NAME: James.J. Crowell
120
1200
600
120
480
Em
1079.88
473.07
24.69
2520.00
980.00
3500.00
1577.64
5077.64
253.88
5331.52
Monthly Report
iYf�Frtr
�nnn �tA
Aq i841
N� a9
Report No.: 15
Period of Performance: February 1 through 28, 1989 �'..
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No.: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Objective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 to be
conducted by the Department of the
Interior's Minerals Management Service.
Report overview:
This report covers work conducted by Townsend Environmental
during the month of February, 1989. During this period the
revised technical reports were printed and a draft of the Oil
Spill Contingency Planning technical report was completed. In
addition, Townsend Environmental closely monitored the new
administration for developments regarding Lease Sale 95 and the
new OCS task force announced by President Bush.
Task Status:
1.0 Program Management
Townsend Environmental managers continued the project management
and administration functions. Monthly report 14 on project
activities in January, 1989 was prepared for the project
sponsors.
2.0 Techical Analysis and Review
Final draft ,copies of the technical reports were provided to the
sponsoring jurisdictions during the January review meeting.
Revisions to these reports were initiated in January, and were
completed in the February. Two hundred copies of each report
were printed for distribution by the project sponsors.
During the month Townsend Environmental completed a draft of the
Oil Spill Contingency Planning technical report. Copies of the
report were to be provided to the project sponsors at the March
elected officials briefing.
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
During February President Bush announced that he would delay
Lease Sale 95 to allow the environmental effects of offshore
leasing to be reviewed by a special task force from the
Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and the
National Academy of Science. Townsend Environmental closely
monitored the matter and prepared a hot line report for the
sponsoring jurisdictions. A copy of this report is attached as
Attachment A.
Since that initial report, little has happened with respect to
the task force. Its membership has expanded to include the EPA
and NOAA. Pressure is being exerted for it to include others as
well, such as people from local government, the commercial
fishing industry, state governments, the tourism industry, the
oil industry, and the public. No decisions had been made in
these regards by the end of the month.
Townsend Environmental prepared a briefing paper for the March
public officials meeting, presenting the latest version of what
was happening. A copy is included with this report as
Attachment B.
A-Hvc_� A
HOT LINE REPORT
Date: February 14, 1989
To: Ken Frank, Laguna Beach
Jim Hendrickson, San Clemente
Cindy Jacobs, SCAG
Tim Neely, Orange County EMA
Jim Palin, Huntington Beach
Bob Wynn, Newport Beach
From: Richard Townsend, Townsend Environmental (formerly RT&A)
Subject: Delay of Lease Sale 95
Last Thursday President Bush delivered his budget address to
Congress. As a part of his environmental package he stated that
he was going to postpone three lease sales. These three, one off
south Florida in the area of the Everglades and the keys (Lease
Sale 116, part 2), one off northern California (Lease Sale 91),
and one off southern California (Lease Sale 95), were to be
"postponed indefinitely."
Actually, the northern California sale will be postponed for
some unknown period of time. In any event this sale could not be
held before October 1990. As for Lease Sale 95, it is "delayed"
pending the result of a task force study to identify whether the
sale poses an unnecessary risk of environmental harm. For
reasons described below, we believe that the task force will
conclude that the risk is minimal and that the lease sale will
proceed.
The primary reason we believe that the sale will be held is that
the task force is made up of members who are sympathetic to
offshore oil development. These members are:
> Manuel Lujan, Secretary of the Interior. Part of his job
is to promote offshore oil development. Moreover, his
record in Congress shows him to be pro -oil development.
> Henson Moore, Deputy Secretary of Energy (designate). He
is a former Congressman from Louisiana, where he staunchly
supported the offshore industry, which made up a
substantial part of his constituency.
> At least two members of the National Academy of Sciences
panel that recently evaluated offshore drilling discharges
and found that they pose no danger. The panel is highly
political and is made up primarily of industry scientists
and scientists from academic institutions such as Texas
A&M that do a great deal of work for the dil industry and
MMS. This panel is notorious for being one-sided and
having no balance of viewpoints.
While Lujan and Moore themselves likely will not sit on the
panel, their designates undoubtedly will reflect their views.
For these reasons we conclude that the make-up of the task force
will be heavily biased in favor of offshore oil development. We
note that there is an effort by some conservation interests to
add one or more persons with an environmental viewpoint to the
task force, but no one is very hopeful of a meaningful result no
matter what the outcome of this effort may be.
in addition, the motivation for the task force study appears to
be merely an attempt to meet a campaign promise at minimal cost.
According to the MMS, the EIS process will go forward without
waiting for the results of the task force study. No dates have
been set for the release of the DEIS at this time, but the mid -
Spring date still appears to be possible. MMS is being very
closed -mouthed about this, as they have been all the way on Lease
Sale 95.
Assuming that the DEIS comes out in mid -Spring as presently
anticipated, say in April, the earliest feasible sale date, even
without considering the task force, would be in February. Thus
the task force study would not cause any real delay in the
schedule for Lease Sale 95 if the President elects to "delay"
only the sale itself pending the release of the task force study.
However, if the President or MMS decides to hold off on any of
the preliminary pre -sale steps, then there could be real delays
in the sale, perhaps as much as nine or ten months. While this
administration has been in office less than a month and
consequently there is little to base firm predictions on, we do
not believe that delays of this extent are likely at this time.
The fact that the President's actions regarding offshore leasing
delays relate only to these three lease sales, and not to other
lease sales such as Lease Sale 119 in Central California,
indicates further that it is a mere political ploy, not a genuine
reevaluation of leasing in environmentally sensitive areas.
These three* sales happen to be the ones that were far enough
along to have been political issues during the 1988 presidential
campaign.
In sum, we believe that Lease Sale 95 will go ahead early in
1990, more or less as presently scheduled, preceeded by a press
barrage in January touting the fact that a blue ribbon panel has
determined that there is no risk to the environment from offshore
oil and gas operations.
BZPARTMENT of the INTZRICA
news release
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Andrei Bogolubov (202) 343-6416
For Release February 9, 1989
LUSAN STRONGLY ENDORSES PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
REGARDING OIL LEASING AND LAND PURCHASES
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan today applauded President Bush's
action indefinitely postponing California offshore oil and gas lease
sales 91 and 95, and sale 116, part 2, in the Gulf of Mexico off the
southern portion of Florida. Lujan also expressed his enthusiasm for the
President's decision to allocate $200 million for land acquisitions.
Under the previous budget, $17 million was allocated for land
purchase. "This dramatic increase reflects our plan to provide for
America's future by preserving our natural treasures and expanding
recreational opportunities for all Americans," commented Lujan.
"The President has made clear his commitment to environmentally sound
management of America's natural resources.
"I will immediately move to carry forward George Bush's agenda. In
support of the President's task force on offshore leasing, I have
instructed the Department to create a 'Clean Seas' initiative to identify
and study environmentally sensitive areas off our coasts.
"The President and I believe it is important that we build a national
consensus by listening and working with all sides. Clean seas --like clean
land, clean air and clean water --are vital to our Nation's future."
-DOI-
I
11"T R1P18-89
II III III II IIEG III IIII IL'A 11111111
l
A+Ozkvr.Ivl� B
Who:
When:
Why:
Joint OCS Task Force
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan
)eputy Energy Secretary Henson Moore
Jational Academy of Sciences
JOAA Administrator William Evans
:PA Administrator William Reilly
>tate Government Representatives -- ?
.ocal Government Representatives -- ?
ndustry Representatives -- ?
3ublic Repesentatives -- ?
kir Quality Representatives -- ?
•fisheries Representatives -- ?
Final Report due January 1, 1990
First meeting date unknown
"Review and resolve environmental concerns" over
the adverse impacts of offshore leasing.
Indicate significant, adverse environmental effects
of offshore leasing m the Lease Sale 95 area that
have not been previously identified.
Further delay or cancel the sale if these are
found.
Effects: Prior to President Bush's announcement, the
earliest that the lease sale could have been held
was January, 1990. March, 1990 would have been
much more likely. MMS says work is continuing on
preparing for a lease sale. When the DEIS will be
released is not known. Whether it will be delayed
until after the task force report is issued is not
known.
If the DEIS is delayed until after the task force
report is issued, a likely timetable is:
1/90 -- Task Force report
2/90 -- DEIS issued*
3/90 -- Hearings*
9/90 -- FEIS issued**
11/90 -- Proposed Notice of Sale issued**
1 91 -- Governors section 19 comments due
3/91 -- Notice of Sale
4/91 -- Sale
This would amount to a delay of about a year.
Possibility: Report delayed, DEIS not issued until
after the 1990 election.
Input: There likely will be at least some open meetings.
Working meetings are not likely to be open.
Formal public input procedures undefined.
Result: Very little likelihood of any effect on the lease
sale other than a delay.
Possible negative effect of "determining OCS
issues once and for all' without meaningful
review.
A I I k
TOWNSEND ENVIRONMENTAL
INVOICE #15
LABOR
RICHARD TOWNSEND ($60/HOUR)
TASK 1.3 1 HOUR
60
TASK 1.5 2 HOURS
120
TASK 2.3 16 HOURS
960
TASK 2.4 8 HOURS
480
TASK 3.1 2 HOURS
120 1620.00
TOTAL LABOR
1620.00
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TYPING AND REPRODUCTION
4500.82
TELEPHONE/TELEX
38.88
TOTAL ODC 4539.70
SUBTOTAL 6159.70
FEE @ 5% 307.99
TOTAL 6467.69
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:
PURCHASE ORDER NO.:
DATE: March 14, 1989
NAME: James J. Crowell
2-1-89 TO 2-28-89
P.O. No. 08384
0
JA-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 27, 1988
TO: Jim Hendrickson, San Clemente
Tim Neely, Orange County EMA
Jim Palin, Huntington Beach
Richard Tinney Townsend, RT&A
Cathy Tyrrell, SCAG
Bob Wynn, Newport Beach
FROM: ��/ Kenneth Frank, Laguna Beach
SUBJECT: MEETING OF OIL GRANT GROUP
�. JAN 31939L�.
C¢y Mona ,r
City o! id ,rt�.4nach
j-rr
Our next meeting will be on Monday, January 9, 11:00 a.m. at the
Newport Beach City Hall, Council Chambers conference room.
Newport Beach will provide lunch. Please call Teresa Guest of my
office at (714) 497-3311, ext. 208,'to advise us whether or not
you will attend so that we will have enough sandwiches.
The purpose of the meeting will be to:
a. review a schedule of further actions to be taken under
the scope of.work of the consultant's contract;
b. review the remaining grant budget;
c. discuss the finalized reports prepared by RT&A; and
d. view the video and slide show
cc: Carolyn Solomon
Assistant to the City Manager/
Personnel Officer
RECft1i rrD -'t
Phil-
Dapar<;;���
JANO a 1989
NEWPO� CFI'
R7 812TAT4(f
roar.
Summary of Progress
Joint Study on Offshore Oil
According to the scope of work contained in the proposal of
Richard T. Tinney & Associates to provide consulting services
related to OCS Lease Sale 95, there are four main areas of focus
(Program Management and Support, Technical Analysis and Review,
Strategy Formulation and Coordination, and Public Participation)
and twelve products:
1) Monthly status/activity reports
2) Response to Notice of Intent
3) Press release comments for for public officials for
public hearings scheduled in October of 1987.
4) Research required for an analysis and assessment
of drilling impacts on'Orange County including a
library and data base
5) Report on Lease Sale 95 alternatives, mitigation
measures, and stipulations
6)
Issue papers on air quality, tourism and
recreation,
biological resources, local services and
resources,
contingency planning, and fisheries, and
executive
summaries of each
7)
Public informational workshops on Lease Sale 95, in-
cluding a video and a slide show
8)
Response to public view of draft EIS
9)
Coordination of public hearing testimony
before MMS
10)
Response to public review of final EIS
11)
Comments to Proposed Notice of Sale
12)
Comments to Governor (under Section 19 Consultation
requirement)
A review of all the material received from RT&A to date indicates
that items 1 through 4 and item 6 have been completed. The issues
actually covered in #6 were air quality, geological impacts,
socioeconomic impacts (including tourism and recreation and local
services and resources), biological resources, and fisheries. In
addition, a Volumes Report and Strategy Document were prepared.
Item 5 has not appeared as a separate report. Items 7 through 12
remain to be produced, although the video and slide show are in
Summary of Progress
Joint Study on Offshore Oil
Page Two
process. At an additional cost of $2,887.50 RT&A prepared com-
ments to MMS related to the supplemental call for information on
17 new tracts located off Oceanside.
d
V'
T
Revenue Budgeted
SEA Grant $134,000.00
Matching funds (4 cities) 34,000.00
County contribution 67,000.00
TOTAL BUDGET $235,000.00
Revenue Received as of_12/27/88
SEA reimbursements: $ 29,780.00
Quarter 1
- 0
Quarter 2
- $ 41347
Quarter 3
- 6,817
Quarter 4
- 18,616
$29,780
Matching funds: 34,000.00
Huntington Beach
$ 8,500
Newport Beach
8,500
Laguna Beach
8,500
San Clemente
8,500
$34,000
County Contribution $60,300.00
TOTAL RECEIVED $124,080.00
Expenditures as of 12/27/88
Tinney & Assoc.
Oct. 87-Sept. 88 $164,949.50*
Elected officials'
briefing and dinner 485.00
$164,464.50
*Tbtal contract: $217,887.50
Spent to date: 164,949.50
Remaining: $ 52,938.00
No invoices received yet for
October, November or December
TOTAL EXPENDED $164,949.50
4� 4
MEMORANDUM
JANI 1989: --
DATE: January 11, 1989 C]tY Alan,p,, .0
CrtY of 1t,
TO: Jim Hendrickson, San Clemente
Cindy Jacobs SCAG tjL
Tim Neely, Orange County EMA
Jim Palin, Huntington Beach
Richard Tinney Townsend, RT&A
Bob Wynn, Newport Beach
NEty
FROM: Kenneth Frank, Laguna Beach 6 Pa.
SUBJECT: RECAP OF MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 1989 ,c3�
All agencies were represented at this meeting except the County.
1. The progress summary prepared by staff of the consultant's
work was discussed and it was agreed that the summary was
accurate. The work which remains consists mainly of the
responses to EIS's and coordination of public workshops.
2. The budget summary was discussed. RT&A has no doubt that the
remaining work of the contract can be completed satisfac-
torily with the approximately $40,000 remaining of funds
budgeted for the consultant. Approximately $15,000 remains
for miscellaneous expenses, which should be adequate for the
public workshops and any additional briefing for elected
officials which may be needed.
3. The most recent drafts of the technical reports were re-
viewed. All of them now have executive summaries. Some
suggestions for changes were noted. Any additional comments
January 27. When the finalized reports are delivered, (by
February 17) Laguna Beach will take the responsibility of
having the necessary quantity printed by March 10. An Oil
Spill Contingency Planning Report will also be completed by
RT&A by February 17.
A hotel survey has not yet been conducted for inclusion in
the Socioeconomic report. RT&A submitted a proposed budget
for this survey in the amount of $5,040. These funds would
have to come from the $15,000 cushion for miscellaneous
meeting and workshop expenses or as an additional contri-
bution from the individual agencies. I agreed to talk with
hotels in Laguna Beach to see how much they would be willing
to contribute or help with a survey project and how much the
City of Laguna Beach can assist. It was agreed not to spend
any of the $15,000 cushion for this survey.
The video and the slide show were presented by RT&A. The
slide show is 7-8 minutes long, and the narrative includes
some of the narrative of the video. RT&A was requested to
number the slides so that each agency can tailor the slide
presentation and narrative to its own locality. The video is
12 minutes long. The credits will be modified so that only
the names of the agencies are listed, not the individual
elected officials' names. Two tapes will be provided to each
agency, a 3/4" and a 1/2" tape, by the end of January.
It was agreed that the video tape and slide show will be
shown to a minority of the elected officials of each agency
at a breakfast briefing at Casa Romantica in San Clemente on
Saturday, March 11 at 8:30 a.m. (Each agency is to poll its
Councilmembers to confirm date.) The final technical reports
will be available at that briefing. One RT&A member will be
present.
5. In light of the delays in OCS scheduling, RTA will take
another look at the Strategy Document which was prepared last
August, and adjust the document if necessary, so that the
document can be available for the March 11 briefing.
The next meeting of the group (without a representative of RT&A
present) will be Tuesday, February 28 from 10:00 a.m. to noon (no
lunch provided) at Newport Beach City Hall (Council Chambers
conference room). The agenda will include 1) finalizing arrange-
ments for the March 11 briefing, and 2) deciding on the format for
the public workshops. 1.
Richard Tinney & Associates has a new address: 9745 Valle Road,
Vienna, Virginia (703 255-0066).
cc: William Talley, City Manager, Dana Point
r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
(714) 644-3004
December 20, 1988
Regional Supervisor
Office of Leasing and Environment
Minerals Management Service
Pacific Region
1340 West 6th Street, Suite 244
Los Angeles, CA 90017
�l 0 De ldnnl��0
—{ FC2nr 9
Z <iF `,goly 7
SUBJECT: Comments on the Supplemental Call for Information and Nominations
for Proposed Southern California Lease Sale 95
To the Regional Supervisor:
Attached to this letter are the formal comments of the City of Newport Beach
on the Supplemental Call for Information and Nominations for Proposed
Southern California Lease Sale 95. We appreciate the opportunity to comment
on this issue of substantial local interest.
The City of Newport Beach has a number of concerns regarding the potential
for serious economic and environmental damage that could result from federal
oil and gas leasing, exploration, and production from specific tracts
covered in the Supplemental Call, as well as other tracts located offshore
of or adjacent to south and central Orange County. The City of Newport
Beach has joined the County of Orange and the Cities of Huntington Beach,
Laguna Beach and San Clemente to communicate many of these concerns previ-
ously to the Minerals Management Service. Our concerns have grown as a
result of the Supplemental Call for Information and Nominations.
For example, jurisdictions in the South Coast air basin are experiencing
difficulty in meeting federal air quality requirements. This problem can
only be exacerbated by the placement of large industrial structures such as
exploratory drilling vessels and drilling, production and treatment plat-
forms in the waters offshore of Orange County and its airshed. Additional-
ly, a substantial portion of the Newport Beach economy is derived from
tourism and recreation. Substantial evidence exists that offshore oil
operations offshore would diminish this economic benefit more than that
received from oil and gas operations in this area.
Given these concerns, the City of Newport Beach must negatively nominate the
following blocks:
All of blocks: 2525, 2524, 2426, 2425, 2424, 2423, 2327, 2326,
2325, 2324, 2323, 2227, 2226, 2225, 2224, 2223, and
2222.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
Regional Supervisor
December 20, 1988
Page 2
The City of Newport Beach looks forward to continued participation through-
out the remainder of the pre -lease process for Lease Sale 95. We wish to
express our hope that we can work constructively with the Minerals Manage-
ment Service to satisfactorily resolve the concerns we expressed in our
comments. Should you have any questions or desire any clarification of the
comments, please contact Patricia Temple, Principal Planner at
(714) 644-3225.
Sincerely yours,
Donald A. Strauss
MAYOR
DAS/PLT
WP\LTR\OCS1
Comments of the
County of Orange
City of Huntington Beach
City of Newport Beach
City of Laguna Beach
City of San Clemente
on the
Supplemental Call for Information and Nominations
The County of Orange, California, and the Cities of
Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, and San
Clemente offer the following comments in response to the
Supplemental Call for Information and Nominations
published by the U.S. Department -of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service at 53 Fed. Reg._ 46591 et sea.
(Nov. 17, 1988) for proposed Lease Sale 95. Except where
specifically stated, these comments apply to all 17 of
the blocks listed in the Federal Register notice.
Southern California is a non -attainment area -area with
respect to compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Exploration, development, and
production from these blocks will create significant new
sources of air pollution in a severely overburdened air
basin. Experience with other OCS development projects in
Southern. California demonstrates that under the current
regulatory regime OCS operations result in air quality
degradation onshore.
The Department of the Interior regulates air pollution
from OCS exploration, development, and production. The
regulations established by the Department of the Interior
grant.an exemption to lessees with less than 100 tons per
year for each air pollutant. This exemption level
increases with the distance of the pollution source from
the shore with a ratio of 33.3 times the distance from
the shore in miles.
The basis for the distance based formula is not sound.
Several studies have indicated that dispersion of
emissions over water is substantially less than occurs
over land, due to both the relatively smooth contours of
the sea surface and the lack of significant temperature
differences over the surface. Thus the implicit
assumption that emissions farther from shore will have
less of an effect is not scientifically supported.
_4
Moreover, the exemption level is very close to the
emissions that result from uncontrolled operations from a
single platform. As a result, some platforms may be
downsized or so controlled as to barely meet the
exemption threshold. This results in less than full
mitigation of platform emissions.
These shortcomings in the regulatory structure will
result in substantial adverse effects on onshore air
quality. For example, ozone impacts increase downwind
from the emissions source due to the chemical reactions
that take place in the atmosphere as the pollutants move.
Unregulated emissions offshore may increase onshore ozone
levels since the dominant wind dirbction from the subject
blocks generally is onshore. Importantly, the further
offshore the emissions source is, the worse the problem
onshore may be because of the increased exemption
thresholds and the greater distance over which chemical
reactions may take place.
As already noted, the South Coast Air Basin can be
characterized as having seriously degraded air quality.
Ambient levels of pollution generally are far above
levels at which serious health effects occur. The
impacts of each stage of OCS operations can be very
substantial, with even a single project resulting in
violations of federal and state ambient air quality
standards.
The Southern California Association of Governments has
calculated that a single average -size platform will emit
200 tons per year of NOx during the development phase.
This is more than the combined NOx emissions of 184.4
tons each year from the Long Beach and Orange County
airports. Given that the air quality in the South Coast
Air Basin is so poor, one way of compensating for the NOx
emissions of a single platform would be to close these
two airports during the period of development. Clearly
this is an.undesirable alternative,�but some method must
be found for compensating.. for. the emissions resulting
from OCS operations.
The county and the coastal cities depend to a substantial
degree (as will be described more fully later) on the
recreation and tourism industries fostered in significant
part by the relatively clean air -at the shore. A key
characteristic of the clean air at the Orange County
coast is that it is dominated by winds from the south and
southwest, as is shown in the wind roses of the region.
The 17 blocks listed in the Supplemental call are located
to the south of the Orange County coast. Opening these
17 new blocks to oil and gas exploration, development,
and production will degrade the air quality in the
coastal zone of the county and have a deleterious effect
on the economies of the county and the coastal cities,
especially in the City of San Clemente and the
surrounding coastal region of Orange County.
For these reasons, the blocks listed in the Supplemental
Call should not be opened to OCS oil and gas exploration,
development, and production.
Orange County has a 42 mile coastline that provides
substantial resources for the development of recreation
and tourist dependent economies. Within Orange County's
coastal region there are five state beaches, one state
park, sixteen county beaches, seven marine life refuges,
three ecological reserves, and three pleasure craft
harbors. These resources are used by local residents and
provide a tourist destination for visitors from other
parts of the state, the country, and the world.
In addition to the opportunities for recreation and a
tranquil respite that the physical geography of the
coastal zone provides, it also provides a basis for many
businesses. For example, in San Clemente alone
approximately 50 retailers are directly linked to marine
related activities.
According to a recent study, coastal tourism generated
$637 million in Orange County coastal communities.
Numerous studies have shown that coastal recreationists
and tourists place a high value on the aestetic benefits
of the coast, including pristine views, clean air, and
lack of industrialization. For example, tourists staying
at the Ritz -Carlton hotel in Laguna Nig • pay from $185
to $335•• per night, depending on the location and view.
Tourists are willing to pay the $150 premium: for a direct
oceans view accomodation due :to the benefits• they gain
from seeing the beauty of the ocean.
The high premium that tourists and recreationists place
on the aesthetics of the coast, and with it the large
amount of money that they generate for the local
communities and the region, are likely to be reduced by
the opening of the 17 blocks listed in the Supplemental
Call for OCS oil and gas exploration, development, and
production. Recent surveys have shown that resident and
non-resident beach users would return 17 to 35% less if
their views were degraded by oil and gas platforms. If
these figures are representative of orange County beach
users as a whole, this could mean an annual reduction of
$108 million to $223 million out of the $637 million
spent each year by coastal tourists in the County. These
surveys indicate that there may be changes in the
spending patterns for those who do return to the beaches
as those returning may tend to be younger and less
educated.
In addition to the losses to the local economy from
recreation and tourist dependent sectors, recent studies
indicate that coastal property values may decline as the
views of the ocean are degraded by increased air
pollution and the presence of platforms. A survey of
residents of Orange County indicated that they expected
some effect on their property values from oil and gas
activities on the OCS, with an average decline of 69.
being indicated. If this is representative of the total
coastal- population of Orange County, and more
particularly of southern Orange County where visual and
air pollution impacts of opening the 17 blocks to OCS
operations would be expected to be the greatest, this
would be a subsatntial negative effect that would far
exceed the benefit to be gained from the oil and gas
operations.
Beyond these market losses to the economy, the aesthetic
resources damaged would result in non -market losses to
those who use them. Again referring to the recent
surveys of Orange County recreationists and tourists,
there is substantial evidence that visits to beaches
whose views include platforms are valued less by both
residents and tourists. These surveys indicate that the
lost aesthetic value for offshore oil development for
each person who visits the beach in Orange County would
be $24.61 per year for residents. The equivalent loss
for tourists (who visit the beach many fewer times per
year than do residents) would be $2.50 per person per
year. Multiplying these values by the appropriate user
populations would produce very substantial losses from
oil and.gas operations.
Other economic losses may result in Orange County (as
well as in San Diego County) from opening these 17
blocks. Air quality damages may result, including
property damages, health damages, and aesthetic and
intrinsic values lost if air quality is reduced due to
OCS operations. Studies of economic losses attached to
air quality damages in Los Angeles County have shown that
they are indeed significant, and similar losses should be
expected in Orange County.
Costs could be expected from lost recreation value in the
event of an oil spill. For example, the Santa Barbara
oil spill resulted in about $10 million in recreation
losses, based on studies using relatively crude analytic
techniques. Importantly, this spill occurred in the
winter when such losses would be expected to be at their
lowest. Current state-of-the-art statistical techniques
likely would show substantial losses in recreation
amenity values, aesthetic values, and intrinsic values.
Based on these factors, the 17 blocks listed in the
Supplemental Call should not be opened for OCS oil and
gas operations. The likely damages to both market values
(as reflected in recreation and tourism expenditures and
in property values) and non -market values are too high to
justify taking the action of allowing oil and gas
exploration, development, and production to proceed on
these blocks.
The 17 blocks listed in the Supplemental Call include
areas that are significant fishing grounds in important
recreational and commercial fisheries. Opening these
blocks to OCS oil and gas activities will interfere with
these fisheries and exacerbate the cumulative effects of
other oil and gas related fisheries losses.
Many of the commercial fishermen that rely in part on the
fisheries found in the 17 block area are residents of
Orange County. Of the 156 licenced commercial fishermen
who reside in Orange County, only 47 have fishing vessels
registered in the County. The boats the remaining
commercial fishermen own mainly are docked in Oceanside
and San Pedro/Long Beach.
Fishermen use a variety of fishing methods. Major gear
types include hook and line, trap, drift and set gill
net, purse seine, lampara, and harpoon.
Hook and Line
Hook and line gear 'is used to harvest rockfish,
sablefish, white croaker, bonito, bottom and sand sharks,
and thornyhead. The lines may be stationary or drift for
short distances over deep water rocky outcrops or hard
seafloor.
Hook and line fisheries may be affected by OCS oil and
gas operations in a number of ways. Geophysical surveys
affect rockfish eggs and larvae and fish behavior, and
drilling muds and cuttings cover and contaminate rockfish
habitat. Also, rockfish and sablefish may be susceptible
to damage from oil spills.' Hook and liners have to
abandon fishing in areas where geophysical surveys and
exploratory drilling are taking place, and sometimes lose
gear because gear marker buoys are cut off by
transiting support vessels. Fishing grounds are lost by
being blocked by platforms and associated buoys.
Hook and line fisheries are conducted in all or part of
the following blocks: 2525, 2524,'2425, 2424, 2325, 2324,
2323, 2224, 2223, and 2222.
Set Gill Net
Set gill nets primarily are used to fish for halibut,
white sea bass, and shark. They generally are set in
shallow water no deeper than 40 fathoms (240 feet).
Rockfish may be caught in set gill nets in waters as deep
as 200 fathoms (1200 feet).
Set gill nets may be affected by oil spills, drilling
discharges, and geophysical surveys. Transiting support
vessels can cut off gear marker buoys. If subsatntial
amounts of gear are lost there may an impact on the
resource since the derelict gear will continue fishing
until it deteriorates, a process that can take many
years. Fishing areas may be blocked by geophysical
survey activity, exploratory drilling vessels, and
construction, operation, and abandonment of platforms and
pipelines.
Set gill net fisheries occur in part or all of the
following blocks: 2525, 2524, 2425, 2424, 2423, 2324,
2323, 2223, and 2222.
Trap Fishery
Southern California trap fishermen target Pacific spiny
lobster, rock crab, and shrimp. The traps aremarked by
surface buoys and are set either individually (for
lobster and crab) or are connected by lines (for shrimp).
The traps are baited and are set for a few days,
retrieved, and then reset.. - Trapping for lobster occurs
out to 15 fathoms (90 feet), while crab trapping occurs
out to 30 fathoms (180 feet). Shrimp trapping occurs out
to 100 fathoms (600 feet).
Shellfish have been demonstrated to be harmed by oil
spills, drilling discharges, and possibly by geophysical
surveys. Trapping activity could be harmed by vessel
traffic, and displaced by exploratory drilling vessels,
and by construction, operation, and abandonment of
platforms and pipelines.
Trap fisheries occur in part or all of the following
blocks: 2525, 2524, 2423, and 2323.
Drift Gill Net Fishery
Drift gill nets are floating walls of netting that are
held vertical in the water column by weights and buoys
and are attached to the fishing vessel. They can be up
to a mile in length. The sets last from two hours after
sunset to two hours after sunrise. After the nets are
deployed the vessel drifts, is subject to winds and
currents, and cannot maneuver until the net has been
retrieved. The boats and nets travel an average of six
miles per set with in a range of two to fifteen miles per
set. The majority of drift gill netters fish for
thresher shark and swordfish.
Biological impacts to the fisheries can occur from oil
spills, geophysical surveys, and drilling discharges.
Because the boats and nets require such large expanses of
ocean to operate and cannot maneuver while the nets are
deployed, performance impacts to the fishery can be
great. The boats and gear would be precluded by
geophysical surveys, drilling vessels and related anchor
lines, construction, operation, and abandonment of
platforms and pipelines, and transiting vessels.
Fishermen would risk drifting into offshore vessels and
structures unless they avoid the obstacles.andsurrounding
waters in area equal to the distance of the sets. This
can have the effect of closing off entire drift gill net
areas..
Drift gill netting occurs in all or part of the following
blocks: 2525, 2524,2426, 2425, 2424, 2423,2327, 2326,
2325, 2324, 2323, 2226, 2225, 2224, 2223, and 2222.
Harpoon Fishery
Harpoon fishermen target swordfish generally in the same
areas that shark/swordfish drift gill netters use.
Because thy use harpoons rather than nets to catch the
fish they require smaller areas in which to operate and
their .boats are quite maneuverable as .they chase their
prey. Many boats use airplanes to aid in locating the
fish.
Biological impacts to the harpoon fishery can come from
oil spills, geophysical surveys, and drilling discharges.
Performance impacts could be caused by surveys, drilling
vessels, construction, operation, and abandonment of
platforms, and pipelines blocking access to fishing
areas. Transitting vessels could interfere with the
fishing boats, and oCS-related helicopter traffic could
interfere with spotter aircraft activities.
Harpoon fisheries occur on all or part of the following
blocks: 2525, 2524, 2426, 2425, 2424, 2423, 2327, 2326,
2325, 2324, 2323, 2227, 2226, 2225, 2224, 2223, and 2222.
Purse Seine Fishery
Purse seiners generally target pelagic species,
concentrating on anchovy, mackerel, sardine, and bonito.
These schooling fish range over wide areas and do not
depend greatly on bottom topography or seabottom
conditions. Purse seiners fish by locating a school of
fish and then launching a skiff to drag a net around the
school and then back to the vessel. The purse line of
the net is rapidly winched to close the bottom of the net
and prevent the fish from escaping. Purse seiners
operate from Monterey to the Mexican border and out to
100 miles offshore. Favored areas include the nearshore
waters between Huntington Beach and San Onofre. Other
areas also are popular with purse seiners.
Biological impacts to purse seine fisheries could come
from oil spills, geophysical surveys, abd drilling
discharges. Performance impacts could come from
preclusion from favored fishing areas by survey activity,
drill rigs and associated anchors and lines, and
construction, operation, and abanbonment of platforms and
pipelines. Vessels and gear could run afoul of
transiting support vessels, and nets could be snagged on
seafloor obstructiobs and debris.
Purse seine fisheries
following blocks: 2525,
2327, 2326, 2325, 2324,
2223, and 2222.
Recreational Fisheries
occur on all or part of the
2524, 2426, 2425, 2424, 2423,
2323, 2227, 2226, 2225, 2224,
Virtually the entire Southern California shoreline and
nearshore waters are used by recreational fishermen. In
the areas making up the 17 blocks listed in the
Supplemental Call, fishermen target such species as
rockfish, -white sea bass, sea bass, -barracuda, sand bass,
bonito, mackerel, yellowtail, and sculpin. Charter boats
from Dana Point Harbor, for example, fish for these
species in the nearshore waters from Dana Point to
Oceanside.
Biological impacts to these fisheries could come from oil
spills, geophysical surveys, and drilling discharges.
Performance impacts could come from preclusion of areas
due to geophysical surveys, drilling vessels, and
platforms.
Recreational fisheries occur in all or part of the
following blocks: 2525, 2524, 2426, 2425, 2424, 2423,
2327, 2326, 2325, 2324, 2323, 2227, 2226, 2225, 2224,
2223, and 2222. Additionally, shoreside recreational
fisheries occur immediately inshore form these blocks.
The area of the 17 blocks listed in the Supplemental Call
is subject to numerous geological hazards and constraints
that will affect OCS oil and gas operations in the area.
These include seismic activity, faulting, seafloor
instability, steep slopes, shallow gas, and hydrocarbon
seeps.
Seismic Activity
Seismic activity of the Southern California offshore
region imposes certain potential hazards on offshore
platform structures. Ground movement and seafloor
ruptures are examples of immediate and direct hazards,
while indirect hazards include tsunamis, liquification,
and mass movement of sediment. The 17 blocks listed in
the Supplemental Call are located in the Continental
Borderland geomorphic province, which is characterized -by
scattered interbasin lows bounded by ridges and plateaus
that locally extend above sea level as islands. For the
past ten million years the continental borderland has
been an integral part of a complex boundary between the
Pacific plate to the west and the American plate to the
east. Both of these plates are in motion, which
translates into earthquake activity at this boundary.
The area of the 17 blocks has been subject to numerous
earthquakes in historic times. The Newport -Inglewood
fault zone, which runs through the area, has generated a
number of significant earthquakes, including earthquakes
in 1812 (magitude 6.9), 1920 (4.1), 1933 (6.2, with 12
aftershocks of magnitude 5 or greater), 1941 (4.9), and
1941 (5.4).
Recent studies have shown that the area is subject to
earthquakes with magnitudes up to 7.3. Ground movement
could be as high as 0.6 g. There is a ten percent chance
of horizontal movement as high as 0.37 g and a 90 percent
chance of 0.12 g growth in peak horizontal acceleration.
Major earthquakes could produce disasterous tsunamis.
Tsunamis are particularly dangereous close to shore since
they tend to increase in height as they enter shallower
water. For example, a three foot wave at sea can
increase to 60 feet high in shallow water under the right
conditions.
All 17 of the blocks listed in the Supplemental Call are
subject to the effects of seismic activity. These can
include damage to and loss of platforms and pipelines,
possibly resulting in loss of life and oil spills.
Faulting
An active fault is any fault rupture which shows evidence
of displacing Holocene age sediments or historic seismic
activity. Two major fault systems run through the area
of the 17 blocks. These are the Newport -Inglewood fault
zone and the Palos Verdes fault zone. The Newport -
Inglewood fault is partly concealed beneath shelf and
slope deposits, but is an active fault comprised of a
family of discontinous but parallel fault segments. It
runs along the mainland coastal shelf. The Palos Verdes
fault lies farther offshore. It is an active fault
cutting Holocene sediment having as much as nine feet of
displacement at the base of the section and having a
three foot scarp in the seafloor. No single fault trace
continues for any great distance but instaed the Palos
Verdes fault in made up of a system of lesser fault
traces.
These faults should be avoided in order to reduce the
risks associated with faulting including seafloor
instability, liquification, and tsunamis. The
consequences of these include damage to or loss of
pipelines and platforms, possibly resulting in loss of
life and oil spills.
Seafloor Instability
Seafloor instability arises from the tendency of water -
saturated, incoherent sediment cover on slopes to move
down gradients in response to gravity. Slopes with
gradients of less than four percent have been shown to be
subject to movement of sediments. The shelf break region
in the 17 blocks listed in the Supplemental Call has been
the primary area of past slope instability. In submarine
canyons the problem of seafloor instability is
particularly acute since they generally are in close
proximity to sources of sediments and have relatively
steep slope angles. Canyons channel rapid mass transport
of sediments from higher shelf regions to the lower
depths of the ocean floor. These movements, often
triggered by earthquakes, are sometimes catastrophic,
moving very large quantities of sediments at high speeds.
The area of the 17 blocks is out by two major submarine
canyons. one canyon is found off Oceanside, and the
other, the Carlsbad Canyon, is found off Carlsbad.
Numerous smaller canyons are found in the area as well.
Sediment movement in canyons and elsewhere has been shown
to be a significant risk to platforms and pipelines.
Major sediment movements could destroy platforms and
rupture pipelines. Loss of life and oil spills could
result from such episodes.
Steep slopes
Steep slopes and steep -walled canyons with a degree of
inclination greater than ten degrees are considered to be
potential hazards. Like areas of sediment instability,
steep slopes are unstable and are likely sites of mass
transport. Starting at the 100 meter bathymetric line in
the area of the 17 blocks listed in the Supplemental
Call, the shelf region descends rapidly to a depth of 250
meters. The slope is moderate, at about five degrees,
and in some scattered places is steep. Steep slopes also
occur in the submarine canyons described above, and at
local mounds and knolls. These steep slope areas are
likely sites of sediment transport and can bring about
the same problems as described above with respect to
seafloor instability.
Shallow Gas and Hydrocarbon Seeps
Shallow gas pockets buried in sediment cover on the ocean
floor reduce the shear strength of the enclosing
sediment, increasing the potential for failure. In
addition this gas -bearing sediment is more prone to
liquification during violent ground movement associated
with earthquakes. Sometimes hydrocarbo/gas bubbles that
eminate from faults originate from hydrocarbon
accumulations at great depth and seep to the surface
along paths of weakness. Alternatively, these seeps can
suggest a region of overpressurized conditions and a
reduction in the sediments' load -bearing capacity.
Shallow gas zones and hydrocarbon seeps occur at various
scattered locations throughout the 17 block area.
Drilling in shallow gas zones can result in gas flow
rapidly• becoming uncontrollable. If•"hot handled
properly, it can result in cratering at the seafloor and
utlimately collapse of the platform into the crater.
The area of the 17 blocks listed in the Supplemental Call
is rich in important biological resources and habitats.
The coastline in the area is characterized by some of the
least disturbed coastal wetlands in Southern California.
The area also has rich and diverse intertidal habitats,
kelp forests, and pelagic habitats. The most noticable
inhabitants of these habitats are numerous seabirds and
marine mammals, but these areas contain a wealth of
planktonic, nektonic, and benthic species as well. all
of these contribute to an important and valuable natural
environment.
These resources are subject to harm from OCS oil and gas
development in a variety of ways. For example, OCS
operations, even in the normal 'course of operations,
produce numerous pollutants in large quantities. These
pollutants can be classified according to the medium in
which they are found. Thus OCS operations produce water
pollutants, among which are the following: hydrocarbons
and hydrocarbon compounds, barite, other heavy metal
elements or compounds, clays, lignosulfates, lignite,
biocides, conventional pollutants, suspended solids,
brines, acids, bases, polymers, other operational
chemicals and additives, dispersants and other spill
control chemicals, plastics, and other solid wastes.
OSC operations also produce air pollutants, including
hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur
oxides, and particulates.
Other sources of harm to biological resources from OCS
operations include energy releases such as low -frequency
high-energy acoustic pressure waves, other noises of
various decibels and frequencies, and thermal pollution.
Physical alterations to the environment include vessel
traffic „ emplacement of structures and facilities, anchor
scars, drilling muds and drill- cuttings deposition,
sediment movement, and subsidence.
All of these agents of biological harm will- potentially
affect many habitats and species. For example, the
atmosphere is subject to air pollution, aircraft and
vessel noise, and structure emplacement. Species using
the atmosphere, such as seabirds, respirating marine
mammals, and flying fish will be exposed to these agents
of harm.
The water column is subject to oil spills, other water
pollutants, noise, air gun blasts, vessel traffic, and
disruption from structure emplacement and removal and
other operations. These agents will affect bacteria
throughout the water column, and at the water surface
will affect some plankton, invetebrates, fish, surface
feeding birds, and marine mammals. In the near surface
zone these agents will affect phytoplankton, zooplankton,
(including protozoa, eggs and larvae of benthic and
nektonic forms), invertebrates such as squids, and
pelagic red crabs, fish, both juvenile and adult, sea
turtles,'diving seabirds such as pelicans and cormorants,
and marine mammals. In deeper water beyond the light
zone these agents will work on detritus feeding plankton,
squids, mid -depth and abyssal fish, and deeper diving
marine mammals such as elephant seals and sperm whales.
Similar statements can be made regarding the agents of
biological harm that affect other habitats and their
residents, including benthic habitats, intertidal
habitats, estuarine habitats, and terrestrial habitats.
Each of these agents affects biological resources in one
or more bf these habitats and in one or more ways.
The types of biological damages from offshore oil and gas
operations have been demonstrated to be numerous. They
include short term mortality to individual organisms
(death) from poisoning, asphyxiation, pressure or energy
pulse disruption, and fatal injuries from crushing and
other physical destruction.
Longer term impacts to individual organisms include low
level poisoning and bioaccumulation, displacement, non-
fatal injuries, interference with feeding and survival
abilities, loss of food or energy sources, loss of
habitats, and interference with transitional behaviors or
requirements such as migration or moulting.
Reproductive impacts include reproductive toxicity
leading to reproductive cellular or organ damage,
mutations, and fetal poisoning, reproductive behavior
changes, alterations in reproductive habitat
requirements, and impacts on survival of pre -adult life
stages. Community impacts include biomagnification,
changes -in species composition, food chain alterations,
and lost biomass. Ecosystem impacts include alteration
to basic physical and biological parameters, lost
diversity, alteration to trophic, level energetics, and
lost total productivity.
These agents, working through these avenues of impacts,
will affect the biological resources of the 17 blocks
listed in the Supplemental Call .should these.blocks be
made available for oil and gas exploration, development,
and production.
E. Oil Spill Response Capabilities are Inadequate to
Oil spill response capabilities are limited in the area
that might be affected by spills from the 17 block area.
The existing state of the art is inadequate for all but
the smallest spills under the most benign of conditions.
Experience from other areas has shown that in the best
of conditions, only a small percentage of spilled oil can
be recovered. The remainder enters the water column, the
atmosphere, or is incorporated into sediments. The
problem is exacerbated by poor weather, fog, and
darkness.
Responsible planning authorities have not created oil
spill response plans designed to deal with the magnitude
of spills that could be generated from OCS operations.
oil spill response equipment is physically located at
sites remote from the 17 blocks, and accordingly response
time would be so long that effective response, to the
extent that it is possible, would come only after
substantal transportation delays. Much of the coast in
the areas adjacent to the 17 block area or subject to
spills originating in the area, is either physically
isolated or bounded by cliffs and other physical
barriers. This will further delay oil spill response.
The poor state of oil spill response capabilities in the
17 block area indicates that any substantial spill
originating there would endanger the important economic,
fishery, and biological resources of the the 17 block
area, the adjacent coast, and any areas, such as the
Orange County coast, to which the spill might be expected
to go.
Conclusion
The Minerals Management Service has a heavy burden to
demonstrate that the benefits of offering these 17 blocks
of the OCS off of San Diego County outweigh the potential
costs to the exceptional natural resources and resource -
dependent economies of the surrounding areas. The
overall well-being of the affected counties, the region,
the state, and the country would be better served by
leaving these blocks out of proposed Lease Sale 95 and
any future OCS lease sale.
V.
October 28, 1988
TO: ALL PERSONS CONCERNED ABOUT OFFSHORE DRILLING
FROM: RICHARD CHARTER, COORDINATOR FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT �I Mn'Ile,
S City of Newrorl Beach
RE: CURRENT STATUS OF OCS LEASE SALE PLANNING,
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF DRILLING ISSUE IN PRESIDENTI�.i6��-'(ice
1) OFFSHORE DRILLING A MAJOR FOCAL POINT OF PRESIDENTIAL RACE IN
CALIFORNIA:
Guided by internal polling and advice from the California political
community, both Presidential campaigns have brought the drilling issue
to the forefront of the pre -election dialog. In this process, major
differences between the positions of the two candidates have emerged.
To set the record straight, the positions of the two candidates with
regard to coastal drilling are as follows:
VICE-PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, a well-known member of the oil industry,
was a founder of Zapata Marine, one of the largest offshore drilling
firms in the world and a key player in OCS development throughout the
Gulf of Mexico. This longstanding association with the oil industry
may explain the broad range of positions taken by the Vice President
with regard to the California OCS controversy. In the early days of
the Reagan Presidency, Mr. Bush chaired the President's Task Force on
Regulatory Relief. That body, under his leadership, played a prominent
role in eliminating, delaying, and relaxing a broad assortment of
environmental regulations, many of which would have affected the oil
and chemical industries. In particular, this task force targeted
regulations requiring more stringent controls on toxics in the
environment, as well as acting to significantly delay the phaseout of
lead additives in gasoline which result in mental retardation in
children. Mr. Bush has also been sitting in regular Cabinet Council
meetings with Interior Secretaries James Watt and Donald Hodel over the
years, meetings in which the ongoing federal assault on the California
coastline has been formulated. To this day, Mr. Bush remains a staunch
defender of James Watt and his role as Interior Secretary.
With this kind of historical perspective, it is not surprising that the
Bush position on California OCS leasing has been somewhat inconsistent
in the recent months of the Presidential campaign. In May, on his
first campaign trip through California, Mr. Bush stressed the need for
expanded offshore production. Early -in June, while trailing in the
polls only two days prior to the California Primary, the Vice President
called upon the Interior Department to delay Lease Sale #91 for an,
unspecified period of time, to "Put it in the deep freeze until all of
these studies are completed-". In August, speaking in Texas, Mr. Bush
said that "My opponent opposes offshore drilling and I support it."
More recently, under questioning by the media, the Vice President has
declined to endorse the commitment to permanent coastal protection made
by Governor Dukakis (see below). Mr. Bush, under questioning, said
that he could not go that far. Instead, Mr. Bush has talked in a
general way about deferring drilling on specific "tracts" which he
refers to as "hypersensitive". In early October, however, when Govenor
Cowper of Alaska was joined by Alaska's Republican Representative Don
Young and normally pro -oil Senator Ted Stevens in requesting a delay in
the opening of bids for the environmentaly hypersensitive Bristol Bay
(see item below), Mr. Bush refused to intervene. The opening of the
bids on the Bristol Bay lease sale raises the legitimate concern that a
Bush Administration would find no part of the California coastline to
be too sensitive for offshore drilling. At most, the Vice President
has stated that he would "take a very close look at Lease Sale #95" off
of southern California. In summary, no concrete, specific commitments
regarding protedtionof our key coastal areas has been forthcoming.
This foggy approach to such an important policy issue has created a
storm of controversy over a newly -released Bushcampaign television
spot, which, while showing a drilling rig looming in the background,
states that Governor Dukakis has "supported,offshore drilling off the
coast of Massachusetts". In the next frame, over an overview photo of
the scenic California coastline the spot says that California cannot
afford to take the same chance with it's coastline. This late -blooming
Bush ad, of course, totally misrepresents the facts, and is seen by
many Californians as a cheap attempt by Mr. Bush to co-opt the OCS
issue while making absolutely no firm committments on the topic
whatever. This, at a time when the Interior Department is pushing
ahead full speed with the pre -lease process in all three California OCS
planning areas, is seen as an affront to every reasonable California
voter. OVER--:ft
. z-
MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR MICHAEL DUKAKIS has had a long track record of
actively opposing offshore drilling on Georges Bank. In fact,
Massachusetts and California have had a very successful partnership in
recent years in winning Congressional Moratorium provisions for both
California and New England waters. Without the cooperation of the
Massachusetts Congressional delegation, and Governor Dukakis, it is
doubtful that the California Moratorium would have prevailed during the
challenges of the Reagan Administration. In addition to being a player
in Moratorium efforts for California and Massachusetts, Governor
Dukakis has gone to court to block offshore drilling on Georges Bank.
Massachusetts has also been a participant in legal challenges mounted
against the Department of Interior by coastal states over the Five Year
OCS Leasing Program.
With this background and this familiarity with the topic, it should
come as no surprise that Mr. Dukakis has taken a very specific stand
with regard to offshore drilling along the California coast. On
October 1, at the "Vote the Coast" Conference at San Francisco's Crissy
Field, Governor Dukakis delivered a major coastal policy address. In
this address, Governor Dukakis unveiled a "National Oceans Policy" and
stated that as President he would act to provide permanent protection
from offshore drilling to the California coastline from Big Sur
(starting at Morro Bay) extending to the Oregon border, and would
provide similar, permanent protection to Santa Monica Bay. Mr. Dukakis
further stated that he would cancel Lease Sale #95 off of southern
California, and that he would study other areas off the California
coast and around the nation for permanent protection as well. Governor
Dukakis proposed to accomplish this permanent protection through
executive order. The position articulated on October 1 by Governor
Dukakis comes very close to the "Ocean Sanctuary" legislation being
carried in the Congress by Rep. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Alan Cranston.
The topic of permanent protection for the California coastline (le„
Ocean Sanctuary) was, in an instant, catapulted into the national
political discussion.
It is apparent that the oil industry will not allow the Bush campaign
to go anywhere near the protective position outlined by Mr. Dukakis on
October 1. At the same time, all indications are that this issue may
very well be a hinge point for California's forty-seven electoral
votes. Efforts on the part of local officials throughout California to
secure a clear commitment from Vice President Bush on this issue should
continue unabated right up to the election itself. At the same time,
the television spots now being aired by the Bush campaign cannot be
permitted to go unchallenged by those familiar with the real record of
the candidates on the offshore drilling issue.
2) ALASKA'S BRISTOL BAY AUCTIONED FOR OFFSHORE DRILLING: On October
11, a tragedy of major proportions occurred which has implications for
coastal areas around the nation. The Department of Interior opened the
bids for one of the world's richest fishing grounds even as the State
of Alaska made a last-ditch attempt to stop the sale by petitioning the
U.S. Supreme Court for intervention. Interior Department officials
were already opening bids when word came from Washington that Supreme
Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had denied the state's urgent request
to stop the process.
Bristol Bay, located just north of the Aleutian Chain in Alaska,
supports one of the greatest concentrations of biological resources on
- — she planet. - Marine mammals.,- seabirds- —and—salmon -exist- there in- great
abundance. A few years ago, Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington state
attempted to convince the House Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations
to place a Congressional Moratorium on Bristol Bay, but his effort
failed in the Subcommittee by a single vote margin. Absent the
imposition of a Moratorium, the Bristol Bay lease sale was held in
January of 1986, but litigation challenging the sale brought by the
State of Alaska, fishing interests, native groups, and national
environmental organizations such as N.R.D.C. managed to intially block
the opening of the bids. Under the terms of an early court action, the
bids were locked in a vault in the Alaska OCS Office of the Interior
Department. During this time, one of the successful bidders, Exxon,
withdrew their bids.
The opening of bids was withheld until early October of this yeaz, when
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco gave the go-ahead
for leasing. The Interior Department acted quickly to complete the
process. Eleventh -hour appeals for a delay in the bid opening from
V,
Governor Steve Cowper of Alaska, and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) and Sen.
Ted Stevens (R-Alas ka) were addressed to Vice President George Bush
but went unheeded. The Bristol Bay commercial fishery generates $1
billion per year and employs 10,000 persons. The total successful bids
on Bristol Bay tracts amounted to only $95.4 million. National
environmental groups and the State of Alaska intend to continue to
fight to protect Bristol Bay from drilling operations now scheduled to
begin next spring, and the State of -Alaska plans to ask the Ninth
Circuit Court to rehear its lawsuit and, if that fails, to take the
case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lessons in this sequence of events
for California are very clear. First, Congressional Moratorium
provisions are essential to achieve interim protection until permanent
protection becomes a reality - absent Moratorium protection, leasing
occurs. Second, litigation, while useful for delay, cannot be relied
upon to provide protection in the long run. And third, the present
Administration, and apparently Vice President Bush, do not consider
even the most environmentally sensitive region on the nation's OCS to
be worthy of protection from offshore drilling.
3) NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY REAUTHORIZATION APPROVED: The National
Marine Sanctuaries Act was recently reauthorized by Congress and has
gone to the President's desk for signing. In addition to funding for
continuation of the Marine Sanctuary Program, this years legislation
requires N.O.A.A. to complete a designation document for the Cordell
Bank National Marine Sanctuary off of the Sonoma Coast by the end of
this year, to complete a designation document for a Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary by the end of 1989, and to study Santa Monica
Bay for inclusion in the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The Flower
Garden Banks in the Gulf of Mexico, and areas offshore Washington state,
are also marked for inclusion in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
Rumors persist that when President Reagan signs this bill, he will have
Vice President Bush at his side to take political credit. Any attempt
by the present Administration to take credit for the various National
Marine Sanctuary provisions contained in this legislation will be quite
ironic. The public should be skeptical of any such action, especially
considering that Congress had to take the extreme step of including
specific sites and timelines in the final bill only because the
Administration has been dragging its feet for years on protection for
some of these sites.
4) UPCOMING STEPS IN THE LEASE SALE PROCESS TARGET ALL THREE CALIFORNIA
OCS PLANNING AREAS:
LEASE SALE # 119, Central California, will be the focus of a "Call for
Information" on or about November 16, 1988. This step is being held
off until just after the Presidential election. This first public
participation step for the planned 1.5 million acre lease sale will
kick off what is certain to be a vigorous fight over leasing which will
focus on nearshore tracts along the Santa Cruz -San Mateo coast and the
Sonoma coast.
LEASE SALE #95, off of southern California, will be the subject of the
release of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement around Christmas of
this year, with public hearings for southern California communities
set for February of 1989. Primary nearshore leasing targets for Lease
Sale #95 include the southern portion of Big Sur, Santa Monica Bay, the
Palos Verdes Penninsula, the Orange County coast, and tracts off
Oceanside and La Jolla.
LEASE SALE #91, encompassing the Mendocino and Humboldt coastline, has
been temporarily delayed by a Congressional Moratorium for fiscal year
1989. The President reluctantly signed the Appropriations bill for FY
1989 in spite of requests by Interior Secretary Hodel that he veto it
because it included OCS Moratorium provisions. Lease Sale #91 planning
steps, however, are all proceeding on a fast -track behind the scenes at
the Pacific OCS Office of MMS. A Final Environmental Impact Statement
will be released in March of 1989,.the .Final Notice of Sale is set
for September of 1989, and the actual leasing of tracts is set to go
ahead in early October of 1989.
5) STATE LANDS COMMISSION ACTS TO PROTECT STATE WATERS OFF OF MENDOCINO
AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES. On October 26, the State Lands Commission held
a public hearing in Mendocino and voted to enact a state tidelands
sanctuary within sate waters along the Mendocino and Humboldt county
coastline. The State Legislature had already approved such an action
this year by passing AB 284 authored by Assemblyman Dan Hauser, but
Governor Deukmejian vetoed the bill. The State Lands Commission then
took administrative action, since state waters are clearly under their
Jurisdiction. State Lands Commissioners Gray Davis and Leo McCarthy
voted to enact the state sanctuary, in spite of the fact that the Lands
OVE/2:.p
L"
Commissioner who represents the Governor was absent.
an important message to the Congress that the state
provide protection to state waters along the entire
northern Californa coast.
This action sends
is willing to
central and
6) MORE LOCAL OCS ORDINANCE MEASURES ARE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT: To
the 19 existing local ordinances affecting onshore facilities for
offshore oil and gas development, we can most likely add three more
after Novbember 8. In Mendocino County (Measure A), Humboldt County
(Measure B), and San Clemente (Measure W) voters will take action on
the onshore facilities issue. Prospects for passage of all three of
these measures look promising at this time.
CALIFORNIA LEASE SALE SCHEDULE
Northern California
Central California
Southern California
(Sale #91)
(Sale #119)
(Sale #95)
0o
Nov.
CALL
Dec.
COMMENTS,
- DE1S
Jan.
Feb.
FEES
JAREAIDENT.
I HEARING
Mar.
Apr.
May
INOS
Jun.
Jul.
I GOV$ COMMENTS
Aug.
FEIS
Sept.
Oct.
SALE
PN{7S
Nov.
Dec.
GOV'S COMMENTS
,Jan.
DEIS
Feb.
HEARING
FNOS
Mar.:
SALE
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
FEIS
Sept.
Nov.
Dec.
GOV'S COMMENTS
Jan.
Q
Feb.
FNOS
MW
SALE
,r DAIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement PNOS: Proposed Notice of Sale
�(1QI Eovironmental Impact Statement FNOS: Final Notice of Sale
OG G',tW 6/ CHAgrQOUXTFSACWW( 00A5rENV.STuv/E5*P06&k
JUN 91989,
C G:Y M.an, ne,
6, 1989
TO: Robert Wynn, City Manager - Newport Beach
Jim Hendrickson, City Manager - San Clemente
Jim Palin, Deputy City Administrator - Huntington Beach
Tim Neely, County Environmental Management Agency
William Talley, City Manager - Dana Point
FROM: penneth Frank, City Manager, Laguna Beach
SUBJECT: MEETING REGARDING OFFSHORE OIL ACTIVITIES
our next meeting, the follow-up to the executive committee meeting
which was held on May 15, will take place at the Newport Beach
City Hall in the Fire Conference Room on Thursday, June 15 at 9:30
a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to respond to the
elected officials' suggestions for further actions, which in-
clude:
-- The County will be adopting a resolution opposing
offshore oil drilling and that resolution will include
factual information gleaned from the various reports.
-- Evelyn Hart will approach the Orange County Division of
the League of Cities about the possibility of having all
of the cities endorse the County resolution
-- There will be a letter from the five mayors, plus
Supervisors Riley and Wieder, which would go to each
city in Orange County asking them to oppose Lease
Sale 95.
-- Meetings would be set up with Congressman Cox and Packard
to have them discuss possible opposition and neutrality
with Congressman Dornan, Rohrabacher and Dannemeyer who
currently support offshore oil drilling. Local officials
from each district would be asked to participate in these
meetings.
At the meeting you will receive your agency's copies of the
technical reports prepared by Richard Townsend, et al., and we
will review the status of the budget.
cc: Cindy Jacobs, SLAG
505 FOREST AVE • LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 TEL (714)497.3311
JOUfm
NJJOCIATIM 818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor • Los Angeles, California 90017 ❑ (213) 236-1800 • FAX (213) 236-1825
EXECUnVE COMMITTEE
President OOA=Cu 95 b'FJsMUM CiJt�Txbb
Mike Antonovich, Supervisor,
Los Angeles County
First Vice President
Christine Reed, Councilnember, D=: June 29, 1989
Santa Monica d
Second Vice President
John Flynn, Supervisor
Ventura County
Past President
Don Griffin, Councilmember,
Buena Park
Imperial County
Abe Seabolt, Supervisor
Los Angeles County
Deane Dana, Supervisor
Orange County
Harriell Wleder, Supervisor
gr,)2.E: 10:00 am
PLACE: SCAG Offices
818 West Seventh Street
11th Floor, Main Conference Rome
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(See attached map)
Riverside County
Kay Ceniceras, Supervisor
San Bernardino County �•'
Jon Mikels, Supervisor
Cities of Imperial County
(To be filled)
City of Los Angeles
Tam Bradley, Mayor
Los Angeles
Gloria Molina, CounnGnember,
Los Angeles
Robert Farrell, Councdtnember,
Los Angeles
City of Long Beach
Clarence Smith, Cuuuribnember,
Long Beach
Cities of Riverside County 2.
Jack Clarke, Councilmember,
Riverside
Cities of San Bernardino County
John Langville, Mayor
Rialto
Cities of Venture County
John Melton, Caunciimember,
Santa Paula
Cities of Orange County
Irwin Fried, Courilmembee
Ybrba Linda
AT•IARGF, DELEGATES
Jack[ Bacharach, Maros,
Rancho Palos Verdes
Robert Gentry, Mayor,
Laguna Beach 3.
Judy Nieburger, Councilmember,
Moreno Valley
ALTF.RNATF.S
r RECEIVED
�"
De: •. •.-,tit
JUN231989
CYn ur
NEVIK)RT8 K>1r 1141,i1
CALGir.
.. �
COF14ITIEE INFo}dv=oil SHAR114G
- House Appropriations Subcommittee Action on Tease Sales (see
attaclvnent B)
- Coast Guard Proposal. to Designate Shipping Lanes Along the
Central California Coast (see attachment C)
- AmericanPPetroleum Institute Proposal. to Create Regional Oil
Spill Centers (see attachment D)
On May 24, the presidential OCS Leasing and Development Task
Force held an all -day workshop in the Los Angeles County Hall of
Administration. Several elected officials, environmentalists,
and industry representatives presented testimony to the Task
Force. themes echoed by almost every speaker were the need for a
omrlprehensive national energy policy which Calls for
implementation of conservation measures and the threat of a major
oll. Spill..
DISCUSSION OF THE FURM OF COALIriTION 95
With the many delays in Tease Sale 95, Coalition 95's budget has
dwindled. Unless additional funding can be obtained to Continue
Imperial County a Jeanie Vogel, Supervisor. Los Angeles County o Edmund Edelman, Supervisor and Peter Schabarum, Supervisor. Orange County o Gaddi Vasquez, Supervisor.
Riverside County o Melba Dunlap, Supenisor. San Bernardino County o Larry Walker, Supervisor. Ventura County o James Dougherty, Supervisor. Cities of Imperial County o Ron
Rodriguez, Councilmember, Westmoreland. Cities of Los Angeles County o Vacant. Cities of Riverside County. Richard Deininger, Jr., Mayor, Corona. Cities of Orange County a
John Karol, Maser Pro Tent, Cypress . Cities of San Bernardino County o tarry RhinhaM Mayor Montclair . Cities of Venture County a Frank McDevitt, Councilmember, Ojai o
Richard Abnor et, Councilmember. Los Angeles . Michael Woo, Councilmember, Los Angeles - Joy Ficus, Councilmember, Los Angeles . Long Beach 2nd Position Vacant . Vicki
Howard, Councilmember, Simi Valley . Robert Bartlett, Mayor, Monrovia . Ruthelyn Plummer, Mayor Pro Tem, Newport Beach
4.
the work of Coalition 95, this will be our last meeting. Please
come prepared to discuss your views about the future of Coalition
95 and possible funding sources to enable us to complete the
federal canrient process on Lease Sale 95.
A draft of Issue Paper #4 was previously sent to Coalition 95
members for review. The paper has been revised since that time,
and the final draft will be available at the meeting. Staff will
briefly present the conclusions of Issue Paper #4 as well as a
resolution to be contained in the final version of the paper.
The resolution will be handed out at the meeting.
Issue Paper #5 is now available in draft form. Staff will
present the findings of Issue Paper #5. A major finding of the
paper is that while the oil and gas infrastructure in Los Angeles
and Orange Counties is relatively extensive, it may not be
capable of handling a substantial increase in OCS production.
Staff requests that Coalition 95 approve the paper for
distribution to the ocs Task Force and the public (attachment E).
The deadline for submission of comments and documents to the OCS
Task Force is July 15, 1989. Issue Paper #5 will be finalized
during the first week in July.
A: Synopsis of April 10
B: Information on House
C: Information on Coast
Tanker Safety
D: Newsclipping on the
Response Proposal
Coalition 95 Meeting
Subcommittee Action to Delay Lease Sales
Guard Proposal and Notice of Hearings on
American Petroleum Institute's oil Spill
E: Draft of Issue Paper #5, Oil and Gas infrastructure Assessment
F: Fact Sheet on SCAG Issue Papers
NOTE: SCAG regrets that it will not be able to validate parking for
those attending the meeting. Reasonable pried open parking
lots are located at the intersection of 9th and Flower Streets.
Carpooling is encouraged. Also, smG,s offices are easily
accessible by bus.
ATTACHMENT A
Synopsis of April 10 Coalition 95 Meeting
1 • •: : •' N •'. J191' � •• I � ply IJI �
April 10, 1989
John Sauren an, Deputy Attorney General (California)
Eugenia Laychak, OCS Fisheries Coordinator
Gordan Gotta, Fisherman
Members:
Sue Garbowitz, representing State Senator Hersdiel Rosenthal
Bob Gentry, aWXAM
Gary Gero, City of Manhattan Beach
Mark Gross, City of Carson
Michael Jiminez, representing L.A. City Cotincilmanber Zev Yaroslaysky
Mitch Maricich, representing L.A. County Supervisor Deane Dana
Devon Scott, representing L.A. City Councilmnnber Marvin Braude
Don snail, City of Redondo Beach
Archie Snow, City of Redondo Beach
Lisa Weil, representing U.S. Representative Mel Levine
Others:
Richard Charter, Iocal Government Coordination Program
Leslie Gainer, American oceans Cbnsetvation Ctmnittee
Michael Jondreau, Heal The Bay
Susan Livenick, State Lands Commission
Goldie Otters, League of Wanen Voters
Vicki Randolph, GremVeace
Mark Ryavec, American oceans Canpaign
gaw staffs
Nona Edelen, Associate, Govenmrerrt Affairs
Cindy Jacobs, Environmental Planning
Joanne Frielich, Principal Enviro mmtal Planner
Cindy Jacobs of SCAG staff updated the Carmittee on the Department of Interior's
(DOI) proposed rule for oontrolling emissions fran OCS development activities.
Staff has been meeting with representatives of coastal air pollution control
districts to prepare comients on the rule. The ccnsenus is that the rule is not
adequate to protect onshore air quality.
Nona Edelen of SCAG staff discussed efforts to include OCS language in the Clean
Air Act reauthorization bill (CAA). SCAG submitted proposed language for
inclusion in the CAA. The language would transfer authority for controlling
005 emissions from DOI to EPA. SLAG staff met with members of Congress in
Washington and sent letters requesting that this language be part of the final
bill. Ms. Edelen also discussed legislation introduced by Assemblyman Dace,
which would prohibit 005 drilling off San Diego. That bill may be re -drafted to
cover the entire coast of California. Ms. Edelen offered to provide information
on other legislation of interest to Committee members.
John Sauren=, Deputy California Attorney General, provided a status report on
Lease Sale 95 and an overview of recent OCS-related litigation. The following
is a synopsis of his presentation.
on February 9, president Bush brought Lease Sales 95 and 91 into question.
Immediately after the president's speech, the delays in those sales waned
firmer than the subsequent budget document indicated. Mw delays are
intended to allow the newly -cleated OCS Task Force to study the issues and
try to resolve environmental concerns. A report will be issued to the
president by January 11 1990. 2* Task Force report will probably be a
political document..
g here is nothing in the budget doo orient which states what will happen after
the report is completed. it is conceivable that the president will then
approve the sales and they will go forward 3-4 months after that. If that
is the case, there will be no real delay in Lease Sale 95, while Lease Sale
91 will be delayed for 6 or 7 months. 4he message is: 'be very vigilant.'
At this time, the Task Force does not have guidance, and staff has not yet
been appointed. It is not clear how the Task Force will operate. Because
of this ambiguity, local government must oontin a to support moratorium
legislation.
Attorney General van de Ramp sent a letter to President Bush and Interior
Secretary Lujan raising the above concerns and requesting that pre -lease
steps be stopped during the next fiscal year to remove the ambiguity. He
also asked that hearings be held in California and that local government
representation be included on the Task Force (see attached letter).
The Lease Sale 95 DEIS could be released at any minute. An Area
Identification for the tracts included in the Supplemental Call for
Information ccnducted last year must occur before the DEIS can be issued.
4he Task Force members are from the Department of Interior, Department of
aw gy, office of Management and Budget, awirormmexntal Rcotection Agency,
and National Academy of Sciences. EPA was included only after a
request by members of California's Congressional Delegation. No-one knows
what EPA's position will be. 4he comments they submit on DOI's proposed air
quality rule will be a good indication of their stance on OCS issues. '
Representative George Miller of Contra Costa is now the second ranking
Democrat on the House Interior Committee, and Chair of the Water, power, arxi
oCs Re.,our-oes Subcommittee. He is very interested in ocs issues and may
bold field hearings this year. In 1986, he worked hard to strengthen
Section 19 of the 005 Lands Art.
Late in the Summer of 19870 the Western oil and Gas Assocatien (WOGA)
challenged 13 local ordinances, and inntiatives passed in 1985 and 1986. The
initiatives prohibit or restrict onshore support facilities for offshore
oil development. The Attorney General intervened on behalf of the local
governments. In April 19880 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ccnsuelo
Marshall dismissed most of the challenges, deciding that they are premature.
WOGA has administrative remedies, including appealing to the Coastal
Commission, and onshore zoning ordinances are not pre-e pted by the OCS
Iands Act or the Coastal Zane Managmw t Act. WOGA filed a notice of appeal
Y
" which is now in briefing. There will be an opinion by the end of the year.
Mr. saurerman is confident that Judge Marshall's opinion will be upheld.
The Attorney General is submitting camhents on DDI's proposed air rule.
Marry areas of California do not meet EPA's air quality standards. The
California Clean Air Act will "tighten the screws even further." In a few
years, regulatory coditions will be different arri current onshore
regulations will be inadequate. Mr. saurermian does not know if there will
be litigation. If local govermnents want to be involved down the line, they
must participate at every stage. They must submit comments on the proposed
rule. By the same token, local governments mast submit ccaments on the
Ieabe sales.
The Secretary of Interior is supposed to adapt the Gavernor's comments if
they strike a reason
able balance. But in practice, this has riot always been
the case. On the other hand, if the Governor signs off on a lease sale EIS,
it doesn't mean that litigtion is precluded. It is still possible to sue
under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. Litigation on lease sales is
very difficult to win.
Richard Charter stated that news of President Bush's February 9 speech in which
he delayed the lease sales was intentionally leaked to the Los Anreles Time§ the
day before to diffuse the appropriations process. He also discussed the
different language used for Lease Sales 91 and 95. For 9��Fo�� will
resolve questions, while for 95 it will identify
previously identified and then modify or cancel the sale. MSS Regional
Director Lisle Reed pulled out of a recent meeting in Oceanside, but 200 people
showed up wiyway. According to Mr. Quarter, this issue is not 'cooling off.'
Qhairmazh Gentry suggested that President Bush could be 'railroading' the lease
sales through by sending the DM to the Task Force. Mr. Quarter said he does
not think anything will happen until the election in November, 1990.
Leslie Gainer described the issues discussed at the national OCS coalition
dlease sales have not been delayed. According to Ms. Gainer,
there should be a unified effort by al coastal states for moratoria and
permanent protection. There will be several 'windows of opportunity.'
Eugenia Iaychak, OCS Coordinator of the Coastal Fisheries Foundation, was the
next guest speaker. She presented information or the fisheries resources off
the coast of Southern California and the potential impacts of OCS development on
these resources. The following is a syn psis of her presentation.
There is a great deal of fishing activity close to shore from the San Pedro
Bay south. Most of that activity is conmaercial fishing. In 1987, there
were over one arxi 1/2 million marine recreational fishermen in southern
California. 2.7 million fish were caught by 456,000 anglers operating from
boats out of harbors from Santa Barbara to San Diego Counties. The
predominant species are rockfish, bonito, mackerel, seabass, barracuda,
sculpin, yellowtail, and sheephead.
Fish in Southern California waters are used for research, recreational
pw poses, ecmmier�cial fishing, and export. sixty percent of the statewide
crnmercial catch is landed at Southern California ports. In 1987, the
Southern California catch totaled 262.5 million pounds and was valued at the
dock at $102.5 million. Most were landed at Ias Angeles County ports.
Iupacts from OCS develcpment are to the resource itself and to the
fisheries. Air guns used in seismic surveys are the cause of most of the
problems. They shoot an acoustical signal and scare fish. A Minerals
Management Service study shows that 50% of a catch is reduced by geophysical
surveys. Studies looking at the effects of air guns on eggs and larvae have
been fairly inhcorlusive.
Cables with transducers to pick up rays from the air guns can be 2 miles
long. They make the survey boats utwwo hverable. Geophysical survey boats
have the right of way. Fishermen avoid the areas where these surveys are
being conducted; they claim the guns scatter the fish anyway. Most surveys
are done at the pre -lease stage.
oil spills also affect fisheries. oil spill recovery equipment only works
in seas up to 2 feet high, while southern Mihigher
than 2 feet. Also, toxic drilling dischargesre y affect the fish resource'
A Santa Barbara study showed that 70% of fishermen and 86% of the fishing
com rdty experience moderate and high iupacts from OCs activities.
Problems have remained after mitigation.
Exploratory drilling rigs and semi-suimersibles are held in place by anchor
lines which are very long. Fishermen cannot access the areas occupied by
these lines, which can eaver 7-9 square miles. If many rigs are operating
at one time, a very large area can be closed to fisher=. Jack -up rigs do
not need anchor lines and cause fewer displacements.
Platforms usually use pipelines. Pipeline barges, used for construction,
are also held in place by anchor lines. nhese can cut off a large area of
up to 1 mile in width to fishermen. Fishermen in Santa Barbara say that
pipelines can cause problems for trawl nets even though they are supQose dto
be octtistructed to avoid these problems. Loss of gear can amount to between
$5,000 and $20,000.
crew and supply boats sometimes drop drilling muds and cuttings. They can
also occupy harbor facilities which had been previously available for
fishermen. in the case of an oil spill or other emergency, most of the
harbor facilities would be used for response.
It is has con�teedd in the same to note toil and areas tihhee fishing inilling dustry.
The Maria Basin
The final speaker was Gordan Oota, a fisherman who works in the Santa Barbara
Channel area. In 1979, he was appointed to the Minerals Management Service's
ssed the
fishermen f Technical
when they cwmot w�ork.. Hey cota stated that the id ing industtrry has
been around for mach danger than the oil industry. He also said that the oil
industry is attracted to the areas of the ocean which are rich in fish
resources, perhaps because of bottom geology. Finally, Mr Oota stressed that he
is not concerned about politics, or oil spills, or what the government is doing:
he is eoo4erned about getting shrihnp he can sell so he can make a living. He
explained that this means that at 3:00 in the morning he has to bunk about not
being run over by crew and supply boats, not being snagged on oil equipment, and
whether he'll be able to recover his net or whether it will get caught in oil
equipment.
Due to a lack of time, the air quality paper resolution was not presented.
1515 K Street. Sate 600
P 0 Boa 944255
Sacramento. (',aafoma 94244.25W
(M) 324.5437 ,
(office of tit$ (�kttax g G" eneral
John K. Van de Kamp
Atbeary G'a
March 6, 1989
Honorable George Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Bush:
Delay of Outer Continental Shelf
Lease Sales 91 and 95
3580 W/shme Boulevard, Sure 800
Lm Angeles Caldoma 90010
1213) 735.2273
I am writing to express my support and appreciation for your
announcement in your February 9, 1989, budget address that you
were going to delay indefinitely Outer Continental Shelf Lease
Sales 91 (Northern California) and 95 (Southern California).
Your recognition of the fact that there are legitimate
environmental concerns being raised about these two lease sales
is a welcome decision. Your announcement also begins a process
of re-evaluating OCS leasing offshore of California, and we hope
that the re-evaluation will result in the federal government
taking a position which is consistent with the views of most
Californians.
Although your announcement is a welcome first step, we do have
some concerns about its implementation and about the task force
which you also announced. First, we are pleased that EPA will be
included. We'welcome this step because the task force should
have a broad perspective, including strong environmental
representation. For the task force to perform its duties
effectively, it must be Loth objective in fact and perceived to
be objective. Additional representation from affected states
might go a long way to strengthen that perception. .
Second, the task force must adopt procedures which will allow for
broad public participation in its review. Such participation is
necessary if the disputes which have long raged about OCS leasing
and development offshore California are to be resolved. At a
minimum, this means that the task force must conduct public
hearings in California. The OCS leasing issue is one of great
interest to Californians. The level of this interest is
illustrated by the thousands of residents of the North Coast who
participated in the hearings conducted by the Minerals Management
President'George Bush
March 6, 1989
Page 2
Service on its draft environmental impact
The vast majority of these people opposed
are to accept the conclusions of the task
allowed to participate in the process.
statement for Sale 91.
Sale 91, and if they
force, they must be
Third, the mandate of the task force should be expanded to
include a review of Sale 119 (Central California). During the
campaign, you stated that the Sale 91 area was one which was so
environmentally sensitive that leasing should not occur. We
believe that the Central California area covered by Sale 119 is
just as environmentally sensitive as that for Sale 91, and thus
neither sale should go forward.
Fourth, the actual length of the delay for Sales 91 and 95
remains quite ambiguous. We do not know what to expect once the
task force delivers its report to you in January 1990. If the
task force were to conclude that these sales should proceed
notwithstanding our concerns, will they then be immediately
scheduled? We believe that whatever the recommendations of the
task force, these sales should not be conducted during Fiscal
Year 1989/1990.
Finally, your announcement, and the formation of the task force,
provides an opportune moment to review the five-year OCS leasing
program and to formulate a national energy policy. We believe
that a comprehensive review of our national energy policy will
show that only limited oil and gas resources can be.recovered
from areas such as those offshore of Northern and Central
California and portions of Southern California. In comparison,
the risk to the environment is very high. Also, we can obtain
far more energy through other measures such as federal
conservation programs or enhanced recovery from existing onshore
fields. A proper national energy policy would pursue these
alternative measures and would be sensitive to the necessity of
protecting the environment of both the Nation and the world.
I wish to conclude by reiterating our support for the process you
have begun. We look forward with hope to the work of the task
force.
Sincerely,
��. VAN DE r%P"
zlav General
Manuel Dujan, Secretary of the Interior
California Congressional Delegation
ATTACHMENT B
Information on House Subcommittee Action
to Delay Lease Sales
HW'6Vi0a 10:vo u"., oc. rwv .. �riiiaraaa"
^142 ESeenth Street ASui e 3 Santa Monica, Califorrnia 90401 C(213) 69+W+— A(219��4
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Richard Charter -
OBOARD OF Suns 20, 1989
Ted Canaan
Caaay O�!.
Mark Rgnc
CauMa Mlalsa 1
Warner Ch"*
Rkhard Charw
Can Faust
Robert N auMlvk
(202)546-5250
Leslie Gainer
(213)452-2206
CONGRESSIONAL PANEL APPROVE; ^-•
ONE-YEAR BAN oN CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE DRILLING
;ems M A one-year aoratozium on
owwrra Coast was approved today
,;; Interior Appzopriations,
now offshore drilling along the California
in Washington by the mouse subcommittee on
w`a.w The congressional panel approved provisions contained in the interior
4 Appropriations bill which would prohibit the expenditure of funds for
•* the conduct of lease sales or pre -lease planning steps for new offshcrt
4==. drilling along the entire California coast.
surrOnrcRS
If it receives approval by the full congress, the funding ban initiaW
#w"* today would halt all preparations for southern californis Lease sale
,,,"N",,1404e 195, central California Lease Sale 1119, and northern California Lease
"`" Sala 191. The congressional moratorium would Tomain•in effect until 81
"ar least October If 19900
w� The subcommittee today also included similar protection in the Interior
o.uiMr4a.rn Appropriations bill for the coast of Washington state and Oregon, the
Florida Keys and the west coast of Vlorida, the coast of 148V Jersey,
"^ the Georges Bank fishing grounds off the coast of New sngland, and
,�..,., Bristol say in Alaska.
a :�. "The challenge now will be to generate enough public pressure and mail
""""'" to congressional offices within the next week or so to convince the
w ear« full House Appropriatlons committee to follow through and finalize
".rchoff todsya action, We could see a tough battle this year.", said Richard
a charter, coastal lobbyist for cities and counties in California,
DPW r.wr.
� The interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1090, which contains
the coastal protootionr now goes to the full House Appropriations
M- committee, which has approved similar provisions for, six of the past
" seven years, Deliberations before the House Appropriations Oommlttee
+ are expected as early as June 270 With a joint House-sanate Conference
Committee llkely'taking up the la sue later in the summer.
www uw
M' Todays action comes as a presidential Tagk Force on the offshore
10ei"a" drilling issue is touring Florida and California and holding a series
►.'i:w of public hearings. Florida public hearings held on June 15 and 16 in
Miami and Key West attracted 1500 and 2000 participants respectively,
e..M ur na
,,"ate, The presidential Task Force will be holding an upcoming hearing on the
controversial northern California Lease sale oil proposal on June 20
�=Woft and 29 in Arcata, California At Humboldt state university. President
m.r�n.rur+e" Bush is scheduled to receive A report from the Task Force on January 11
L090 eontainihq recommendations regarding offshore drilling proposals
all of northern and southern California, as well as In Florida,
~ If the congressional funding
1aasing or pre-leass.actions
Department until October 1,
might recommend in January.
ban is approved this year, no additional
could be undertaken by the Interior
1990 irregardleas of what the Task Force
June 21, 1989
In order to express support for the moratorium provisions
the Appropriations Subcommittee before the full Committee
could come as early as Jube 27); Coalition 95 members and
parties may wish to send letters or telegrams to members
The following Committee members should be contacted:
Bill Green - 1110 LHOB
Bob Carr - 2439 RHOB
Jerry Lewis - 2312 RGOB
Richard Durbin - 129 CHOB
approved by
vote (which
interested
of the Committee,
The message should express support for the OCS moratorium provisions
contained in the fiscal year 1990 Interior Appropriations bill as
approved in Subcommittee.
(For information about sending telegrams over the phone, contact Leslie
Gainer of the American Oceans Conservation Committee at (213) 452-2206)
Wednesday, June 21, 1989/Part 1 " 3
Administration
Dealt Setback on
Offshore Drilling
By DOUGLAS JEHL, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON—In a blow to
Bush Administration hopes for a
consensus do offshore drilling, a
House Appropriations subcommit-
,tee voted Tuesday to delay new
'federal offshore oil drilling and
-pre-lease activities along the Cali-
fornia coast until at least October,
1990.
The action, sponsored by Rep.
Leon E. Panetta (D-Monterey)
and strongly opposed by the Ad-
ministration, would renew a con-
.gressional moratorium that has
blocked new drilling off the Call-
fornla coast for eight years.
The step would delay a White
House plan to resolve the long-
standing controversy by next Jan-
uary and would significantly re-
duce the influence of a high-level
task force appointed by President
Bush to review the drilling plans.
The measure, sponsored by a
bipartisan majority of the state's
congressional delegation, is expect-
ed to face bitter opposition when It
is taken up by the full Appropria-
lions Committee, where action is
expected as early as next week.
Administration officials reacted
sharply to the panel's action.
"Not until we have brownouts or
long gas lines will people realize
that we have to get oil -from
somewhere," Interior Department
apokesman Steve Goldstein said.
"Phere'a still the illuslod- that
around every corner there's a
tanker and that every tanner Is
another Valdez," Goldstein', said.
"That has got to be defused"
Leading opponents of offshore
drilling, however, describeli-,.the
action, taken on a voice voteof•the
subcommittee on the interior, as a
major victory.
"The Administration was trying
to steal the initiative," said Lisa
Speer, a senior attorney with the
Natural Resources Defense Coun.
cil. "This sends a very clear mes-
sage that its task force is not
enough."
The Panetta moratorium, idclud-
ed as an amendment to a proposed
appropriations bill for the Interior
Department, calls for a far'inore
sweeping halt to drilling plans'than
has ever been previously appfoJed.
It includes for the first time a
complete ban on new drilling ac-
tivity along the length of California
Please see SETBACK, Page 22
: Offshore Drilling
tinued from Page s
would also halt planned drill -
in Alaska's Bristol Bay and off
coast of several Mid -Atlantic
Bush sought to demonstrate his
ncern for the environment in his
ate of the Union message, in part,
r announcing delays in drilling
ans for two major California lease
les—Lease Sale 91 off Northern
ilifornia and tease Sale 95 off
mthern California —and for an -
her proposed drilling site off the
past of Florida.
That plan had no effect on
iother proposed area, Lease Sale
,9 off Central California, however.
permitted pre -leasing activity to
mUnue on all three sites while the
sk force pondered whether actual
rilling should go forward
The Administration panel, head-
d by Interior Secretary Manuel
*n Jh, is to report to Bush by
the end of the year.
The proposed new congressional
moratorium would halt even pre -
leasing steps, such as public hear-
ings and environmental impact
statements, for all three California
lease sales until October, 1990,
when fiscal 1990 ends.
Panetta said the bill would allow
Congress to "review the recom-
mendations of the President's task
force and any actions he takes as a
result of that report.
"In doing so," Panetta continued,
"we can lay the groundwork for a
long-term solution that protects
coastal communities and the coast-
al. environment."
But Interior spokesman Gold-
etetndismissedthe moratorium as a
"delaying tactic that doesn't help to
address the real Issue, and that Is
how do we handle offshore drilling
in this country."
ATTACHMENT C
Information on Coast Guard Proposal and
Notice of Hearings on Tanker Safety
SCHEDULE OF COAST GUARD HEARINGS ON CALIFORNIA SHIPPING LANE PROPOSAL AND
TANKER SAFETY
Long Beach July 10, 1989
Holiday Inn on 1st Street
1 - 4pm and 7 - 12pm
Santa Barbara July 11, 1989
Red Lion Inn
1 - 4pm and 7 - 12pm
San Francisco July 13
Travelodge in Fisherman's Wharf
7 - 12pm
July 14
Travelodge in Fisherman's Wharf
1 - 4pm
F;, to L.A. Route 5r C1600 1.le
Shipping Lane Change
Runs Into Opposition
Bp 1feola Leary
Chr" kUJy ft*W
A group of Bay Ana marine
dronmentalists yesterday
sted a government decision
change a IM Coast Guard
posal to create a flve-mlte-
le shipping safety lane along
California coast from San
lnclace to Los Angeles.
"... once again bad politieshas
rcome good science," declared
-garet Elliott, executive director
Le oceanic Society, who favors
proposed, single fivrmne wide
s.
The original Ida of the traffic
i was to keep "a vessels, cargo
a and tankers in a wide corridor
from shore, so there would be
of a chance of coUltions or dam•
ng on spills.
On April 27 it was revealed that
US. Department of interior's
au of Kinerals Management
vice had persuaded the Coast
rd to alter its plan, and to pro•
instead two one -mite -wide
•s separated by a two-tnlle wide
Tian strip.
Critics of the two4me plan
AM=
vernmenty e�e rigs and
center divider occupied by OR
ling platforms.
environnientallsU took
terday's visit to San Francisco by
-dor Secretary Manuel Lujan as
opportunity to express their ob-
Uoua to the changed Plana
When I.ujan was asked about
proposed safety lane change, he
,lined to comment, saying he has
hard of the controversy.
At' a prom conference, the'
!an Zilott demanded
t the Interior Department hold a
+Ile b"riing on the pTpaaal br
0 guty9t lio scam t paw
Leke amder, of the Pacific
ant Federation of Fishermen, said
the proposed twodene scheme wiu
crate a slalom course of tankers
and on
rigs along Callforall s COWL
That's a recipe for a major disaster."
Representative Barbara Boxer,
Dian Francisco/Merin, Joinsti,the
fray from Washington, D.C., when
she accused the Bureau of Minerals
Management Service of proposing
conditions for "a devaatatfng crash"
of oil tankers.
"We know there have been 9s
such crashes of .cock and an rigs
between 1M and In so this Is a
ridiculous proposal, especially
when you consider flat the Exxon
Valdez veered 1.6 miles out of Its
sbipplog Ian.," Boxer said.
The oil tanker Exxon Valdez
struck a reef in Alaskan prince Wd.
Ilsm Sound on March 24, spilling
more than 10mlllion gallons of W In
the nation's worst environmental
disaster.
SF En.t 617+91p
Ship lane
plan hit
as peril
to coast
Coast Guard bows
to Interior over
oil Ming rigs
a OVAN!"aM100WALWOR
The U.S. Coast Guard is tinder
allwk by environmental and fish-
ing group for redrawing shipping
trd5c lane to accommodate'oil-
drilling platforms off the California
,
modify the proposal."
The California Coastal Com-
mission intends to sand comment.
to the Coast Guard after a review.
Energy analyst Suzanne Rogalin
said Wednesday, "We are disap-
pointed that the Coast Guard's
original proposal of fin mina isn't
The controversy over traffic whaes being Pr'opos0d now'"
safety, fueled by the March 24 1rsfiictsfcIyitavitalise<uehere
Alaska oil spill, erupted Wednesday lace the Alaska ali�bOUs°nda
in Washington and San Francisco. of vends — inchiding more than
At the center is a Plan ProPoeed 20M oil tankers that all at the
lest month by the Coast Guard to Bay and Long Beach and I" An -
establish safety lens to cotmect Ce the state every year. the length
San Francisco Bay. the Santa Bar- No one governmental agency
beta Channel and Long Beach and tucks the shine, which pose the
I os Angeles undo the Porto end risk of causing an environmentally
Waterways Safety Act.
The Coast Guard's original pia» devastating accident comparable to
in 1982 was a fin mile wide "ship- the March disaster caused by the
ping safety fairway" between the Exxon Valdez accident.
Bay and Santa Barbera and im- Fisherman and conservationists
proved approaches to the ports. Icriticirad the Coast Guard Wednes.
Last month, the Coast Guard: day for allowing itself to be 'me'
proposed two 1-mile-wide lanes, nipukted by the Interior Depart -
which "would atilt serve the pur-.ment" at the expense of tanker
pose of providing obstruction free safety.
corridors for coastwise tnaffne." • Fisherman Paul Mapes caned
Thus, oil exploration equipment the proposed lanes "narrow alleys
and al-dri'!}mg pro ins would be been tall hui'ki'ngi. Mariners on
allowed in the swathe between the large or small boats won't be safe.
two 1-mile-wide, lases. Platform workers and fishermen
The revised proposal "will cre- won't be safe."
ate a sworn, course of tankers and In Washington, Rep: Barbara
Oil rigs along Canfornia'a coact,' Boxer, D-Greenbrae, said the De-
Zeke Grader, executive director of prtmeatofinterior "ispreasiungits
the Pacific Coast Federation of pm -drilling views on the federal
Fisherman's Associations said agencies and sacrificing the safety
Grader. who represents 25 asso- of our coastal environment for oil
ciations from Alaska to San Diego. "
said the plan is "a recipe for a O0Wypro
know there have been 93
major on spill disaster." such crashes of veaeels'and oil rigs
Acoording to the Coast Guard 6etwem 1970 and IW2 so this. is a
the original plea "was not accept -'.ridiculous propo� especially
able to Minerals Management Ser- when you consider that the Exxon
vice (the Interior Departmerit) be. Valdez veered 1$ miles out of its'
cause a large number of offshore shipping lark."
tracts would be totally pry
from all exploration and develop MargA He6y, a prof manager
mew with the US. Coast Guard, denied
In the proposed rule published the allegations and said the pair of
in the Federal Register April27,the mile -wide zones won't pose extra
Cast Guard said, wnie large nuns-' hazards to tankem
her of offshore tracts which caddl "Of course, she's entitled to her
'ndt be leased if a five -sale wide opinion,' she said. 'But basiany,
shipping safety fairway were estab it's a straight shot as far as naviga-
O Los AngoW3&ong Beach TSS (Northern end)
SAN FRANCWO Santa Barbara Channel TSS (Southern end(
O 2 rbara Santa BaChannel TSS (Northern end)
Polar Pt
AN Santa Barbara Channel TSS Extension 110 miles)
pow POW O3 —.O Two orw-mlN wide Shfppirq Safety Fairways
saris Cruz 4Q—.O Proposed 28 mne extension of
San Franclaw TSS
San Francisco TSS and precaudoMY aria
Mantaray
a+ Existing
Pt. Su me proposod
topaz Pt.
Pw*" Slancaa
m
CALIFORNIA
sarsa Barbara
Rmrwno
t.tiAME1. ISLANDS NATIONAL
MAAMESANCTUARY {\ •
Los
Anger
Baanh 1
Source: U.S. Coast Guard
EXHIBIT A
1111238 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 00 / Thursday, April 27. IM / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRAW-44MATiON
33 CFR Parts tga and ti7
(OW area!)
RN12116-AM
Traft Separsdkm 8ehemse and
S;Nppkp Safety Fairways Off the
Coast of Camomis
AoaNCY: Coast Guard. DOT.
ACT101k Proposed Wile.
awmAn The Coast Guard proposes so
establish a routing system comprised of
amended traffic separation schemes
(TSSs) and new shipping safety
fairways along the coast of California.
7be proposed Wile will modify the
existing M in the approaches to San
Francisco, in the Santa Barbara Channel
and in the approaches to Los Angeles/
Long Beach. It will also establish new
shipping safety fairway@ wnnecting the
San Francisco TSS and the Santa
contained In the heading of this . - .
document an be used to cross reference
this action with the Unified Agenda.
Request for Comments
The public is invited to participate in
this proposed rulemaking by submitting
written views, data, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should
include their name and address. Identify
this notice as CGD 83-WZ and give the
reasons for the comment Person
desiring acknowledgment that their
comments have been received should
enclose a stamped self-addressed .....
postcard or envelope.
All comments received before the
expirstion of the comment period will be
considered before Mal action is taken
on this proposal. No public bearing is
planned but one may be held at a time
and place to be set in a subsequent
notice if written requests for a bearing
are received, and If It is determined that
the opportunity to make oral
presentations will be beneficial to this
rulemaking.
Barbara Channel TSS gad overleying
Drafting Informadoa
the precautionary
hes areas to the
Angelso/lang Beach
The principal persons involved in
drafting this proposed rulemaking are:
end San Francis=7be proposed •
routing measures will increase
Lieutenant
Hegy, Projec Daphne Reese. Margie
G. project Manager, end
navigation safety by separsting
Chnstena Cteen. Project Attorney, � �'
opposing vessel tre$ic gad by
preserving a right of way for navigation
Office of Chief CounseL.
through areas which are crow. or will be.
Background .
tiles of offshore oil and gu _
development
'The Ports and Waterways Safety Act
'
(PWSA), 33 U.S.C.1223(c), authoriser
DATIC Comments must be received on or
. the Secretary of the Department In -
before July 2A UK • • . j . ;
which the Coast Guard Is operating to
ADDaaat Comments should be
establinb traffic separation schemes
submitted to Executive Secretary,
(TSS) and shipping safety fatrwsjr,
Marine Safety Council (G- RA-2/30W)
where necessary, to provide safeacasa
(CGD 83-Ml U.S. Cast Guard, rioD
-routes for vessels proceeding to or4rom
Second Street SW, Washington. DC - - >
2o593-IM. Commenb be delivered
United States 1•
` Shipping safetyports.
and 75Ss
may
to and willbe available for inspsotioc "`-�
dMerent measures which
... .
proiddq. .
and copying in Room 36W between the
safe port access routes for Yessebi.
hours of a:nD am and 3:30 pay Monday
Where the primary risk to vessels is
@-
through Friday, except holidays. i,+...vollislon
with offshore structures,
sat NaTtM WOMAT10N COIIrACr
Margie C. Hegy. Project Manager, Short
gypping safety fairway is an
tinscollision u "othe1W
��
Range Aids vi Navigationy and 4
Office of Navigation Safety and
risk It
vessels bemuse of disorganized iraibc .
Waterway Services, telephone (202)
patterns, a TSS Is the preferred rautlag '
207-0115, between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., Monde through Frida
Aftessu 21
A TSS Is in Internationally redognized
voluntary, however, vessels operating to
a near an DAO approved TSS are
subject to Rule 10 of the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea. 2972 (72 COLRECS).
A shipping safety fairway Isre an aa
in which no fixed structures, temporary
or permanent are permitted Vessel use
of shipping safety fairways of voluntary
and the direction of traffic Dow within
the shipping safety fairway may be
'recommended. Shipping safety fairways
gad inhibit exploration for and _- •. - -
exploitation of miniral resources in the
rea designated a. Shipping safety
fairways, however, may be a necessary
measure to reconcile convenient mineral
exploitation needs and concern for
navigation safety. Presently there arc
three IMO approved TSSs and one
shipping safety fairway off the coast of
California: a three -pronged TSS in the
approaches to San Francisco Bay; a TSS
through the Santa Barbara Channel; a
two -pronged TSS In the approach to Los
Angeles/Long Beach; and a shipping
safety fairway off Point Hueneme.
Before either a new TSS or shipping
safety fairway an be established the
PWSA requires the Coast Guard to
conduct a part access route study taking
into account all other uses of the area
under consideration jond ensuring that
the Interests of all affected parties are
considered These uses include, as
appropriate, the exploration for, or
exploitation of. oil. gas or other mineral
resources; the construction or operation
of deepwater ports or other structures
The establishment or operation of marine
or estuarine sanctuaries; and activities
Involving recreational or commercial
'fishing. Publication of a notice of study
advlses all bidden in future lease saps
'that occupancy rights within the study
area may be restricted by a routing
system developed as a result of the
ddy. stin the Interest of promoting a
Multiple use approach to dffshore- - •ra, -
•watethe Cast Guard, ii fares
prec"aw will try to minimize impactsrse on other uses of the a. Once a
shipping safety fairway or 7S$ Is
::designawd under the authority offhe
•PWSA, however. the paramount right of
nivigation is recognized within the
.designated area.
Y Y•
SUPPLVWllTARY PWOR"TUft
routing measure that minimizes the risk
of collision by separating vessels Into • . = 1*111ulatory iBatary
Rogdotory tatoematioa Number
opposing streams of traffic through the : '. The We amendments to the PWSA
regulatory
A to WatmatJon Bomber
establishment of traffic lance. To be - �' tequtred the Coast Guard b undertake a
y mmgnl ed, a TSS must _ ' port scam route study to determine the
(RIfJ) te assigned to each regulatory
be approved by the InterastionaL'• . -,.need for traffic sepention schemes or
action listed to the Unified Agenda of
Maritime Organization (11.10). kaki , :`'.;sldpptng safety fairways to Increase
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory
approves TSSs only If the proposed -:.':. Yessal tra8(e safety in offshore areas
•fnformedon Service Center publishes
touting system complies with iMO-::- @object tb the jurisdiction of the United
the Unified Agenda in April and
principles and guidelines on ahlpj ': •-' _ �tatee 7fis Cast Guard initiated this
October of each year. The RIN number
muting. Vessel use of a TSS le a study by publishing f Notice of
"M Federal Raghter / Vot $4, No. 00 I Thursday, April V. IM / Proposed Rules
l bersfbrvi the Coast Guard has
determined that this action will not here
e alpnifieant Imppaaci on the envlronmeaL
A Finding dNo Smptidcant bnpact
(FONSI) is on file in the docket.
fmpod on ftknirered orldsfed
spciy
7be Coast Guard prepared an
environmental assessment on the
proposed offshore round{ system with
particular attention given to any
potential impact on the California Sea
Otter.7be assessment concluded that
this routhy system will have no adverse
offed on end eyed sped" or any
critical habitat desigwted as
endangered or threatened ptmnant to
the Edu Wred Spades Act of 1973. 7be
Coat Guard will discuss with the Fish .
and Wildlife Service any comments on
sea otters or other marine III* which am
submitted In response to this proposed
rul
The m cation to the San Fraadsoo
M which abifts the northern approach
away from the coast, is specifically
intended to keep troffic further away
from�tReyes
"Fco IslandM Marine Scuj
��an sborsLdringdrd
mww
The FWSA reipdtes that the Coast
Guard establish safe access tortes for
movement of vessel traffic vroceedior to
development on the Ch ter Contiaantal
Shelf off the most of California will
result in the acquisition of ]seen and
the uncontrolled placement ofstructure
which would interfere with the
establishment dsde routing measures
In the futum The Coast co" In
anticipation of future offshore resource
developmen4 is proposing to 0SWAM
shipping safety fairways and to extend
9)dsd g 7SSs to create a eomprehaaafv
system ofview roudq measure& The
rfproposed routas �meaauree reoDockt, aI
aW
between resource development athe potentialanndd
safety OfMAVWdOo.7be peopoitti td
extend the IM and establish ahlppiag
safety fairways in advance of axtendve
offshore develooment is similar to '
Its
Ufa pat Scalia
Mcdons On
Went Me
lease holds" and the CaefGaird
believes It will have tit least adverse
lopaet upon future lesse blocks.
Its primary economic looped of tits
hfi�aralo kMana"Mow will be taatService �Pow)
I Propose. Shippldg
prohibit erection of
a drillin platforms and
ODW d Waae Oil and gore deposits
twoceulble. Also, the oil and pa
industry is likely to be reluctant to bid
on blocks that hire surface oomMancy
restrictions.IU perceived value of a
block to a prospective bidder would be
reduced by the additional costs of
operating in arse$ with thew
ancumbrances. Me would result in
fewer bids In MMS least wiles and
ultimately in reduced oil and Sae
recovery as well a loot revenues to the
7be coast Guard oefgdaally
000sidersd estabUahtag a Sva mile•wfde
shipping adaty fairway along the coast
of California connecting t)u San
Frondsoo and Santa Barbara MU This
was not acceptable to UNIS because a
trade would
ttal proeluded fro amber of o
mmoog wtploradn be
sod development. The proposed 75S
extensions and the two one -mile wide
sWppig safety fairways, separated by a
two-mile wide don•fafrway area, world
provide structurvfroe cmttwlse treft No alWi s dhe tsiGe
no
we "SOW oe
the two mW
aonthb000dla m Mrs Coast Goad
Invitas comments on the potentW
resource impacts of this proposal. • —
7be can coed oleo proposes ip
overlay the San Finadeco and I.a
Anples/long Bowl ram" with SW ore saf��ys. In
the San
Team tr aInboufc hog penat 75Sw ow laa
and plloL satbatk sad debwh
arriv4 or departing the port of Sag
Frandsen, he the Loa Anseles/Low
two
It* shipping safety fairways
overlaying the precautionary areas WM
peobibit erection dstructures and will
preclude potential resource development
to the San Francisco and I,os Angeles/
Long bearb precautionary areso. The
great majority dthe Sad Francisoe
WAV
precautionary
from felling by the am is already
Lladds National Marmot Sawmar7. the
POW Reyes wilderness area."well as
an additional area deferred by the
Secretary dthe btatia: -
MMS estimates that the potential lose
of revenues to the Federal Govemmal
resulting from tits proposal Is
Sitimificantly less than titt0 MMIm
The Coast Gard anticipates Sat
future population sbffts, chasm In
transportation routes, koowlecip of
resource ktadous, and kchnowal
breakthroughs may make adjustment to
the fairways desirable, N this oasis, the
Coat Guard will restudy the affected
fairways. Kappmpriate aodlfythe
In circumstance where It Is asaeiud
aura desynated es e
fairway or TSS to p
slignificauttguntide
m"est for adjoatme
the op roprtete corn
sa with the
route study will notmi0y be rM
before a rulemakkq an common
The Coast Cusrd bolleve" that
to
J wtW as naeda of tort own use or at
area, and u d Wm the potential
oadorafc impact ten mwit offshore'
WoVprop sm and fahw dtshore
The Coast Gaud ontlsn, pmsuat to
aScUod e06(b) dtbe Repdatory
Fladbility Ad M StaL Slat; fiat. L W
354 flat this proposed rulemaktog WM
toot havea sfprmant aatoomic impact
on a substantial mrmbar of smaII
.. rnWla. I<aay aoonomklmpaclrwtdts
part of La Angeles and poet of beach are t o** two openloga !a tb
breakwater and all vessels not east
the precautionary area when aerlvktg at
or deperti+tg boss these poft he dmo e
gwhites
lancdensity
n am ajneidytsa aotlioe Its
navigate with caution, the Coot Guard
ballev"the erection d'etrecttnes would
present an anacoeptable additional riak
so navigation aa4sty.
In
Fedaral Register / Vol. $4, No. So / Tbursday, Aped 27, 19e9 / Proposed Rules iMS9
Proposed Study on April is,1979 (44 FR
22543).
For the purposes of the port access #
route study, the u.S. coastline was
divided into 32 geographically defined
areas. Study area 22 included the coast
of southern California and was assigned
to the Eleventh Coast Guard District for
study. Study areas 23 to 2S Included the
central and northern California coast
and were assigned to the former Twelfth
Coast Guard District Through public
participation and government agency
oonsultatioa the studies evaluated
potential tragic density patterns, .
waterways use conflicts, and the need
for safe access routes In offshore area.
The Study Results for the coast of
southern California (area 22) were
published on June 24,198Z at 47 FR
27430. An additional study of the Port
Access Routes, Northern Approach to
Scents Barbara Channel, was announced
on July 25,1994, at 49 FR 30l)7s, with
results of that study published on
Ikeember g, IM, at SO FR 49M.
The Study Results for the central and
northern coast of California (areas 23-
25) were published on October 14,1992,
at 47 FR M43. An additional study on
Port Access Roctes, Entrance to San
Prandeco Bay was announced on
December 17,1994, at 49 FR 40M and
Ilse study results were published on May
4,1990. at 31 PR 1707L
DiscurAM of proposal
The port access route studies
recommended amendments to the TSSa
currently established off the coast of
California and the designation of new
sbipptmg safety fairways to establish a
comp ensive safe routing system for
reseals proceeding to, from, or between
the ports of San Francisco and Los
Angeles/Long Beach. The Coast Guard
believes the proposed routing measures
an necessary to meet present and future
needs of safe navigation by providing
Chu htmes for reseal traffic between
Sam Francisco and Los Angela/Lang
Beach The proposed routing masons
represent the most practicable
recomdbadon between safe soaea
notes and the needs of aD other
reasonable uses of the areas involved
7be proposed California offshore
noting system Includes the following
bc
(1) less Angeles/Lonl Beach 755-
amendments to the TSS and
=motionaaryry area in the approach to
LLaas AAmnggeelIs=8 Beach, and
estabWbmemt of a sh1- saw
fairway overlaying theLa Ange esl /
Loft Beach precautionary one; •
(2) Santa Barbara Channel TSS-an
erdenatom of the 7SS approximately is
miles northwest and a shift in the lanes
of the southern section of the TSS;
(8) Coastal Fa4waya-blablishment
of two panllal orw-mile wide shipping
safety fairways along the central
California coast cormectiog the Saito
Barbara Chanmal TSS and the San
Francisco TSS; and
(4) San Francisco 1ISS-amendments
to the lanes of the TSS and the
precautionary area and establishment of
a shipping safety fairway overlay,
mz the
reconfigured precautionary area andd a
new TSS segment In the main ship
channel
The details of each of these elements
are discussed below.
LogAmgeles/Long Beach M
The TSS in the approaches to [As
Angeles/Long Beach Is comprised of the
Southern Approach, the Western
Approach and a precautionary area. The
75S was approved by IMO in 1975. As a
result of the port -access route studies for
southern California, the Coast Guard
believes navigation safety will be
improved ff the following modifications
are made to this TSS: shifting a law to
the Western Approach to the Loo
Angeles/Long Beach TSS; reconfiguring
the precautionary area; and establishing
a new shipping safety fairway
overlaying the precautionary area.
Western Approach
At the time of the study, vessels were
departing from Long Beach, turning west
at the breakwater and crossing through
the pilot boarding area to enter the
northbound lane of the TSS. The
modification to the Western Approach
consists of reducing a portion of tha TSS
separation zone from two miles to one
mile in width relocating the outbound
lame we mile to the south; and merging
the existing two-mile separation some at
a slightly adjusted turning point in the
M This adjustment will alleviate the
problems of vessel traffic amsing in
aharbor id war the pilot boarding area the
entrancet . This modification
approved by IMO In UM
Precautionary Ana
The port soeees routs study found that.
the eastern side of the precautionary -
area was not normally used by vessels
proceeding in or out of the TSS lames.
The Coast Guard proposes to reduce the
size of the precautionary area by moving
the eastern boundary away from the
ocastlino, releasing tie noueed area to
offshore oil and gas activities or other
sees. The western boundary of the area
will be extended to connect with the
outbound law of the adjusted Western
Approach TSS. The northero boundary
will he moved Booth to line up with the
breakweter. Ibis modification was
approved by IMO in 3993.
Shipping Safety Fairway
As a result of the port acees route
studies, the Coast Guard proposes to
designate a shipping safety fairway to
overisy the precautionary area. This
charge is necessary to resolve the
potential oonffid between vessel
navigation and offshore oll and gas
activities in the area between the
Western Approach 75S laces and the
Southern Approach TSS laws. At the
present time there is no express
prohibition against structures being
erected within a precautionary area.
Establishment of the shipping safety
fairway to overlay the precautionary
area will prohibit food structures in this
The Santa Barbaro Mannel73S
The TSS in the Santa Barber
Channel, comprised of a north -
westbound traffic lane and a south-
eastbound tragic lane between Point
Vicents and point Conception, was
approved by A4O in 1973. The Coast
Guard proposes extending the north-
west and of the TSS and shifting the
Ianes off Awcaps bland.
Lazo Shin .
The lanes of the Santa Barbara
Channel TSS would shift one-half mile
southward at a point off Anscapa
bland. resulting in a slight ihift at the
westerly end of the present scheme, and
a readjustment of the tuning point
where it joins the axfstWg 75S "in the
Beams This modifiches to 1,osatl n is intended to
facilitate development of a known od
and gas field while protecting traffic
lanes from interference by offshore
strucoues.7be modification was
approved by IMO in 1993, . .
Extension to Point Arguello
.7m Coast Quad originally proposed
a thirty mile extension of the Santa •
Barbara Channel TSS but A(O did not
awrove the entire wdensioo. Instead
Chaamel TSS 18 miles north -wort to a
point 13 miles off Point Arguello. Thia
extension will carry traffic west of an
ate expected to undergo offebore
development for gas and cif in the
future, Exploration in the area
shoreward of this proposed ezten"
resources, and platforms are anticipated
to be located In this area as
development takes place.7% •
modification was aweovW by AAO in
iIBM
f
Federal Resister / Vol. 54. No. so
1965. The ACO hoe conditioned
extension of the TSS on thnplacement
of a radar beacon and light on platform
"Harvest" located at position
34016.09'N. IM*40.46'W, to cum
vessels an fix their position when
entering the TSS.
Shipping Safety Fairways Off California
7ba Coast Guard had mWoolly
considered the establishment of a Hve-
mile-wido shipping safety fairway
bgwm the San Francisco TSS and the
Santa Barbara 7SS.71tis ba•mtle width
was intended to provide epos for
designation of 7W lam If the need
arose in the future, and to allow room
for adf atment if a narrowing of the
shippinng safety fairway was the only
means of providing socess for future
offshore development of a particular
area. Tha Wife number of allhon
tracts which could not -be based i! a
' were
were
7"WOOTl
Vt.
extension of the Santa Haebsn Channel
ISS at Point Atgaello. Shipping sdety
kirways are needed in area when
blocks have been logged off the cent al
California coast In the Santa Maria
Basin rear Point Conception, and when
exploratory drilling has coo8rmed that -
the area has promise as a tswjor atte for
oB and Sao prodecdoo.
" A Cong esdobd mrstoeim red
action by Califoenk Mart cud
environmental poops begs Halted Ws
17, "Be / Proposed Rules
at practicable. the Wendel for f fin
multiple we ooeflkts.
The Cast Chard proposes to place
the shipping safety fairways In amn
whom it is essential to guarantee
obstruction free routetto vessel tmMc
exploretioo and exploitation off
Cellfornla.7bt shipping safety fairways
are especially Important In We area
when IMO navigational requirements
for establishment of a 7SS cannot
currently be met. but when a right of
way for navigation is necessary sr
offshore Ives in Itued.
Off San Froncfow PSS
The TSS in the approaches to San .
Francisco, comprised of the Southern
Approach, Main Approach. Northern
Approach, and a precautionary area. was approved bylMO In 19M As a
result of the -port access route otudlas,
the Cast Guard proposes modilying the
Southern and Northam TS.S ugments;
renaming the Main Approach "grams
reeontigurkg the pncauomvy area:
redesaibing the separation sons within
the precautionary aeae to on "area b be
avoided"; saubNshing a new73S
too San Fraod000S and esnt over the�tabWhtCham into a
new shipping safety faiewy b overlay
the precautionary Arno.
Southern Approach
The Southern Approach lanes would
be rotated ap nrimately two degrees to
a clockwise on away from the
coutllae and would be lengthened by
two tulles further away from tha ocaot.
77
Mineral Mauagemeat Service i sl b
offs tin S only _a few Motels fa laen 1n
CataaoM. n wow aso peorm am
rooting for vessel trustu g through de
ofkhore mnk,Prallminary
Santa Criss Dula, as ages of sigh
indications an that several arm elf the
Interest to offillm oil aid Su
Cast of California, incled is The Santa
devolopers.
Cells Basin nett On FHadow. an of
high interest to offshore developers.
Sian MMS has adopted as area wide
Although ao sooddiations ere
leasing plan, it is impossible for do
pproposed b the oef�lnal Main Apptwe3
be
Coast Gotud io"oily the madames
T6S upwat, ft will tenameddo
whom drilling Is U* 4o be
Western AppeouL ,
concentrated and Lanes are adedy
awarded Deof expected todastey
ana
Ncefhlra
- Interest and the sexy-dotlesithomal to
The Northern Approach lanai wM be
MMS area wide Lase Was. the Coats
slightly settled to a counterclockwise
Gaud believes that dw p wond
directio4 b seep.eesd traDlc
shipping safety fairways but nest the
approximalefy a tsdie fmdteeoffehore
sundsto of the PhU that uL aowee
and am Gam the point Reyes-FuaHoo
tomes be estabHand b raotedL. a• tu'
Lid fMatbr Daenleeey. .
W has approved the ttadifladow
to than three segments conditioned
upon the establishment of a radar
beacon at Ano Nuevo, on the mind
coast of California sear the tarminatico
of the southern lane of the scheme, to
sums that vessels an adequately fix
that position when anterior the
Southern Aaoroarh loon of the TW
main Ship Chanel is
A new 7W segment will be
established over the Melia Ship Channel
In the entrance to Son Phadaw Hay.
The present traffic pattern In the Main
Ship Channel L divided Into separate
east and westbound lanes by the
arrangement of aide to sation in the
channel sad by ne mmendylgaation at the
San Freadsoo Vessel 7hmc Service.
The effect of this change will be to make
Rule So of the n C O R= mandatory
on vggael approaching the entrance b
San Frandoa Day,
Precautionazy Ana '
no Coast Guard proposes that the
existing precautionary area in The Off
Sea Fmcloco TSS be rewaEgared to
exclude certain shoal ones diat an sat
suitable for ode navigation.7be existlag
precautionary ame is a eleeular area six
safles in radius from the otater at the
approved prec u o Buoy man& may imply
b inexperienced marinas that the
entire precautionary area It aullable
for navigation. However, the ustem
ppeertrt of this area contains several
hatardoua shoal true.7ho U.S. dos
appropriately Indicate a break In the
drds of the precautionary areas he .
than shoals. Tho Hd0 has apDrovsd a
AM to oxClude these shoal an"
Will contrlbuto to ufle navigation b
clarifying the aale water when
proceeding Into San Fmcloos Sy,
separsd olove '. .
71se Coot CUM peoposn b
m
rho bang. Hointended oolrwira, s upapontin
Maas ai frame, t fun o�on vv5ka
sot eaohr in 96 dtu tk L 7111e
R
t
Fodard R"Wat / Vol. 54, No. go / Thursday. April V. IM / Proposed Ruler ]t2ti1
Shipping Safety Fairway
The precautionary area in the San
Francisco TSS Is at tbt junction of four
TSS segments. Placement of structures
in the precautionary area would create a
hazard to navigation. At the present
time then Is no express prohibition
against structures being anted within a
pprecautloaaaaryry area. bippiag eatery
fairwqoveiyingLAs
cautlasryareais thr most aptemeansofkaping the precauana free of
obstivctions for the paramount right of
safety of navigation.
Future Adjustment Process
The Coast Guard is aware of the
multiple use conflicts which may arise
in the future due to the restrictions and
1"Watlons governing shipping safety
fairways and TSSs. The PWSA provides
discretion for adjusting designating
routing measures to accommodate other
needs, if the need cannot be reasonably
accommodated otherwise. The
adjustment however, cannot
umaccentably adversely affect the
wasmade and Ihi need for
gutty rairway) are onamum-wtae,
underlying resources are accessible via
directional drilling. In the futum
however, adjustments to vessel traffic
lanes may be appropriate to allow
recovery of known oil, gas, or mineral
deposits. If that situation develops, a
port access route study would be
conducted to determine whether
alternative routing is possible through
areas where other lease rights may be
affected and whether, in the came of a
TSS, the proposed adjustment would
conform with A!O guidelines.
]Regulatory Lval"dos
am
evalustion has been prepared sod .
D)amd in the tulemaking dot kat It may
6a inspected and copies at the Marius
Safety Council, US, Coast Guard. Roc®
a= 21M Second Street SW,
Washington. DC 20503-M bmtwaaa
tha hours of 3A0 a.m. and 300 o.s,.
Its proposed olfsbote noting system,
necessary to Increase the level of,
navigation safety along the coma of
California. The proposed testing
Systems ncosnl:e the paramount rtght-
or•way for navigation. 7SS segments
will reduce the risk of vessel coWslons
In areas of heavy traffic density by
separating the vessels into designated
directional lane. The shipping eafety
fairways will reduce the risk that
vessels will collide with oil and gas
drilWig platforms In areas of offshore
development
Impact on the SWAphV Industry
The distance offshore of the proposed
routing system varies depending upon
the configuration of the California
coastline, the complexity of the offshore
port approaches, and the extent to
which traffic routes can be kept direct.
The system is approximately nineteen
miles off point Arguello, thirty miles off
Morro Hay, and eight miles off Point Sur.
The proposed routing system follows
current traffic patterns along the coast
of California, with one exception. In the
area off Point Conception, the proposed
extension of the Santa Barbara Charnel
TSS would route traffic slightly further
west than its present direct course. The
PWSA mandates that routes be
established when conflicts with safe
navigation are determined to exist This
routing will aacotuage vases L to
navigate clear of the known arms, of
most concentrated present and expected
future drilling activity in the Santa
Since development has not been
permitted within a subatantial area off
the central and northern California
toast it is difficult to assess what
effects the proposed lanes will have on
vessel traffic patterns. The Coast Guard
intends to review the lanes after they
have been in place for some time to
ensure they am accomplishing their
alternative routing
foam were given consideration
are
Impact to the shipping Industry in
additional hours in transit time between
ports, and the likelihood that the routing
would not be wad.
The Coast Guard anticipates that
vessel traffic which operates along the
coast of California fa navigational and
commercial eonvenlenca will eootinos
to do so. Vessels which routisey
operate further offshore will not soave
closer to shore to we a routing massure
unless then is an advantage in doing
Similarly, those vowU operating dose
to shore to take advantage of skis to
am
navigation and a radar return from
objects on the shoreline cannot be
expected to move further offshore unless
It is in their navigational or aconomk
interest
Neither traffic separation acbemes nor
shipping safety fairways will be
mandatory for vessels. A vessel
voluntarily entering an IMO approved
TSS becomes subject to Rule 10 of the n
COLREGS. Rule 10 requires that vessels
proceed in the appropriate traffic Lae in
the general direction of traffic flow for
that lane. It also requires that vessels
shall not normally enter a separation
zone or cross a separation line. Fishing
vessels are allowed some latitude to
operate in the separation soup but they
shall not impede the passage of any
vessel following a traffic lane.
Impact on the Environment
Implementation of the routing system
itself will have -no direct effect on the
environment of the coast off California.
and will have only positivs effects by
reducing the risk of casualties.
Implementation of the rule will provide
deep draft vessels with established
navigation routes between La Angeke/
Long Beach and San Francisco where
structures will not be permitted, and
where lanes of opposing traffic will be
"Parald. '
The proposal will benefit the marine
environment to the extent it reduces the
risk of pollution from vessel/structure or
vesselfvessei cesuaitles.
The shipping safety fairways will
prohibit arection of structures in areas
of expected offshore development
However, at this time the tool number
and exact location of future structures is,
unknown. Therefore, an accurate
assessment of the risk of casualties
between vessels and structures Is
difficult bemuse of the limited data on
future offshore development The risk of
eolilsion between vessels and,
stro tares, with resulting oil spill, has
been demonstrated in the Colt of
Mexico. Twenty years of experiam
-.-.with the shipping safety fairway
network in the Gulf of Mexico provides
some "Wence that shipping safety
fairways reduce the risk of maualtles in
areas where offshore structures are
numerous along popular navigation
routes.
The Sera Francisco and Santa Barbara
Channel TSS amendments will reduce
the risk ofveesd/vassel casualties by
extending at TSS lanes Into anal
when the Deed for traffic management
was shown to exist by the port access
touteAtudlet.
ATTACHMENT D
Newsclipping on the American P
Institute's Oil Spill Response
5 Spill Cleanup Centers
Proposed by Oil Firms
By LARRY B. STAMMER, Times Environmental Writer
Declaring that the petroleum
industry has "neither the equip-
ment nor the personnel' to handle
a catastrophic tanker spill,14 major
oil companies pledged $250 million
Tuesday to create five regional oil
spill centers capable of quickly
responding to a Valdez -type di -
seater anywhere in U.S. coastal
waters.
The regional response centers,
'one of which may be located in
Long Beach and another in Seattle,
are among dozens of recommenda-
tions made public in Washington
Tuesday by a high-level Industry
task force organized by the Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute after the
disastrous 11-million-gallon spill
from the Exxon Valdez in Alaska's
Prince William Sound on March 24.
The teak force, made up of chief
executive officers of eight major oil
companies, also called for stepped-'
up research and development of
improved oil spill cleanup equip-
ment and chemical dispersants, and
they made a series of recommenda-
tions to increase tanker safety.
"The three-part program will
provide improved environmental
protection wherever tankers oper-
ate In U.S. waters," said Allen E.
Murray, who chaired the task force
and is president and chief executive
officer of the Mobil Corp.
While industry executives said
their initiative was "the right thing
to do," they left little doubt that
they hoped the new effort would
help defuse growing opposition to
oil exploration in the Alaska -Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge, Bristol Bay,
offshore California and other envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas be-
lieved to hold vast untapped oil and
gas reserves.
"Most of all lYs an attempt to
regain some credibility in this area.
■ SETBACK ON DRILLING
Federal plans on offshore drill-
ing suffered a blow. Page 3
Without that kind of credibility,
our access to the Outer -Continen-
tal Shelf off California and else-
where will be greatly limited," said
Doug Henderson, executive direc-
tor of the Western Suites Petrole-
um Assn., whose members include
major oil companies in seven wemt-
ern states.
Congress earlier thin year de-
layed a decision until 1999 on
exploratory drilling in�'the Alaska
National Wildlife Refuge, and on
Tuesday, a House subcommittee
voted to hold up all federal offshore
drlllina off the California coast
Drawing lessons frgid;the Exxon
Valdez spill, the task•foree said it
should be mandatory for oil tankers
to use designated shipping lanes
and that Coast Guard vessel traffic
systems should be improved. Fur -
.Please see 014 Page Ll
LA TAIFS 1rWednesday, June 21, 1989/Part i U
OIL:14 Firms Pledge $250 Million
to Establish 5 Spill Cleanup Centers -
Continued from rage 1
ther, the oil executives said the
Coast Guard should be given addi-
tional authority to expand drug and
alcohol testing as a part of officer
licensing procedures.
They called for alarm systems on
shipboard automatic pilots to warn
offlcetn on the bridge that the
autopactisengaged In thelnvesti-
ggIfon that followed the Exxon
Valdez accident, there was testi-
mpny suggesting that attempts to
that the autopilot was
'l sker Structure '
One of the industry's most star-
tUnn'ggrecommendations called for a
study by the National Academy of
Sciences of the merits of building
oil tankers with double bottoms.
The industry fought such require-
ments In the mid•1970e.
Shipboard oil spill response
wouldpment 'Is not effective
present safetyhazards in Its
deployment," the tank force said. It
called for,new research to improve
The eight major oil companies
that made up the task force were
Amoco Corp., Arco. BP America
Inc., Chevron Corp., Exxon Corp.,
Mobil, Shell09 Co. and Texaco Inc.
In addition, the American Petrole-
um Institute said Tuesday that six
other oil companies have agreed to
support the task force's recommen-
dations. They are Unocal Corp.,
American Petrofina Inc., Conoco
Inc., Amerada Hess, Philips Petro-
leum Co. and the Sun Co.
Industry Giants
But even as the Industry giants
moved to step up the elate of
readiness, they stressed that condi-
tions beyond their control, includ-
ing bad weather, darkness and high
seas, could thwart their best efforts
to contain a major oil split. Further,
they said they could•not guarantee
elimination of all risks of tanker
accidents an the future.
"If oil is spilled close to a shore-
line and If the drift of the oil caused
by wind and current is onshore, it Is
unlikely that anyone can prevent
how ideal the conditions," the
Still, the industry promised
greater on prevention efforts and
Its very beat efforts" in respond-
ing to splits.
Environmental groups and the
California Coastal Commission re.
sponded cautiously to the oil indus-
try study.
"A lot of good thought has gone
into this report," said Lois Epstein
of the Environmental Defense
Fund. "But we're still skeptical of
whether all the nice work that's on
paper comes to fruition."
Lealie Gainer, associate director
of the Santa Monica -based Ameri-
can Oceans Conservation Commit-
tee, called the plane to form Indus -
But, she added that, "in the best of
circumstances, only 6% to 15% of
any spill can be cleaned to
No matter how fast and how
decisively you respond to a spW,
that's the numbing statistic that
you run up against' Galnersaid.
at least one influential member of
Congress, Rep. George Miller (D-
Martinez), cautioned that the oil
industry had broken nrom(ses to
"It appears that now the industry
is seeking to wture us that they
will responsibly respond to oil spurs
of the future. Well, this is the fox in
the ben house all over again," wad
Miller, who had visited Valdez and,
as chairman of the House tubcom-
mlttee on water, power and off-
shore energy resources, held hear-
Ings on the spill.
Miller charged that the task
force report felled to address the
"Inadequate" spill response in
Alaska
Tnk a Look'
Alaska Gov. Steve Cowper, on a
visit to Los Angeles to promote
tourism in his stale, said of the oil
industry's plan, "I took a, look at
Ithe API) proposals end noticed
that Alaska was among those
(problems) that they were not
going to respond to in any mean-
ingful way —and that's as far as I
goindustry executives said they
hoped the split response centers, to
be staffed 24-hours a day, would be
in full operation within a year.
Oil officials said the cost of the
spill response proposals would not
be passed on to consumers.
Each response center would be
able to handle a spill of up to
200,000 barrels or 8.4 million gal-
lons, the American Petroleum In-
stitute said. By comparison, extrt-
Ing industry all spill coopbratiM
such as Clean Seas, which responss;
to oil spills in the Santa Barbara
Channel and the Santa Maria Bps)p,
can handle spills only about ope-
tenthaslarge.
Bealdes Lana Beach and Seattk
Nay
ew
Va.
try oil spill cooperatives that
handle much smaller splits and
U.S. Coast Guard's two remat
oil spill strike teams, one locati
the Bay Area and another on
East Coast.
Consult Agencies
The task force said
•tatlon, the
ronmental
of
acllvagullul 0. ,o
aMTuesday, the ,Y,$.
nerce, Science and
on Committee'aapp
to deal with oil spills
many of the elements
The Oil Tanlrer Navigation Safe-
ty Act of 1989, backed by Sen. Ted
Stevens (R-Alaska), would open
highway driving records of mer-
chant mariners to the Coast Guard,
provide for random and other 91W-
hol testing of people In safety-sen-
altive jobs on tankers and improve
radar systems to aid the tracking df
ships through potentially hazard-
ousareas.
it also sets guidelines for oil spill
contingency plane, including^nt-
quiring ionic oil spill cleanup
equipment to be in place at straia-
Sic locations. The legislation, cort-
soildating six proposed bills arising
from three Senate hearings on.tltc
Alaska spill, was sent to the fujl
Senate.
ATTACHMENT E
Draft of Issue Paper #5, Oil and Gas
Infrastructure Assessment
DRAFT
ISSUE PAPER #5
•' • 9:Y7" •)VAire)• IA
•� HMI 5. • • • • H ••' • � Y
Southern California Association of Govenmmnts
June, 1989
This is the fifth in a series of issue papers prepared by the Southern
California Association of Governments pursuant to a contract with the
Counties of ins Angeles and orange. The series of issue papers is
intended to inform and educate local governments on offshore oil
issues.
v AY,IN *14. WWII hea•rlk/ a YM 41 101k •) ��
President:
First Vice President:
Second Vice President:
MIRE ANTONOVICH
Supervisor, County of IDS Angeles
CHRISTINE REED
Councilmexnber, City of Santa Monica
JOIN FLYNN
Supervisor, County of Ventura
JACKI BACHARACH, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
TCM BRADM, Mayor, City of Los Angeles
KAY CENICEROS, Supervisor, County of Riverside
JACK CMM, Counci]member, City of Riverside
DEANE DANA, Supervisor, County of Los Angeles
ROBERT FARRELL, Couneiimanber, City of Los Angeles
IRWIN FRIED, CouncilmemUer, City of Tustin
BOB GENTRY, Mayor, City of Laguna Beach
JOHN LONGVILLE, Mayor, City of Rialto
JOHN 1.=N, Councilmember, City of Santa Paula
JoN 1,M=, Supervisor, County of San Bernardino
GLORIA MOLUM, Councilmen , City of Ios Angeles
JUDY NIEWRGER, Councilmember, City of Moreno Valley
ABE SEABOLT, Supervisor, County of LVerial
CIARENCE MCM, CouncilmemUer, City of Long Beach
MRRIE T WlE•DER, Supervisor, County of Orange
Executive Director: MARK PISANO
chairman: RCIBERr GENTRY
Mayor, City of Laguna Beach
Members:
STEVE BARNES, Councilmember, City of Manhattan Beach
TOM ERADLEY, Mayor City of Los Angeles
MARVIi BRAUDE, Counci]member, City of Los Angeles
AL CANESTRO, Mayor Pro Tom, City of Upland
RONATD Q*%X 'Y, Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach
VERA ROBLES DE ZEE, Councilmember, City of Carson
BARHARA J. DOERR, Mayor, City of Redondo Beach
LAIS Ew N, Councilmember, City of Coronado & Chair, SANDAG OCS Task
Force
RUTH GALVUM, Councilmember, City of Los Angeles
DAMES K. HAHN, City Attorney, City of Los Angeles
EVE" HART, Ctuncilmember, City of Newport Beach
TOM HAYDEN, California State Assemblyman
UIMLA E. KWEDY, Mayor, City of Tustin
IaDA IENNEY, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Laguna Beach
MEL LEVINE, U.S. Congressman
Tan LARCH, Councilmember, City of San Clemente
JOHN MGTAGGART, Counciberber, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
JON MIDIS, Supervisor, County of San Bernardino
GODFREY PERNELL, Councilmembes, City of Rolling Hills
RUIHELYN PIDtMfER, Councib mber, City of Newport Beach
amISTINE REED, Counci]member, City of Santa Monica
THOMAS RILEY, Supervisor, County of Orange
DIANN RING, Councilm=ber, City of Claremont
HERSCHEL ROSENTHAL, California State Senator
ELTA SIMPSON, Councilmember, City of Hermosa Beach
HUGH T. "BUD" SMITH, Mayor, City of Avalon
HARRIETT WIEDER, Supervisor, County of Orange
ZEV YAROSIAVSKY, Couneilmember, City of Los Angeles
NOR W YOUNGIAVE, Supervisor, County of Riverside & SCAQMD Chairman of
the Hoard
ANNE BAKER, Director of Environmental Planning
JOANNE FREILICH, (Former) Principal Environmental Planner
CINDY JACOBS, Assistant F7nvirormrntal Planner and Principal Author
WEIMA FU, Graphics Designer
ya: • **JYDI��4�y
IINTRODUCTION.......................................................1
II CUR1RFNT INFRASTRUCTURE/CAPACITY....................................1
AOil Processing Infrastructure...................................2
BMarine Terminals................................................4
CPipelines.......................................................5
DPorts, Crew and Supply Bases.....................................6
ERefineries......................................................6
FProduct Distribution............................................8
III OIL SPILL RISK AND RESPONSE CAPABILITY.............................9
AThe Risk of a Major Spi11......................................10
BResponse Capabilities..........................................10
IV LEASE SALE 95 IMPACTS ON ONSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE ...................11
ATransportation.................................................12
BWater Supply...................................................12
CWastewater Treatment ..........................................
DHazardous Waste................................................13
ESolid Waste... e ............................................. —13
VCOASTAL LAND USE..................................................13
VICDNCUSION.........................................................14
FOOTNOTES..............................................................15
REFERENCES..............................................................16
MAPS
A OCS Platforms and Pipelines
B State Platforms and Pipelines
C Energy Map of Southern California
D CCW Response Times
TABLES
1 Onshore Separation and Treatment Facilities in Los Angeles and Orange
Counties
2 Marine Terminals in Los Angeles and Orange Counties
3 Existing 005 Pipelines from Platforms off Orange County
4 Refinery Capacities, South Coast Air Basin
5 Local Ordinances to Restrict Onshore Development
I INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this issue paper is to present the existing oil and gas
infrastructure in Los Angeles and orange Counties and to identify potential
changes to and stresses on this infrastructure which may occur as a result
of Outer continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sale 95. The paper is largely
confined to a discussion rather than an analysis, for a few reasons.
First, it is impossible to predict the exact location of the OCS and
related onshore development which may occur. Second, the existing land
availability within the various cities and regions of coastal Los Angeles
and Orange Counties differ widely. A separate analysis of the
infrastructure impacts of potential development within each of these
locales is beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, it is unknown whether
the existing oil processing infrastructure will be utilized to process oil
recovered as a result of Lease Sale 95.
OCS lessees have the option to process their oil and gas off or onshore.
They may choose to process offshore and ship their oil and gas to a
location outside of the Los Angeles/Orange County area, thus not utilizing
the local infrastructure at all. It is important to keep in mind that an
OCS lease does not entitle the holder of the lease to explore for oil or
begin production. A company wishing to explore a lease must submit a plan
of exploration (POE) and, if the company wishes to build a platform(s), it
must submit a development and productionplan (DPP) to the appropriate
agency. At each step, the company must obtain several permits. Only at
the DPP stage is it possible to accurately assess the local effects of the
proposed development.
The value of this paper lies not in a quantitative assessment of the
impacts of'OCS development on existing infrastructure, but in a qualitative
discussion of the types of potential impacts. It will provide a structure
for assessing the infrastructure analysis to be contained in the Lease Sale
95 draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). That document, expected to
be released after January 1, 1990, should describe (in general terms) the
anticipated location and magnitude of 005 development resulting from the
Sale.
This paper also identifies the existing, general land use classifications
of the coastal regions of Los Angeles and Orange Counties so that potential
conflicts associated with development of shorebased oil infrastructure in
a particular area can be identified by the reader. Also, the ways in which
local governments have dealt with such development, or the prospect of it,
are discussed.
There are several stages of transport and processing which crude oil
produced from an offshore platform must go through before it can be sold as
1
gasoline, aviation fuel, home heating oil, or the other products derived
from it. First, the oil and gas mixture pumped from the ocean floor must
be separated into its component parts. Next, the oil must be transported
to a processing facility where it can be dehydrated and prepared for
additional transport by pipeline or tanker to a refinery. Finally, refined
products such as gasoline are transported by pipeline, truck, and/or tanker
(from marine terminals) to distributors or end users.
The oil and gas infrastructure in the Los Angeles area is extensive and
well established, and capable of handling additional oil production.
However, it is not clear that it is capable of handling increased OCS
production. OCS oil is heavy and high in sulfur and metals content,
rendering it difficult to process, transport, and refine. In addition,
expanded oil and gas production in the Ins Angeles/orange County area may
overtax the already strained transportation, water, and waste treatment
facilities located in this area.
A. Oil Process!
The substance pumped from the OCS into an offshore platform is usually a
mixture of oil, water, gas, and sediment, which must be separated into its
component parts. In this Initial prooessing stage, the water is separated
from the oil through use of gravity, heat, chemical treatment, and/or
electrical change. In cases, initial oil, water, and gas separation
takes place on the offshore platform so that the crude leaving the platform
meets pipeline or tanker specifications.
Further separation and processing to remove impurities from the oil can
take place at various points along the route to the refinery. it may occur
on a platform designed specifically to process OCS crude, or on an offshore
storage and treatment facility (OS&T), which receives the oil via tanker or
pipeline. OS&Tr- function as marine terminals, offloading processed oil to
tankers for shipment to refineries. or, processing may take place onshore,
again with transport via tanker or pipeline.
Water produced with crude oil can be in the form of free water, which
naturally separates from the oil, or emulsified water, which is more
difficult to remove from the oil. Free water is usually separated from the
oil on the platform, in a simple gravity separator. A heater -treater,
employing a combination of oil and gas separators, heat, filters, and
electricity is needed to separate out the component parts of an emulsion.
Heater -treaters can be used in offshore or onshore processing facilities.
In general, the oil is constantly moving through pipelines and facilities
during its path to the refinery, though processing facilities usually have
limited storage capacity.
Natural gas recovered offshore may also be processed on or offshore. in
many cases, it is used to produce energy on the offshore platform or
reinjected into the oil bearing rock formation to maintain pressure. If
the gas produced at a platform is sweet and dry - contains neither hydrogen
sulfide nor water - it may be transported to shore and fed directly into a
product pipeline for distribution to utilities or end users.
If the gas contains water and Impurities, it must be processed. Natural
2
gas separates from the mixture produced at the well head while that mixture
passes through gravity separators and heater -treaters. Once isolated, the
gas is dehydrated and 'scruhhed' to remove additional water and impurities.
After it has been processed, the gas is ready to enter a produce pipeline
for distribution.
Map A illustrates the existing OCS platforms off Orange county, and Map B
shows the islands and platforms in State waters. The oil recovered from
OCS platforms Ellen and Eureka (operated by Shell), located in the Beta
Field off the Orange County coast, is processed offshore, on Platform Elly,
and then piped to storage tanks at Long Beach Harbor. Oil from Platform
Edith (operated by Unocal ) is processed on Edith and then piped to Elly
for transmission to shore. From the storage tanks at the Harbor, the oil
enters pipelines to Shell's Wilmington refinery. Elly also processes gas
from the other two Shell-cperated Platforms for use on those platforms.
produced gas from Edith is piped onshore to Huntington Beach for
processing. The offshore platforms and islands located in State waters use
processing facilities located onshore.
OCS Lease Sale 95 lessees will have the option to process their oil
offshore. They may wish to construct an OS&T or a partial processing
platform like Elly, or they may consider utilizing the processing
facilities on Platform Elly. The processing capacity of Platform Elly9
which handles only OCS crude oil, is 18 - 20,000 barrels per day.
0=ently, that platform processes approximately 15,000 barrels per day of
oil produced on Ellen and Eureka, close to its capacity. This situation is
unlikely to change during the next several years, as the Beta Field
platforms were constructed during the 19801s, and can be expected to
utilize Platform Elly at or near capacity for several years. Because
construction of OCS platforms is extremely expensive, these structures are
designed to provide only enough capacity to meet individual project
specifications. In addition to these constraints, it would be logistically
difficult for new OCS platforms to utilize Platform Elly, even assuming
that an agreement could be reached between Shell and other platform
operators.
As oil leaves the processing facility and enters a pipeline to a refinery,
it passes through a lease automatic custody transfer (LAM unit. The LACP
meters the quantity and quality of oil passing into the pipeline, and will
return to the processing facility any oil which does not meet the pipeline
specifications. A LACT unit is especially important when the pipeline
transporting the oil is under different ownership than the oil lease.
There are several oil and gas processing facilities located along the coast
of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Table 1 lists these facilities, their
functions, and capacities. They process oil and gas produced in the state
tidelands off the two counties and in the nearby onshore oil fields. The
total oil processing capacity in the Orange/Los Angeles County area is
almost 416,000 barrels per day. There is sufficient capacity to handle
additional oil production. However, none of the onshore oil processing
facilities is capable of processing California OCS crude oil, which
generally has a high sulfur and metals content, and only a few of the
facilities can be expanded. Further, "separation/treatment facilities are
designed to match the characteristics of each projects' hydrocarbon
3
MAP B
State Platforms and Pipelines
Long Beach Area
LONG BEACH
Grissom
LOS ANGELES
......
Co.
WhIl
f
Freemon
THUMS Tract I
/�JESNW
San Pedro Bay a owl nmwmn I
186
MILE LINE
tNaEB
EXISTING PLATFORMS 0
EXISTING ISLAND
EXISTING PIPELINES
Source: California Coastal Commission
3095
ORANGE
CO.
HUNTINGTON
BEACH
E
.Eva mmy
425
3033
Ct . . I► N• IJI . .
Gas Plant No. 20
Inglewood
Torrance
South Torrance
Wilmington
ins Angeles
County
Chevron
Gas:
25,000 mcfd
Chevron
n.a.
Chevon
Gas:
3,000 mcfd
Mobil
Oil:
10,000 bpd
Exxon
oil:
20,000 bpd
Long Beach THUMS
Isco Mobil
Terminal Island Mobil
San Gabriel Chevron
Seal Beach Chevron
Seal Beach
Exxon
Huntington Beach
Union
(Heil Avenue)
Huntington Beach
Aminoil
(Gas Plant No. 11)
Huntington Beach
Chevron
Huntington Beach
Chevron
Huntington Beach
Aminoil
oil:
190,000 bpd
Gas:
20,000 mcfd
oil:
21500 bpd
Oil:
61000 bpd
Oil:
21500 bpd
Orange County
oil:
26,000 bpd
oil: 31000 bpd
Oil: 15,000 pbpd
Gas: 20,,000 mcfd
17
n
32
5
8
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
14
No
42
No
42
No
6
No
5 No
32 No
16 Possible
38 Yes
Gas:
31300 mcfd
4
Yes
Oil:
61,000 bpd
14
Possible
Oil:
80,000 bpd
44
Yes
*Information as of 1983
n.a. = Information not available.
bpd = barrels per day; mcfd = thousand cubic feet per day.
Source: Minerals Management Service, EIR, Proposed Southey
Offering (80), April 1984, Deoember 1983.
70i1c
products and, therefore, may not be suitable, without modification, to
process the product from different projects." (MS, 1987a, p. 49).
Thus, it is likely that, if Lease Sale 95 lessees wish to process their oil
in onshore facilities in Los Angeles or Orange Counties, they will have to
modify the existing facilities (many of which are quite old) or build new
ones.
Most of the existing oil development in the Pacific OCS is located off the
coast of Santa Barbara. The State of California and the County of Santa
Barbara have policies calling for consolidation of oil processing
facilities. There are now eight such facilities located in Santa Barbara
County. Under the County's consolidation plan, two facilities would
process all the oil produced from the existing and future offshore oil
development. The City of Huntington Beach, where many of the Southern
California oil processing facilities are located, also has a consolidation
policy.
An advantage of consolidation is a limitation on the industrialization of
the coast. Also, a consolidation plan affords local or regional government
the opportunity to choose the most desirable site(s) for processing
facilities in advance of increased oil development. However, it also may
mean that oil produced in a location which is not necessarily convenient to
one of the consolidated facilities may have to be shipped by tanker rather
than pipeline. or, pipelines may have to run through sensitive and/or
residential areas. Despite the potential problems, consolidation seems
preferable to a proliferation of small facilities along the coast.
Santa Barbara' County's consolidation policy states that "commingled
processing shall be required to avoid or reduce project and cumulative
impacts — considering enviromnental, socioeconomic, safety, and land use
concerns — that otherwise would result from construction and/or operation
of redundant processing capacity, redundant pipelines, or redundant
ancillary facilities" (County Policy 6-6C). Commingled processing is one
step beyond consolidation of facilities. oil and gas produced from
different projects can be fed through segregated pipelines and facilities
at the same processing plant, or production from several projects can be
ommuingled. As Santa Barbara's policy states, commingling reduces project
and cumulative impacts; however, it requires a somewhat more cxanplicated
metering process for allocating production to the various oil companies,
and royalties to the govermient. Clearly, planners and elected officials
in Santa Barbara County, who have extensive experience with offshore oil
development, feel that ca mLxxfling is both preferable and feasible.
B. Marine Terminals
Marine terminals are used for loading and unloading crude and refined
petroleum products to and from tankers. Much of the tanker traffic and
crude oil transferred at these terminals comes from Alaska's North Slope.
Alaskan crude is the main crude refined in Southern California. Because
all of the oil produced in Alaska's North Slope must be consumied in the
United States, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach receive many of the
tankers carrying this production.
Terminals consist of storage tanks,
a mooring system, and subsea and
4
terrestrial pipelines. Pipelines connect the marine terminals to southern
California refineries. The marine terminals at the Ports of Los Angeles
and Tong Beach are generally leased to individual oil companies, and serve
the refinery belonging to that company. There are numerous marine
terminals at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, in addition to four
in El Segundo and one in Huntington Beach. Table 2 list's the marine
terminals with operators and functions.
A oommon marine terminal mooring configuration is the single anchoring leg
mooring (SAIM), in which the oil travels through a pipeline on the ocean
floor to a marine riser which is suspended at the surface by a buoy. The
oil is transferred to a hose which runs along the riser to the ship
receiving the oil. This system can also be used for transferring oil from
a tanker to a marine terminal. SAIM system are used in water depths of
100 to 300 feet and a typical SAIM has a loading capability range of 30,000
to 140,000 barrels per hour (County of Santa Barbara, 1984). Other
configurations are fixed berth, sea island (offshore pier), and multiple
buoy.
C. Pipelines
In the Ins Angeles Basin, locally produced crude oil, as well as some of
the crude produced in the San Joaquin Valley and Ventura County, is
transported directly to the area's refineries by pipeline after it is
processed. Crude oil coming into the Los Angeles Basin by tanker from the
Santa Barbara area, Alaska, and foreign countries is unloaded at marine
terminals, stored in tank farms, and piped to the refineries.
The pipelines from the existing OCS platform off Orange County are
listed in Table 3. These pipelines as well as the pipelines connecting
the state platforms and islands with each other, processing plants, and
storage tanks are illustrated on Maps A and B and described briefly in
Section III.A above. There is an extensive onshore pipeline network
leading from the marine terminals and processing plants to the various
refineries and natural gas purchasers as illustrated on Map C). One common
carrier pipeline bringing crude from the Los Angeles area to destinations
outside California. Common carrier pipelines transport oil, gas, or
refined products for more than one company, and usually are interstate
pipelines. They are, in general, much larger in diameter than local
pipelines operated by and for a particular oil cotgDany.
There are four major pipeline corridors for the movement of crude oil
through the Los Angeles Basin. They are: (1) from the lower San Joaquin
Valley to Los Angeles Basin; (2) from the Ventura area to the Los Angeles
Basin; (3) the over 1,000 separate pipelines in the Ins Angeles Basin
connecting locally produced crude and crude from the San Joaquin Valley to
the Basin's refineries; and (4) the Farr Corners Pipeline, the only
designated common carrier in California, which carries crude from the Los
Angeles Basin to the Four Corners area of the southwest United States
(California Coastal Commission, 1988). The Pacifica O= Pipeline Co. has
recently gained approval for its Pao Tex pipeline, a large oamnon carrier
to run fran San Fedor to Midland, Texas (900,000 barrels per day). The
Celeron/All American Pipeline, near ccupletion, will also function as a
large cm= carrier crude pipeline and will run from Gavicta to the Gulf
5
w
ODUNFy LOCATION TESL OPERATOR
F[WMCN/STATUS
Los Angeles El Segundo Chevron
Unloading crude
(4 terminals)
loading product
Port of LA U.S. Navy
Loading and
unloading petroleum
products
UNOCAL
Unloading crude oil
GATg
Unloading petro-
Terminals Corp.
chemical and petro-
leums products
Pennzoil
Unloading lube oil
---- Chevron
Loading and unload-
ing bunker fuel,
diesel and lube
oil
GATg Terminals
Loading and un-
Corp.
loading petroleum
products
-- BP No. America
Loading and
Trading
unloading diesel
fuel oils
-- Western Fuel
Loading and un-
loading crude oil,
diesel oil, fuel
oils and ethyl
alcohol
--- Petrolane, Inc.
Unloading LPG
_— UNOCAL
Loading and un-
loading petroleum
products
_M TA Terminals
Unloading Chemicals
--- Chevron Chemical
Unloading lube oils
---- Golden Eagle
Unloading crude
Refining Inc.
oil, loading diesel
and fuel oils
•7ni l r
TABLE 2 (oont'd)
LOCATION TErOMAL OPERATOR
Port of L.A. Champlin Petroleum
Shell oil Co.
--- GATX Terminals
Corp.
---- City of IA Dept.
of Water & Power
---- Wilmington Liquid
Bulk Terminal
3
---- Refiners Marketing
---- Mobil oil
---- Pacific Texas
Pipeline Co.
(PAMEC)
Port of long
Beach
Four corners
Unloading crude oil
and petroleum
products, loading
diesel and fuel
oils
Loading and unload-
ing petroleum
products
Unloading crude
oil, diesel and
fuel oils, loading
diesel and fuel
oils
Unloading fuel oil
Unloading crude
oil, petroleum
and petrochemical
products, loading
diesel and fuel
oils
Unloading petro-
chemicals
Unloading crude,
loading and unload-
ing petroleum
products
Approved, but not
yet constructed,
unloading crude for
pipeline transpor-
tation to Texas
Unloading petroleum
products and fuel
oil, loading bunker
fuel
Unloading crude oil
1
OOUNTY
TABLE 2 (cont.1d)
LOCATION TEF44INAL OPERATOR
� T/8MME
Port of Long Texaco
Unloading, crude
Beach
oil, loading/un-
loading petroleum
products, and load-
ing bunker fuel
AROO
Loading/unloading
petroleum products
and loading bunker
fuel loading/
unloading crude
Oil
-- C. Brewer
Unloading petroleum
Terminals
products
---- Long Beach
Unloading/loading
Terminal Co,
petroleum products
Orange Huntington so. Ca. Edison
Beach
Gulf Oil
Source: California Coastal Commission,
Loading fuel oil
Loading/unloading
crude oil
1988.
PIPELr►m
UNIT/
SIZE AMID
PLATFORM
OPERATOR
(FIELD)
LAVDFnZ
Typg
Ellen to
SWEPI
Beta/(Beta)
1
14-in oil
Eily
4-in gas
Elly to
SWEPT
Beta/(Beta)
Lang Beach
16-in oil
shore
Eureka to
SWEPI
Beta/(Beta)
1
12-in oil
Elly
6-in gas
10-in water
Edith to
Chevron'
Beta/(Beta)
1
6-in oil
Elly
Edith to
Chevron'
Beta/(Beta)
Huntington
6-in gas
Eva (State
Beach
waters to shore)
1Ldnes indicate pipeline linking to platform.
'Chevron sold Platform Edith to Unocal in 1989. Unknown at this writing
whether pipelines were also sold.
Source: California Coastal Conmiission, Oil and Gas Activities Affecting
California's Coastal Zone: A Stmmary Report, 1988.
7n,Ie,
i OF ENERGY MAP SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA 8
i
124 23 i
22 21 20
— -LTU
Ventura
)
®Lr ncaster; i li 7
I I
18 7 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 f 9 I 8 II 7
I I 6
_
LT — -- ' - -- - IF..
-I -- J 4
Sit
- -�
3
Monica
El
._ 0tMrEONEOAm clan In Inct..)
—eRW=PKUW cM=MMM in mon«)
I OLFW
', MnLF Y(WM. mwwwia bwok pw day. apaNy.)
AUMMIDONS
CAU.EVP.L. CdNwFOO&�Co
SOG...........
SWHM Cdhnia Go CO.
E.... ..... -....... Sw*N COMOrtia Edon Co
S. D. P. C.......
Son ONpO NPMr Co
P.C...__._..�. FWCo Ft)SPr CO
9L................
214101
Gr.._........... Gdfy01CO.
S.O.... ...........
Chw U_SAhe
M ..__._._..... MO6101Cap.
(SfandONCO.)
P.GAE-_.. PocMa Go a E4cMO Co.
S.P.P.L . ...
.... Sm&tl Podnc P*?�Co.
P.LS.._.._.. P0n11CUQhlkvswwC*C0.
T....... _...........
T"Wo. JC
R..... ........ _... ANmft AChl dCo.(APCO)
MO...............
EWMO/CO.
W .................
G001Co
• fwer Co�bnio 0M1m d q m0 Gst
S
1
A
Coast (300,000 barrels per day).
D. Ports. Crew and SL=lV Bases
i
The Ports of Ins Angeles and Long Beach serve as the supply bases for OCS
activities in the San Pedro Basin and the oil and gas activities in state
waters off Ins Angeles County. Crew and supply boats and helicopters
travel between the ports.and the offshore platfotms on a daily basis. If
OCS development increases as a result of Lease Sale 95, port traffic will
also increase. This increase in crew and supply vessel activity is likely
to be insignificant in relation to the current and projected level of port
activity.
However, it may not be feasible for future OCS develcpm_nrt projects off
southern Orange County or northern Los Angeles County to use the Ports of
Long Beach or Los Angeles as crew and supply banes. The next base to the
north is at Port Hueneme, which may be available for OCS development off
the northernmost areas of Los Angeles County. There are limited terminal
facilities in Huntington Beach, to the south of the San Pedro Bay ports,
which may be adapted for use as a crew and supply base. If development
occurs in the areas of the OCS far from existing bases, additional onshore
support facilities, such as piers, offices, helipads, and parking
structures may have to be constructed.
OCS development under Lease Sale 95 may or may not lead to increased port
tanker traffic, depending on the extent to which tankers are used to
transport produced oil and gas. OCS development off the Ventura and Santa
Barbara County coasts has been and is expected to continue increasing
throughout the next decade. Tanker traffic from these areas into the San
Pedro Bay ports is also expected to increase. A recent study of the impact
of this OCS development on the Ports of Los Angeles and Iong Beach
predicted that increased OCS development will have an insignificant effect
on port traffic (The Port of Long Beach, 1988). Currently, 140 million
barrels of oil per year enters the ports in tankers (mast carrying Alaskan
oil) With full modernization of existing structures, the ports gould
handle tanker traffic carrying up to 236 million barrels per year. in
addition, these ports are continually undergoing expansion. The proposed
2020 Plan for the San Pedro Bay ports foresees substantial expansion of
port facilities.
E. Refineries
Once crude oil is processed --or separated from the water and gas which is
produced with it —it must be refined into gasoline, residual fuel,, jet
fuel, and other end products. The refining of California OCS crude poses
special problems for refiners because it is generally of such poor quality.
There are 15 refineries in operation in the Los Angeles area. Map C shows
the locations of these refineries, and Table 4 lists their crude oil
refining capacities (capacities listed on Map C may be out of date). The
total refining capacity in the Los Angeles Basin (there are no refineries
in Orange County) is 1,324,100 barrels per day. This figure does not
indicate how much OCS crude oil the refineries are capable of refining.
Refineries must have special eguipment to be able to process California OCS
3
REFnmy
LOCATION CAPACM'Y
(b/calendar day)
ARCO
Carson
214,000
Chevron
El Segundo
405,000
Edgington
long Beach
41,600
Fletcher
Carson
29,500
Golden West
Santa Fe Springs
40,600
Huntway
Wilmington
51500
Imday-Thagard
South Gate
8,100
Mobil
Torrance
123,000
Newhall Refining
Newhall
21,400
Powerine
Santa Fe Springs
33,400
Shell
Wilmington
129,000
Sunland
South Gate
15,000
Texaco
Wilmington
75,000
Ultramar
Wilmington
-65,000
Unocal
Ins Angeles
108,000
1,324,100
*Refineries processing
California 005 chide
Sources: Oil & Gas Journal, NMS (Pacific Summary/Index),
and
SCAM
76ilc
crude, which has a higher sulfur content and contains more of the hard to
refine "heavy ends" than most of the crude oil currently refined here.
In 1987, 005 crude constituted approximately 4% of the Southern California
refinery slate. The other crude oils refined here were: Alaskan North
Slope (37.1%); San Joaquin Valley (27.5%); Ins Angeles Basin (18.2%);
Imports, such as Indonesian (6.8%); Ventura (4.2%); and Cook Inlet (2.2%)
(The Port of Longg Beach, 1988). These percentages are averaged from
several refineries, and individual refiney slates may vary considerably.
Arm's Carson refinery, for example, uses only Alaskan oil.
In order to refine OCS crude, refineries must use more heat, be able to
"break" the heavy portions of the OCS crude into lighter components, and
remove more sulfur and other impurities. Some of the Basin's refineries
already have this capacity; yet, these refineries now handle only about
60,000 barrels per day of OCS crude. In order to process a substantially
greater quantity of OCS crude, the refineries must retrofit, installing new
equipment such as de-sulfurization units.
There are a few forces which drive this modernization process. One is
that crude oil production from the OCS has been anticipated to increase for
many years, as production from the Alaska's North Slope declines. In
addition, OCS crude is cheaper than Alaskan and foreign crudes because of
its low quality and may allow refiners to increase their profits. The
major refiners in the Los Angeles Basin are also producers or can be
expected to become producers (as a result of the upcoming California lease
sales) of California OCS crude. It makes economic sense for them to refine
their own product. Offsetting these economic incentives is the cost of
obtaining permits and of the modernization itself.
Clearly, most major refiners have concluded that modernization is worth the
investment. Almost all of the Basin's refineries which are capable of
modernization via retrofits have initiated (and, in many cases, completed)
such projects during the past decade. When all current and anticipated
modernization projects are completed, it is expected that the Basin's
refineries will be able to process 200 - 250,000 barrels per day of OCS
crude. in order to do this, they must replace an equivalent portion of
their current crude slate with OCS crude. Because OCS crude is of such
poor quality, it is more difficult to refine into high quality end
products, such as gasoline. Replacement of a certain amount of Alaskan
North Slope oil and other higher quality crudes with the same amount of OCS
may not yield the same amount of high quality end products (Vautrain and
Sanderson, 1988).
Historically, Southern California refineries have produced more gasoline
and other end products than are consumed locally. These refineries are
suppliers of petroleum products for much of California as well as Nevada
and Arizona. over the past several years, the surplus of locally
refined products has been decreasing as demand for gasoline increases.
Sales of gasoline climbed from 11.5 billion gallons in 1984 to 13 billion
gallons in 1988 (California Board of Equalization press releases), with
Southern California constituting the majority of this demand. During 1988,
California's refineries functioned at close to their maximum operating
capacity (The Port of Long Beach, 1988).
7
It is unclear whether the basin's refineries can continue to meet the
demand for high duality gasoline during the 1990s. Experts predict that
refinery capacity and gasoline supplies will soon tighten throughout the
United States, and in Southern California in particular (Purvin &
Gertz, Inc., 1989; Woutat, 1989). Modernization will allow refiners to
produce more gasoline from their current crude slates. If this crude slate
remains constant, production can be expected to increase slightly. But if
the projected increase in the use of OCS crude in the Basin occurs,
production is likely to continue at current levels or even decrease.
Adding to the trend toward lower quality crude oil slates is the need for
refiners in Southern California to meet increasingly stringent
envirormental regulations. Because of air quality concerns, it is
virtually impossible that an additional refinery would be permitted
anywhere within the South Coast Air Basin. In fact, the recently adopted
Air Quality Management Plan foresees an eventual phase -out of petroleum
based activities in the basin. Also, a few of the Basin's refineries have
experienced accidents recently, leading to closer scrutiny by local elected
officials and the press. The combination of these factors may strain the
ability of Southern California's refiners to meet local gasoline demand and
lead to a reduction in shipments of gasoline to Nevada and Arizona.
Another outcome of these factors is likely to be an increase in the price
of gasoline in Southern California.
Refining of California OCS crudes results in greater emissions of certain
pollutants, particularly oxides of nitrogen (NOx), than refining of higher
quality crudes. Estimates of increased emissions associated with refining
this crude in place of the current refinery slate range from ten to twenty
pounds of NOx per 1000 barrels of OCS crude. The predicted 300% increase
in the intake of California OCS crudes over the next several years - from
60,000 barrels per day now to 250,000 barrels per day in the 1990s - could
mean increased NOx emissions of over one ton per day into the Basin (SCAG,
1989a).
Refiners are able to obtain permits for modernization projects despite the
increased air emissions because they hold internal offset credits. The
ocapanies have what amounts to air quality accounts, which are credited
when emissions are decreased and debited when they are increased. In
general, the major refineries hold enough offset credits granted for past
reductions to undertake modernization projects and still maintain a credit
balance.
Refiners can be expected to do what is economically prudent from a long
term perspective. Most of them have already made the decision to
modernize. The question then becomes one of policy: is expansion of the
refineries and increased refining of OCS crude in the Los Angeles Basin a
desirable trend from the standpoint of the local cammuAty and/or the
region? Local government does have alternatives to consider, such as
restricting the amount of OCS crude which can be refined in Southern
California and encouraging refiners to move out of the Basin.
91
F. Product Distribution
A network of underground pipelines in the Los Angeles Basin carries
gasoline and other refined petroleum products from the refineries (as well
as from marine terminals) to terminals throughout Southern California.
From the terminals, tanker trucks carry the products to service stations
(of which there are 5200 in Southern California) and other retailers and
distributors. These pipelines are owned and operated by individual
refiners. Natural gas pipelines, operated by the Southern California Gas
oo¢gany, run fram the Los Angeles Basin to destinations throughout
California, and to Arizona and Nevada.
In addition, a few common carrier pipelines transport refined products to
other areas of California, Nevada, and Arizona. Southern Pacific Pipeline
Company controls zany of the common carrier product pipelines on the west
east. one of these pipelines carries refined products to Arizona. The
Calnev Pipeline carries gasoline from the San Bernardino area to Nevada.
southern California is the major supplier of gasoline to Phoenix, Arizona,
and Las Vegas, Nevada. A pipeline operated by the San Diego Pipeline
Company carries product from the Los Angeles Basin, through Orange County,
to San Diego.
southern California produces more gasoline than is consumed locally.
Approximately 10,000 barrels of gasoline per day is brought into the marine
terminals at the San Pedro Bay ports, while 100,000 barrels per day is
transferred to other states (The Port of Long Beach). As gasoline demand
continues to grow and the overall quality of crude oil available for
southern California refineries declines, this surplus of locally refined
products can be expected to decline. As a consequence, shipments to other
states may also decline and gasoline prices in Southern California and
surrounding areas may increase.
Pipeline transport is generally considered to be safer than tankering or
other modes of transport. However, several pipeline spills over the
past few years and the May 25, 1989 explosion of the Calnev Pipeline in San
Bernardino, which resulted in loss of life and properly, have increased
concern about pipeline safety. Because pipelines often must traverse
residential areas (especially the large, long distance camKm carrier
pipelines), safety measures are crucial. Safety regulations are undergoing
review and may be tightened as a result of the Calnev explosion.
• . . - .. w....
In the wake of the March 24, 1989 tanker spill of 11 million gallons
(260,000 barrels) of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, the risk
of a major oil spill in Southern California and the response capability in
this area have became the focus of debate about whether Lease Sale 95
should proceed. A recent computer simulation by the state lands O=nission
demonstrated that if an 11 million gallon oil spill occurred west of Point
Conception, three million gallons would wash onto Malibu's beaches within
10 days. A detailed discussion of these concerns could easily fill the
pages of a lengthy issue paper, but is beyond the scope of this ovOrview of
the southern California oil and gas infrastructure. The following
0
discussion outlines the major points in the debate.
A. The risk of a major spill
The Department of Interior (MI) recently issued a report to the
presidential Ocs Leasing and Development Task Force which concluded that
drilling and platform development under lease Sale 95 will result in a 14%
risk of an oil spill of 1,0o0 barrels or more and a 4% chance of a 10,000
barrel spill. According to this report, there is a 94% chance of a spill
of 10,000 barrels or more occurring off the Southern California coast
within the next thirty years from the existing offshore development and
traffic. Tankers bringing Alaskan oil into Southern California marine
terminals account for almost half of this risk (Jehl, 1989).
What this new information developed by DOI indicates is that the chance
that a major oil spill will occur off the Southern California coast within
the next three decades is extremely great — 94% — even if lease Sale 95
does not take place. Because Lease Sale 95 may not add substantially to
this risk (according to the DOI study), one could be argue that a
discussion of the impacts of an oil spill should not be a a part of the
debate about whether lease Sale 95 should proceed. This argument is
similar to that often put forth when the issue of air quality impacts of
OCS development is discussed, especially if the impacts would be felt in
the South coast Air Basin: "emissions from OCS development are
insignificant in relation to total onshore emissions and should therefore
not be of concern." What this argument obscures is that almost every
contributor to the problem — be it the chance of an oil spill or air
pollution — is by itself only a small part of the problem. But in order
to solve the problem, every one of the contributors must be checked. Any
potential addition to an already serious problem, no matter had
incremental, warrants careful examination.
The risk of an oil spill from OCS development is related to the aMMt of
oil produced from the development. To date, DOI has not released the oil
resource estimate upon which its oil spill risk analysis is based. In
Issue Paper #1, Resource Estimates for los Angeles and Orange Counties,
SCAG predicted that up to 607 million barrels of oil may be recovered from
the OCS off the two counties as a result of lease Sale 95. According to
sCAG's biological resource impacts paper (Issue Paper #4), there will be a
10% chance of a major tanker spill as a result of recovering 607 million
barrels of oil from the Los Angeles/Orange County OCS.
B. Response capabilities
The first line of response to an oil spill from an exploratory drilling rig
or offshore platform usually canes from the facility itself. The
facilities are equipped with open ocean booms which are used to contain
spilled oil. The operators of the Beta Field platforms in the Orange
County ocs, Chevron and Unocal (Shell recently sold Platform Edith to
Unocal), have oil spill contingency plans. They rely on the Clean coastal
Waters cooperative (CGS+]), made up of several coapanies in the petroleum
industry, for spi11 containment and clean up equipment. CCW also has a
contingency plan for responding to an oil spill in the ocean from Point
Dome in the north to Cape Fermin in the south. CCW maintains the 145 foot
NA
Clean Waters I response vessel in Long Beach, which is prepared to respond
to a spill at all times, three high speed response boats, an array of
additional response equipment (primarily in the Long Beach area, also in
Huntington Beach and other areas in which oil industries are located), and
a full time staff of 16 (Omstead, 1989).
In the event of a major spill, the Coast Guard would play a role in the
clean up effort, including designating an on -scene coordinator. There is a
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office located in Long Beach. The State would
also became involved in the response to a major spill, with the Department
of Fish and Game generally taking the lead. Local government has a limited
role in ocean oil spill response. They have disaster response plans which
may be used after an oil spill has occurred, if law enforcement, traffic
control, fire control, or rescue activities are needed (Townsend, 1989).
The oil spill response capabilities in the San Pedro Bay area are
relatively advanced and extensive. This does not mean, however, that the
coastline of Southern California is fully protected against the impacts of
a major offshore oil spill. One problem is a lack of adequate coverage for
the areas outside the immediate range of the response vessels and
equipment, areas such as Malibu and San Clemente. A recent cannputer
simulation by the State Lands Cmudzsion demonstrated that if an 11 million
gallon oil spill (the size of the Valdez tanker spill) occurred west of
Point conception, three million gallons would wash onto Malibu's beaches
within 10 days. Response time to a spill in Long Beach may be very short,
while it can take several hours for a response vessel to reach a spill off
the coast of southern orange County or northern Los Angeles County
(California Coastal Commission, 1983). Please refer to Map D for an
indication of response times to locations within the CLW response area.
Another, more pervasive problem is the limited effectiveness of oil spill
contairnnent and recovery equipment in eoemmn weather conditions. Even in
the best of ciran stances, this equipment is not expected to recover more
than M of a major oil spill. The slow and largely ineffective response
to the March 24, 1989 tanker accident in Prince William Sound demonstrates
the limitations involved in spill, clean up efforts.
Since that disaster, several agencies have launched investigations into
response procedures and recovery technology along the California coast.
Until better response planning and technology are available and their
effectiveness has been demonstrated, however, it seems clear that efforts
should be concentrated on prevention of oil spills.
r • • e) vow 1 •� i•,
At the lease sale stage, it is impossible to predict the magnitude or
location of OCS development and associated onshore facilities which may
result from the sale. consequently, the impact to local infrastructure, if
any, cannot be assessed with certainty. The following section describes
the state of the existing infrastructure which could be affected by
expanded OCS development: transportation, water, and waste treatment and
disposal. When the magnitude and location of OCS development under Lease
Sale 95 has been defined, the information provided iM this section can be
:T_VA r_1 ILTITIA I :I lacy N"ko
considered a baseline from which to anticipate impacts to local
infrastructure (unless indicated otherwise, this information is from SCAG,
1987).
A. Transportation
The building and increased use of onshore oil and gas processing
facilities, pipelines, and terminals may lead to an increase in onshore
traffic. Increased truck and other vehicle travel would be felt throughout
the transportation network, although the greatest impact would probably be
felt in non -industrialized coastal areas. Construction of onshore
pipelines would undoubtedly result in disruptions in the transportation
system along the pipeline route.
SCAG projects that the (combined) population of Los Angeles and orange
Counties will grow from its present 10.8 million to 13.9 million by the
year 2010, leading to increased congestion of the transportation
system. congestion creates air pollution and wastes over 72 million
gallons of gasoline each year (Tidemanson, 1989). During 1984, drivers in
Los Angeles County spent 25.1% of the peak evening travel hours in delay.
For Orange County drivers, the figure is 23.42%. SCAG predicts 8that 50% of
the regionts travel time will be spent in delay by 2010. In orange
County, delay during peak evening hours will increase sixteen fold to 94%
of travel hours. In 1984, the average daily driving speed was 35 miles per
hour; by 2010, that speed will be reduced to 19 miles per hour. In other
words, the transportation infrastructure in Los Angeles and orange Counties
is already strained and this situation is expected to worsen over the next
twenty years.
B. Water Supply
A great deal of water is needed for all stages of OCS development and for
oil processing and refining. The need for fresh water from onshore
sources is reduced if exploratory rigs and platforms utilize desalinization
units. onshore oil spills (from pipelines, trucks, and other forms of
onshore transport) may threaten groundwater supplies.
About one-third of the region's water supply comes frtm local surface and
ground waters, with the remaining two-thirds imported from northern
California, the Sierra Nevada, and the Colorado River. There is expected
to be a shortfall of 1.20 million acre feet of water, or 3.9 billion
gallons, in the SCAG region by 2010 (a family of four needs about one
acre-foot annually). The greatest level of shortfall is expected to occur
in the more densely populated portion of the SCAG region.
Any water from the municipal supplies needed for new OCS develcpmennt or
processing will reduce the water available for existing needs in Ice;
Angeles and orange Counties.
C. Wastewater Treatment
Much of the water used on exploratory rigs and platforms, as well as
that produced with the oil and gas, is disposed of in the ocean. In some
cases, however, the water is transported to shore where it enters the
municipal wastewater treatment system.
Nearly 90% of the SCAG region's population is currently served by 109
public or municipally awned wastewater treatment plants. The total
capacity of these plants is 1,660.5 million gallons per day. The plants in
Los Angeles and Orange Counties regularly operate at 90% of their capacity.
Shortfalls in los Angeles County and Orange County by 2010 are predicted to
be 12% or 132 million gallons per day, and 9% or 31 million gallons per
day, respectively. These figures do not reflect the type of treatment,
however. Most of the treatment in the two counties is only primary and
therefore below standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. If
the plants were to begin treating to secondary standards, their ability to
meet the Counties' wastewater needs would be further reduced.
D. Hazardous Waste
By-products of oil production and refining processes must be disposed of in
Class I, or hazardous waste, landfills. Los Angeles and Orange Counties
rely on two Class I landfills, both far outside County boundaries:
Casmalia in northern Santa Barbara County, and Kettleman Hills in Kings•
County. The continued availability of these landfills for hazardous waste
produced in Ios Angeles and Orange Counties is not assured, and siting of
new Class I landfills is extremely difficult.
E. Solid Waste
Drilling muds and cuttings generated on exploratory rigs and platforms are
disposed of in onshore landfills. A recent study conducted for Chevron by
California Shelf Studies shows that the oil islands offshore Long Beach
(operated by THUMS, a consortium of oil companies) discharged 3,644 barrels
of muds and 11,019 cubic feet of cuttings per well between January 1983 and
September 1984 (Tidemanson, 1989). Clearly, the quantity of muds and
cutting generated from the up to 17 new OCS platforms off Ios Angeles and
Orange Counties predicted in Issue Paper #1 Would be substantial.
Los Angeles County currently generates over 49,000 tons of solid waste per
day. Landfill capacity is diminishing so rapidly that Ios Angeles and
Orange Counties will face landfill shortages in the 1990s. Like Class I
landfills, new solid waste landfills are very difficult to site.
V COASTAL LAND USE
MUS SECITON1 C / r AND • r• •a OF X 1 ODASML IAND USES 1
•. • HOE 5- AND ORANGE COUNTIES.
• 1 M • / • • • /• 1 1 • • •,• • OI'1 I IOt
•• •.• i I 1 OI • • 101 • • � • OI •' 101 "• •a • MA 10•� •
• ••• •• 10. • • ••• I F.1 9 14My. OI
Oki
TIME 5
Santa Cruz
11/85
A
San Diego
11/86
P
Oceanside
11/86
P
Morro Bay
11/86
P
Monterey
11/86
A
San Francisco
11/86
M
San Luis Obispo
6/86
A
Point Arena
2/87
A
Redondo Beach
1/87
A
Capitols
4/87
P
Pacific Grove
5/87
P
Half Moon Bay
11/87
P
Trinidad
12/88
A
San Clemente
11/88
A
Fort Bragg
11/88
A
Santa Cruz
6/86
A
Sonoma
1i/86
A
San Mateo
11/86
P
Monterey
11/86
A
San Luis Obispo
11/86
A
San Diego
11/86
P
Mendooino
11/88
A
Hmiboldt
11/88
A
A = Approval of onshore facility must include a vote of the people.
P = Prohibition of onshore facilities.
M = Moratorium for two years —supervisors have extended moratorium
until 1989.
Source: Save Our Shores
6
77ilc
VI CONCIUSION
Clearly, the oil and gas infrastructure in Los Angeles and Orange Counties
is extensive. Nmaerous pipelines, marine terminals, processing plants, and
refineries carry oil, gas, and petroleum products throughout the two
counties and to outside destinations. What is not so clear, however, is
whether this infrastructure is capable of handling substantially more than
the 60,000 barrels per day of outer continental shelf crude oil now refined
in the Ios Angeles Basin (4% of the total refinery crude slate). OCS crude
has a higher sulfur and metals content and is heavier than most of the
crude oil now processed and refined in this area. Modifications to the
processing plants and refineries will be necessary before they can handle
much more than their current intake of OCS oil.
Refineries in the Ins Angeles Basin have been functioning at or near their
operating capacity for the past few years. At the same time, gasoline
demand has been increasing. These trends call into question the ability of
refiners to continue to meet Southern California's appetite for gasoline.
Development of OCS oil fields has been singled out by some as the best way
to meet this demand. Yet replacement of the current crude slate of
primarily Alaskan North Slope oil with OCS crude may reduce the ability of
Las Angeles Basin refiners to produce high quality end products such as
gasoline. The best option for meeting Southern California's gasoline
demand then seems to be the building of more refineries. However, this
option is infeasible for the South Coast Air Basin because of air quality
concerns; in fact, the recently adopted Air Quality Management Plan for the
Basin foresees an eventual phasing out of the use of petroleum -based fuels.
Remaining options include reducing gasoline demand, restricting the amount
of oS crude which can be refined in the Los Angeles Basin, and building
refinery capacity outside of the Basin. These options merit careful
consideration by local government in Southern California.
According to the Minerals Management Service, there is a 94% chance of a
major oil spill in Southern California waters right now, from existing
development and vessel traffic. Even if Lease Sale 95 does not add
significantly to this risk (estimates vary considerably), it will aggravate
an already very serious problem. The underlying problem should be solved
before any increase in the risk, no matter haw small, is permitted.
Finally, development under Lease Sale 95 may strain the already overtaxed
transportation, water, and waste treatment and disposal infrastructure in
Los Angeles and orange Counties. This infrastructure is, for the most
part, inadequate (without modifications and additions) to handle the
projected growth in population of 3.1 million by 2010. While it is
impossible to predict the impact which expanded OCS development will have
on this infrastructure, any impact will reduce the capacity available for
the residents of ins Angeles and Orange Counties.
14
i
1 The presidential OCS Leasing and Development Task Force, created
in Mn-dh, 1989, will recommend to President Bush by January 1, 1990 whether
Lease Sale 95 should go forward.
2 Shell Western Exploration and Production, Inc. sold Platform Edith
to Unocal in early 1989.
3 Personal communication with Joe Ferguson, Shell foreman on Beta
Field platforms.
4 Personal communication with Susan Livenick, (formerly with) State
Lands C mdssion.
5 oil cagmnies may be exempted from this requirement in certain
circmrstan es.
6 personal communication with Dick Wittkop, Port of Los Angeles.
7 Personal communication with Pat Avery, Aron (Los Angeles).
8 The SLAG region includes Inoerial, Los Angeles, orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties.
15
California Coastal Cmmission, Oil Spill Response Capability Study, Staff
Report, November, 1983.
Oil and Gas Activities Affecting California's Coastal Zone: A
Summary Report, December, 1988.
Centaur Associates, Inc.,
and Gas Develooment C
County of Santa Barbara, Energy Division, Oil Transportation Plan and DEIS,
January 25, 1984.
, Marine Ememency Management Study, February, 1989--
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Proposed' Southern
cali£ornia Lease Offerina, April 1984, Draft EIS, (80), December,
, Pacific Summery/Index: January 1 1986 - July 31, 1987, 1987(a).
OCS Oil
1987 (b) .
Giuliano, Francis A., Ed., Introduction to Oil and Gas Technology, 2nd
Edition.
Jehl, Douglas, "Lease Sale Held Almost Certain to Lead to Spill," Los
Angeles Times, June 5, 1989.
Onstad, Skip, Manager, Clean Seas, Testimony presented to the presidential
OCS Leasing and Development Task Fore, May 24, 1989.
Purvin & Gertz, Inc., Outlook, March 1989.
Shell Western Exploration and Production, Inc., Oil Spill Contingency Plan,
Beta Unit Complex, San Fedor Bay, revised August 1988.
South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California
Association of Government, The 1989 Air Quality Management Plan
Revision.
Southern California Association of Governments, Impact Assessment: Draft
Baseline Projection, updated March 1987.
16
1989.
It
G['F:L•A
Stammer, TanY, "Major Oil Spill Could Find Coast Almost Defenseless," Los
Angeles Times, June 71 1989.
Stein, George, "Tanker Duty: Easy Does It," Los Angeles Times, May 21,
1989.
Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc.,
26, 1988.
Tidemanson, T.A., Director, Los Angeles County Public Works, Testimony
Presented to the presidential OCS Leasing and Development Task Fore,
May 24, 1989.
Tawnsend Environmental,
17, 1989.
Vautrain, John and William J. Sanderson, "Gulf Coast Refiners GAin Access
to More California Crudes" Oil & Gas Journal, July 11, 1988, pp.
77-82.
Woutat, Donald, 'Oil Spill May be Catalyst for a Cohesive Energy Policy -
At last," Ios Angeles Times, May 21, 1989.
"Beeping California's Gas Tanks Filled," Los Angeles Times, June
5, 1989.
17
h
ICa
IOUTHERfl CRLIFORn
RIIOCIRTIOfl OF GOVERflfl1NIT
9f
818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor • Los Angeles, California 90017 ❑ (213) 236-1800 • FAX (213) 236-1825
y. y VVDI ai4
Very soon, the federal government will decide whether to allow oil
companies to lease portions of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
beginning three miles off the California coast. Seven million acres
of the OCS may be offered for lease and development in early 1990,
under the Departanent of Interior's Lease Sale 95. The area in
question stretches from San Dixs Obispo County to the Mexican border
and includes waters near the oceanside cmr=uties of Santa Barbara,
Malibu, Santa Monica, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, and Oceanside.
In four recent studies, the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) has examined how the counties of Los Angeles and
orange could be affected by the development of offshore oil fields
under Lease Sale 95. The studies examine the amount of oil
recoverable frau the offshore fields, and the potential eoorxnic, air
quality, and biological resource impacts of its development. These
studies have been prepared for Coalition 95, a group of over
30 elected officials from throughout Southern California that has been
meeting monthly since early 1988 to discuss the possible impacts
of Lease Sale 95.
• SCAG estimates that 101 to 607 million barrels of oil could be
recovered and up to 17 new platforms constructed as a result of
lease Sale 95.
• 607 barrels of oil is equivalent to 37 days worth of US oil
conruaption. in the peak year of production, the oil produced from
the estimated 17 platforms would satisfy California's energy needs
for 3 days.
AIR QL7Z=
• Residents of Southern California are exposed daily to the worst air
quality, by'far, in the nation. Levels of ozone reach 3 times the
standards set by EPA to protect public health. EPA is required by
federal law to impose sanctions, such as funding cut-offs, in areas
which do not meet its air quality standards. Local air pollution
control agencies must reduce pollution concentrations, even if the
source of the pollution is beyond their control. The recently
adopted Air ouality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin,
designed to lower the levels of ozone and other pollutants to EPA's
health -based standards, mandates the use of stringent control
.measures by goveament, industry, and private citizens for onshore
pollution sources. If pollutants blow into the region from sources
which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Plan, local
government, industry, and citizens will have to oogxnsate with
even more stringent controls on their sources.
• Every aspect of offshore oil development from exploration,
construction, and production to transport, processing, and
refining --can emit hundreds of tons of the pollutants for which the
region already exceeds federal and state health standards. Each
day it is used, one drilling rig can emit as much nitrogen dioxide,
a brownish gas which contributes to smog, as 23,000 new cars each
travelling 50 miles, while one offshore platform can emit as much
of the pollutant as 14,400 cars.
• Drilling rigs and platforms operating in the Outer Continental
Shelf fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior,
and cannot be regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAM), which regulates onshore air quality. In other
words, the already tremendous task facing onshore jurisdictions now
struggling to meet EPA's air quality standards may be made even
more difficult by the addition of OCS emissions to the existing
onshore -generated air quality problems.
• 'The Department of Interior recently proposed new regulations for
controlling emissions from petroleum sources. 4hese regulations
are far less stringent than regulations of the SCA= for
comparable onshore sources, and are considered to be inadequate by
all of California's coastal air pollution control districts, the
California coastal o mmission, the State of California, and
numerous local governments and agencies. The new regulations would
allow thousands of tons of pollutants from future OCS oil
development to blow into the South Coast Air Basin.
• Another major concern is the potential spillage of oil and
resulting damage to Southern California's beaches, to its
coastal -dependent and underwater plant and animal life, and to its
tourist and =w ercial fishing industries.
• she Minerals Management Service (N=), the federal agency
responsible for leasing the OCS to oil canpanies as well as
regulating exploration and development activities, estimates that
there is now a 94$ chance of a major oil spill off Southern
California, from existing tanker traffic and offshore development.
SCAG predicts that there will be up to a 10% chance of a major
tanker spill from Lease Sale 95 development off Los Angeles and
Orange Counties alone.
BIOXWICAL IMPAM8
• The Southern California Bight, the body of water located south of
Santa Barbara between the Southern California mainland and the
Channel Islands, is a biologically productive and economically
valuable natural resource. There are several sensitive areas in
the Bight, including wetlands, saltnarsh, and kelp beds. Along the
coastline, many areas have been granted special protection by the
State because of their rare habitat type or the species they
support. Endangered species in the Bight include the gray whale,
California brown pelican, and California least tern.
• The fisheries located in the Bight are among the richest and most
economically valuable in the State. The ccmie cial fishing catch
at Southern california ports amounted to 60% of the statewide catch
in 1986. The predominant species landed at Ins Angeles and Orange
County ports were valued at the dock at almost $75 million.
• A major oil spill could have a devastating inpact on marine life,
cormnercial fisheries, and sensitive habitat areas in the Southern
California Bight. Oil is toxic to fish, plants, and other
orgmusms, and destroys the natural insulation provided by fur
and feathers of marine mattmials (such as sea otters) and birds.
Experience has demonstrated that only 5 to 15% of a major oil spill
can be recovered with state -of -the art clean up equipment.
• Potential inpacts on marine life from routine construction and
drilling activities include toxic contamination from the drilling
fluids which are discharged from rigs and platforms, disruption of
feeding, reproduction, and other activities from seismic testing,
construction, and daily crew and supply vessel movement, and
smothering of bottom dwelling species from placement of platforms
and pipelines.
EOMMIC IKPACTS
• SCAG estimates that tourists spend almost 6 billion dollars per
year in the beachside camunities of Ins Angeles and Orange
Counties.
• If obstructed ocean views, degraded air quality, or befouled
beaches keep away one tourist in twenty, the annual reduction in
tourist spending could amount to a third of a billion dollars.
Thousands of jobs in the tourism industry, filled largely by
minorities, senior citizens, female heads of households, and
teenagers, could also be lost.
• Increased air pollution from OCS development also imposes costs on
onshore cmmmnities. On one hand, EPA may cut off funds and'
restrict development if federal air quality standards are not met.
r
At the same time, business, goverrnmnt, and private citiZens in
inland areas, which suffer the most severe air quality problems,
may have to spend more on pollution controls to coape*+sate for ocs
emissions.
• Energy demand and dependency on foreign oil have been increasing,
and these trends merit our attention and action. The application
of available conservation measures —increasing autanobile fuel
efficieny, tightening standards for hares, offices, and
appliances --would stretch our existing oil supply and help to
reverse these trends. in fact, studies have shown that
conservation would 'producer far more oil than all of the
California lease sales, and at a lower cost. In a resolution
adopted last year, Coalition 95 stated that:
The current federal policy of increasing oil
development in near ahore coastal areas rather
than increasing oonservation of resources and
alternative energy technologies is shortsighted
and fails to address the real national security
ooncerns of dependency on foreign fuels, and
leasing off the California ocast should not oocur
until the Federal Goverment, in coordination with
local government, has determined that less costly
oil equivalent alternatives have been implemented.
copies of the SCAG reports referred to above can be obtained
by contacting Cindy Jacobs at (213) 236-1804. They are:
Issue Paper #1, Resource Estimate
Issue Paper #2, Economic Impacts
Issue Paper #3, Air Quality Iimpaats
Issue Paper #4, Biological Impacts
Issue Paper #5, infrastructure Impacts will also soon be available
(Smaer, 1989)
RECEIVED)
MUZ4NDLM bl OCT 71988■-�
City Manager
City of New f coach •�
DA7£: October 6, 1988 4
TO: Jim Hendrickson, San Clemente
Patrick Lee, Orange County ENA
Jim Palin, Huntington Beach
Richard Tinney, RT&A
Cathy Tyrrell, SG F -Ve
CA��s..
Bob Wynn, Newport Beach °07.D��,; t
F", n`(r Kenneth Frank, Laguna Beach
SUBJ=: RECAP OF MEEK OF SE EMEM 29 0 Cq<iF'E9
V �
All agencies were represented at this meeting except the County.
The agenda included:
1. Discussion of the draft reports prepared by IMA - Suggestions were
made for modifications to the fisheries, socioeconomic, geologic, air
quality, and biological issue papers. The report on air quality is a
cooperative effort, with RT&A reporting on the legal and admin-
istrative aspects and SCAG preparing a separate report on the tech-
nical aspects. The beach survey was incorporated as part of the
socioeconomic paper. No hotel survey has been conducted, although
the group did, at previous meetings, discuss the usefulness of such a
survey. Another survey would take a considerable amount of time and
therefore cost additional money. whether to conduct this type of
survey will be discussed again at the next meeting. Because the
biological report is a difficult one for the group to review, Dr.
Peter Green, Councilmember from Huntington Beach and a biologist,
will review it during the next month and provide ommients. Newport
Beach may be able to provide a staff person to review it also. The
final versions of these reports will be available by December 7. At
that time, summary versions of each issue paper will also be avail-
able. RT&A will provide the agreed -upon eight copies of each report;
any additional copies will be the responsibility of the group to
produce.
2. outline of response to DEIS - RT&A announced that the draft Errviron-
mental Impact Statement and the public hearings for 005 lease Sale 95
will be delayed again, due to discussions between the Department of
Interior and the Department of Defense concerning tracts off camp
Pendleton. The extent of the delay is unknown but will be a matter
of a few months. Therefore, preparation now of a response to the
DEIS would be premature.
3. Slide show - Counci7member Gentry from Laguna Beach has suggested
that a slide show, in addition to the video being prepared, would be
(over)
useful for meetings such as those of the Coastal Commission. Many
cities already have slides in their planning departments which could
be used. RT&A will be responsible for putting together a collection.
4. Status of the grant budget - An aoconnting of the budget supporting
this project was distributed by Laguna Beach who is handling the
account. In smmiany, a total of $63,780.00 has been received, while
$134,511.88 has been expended. No funds have yet been received from
the County, to date, the County's contribution should have been
$60,300.00.
The next meeting of this group will be Monday, December 19 from 11:00 a.m.
to 1:00 p.m. (lunch included, to be arranged for by Newport Beach and paid
for from, the grant) . For that meeting the Laguna Beach representatives
r� 7 will prepare a schedule of further actions to be taken, and an estimate of
nt the amount of money required to pay for them. The finalized reports will
be discussed at that meeting. Please RSVP your attendance to Teresa Guest
of my office by December 14.
f
Y
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
REC��Y
SEP2 919886-
JJJ
City na .l
City o! Ma�:Ma� � �er.,oh /
'l
;;'September
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
19, 1988
(202) 379.1874
Please find enclosed RT&A's Monthly Report #09 and Invoice for
cost incurred.
Should you require further information, please feel free to
contact Richard or me at 703-685-0066.
Enclosure
/pas
Sincerely,
James J. Crowell
Vice President
RECEIVED
planning,
Dso.r�m•.nt
SEP291988
r17V rz
NEN'vk r i
Monthly Report
Report No.• 09
Period of Performance: August 1, 1988 to August 31, 1988
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Objective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service
Task Status•
Report Overview
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during August 1988.
During this month, RT&A made progress in all remaining task
areas. A briefing to Orange County Public Officials; continued
development of the Video and preparation of the technical reports
comprised RT&A's effort for month.
1.0 Program Management and Support
RT&A managers continued the project management and administration
functions. The monthly report on project activities in July was
provided to the project sponsors.
2.0 Technical Analysis and Review
Two reports, The Oil and Gas Volumes Report and The Lease Sale 95
Strategy Document were provided to the project sponsors. All
other technical reports are on schedule and are to be delivered
in draft form to the sponsoring jurisdictions by mid to late
September.
On August 91 RT&A personnel conducted a briefing for elected
officials and staff on the project's progress to date, technical
issues identified, and opportunities for involvement and action
in the future. The briefing was successful in these regards.
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
RT&A has maintained contacts with previously defined public
agencies and private interest groups. RT&A continues to monitor
the campaign schedules and position statements of both
Presidential candidates as they relate to environmental issues.
Accordingly, RT&A presented relevant material for the sponsoring
jurisdictions' elected officials at the briefing of August 9th.
d• r
Chukchi Sea Sale
Last May, MMS offered tracts in the Chukchi Sea off northwest
Alaska. Preliminary reports just released a seismic surveys and
other geological evidence indicates the presence of at least ten
geologic structures of 20,000 to 200,000 acres each in the
Chukchi Sea. According to one oil company, these structures are
of a size not often seen outside the middle east. By way of
comparison the four blocks of the Beta Unit cover about 23,000
acres, of which much less than half constitutes the oil-bearing
geologic structure.
Lease Sale 122
On August 31, MMS offered 5,080 tracts, totally 27.9 million
acres in the Gulf of Mexico off Texas and Louisiana. A total of
270 tracts, covering 1.5 million acres, received bids. The
highest bid was $7.5 million for a block off Texas. Results of
the sale generally were disappointing to the government.
Industry sources say that there was little attractive acreage
available in the sale. The total amount bid was $190 million
(last year's lease sale in the same area resulted in bids of $311
million for 367 tracts). Only 61 tracts in water deeper than 600
feet received bids, compared to 148 deep -water tracts last year.
Deep -Water Discovery
Shell Offshore Inc. discovered an undisclosed amount of oil in
its record -setting deep -water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
The well was drilled in 71520 feet of water, while the current
record water depth developed commercially in the U.S. is about
1,400 feet.
4.0 Public Participation
Portions of the Video have been completed (under water footage)
and, reported last month, copies of the script were submitted for
comment.
Preliminary plans are being developed for the Workshops and
briefings included in this task area. RT&A previewed the
underwater video footage at the August 9 briefing. RT&A has
obtained footage of the Senate in session and of the Capitol
Building, and has entered into an agreement with a video
production firm for additional Washington, D.C. footage. RT&A
also has located footage of the Lease Sale 91 hearings held
recently in Fort Bragg. We met with Huntington Beach officials
to begin finalizing the production of the video.
RICHARD TINNEY &
ASSOCIATES
INVOICE
#9
r«
' LABOR
RICHARD TINNEY ($60/HOUR)
TASK 1.2 6 HOURS
360
TASK 2.3 36 HOURS
2160
TASK 2.4 3 HOURS
120
TASK 3.1 4 HOURS
240
TASK 4.1 20 HOURS
1200
4140
JAMES CROWELL ($60/HOUR)
TASK 1.3 4 HOURS
240
TASK 1.5 3 HOURS
180
TASK 2.3 2 HOURS
120
TASK 3.2 8 HOURS
480
1020
RENATTE HAGEMAN ($50/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 20 HOURS
1000
1000
ALAN WALTNER ($100/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 25.75 HOURS
2575
2575
EUGENIA LAYCHAK ($35/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 102 HOURS
3570
3570
DIANNE KOPEC ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 45 HOURS
1125
1125
' MAUREEN WITKOWSKI ($25 HOUR)
TASK 2.3 25.5 HOURS
637.50
637.50
W ILSON ZUBLIN ($95 HOUR)
TASK 2.3 34.25 HOURS
3255
3255
TOTAL LABOR
17,322.50
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 1r666.85
MAIL & EXPRESS 136.75
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 423.52
TELEPHONE/TELEX 141.18
TOTAL ODC
SUBTOTAL
FEE @ 5%
TOTAL
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 08-01-88 to 08-31-88
PURCHASE ORDER NO: P.O. No. 08384
u. DATE: September 1.9-c 1988 _
2,368.30
19,690.80
984.54
20,675.34
y
NATIONAL OCEANIC PARK
ORANGE aim, CALIFORNIA
Preliminary Information
i
The Proposal: To create a national oceanic park between the beaches of Orange
County and Catalina Island. The park would encompass approximately 900.,square
miles and extend from Seal Beach on the north to San Clemente on the south. -
Why is a park appropriate? Orange County is becoming a major international
tourist site. Orange County beaches are rated among the top 5 tourist
destination points for visitors to Southern California. Tourism in Orange
County generate over 100,000 jobs and is a $4 billion per year industry.
Recreational boating and fishing are extremely popular activities between Orange
County and Catalina, Island. The people are using the area as a park, and the
development industry is interested in marketing the Orange County coast as the
Riviera of the United States. It seems logical to provide a National Oceanic
Park in this location given its current use and future plans.
is soonsorine this nr000sal and who
1986. It is currently endorsed by the cities of:
Anaheim Cypress Los Alamitos
Avalon Huntington Beach Newport Beach
Brea Irvine San Clemente
Costa Mesa Laguna Beach San Juan Capistrano
La Palma Tustin
and has the unanimous approval of the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
The
July
How will thisro sal be lemented? All National parks must be established
y the Congress of the United States. National parks are operated by the
National Parks Service, a division of the Department of the Interior.
The federal government already owns and controls a major portion of the area so
acquisition expenses would be minimal. The State of California owns and
controls the first 3 miles of the ocean floor off the coast, so that cost would
be minimal also. Current activities such as oil drilling, military uses,
commercial fishing, and tankering could be "grandfathered" into the proposal so
as not to disturb certain economic interests.
What needs to be done to foster the proposal? Broad based citizen,
governmental, business and public interest group support is needed to further
the proposal. When substantial support is evidenced, appropriate members of
Congress will be asked to submit a bill calling for a park off the Orange County
coast. Citizen action is welcomed in expressing support on the local, state and
national level.
For kurther information, contact: Robert Gentry, Councilmember
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Telephone: (714) 497-3311
Prepared November 1987
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(202) 379-1874
August 31, 1988
RECEIVED-N
SEP 6198s►
city City Manager ;
Y Newport Beach
�\
Please find enclosed RT&A's Monthly Report #08 and Invoice for
cost incurred.
Should you require further information, please feel free to
contact Richard or me at 703-685-0066.
Enclosure
/pas
Sincerely
James J. Crowell
Vice President
IVED
R Epio aura �S
rr- ..n nerrt
SEPO 61988
CM 0
r4 st F�
Monthly Report
Report No.: 08
Period of Performance: July 11 1988 to July 29, 1988
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Objective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service
Task Status•
Report Overview:
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during July 1988.
During this month, RT&A made progress in all remaining task
areas. Preparation for a briefing to Orange County Public
Officials; final development of the Oil Volumes and Strategic
Plan Reports; and continued development of the Video and
technical reports comprised RT&A's effort for month.
1.0 Program Management and Support
RT&A managers continued to oversee the development of the
technical reports and finalize the Oil Volumes and Strategic Plan
Reports. Special attention was paid to the preparation of the
Orange County Public Officials presentation. Although not
scheduled in RT&A's original contract, the importance of the
briefing in this Presidential election year will assist in
maximizing RT&A's and the sponsoring jursidictions resources.
2.0 Technical Analysis and Review
Two reports, The Oil and Gas Volumes Report and The Lease Sale 95
Strategy Document were finalized this month, incorporating all
comments (copies attached). All other technical reports are on
schedule for delivery to RT&A by the end of August and to the
sponsoring jurisdictions by mid to late September.
3.0 Strategv Formulation and Coordination
RT&A has maintained contacts with previously defined public
agencies and private interest groups. RT&A continues to monitor
the campaign schedules and position statements of both
Presidential candidates, related to environmental issues.
Opportunities will arise during the campaign to address issues,
pertinent to the sponsoring jurisdiction and RT&A will continue
to appraise the jurisdictions of the nature and type when
appropriate.
Accordingly, RT&A prepared presentation material for the
sponsoring jurisdictions' elected officials briefing of August
9th. The intent of this briefing is to define the issues of OCS,
status RT&A's progress vs plan, and recommend actions to be taken
by officials.
4.0 Public Participation
Portions of the Video have been completed (under water footage)
and, reported last month, copies of the script were submitted for
comment.
Preliminary plans are being developed for the Workshops and
briefings included in this task area.
RICHARD TINNEY & ASSOCIATES
INVOICE #8
LABOR
RICHARD
TINNEY
($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.2
11 HOURS
660
TASK
2.3
40 HOURS
2400
TASK
2.4
3 HOURS
120
TASK
3.1
4 HOURS
240
TASK
4.1
16 HOURS
960 4440
JAMES CROWELL ($60/HOUR)
TASK 1.3 4 HOURS
240
TASK 1.5 3 HOURS
180
TASK 2.3 2 HOURS
120
TASK 3.2 8 HOURS
480
1020
RENATTA HEGEMAN ($50/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 20 HOURS
1000
1000
RUTHANN CORWIN ($45/HRS)
TASK 2.3 57 HOURS
2565
2565
ALAN WALTNER ($100/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 15.75 HOURS
1575
1575
EUGENIA LAYCHAK ($35/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 73.5 HOURS
2572.50
2572.50
DIANNE KOPEC ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 101 HOURS
2525
2525
NAUREEN WITKOWSKI ($25 HOUR)
TASK 2.3 7 HOURS
175
175
WILSON ZUBLIN ($95 HOUR)
TASK 2.3 39 HOURS
3420
3420
MBC APPLIED ENV. SCIENCES
471.36
471.36
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 3 03 6.5 2
MAIL & EXPRESS 44
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 422.64
TELEPHONE/TELEX 97.04
TOTAL ODC 3600.20
SUBTOTAL 23,364.06
FEE @ 58 1,168.20
TOTAL 24,532.26
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:
PURCHASE ORDER NO•
DATE• A 31, 988
P.O. No. 08384
LEASE SALE 95
STRATEGY DOCUMENT
Prepared by
Richard Tinney & Associates
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, DC 20035
August 3, 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAG E
SECTION I. BACKGROUND 1
SECTION II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1
GOALS 4
OBJECTIVES 4
SELECTED STRATEGIES 4
SECTION III. PLAN AND SCHEDULE 5
FIGURES
FIGURE
1.
OCS LEASE SALE 95 MAP
2
FIGURE
2.
OCS LEASE SALE PROCESS
3
FIGURE
3.
POTENTIAL PRODUCT USES
6
FIGURE
4.
INTEGRATED ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
7
0
STRATEGY DOCUMENT
SECTION I. BACKGROUND
The Minerals Management Service, a unit of the Department of
the Interior, is planning to offer the Outer Continental Shelf
lands off the coast of Southern California for leasing in Lease
Sale 95. The purpose of this lease sale is to comply with the
OCS Lands Act Amendments (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), requirement
that the DOI plan for and conduct OCS lease sales.
As a result of this mandate, the MMS has selected the
Southern California planning area (see Figure 1) for lease sale
during 1990 to interested oil companies. Based on assessment of
geological formations and a variety of other exploratory
techniques, this planning area appears to hold some promise for
oil and natural gas development.
The process leading up to the ultimate sale of federal
government off -shore tracts for development is a series of
activities, taking approximately two years, that must be
completed by the MMS prior to any such offering to the public.
This process was Congressionally mandated in order to ensure that
the economic and environmental interests of communities affected
by any OCS development were protected and considered equally to
the nation's need for energy resources.
Specifically, the process established for OCS development is
illustrated in Figure 2.
SECTION II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goal represents the intent of the sponsoring
jurisdictions with respect to Lease Sale 95 process.
-1-
FIGURE 2
,;
r-----NON-DOI
01 I
-- OTHER �—
FEDERAL
STATES AGENCIES FWS/NPS
901
MMS SECRETARY
INPUT
FEDERAL
REGISTER
FEDERAL
REWRITER
INPUT
SPRIT
AVor
ilA�lry
IIEGMnR
MtAR11NS
NOTICE OF
AVAN.A l"
IN f9AERAL
R[aISn"
NOTICE OF
AVAILABILITY
N FEDERAL
IUWMnR
FEDERAL
NEOMTERoursN-W
6 - YEAR
OCS OIL - AND - OAS LEASING SCHEDULE
'
H APPROVE
v
v
GEOLOGY AND
RESOURCE REPORTS
INPUT
DEFINE AREA Of
HYDAOCAAW)N POTENTIAL
INTEREST
TER
R{OUE&T FORIM\T
REQUEST
INPUT
AS -DAY COMMENT
PERIOD
CALL FOR INFORMATION
AND NOMWATXM
NOISE Or INTENT TO
PJWPASE EIS
CALL CLOSE$
-EVALUATE COMMENTS
-EVALUATE MULTIPLE USES
N EM PROCESS
AREA IDENTIFICATION
$COPNW PROCESS
IR DRAFTE Office)
&0-OAY OOMMENT
PtM00
FINAL EIS
(RSF AL ERMS)
SECRETARIAL OM DOCUMENT
TEMTATWE
SALE
DECISION
APPROVE
PROPOSED NOTICE OF SALE
PUSLMNED
GOVERNORS
OOVERMONS GO -DAY COMMENT PERIOD ON
PROPOSED NOTICE OF SALE
SD DAY& PRIOR TO SALE
DECISIONOM
MEET
ILAS.n
REAS.TERMt,
CONDITIONS
APPROVE
FINAL NOTICE OF SALE
WIG$
LES&EE
SALE
JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT/
FEDERAL TRADE
COYMWISgM
REVIEW
-
POST SAL{ W REVIEWS
to.". . KILO
SALE IRISULTS
SRI ACCtPTANC[ 0[CINOM
uw«.I an.M
LEASEISSUANCE
IR.Y«n onul
- 3 -
0
GOAL
To provide Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, San
Clemente, and Orange County with the maximum amount of impact on
Lease Sale 95 thereby ensuring mitigation of any negative
economic and/or environmental effects on these communities.
OBJECTIVES
The following objectives are alternative approaches to
meeting the goal stated above:
1. Cancellation of Lease Sale 95.
2. Deletion of areas and/or specific tracts of concern to
the sponsoring jurisdictions.
3. Stipulations in the leases issued as a result of Lease
Sale 95, based on technological or policy -induced
requirements.
4. Delay of the EIS process and/or Lease Sale 95
indefinitely.
These objectives have been developed to focus the efforts of
the sponsoring jurisdictions. They are not mutually exclusive of
one another. Therefore when we carry out an action to meet the
first objective, the efforts will also support the accomplishment
of the other three. In this fashion we will be obtaining maximum
impact for the resources utilized.
SELECTED STRATEGIES
Strategies have been selected that are common to meeting all
stated objectives and have been demonstrated to be successful in
the past. Those strategies are:
1. Demonstrate, through the development of pertinent
technical documents, adverse economic and environmental
effects of OCS operations in the targeted area, in
order to affect the EIS and lease sale process.
- 4-
2. Increase public awareness, through informational media,
regarding the effects of OCS development on their
economy and environment.
3. Impact the Congressional appropriations process through
the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
4. Include riders in pending legislation, reflecting the
issues concerning OCS development in the Southern
California area.
SECTION III. PLAN AND SCHEDULE
The purpose of this section is to describe how RT&A products
can be utilized during the Lease Sale 95 process to implement the
selected strategies.
RT&A's products can be utilized in several ways. The first
is to scrutinize and where appropriate illustrate shortcomings in
the DEIS and FEIS. This will be based on the technical reports.
Through the video, the summary technical reports and the
workshops, RT&A intends to inform the public and elected
officials of the issues surrounding Lease Sale 95.
RT&A's products may also be used to carry out legislative
strategies, as well. Figure 3 depicts RT&A products and their
potential application to support the strategies. Figure 4,
Integrated Activity Schedule, depicts the chronology of RT&A's
products development relative to opportunities to affect the
outcome of Lease Sale 95. Each opportunity is identified by its
performing organization.
-5-
FIGURE 3
POTENTIAL PRODUCT USES
PRODUCT
Volumes Report
OCS Video
Technical Reports
Summary Technical Reports
Comments - DEIS
Comments - FEIS
Comments - PNS
Comments - Section 19
APPLICATIONS
Public Awareness
Legislation
Public Awareness
Legislation
EIS/Lease Sale Process
Public Awareness'
Legislation
Public Awareness
Legislation
EIS/Lease Sale Process
EIS/Lease Sale Process
EIS/Lease Sale Process
EIS/Lease Sale Process
-6-
FIGURE 4
INTEGRATED
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
PRODUCTS/ACTIVITIES
ORGANIZATION
DATE
1.
Volumes Report
RT&A
6-88
2.
FY89 House Appropriations
Congress -Yates
6-88
Mark-up
3.
OCS Video
RT&A
8-88
4.
FY89 Appropriation Bill
Congress -Yates
9-88
5.
Technical Reports
RT&A
10-88
6.
Summary Technical Reports
RT&A
10-88
7.
DEIS Issued
DOI MMS
11-88
8.
Sponsor Workshops
RT&A
12-88
9.
DEIS Hearings
DOi MMS
12-88
10.
Comments, DEIS
RT&A
12-88
11.
FY90 Budget to Congress
President
1-89
12.
FY90 House Appropriation
Congress -Yates
4-89 &
Hearing
5-89
13.
FY90/FEIS Issued
DOI MMS
14.
Comments - FEIS
RT&A
8-89
15.
Proposed Notice of
DOI MMS
8-89
Sale (PNS)
16.
Comments - PNS
RT&A
9-89
17.
Comments - Section 19
RT&A
9-89
18.
Governors - Section
STATE
10-89
19 Due
19.
Notice of Sale Issued
DOi MMS
12-89
20.
Lease Sale
DOI MMS
1-90
-7-
AN ESTIMATE OF ORANGE COUNTY O.C.S.
OIL VOLUMES
Submitted to
Orange County
Huntington Beach
Laguna Beach
Newport Beach
San Clemente
August 1, 1988
Richard Tinney & Associates
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(703) 685-0066
3
W
Table of Contents
Section Page
Summary
1.0 Background 1
1.1 Past Federal OCS Lease Sales 1
1.2 OCS Development off Orange County 2
1.3 Recent OCS Development and
Production Trends in California 3
1.4 Leasing Trends in State Waters 3
1.5 Onshore Oil Fields in California 4
1.6 Lease Sale 95 4
2.0 Estimate of Amount of Oil Available
in Lease Sale 95 5
2.1 The Orange County OCS 5
2.2 Past Estimates 5
2.3 The Volume of the Orange County OCS 8
3.0 Perspective 8
3.1 National Consumption vs Orange
County OCS Reserves 8
3.2 Consumption in California 9
3.3 Imports 9
3.4 Orange County Reserves and
Production 10
3.5 Automobile Gas Mileage
Standards Rollback 10
3.6 Hetch Hetchy Hydroelectric System Shutdown 11
4.0 Conclusion 11
Notes 12
Summary
In January 1990 the Minerals Management Service will hold
Lease Sale 95 offering 14 million acres of Southern Californian
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands for oil and gas exploration
and production. Included in that area are waters located between
three and 50 miles off Orange County. The MMS has not made
public its estimates of the amount of oil that might be found in
either the entire Lease Sale 95 area or the portion of it that is
off Orange County.
Based on figures disclosed by the MMS in past lease sales
and in other documents, it is possible to develop an estimate of
the amount of oil likely to be present on the Orange County OCS.
Analysis of these figures reveals that about 52.8 million barrels
of oil may be found in the 174 whole and partial blocks (a block
is nine square miles or 5,760 acres) that make up the Orange
County OCS.
This 52.8 million barrels of oil is equivalent to just over
three days' worth of oil consumption nationwide (about 76 hours'
worth). It is equivalent to about 34.3 days' worth of oil
consumption in the State of California, and about eight days'
worth of total oil imports nationally.
Adding this amount of oil to the present estimates of the
original reserves of oil in Orange County (that is, the total
amount of recoverable oil that was present before any was
produced) would increase the figure from 1,947.5 million barrels
to 2,000.3 million barrels, an increase of 2.7 percent. Orange
County has an estimated 363.1 million barrels of oil remaining in
place, having produced 1,584.4 million barrels of oil to date,
most of it from onshore fields. Adding the 52.8 million barrels
of the Orange County OCS to this would give remaining reserves of
415.9 million barrels, an increase of 14.5 percent.
The amount of oil likely to be found on the Orange County
OCS is less than the amount of extra oil needed to fuel a single
model year's automobiles as a result of the federal government's
roll -back of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.
Congress had mandated an average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per
gallon for the 1986, 1987, and 1988 model years. The
administration changed this standard to 26 miles per gallon.
This change results in a need for about 56.4 million barrels of
oil to meet the increased demand for gasoline for each of these
three model years, or a total of 169.2 million barrels of oil for
all three years. Had this single administrative action not been
taken, about 3.2 times the amount of oil likely to be found on
the Orange County OCS could have been saved.
The Secretary of the Interior has proposed to drain the
Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park and remove the
dam and hydroelectric generating system that currently produces
about two billion kilowatt hours per year. This is equivalent to
a generating station that burns about 3.1 million barrels of oil
per year. Producing the 52.8 million barrels of oil from the
Orange County OCS would take about 25 years. Hetch Hetchy will
produce an equivalent amount of energy in about 17 years, and
about 1.4 times as much energy over the same 25 years it would
take to produce the OCS oil.
1.0 Back4round
Offshore oil and gas development in Southern California (and
the world) began in 1896 when wells were drilled from piers built
over the state tidelands at Summerland near Santa Barbara. Since
that time, Southern California has seen over 2.8 million acres of
marine waters leased by the state and federal governments for oil
and gas exploration, development, and production.
Over 95 percent of the leasing have been in federal waters.
These waters, which are those beyond three miles from shore and
are known as the Outer Continental Shelf, have been offered for
leasing at irregular intervals since 1963. Leases are offered on
individual tracts or blocks measuring three miles on each side
and covering nine square miles, or 5,760 acres each.
1.1 Past Federal OCS Lease Sales
During the 25 years of Federal leasing in the California
OCS, ten sales have been conducted. Nine of these sales have
concerned federal lands located in what is now known as the
Southern California Planning Area. There are 147 federal leases
currently outstanding in this area. Resources associated with
existing leases in the Southern California area amount to 270
million barrels of oil and about 520 billion cubic feet of
natural gas (equivalent to about 90 million barrels of oil).J
These offshore resources are currently under development or
production from 21 platforms scattered offshore from Point
Arguello in the north to the four southernmost platforms located
off the coast of northern Orange County on the Beta and Beta
Northwest fields.
As shown in Table 1 J, production from federal offshore
leases in the Pacific OCS Region remained relatively constant in
the period from 1984 to 1986. California's overall contribution
towards production of offshore resources has been approximately
30 million barrels of oil per year and 5 to 9 billion cubic feet
of natural gas. In relation to nation-wide of federal oil and
natural gas resources California has generated approximately 88
of federal OCS crude oil and 1% of all federal OCS natural gas.
-1-
Table 1. Production of Federal Offshore
Oil and Natural Gas from the
Southern California Planning Area
% of National
% of National
rude Oil
Federal OCS Natural Gas
Federal OCS
Year
(102. Barrels)
Production (106
Barrels BOE*)
Production
1984
30.2
8.2%
4.9
0.61
1985
29.7
7.7%
8.8
1.23
1986
29.2
7.5%
7.6
1.08
*BOE: Barrels of Oil Equivalent
1.2 OCS Development off Orange Count
The Beta and Beta Northwest fields are among the most
productive oil fields in California. The four tracts making up
the Beta fields are the only existing federal OCS leases off the
Orange County coastline. The two fields, which lie next to one
another, are located 7 miles west of Huntington Beach and total
23,040 acres in size. There are no federal leases off the
central or southern Orange County coastline.
Development of the Beta f''eld began with eight wells drilled
from platform Ellen in 1980.J Twenty-one additional development
wells were drilled from the same platform during each of the next
two years (1981 and 1982). Six wells were drilled in 19831 eight
in 1984, and one each in 1986 and 1987, giving Ellen a total of
66 development wells to date. Ellen has a capacity of 80 wells.
Shell Western Exploration and Production, Inc. (SWEPI) or
Shell operates two other platforms, named Eureka and Elly.
Development drilling from Eureka commenced in 1984 and has led to
the drilling of 42 development wells from a platform with a
capacity of 60 well slots. Shell's third platform in the Beta
fields is Platform Elly, a processing platform from which no
wells will be drilled. Only initial treatment and storage will
be conducted at Elly.
Chevron operates Platform Edith, the fourth platform off the
coast of Orange County. Chevron has drilled 21 development wells
since 1983 from Edith, which is located over the Beta Northwest
field.
-2-
1.3 Recent OCS Development and Production Trends in California
Low prices and a volatile market for crude oil have led to a
substantial reduction in exploratory activities all along the
Pacific coast, affecting both onshore and offshore activities.
The number of leased tracts in federal waters has decreased each
year since 1984, as have the production levels of oil and natural
ga s.
Despite these apparently unpromising conditions, drilling in the
Pacific OCS has resulted in significant upward revisions in the
estimated quantities of oil and gas reserves off the coast of
Southern California. The drilling has all occurred in the
Southern California Planning Area in 24 OCS oil fields, eleven
which have been discovered since 1981. The upward revisions in
reserves are attributed, in part, to the development of
production wells which, in contrast to exploration activities,
has continued to be pursued by industry for the past four years.
Industry investments directed at developing Southern California
OCS resources, during a period of depressed crude oil prices,
clearly demonstrates a very strong interest in the potential
exhibited by the oil fields located in the Southern California
Planning Area. This interest can be expected to be translated
into highly competitive bidding for federal offshore tracts made
available to the petroleum industry during the upcoming Southern
California Planning Area Lease Sale (495).
Overall, oil from federal OCS leases off California was generated
from 341 producing wells on 21 platforms.) Total production of
crude oil from federal OCS leases in 1986 was 41most 29 million
barrels according to California state figures5 and a little over
29 million according to the Department of Interior's Mineral
Management Service. J Of that total, crude oil from the Beta
fields accoun_tgd for 7 million barrels of oil in 1986, almost 25%
of the total.)
1.4 Leasing Trends in State Waters
The State of California has jurisdiction over the development
of natural resources located in submerged lands and overlying
waters extending three geographical miles from its coastline.
State leases were first granted in 1929, but no sales for state
offshore lands have been held since 1969.
Without new development projects, production from State
offshore lands has dropped steadily from the peak level of 1969.
Currently, oil production of_�lmost 36 million barrels (1986) is
about 40% of the 1969 level.)
-3-
Within the three mile limit off the coast of Orange County,
there are three oil fields - the Belmont field, the Newport
f ield, and the Huntington Beach field, all in the northern part
of the County. The Belmont field has approximately 12.4 million
barrels of recoverable reserves.) Production of oil was a half
million barrels in 1986. The Newport field produced about 57,000
barrels in 1986, and has remaining reserves of about 1.1 million
barrels. The offshore portion of the Huntington Beach field has
323 producing wells accounting for 4.9 million of the 7.1 million
barrels of oil produced from the field in 1986. Although onshore
and offshore wells have produced approximately half of the total
quantity of oil from the field, offshore reserves account for 61%
of the remaining oil. This field will probably continue to
produce for a number of years. Economics have dictated the
shutdown of a number of wells in the past couple of years. These
operations for the most part relied on recovery techniques that
were considered too costly given the market for crude oil at this
time.
1.5 Onshore Oil Fields in California
California ranks fourth in total crude oil produced behind
Texas, Alaska and Louisiana.
Oil in the state is produced from 246 fields accessed b
43,000 operational wells (a drop of 6,600 wells from 1985).�
In 1986, production of oil fell for the first time since 1978
dropping to 407 million barrels from 423 million barrels in
1985. Onshore production accounted for 344 million barrels (84%)
of the State total. Recoverable reserves (proved economically
recoverable) total 5.5 billion barrels for the State.
Within Orange County there
and gas producing fields. Four
County border into Los Angeles
1.6 Lease Sale 95
are thirteen active onshore oil
of these fields cross the Orange
County.
The Department of Interior's 5-year OCS leasing program
includes OCS Lease Sale 95, to be held in January 1990. Lease
Sale 95 includes federal offshore lands in the Southern
California Planning Area, an area that extends geographically
from the Mexican border in the south to the San Luis Opispo-
Monterey County Line in the north. (It is within this area of
federal offshore lands that all past and current development and
production of federal oil and natural gas has occurred in the
Pacific arena.)
-4-
Supporters of this lease sale and of other Pacific OCS
development programs argue that development of these resources is
necessary to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. The
existence of substantial previously -discovered reserves within
the Southern California Planning Area suggest that OCS Lease Sale
95 will not only result in serious bidding, but will in all
likelihood lead to high levels of exploratory and developmental
drilling activity after the sale.
2.0 Estimate of Amount of Oil Available in Lease Sale 95
Because the Minerals Management Service does not make its
estimates of oil volumes in OCS blocks public, there are no
reliable estimates of the amount of oil contained in the Orange
County OCS. Using available inf ormation, an estimate may be
made, however. This is done here, after first defining just what
the Orange County OCS is.
2.1 The Orange County OCS
The area of the OCS off Orange County has never been
precisely defined, primarily because county jurisdiction does not
extend into the federal waters of the OCS. For the purposes of
this report, however, some definition is necessary.
The Orange County OCS may be defined by extending the county
boundaries seaward in a direction perpendicular to the general
trend of the Orange County coastline. These lines reach to the
landward edge of the area excluded from leasing in Lease Sale 95
by the Secretary of the Interior. Outside the Orange County OCS
are blocks in buffer zones around the Palos Verdes peninsula, off
the central Orange County coast, and around Santa Catalina and
San Clemente Islands, and the four blocks currently under lease.
This defines an area containing 135 whole and 31 partial blocks,
as shown in Figure 1. Combining the partial blocks into
approximate whole blocks gives a total of approximately 145 whole
blocks. This figure will be used in the following analyses.
2.2 Past Estimates
In the course of planning for past and future lease sales of
the Southern California OCS, the Minerals Management Service (and
its predecessor, the Bureau of Land Management) has developed
estimates of the quantity of oil to be found there. To the
extent they have been made public, these past estimates have not
specifically addressed the full group of 145 blocks of the Orange
County OCS. However, they are useful in developing an estimate
of amount of oil in this area.
M12
2.2.1 Lease Sale 48
In 1978 the Bureau of Land Management prepared to hold Lease
Sale 48. This sale involved an offering of 148 blocks in various
areas of Southern California. (Fifty-four of these blocks were
leased.) Twenty-one of the offered blocks were grouped into a
so-called "San Pedro Bay Area" and other 26 into a "Dana
Point/San Diego Area". The 21 San Pedro Bay blocks, all but four
of which were entirely within the Orange County OCS as defined
here, were estimated to hayg 80 million barrels of oil, or 3.8
million barrels per block.The 26 Dana Point/San Diego
blocks, five of which were within the Orange County OCS, were
estimated to have 30 million barrels of oil, or 1.15 million
barrels per block .12 If these estimates were extrapolated over
the entire Orange County OCS, the 145 blocks would contain a
volume of 167 to 551 million barrels of oil. Such an
extrapolation is unwarranted, however, since oil is not
distributed in such quantities uniformly throughout the Orange
County OCS. Accordingly, the figures of 167 to 551 million
barrels are overestimations.
2.2.2 Lease Sale 68
In the 1981 environmental impact statement for Lease Sale 681
the Bureau of Land Management analyzed 31 partial and whole
blocks off the Palos Verdes peninsula and Orange County. Of
these, 15 were among those offered in Lease Sale 48, and 25 were
wholly or partially within the Orange County OCS as defined
here. These 31 blocks were among 75 offered in the so-called
"Inner Banks" area, stretching from Anacapa Island to San Diego.
These 75 blocks were estimated to have a risked mean oil volume
of 35 mi lion barrels, or about 0.46 million barrels per
block.13 Extrapolating this figure over the entire Orange
County OCS yields an estimate of 66.7 million barrels for all 145
blocks. This figure is considerably lower than that developed
from Lease Sale 48 figures, reflecting the growing knowledge of
the Southern California OCS.
2.2.3 Lease Sale 80
The 1983 environmental impact statement for Lease Sale 80
involved, in relevant part, an analysis of approximately 400
blocks in the Inner Basins area of Southern California. These
400 blocks were estimated to have a "most likely" volume of 100
milli o arrels of oil, or about 0.25 million barrels per
block.�4 Applying this figure to the 145 blocks of the Orange
county OCS gives an estimated volume of 36.25 million barrels.
The Lease Sale 80 EIS included an analysis of an alternative
involving the deletion of 44,900 acres, the equivalent of 7.8
blocks, off Orange County. The area deleted under this
alternative was estimated to contain about10 million barrels of
oil, or 1.28 million barrels per block.5 If this quantity were
found in all 145 blocks of the Orange County OCS, this would
amount to 185.6 million barrels. This figure likely is much too
high, however, as deep water blocks are believed to hold little
or no oil, and most others are believed to hold much less than
1.28 million barrels.
2.2.4 5-Year Plan
The Secretarial Issue Document for the current 5-year OCS oil
and gas leasing program, issued in 1987, analyzes several
different alternatives for leasing off Southern California.
The "preferred alternative" in the 5-year plan includes an
area of about 16 million acres, 16 an area equivalent to 2,778
blocks. This area is estimated to contain about 890 million
barrels of oil, 17 or about 320,000 barrels per block. With
this volume per block, the 145 blocks of Dhe Orange County OCS
would contain about 46.4 million barrels of oil.
Governor Deukmejian proposed a leasing alternative that
excluded most deepwater blocks and some nearshore blocks. His
proposal called for offering an area of about 12.9 million acres,
equivalent to about 2,240 blocks. 18 This area was estimated to
contain about 540 million barrels of oil, or about 241,000
barrels per block. 19 At this volume, the 145 Orange County OCS
blocks would contain about 34.9 million barrels of oil. Because
this proposal excludes more of the more prospective nearshore
blocks than the preferred alternative does, it may give an
estimate that is too low for the Orange County OCS.
Congressman Regula offered a third leasing alternative. This
one excluded fewer nearshore blocks and included area of about
13.3 million acres, equivalent to 2,310 blocks. 20 This area
was estimated to contain about 840 million barrels of oil, or
about 364,000 barrels per block. 21 At this rate the Orange
County OCS would contain about 52.8 million barrels of oil. This
figure is likely to be the most accurate of those mentioned in
this report since it is based on figures relating to areas very
similar to the Orange County OCS.
A final leasing alternative came from Congressman Panetta.
This proposal, including about 28.7 million acres 22 (equivalent
to 4,983 blocks) and covering large areas of deepwater blocks,
was estimated to include a volume of about 700 million barrels of
oil 29 (about 140,000 barrels per block). This figure would
give the Orange County OCS about 20.3 million barrels of oil.
This estimate is likely to be too low, since the figures on which
it is based include many unprospective blocks and exclude many
prospective nearshore blocks.
-7-
2.3 The Volume of Oil in the Orange County OCS
Because precise figures on the oil volumes to be found in the
OCS are not publicly obtainable, estimates must be based on what
information is available. Reasonable assumptions must be made,
and that is what is done here in estimating the volume of the
Orange County OCS.
Because the Regula proposal of the 5-year plan EIS contains
areas most like those making up the Orange County OCS, the
estimate produced using figures from that proposal, 52.8 million
barrels, appears to be reasonable. For this reason, we estimate
that the Orange County OCS contains about 52.8 million barrels of
oil. Adding the natural gas estimate from the Regula proposal
gives a total of 66.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOB).!-4/
3.0 Perspective
In this section of the report we compare the estimated oil
volume of the Orange County OCS with a variety of measures to
indicate the relative importance of this volume to the national and
state energy economies. We look at national petroleum consumption,
California's petroleum consumption, national imports, Orange
County's proved petroleum reserves and production from existing
fields, and one indicator of the costs of energy waste, the excess
petroleum used as a result of the rollback of automobile fuel
efficiency standards. We also look at the proposed elimination of
an existing hydro -electric power system.
3.1 National Consumption vs Orange County OCS Reserves
At present rates the nation consumes approximately 16.6
million barrels of oil per day.25 Given that the Orange County
OCS contains approximately 52.8 million barrels of oil, resources
in this lease area would supply our nation's requirements for
petroleum products for just over three days (approximately 76
hours) .
Alternatively, if we compare the oil plus the natural gas
resources projected to be found in the Orange County OCS (i.e.,
66.5 million BOE) against total consumption of energy in the United
States, the resources of Orange County appear even more
insignificant. Th nation consumes over 64 quadrillion Btus of
energy annually.26 This translates to 11 billion barrels of oil
equivalent (BOE) per year or 31.4 million BOE per day. Thus,
resources contained in Federal offshore waters west of Orange
County would meet for the national energy demand for a period of
40.4 hours (less than two days).
go
3.2 Consumption in California
In 1985, a total of 560.8 million barrels of petroleum were
consumed in Calif ornia.27 This equals about 1.54 million barrels
per day. The amount of oil to be found in the Orange County OCS is
equivalent to about 34.3 days' worth of the total petroleum
consumption state-wide.
3.3 Imports
According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1987
the U.S, imported about 6.5 million barrels per day of crude oil
and petroleum products.28 This amounted to 39.5 percent of the
national supply. Based on these figures, the 52.8 million barrels
of crude oil estimated to be present in the Orange County OCS is
equivalent to about eight days of total imports.
3.4 Orange County Reserves and Production
Orange County has substantial proven oil reserves in its
existing onshore and offshore producing fields. As of the end of
1986, onshore reserves in Orange County amounted to about 111.3
million barrels, plus an unknown amount in the Orange County
portions of the Brea-Olinda, Coyote (West), and Seal Beach
fields.L9J Offshore, Orange County reserves were 64.6 million
barrels of oil in state waters and 187.2 million barrels in the
Beta field in federal waters. Adding the products of these
three areas, give total reserves of 363.1 million barrels in Orange
County and the Orange County OCS.
Production in these three areas has been high. Cumulative
prod c ion from onshore fields has been 964.6 million barrels of
oil .l Cumulative production from offshore fields in state waters
has totaled 592.7 million barrels of oi1.32 Cumulative production
from federal waters has been 27.1 million barrels of oil.
The estimated volume of oil yet to be found off the Orange
County coast in federal waters would increase the total reserves of
Orange County and the Orange County OCS from 363.1 million barrels
of oil to 415.9 million barrels, an increase of 14.5 percent. If
the estimated volume of the Orange County OCS were added to the
total original reserves (obtained by adding cumulative production
to proved reserves), the total original reserves would increase by
2.7 percent, from 1,947.5 million barrels to 2000.3 million
barrels.
M&M
3.5 Automobile Gas Mileage Standards Rollback
In 1973, passenger car fuel efficiency reached a low of 13.3
miles per gallon on the average. By 1977, the year before the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards went into effect,
average fuel consumption improved to about 13.8 miles per gallon.
By 1986he figure had improved further to over 18.3 miles per
gallon.§4
Through the CAFE standards, Congress mandated an average fuel
economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for 1986, 1987, and 1988 model
year automobile. The administration elected to roll back this
standard to 26 miles per gallon, resulting in increased fuel
consumption for these model year cars.
According to the California Energy Commission, this rollback
could result in an extra 30 million gallons of gasoline being
consumed by each year's new cars in California alone.35 This is
equivalent to over 700,000 barrels of oil, assuming that a gallon
of oil is convertible to a gallon of gasoline.
Actually, considerably less than 42 gallons of gasoline can be
obtained from each 42 gallon barrel of crude oil, with the exact
amount being a function of the type of crude oil involved.
Typically, about 65 percent of a barrel of crude oil may be refined
into gasoline. This amounts to 27.3 gallons of gasoline per barrel
of crude oil. At this rate, the CAFE standards rollback wastes
about 1.1 million barrels of crude oil for each year's new model
cars in California alone.
Nationwide, the CAFE standards rollback results in excess
consumption of 1.54 billion gallons of gasoline by 1986 model cars
over the life of the year's fleet.43 At 42 gallons per barrel,
this amounts to about 36.7 million barrels of fuel wasted. On the
average, about 56.4 million gallons of crude oil would be required
to produce the extra gasoline needed for this single model year's
automobiles as a consequence of the CAFE rollback.
Assuming that the 1987 and 1988 model years fleets are similar
in size and other relevant characteristics, the CAFE rollback for
the three model years requires an extra 169.2 million barrels of
crude oil. This is equivalent to 3.2 times the total amount of
crude oil estimated to be found in the Orange County OCS.
CHO
3.6 Hetch Hetchy Hydroelectric System Shutdown
Recently, Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel proposed to
shut down the Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric system and drain the Hetch
Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park. This hydroelectric
system produces about two billion kilowatt hours (kwh) per year.
An oil -powered generating station of two billion kwh pe year
capacity would require 3.1 million barrels of oil per year. 17
Since the Orange County OCS is estimated to contain 52.8 million
barrels of oil, keeping the Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric system
running for 17 more years would produce an equivalent amount of
energy.
Based on past experience with OCS exploration, development and
production, the oil to be found off Orange County would take about
25 years to produce, assuming five years for exploration and 20
years for development and production. 38 Thus the energy produced
from the Orange County OCS in 25 years would be produced by the
Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric system in 17 years. From another
perspective, during the 25-year life of any new oil fields coming
out of Lease Sale 95 on the Orange County OCS, Hetch Hetchy will
produce the energy equivalent of 77.6 million barrels of oil versus
the OCS production of 52.8 million barrels of oil (66.5 million
barrels of oil equivalent if natural gas is included in the OCS
figures as well) .
4.0 Conclusion
The Orange County OCS, with an estimated oil content of about
52.8 million barrels, is an area of modest development potential.
This is particularly true with respect to such OCS areas as those
off Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties in California and
those in the Gulf of Mexico off the counties of Texas and the
parishes of Louisiana.
From the standpoint of meeting energy needs alone, regardless
of whatever environmental and economic effects development of the
Orange County OCS may bring about, little need for this modest oil
resource has been demonstrated. Conservation opportunities would
more than offset the amount of oil to be found on the Orange County
OCS. Should these opportunities, such as the automobile fuel
efficiency standards, be taken, all of the Orange County OCS oil
resources could be left in the ground without any effect on the
economy or quality of life. Moreover, should a national emergency
develop at some time in the future, the oil would be there to help
meet genuine national needs.
-11-
NOTES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.
Pacific Summary/Index: June 1, 1986 - July 31, 1987, at 13.
2. Id. at 43.
3. Id. at 40. This source is relied on for all the data
regarding development wells in the following discussion.
4. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil &
Gas. 72nd Annual Report of the State Oil & Gas Supervisor
1986, at 39.
5. Id.
6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
supra, note 11 at 43.
7. California Department of Conservation, supra, note 4, at 39.
8. Id, at 3.
9. Id. at 56-86. All the figures in this paragraph come from
This source.
10. Id.
11. U.S. Department of the Interior. Final Environmental
Statement OCS Sale No. 48, at 1 and 2.
12. Id.
13. U.S. Department of the Interior. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Proposed 1982 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Lease Sale Offshore Southern California, OCS Sale No. 68, at
1-4.
14. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.
Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Southern California
Lease Offering, April,1984, at 2-7.
15. Id. at 2-71.
16. U.S. Department of the Interior. Proposed Final 5-
Oil and Gas Leasing Program, Secretarial Issue Docu
Appendix I, Table I-3.16. ("Appendix i").
17. U.S. Department of the Interior.
e 4-1. ("Enclosure s /.
18. Appendix I, table I-3.17.
19. Enclosure 3, table 4.1.
20. Appendix I, table I-3.18.
21. Enclosure 31 table 4.1.
22. Appendix I, table I-3.19.
23. Enclosure 3, table 4.1.
24. Id.
osure it
25. Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy Review.
November 1987, at 38.
26. Id., at 1.
27. Energy Information Administration. State Energy Data
Report, Consumption Estimates 1960-1985, at 37.
28. Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy Review,
November 1987, at 39. This figure does not account for an
average of out 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil that is
exported to Caribbean countries for refining. Most of this
imported as refined products and included in total imports.
It also does not account for petroleum products exported,
which amounted to over 600,000 barrels per day.
29. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil &
Gas. 72nd Annual Report of the State Oil & Gas Supervisor, at
55-86.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review,
November 1987, at 17.
35. California Energy Commission, California's Energy Outlook:
1987 Biennial Report, at 13.
36. Ledbetter, Marc. Testimony on Automobile Fuel Economy
Standards Before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and
Power of the House Committee on Energy and Policy, September
19, 1985, at 12. This is a National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration figure.
37. Generating one kwh requires the input of 9,000 Btu. Two
billion kwh requires 1.8 x 1013 Btu. With a barrel of oil
containing 5.8 x 106 Btu, two billion kwh requires 3.1 x 106
barrels of oil. (Conversion factors from R. Loftness. 1978.
Energy Handbook. (New York: Van Nostrand, Reinhold Co.)).
38. See U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service. Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Southern
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
P.O. BOX 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(202) 379,1874
HOT-LINE REPORT
DATE: August 29, 1988
SUBJECT: DUKAKIS WEST COAST SWING - END OF SEPTEMBER
Presidential candidate Mike Dukakis is planning a West Coast
swing at the end of September. The trip is scheduled to include
stops in Washington, Oregon, No. California and So. California.
This trip, in addition to his September 1st trip to California,
will address environmental issues of these states.
He is tentatively planning to address a conference on
environmental related matters in No. California's Bay Area, with
the final stop on the trip to be in Orange County.
These are preliminary plans at the present time and RT&A is
working with the Governor's scheduling office in Massachusetts to
obtain a clearer schedule.
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
July 15, 1988
TO: Patricia Temple, Principal Planner
FROM: Carol A. Korade, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Meeting on Offshore Resource Study
On August 15, 1988, there is going to be a meeting at the
City Council Chambers conducted by the State Lands Commission.
The purpose and goals are set forth in the attached document.
I have been advised by the State Lands Commission staff
that they would like the following from the City of Newport Beach:
1. Testimony on which of the stated goals are the City's
priority.
2. Indication of how the State Lands Commission could use
the goals to create a work product which would be useful to the
City.
3. Issues pertinent to the City.
4. Copies of studies or documents that would be useful or
a list of references and contact people.
5. An experience of the geographical area and the concerns
of the citizens.
6. Identification of the resources to be protected.
The contact person at the State Lands Commission is Mary
Griggs, Project Manager or John Lien if she's not available.
Their telephone number is (916) 322-7805.
Please contact me after review of the attached and we'll
figure out what to do next.
( J (�Ia�
Carol A Xorade
Assistant City Attorney
CK/c
CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE OFFSHORE RESOURCE STUDY
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND GOALS
THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
The purpose of the California Comprehensive Offshore
Resource Study (CCORS) is to develop a broader understanding of
the state's coastal environment, energy needs and sources,, and
the relationship a particular coastal project may have to the
needs and resources of the State as a whole.
Provisions in law, the nature of ,the environmental review
process, and the complexity of the issues placed before the
Commission can put certain constraints on the Commission's
ability to make informed decisions about specific projects. In
light of these constraints,. the Commission has expressed a
desire to have the ability to supplement its regular review
process.
CCORS is intended to provide the kind of broad -based
information needed for the Commission to determine if a
particular offshore project is in the best interests of the
State.
WHO WILL USE THE STUDY:
The primary users for the study will be the members of.
the California State Lands Commission. The study may also be
useful to members of the California Legislature, members of
Congress, Federal, State and local agencies, environmental
groups, industries,- citizen groups and others interested in
coastal resource management, especially those who are concerned
about an item before the Commission.
STUDY GOALS:
In order to fulfill the purpose of the CCORS study, the
following goals have been set:
The study will initiate the Commission's involvement
in a coordinated interagency program to develop :t
computerized information system comprised of ,,n
inventory of the ecological, social and economic
resources along the California coast, both onshore
and offshore. However, the full implementation of
this program is not expected to be completed within
the study's timeframe;
-2-
2. The study will, however, report on resources (i.e.,
what, where, sensitivity, etc.) which could affect,
or be affected by, development along the California
coast, based on existing information. An emphasis
will be placed on priority resources (e.g., air
quality, sea birds, fisheries, etc.). This
information will be presented in a concise and
useful format, comparing the effects of existing,
proposed and possible development activities in both
State and Federal waters along the entire coastline;
3. The study will identify existing and potential
conflicts among competing users of coastal resources;
4. The study will identify gaps in existing information
and recommend specific studies and research projects
which would fill those gaps;
5. The study will inventory existing environmental
literature on the California/OCS region;
6. The study will provide an overview of the State's
energy needs and supplies and their relationship to
the national and world energy picture;
7. The study will discuss oil and gas production,
transportation, refining, processing, and marketing
as well as alternative energy resources;
8. The study will address the decision -making and
regulatory processes and suggest ways to improve how
the Commission works with local government,
concerned citizens and organizations, industries,
the Federal government and other agencies within
State government in formulating its decisions;
9. The study will present the range of expert opinions
on technical issues; and
10. The study will examine the assumptions and
techniques that are used in the major models and
projections for impact analysis and identify their
strengths and weaknesses.
The dy
not
a in
cumulative uimpact lanalysis vas defined er tinnSection y15355�ofdthe
State CEQA guidelines, nor will the study replace an
Environmental Impact Report as required by the law.
-3-
In addition, based upon limits currently imposed on the
CCORS study by time, finances, and legal constraints, the study
will not make predictions about where development will or will
not take place and will not include original research projects
initiated as a part of the study.
2380s
ALL MEETINGS TO BE HELD FROM 2:00-5:00 P.M. AND 7:00
CONCLUSION OF TESTIMONY, WITH A BREAK FROM 5:00-7:00
CITY
Eureka
Santa Barbara
ri
Ventura
San Diego
Santa Monica
Monterey
San Francisco
Fort Bragg
Newport Beach
DATE
June 29, Wednesday
July 6, Wednesday
July 7, Thursday
July 13, Wednesday
July 27, Wednesday
August 1, Monday
August 2, Tuesday
August B, Monday
August 15, Monday
r
Eureka Inn t
ColonnadeRoom
7th and F Stree
Eureka, CA 95501
City Council Chambers
735 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
City Council Chambers
501 Poli Street, 2nd Floor
Ventura, CA 93002
City Council Chambers
202 C Street, 12th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
City Council Chambers
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
City Council Chambers
Pacific and Madison Streets,
1st Floor
Monterey, CA 93940
Bd. of Supv. Chambers
Civic Center
400 Van Ness, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Cotton Auditorium, Fort
Bragg Middle School
500 N Harold
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
City Council Chambers
3300 Newport Blvd., 1st Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92663
-2-
CITY
DATE
LOCATION
San Luis Obispo
August 22,
Monday
City Council Chambers
990 Palm Street, 1st Floor
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Long Beach
August 31,
Wednesday
City Council Chambers
333 W. Ocean Blvd., 1st Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Bakersfield
September
12, Monday
North of the River Veterans
Hall
400 W. Norris Road
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Sacramento
September
151 Thursday
State Capitol
Room 447
Sacramento, CA 95814
AS OF 06-17-88; 9:00 A.M.
2318S
lOMGOVERWnEn9Tf
WOCIATI
600 Louth Commonwealth Avenue •fuite 1000 • Lof Angel*/* California . 90005 � aVERso-
RFC v
6 p� Fi
$ ✓�C O � n�
June 30, 1988
c9
N�yPo/ %98 T�efi
Dear COALITION 95 Member and Interested Parties:
Enclosed is the agenda for our next meeting, to be held on July 15 at 10:00
a.m. Included in the agenda packet is the synopsis of the June 17 meeting,
SCAG's draft economic impacts paper, the executive summary of an MMS
publication called "The Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Development on Recreation and Tourism," and several articles regarding
Lease Sale 95.
However, congressional activities may make any COALITION 95 actions moot.
As the attached update from Richard Charter (Local Government Coordination
Program) and the accompanying news article point out, the Senate Committee
on Interior Appropriations recently voted to accelerate the Lease Sale 95
schedule and curtail the environmental review process.
THIS ACTION REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE!
Each COALITION 95 member needs to do two things: 1) arrange for a letter
(model attached) to be sent to the enclosed list of Senators, and 2) send
an op-ed piece to your local paper (two models attached - one recommended
by Warner Chabot of the Regional Coordination Program and one prepared for
SCAG's executive committee).
Please call Catherine Tyrrell at (213) 739-6748 or Cindy Jacobs at 739-6716
if you would like additional information. I look forward to seeing you on
July 17.
Sincerely,
Robert Gentry,
SCAG Energy and Environment Committee VICE CHAIR,
and Laguna Beach Mayor Pro Tem
r LATE UPDATE ON SENATE ACTION'REGARDING SALE NUMBER 95
06/22/88
W
On Wednesday, June 22nd, the full Senate Appropriations Committee
accepted language calling for an acceleration of OCS Lease Sale 195 off
of Southern California. Senator Pete Wilson, although not a member of
the Appropriations Committee, was present at the markup. Senator
Wilson, however, was not able to find a sponsor on the committee
willing to offer an amendment to strike the provision accelerating
Lease Sale 095.
The specific language which will now go to the Senate floor and
presumably on to Joint conference, provides that; 1) The Secretary of
interior is obligated to hold Southern California Lease Sale 195 on or
before August 1,1989. The usual discretion of the Secretary to cancel
or delay the sale is removed by the Senate language. The next
Secretary, whoever it may be, must hold the sale. 2) Bids for tracks
in Sale M95 would have to be processed by the Department of Interior
immediately after the sale, with derived revenues from the Sale
credited during September of 1989. 3) The previous environmental
impact statements for earlier Southern California Lease Sales 03 A t8U
would be deemed legally acceptable for sale #95 by the Senate language.
The Senate language states specifically that these earlier documents
would be considered to comply with NEPA. As a result, no Public
Hearings on Lease t95 would need to held by the Interior Department. i)
The Governors Consent Period would extended from 60 to 90 days and the
Governor would have the option to hold informal public hearings but
would not be required to do so.
The name of the game at this point for concerned California interests
is to maintain our longstanding statewide unamiainity on this issue.
Letters to the potential conferees as outlined in the enclosed Action
Alert are absolutwly emmential at this time. Guest editorials, talk
shows, press conferences, and other media efforts are also indicated.
Dangerous national precedents which essentially undo 20 years of
environmental legislation in this country are now in the balance.
(NOTE: 'THE 'PRoPOSeD 5ENATE LAP&JA6.E WOULD 5PGG(FtCALLy PE'R MiT
SHRLLok1 CORE EKPL0P1k-rb&Y DRILLinla awtOLO(rICAL 4- 6EoPH`ISicAL.
DKILLiW&-) W)T) 14 ALL. OF -rK5 MoRRToR1J.M PkEA.S MptT.1otJWlDs
rNcLJD)N� NokTHEK�.I chi i�oRNiA FwRipA +MIASSACHUSETrS.)
Thursday, June 23, 1988 The Orange County Register A3
Wilson, Cranston fail to block coastal oil -tract bill
By Robin Goldstein
The Register
WASHINGTON — California's
two senators tried unsuccessfully
Wednesday to block the Senate
from accelerating the leasing of
offshore oil -drilling tracts along
the Southern California coast.
Despite the senators' efforts, the
Senate Appropriations Committee
approved a bill Wednesday that
would move the lease sale up to the
summer of 1989. The action comes
just weeks after the Interior De-
partment had postponed the South-
ern California lease sale to Janu-
ary 1990.
Republican Sen. Pete Wilson and
Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston
now are regrouping, trying to de-
cide whether to fight the move next
week on the Senate floor or wait
until House and Senate representa-
tives meet to recondile the differ-
ences in their two bills. The House
companion bill would not move up
the Southern California lease sale.
In question is the Interior De-
partment's proposal that could
open to oil drilling as many as 7
Sen. Pete Wilson
Tried to block bill in committee
million acres off the Southern Cali-
fornia shore, from Santa Barbara
to the Mexican border. Oil compa-
nies will bid to lease some of the
tracts for possible oil development.
Some tracts are as close as three
miles from shore.
Although more than 1,000 tracts
could be offered, oil companies are
Sen. Alan Cranston
Could fight lease sale on Senate floor
likely to erect oil -production plat-
forms on just a fraction of them,
according to Interior Department
officials. Historically, less than 10
percent of the tracts leased actual-
ly produce oil, Interior spokesman
Tom De Rocco said.
A Senate panel's vote Monday to
accelerate the sale of oil -drilling
leases off Southern California
shocked many drilling opponents
in Congress.
And an anti -drilling lobbyist
t warned that the new Senate provi-
sion apparently is designed to cir-
cumvent environmental safe-
guards for new offshore oil -drilling
operations.
In order to push up the Southern
California lease sale to before Aug.
1, 1999, the committee apparently
voted to eliminate the need for a
time-consuming new environmen-
tal -impact statement. As passed
Wednesday, the bill says that two
environmental studies done in the
early 1980s could be used instead,
according to lobbyist Richard
Charter, who represents Orange
County and various other Califor-
nia local governments on the drill-
ing issue.
If the earlier environmental -im-
pact studies are used, the Interior
Department might not have to hold
public hearings on whetherto lease
more Southern California offshore
tracts for oil drilling, Charter said.
Charter said the earlier environ-
mental studies are outdated. "This
is basically just an attempt to,
shortcut the environmental regula-
tions," he said. "Tbe whole thing is
an outlaw proposal."
At the same time it moved up the
Southern California We, the Sen-
ate committee agreed to delay a
similar We of oil -drilling tracts off
Northern California to late 1989.
If the Senate panel succeeds in
moving up the Southern California
lease sale, it could make offshore
oil drilling the key issue in the pres-
idential campaign in California.
The apparent Democratic candi-
date, -Michael Dukakis, opposes
California offshore drilling while
the likely Republican nominee,
Vice President George Bush, is as-
sociated with a pro -offshore oil -
drilling administration,
However, Bush said Wednesday
that he opposes moving up the
Southern California lease sale, ac-
cording to Wilson spokeswoman
Lynda Royster. Earlier this
month, Bush asked the Interior De-
partment to delay the Northern
California lease sale so the next
president would have more time to
examine it. Interior agreed.
DRAFT LETTER AND MODEL FOR JURISDICTIONS
June 30, 1988
<rowl>
<row2>
<row3>
<row4>
Dear Senator <sal>:
On June 222 the full Senate Appropriations Committee accepted language
calling for an acceleration of OCS Lease Sale 95 off of Southern California.
The Executive Committee of the Southern California Association of Government
(SCAG) unanimously agreed today to vigorously oppose this action.
SCAG is the largest regional planning organization in the United States
representing the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Imperial, Ventura,
Riverside and San Bernardino and over one hundred and twenty-five cities
within these counties. Because of local government concern about the impacts
of offshore development on Southern California, SCAG has convened a
coalition of concerned elected officials to monitor and comment on the Draft
EIS to be issued in the fall of the year.
As these efforts demonstrate, local governments throughout Southern
California are doubtful that previous federal environmental documents
adequately assessed the local impacts of concern to them. To then use these
same documents to validate new lease sales in Southern California is not
only contrary to national environmental law, but also sends a clear message
to Southern Californians - both citizens and local officials - that their
concerns are unimportant in Aashington.
In closing, I want to assure you that local elected officials in Southern
California are well aware that the citizens they represent have strong
feelings on this issue. SCAG will work to ensure that public hearings are
held on the Lease Sale 95 Draft EIS even if they are not required by
Congress.
Ve look to you to delete the amendments to the Interior Budget and reaffirm
your support for the environmental review process as called for in NEPA.
Sincerely,
Don Griffin,
PRESIDENT
Councilmember, City of Buena Park
OCS Action Alert
for Local Governments
• Moratorium prevails in June 16 House Appropriations Committee
markup.
• Senate Subcommittee is moving to accelerate southern Calif. Sale #95
ACTION NEEDED: LETTERS to key potential Senate conferees.
• MESSAGE NEEDED: The Senate should recede to the northern California
Lease Sale #91 OCS leasing deferral passed by the House Appropriations
Committee, AND abandon Senate language which would accelerate southern
California Lease Sale #95.
• DIRECT-ED TO: Each of the following Senators:
(Democrats:)
•Robert Byrd (W VA)
SH-311, Washington, DC 20510-4801
*Bennett Johnston (LA)
SH-136, Washington, DC 20510-1801
Patrick Leahy (VT)
SR-433-A, Washington, DC 20510-4501
-Dennis DeConcini (AZ)
SH-328, Washington, DC 20510-0301
-Quentin Burdick (ND)
SH-511, Washington, DC 20510-3402
*Dale Bumpers (AR)
SD-229, Washington, DC 20510-0401
*Fritz Hollings (SC)
SR-125, Washington, DC 20510-4001
*Harry Reid (NV)
SH-708, Washington, DC 20510-2802
(Republicans:)
-Jake Garn (UT)
SD-505, Washington, DC 20510-4401
-Thad Cochran (MS)
SR-326, Washington, DC 20510-2401
*Warren Rudman (NH)
SH-530, Washington, DC 20510-2902
-Lowell weicker (CT)
SR-225, Washington, DC 20510-0702
r
PROPOSED OP-ED PIECE
SELLING OUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TO OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING
In a misguided effort to help the oil industry and to raise federal revenue, a
few Senators have proposed to accelerate oil drilling off the Southern
California Coast. This scheme, in the form of an amendment to the Department
of Interior budget, will put the coast from Santa Barbara to Mexico on the
auction block next summer without consideration of environmental concerns of
Southern California citizens.
The amendment violates federal responsibilities to Southern Californians in
two critical ways: 1) it allows old environmental studies to be recycled for
a major project affecting the entire southern California coast, and 2) it
mandates a major action with potentially significant negative environmental
impacts without any public participation.
This action not only undercuts twenty years of environmental legislation, but
is also an insult to concerned Southern California local officials who have
joined together with the Southern California Association of Governments to
present their concerns about offshore drilling to Department of Interior
officials. SCAG's Executive Committee voted to oppose this amendment and to
ensure that public hearings on the Lease Sale 95 EIS be held even if they are
not required by Congress.
The Senate's ill advised amendment is not in the House version of Interior's
budget. The differences between the two bills must be resolved this July, in a
joint House -Senate Conference Committee. That is the time and place to stop
the Senate efforts to speed up drilling.
Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Dukakis have proclaimed their sensitivity to the off-
shore drilling issue in California. Now is the time for them to prove it.
They should both be asked to persuade their congressional allies to reject the
Senate's attempt to accelerate southern California leasing. Phone or write
them today.
The following draft op-8d article sho�jld be used u a model for letters to the editor and
request !ar guest editorials it shovl tdoo be sent to Radio and T.V. stations as a basis for their
editorials on the subject. 1
(Draft Op -Ed Piece for, loc# officials to send to Southern California Press)
Selling Ot# Southern California
to Off hors Oil Drilling
In a misguided effort to help the oil I dustry and raise federal revenue, a few Senators have
conspired to accelerate oil drilling oig the Southern California mast. Their scheme, in the form
of an amendment to tho Department f Interior budget, will put the coast from Sant Barbara to
Mexico on the auction block next you
Their plan is so outrageous, It is opp sed by both presidential candidates, the Department of
the Interior and lice Oil Industry. lie 'a some background and how to defeat their scheme.
11tePlot -ThoSenate Appropriatto committee has approved an amendment mandatingan
accelerated offshore lease safe In sou hem California. Under the amendment, It Is possible
that this sale could occur before the eagan Administration leaves office.
This radical and o tramfst approach Ise eliminates the need for any environmental study: it
simply dectaras that previous stud! am adequate. This effectively eliminates any
opportunity for the public or local go momenta to have a role In the doclsion
ilteDamage•Thebillrweraest deadesofprogress inenvlronmcntllaw. Itseta
dangerous national precodont by dec ring that old environmental studies can be recycled for a
major project affecting the entire sou hero California mast. Worse yet, !(.mandates a major
action with potential devastating fmbaeb without any focused study or public participation.
Who Loses -The Interior Dep 1 t opposes Congressional meddling with their authority
to got tits (case Ile schedule Wcai vemmonls arc outraged by the allminotion of any due
process in the decision Both prasld dal candidates understand local opposition to offshore
drilling. Nelther wane M bo label . in the fail campaign as unresponsive on this issue.
i3ven it Industry leaders oppose accelerated schedule. Geophysical surveys and allocation
of npitd for a lase sale must be pis reed several years in advance. Speeding up the schedule
only insures less infomatlon, fewer bidden and probablylower bids. So the US. treasury also
ends up In the loser column. The iropy Is that the Senators promoting acceleration use the
rcvatueraWauamajorargumenh I
j
Whitt to DO - This Of advisad Ametidntent Is not In the Mouse version of Interior's budget.
The dlfferatias between the two billj must be resolved this July, In a joint House•Sonale
Conference
onfe� CA�ttea That is the Ilene and place to stop the $ensit effort so speed up
drilling.
Both Mr. Dukakis and Mr. Ikah haft proclalmed their untilvity to the offshore oil drilling
Ware in Celifontfa. Now is the lima for them to prove It. They should both be asked to
perauade titelr Carrgtesslonal dllar M reject the Senat'i attempt to accelenl southern
Caifemia lassing. lrhoee ar write th)•m today. November Is just around the corner.
TOTAL P.M.
Monterey Co.
OCS Lease Sale #95
Southern California
Areas Proposed For Leasing
'--- State Waters Boundary
Schedule
Nov.1988 - Draft EIS
Dec.1988 - DEIS Hearing
Jan. 1989 - Deadline for DEIS Comments
July 1989 - Final EIS
Aug. 1989 - Proposed Notice of Sale
Oct 1989 - Governor's Comments Due
Dec. 1989 - Notice of'Sale
Jan.1990 - Sale
San Luis Obispo Co.
Santa Barbara Co.
` > Santa Barbara Ventura Co.
Ventura
Channel Islands O'
0 25 so
Mies
Los Angeles Co.
-0 Santa Monica
Beach
• Oceanside
San Diego Co.
i
• San Diego
MEXICO
i
lOUTHERfI CRUFORMA
WOCIRTIOfI OF GOVERfIf11EW
600 Louth Commonwealth avenue *Hite 1000 a Lor nngelere California a 90005 e213/385-1000
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT/AGENDA
COALITION 95 STEERING COMMITTEE
R
DATE: July 15, 1988 6 n P/1 p �\
TIME:10:00 a.m. to Noon ✓UL o s
PLACE: SCAG Offices 1g88
10th Floor Conferepce.Room
600 S. Commonwealth Avenue
IJ
Los Angeles, CA 90005
(see attached map)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Bob Gentry, Laguna Beach Mayor Pro Tem and SCAG Energy and Environment
Committee Vice Chair
2. COMMITTEE INFORMATION SHARING
3.
o Update on Senate Committee action to accelerate Lease Sale 95 and
limit environmental review;
o Update on negotiated rulemaking process;
o Coalition 95 members are invited to contribute information regarding
upcoming events, activities, meetings, etc.
Steve Alcorn, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section of MMS, will
present the development scenarios, alternatives, and stipulations which
are currently being considered by MMS for inclusion in the Lease Sale 95
DEIS.
F
4.
rIN
Cindy Jacobs, SCAG Assistant Planner, will present the findings of the
economic impacts paper to date. Comments and suggestions on the draft
paper are encouraged.
Proposed language for a resolution regarding economic impacts of OCS
development will be distributed and presented for discussion at the
meeting.
5. UPDATE ON SCAG'S ANALYSIS OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
Catherine Tyrrell, SCAG Principal Planner, will report on the progress
of the air quality impacts analysis and summarize findings to date.
6, NEXT MEETING DATE - SEPTEMBER 23
ATTACHMENTS
A: Synopsis of June 17 Meeting
B: Draft Economics Impacts Paper
C: Executive Summary of MMS Report, "Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Development on Recreation and Tourism"
D: News Clippings
NOTE: SCAG regrets that it will not be able to validate parking for those
attending the meeting. For those who do not wish to pay for parking in
the building, both on -street and metered parking are available on
Commonwealth Avenue. Thank you for your understanding.
-EXIT HOLLYWO01
AT VERMONT
+IWINC7 SOUTH
;j
91.19KO CON
HML
WILSHIRE BLVD.
.STREET
xOUTHERO CALIFORnih
AJJOCIATIVI OF GOVERMEW
600 f Commonwealth Ave..Iuite 1000. Lox Angeler. Co 90005•
i 213/385-1000
EXIT HOLI-YWC00.FWY.
HOAPtNC-r NORTH
TU9N "Fr TO
61:147-ON NAY
4
1XIT HAFF30F
M 3 rtl
Fir�oli��
Wr�T
s
N
-� 0
0
SY
EXIT H00YEfz
HEADIWO NOWMI
EXIT SANTA HONICA FWY.
AT VERMONT
HEAPINe NORTH •
Z2
PARKINCT TAGLITIES:
• ErARAGE ENTRANCE ON COMMONWEALTH AVX,
•COItj-DEPOSr7- PARKIN& LOTAC906.9 FROM
CNA BUILDINCT ON CCMMONWEALT)i AvSl/
ATTAC8M6MT A
Synopsis of June 17 Meeting
SYNOPSIS OF COALITION 95 MEETING
June 17, 1988
Chairman Bob Gentry introduced new members of Coalition 95: Los Angeles
City Councilmember Ruth Galanter, represented by Legislative Deputy Betsy
Reifsnider; and Orange County Supervisors Harriet Wieder and Thomas Riley,
represented by Patrick Lee of Orange County Environmental Management
Agency. He also welcomed representatives of the Western Oil & Gas
Association (WOGA), the Daily Breeze, and the State Lands Commission (SLC),
who observed the meeting.
The Orange County Consortium of Cities meeting scheduled for the evening of
June 16 was canceled due to scheduling conflicts. Consequently, Richard
Tinney of Richard Tinney Associates, Inc, who had planned to brief the
Committee on that meeting, was not present.
Catherine Tyrrell informed the Committee that MMS is holding a hearing on
June 29 at their Pacific OCS' Office in Los Angeles to discuss the
implications of the (tentative) four month delay of Lease Sale 95. She
also reported to the Committee that the air quality negotiated rulemaking
process is heating up once again, and that meetings to discuss DOI's new
proposed rule were scheduled for June 20 and 21.
Cindy Jacobs of SCAG staff presented the conclusions of Issue Paper #1, an
estimate of oil resources located off the coast of Los Angeles and Orange
Counties. Among these conclusions is: the range of oil resources is 101
to 607 million barrels of oil; if all recoverable oil is extracted, it will
supply the nation with petroleum for six to thirty-seven days; if the
high -case scenario is realized, it will result in seventeen new platforms
off the coast of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and supply the nation
with petroleum for three days in the peak year of production. Ms. Jacobs
stated that the paper will be finalized over the next few weeks and
encouraged comments from Committee members.
Susan Livenick, an observer from SLC, spoke briefly about that agency's
offshore oil study, which will encompass the areas offshore Los Angeles and
Orange Counties. She also cautioned that the number of days or weeks of
national consumption may not be a good indicator of the relative size of
the resource; for example, the Wilmington field, one of the biggest fields
in the United States, contains about two and one-half months worth of oil.
Bob Getts of WOGA told the Committee that all of the fields offshore
California are small, but that together they comprise one of the most
promising OCS areas in the United States.
Ms. Tyrrell then presented the draft resources policy resolution. Betsy
Reifsnider suggested that a statement regarding energy efficiency standards
for major appliances be added to the resolution. John Stodder of Mayor
Bradley's office proposed making the resolution more comprehensive.
Informal agreement was reached that a resolution will be presented with
each issue paper, as well as a comprehensive policy statement when all
voted
papers
resolution,reviewed.
has Committee
been namendedunapprove
to incorporate Ms.
r
h
Reifsnider's suggestion and forwarded to SCAG's Executive Committee.
Beverly Moore, Executive Director of the Santa Monica Convention and
Visitors Bureau, spoke to the Committee about the importance of the tourism
industry to California's economy and the ways in which oil development may
Impact that industry. Her talk is summarized in the following two
paragraphs.
Tourism is the single largest industry in California, and Los Angeles is
the top travel destination in the United States. Tourists spend over
thirty six billion dollars a year in California, over ninety-eight million
dollars every day. Ms. Moore estimated that eighty-six percent of the
money spent by tourists in California was spent in the coastal counties.
Nearly fifty million visitors spent twelve billion dollars last year in Los
Angeles County, supporting over 2009000 jobs, a payroll of over three
billion dollars a'year, three hundred million dollars in state tax revenue,
and one hundred and fifty million dollars in local tax revenue. Many of
the jobs are filled by minorities, seniors, female heads of households, and
teenagers.
The tourist industry is very competitive and vulnerable. In Southern
California, it is dependent on the image and reality of golden beaches with
uninterrupted views of the horizon and gorgeous ocean waters. The prospect
of dozens of oil rigs and the threat or reality of drastic oil spills could
easily discourage tourists from choosing Southern California. The tourism
industry in areas such as Long Beach and Santa Barbara, which have not been
(ostensibly) damaged by offshore oil development, do not rely on their
beaches to attract tourists.
Ms. Moore also stated that she expects the tourist industry to "demand that
any oil rigs built be constructed beyond the sight line of the horizon from
the beaches in the area. If you think that the tourism economies on which
our local cities are dependent can survive anything less, you are widely
mistaken." She expressed her desire that the members of Coalition 95
consider the information she provided when they formulate public policies
regarding offshore development.
Mr. Getts commented that tourism has increased 400% in Santa Barbara and
that there is a greater chance of oil spills from ships coming into Long
Beach Harbor than from oil rigs. He suggested that data be collected from
coastal areas around the world which have experienced oil development.
Mayor Pro Tem Gentry mentioned that a drillship working off the coast of
Newport Beach for one day caused a great deal of concern among hotel owners
and residents. He cited a DOI estimate (printed in Western City Magazine,
August 1987) that there is a seventy percent chance of oil spills of 1,000
barrels or greater in the next thirty years. Avalon Mayor Bud Smith
expressed his concern about the possibility of oil spills around Catalina
Island. The City of Avalon is almost one hundred percent dependent on
tourism.
Ms. Tyrrell then discussed the -framework for the economic impacts issues
paper. The paper will examine the potential economic impacts of oil
development on tourism and recreation, infrastructure, growth, development,
and the value of the coastal resource in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
Mr. Stodder commented that the theme of trading one industry or direction
of economic growth --tourism, business growth in inland areas --for oil
development was common to most of these concerns, and that local
governments must make a choice.
The meeting was adjourned at noon.
ATTACHMENT B
Draft Economics Impacts Paper
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF OCS DEVELOPMENT
Southern California Association of Governments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISUMMARY............................................................1
IIPotential Impacts on Tourism.......................................2
III Infrastructure and Other Market Costs and Benefits.................4
IV The Federal Government is Undervaluing the OCS.....................4
.I_ ..............................................5
I SUMMARY
Many of Southern California's local government officials are concerned that
the oil development expected under Lease Sale 95, although profitable for
those proposing it, will result in a net financial loss to local citizens,
local government, and the local economy. These local economic impacts can
be quite different from lease sale -wide, state-wide, and nation-wide
impacts. Using MMS' Lease Sale 91 DEIS as a model, we can expect the Lease
Sale 95 DEIS to focus on regional impacts, an approach that tends to
minimize impacts. This paper examines the potential costs to the local
economies of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, including those which MMS has
not considered.
Five areas of concern will provide the focus of this paper, as follows:
1. Offshore oil development may result in a decrease in tourist
spending in the coastal communities of Los Angeles and Orange
Counties.
2. Offshore oil development can result in long-term economic costs on
local infrastructure which must be borne by local communities.
3. The federal government is undervaluing the OCS by reducing the
minimum bid from $150 per acre to only $25 per acre.
4. Pollutant emissions from development off the coasts of Los Angeles
and Orange Counties may result in construction bans and other
penalties, and may limit the amount of economic development in
inland areas of the South Coast Air Basin by rendering air quality
offsets prohibitively expensive or unavailable.
5. Any analysis of the costs and benefits of offshore oil development
must consider the non -market values of the coastal resource --the
value placed on the beach by those who use it and the value placed
on preserving the beach by both users and non -users --and the
potential loss in these values if the resource is damaged.
1
i
II. Potential Impacts on Tourism
The potential impacts of oil development on tourism and recreation in
Southern California are of great concern to local government. Tourism is
the largest industry in California, and Los Angeles County is the number
one tourist destination in the United States. In 1987, tourists spent $36
billion in California, of which approximately 86%, or $27.5 billion, was
spent in the coastal counties. Over $12 billion was spent by almost 50
million tourists in Los Angeles County and $5 billion by 35 million
tourists in Orange County. Millions of dollars in state and local taxes
were generated from this spending. Over 20R,000 jobs were created in Los
Angeles County, and 117,000 in Orange County.
What draws so many tourists to these areas? Certainly, attractions such as
Disneyland and Univeral Studios draw some of the Counties' visitors. But
tourism industry executives claim that the coastline of Southern
California, with its unobstructed ocean views and wide, sandy beaches is
what attracts many of the tourists who choose to vacation in Los Angeles or
Orange County. In fact, a Greater Los Angeles Visitors and Convention
Bureau stuly lists the area's beaches among its top five tourist
attractions.
Unfortunately, a breakdown of the county tourism figures by coastal -related
spending is not available. We have roughly estimated that direct tourist
spending in the coastal areas of Los Angeles and Orange Counties amounted
to at least $2 billion in 1987, or about 11Z of the total tourist spending
in the two counties. However, this figure may not reflect the importance
of the coast to the area's tourism industry. The existence of an
undeveloped coast may be one of the reasons why many tourists decide to
visit Southern California, even if these tourists do not actually spend
most of their money along the coast. Furthermore, many of those who come
primarily to visit the coast, which is internationally known for its scenic
qualities? discover other attractions when they arrive.
Anything which threatens to destroy the qualities which make our coast so
attractive to tourists --the view of oil platforms from shore, oil spills
washing onto the sand, pipelines and related facilities on the beach --also
threatens the tourism industry. A major oil spill could devastate the
tourism industry for months or even years after it occurs. Even the
expectation of a decrease in the beauty of the coastline will discourage
tourists from spending their dollars here.
Empirical data on the effects of oil development on tourism and/or
recreation simply does not exist, although attempts to predict these
effects have been made. Oil industry representatives often point to the
increase in tourism in Santa Barbara to illustrate that offshore drilling
is not incompatible with tourism. However, the figures from Santa Barbara
may be misleading for the following reasons: the growth in tourism may
have been even greater if oil development had not taken place; and the
tourist experience in Santa Barbara is not dependent on the beach.
Furthermore, the recent ARCO Coal Oil Point DEIR points out that "as the
numbers of platforms and onshore oil and gas facilities increase, visitor
perception of [Santa Barbara] county could change."
`A
MMS recently commissioned a study, "Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Oil
Development on Recreation and 'Tourism," in which oil construction,
operation, and spill impacts on beach attendance and coastal recreational
spending are modeled. The model predicts negative impacts of less than 5%
on local beach attendance and recreational spending from offshore
construction and operation and impacts of 10% or less from spills of at
least 10,000 barrels. However, beach attendance data is not considered by
the tourism industry to be a good indicator of tourism activity or
spending. Local residents, who are the primary users of the beach, are
likely to continue visiting the beach despite visual, odor, or noise
disturbances (excluding major spills). Because spending by local residents
constitutes a very small percentage of total tourist spending, beach
attendance may remain stable, or even increase due to local population
growth, while tourist expenditures decrease. Moreover, the MMS study looks
only at beach attendance, recreational activity, and spending by California
residents, thereby excluding a substantial portion of the tourist activity
and spending. Consequently,' the study's impact estimates are likely to be
too low, or not indicative of the most significant potential economic
impacts.
Even if we accept an average negative impact level of 5% from construction,
operation, and spills, the loss to local economies is substantial.
Assuming that coastal tourism accounts for approximately 11%, or $2 billion
of the total Los Angeles and Orange County tourist spending (a figure which
may be too low; see above), we can expect a decrease in tourist spending of
at least $98 million in the two counties. In addition, thousands of
dollars in state and local taxes and over 3,500 jobs would be lost. These
impacts would primarily affect the coastal communities, many of which rely
on tourism proceeds. A substantial loss of tourism dollars could destroy
the economy of some of the smaller coastal cities, such as Avalon on Santa
Catalina Island, which depends on tourism for 98% of its income.
The jobs which would be lost, while only a small percentage of the total
employment of the two counties, are filled largelg by minorities, senior
citizens, female heads of households, and teenagers. A reduction in those
positions may mean an increase in welfare spending for the counties,
causing a further drain on county resources.
In the case of a major oil spill, the short-term impacts would be
significantly higher, especially if the spill were to occur during the
summer $onths (approximately 40% of the tourists visit in the summer
months). In the communities directly affected by the spill, tourism,,
recreation, and commercial fishing activity would be curtailed if not
stopped altogether. Longer -term impacts may stem from the media attention
which a major spill generally receives. One major spill in the coastal
areas of Los Angeles and Orange counties could deter travel agencies from
promoting this area and tourists from vacationing here for a number of
years. For example, beach closures in Santa Monica several years ago
resulted in a law suit by a European couple against their tour complay,
which subsequently canceled its business with Santa Monica area hotels.
Clearly, tourism is important to the economies of Los Angeles and Orange
counties. The tourism industry is expected to continue growing and
expanding if no further offshore oil development occurs. Oil, on the other
3
hand, is non-renewable. The active life of an offshore oil platform is
approximately twenty-five years, after which the activity it supports comes
to an end. Unless comprehensive mitigation measures --such as minimum
distance from shore and avoidance of primary tourism locations --are
required at the outset, the tourism industry in Los Angeles and Orange
Counties' coastal communities may have disappeared well before then.
III. Infrastructure and Other Market Costs and Benefits
Offshore oil development can result in long-term economic costs to local
communities. Offshore development of the magnitude expected under the
high-case11 development scenario of seventeen platforms presented in Issue
Paper #1 will probably require a more extensive onshore support network
than that which currently exists in the two counties. Additional
processing facilities, pipelines, refineries (disregarding permitting
difficulties), offices, and related facilities may be necessary. While
taxes and other forms of revenue will accrue to the local governments from
construction of these facilities, the long term costs can outweigh these
benefits.
The increased activity along the coast will generate traffic in the coastal
communities, resulting in air quality, road maintenance, and possible
congestion costs. New coastal access roads may be required in certain
areas. Pipelines, processing facilities, and refineries also require large
quantities of water, which is a precious commodity in Southern California.
Additional long-term costs to local governments may result from the
migration of workers from outside the counties to the development sites.
The majority of workers needed to operate offshore exploratory drilling and
extraction equipment and the facilities related to offshore development are
highly skilled laborers who migrate to the site of development. Hence,
while the benefits of increased employment are of little comfort to local
governments, especially in highly populated areas such as Los Angeles and
Orange Counties, the burden of population increase in already overtaxed
coastal areas is a source of concern. The families of migrant oil workers
will require school and other public services, as well as housing.
Except for a portion of the workers' wages, which will be partially or
wholly expended in the local communities, oil company profits are unlikely
to find their way to the local communities. Most, if not all of the oil
companies which will bid for tracts under Lease Sale 95 are huge companies
with little or no investment in the local communities. For the most part,
the lease bids, royalties, and taxes on the leases are benefits which
accrue to the federal government, not the local or even state governments
(a small percentage of royalties from production on leases three to six
miles off the coast does go to the state).
IV. The Federal Government is Undervaluing the OCS
MMS recently reduced the minimum bid on each acre of the OCS from $150 to
$25, reducing the minimum cost for leasing each tract from $864,000 to
$144,000. Such a relatively low price may encourage bidding on tracts
El
which are not currently thought to contain economically recoverable oil and
gas.
Since the minimum bid theoretically represents the value of the resources
to the public, MMS should present the public with detailed analysis and
documentation explaining why $25, rather than $150 or any other amount, was
chosen as the minimum bid. Furthermore, due to the potential adverse
impacts on local environmental quality resulting from OCS development, MMS
should also be required to show the public that valuation of these
environmental quality losses are incorporated into its method of
'calculating' the minimum bid.
V. Air Quality
Air emissions resulting from offshore oil development, which is beyond the
jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or
any other state or local authority, can be substantial. Construction and
operation of platforms and associated offshore vessels may result in
emissions of large quantities of nitrogen oxides and reactive organic
gases, which react to form ozone as they travel to and across onshore
areas. The potential decrease in air quality from this development will
impose direct and indirect economic,2osts on the jurisdictions which make
up the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority, under the Clean
Air Act, to apply sanctions in air basins which fail to meet or make
progress toward obtaining its health -based standards. These sanctions
include economic penalties and construction bans. The current proposals
for attainment of EPA's standards in the SoCAB, which do not consider the
expected emissions from future OCS development, predict that the standards
will be difficult to attain during t�s next two decades even if all
feasible control measures are adopted. Clearly, offshore development
development can only place the goal of attainment even further out of
reach, and result in penalties on the local communities for something which
they cannot control.
SCAQMD requires that emissions from new sources in the SoCAB which will
exceed a certain level be offset by a decrease in emissions from another
source. Companies may obtain air quality 'offsets' by decreasing emissions
at their own facilities or by purchasing and shutting down another source
of emissions. In some cases, companies may also hold offset
credits --granted for previous emission decreases or shut -downs --which can
be sold or used for new development within the same company.
Offsets are expensive and very difficult to obtain within the SoCAB. This
is especially true for businesses wishing to locate in inland areas.
SCAQMD requires that more emissions be offset than are created at a new
source, in order to insure a net decrease in emissions levels for the whole
basin. In addition, the further the new source from the offset source, the
greater the ratio of offset to new emissions must be. Since most of the
available offsets are in more developed areas where shutdowns have or are
likely to occur, new inland sources must purchase or otherwise obtain a
high number of offsets in relation to their predicted emissions.
5
Under current Department of Interior regulations, offsets are not required
for OCS development. it is unclear at this writing whether future
development offshore Southern California will require air quality
offsets. If it does, such development will immediately limit the number
and drive up the price of offsets for onshore development. Yet even if
offsets are not required, emissions into the basin will increase and the
onshore communities will suffer the costs of further deterioration in the
quality of their air.
The potential cuaulative impact on the SoCAB of emissions from seventeen
new platforms (and associated vessels and facilities) off the coasts of Los
Angeles and Orange Counties (high -case scenario) must be considered now,
before Lease Sale 95 is finalized. Mitigation of these potential impacts
is very difficult, and is currently the subject of protracted negotiations
among the Department of Interior, environmental groups, and state and local
agencies in California. Clearly, stringent control and mitigation measures
are needed. Possible measures include consolidation and scaling down of
projects, phasing of development, and electrification of platforms. Most
importantly, the SCAQMD and local governments should have greater if not
complete control over OCS development, which has direct and potentially
severe impacts on their jurisdictions.
VI. Non -market Values
In the previous sections, we focused on 'market' costs and benefits, whose
values are determined by the market and which can be assessed by
conventional economic analysis. Most of the studies conducted on the
socioeconomic impact of oil development on tourism and recreation have
looked only at these market costs and benefits. Those studies do not take
into account the value of the beach itself, or the value of preserving the
very limited recreational open space available to those living in the
rapidly urbanizing areas of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The ARCO Coal
oil Point Project DBIR mentioned but did not attempt to quantify these
values. Nevertheless, the authors of that report concluded that the
proposed offshore development "will definitely affect the quality of views
to the ocean from the highway" in Santa Barbara and this "decrease in
visual quality translates15 into a significant decrease in the quality of the
recreational experience."
The value of a resource can be assessed in various ways. One such method,
employed in the MMS commissioned study, determines how much is spent on
travel to the beach and uses this figure to value the beach. This approach
assumes that ownership of the beach is not in the hands of the public since
it estimates how much the users of the beach would be willing to pay for
the beach. The use of such a willingness to pay approach to value a
public good "is lRely to underestimate the value of adverse impacts by
some 3 to 20 times". A more appropriate methodology would involve asking
the users how much they would require in compensation to accept the
probability of damage to the beach.
Both of these approaches attempt to estimate the 'user' value of the beach.
Many economists feel that natural resources also have 'intrinsic' value,
3
that users and non -users alike place a value on the existence of the
resource7 and the option (theirs and their children's) to use it in the
future. The authors of a study which examined the value of preserving a
Lake Michigan beach stated that "community and individual expenditures on
beach use, often equated with economic value, are inadequate measures of
their economic value" partly because "beaches are an important source 91
satisfaction to many people above and beyond the use they make of them."
In fact, a widely -accepted body of research has demonstrated that intrinsic
values can be substantially higher than user values. In an EPA study
comparing alternative methods for valuing water quality improvement, "the
results . clearly show that the intrinsic benefits of water quality
improvements --especially option values --can be measured and that they are a
sizable portion-- greater than half --of the total recreation and related
benefits total."1When intrinsic and user values are incorporated into
the oil development cost/benefit analysis, they render justification of the
development --in economic terms --very difficult. This is especially true if
the oil which might be recovered off the coasts of Los Angeles and Orange
Counties will supply the nation with only six to thirty-seven days worth of
petroleum.
Many attempts to estimate user and intrinsic values of natural resources
can be found in the economic literature. Researchers who conducted a
survey of Colorado residents found that those who 'use' the wilderness
areas in that state would pay, on average, fourteen (1980) dollars per
person An an annual basis to visit 2.6 million acres of wilderness (user
value). In other words, they value the wilderness at $13.2 million
dollars per year (fourteen multiplied by the number of users). Both users
and non -users, or those who do not visit the wilderness, responded that
they would be willing to pay, on average, $18.75 per year per
household--$20.6 million annually --to preserve 2.6 million acres of
wilderness (intrinsic value). A combination of these figures provides the
non -market value for 2.6 million acres of Colorado wilderness. California
income and population figures are higher than those of Colorado, and beach
use is probably greater than wilderness use. Thus, the per person or
household and total non -market values for California beaches are likely to
be higher than the non -market values for Colorado wilderness.
What do non -market values mean to the residents of Los Angeles and Orange
Counties? User and intrinsic valuation provide the means of putting a
price tag on the preservation of Malibu, Newport, and the other beaches
along the coasts of the two counties and of expressing the unique qualities
of aesthetic beauty, open space,'and unobstructed views in economic terms.
User and intrinsic values may be so high that they outweigh the value of
recovering the oil which might be found off the coasts of Los Angeles and
Orange Counties.' Studies must be conducted to determine these values.
Until these values have been determined and incorporated into the
cost/benefit analysis for OCS development, the conclusion to proceed with
such development is premature.
7
VII Conclusion
In sum, it is clear that local communities will suffer the brunt of the
economic impacts from oil exploration, development, production, and spills,
while enjoying few of the benefits. The potential costs to the local
governments resulting from impacts on the tourism industry, the commercial
fishing industry, local infrastructure, and air quality are substantial.
Yet the federal government has made its position clear: potential local
impacts are justified by the need for national energy security. This is a
persuasive argument. But the evaluation of just how much OCS development
off the coasts of Los Angeles and Orange Counties may contribute to our
energy security and what these impacts may be leads us to question the
validity of that argument.
In Issue Paper #1, the resource assessment, we determined that a high -case
development scenario of 607 million barrels of oil would supply the nation
with petroleum for thirty-seven days. It would also provide income to the
federal government in the form of lease bids, royalties, and taxes. On the
other hand, we know that oil exploration 1s a very risky business, and that
it may yield no economically recoverable resources off the coasts of Los
Angeles and Orange Counties. A comparison of the potential benefits to the
nation with the potential market economic costs to the local communities
may not yield a clear national policy implication.
However, we have seen that the non -market value of our beaches may be very
high. Since the beaches belong to all residents of the United States, any
decrease in this value constitutes a national loss. The potential national
loss if OCS development of the magnitude likely under Lease Sale 95 is
allowed to occur may be so great that it outweighs the potential benefits
of recovering 607 million barrels of oil.
Empirical research must be conducted to determine the impacts on tourism,
recreation, and commercial fishing, and the user and intrinsic values of
the Los Angeles and Orange County beaches. Until these values have been
determined, any cost/benefit analysis is missing a crucial element. Until
such time as these values are determined, the risk is too great to allow
development to go forward.
0
FOOTNOTES
1. Moore, Beverly S., Executive Director, Santa Monica Convention &
Visitors Bureau, "Oil Drilling & Tourism," a speech given to the
Coalition 95 Committee of the Southern California Association of
Governments, June 17, 1988.
2. Personal Communication, Greater Los Angeles Visitors and Convention
Bureau and Anaheim Visitor and Convention Bureau.
3. Larsen, David, "The Tour Stops Beret" Los Angeles Times, June 222
1988, Part V, p.4.
4. We estimated coastal tourism spending, by visitors from within the
counties by:
a. Taking the annual per capita participation days (1985) for
residents of jhe 'Los Angeles Coastal Basin' for 'sunning' activities
(3.197 days) and multiplying that figure by 1985 population
estimates;
b. Multiplying that figure by average day -trip spending figures for
water -related activities.
*Arnold, Robert K, Stephen Levy, and Victoria Nourset Recreation
Activity in California and Ten Regions of the State _1980-200E�llolume
1, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, P.
+U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, "Impacts of
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Development on Recreation and Tourism,"
Executive Summary, 1987, p.1-4 ("MMS Report").
Coastal tourism spending by visitors from outside the counties is
estimated in the MMS Report, Table 1-6.
The estimates for spending by visitors from within and outside the
counties were added together and compared to the total tourist
spending figures for the two counties. The resulting percentage was
then applied to the 1987 total tourist spending figures.
5. State Lands Commission, et.al.t Draft EIR/EIS, Proposed ARCO Coal Oil
Point Project, September 1986t Appendix 109 p. 6-1.
6. U.S. Department of Interior, 1987.
7. The spending to job ratio was derived from table 1-6,of the MMS
Report.
8. Moore, 1988.
9. Larsen, 1988.
10. Moore, 1988.
11. Southern California Association of Governments, "Draft Southern
California OCS Planning Area Resource Estimates: Los Angeles County
and Orange County OCS Areas Potentially Available in Lease Sale 95,"
June 1988, p. 17.
12. The South Coast Air Basin consists of all of Los Angeles County bu the
upper desert, all of Orange County, and western portions of San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
13. South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California
Association of Governments, "Path to Clean Air: Policy Proposals for
the 1988 Air Quality Management Plan Revision," June 1988.
14. The negotiated rulemaking processand Clean Air Act amendments may
change the way in which OCS emissions are regulated.
15. State Lands Commission, 1986, p. 4-6.
16. Wald, Johanna B. and Ann B. Notthoff, "Comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale 91, Northern
California, of the Technical Review Panel, Central Coast Counties
Regional Studies Program," February 26, 1988, p.128.
17. Greenley, Douglas A., Richard G. Walsh, and Robert A. Young, "Option
Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water
Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1981, p.657.
18. Croke, Kevin, Robert Fabian, and Gary Brenniman, "Estimating the Value
of Beach Preservation in an Urban Area," The Environmental
Professional, Vol. 91 1987, p.42.
19. Desvousges, Dr. William B., Dr. V. Kerry Smith, and Matthew P.
McGivney, "A Comparison of Alternative Approaches for Estimating
Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvements,"
Prepared for EPA, March 1983, p. 1-5.
20. Walsh, Richard G., John B. Loomis, and Richard A. Gillman, "Valuing
Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness," Land
Economics, Vol. 60, No. 19 February 1984, pp. 14-29. The survey
method used was "approved by the U.S. Water Resources Council (1979)
as providing an acceptable procedure for estimating the economic value
of recreational and environmental resources," p. 17.
OCS STUDY
MMS 87-0064
IMPACTS OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS)
DEVELOPMENT ON RECREATION AND TOURISM
VOLUME is
•-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"This report has been reviewed by the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region,
Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and approved for
publication. The opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed
in the report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Minerals Management Service. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. This
report has not been edited for conformity with Minerals Management Service
editorial standards."
VOLUME 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
I. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
IL STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIhIITATIONS
III. METHnnnr.nny
IV. CASE
A.
B.
C.
V. MITIG
VI. CONC
MOSSARY OF TERMS
Boating includes power boating, sailing, and other boating.
Ocean fishing is strictly saltwater fishing.
Water -dependent recreation includes ocean swimming, scuba and snorkeling, body
surfing, and board surfing.
Water -enhanced beach recreation includes picnicking, hiking/backpacking, nature
appreciation, visiting scenic areas, sunning, beachcombing, beach games, and
camping.
Geopieces are subeounty geographic areas used by the California Department of
Parks and Recreation in their planning studies. There are approximately 450
geopieces statewide, but this study only uses 49 along the coast.
Tourism refers to the economic activity resulting from engaging in recreation.
L INTRODUCTION AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
This volume is part of the final report of a project to investigate the impacts of
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development on coastal recreation in
California. The project was intended to provide the Minerals Management Service
with an analytical tool to evaluate possible economic impacts from OCS
development. In particular, the study was designed to provide MMS staff who
work on the lease sale EIS's with an objective technique for estimating the
impacts to coastal communities from events that 1111ghl occur as a result of lease
sales: oil spills, onshore construction, and construction of platforms offshore.
The study is not a prediction of these events. To achieve the overall goal, the
project had several specific objectives:
— Provide "profiles" of 1982 socioeconomic conditions in coastal
communities, including an analysis of the relative importance of the
tourist industry in each coastal county;
— Develop a methodology for determining the effects of OCS development
on coastal recreation
— The methodology should enable estimation of not only the
construction and operation impacts from normal OCS development,
but also the potential impacts from an oil spill.
The methodology should enable assessment of impacts on beach
activities, boating and recreational fishing.
— The methodology should 'enable estimation of changes in recreation
trips, changes in recreational spending and changes in economic
value to recreationists;
— Recommend mitigation measures that may reduce the negative effect of
OCS development on coastal recreation.
The final report for this project is comprised of five volumes:
Volume 1: Executive Summery
Volume 2: Final Report and Case Studies
Volume 3: Detailed Methodology Review
Volume 4: Users Guide
Volume 5: Programmers Manual
This volume presents the study conclusions, summarizes the -methodology and
describes the impacts estimated by the model for four case studies.
U IL STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
A. Assumptions and Limitations
The following describes the assumptions used in the analyses and limitations of
the methods and data.
1. An inherent assumption of the model used in this study is that the total
number of recreation trips in California is fixed, an( -therefore that oil spills or
aesthetic impacts can affect the distribution of trips, but not the total number.
1-1
This model feature has no practical effect on the results for negatively affected
areas, but it means that other areas will necessarily gain recreation trips and
Income at the expense of the negatively impacted areas. Therefore, to the
extent that our study area is broadly defined, the negative impacts will be offset
somewhat by positive impacts. For the state as a whole, for example, there
would be no effect on total attendance, and probably only small effects on total
spenaing, resulting from our assessment of changes in length of stay. When
reviewing the impacts, the reader should keep in mind that progressing from the
geopiece, to the county level, to the planning area level (the largest area for
which we determine impacts), the negative impacts will be progressively more
offset by gains to other sites.
2. Only economic values to people who actually participate in coastal recreation
were considered, and only to the extent that these people participate. Other
economic values are excluded from the study. Non -recreational values, for
example, are not part of this study. Such values not considered include
commercial fishing and non -recreational values placed on the environment, such as
wildlife losses from an oil spill.
A special category of recreation values not covered in this study is known as
"bequest, option and existence" values. These are the values placea on a
resource by people who do not visit that resource. By definition, then, these
values will be excluded by a travel cost approach to determining economic
values. Bequest values refer to the benefits to indivieuals from knowing tnat a
resource can be enjoyed by their heirs, even though they may never visit the site
themselves. Option values refer to benefits from maintaining for people the
"option" of visiting a resource, even though they ne ,er actually make any visits.
Existence values accrue to people who derive sa isfaction from simply knowin6
that a resource Is intact, even though they have no plans ever to go. These
values elude measurement using the observed travel behavior of active
recreationists, and are generally only able to be estimated using a contingent
value survey, in which people are asked hypothetical questions about a resource.
3. Evaluation of impacts on some recreation areas have not been includea in
this study. We attempted to include all of the federal, state, county ana city
recreation areas along the California coast, and this study does cover over 2UU
sites. Some "pocket" beaches, however, are either excluded or lumped together
with larger nearby beaches. A few beaches with special attributes were
purposely excluded: the U C Santa Barbara beach, with its local, "captive"
population and its policy of excluding off -campus visitors, was omittea because
neither the gravity model nor the travel cost method is appropriate unaer these
circumstances. Pismo Dunes Vehicular Recreation Area was omitted because the
primary activity there does not fall into any of the categories for which impact
is expected.
A more general omission is that of non -designated recreation areas. We coula
only include those areas that were identified as recreation sites and for which
key parameters could be defined, such as length of beach frontage. Nlot all
recreation, however, takes place at such sites. Some people obviously will
choose to recreate in out-of-the-way non -designated areas. However, because of
the large number of public recreation areas available in California aria because
these areas generally have much better access and facilities than non-cesignatea
areas, we believe that the bulk of coastal recreation occurring in the state
probably occurs within the areas included In our model.
1-2
4. The tentative link between OCS development and beach attractiveness is
onthe frontier of recreation analysis. To our knowledge no previous research has
produced other, similar results to use as a benchmark. Moreover, the concept of
beach "attractiveness" is quite subjective. Each individual has his or her own
perception of what makes a beach appealing and of how OCS development will
affect its appeal. We designed an index of OCS development that follows two
principles we felt most people would probably accept: (1) that the impact is
greater when the platforms are closer to the shore, and (2) that the impact is
greater when more platforms are visible. Our index is not the only way to
combine those principles, however, and others may prefer to try other methods.
Especially given the uncertainties in the regression results (reported in Volume 3)
we believe that it is appropriate to review the relationship between OCS
development and recreation using a different approach. Results from such a
study would constitute an invaluable "second opinion" on this complex issue.
5. Whereas data on beach attendance is sometimes of questionable accuracy,
extensive data at least does exist. In contrast, data on boating and fishing
activities is much less complete. This affected the model in two ways. First, in
the absence of data to analyze boating and fishing, we assumed that OCS
construction and operations did not affect them, and focused instead on an oil
spill's effects on .these activities. We believe this conclusion is not unreasonable,
but it should be re-examined when additional data is available. Second, we could
not differentiate the relative "attractiveness" of coastal geopieces for fishing, as
we did for boating and beach use. When evaluating the effects of an oil spill,
therefore, the model "sends" fishing trips to geopieces according to their
proximity to population centers. This assumption also should be reviewed when
additional data makes it possible.
13L METHODOLOGY
A. introduction and Approach
The particular components of OCS development whose effects were studied
include construction activities, long-term operation and potential oil spills.
Coastal recreation Is defined in this study to include boating, fishing,
water -dependent activities and water -enhanced activities. Water -dependent
recreation includes ocean'swimming, scuba and snorkeling, body surfing, and board
surfing. Water -enhanced beach recreation includes picnicking, hiking/backpacking,
nature appreciation, visiting scenic areas, sunningt beachcombing, beach games,
and camping. The methodology estimates not only the change in number of
participation -days, but also changes in the economic value of recreating to
participants and in the value of recreation spending to local recreation
economies.
The multiple objectives require a methodology that is detailed and flexible, and
the methodology developed combines a series of models that together meet the
needs of this study. First, a granty model estimates the number of recreation
trips to different coastal segments. The gravity model has two features central
to this study: it determines where people come from to recreate at particular
coastal segments, and it determines people's choices of coastal segments
according to the relative "attractiveness" of those segments. A key strength of
this method is that the "attractiveness" measure can be altered according to the
level of OCS development for which impact is being estimated. The gravity
model used in this study is an adaptation of one developed by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation. (See Arnold, Vol. I and II, for a
1-3
description of the survey data used in the CDPR model.) The model uses
California counties as origin zones (see Figure 1-1) and CDPR recreation areas
as destinations.
The second model component is the economic effects model. Its purpose is to
determine the effect that different levels of recreation activity (as precicted by
the gravity model) will have on the local economy of coastal communities. The
economic effects model first converts the change in recreation to a change in
tourist spending using the daily spending figures shown in Table 1-1. Then the
model determines the impact that the spending change has on the total economy,
accounting for the "ripple" effect or secondary spending changes.
Table.1-1
Average Daily Spending By Tourists
Engaging In Coastal Recreation
Acts Dery Trio Overniarht Trio
Marine fishing $47.66 $67.79
Marine boating 35.09 53.87
Water -related 13.14 27.67
Water -enhanced 13.14 27.67
The third model component is the consumer surplus model. Consumer surplus is a
measure of the amount that people would be willing to pay over and above the
amount that they actually have to pay. Consumer surplus is used as a measure
of the economic value of recreation sites. Changes in that value resulting from
OCS activities are reflected in changes in consumer surplus. The consumer
surplus model estimates this consumer surplus by inferring willingness to pay from
the travel patterns observed among recreationists. The technique is based on the
principle that the farther people travel to recreate, the more money they are
presumably willing to pay for that recreation. The consumer surplus model uses
the distribution of travel patterns to develop demand curves that are then used
to determine consumer surplus.
Figure 1-2 shows how the model components are related to each other.
IV. CASE STUDIES
A. Objectives
This chapter summarizes the results of four case studies, in Which the model was
applied to evaluate the impacts of two actual OCS development scenarios and to
two hypothetical oil spill scenarios. By applying the model to examples of its
intended use, the case studies help refine the model. It also improves the ease
of using the model and tests the reasonableness of the model's estimates.
A weakness of the four ease studies discussed in this chapter, however, is that
only one (Eastern Santa Barbara Channel) concerns an actual, past occurrence.
Moreover, too little is known of the actual effects in the coastal areas to enable
a formal test of the model's predictions. Nevertheless, the model's output can
still be examined for reasonableness.
1-4
Figure 1-1
OREGON
Nor
Nora slfageu
—1 Maooc
Trinily / Shasta
LpMn
T1Mma �
MaRoeclne IRum,f
B
utte
Uj
QQ
Contrf San G•. Tuolumn, Mono\
San Francisco Cott JOyuln
Al,mfo,
S,n met" SOON flSOS MjlrVof'
Sena OJ e
Clore 06, �00fr
Santa Cruz
to
Frofno
�e
Tulne
Monterey Kings
S
MI <O/e
Ceri4 Kom
Santa daroar,
LOf AngNM
PACIFIC OCEAN vanwr,
1-5
Inyo
CALIFORNIA'S
58 COUNTIES
San mommolne
Rhfruda
San Cage imperul
MEXICO
R
Figure 1-2
Impact of OCS Development on Coastal Recreation
Yodel Components
Recreation Attractiveness
potion
ITrovel-time Function I
GRAVITY
MODEL
Recreation Attendance Patterns
I Per Person Spending I
Economic
Effects
Model
EFFECTS ON LOCAL
ECONOMIES
1-6
Consumer
Surplus
Model
Travel
Coot Data
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ON RECREATION
B. Construction and Development Case Studies
1. Eastern Santa Barbara Channel Scenaiio
The Eastern Santa Barbara Channel scenario includes the construction and
operation of three platforms known as Grace, Gina and Gilda, as well as the
associated pipelines and onshore processing facility. Figure 1-3 shows the
location of the various facilities evaluated in this case study, as well as the
location of nearby coastal recreation areas.
The three platforms are approximately 6.51 14.8 and 17.6 kilometers (3.5, 8 and
9.5 nautical miles) offshore, respectively. The pipeline from one, Grace, ties into
an existing subsea pipeline network that connects platform Hope to onshore
facilities, so no beach disruption results from its construction. The pipelines
from the other two platforms join near the shore and thus share a common
landfall. These pipelines (one for oil, one for gas and one for water return)
come ashore at Mandalay Beach in Ventura County and proceed to a processing
facility built adjacent to the beach at the Southern California Edison electric
power plant. Figure 1-3 shows the location of these facilities.
The primary construction impacts on recreation that can be addressed by this
model are displacement of activities from a beach and construction noises that
are incompatible with beach enjoyment. In this scenario, Mandalay Beach is the
landfall for pipelines from Gina and Gilda, and is the location for assembly of
pipelines pulled offshore as well as the site of a new processing facility.
The width of the actual pipeline corridor crossing the beach is approximately 12
meters (40 feet). However, the noise generated during pipeline fabrication and
burial exceeds the California Office of Noise Control standard for beach use at
a distance of up to 488 meters (1,600) feet from the construction site. In the
case study we define a buffer zone around the construction site that excludes
beach use activities within 488 meters during the construction period.
In conducting a similar analysis for the less noisy construction of the processing
facility, we used a 30 meter (100 foot) buffer zone. Because the processing
facility is 140 meters (460 feet) from the shore its construction has no
significant impact on beach use.
Construction began in June, 1981, and lasted about 4 months. The !our month
period coincided with the heaviest beach use during the year, affecting nearly
60 percent of annual attendance. According to the California Department of
Parks and Recreation, about 60 percent of beaca use occurs between June and
September.
Construction impacts associated with this development scenario affected only
Mandalay Beach and result in small overall impacts on Ventura County's. economy.
Despite the fact that construction raises
standard for 4 summer months, the model
attendance in the coastal segment to be
year (see Table 1-2). The beach attendance
those who diverted their trips away from
goers made trips to this coastal segment but
other beaches instead of Mandalay. Neither
decrease, and no other geopiece is negatively
1-7-
noise levels beyond the California
estimates the overall decrease in
probably only about 0.4 percent that
decline of 99000 people represents
this coastal segment. Other beach
may have diverted to one of the six
boating nor fishing attendance likely
impacted by the construction.
Carpenteria
Rincen Pt.
O
Grace
Figure 1-3
Eastern Santa Barbera Channel Case Study
f
Gild&
Farce
Scales 1 mi. = 5.37 an 2 .231 In.
Tend
Cities: VENTURA
Beaches: owe Ocean Beach
Offshore
Oil Platforms:
i
Pipelines:
i
I
Emma K. Woods
1-8
Saa Buenaventura
McGrath
Existing Power Plc:.,
Mandalay
Hollywood
Silver Strand
PORT HUENEME
Port Hueneme
Beach
Gina
R
I
TABLE 1-2
EFFECTS FROM EASTERN SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL SCENARIO
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
PERCENT
EFFECT
BASELINE
CHANGE
CHANGE
.i......i......i ..............=................
i.i...................
Recreation Attendance
2,029,000
(9,000)
-0.4%
in Geopiece 437
Visitor Spending
$89,040,000
($187,000)
-0.2%
in Geopiece 437
Visitor Spending
SiS6,320,000
($186,000)
-0.1%
in Ventura County
Consumer Surplus
$16,190,000
(S69,000)
-0.4%
in Geopiece 437
............... ..........................
v................... ........
TABLE 1-3
EFFECTS FROM EASTERN SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL SCENARIO
OPERATION IMPACTS
PERCENT
EFFECT
BASELINE
CHANGE
CHANGE
....i... a ............................................................
Recreation Attendance
2,029,000
(S8,000)
-2.9%
in Geopiece 437
Recreation Attendance
664,000
(7,700)
in Geopiece 438
Visitor Spending
$89,040,000
($1,2S0,000)
-1.4%
in Geopiece 437
Visitor Spending
$44,980,000
(5180,000)
-0.4%
in Geopiece 438
Visitor Spending
SIS6,320,000
(81,430,000) -0.9%
in Ventura County
Consumer Surplus
$16,190,000
($460,000) -2.8%
in Geopiece 437
Consumer Surplus
$4,990,000
(SS7,000) -1.1%
in Geopiece 438
.....................................................................
14
Spending changes due to construction are less than 0.2 percent in Mandalay's
coastal segment and less than 0.1 percent overall in Ventura County, compared to
baseline spending by participants in coastal recreation.
The Grace, Gina h Gilds scenario includes two types of impacts associates with
their continuing operation (apart from the possibility of oil spills). First is the
visual impact of the offshore platforms themselves. Second is the aesthetic
Impact of the onshore processing plant. The pipelines are buried and should have
no continuing impact on recreation.
The visual impact of offshore oil rigs is addressed in the model by changing
attendance at nearby beaches. The user may specify a reduction in attendance
(as a percent reduction) at specific beaches within 15 miles of new platforms. In
this scenario, attendance is assumed to decline from 1 to 10 percent at eleven
nearby beaches, the percent reduction varying according to the distance between
the platforms and specific beaches. The aesthetic Impact of the processing plant
Is considered insignificant because of a barrier wall, landscaping ano the
backdrop of an existing power plant.
Thus defined, operations impacts would result in a 1.2 to 2.9 percent recline in
beach attendance'for the two entire coastal segments containing the affected
beaches (see Table 1-3, p. 1-9). Neither boating nor fishing attendance are
impacted.
Overall, in our case study, spending impacts in Ventura County amount to nearly
1 percent of "without project" conditions. In total, this impact translates to 55
fewer jobs and over $1 million less income per year. Consumer surplus losses for
beach activities in the two affected geopieces totals $517,000, compared with a
base of $21 million.
2. Northern Santa Barbara County Scenario
This scenario represents the planned development off Point Percenales in
Northern Santa Barbara County. Union Oil Company and Exxon plan to install
two oil rigs in the waters about 9 miles from the coast, naming them Irene and
Independence, respectively. Subsea pipelines are planned to run from
Independence to Irene, and from Irene to a landfall north of the Santa Ynez
River. From the landfall, the pipelines are planner to proceed inland to a
dehydration facility in Lompoc. An electric substation is planned to be built
near Ocean Beach, south of the Santa Ynez River, and electric cables will be
buried through the shore zone and laid on the ocean floor out to the platforms.
Figure 1-4 shows the location of these facilities.
The pipeline landfall. is located 4,000 feet north of the Ocean Beach county
Park, the area's main coastal recreation site. Construction noise levels would
attenuate ral,idly enough to be negligible at the Ocean Beach. we therefore
conclude that the construction impacts on coastal recreation will be insignificant.
The electric substation is considered not to be close enough or obtrusive enough
to adversely affect Ocean Beach. The substation will be located east of the
1-10
Figure 1-4
Northern Santa Barbara County
OCS Construction and Development Case Study
I"en4
Beaches: m Ocean Beach
Offshore
Oil Platforms: o
Pipelines:
Subsea
Electric
Powerline:
railroad tracks, approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the Ocean Beach County
Park parking lot. The substation facilities will generally be 4 to 8 feet tall,
with a breaker and transformer reaching 28 and 10 feet, respectively. The
substation will be surrounded by a chain link fence and landscaping is planned to
screen the view from the beach and park.
One or both platforms should be visible from one beach, Ocean Beach, which
currently has no views of any existing platforms. In this scenario, Ocean Beach
is assumed to lose 10 percent of its attendance. Overall, Geopiece 241 woula
lose about 1,800, or 2.4 percent of its baseline attendance of 16,000. There
should be no decrease in attendance for either boating or fishing under this
scenario.
Based on our assumptions, the model predicis that the demand for goods and
services by coastal recreationists is likely to decrease by about 0.7 percent in
Geopiece 241, or $65,000 from a base of $9,090,000. The greatest impacts would
be in the hotel sector and the transportation services sector, with decreases in
expenditures over 1 percent in each sector. Counting the multiplier effect,
about $115,000 less might be spent in Santa Barbara County. This amount
represents, however, just 0.03 percent cf baseline spending by coastal
recreationists in -the County.
Baseline consumer surplus will decrease by 3.6 percent fir water -dependent beach
activities and 2.4 percent for water -enhanced activities in Geopiece 241. Total
consumer surplus loss amounts to approximately $12,000 annually, or 3 percent of
the baseline consumer surplus of $400,UU0.
3. Evaluation of Model Performance
In the case of the OCS development and operations scenarios, the model exhibits
several favorable attributes. The Input variables are sufficiently flexiole to
characterize most of the development and cperation features that may affect
recreation. Specifically, construction impacts can be reasonably well representeo
by determining how much beach frontage is foreclosed by construction activities,
either directly through preemption of the beach or Indirectly because of the
construction noise. All construction impacts can be apportioned over a part of a
year with a duration factor.
Operation impacts are represented by an aesthetic variable and by changing
beach attendance. This variable is a subjective aesthetic rating of the beach
that can be altered if onshore facilities are visually disturbing. Beach
attendance can be changed by the user to a percent of normal beach attendance
based on the user's estimate of the effect on such attendance proauced by
offshore platforms. Changes in both the aesthetic variable and the percent of
beach attendance will alter the attractiveness index for a coastal segment ane
thereby adjust the pattern of recreation trips.
Because of- the lack of appropriate data, a quantitative determination of the
accuracy of several elements of the model Is not possible at this time, thus the
crucial evaluation question is the reasonableness of the results. The construction
impacts are based upon an analysis of how construction activities affect several
model variables. These impacts can therefore properly be evaluatea for
reasonableness. The operations impacts, in contrast, rely on the user's input of
beach attendance changes. As such, the model results can be no more reasonable
than are the original attendance estimates. In the absence of comparable stuaies
made from a different approach, however, any assessment of reasonableness, even
1-12
of construction impacts, must be somewhat subjective. Given that caveat, the
remainder of this section comments on the apparent reasonableness of several
model aspects.
First, the distribution of recreation trips to different coastal destinations
coincides with reported attendance data reasonably well. It is inappropriate to
compare too closely the absolute numbers of people assigned by the model to
each beach with the reported attendance figures. In the first place, "beach"
trips include those for "water enhanced" activities, which by their nature may
not always occur at a beach. Picnicking, for example, may occur frequently at
scenic areas along the 'highway and would not be included in the attendance
figures for any beach. Second, the attendance figures at beaches are estimated
from traffic counts or by lifeguards, and should not be thought of as extremely
reliable.
A key model result is attendance response levels to the OCS development and
operation scenarios. For example, the model predicts a 0.4 percent decline in
annual attendance during the year of construction for the geopiece in which
construction of the Grace, Gina, and Gilda facilities occurs. Because the
construction takes place during just a fraction of one year and affects only one
beach of seven in'the Geopiece, this impact level appears reasonable.
The other model results are primarily driven by the attendance changes. In our
case study, the economic effects model predicts overall economic impacts of
about 0.2 percent of total recreational spending for the construction scenario in
the Eastern Santa Barbara Channel. The predicted overall economic effects for
operation in that scenario are 0.9 and 1.4 percent in two coastal geopieces, and
about 0.9 percent of total recreational spending in Ventura County as a whole.
Given the changes in attendance, these estimates of change in total recreation
spending seem reasonable.
Consumer surplus estimates are also driven by changes in attendance. Perhaps
the best benchmark for judging the appropriateness of the consumer surplus
estimates is to examine the model-s estimates of consumer surplus per person. In
the two OCS development and operation case studies, the per person consumer
surplus estimates range from $4.50 to $8.20, which is consistent with the range
of estimates produced in other studies of recreational values. (See, for example,
Sutherland, 1983, Rowe, 1985, and Vaughan, 1982.)
In summary, the model appears to work well for its intended purpose, producing
reasonable results with minimal demands on its user. In this study we were not
able to determine unambiguously a relationship between the presence of an OCS I
platform and beach attendance. However, that issue could be pursued, perhaps
using a different method. —A survey of coastal recreationists, for example, could
directly address how recreationists respond to the presence of offshore platforms i
as well as provide information on other recreation issues.
C. Hypothetical Oil Spill Case Studies
1. Introduction
The hypothetical oil spill scenarios discussed in this section require different
types of model inputs than do the construction and operation case studies.
Generally in the case of an oil spill the effect on recreation is dramatic but also
temporary, in contrast to the subtle but ongoing possible view shed impacts
associated with OCS operations. An oil spill scenario can be directly specified
1-13
as the percent of boating, fishing and beach use opportunities that are precludea
by a spill. The specific variables include:
- specific beaches closed
- percent of boating facilities affected
- percent of fishing structures affected
- percent of shoreline affected
- duration of the spill effects
These oil spill scenarios consider a 10,000 barrel spill, affecting approximately lU
miles of the coast. Cleanup is assumed to require 6 weeks, including a 2 week
period of closing the entire beach, 2 weeks during which half the beach is closed
and 2 weeks during which one -quarter is closed. The base case assumes that the
spill would occur during the summer peak recreation season.
Different assumptions for the timing and duration of the cleanup period and
percent of use during cleanup are possible and the model is able to recognize
such differences in estimating impacts. To demonstrate the flexibility of the
model and determine its sensitivity to variations in assumptions, in Humboict
County we also evaluated one scenario assuming an 8 week cleanup period during
peak season (with beaches completely closed for four weeks) and one assuming a
6-week cleanup during midwinter, in addition to the summer 6-week scenario.
2. Orange County Scenario
For the Orange County oil spill scenario, we assumed a 12 mile oil spill from the
Santa Ana River through Laguna Beach. Such a spill would affect the following .
beaches:
- Santa Ana River
- Newport
- Balboa
- Corona del Mar
- Little Corona
- Crystal Cove
- Crescent Bay
- Fisherman Cove
- Main (Laguna)
Also included are numerous "pocket" beaches whose attendance is consoliaatee
with the larger beaches.
This reach of coastline contains 77 percent of the Newport Beach geopiece's
boat storage facilities, but none of the Laguna Beach geopiece's boating
facilities.
Fishing piers and jetties affected in the Newport Beach geopiece include:
Newport Pier
Balboa Pier
Newport Harbor West Jetty
Corona del Mar State Beach Jetty
Oil spill effects on fishing access from the shoreline were evaluates b%
estimating from maps the. percent of shorelige affected by the spill. In the
Newport Beach geopiece 38 percent of the coast would be affected. In the
Laguna Beach geopiece the portion is 26 percent.
1-14
Model Results. This scenario affects 9 beeches and 2 geopieces in Orange
County, reducing attendance and associated spending for all four activity
categories.
For the summer 6-week case, attendance decreases in boating of 10.2 percent, on
an annual basis, are projected in the Newport reach geopiece. Fishing in that
geopiece was estimated to decrease by 7.1 percent. Although some of the
fishing area in the Laguna Beach geopiece is removed, the spillover effects from
Newport Beach should nullify any decrease in attendance there for fishing,
actually resulting in a 0.5 percent gain in fishing attendance. Both geopieces
would experience a decrease in beach attendance, about 6.8 percent in Newport
Beach and about 6.1 percent in Laguna Beach, on an annual basis (See
Table 1-4).
Changes in spending would amount to about 7.2 percent in the Newport Beach
geopiece and 2.6 percent in the Laguna Beach geopiece, on an annual basis.
Overall, Orange County would experience a spending decrease by coastal tourists
of 6.5 percent, and an overall decrease of about 1,530 jobs and $28 million in
income.
Consumer surplus lasses for all activities in both geopieces totals $18,300,000, or
a 7.0 percent decline from an annual total of $263 million.
3. Humboldt County Scenario
This case study assumes that a 10,000 barrel oil spill would contaminate the 12
mile stretch of coast from North Spit, near Arcata, to Table Bluff, south of
Eureka. Such a spill would be expected to affect the following beaches:
Samoa Peninsula Access
Samoa Boat Ramp County Park
South Spit
Table Bluff
In addition, all of the boating facilities in Humboldt Bay, including 638 identifies
moorings, berths and dry storage areas, could be either directly affected or
activities from those areas blocked by a spill.
Recreational fishing opportunities would also be drastically curtailed under this
scenario. All of the boat fishing, all of the fishing from structures, and fishing
from 35 percent of the geopiece's shoreline could be temporarily halted by a
spill.
The summer 6-week cleanup timing is assumed to be the same as in Orange
County. That scenario assumes that cleanup requires 6 weeks and occurs during
peak season, affecting 14 percent of annual recreation. The eight week, peak
season scenario would affect 24 percent of annual recreation. The six week,
wintertime scenario would affect 3 percent of annual recreation.
Model Results. This scenario affects 5 beaches and 1 geopiece in Humboldt
County. All four activity categories are impacted to some extent, with boating
impacts being the most significant.
The Humboldt Bay geopiece is among the most attractive sections of the
California coastline. Of the 49 coastal geopieces it ranks eighth for beach
activities and second in an index reflecting recreation use not accounted for by
1-15
Y
TABLE 1-4
EFFECTS FROM ORANGE COUNTY SCENAPIO
OIL SPILL IMPAC-S
aSaCE ,
EFFECT BASELINE SNANG-e
srrr.ar.rr.rO........1...rrrrr...rrrr.rYrrr...rrrrr.rrarrrrrrrrnrrrrir
Beach Attendance 31,478,000 1:,13-a,000+ 5.-.
in Geoptece 448
Beach Attendance 3,71S,000
in Ge0pleCe 449
Boating Attendance
1,076,.20
:n Geoptece 448
Boating Attendance
602,000
16,300 :.-.
in Gecp>.ece 449
Fishing Attendance
SS0,000
B',30@• -'. .
in Geoptece 448
Fishing Attendance
763,000
4,300
in Geoptece 449
Visitor Spending
34'o4,S23,300
:333,5o?vO,J00 -- _,
in 'Geoptece 448
Visitor Spending
s91,585,000
3:,33:,300• -_.:,
to Geoptece 449
Visitor Spending
SSS6,:08,000
t335,962,000•
to Orange County
Tourist -related Jobs
23,700
11,530.
to Orange County
Tourist -related Income
s446,000,000
c3:3,800,000
in Orange County
Consumer Surplus
$23S,000,000
3i6,600,30@• -'. .
to Gecolece 448
Consumer Surplus
$417,700,000
+s',S30,300,
in Geoptece 449
1-16
I
the nearby population. With five beaches virtually closed, however, this index
for beach activities, would be reduced to 20th in rank. On an annual basis the
decline results in as much as a 6.9 percent decrease in attendance in the summer
6-week cleanup case, a 1.4 percent decrease in the winter case, and an
11.7 percent decrease in the summer 8-week case. These beach attendance
losses represent declines of 28,000, 5,600 and 47,800 visitor -days, respectively,
from a baseline total of 408,000.
With the entire geopiece closed for boating, attendance diminishes by 14 percent,
3 percent, and 24 percent for the summer 6-week, winter, and summer 8-week
cases, respectively. These boating numbers represent losses of 3,900, 800 and
6,700, respectively, from a baseline total of 27,700. The summer 6-week case
reduction in attendance could amount to it percent. That reduction would be
2 percent in the winter case, and 19 percent'in the summer 8-week case. These
percentagd losses translate to recreation day losses of 2,900, 600 and 5,000,
respectively, from a baseline sportsfishing total of 26,200 visitor -days.
Demand for retail goods and services by coastal recreationists are projected to
decrease by $757,000 from a baseline of $9,506,000 or 8.0 percent in the
Humboldt Bay area, under summer 6-week case conditions. The decrease would
be only 1.6 percent in the winter case, and 13.6 percent in the summer 8-week
case. Overall, spending of this nature in Humboldt County would decrease by
1.5 percent in the summer 6-week case, with a drop of comparable percentage in
total employment and income amounting to no more than 19 jobs lost and about
$354,000 less income.
Because the oil spill scenarios assume that the geopiece is temporarily closed to
recreational boating during the cleanup period, consumer surplus for boating
would drop to zero during this period. This short-term effect translates into an
annual decrease of 14.1 percent in the summer 6-week case, 2.8 percent in the
winter case, and 24.1 percent in the summer 8-week case. The percentage
decreases for fishing in those three cases would be 11.4, 2.2, and 19.5 percent,
respectively. Consumer surplus per person would diminish 6.7 percent for beach
activities in the summer 6-week case, 1.3 percent in the winter case, and
11.5 percent in the summer 8-week case. Consumer surplus losses for all
activities in both geopieces total $160,000 in the summer 6-week scenario, and
$31,000 and $274,000 in the winter and eight -week scenarios, respectively,
compared to a baseline consumer surplus of $2,099,000.
3. Evaluation of Model Performance
The model's performance in the case of the two Oil Spill scenarios is similar to
that in the two OCS Development and Operation scenarios. The only differences
are in the Project File specification and in how one assesses the reasonableness
of results.
In the case of an oil spill, the model expects four variable inputs: specification
of which beaches would be closed, percent of boating remaining unaffected -in
each geopiece, percent of fishing remaining unaffected in each geopiece, and the
effective duration of the spill. The last three of these require some calculations
by the user before he begins using the model. Once the Project File information
is assembled, by the user, the model runs as simply as in the OCS Development
and Operation case described before.
The effect of an oil spill on recreation is less ambiguous than that from normal
construction and operations. The model's results, therefore, are more a function
1-17
of the assumptions defining the spill than of the model's workings. Given this ,
dependence, the reasonableness of results is mostly a question of the
reasonableness of the scenario specification. Assuming that an oil spill similar to
those hypothesized were to occur, the effects predicted by the model appear
reasonable.
In summary, the model seems to work well for the oil spill scenarios, provicing
reasonable and detailed results without requiring much intervention by the user.
V. MITIGATING MEASURES
In the course of evaluating the relationship, between OCS activities and coastal
recreation, several measures were identified that would mitigate the potential
-effects of OCS development on recreation.
First, scheduling construction during the winter months would sharply reduce
impacts. Shortening construction schedules would also help. For example,
disruption of beaches for one month can affect as little as 3 percent of annual
attendance in January and as much as 16 percent In July.
A second timing issue pertains to oil spills. Obviously, no one can choose the
time for an oil spill. The duration of the cleanup period, however, is partially
controllable. The sensitivity analysis in the Humboldt County hypothetical oil
spill case studies showed that stretching the period in which the beach is
completely closed from 2 weeks to 4 weeks (and the total cleanup period from 6
weeks to 8 weeks) could increase total losses from 14 percent to 24 percent of
annual attendance.
Recreation in some coastal areas is more sensitive to adverse impacts from OCS
activities than it is in other areas. For example, beach recreation in the Santa
Monica Bay geopieee is valued more highly than in other coastal areas. (See the
chapter on Study Assumptions and Limitations for a discussion of the scope of
this conclusion).
The analysis in this study to identify what factors influence beach attendance
provides some guidance for mitigating adverse impacts. The estimated beach
attendance equation shows, for example, that length of beachfront and adjacent
parking are two factors affecting beach attendance. In order to counterbalance
adverse effects from OCS development, therefore, it would be possible to
enhance a beach's attractiveness by adding oceanfront or by providing adjacent
parking facilities. These enhancements would not necessarily negate possible
visual or noise impacts due to OCS development, but our findings suggest that
they would make a beach more appealing In other ways so that any overall
effect on attendance would be reduced.
Another type of mitigating measure would be to erect barriers around the
construction site, primarily to attenuate noise effects. Our, research in
developing the Eastern Santa Barbara Channel case study showed that a 1,600
foot buffer, zone was needed to avoid noise louder than California standards.
The size of this buffer zone (hence the beach frontage withdrawn from use)
could be reduced substantially with a barrier. The adverse effects from
permanent onshore facilities can be mitigated by reducing their visual and noise
intrusiveness. Pipelines can be buried and landscaped walls erected around
above -ground facilities. It might also be possible for facilities to be sited far
enough away from the beach that their intrusion on recreation can be eliminated
entirely. •
1-18
VL CONCLUSIONS
A major focus of this study was to try to identify the factors that affect beach
attendance. A crass -sectional regression analysis of 111 beaches in California
established six variables that explain beach attendance: beach frontage length,
urban versus rural beach location, pedestrian access, a beach's aesthetic rating,
state versus local ad ministration, and a composite proximity variable. The
composite proximity variable included the population of origin counties, and those
counties' recreation participation rates, distance to the beach in question and
distance to substitute beaches. The variables were statistically significant at the
90 percent level of confidence or greater, and together explain 68 percent of the
variance in beach attendance.
As part of the effort to identify the factors affecting beach attendance, this
study also explored the relationship between offshore platforms and beach
attendance. The regression analysis in this study revealed some evidence,
although inconclusive, of a negative association between offshore platforms and
beach attendance. Regression analysis of attendance data at beaches along the
entire California coast indicates that installation of an oil platform three miles
offshore from a beach might reduce attendance at that beach by several percent.
However, a similar regression analysis of beach attendance data limitod to
Southern California beaches suggests that the presence of an oil platform is
associated with increased beach attendance. However, because of low estimated
statistical significance of these results and their contradictory nature, we are not
confident that the presence of offshore platforms actually does affect beach
attendance. This relationship, therefore, is not incorporated in the beach
attendance equation used in the model produced by this study. This subject is
developed in more detail in Volume 2, Section III.B and Volume 31 Section III.B.
Consumer :,urplus represents the value to people from (in this context) engaging
in coastal recreation, less the cost incurred in doing so. This study estimated
consumer surplus by inferring recreationist's willingness to pay for recreation
from their travel patterns. Table 1-5 shows the annual consumer surplus accruing
to people who engage in four categories of recreation activities along the coast
of California. The total consumer surplus for all four activity categories in all
coastal areas is $1.5 billion per year.
Table 1-5
Annual Economic Value of Coastal Reen•ation in California
(Millions)
Confidence Interval
Activity Value (90% level of confidence)
Boating $54 + $15
Fishing $96 : $31
Water -dependent
beach activities $674 ± $174
Water -enhanced
beach activities $715 + $145
TOTAL $1,540 : $364
1=19
People traveling to coastal areas to recreate purchase local goods and services
while there. This study estimated the relative importance of such
recreation -based tourist spending in all coastal counties in California.
Table 1-6 shows the percent of total economic activity in each coastal county
that is attributable to coastal tourism. Generally, the smaller counties are
relatively more dependent on tourism than are the larger counties. fhe
proportion of local economic activity attributable to coastal tourism ranges trom
less than 1 percent in Los Angeles County to nearly 16 percent in Marin County.
The OCS platform scenarios indicate that onshore construction impacts are
limited to one beach, reducing beach attendance in a coastal geopiece by less
than 1 percent during the construction period. In contrast, the operations phase
was assumed to affect attendance at 11 beaches in 2 geopieces, reducing beach
attendance in those geopieces by 1 to 3 percent. Spending and consumer surplus
effects follow a similar pattern.
Both hypothetical oil spill case studies show the effects from assuming that all
coastal recreation activities would be curtailed, and some completely precluced,
during the effective period of the spill. The magnitude of the effects varies
greatly according to the season during which the spill occurs and the duration of
the cleanup period.
Adverse effects can be mitigated by a variety of methods, including scheculing
construction during winter months, erecting barriers to reduce noise and visual
intrusion of onshore facilities, and expediting cleanups of any oil spills. in
addition, beaches that have suffered adverse impacts can be maae more
attractive to recreationists by extending the oceanfront and by adding ealacent
parking.
1-20
i
N
r
Table 1-6
ESTIMATED IMPORTANCE OF COASTAL TOURISM TO LOCAL ECONOMIES
1982
Direct
Total
Total
% of
% of
Visitor
Employment
Income
Total
Service Sector
Expenditures
Generated
Generated
Employment
Employment
County
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Del Norte
2.96
97
1.82
1.89
7.73
Humboldt
33.85
1,191
22.36
3.08
8.16
Mendocino
147.00
5,068
96.04
21.65
67.58
Sonoma
215.73
8,506
163.33
8.31
25.25
Marin
393.56
14,883
281.39
18.93
45.30
San Francisco
424.03
15,499
295.98
2.62
6.04
San Mateo
209.71
8,352
158.27
3.23
8.74
Santa Cruz
275.22
10,435
198.78
16.09
49.56
Monterey
290.40
11,414
218.43
8.27
32.01
San Luis Obispo
251.37
9,508
182.05
18.49
53.87
Santa Barbara
183.15
7,154
136.53
5.07
12.93
Ventura
151.03
5,725
108.47
3.06
11.19
Los Angeles
582.84
27,126
522.66
0.73
1.64
Orange
537.19
22,894
430.65
2.54
6.52
San Diego
652.92
26,021
496.42
3.10
9.85
California (6)
4,350.98
173.873
3,313.18
1.61
4.47
Source: Applied Economic Systems, September 1986.
Notes: (1) Millions of 1982 dollars, visitors from outside the county
(2) Total direct, indirect, and induced wage and salary employment.
(3) Total direct, indirect, and induced income in millions of 1982 dollars.
(4) Compared to total wage and salary employment for 1982.
(5) Compared to wage and salary employment in the services sector in 1982.
(6) Totals for 15 coastal counties; percentages based on overall state employment figures.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnold, Robert K., Stephen Levy, and Theresa Wilkenson Carey. Recreation
Activ{ty_in California and Ten Regions of the State — 1980. Volume I.
prepared for Planning Division, California State Department of Parks and
Recreation, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, June,
1982.
This study, in two volumes, summarizes recreation survey results and
projects recreational activity in California to the year 2000. Four
seasonal household surveys were conducted between summer, 1978 and
spring, 1980, each covering about 1000 California residents. Respondents
were surveyed about participation in various recreation activities, type of
occasion (near home, day trip or overnight), time traveled, type of facility
(government or non -government), effect of the cost of gasoline, ana a
variety of socioeconomic factors. The authors used data from the sun ey
to project recreation patterns to the year 2000.
Arnold, Robert K., Stephen Levy, and Victoria Nourse. Recreation Activity in
California and Ten Regions of the State — 1980-2000, Volume It, prepares
for Planning Division, California State Department of Parks ana
Recreation, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, June,
1982.
California Department of Parks and Recreation. "Ocean and Beach Activities
1980-2000," Recreation Activity Profile Report No. 15, October 1983.
This report summarizes 1980 recreation activities of Californians Dased on
in -home surveys of over 4000 individuals. Participation in various types of
ocean and beach activities is given in days per capita ana annual
participation days. Breakdowns by season, travel time, age, income, ana
other variables are reported. The typical ocean and beach recreationist is
male, white, 12 to 35 years of age, with an annual household income
greater than ;35,000, having at least some college education, and employed
in a managerial or professional position. Ocean swimming is the most
popular ocean and beach activity. This is a very useful report for
understanding California recreation activities.
Granville Corporation. Inventory_and Evaluation of California Coastal Recreation
and Aesthetic Resources, report to the Bureau of Land Management,
Pacific OCS Office, POCS Technical Paper No. 81-5, 1981.
Rowe, Robert D., Edward R. Morey, Arthur D. Ross and 1V. Douglass Shaw.
"Valuing Marine Recreation Fishing on the Pacific Coasti" prepared by
Energy and Resource Consultants, Inc. for Dr. Daniel Huppert, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
La Jolla, California, March 1985.
Sutherland, Ronald. "A Regional Recreation Demand and Benefits Model,*' Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LA - 9699-MS (1983).
This report describes a regional recreation demand and benefits model that
is used to estimate recreation demand and consumers' surplus of four
-activities at each of 195 sites in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Wtotern
Montana. The major components of this research include a trip proauetion
1-22
model, an attractions model, a gravity model and a travel -cost recreation
demand curve model. The author applies the methodology to estimating
existing benefits from recreation sites, and to predicting benefits from
improved water quality at currently, degraded sites.
Vaughan, William J. and Clifford S. Russell. "Valuing a Fishing Day: An
Application of a Systematic Varying Parameter Model;' Land Economics 58
(November 1982) 450-463.
ATTACHMENT D
News Clippings
DailyBreeze
SUNOAY
June 19, 1988
Analysis: Offshore oil capacitor ' .tee.
By Warren Bobak
Srur wamn
Coastal arse off Loa Angeles and
Orange counties scheduled for oil ex-
ploration may yield only enough oil to
meet the nation's needs for six to 37
days, according to a new report.
The report by the Southern Califor.
via Association of Governments pre-
dicts that three to 17 drilling platforms
would be built off the cant to retrieve
the oil, depending on the sue of the
discoveries.
: The projections are pert of a SCAG
analysis of a proposal by federal offi-
cials to open 14 million acres off the
coast of Southern California to oil ex-
ploration in January, 19".
Using projections from earlier feder-
al reports, SCAG planners estimated
that 101 million to 607 million barrels
of oil may lie off the coast of Loa
Angeles and Orange counties. The -na-
tion consumes about 16.5 million bar-
rel of oil each day.
"We are not necessarily saying this
amount of oil 'isn't worth developing,
said Catherine Tyrrell, SCAG's energy
program manager. "We are asking if
there is a more efGcipht alternative
than drilling for this oil"
Reacting to the SCAG projections, a
group of local officials agreed Friday to
oppose the federal proposal until the
nation developes alternatives such as
energy conservation.
The committee includes represents.
tives from Redondo Beach, Santa
Monica, Torrance, Los Angeles and the
office of U.S. Rep. ?*let Levine, (D.
West Loa Angeles).
The U.S. Minerals Management Ser.
vice plans to offer oil exploration lens-
es beginning in January, 199D for an
offshore area stretching from Monto.
rey County to the Maxim border.
The SCAG analysis estimated the
potential oil reserves for areas off Loa
Angeles and Orange counties that most
likely would be explored. Santa Mont.
an Bay has been excluded from the
federal proposal.
The oil estimates for areas off Los
Angeles and Orange counties "does not
add meaningfully to the national sear.
city," according to a resolution ap.
proved by the SCAG group.
But an oil industry official cau.
tioned against using the likely size of
any oil discoveries to pas judgment on
the federal leming plan.
Most oil fields contain less than
three days worth of oil, but they are
important to meeting the nations oil
needs, said Bob Getts, manager of
public and government affairs for the
Western Gil and Gas Association.
"Collectively those fields give the
United States a very high production
rate," be said.
The onshore Wilmington oil field,
one of the largest oil discoveries ever
in the continental United States, held
only enough product to meet the na.
tion's needs for 2% months, officiala
acid.
`The fact is nobody really knows
what lie offshore," Getts mid. "We
think this area is one of the best pros-
pects remaining in the country. But we
don't know what is out there until we
drill."
Government and industry leaders
estimate 2 billion W 5 billion barrels of
oil remain undiscovered off the Cali.
fornia coast, making the region a focal
point for the nation's energy future,
Getts said.
aL_L.....1.... 4..... » uwv nl.... v
The Tour Stops Here
,�itr•rx r•r,
1%SAY.`
IGI 1:311WOe�tne I
M A"
,��rrtt�� J�MMFSE
AYyy 1 +..�•.
," •t � :R l� lino
I Mots
1 I id •9re•rr�el JI
` Cut'.naN5
Ii��t•G 1 l�ta::"t1
L7i^
� MR AUBIUAlIAN6
I IR,'�iFl rraxnalVA
�Rr
BRITISH `e.
p+rJaiw�� Bulk' /.F• � x"' Y' :,:;? 1. . �y ur
wxte �t"�i. nr`,,w�+krJ` •7�/�� ,
rl.1v; • % 1.
_re
L.A. Is at Top oftheList
forSuu in(.er Vacatiosels,
but You'dQcSuip isedat
What T hey Want to Seer i
Dy UAVIU 1.,\IISIiN.Tlmrx Y(OII IVrlmr
u WuO,Iv Allen Alll cry he "wouhlli t
want at live In n city when the only
cultural mlvautngO Is llhd The
eon
nmken right moon n n♦i Ilnhl"
And our of lhrrlNtarlrrs nl Ned Sihoni r
"ails. Willi
I lolwo,, ed tale Nlgden "par•
adl h Fa nIaMll,11114
l'hc fucL rcmanry that I Augrlr%
(Nunlrallaulua Itllm alul.tlldllm) is vtill the
No. 1 tonrIA dohinallun hl the United
Slalcd.
TIM year, (Or the First time. more than Bo
m(Illun uul•af•luwnera—calmems In hands.
sunburn lotion on poses, travelers checks
in pulses null Markets —are expected to
vldt 141 Angeles County. Close to 20
million of them arc due in the next three
months
WhalThey Woal IoSee
And once they get pout the hip•allelc-
tion list (compllnl through a vlMor profile
com llWinned by the Creator [A%Angeles
Vld(a l null ('onvenunn Uuremitand IMIng
ul pulp, UI ilwvlmd. w11101 tY Ill 01"llge
Cnunly; Ihu,lns,d Stutur% twirl Itchy
wand, Urvrrly this and the hetclu's).
what credo thry wolLUlace 1p LOnnlmnl7
.Unung the mternotlunnl linden. ne-
carding to Interl IOW9 Willi Itmlty of the
travel eaunrclom at the Ims Angeles
vt91LUr1'l)unaul
oThe J.,pami o (who eomprNe the high•
est number) most Often want to know
where they ran tint] gun shooting range%.
And they want to know how to (hid Radial
Drive In Beverly Illlls.
*The Prcurh alk whore they can buy
bhlelcansmld rawboy (Nuts.
e Malian Often want to sec modern
architecture.
o Swedes and Germans something ask it
they call mntp downtown Vnitorx (min
Rolland nfeo arc lotercaill tit rang -
shall all Alclnue Avolue, and express all
rulcred In Cultural In"Cllol%.
e ScaudinavNlu mid British visitors
express uderoAt la the beaches and still.shine.
'rho budgeDnunded from overt have
been known In r'k where thev can get a
luilel rolan fur ev to $lu. including break.
lint.
Look Trig for a Car
The more affluent leek a different type
of InforlaatiWu "Swum want to know Wirth
they call buy a car in Ims Angeles;' sold
travel couluelor Jlarla WPM. "What they
Ibllnrx.
Kolko (brrlwn. a travel
pervinlr. •hill III,11 Oyt•II thin
1 •I i "
Is a Inkyo )IMP) nil,
The many tourist attractions of Los Angeles seem to have different appeal to vacationers from different countries. Please see VACATIC
equip.
lot in.
to now
of the
PngeA
VACATIONERS: The Tog L.A. Attractions
Continued from Paae I.
Japanese -visitors like to go to curs
because they want to experience
i the change from hearing Snow
of visitors
t for only
theyspend
age of 17.2
5 days for
said, "people from the Northeast
ask about the Jewelry Mart down-
town."
Inside the downtown high-rise,
where the visitors' bureau has Its
offices, several hundred leltem are
opened daily by Josephine Ng, who
deals with such written Inquiries
"I have lost contact with a buddy
I knew in the Army years ago. I
believe he Is living in the LA. area.
Do you know how I can reach
him?"
"Where is the (Westwood) crypt
questions
hers and
"Can you supply me with the
phone number and address of .. .
(usually a movie starl?"
"I would like a hotel In Holly-
wood near the beach,"
"Do people cry at earthquakes?"
Never mind that Oscar Levant
once said: "Strip away the phony
tinsel of Hollywood and you will
find the real tinsel underneath."
Quoth Rick Kenyon, who travels
the world as manager of the local
bureau's tour and travel sales,,
"Los Angeles Is an easy sell, be.
cause It Is a household name....
But you sometimes use different
approaches in different lands. In
Australia, for obvious reasons, you
emphasize the cultural attractions
before you mention our beaches.
Bat in Scandinavia (particularly
with the Danes) you sell the
beacham "Iollywood, however, is
the key. When all else fads, you
mention Hollywood. It Is our ace In
the hale."
Dora Lanzner can certainly
vouch for that.
From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays
through Saturdays at 6541 Holly-
wood Blvd., Inside a Victorian
house built in 190.8, when the
thoroughfare was a quiet road
known as Prospect Avenue. Lanz.
ner (with help on Saturdays) runs
the bureaus Hollywood Visitors
Information Center.
Al least 150 tourists wander
daily into what used to be the house
of Merman and Mary Jones and
their four children, to tread the
hardwood floors while taking at the
former gaslight chandelier and or-
nate window designs and gelling
down to the reason they are there.
'ro have questions answered.
Lanwer, who can communicate
In six languages, listened as Outdo
Loyen of Cologne, West Germany,
asked. "Where can i find a mail
box?"
Loyen, a medical doctor who said
he was spending three days here,
commented good-naturedly: "Los
Angeles doesn't have enough mail
boxes. In Germany, we have one on
almost every corner."
A friend accompanying him.
Hans Wagner of Saarbrucken ,said
they had been to Venice beach, and
volunteered, "it was wild! 1 saw the
craziest people I've ever seen in my
life!"
"Venice Is underratcd.ls a tourist
attraction here." according to Sit -
sell Kirvin Cox, public relations
director of the visitors' bureau.
"You'd be surprised at -how many
requests we get for information
about it"
"I thought the buskers islrect
performersl were brilliant;' said
David Sirt, who explained that he is
on a fortnight (two -week) vaca-
tion In Los Angeles from Maiden- ;
head, England.
While not on the must -see list of
all travelers. Dirt sod he plans to
spend time at some local fire sta-
tions. Reasam In England, he is a
fireman.
In popped a lrlo of Americans,
headed by Jeneva Bangsof Arkan-
sas, who showed up with her
daughter, Carol Opiln of Laguna
Beach, and 4-year-old grand-
daughter. Jennifer.
'they were there for a crucial
reason: The girl wanted to know
where on the Walk of Fame to find
the star of Mickey Mouse. lanzner
consulted a book, and sent them on
their way toward 6925 Hollywood
Blvd.
When the Information center
supervisor, trying to help a man
from France, suggested a July
evening at the Hollywood Bowl,
the -visitor responded. "Is that for
bowling?"
it may mean smiles, but tourism
also means Jabs to a lot of people
here.
Tourism as an Industry In Los
Angeles County ranks third, right
behind business/professional/fi-
nance and the aerospace.
Visitor spending in 1086. accord-
ing to the CPA firm of Pannell Kerr
Forster, supported 209,000jobs and
about $1.8 billion payroll. Last
year's visitors spent an estimated
$12.4 billion, according to Cox.
A considerable number of the
new faces in town results from
conventions, the responsibility of
Frank Battles, director of
sale'*/convenlion marketing for the
Greater Los Angeles Visitors &
Convention Bureau.
Ile and five others spend an
average of one week out of every
month on the road. In a forlhcom-
ing presentation, for example. San-
tos will be In Sydney. Australia,
representing the only' U.S city
Invited to bid on the convention of
a major International medical
group.
This sort of thing isn't small
potatoes. When a major convention
is here. its participants usually stay
seven days and use 8,000 hotel
rooms. During each 244 days (the
period statistically used), every
convention -goer spends on aver.
age of $600.
'rhose who venture forth seeking
conventions for Los Angeles know
by slow what the main question will
be:
"Sometimes we are asked to tell
the exact day and time that a quake
is going to hit. i usually give them a
date in the late 'gOs,"Samoa joked.
(
No Time to
LYE- `r ��E IS
Rush .
1 Even the zealots at the Department of the In-
Southern California sale. But subcommittee chair-
tf rior who want to drill every acre of ocean floor in
man J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) claimed that the
the Pacific had decided that it would be a good idea
auction to allow the oil companies to prospect the
to keep the offshore oil issue quiet for the rest of
Pacific from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border
this election year. But the oil boys were not con-
had to be held sooner because the proceeds from
tent with that, and they apparently have got their
the sale were needed to bolster the fiscal 1990
buddies in the Senate to send Southern California
budget. The sale is expected to bring in about
ebolt from the blue —or out of -the deep.
$235 million. Opponents claimed that this argu-
! The Interior Department earlier acceded to the
ment was a sham. Most likely the oil -forces wanted
cpncerns of Vice President George Bush and post-
a card to trade off against the Northern California
Boned action on proposed lease sale No. 91 cover-
lease delay when the issue finally is resolved in a
ing federally controlled waters off the coast of
Senate -House conference committee.
Mendocino and Humboldt counties in far Northern
The Senate should reject the subcommittee's
California. The House has included language in
position. If It fails to do that. the -House must insist
the Interior appropriations bill to bar the leasing
in the conference committee that the Southern
until Oct. 1, 1989. Everyone thought that was that
California sale be set back to 1990. At the moment.
for California and offshore oil until the next Ad-
the California coast probably is the most environ-
ministration.
mentally sensitive region proposed for leasing. It
But on Monday the Interior subcommittee of
certainly is the most controversial. All California
the' Senate Appropriations Committee voted to
leasing decisions should be delayed until the new
accelerate the next lease sale for waters off the
Administration has had time to develop a compre-
Southern California coast to July, 1989. Lease sale
hensive energy policy and to study in detail the
No. 95 had not been scheduled until January,1990.
considerable consequences of any further drilling
This was a shocker. Not even the Interior De-
in the many environmentally sensitive areas along
ppriment favors such early consideration of the
the California coast.
Senate Panel
Backs Earlier
Offshore Oil
Lease Sales
By LEE MAY,.
-riMEs
Times Staff Writer 6'013}$8
WASHINGTON—In a double
defeat for environmentalists, the
Senate Appropriations Committee
on Wednesday approved a plan to
sell Southern California offshore oil
leases in 1989 instead of 1990 and
voted to delete funds for a study
exploring the destruction of the
Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, effec-
tively killing a proposal for restor-
ing the area.
The committee action, taken af-
ter little discussion of the two
measures, followed a recommenda-
tion by the panel's interior sub-
committee Monday. The measures
will gb to a Senate -House confer-
ence committee, where opponents
have vowed to fight the oil lease
-provision.
The proposed leases, known as
Lease Sale 95, cover an area ex-
tending from the Santa Barbara
Channel to Mexico. The sales were
scheduled for the 1990 fiscal year,
which begins Oct..1, 1989. But
under the new plan, the leases will.
be offered "no later than Aug. 1,
1989," according to the legislation.
The escalation angered environ-
mentalists and their supporters in
Congress, who argued that moving
the lease -into an earlier fiscal year
will deprive the next President of
Please see OIL, Page 28
OIL: Panel Backs Early Sale of Offshore Leases
Continued from Page 3
valuable time needed to study the
environmental impact of offshore
drilling.
California Republican Sen. Pete
Wilson, who fought hard against
the change, said, "The new Presi-
dent should have as much time as
possible to review these decisions
instead of just rushing pell-mell
into offshore drilling."
In Los Angeles, Robert Ilattoy,
regional director of the Sierra Club,
said new offshore drilling "would
add to the problems of air quality
and' growth" that already afflict
Souther[( California. "We don't
have any long-term national ener-
gy program. The whole thing [off,
shore drilling] needs to be gutted,
and we need to come up with a
national program."
Supporters of an earlier lease
sale have argued that it is needed to
offset the loss of $100 million in
federal revenues from a one-year
moratorium on drilling off the
shore of Northern California. The
moratorium was also approved by
the committee. '
But Halley said that delaying
drilling in one part of the state
while accelerating it in another
"pits Northern California against
Southern California. We don't want
to play that game."
The Northern California moralo
rium, which would allow leases
there to be offered no earlier than
January. 1990, instead of February,
1989, has drawn broad support,
giving its proponents hope that the
full Senate will pass it. Vice Presi-
dent George Bush and Massachu-
setts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis sup,
port the idea, foreshadowing the
importance of the issue in the
November election.
Meanwhile, in removing a pro-
posal to fund a $600-million study
of the feasibility of destroying the
.Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosem-
ite National Park, the committee
apparently ended the dream of
conservationists who want to re-
store the site to its natural state.
Interior Secretary Donald P.
Hodel proposed the controversial
Idea last July, calling it a plan for
converting the reservoir into "a
second Yosemite Valley" in the
overcrowded park. In November,
the secretary announced what he
called "exciting possibilities" for
replacing water and electricity that
would be lost if the system were
dismantled.
But, following similar action in
the House, the Senate committee
deleted the money for study, say-
ing: "None of the funds provided in
this or any other act shall be
available to the National Park
Service to investigate, study, plan
or otherwise advance a proposal to
restore Hetch Hetchy Valley to a
natural condition."
lIosAngeles Mimes Li
Surprise Plan to Hasten Offshore Oil Leasing Draws Hot Protest
*By MARITA HERNANDEZ, Tinies Staff Writer
Calling a surprise proposal to
hasten oil drilling off the Southern
California coast "mind boggling"
and an "outrage;' environmental-
ists, joined by officials from several
coastal. cities, protested the mea-
sure Thursday outside a Los An-
geles hotel where Secretary of the
Interior Donald P. Hodel spoke.
Later, in response to reporters'
questions, Hodel said that he, too,
opposed the proposal to sell
Southern California offshore oil
teases in 1989 instead of 1990. The
e5rlicr lease sale was proposed this
week in a plan approved by the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
' Although a staunch proponent of
domestic oil exploration, Iludel said
he wrote a letter to the committee
opposing the proposal because. it
would shorten the established pro-
cess for approving such projects.
"The process should be followed;"
he said.
This was also a key criticism
made by the protesters, who said
the proposal would curtail public
comment, as well as from an oil
industry spokesman who said that
repeated changes fit the govern-
ment's oil -leasing schedule is "cre-
ating absolute —
havoc. -
'Slap in the Face'
The proposal "is a slap in the
face" to coastal residents, said
Robert Gentry, Laguna Beach
mayor pro aem, who added that the
plan calls for short -cutting the
environmental impact study pro-
cess and does not allow for as much
public discussion. "We are out-
raged at this kind of environmental
planning," he said.
In a statement released later in
the day, Los Angeles Mayor Tom
Bradley also expressed concern
over the issue. "We Southern Cali-
fornians %yould be denied the right-
ful opportunity to make our
case.. ... hesaid.
Others, including Los Angeles
Councilwoman Ruth Galanter,
Santa Monica and West Hollywood
councilmen and environmental
group representatives, also object-
ed to damage to the environment
and local economics which, they
said, the program would bring_ The
proposed lease, known as Lease
Sale 95. covers a 19-million-acre
area stretching from Santa Barbara
Channel to Mexico. The final deci-
sion on that sale would be in the
hands of the next President and a
new administration.
The critics also raised questions
about the way in which the plan
was suddenly approved by the
Senate committee, on recommen-
dation of the Senate interior sub-
committee.
The Senate action came only two
weeks after the Interior Depart-
ment delayed action on proposed
offshore oil drilling lease sales off
'Northern California. Senate sup-
porters argued that an earlier
Southern California lease sale was
needed to offset the loss of $100
million in federal revenue from a
one-year moratorium on drilling
off the Northern California coast.
Some protesters suggested that
the action was an attempt to split
the anti -drilling movement into
Northern and Southern California
interests.
For the oil industry, the latest
proposal adds confusion to an in-
creasingly confusing situation, Bob
Getts, a spokesman for the Western
Oil and Gas Assn.. said in a tele-
phone interview. Getts said that a
five-year leasing plan. developed
last year by Congress, has not been
adhered to.
"When they keep changing on
the spur of the moment like -this, it
rally provides a kind of chaotic
situation where we don't know how
to plan.... It's creating havoc for
us."
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(202) 3791874
July 28, 1988
RECE,V X
AUG 919881..
City Of'" Manager
Nr.W�ort Bencb •a
T,
Please find enclosed RT&A's Monthly Report #07 and Invoice for
cost incurred.
Should you require further information, please feel free to
contact Richard or me at 703-685-0066.
Sincerel
�o
James J. Crowell
Vice President
Enclosure
/pas
Monthly Report
Report No.• 07
Period of Performance: June 11 1988 to June 30, 1988
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Obiective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service
Task Status•
Report Overview•
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during June 1988.
During this month, RT&A made progress in all remaining task
areas. Work continued on the preparation of the technical
reports and the educational video.
1.0 Program Management and Support
RT&A managers continued the project management and administration
functions. The monthly report on project activities in May was
provided to the project sponsors.
2.0 Technical Analysis and Review
During June, RT&A made substantial progress in this task area.
RT&A has all technical reports underway as described below.
Oil and Gas Volumes
In June, Ken Frank sent RT&A some information about the Interior
Department proposal to drain the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in
Yosemite National Park and remove the hydroelectric generating
station and dam. Based on this inf ormation, RT&A determined how
long the Hetch Hetchy system would have to operate to generate
energy equivalent to that estimated to be found on the Orange
County OCS (about 17 years). This information was included in
the revisions to the oil volumes report. The final version of
the report is expected to be completed and printed by the end of
July.
Geological Hazards and Constraints
In June this topic continued in the data gathering stage.
Searches of important technical data bases were undertaken. The
schedule on this report has slipped somewhat, and the draft
report will now be completed in August.
Air Quality
Progress continued on schedule in this topic area. The draft
report is expected in August.
Socio-economics
RT&A continued the analysis of the beach survey data.
Additionally, RT&A personnel prepared a questionnaire to be
distributed at one or more hotels in the coastal area. We expect
these to be sent out in late July or early August.
Biological Resources
Drafting of the technical report in this area continued in June.
We obtained important information on endangered and threatened
species and habitats from the California Department of Fish and
Game computerized data base, some of which was provided in an
interesting map overlay format. Progress in this area is on
schedule and we expect to have a draft report by the end of
August.
Contingency Planning
Work continued on this report in June. Because it depends on
materials being generated in the biological resources study, and
because these particular materials have been somewhat delayed,
this report will be completed in August instead of July.
Fisheries
Progress continued on schedule in this area and the draft report
is well underway. We expect to have the draft report ready for
review by the end of August.
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
RT&A maintained its contacts with public agencies and private
interest groups.
New OCS Regulations
The Department of the Interior announced that new regulations
governing oil, gas, and sulfur operations on the OCS became
effective on June 1. A meeting to discuss implementation of the
rules, which restructure and consolidate previously existing
regulations, will be held in Los Angeles on August 24th and 25th.
Lease Sale 95 Alternatives Announced
MMS announced that the DEIS for Lease Sale 95 will consider seven
alternatives, including the proposed action, which is to lease
1317 blocks off Southern California. Alternative 2 involves
deferring leasing on all tracts within 12 miles of the coast in
the sea otter range, which is from Pt. Sol north. Alternative 3
defers all tracts within six miles of the shore in the same
area. Alternative 4 defers tracts within six miles of the
Mugu-Latigo Point Area of Special Biological Significance off
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. Alternative 5 defers much of
the Santa Monica Basin including a few near Orange County in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula area.
Alternative 6, called the San Pedro Basin - San Diego Trough
Alternative, is the most relevant one for Orange County. It
involves deferral of 67 whole and partial tracts, most of which
are in the military areas off Camp Pendleton. Ten tracts in an
area off Laguna Beach and San Clemente would be deferred in this
alternative as well. Alternative 7 is the "no action"
alternative.
MMS also announced that the stipulations on leases would be the
same as in Lease Sales 73 and 80, although they clouded this
matter by saying that the wording might be diff erent. They
specified that the Lease Sale 73 air quality stipulation would be
applied to Lease Sale 95.
MMS officials said that the development scenarios they are
evaluating involve a total of ten platforms being erected as a
result of this sale in the high case, and five platforms in the
most likely case. They declined to specify hypothetical platform
locations or resource estimates used to develop these scenarios.
By way of background, in the Lease Sale 80 EIS, 320 million
barrels of oil were posited to justify seven platforms. (These
figures relate to the entire lease sale area, not just the Orange
County OCS.
Strategy Document
In early June, RT&A provided the sponsoring jurisdictions with a
draft strategy document. Ken Frank provided the only comments on
this document to date. RT&A will finalize the strategy document
and distribute to the project sponsors.
Onshore Facility Bans
Carolyn Solomon furnished RT&A a copy of a Laguna Beach ordinance
banning oil and gas operations and facilities from that city.
The ordinance was enacted in 1975.
Lease Sale 95 Schedule
In late June, on the initiative of Senator J. Bennett Johnston
(D-LA), the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a provision
in H.R. 4867, the FY1989 appropriations bill for the Department
of the Interior, that would have accelerated Lease Sale 95 and
eliminated the necessity for an environmental impact statement
and public hearings on the sale. On July 13, Johnston offered an
amendment to the bill, dropping the Lease Sale 95 acceleration
and reinstating the environmental impact statement process.
Instead of the Lease Sale 95 acceleration, which had been
proposed nominally as a means to provide revenue offsetting that
presumed lost as a consequence of delaying Lease Sale 91 in
Northern California, Johnston's amendment required the Department
of the Interior to grant leases for Lease Sale 91, involving
Bristol Bay, Alaska, currently tied up in litigation. The full
Senate approved the bill, which included moratoria on leasing in
Northern California, George's Bank, and off the West Coast of
Florida. A copy of Johnston's amendment in its final form is
included with this report as Attachment A.
Dukakis Statement
On June 28, Governor Michael Dukakis released a statement on
Southern California offshore oil leasing. The statement,
included with this report as Attachment B, is basically bland,
neither supporting nor really opposing offshore leasing. It does
not specifically address Lease Sale 95.
4.9 Public Participation
RT&A provided the project sponsors with copies of a draft script
in June. To date we have not received any comments on the
draft. We are in the process of revising the draft and will
provide copies of the revised script at an early date.
Shooting of the underwater footage has been completed, and it
will be previewed at the August 9th briefing.
.A-M-NDMNT N0,
Purpose: Delet
Ex.
AslanAmv MA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES--10.0t.h Cong., 2nd Seas.
8 `
(or Treaty
H.R. 4867
4'I�kiCT7;T•TF����7',sx•�ar_>l�rrl�: „:., �r•��ar>f�a��-a�-�,«���fi
( ) Referred to the Committee on
and ordered to be printed ,
( ) Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
INTENDED to be proposed by Senator 3ohnnton
vlz:
I On page 66, lines 20-25, delete all text related to "section 11711
Cand insert in lieu thereof:
3
4 "Sao. 117. ror all agencies funded in this Act, each appropriation,
5 in this Act shall be reduced by,an amount equal tot percentum of th
6 President's fiscal year 1989 Budget Request for object class 21
7 (travel), object class 25 (other services) objeott•olass 26 (supplies
8 and materials) and object class 31 (equipment) : Provided That such
9 such reductions shall not apply to funds budgeted for self-
10 determination contracts for Indian tribes or for the
11 Strategic Petroleum Reserve "Provided further, That notwithstanding
12 any other provisions of law the Minerals Management Service shall
13 award leases consistent with its bid review procedures for Outer
14 Continental Shelf Lease Sale-92 (North Aleutian Basin) in October
1988.
16
17
w . r
Statement by Sen. Bennett Johnston
regarding the amendment relating to Lease Sale 95
This is merely a bookkeeping procedure. It does not moot
the lawsuit. it does not vacate any orders previously issued.
It does not limit the rights of any of the plaintiffs.
It merely allows the interior Department to count the money
that has already been bid as a receipt for this fiscal year. If
the lawsuits are successful, they will have to give the money
back. This allows us to avoid the bookkeeping strictures that
were forcing us to accelerate the Southern California lease sale.
MWI
for n
105 Chauncy St., Boston, MA 02M
(617)451-2480
P.2
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 1988
contact: Mark Geaxan
Steve Akey
(617) 451-2480
Last week the Senate Appropriations Committee took action
that could require the next President to allow drilling for
offshore oil off the coast of Southern California. The
measure would advance the timing of this drilling by one
year and eliminate the requirement for public hearings
before the sale. I join with the people and leaders of
California in opposition to this action.
The area under consideration•is an important economic
resource for California and for the nation. Before we can
begin to think about offshore drilling, we must first ensure
that states are given full participation in the planning
process.
We must ensure that drilling for offshore oil will never
take place in environmentally sensitive areas. To trade
these extraordinary resources for a few weeks of oil would
reflect a terribly misguided set of priorities.
America's coastal resources belong to all the citizens of
this country. It is our responsibility as citizens and
leaders to protect those resources.
RICHARD TINNEY & ASSOCIATES
INVOICE #7
LABOR
RICHARD TINNEY ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.2
11
HOURS
TASK
2.3
40
HOURS
TASK
2.4
3
HOURS
TASK
3.1
4
HOURS
TASK
4.1
16
HOURS
JAMES CROWELL ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.3
8
HOURS
TASK
1.5
6
HOURS
TASK
2.3
4
HOURS
TASK
3.2
16
HOURS
RENATTA HEGEMAN ($50/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 20 HOURS
RUTHANN CORWIN ($45/HRS)
TASK 2.3 46 HOURS
ALAN WALTNER ($100/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 8 HOURS
EUGENIA LAYCHAK ($35/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 42 HOURS
DIANNE KOPEC ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 32 HOURS
MAUREEN WITKOWSKI ($25 HOUR)
TASK 2.3 34 HOURS
WILSON ZUBLIN ($95 HOUR)
TASK 2.3 35 HOURS
MBC APPLIED ENV. SCIENCES
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL
MAIL & EXPRESS
TYPING & REPRODUCTION
TELEPHONE/TELEX
CAL DEPT F&G COMPUTER SEARCH
TOTAL ODC
SUBTOTAL
FEE @ 5%
TOTAL
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
DATE: July 18, 198B�?
P.O. No. 0 83 84
660
2400
120
240
960 4440
480
360
240
960 2040
1000
1000
2070
2070
800
800
1470
1470
800
800
850
850
3325 3325
1000 1000
68
44
98
194
213
617
17,755
887.75
18,642.75
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. BOX 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
June 16, 1988
(202) 3791874
RECEIVED
J1JL21 1988®-
City ut Nport
ewr
Pert Beach 14
Please find enclosed RT&A's Monthly Report #06 and Invoice for
cost incurred.
Should you require further information, please feel free to
contact Richard or me at 703-685-0066.
Enclosure
/pas
Sincerely,
ames J. Crowell
Vice President
REOF3v
J�C 211988 ,.
N ARTOF
� CgtlF fA�y
v
Monthly Report
Report No.: 06
Period of Performance: May 1, 1988 to May 31,.1988•
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
I
Contract Objective: -To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service
Task Status:
Report Overview:
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during May 1988.
During this month, RT&A made progress in all remaining task
areas. Work continued on the preparation of the technical
reports, and a draft script for the educational video was
prepared.
1.0 Program Management and Support
RT&A managers continued the project management and administration
functions. The monthly report on project activities in April was
provided to the project sponsors. RT&A personnel met with the
project sponsors on May 6, 1988. The major matters addressed at
this meeting were:
(a) Presentation of a revised draft of the oil volumes report;
(b) Preliminary results of the beach survey were presented;
(c) Effects of the delay by MMS in releasing the DEIS and
conducting the lease sale;
(d) Conducting a briefing for elected officials.
2.0 Technical Analysis and Review
During May, RT&A made substantial progress in this task area.
RT&A has all technical reports underway as described below.
Oil and Gas Volumes
A revised draft report was provided to the project sponsors at
the May 6 meeting. Comments were submitted by Ken Frank (Laguna
Beach) and Greg Hulsizer (San Clemente). As a 'result of these
comments the report was revised to eliminate some unnecessary
detail, clarify a few points, and include a summary and a
conclusion. RT&A expects to distribute the final version of the
report prior to the briefing for elected officials.
Geological Hazards and Constraints
This topic continued in the data and information gathering
stage. We obtained important geological maps and reports from
the U.S. Geological Survey and the State of California. This
topic continues on schedule with a draft report expected in July.
Air Quality
Progress continued in this topic area, but at a somewhat slowed
pace. We expect no delays in the completion of the technical
report for this topic, and in fact believe that the slow down,
caused by the involvement of the subcontractor in some other
projects, will enhance the final product due to their technically
related nature. We continue to expect a draft report in August.
Socio-economics
During this period RT&A began its analysis of the beach survey
data. RT&A also obtained data indicating that a pristine ocean
view adds about 15% to the value of real estate, and that at
least a portion of that increased value will be affected should
oil and gas platforms be placed in view of the property. On May
27, RT&A personnel met with Ken Frank regarding conducting a
survey of visitors to coastal hotels, and as a consequence
obtained permission to distribute a questionnaire at the Surf and
Sand Hotel in Laguna Beach, and possibly one or two other
hotels. We expect to have a questionnaire for hotel approval by
the end of June.
Biological Resources
RT&A completed the task of identifying significant biological
resources in the coastal zone and the Orange County OCS. This
has resulted in a revision to Section 3 of the biological
resources technical report outline to show th-e specific areas and
resources to be covered. (The revised Section 3 outline is
included with this monthly report as Attachment A.) Drafting of
Section 3 of the technical report is well underway, and the full
technical report draft is expected by the end of August.
Contingency Planning
We began drafting the technical report for this area in May. The
progress in Section 3 of the biological resources report,
described above, feeds into the contingency planning area and we
expect it to allow full examination of needs to protect these
resources in the event of an oil spill. We continue to expect a
draft technical report in late July.
Fisheries
Data gathering continued in earnest in this month and
coordination with the biological resources area and the
socioeconomic area was maintained at a high level. We expect to
have a draft report in August.
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
RT&A maintained its contacts with public agencies and private
interest groups. RT&A also maintained its watch on relevant
Congressional action. During May a House Merchant Marine
Committee subcommittee approved H.R.4208, the reauthorization of
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. This bill
(included in this report as Attachment B) requires the Secretary
of Commerce (NOAA's parent agency) to designate a marine
sanctuary at Cordell Banks by December 31, 1988; at Monterey Bay
by September 30, 1989; and at the Western Washington Outer Coast
by March 31, 1990. He is also to evaluate other sanctuaries at
Flower Garden Banks off Texas by March 31, 1989; and at Northern
Puget Sound by March 31, 1991. He also is to consider
sanctuaries at American Shoal, Sombrero Key, and Alligator Reef,
all in Florida, and in Santa Monica Bay, within two years. If
this bill passes both Houses and is signed into law, it likely
will remove the State of Washington from OCS leasing
consideration and likely result in the cancellation of the
Oregon -Washington Lease Sale scheduled for April 1991.
No action has been taken with respect to H.R.920, the California
Ocean Sanctuary Act, sponsored by Barbara Boxer and Mel Levine,
or on the companion Senate bill, sponsored by Senator Cranston.
No hearings are scheduled on these bills. Governor Dukakis has
endorsed them.
RT&A personnel attended a MMS meeting in Portland, Oregon on May
23-25 (not at Orange County expense) and met with various MMS
personnel and consultants. They were very closed -mouthed about
California lease sales, which likely is explained by the actions
of the following two weeks resulting in the further delay of the
Northern California Lease Sale 91.
Onshore Facility Bans
In the 1986 elections several California jurisdictions passed
measures banning onshore oil facilities relating to offshore
production, or requiring voter approval of any planned
facilities. In the early June California primary, voters in San
Luis Obispo refused to approve a proposed pipeline and onshore
processing plant proposed by Shell Oil on behalf of several oil
companies. A court test is possible, although the ordinance was
found valid in April by a federal judge in a sµit filed by the
Western Oil and Gas --Association.
Of the Orange County jurisdictions, Newport Beach has a similar
ordinance dating from many years ago, RT&A is told. None of the
other jurisdictions are known to have such ordinances.
4.0 Public Participation
RT&A completed a draft script for the video in May and has
submitted it for comments to the sponsoring jurisdictions. At
the end of the month RT&A personnel decided to revise the script
to include some underwater footage from the Orange County OCS
because of the significant impact and appeal such footage can
have on public perceptions of the offshore resources. We will
include footage of kelp beds, rocky bottoms, and sandy bottoms,
and possibly of sea lions from underwater. We have made
arrangements with a Costa Mesa firm to obtain the needed
footage. RT&A expects to have this footage available for preview
at the briefing for elected officials in July.
Updated Outline - Section 3
Attachment A
3.1 Bays and Estuaries
3.1.1 Habitat & Communities
.1 Marsh
.2 Mud flat
.3 Benthos
.4 Water column
3.1.2. 0. Co.. Bays & Estuaries
.1 Anaheim Bay
.1 Size, Physical Description
.2 Communities & present
.3 Key spp. & densities (dominant, rate,
physical description, biological description,
research, commercial & imp. to food chain
spp•)
.4 Present/historical ambient levels of
pollutions & disturbance
.5 Exposure potentials from OCS development
.1 Persistence
.2 Concentrations
.3 Exposure
.6 Status of knowledge & research
.7 Adequacy of knowledge & ability to
predict/assess impacts
.2 Seal Beach national wildlife refuge
(etc. as above)
.3 Huntington Harbor
.4 Bolsa Bay
.5 Bolsa Chica ecological reserve
.6 Bolsa Chica marsh wildlife area
.7 Santa Ana river mouth
.8 Newport Bay
.9 Upper Newport Bay ecological reserve
.10 Salt creek
.11 Dona point harbor
3.2 Coastal
3.2.1 Habitats & communities
.1 Beach & surf zone
.2 Rocky intertidal
.3 Subtidal benthos (<100f depth)
.4 Kelp beds
3.2.2 O. Co. coastal habitats
.1 Seal Beach (town beach)
(etc. as above)
.2 Sunset beach (town beach)
.3 Bolsa Chica state park
.4 Huntington Beach state park
.5 Newport Beach
.6 Balboa Beach
.7 Newport Beach marine life refuge
.8 Corona Del Mar state beach
.9 Irvine Coast marine life area (asbs)
.10 Laguna Beach marine life refuge
.11 Heisler Park ecological reserve (asbs)
.12 South Laguna Beach marine life refuge
.13 Niguel marine life refuge
.14 Dana -point marine life refuge
.15 Doheny State beach
.16 Doheny marine life refuge
.17 San Clemente state beach
.18 Kelp bed lease areas #8, 9, 10
3.3 Pelogic
3.3.1 Hpbitats & communities
.1 Water surface
.2 Water column
.3 Benthos (>100f depth)
3.3.2 O. Co. Pelagic habitats
.1 Gulf of Santa Cataline
(etc. as above)
.2 San Pedro shelf
.3 58 fathom mount
.4 Gulf of Santa Barbara passage
.5 Nearshore to Channel Islands
f
LOWRY150
-AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H,R, 4208
� OFFERED BY MR, LOwRY
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
2 This Act may be cited as the "National Marine
3 Sanctuaries Program Authorization Act of 1988 " .
4 SEC. 2. SANCTUARY DESIGNATION PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS.
5 (a) NOTICE OF DESIGNATION. --Section 304(b)(1) of the
6 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16
7 U.S.C. 1434(b)) is amended to read as follows:
8 �1(1) NOTICE OF DESIGNATION. --(A) Subject to
9 subparagraph (H), not later than 120 days after the last
10 day of the period specified in subsection (a)(6), the
11 Secretary shall--
12 (i) publish in the Federal Register—
13 ,(I) notice of the designation of a iational
14 marine sanctuary together with final regulations
15 to implement the designation and any other
16 matters required by law; and
17 1�(II) notice of the availability to the
18 public of the final management plan and final
19 environmental impact statement relating to such
0
a
LOWRY150
2
1 sanctuary; and
2 .�(ii) submit such notice of designation to the
,3 Congress;
4 unless the Secretary determines, based upon the
5 Congressional report described in subsection (a)(6),
6 comments upon the draft environmental impact statement,
7 or other relevant information, not to proceed with the
8 designation.
9 ..(H) The Secretary may publish and submit a notice
10 of designation in accordance with subparagraph (A) not
11 later than 150 days after the last day of the period
12 specified in subsection (a)(6) if--
13 ..(i) the Secretary determines that additional
14 time is required for analysis of and response to
15 public comment relating to such designation; and
16 1%(ii) the Secretary notifies the Committee on
17 Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of
19 Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
19 Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
20 (C) A determination of the Secretary not to proceed
21
with the designation
of a national marine sanctuary--
22
(1) shall
be made -in writi.^.g,
setting forth in
23
detail the basis
for the Secretary's
decision; and
24
..(ii) shall
be submitted to the
Committee on
25 Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of
LOWRY150
3
1 Representative and to the Committee on Commerce,
2 -- Sdience, and Transportation of the Senate.
3 (0) The Secretary shall issue notice under this
4 paragraph with respect to a proposed national marine
5 - sanctuary site not later than 30 months after the date a
6 notice declaring the site to be an active candidate for
7 sanctuary designation is published in the Federal
8 Register under regulations issued under this Act, or
9 shall publish not later than such date in the Federal
10 Register findings regarding why such notice has not been
11 published.".
12 (b) TAKING EFFECT OF DESIGNATION. --Section 304(b) of the
13 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16
14 U.S.C. 1432(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
15 following:
16 (5) TAKING EFFECT OF DESIGNATION. --The designation
17 of a national marine sanctuary (including terms of the
18 designation which are not disapproved under this
19 subsectidTI) and regulations implementing such designation
20 shall take effect after a period of 45 days of continuous
21 session of Congress beginning on the day on which such
22 notice is published pursuant to paragraph (1), unless--
23 (A) the designation or'any of its terms is
24 disapproved by enactment of a joint resolution of
25 disapproval described in paragraph (3); or
LOWRY150
4
1 (B) in the case of a national marine sanctuary
a
ti 2 that is located .partially or entirely within the
3 seaward boundary of any State, the Governor of the
4 State certifies to the Secretary that the designation
5 or any of its terms is unacceptable, in which case
6 the designation or the unacceptable terms, as
7 applicable, shall not take effect in the area of the
8 sanctuary lying within the seaward boundary of the
9 State.".
10 SEC. 3. PROMOTION AND COORDINATION OF RESEARCH; SPECIAL USE
11 PERMITS; ESTABLISHMENT OF MARINE RESTORATION.
12 PROTECTION, AND ENFORCEMENT FUND; ACCEPTANCE OF
13 DONATIONS.
14 (a) IN GENERAL. --Title III of the Marine Protection,
15 Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 is amended--
16 (1) by striking section 308;
17 (2) by redesignating section, 309 as section 308; and
18 (3y adding at the end the Eollowing:
19 "SEC. 309. PROMOTION AND COORDINATION OF RESEARCH.
20 The Secretary shall take such action as is necessary to
21 promote and coordinate the use of national marine sanctuaries
22 for research purposes, inc'_uding--
23 ..(1) requiring that the National Oceanic and
24 Atmospheric'Administration, in conducting or supporting
25 marine research, give priority to research involving
LOWRY150
5
1 national marine sanctuaries; and
2 - `F2) consulting with other Federal and State
3 agencies to promote use by such agencies of one or more
4 sanctuaries for marine research.
5 SEC. 310. SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
6 (a) ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. --The Secretary may issue
7 special use permits which authorize the conduct of specific
8 activities in a national marine sanctuary if the Secretary
9 determines such authorization is necessaty--
10 .1(1) to establish conditions of access to and use of
11 any sanctuary resource; or
12 (2) to promote public use and understanding of a
13 sanctuary resource.
14 (b) PERMIT TERMS. --A permit issued under this section --
is (1) shall authorize the conduct of any activity
16 only if that activity is compatible with.the purposes for
17 which the sanctuary is designated and with protection of
18 sanctuary.,resources;
19 (2)shall authorize tie cohduct of any activity for
20 a period of not more than 5 years aithouc renewal by the
21 Secretary;
22 (3) shall require that Activities carried out under
23 the permit be conducted in a manner that does not harm or
24 destroy sanctuary resources; and
25 . ..(4) shall require the permittee to purchase and
LOWRY150
1
2
3
maintain comprehensive general liability insurance
M
a4lins`t claims arising out of activities conducted under
the permit and to agree to hold the United States
4 harmless against such claims.
5 (c) FEES.--
6 %(1) ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION. --The Secretary may
7 assess and collect fees for the conduct of any activity
8 under a permit issued under this section.
9 1.(2), AMOUNT. --The amount of a The under this
10 subsection shall be equal to the sum of--
il ..(A) costs incurred by the Secretary in
12 administering the permit;
13 %%(B) costs incurred by the Secretary as a direct
14
result
of
the conduct of the
activity for which
the
15
permit
is
issued, including
costs of monitoring
the
16 conduct of the activity; and
17 (C) an amount which represents the fair market
18 value..of the use of the sanctuary resource and a
19 reasonable return to the United States Government.
20 (3) USE OF FEES. --Amounts collected by .the
21 Secretary in the form of fees under this section may be
22 used by the Secretary--
23 (A) for processing and enforcing permits under
24 this section; and
25 ..(Bp for expenses.of designating and managing
LOWRY150
7
1 national marine sanctuaries.
2 "Td)'VIOLATIONS.--Upon violation of a term or condition
c�
3 of a permit issued under this section the Secretary may--
4 (1) suspend or revoke the permit without
5 compensation to the permittee and without liability to
6 the United States;
7 1.(2) assess a civil penalty in accordance with
8 section 307; or
9 .1(3) both.
10 (e) REPORTS. --Each person issued a permit under this
11 section shall submit an annual report to the Secretary not
12 later than December 31 of each year which describes
13 activities conducted under that permit and revenues derived
14 from such activities during the year.
15 (f) FISHING. --Nothing in this section shall be
16 considered to require a person to obtain a permit under this
17 section for the conduct of any fishing activities in a
18 national marine sanctuary.
19 '�SEC. 312. J1ARINE RESTORATION, PROTECTION, AND ENFORCEMENT
20 FUND.
21 (a) ESTABLISHMENT. --There is established in the
22 Treasury a trust fund to be known as. -the Marine
23 Restoration, Protection, and Enforcement Fund" , which shall
24 consist of amounts deposited into the fund by the -Secretary
25 under section 311.
C
LOWRY150
8
1 (b) USE OF AMOUNTS. --Amounts in the Marine Restoration,
s.
2 Proteotioili and Enforcement Fund may be used by the
5.:
3 Secretary, in order or priority--
4 .. (1) to finance response costs and damage
5 assessments;
6 „ (2) to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent
7 of any damaged sanctuary resource;
8 (3) to manage and improve the national marine
9 sanctuary where the damaged sanctuary resource is
10 located; and
it (4) to manage and improve any national marine
12 sanctuary.
13 SEC. 313. DONATIONS.
14 The Secretary may accept donations of funds, property,
15 and services for use in designating and administering
16 national marine sanctuaries under this title.".
17 (b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. --The Secretary may enter into
18 cooperative agreements with any nonprofit organization--
19 (1) t'd aid and promote interpretive, historical,
20 scientific, and educational activities conducted by such
21 organizations under such permits; and
22 (2) for the solicitation of private donations for the
23 support of such activities.
24 (c) REPORT. --The Secretary of Commerce shall submit an
25 annual report to the Committee on Merchant Marine and
0
LOWRY150
N
1 Fisheries of the House of Representatives and to the
2 Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
3 Senate which describes activities of the Secretary in
4 implementing the amendments made by this section. The
5 Secretary shall submit the first report under this section
6 not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of
7 this Act.
8 SEC. 4. ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NEW SANCTUARIES.
9 (a) ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF DESIGNATION. --The Secretary of
10 Commerce shall issue a notice of designation under section
11 304(b)(1) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
12 Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434(3)(1))--
13 (1) with respect to the proposed Cordell Hanks
14 National Marine Sanctuary described in the Federal
i5 Register notice of June 30, 1983, not later than December
16 31, 1988;
17 (2) with respect to the Monterey Say National Marine
18 Sanctuary:.described in the Federal Register notice of
19 October 3t, 1979, not later than September 30, 1989; and
20 (3) with respect to the Western Washington Outer
21 Coast National Marine Sanctuary described in the Federal
22 Register notice of August.4; "1983•, not later than March
23 31, 1990.
24 (b) SUBMISSION OF PROSPECTUSES. --The Secretary of
25 Commerce shall submit a prospectus under section 304(a)(1)(C)
I
LOWRY150
10
1 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
2 1972'(-l6 Ut.P.C. 1434(a)(1)(C)) to the Committee on .Merchant
N3 Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and to
4 the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
5 Senate--
6 (1) with respect to the Flower Garden Hanks National
7 Marine Sanctuary described in the Federal Register notice
8 of August 2, 1984, not later than March 31, 1989; and
9 (2) with respect to the Northern Puget Sound National
10 Marine Sanctuary, described as the Washington State
11 Nearshore area in the Federal Register notice of August
12
4,
1983, not later
than March 31, 1991.
13
SEC. 5.
STUDY OF AREAS
FOR DESIGNATION AS OR INCLUSION IN
14
NATIONAL
MARINE SANCTUARIES.
15
(a)
STUDY,--
16
(1) IN GENERAL.
--The Secretary shall conduct a study
17
of
the areas described
in subsection (c) for purposes of
18 making determinations and findings in accordance with
19 section 303(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and
20 Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1432) regarding
21 whether or not all or any part of such areas--
22 (A) are appropriate for designation as national
23 marine sanctuaries in accordance with title I:I of
24 such Act; or
with respect to subparagraphs (,)(1),(2), and (3),
25
(S)A should be added to and aaministerea as part
LOWRY150
11
1 of the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary or the
2 _Loair.Key National Marine Sanctuary.
`i (2) REPORT, --Not later than 2 years after the date of
4 the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a
5 report to the Congress which sets forth the
6 determinations and findings referred to in paragraph (1).
7 (b) DESIGNATION OR EXPANSION OF MARINE SANCTUARIES. --If
8 as a result of a study conducted pursuant to subsection (a)
9 the Secretary makes the determinations and findings set.foith
10 in section 303(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and
it Sanctuaries Act of 1972 with respect to all or any part of
12 the areas described in subsection (c), the Secretary, in
13 accordance with the procedures for the designation of
14 national marine sanctuaries set forth in title III of the
15 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.of 1972--
16 (1) shall designate such areas or such parts of such
17 areas as national marine sanctuaries; or
with respect to subparagraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3),
18 (2)A shall add such areas or such parts of such areas
19 to the Key'•.;argo National Marine Sanctuary or the Looe
20 Key National Marine Sanctuary;
21 as the Secretary considers appropriate.
22 (c,) AREAS DESCRIBED. --The areas referred to in
23 subsections (a) and (b) are the following:
24. (1) AMERICAN SHOAL. --The portion of the marine
25 . environment in the Florida Keys in the vicinity of
1 American Shoal, including the par: of such environment
2 located generally between Such shoal and t::e Marquesas
3 Keys.
4 (2.'r.SOMBRERO KEY. --The portion of the marine
{'•5 environment in the Florida Keys in the vicinity of and
6 surrounding Sombrero Key.
7 (3) ALL.I6ATOR REEF. --The portion of the marine
8 environment in the Florida Keys in the vicinity of and
9 surrounding Alligator Reef, including the* portion located
10 generally between such reef and the Key Largo National
11 Marine Sanctuary.
(4) qBayWA MONICA HAY -The portion of the marine environment of S
cPt. Vincente, west to the from pt. nump south to OO-meterthe Obathymetricycontouretric contouc,
from
12 (d) DEFINITIONS. --For the purposes of this section--
13 (1) MARINE ENVIRONMENT, --The term "marine
14 environment" has the meaning such term has in section
15 302(3) of the Marine Protection, Research,.and
16 Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
17 (2) SECRETARY, --The term *'Secretary" means the
18 Secretary of Commerce.
19 SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS.
20 (a) IN GENERAL. --Section 307 of the Marine Protection,
21 Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1437) is
22 amended to read as !allows:.
23 "SEC. 307. ENFORCEMENT.
24 1.(a) 'IN GENERAL. --The Secretary shall condupt such
25 enforcement activities as are necessary and reasonable to
LOWRY150
13
1 carry out this title.
2 "tb) IOWERS OF AUTHORIZED OFFICERS. --Any person who is
3
4
5
authorized to enforce this title may--
(1) with or without a warrant or other process --
(A) board, search, inspect, and seize any
6 vessel suspected of being used to violate this title
7 or any regulation or permit issued under this title
8 and any equipment, stores, and cargo of such vessel;
9 (B) seize wherever found any sanctuary resource
10 taken or retained in violation of this title or any
11 permit issued under this title;
12 1.(C) seize any evidence of a violation of this
13 title or of any regulation or permit issued under
14 this title;
15 (2) execute any warrant or other process issued by
16 any court of competent jurisdiction; and
17 (3) exercise any other lawful authority.
l8 (c) CIVJ.L PENALTIES.--
i9 (1)'CIVIL PENALTY. --Any person subject to the
20 jurisdiction of the United States who violates this title
21 or any regulation or permit issued under this title shall
22 be liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not
23 more than $50,000 !or each such violation, to be assessed
24 - by the Secretary. Each day of a continuing violation
25 shall constitute a separate violation.
1OWRY150
14
1 (2) NOTICE. --No penalty shall be assessed under
2 this subsection until after the person charged has been
{3 given notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
4 " (3) IN REM JURISDICTION. --A vessel used in
5 violating this title or any regulation or permit issued
6 under this title shall be liable in rem for any civil
7 penalty assessed for such violation and may be proceeded
8 against in any district court of the United States having
9 jurisdiction.
10 .1(4) REVIEW OF CIVIL PENALTY.--Any
person against
11 whom a civil penalty is assessed under this subsection
12 may obtain review in the United States district court for
13 the appropriate district by filing a complaint in such
14 court not later than 30 days after the date of such order
15 and simultaneously serving a copy of the complaint by
16 certified mail on the Secretary or the appropriate United
17 States attorney. Upon being served such a complaint, the
18 Secretary,shall promptly file in such court in accordance
19 with section 2112 of title 28, United States Code, a
20 certified copy of the record upon which the violation
21 relating to such complaint was found or such penalty
22 imposed. The findings and order of the Secretary shall be
23 set aside by such court if they are not found to be
24 supported by -substantial evidence, as provided in section
25 706(2) of title S.
LOWRY150
15
1 (5) COLLECTION OF PENALTIES. --If any person fails
2 to pay -_an assessment of a civil penalty under this
3 section after it has become a final and unappealable
4 order, or after the appropriate court has entered final
5 judgment in favor of the Secretary, the Secretary shall
6 refer the matter to the Attorney General, who shall
7 recover the amount assessed in any appropriate district
8 court of the United States. In such action, the validity
9 and appropriateness of the final order imposing the civil
10 penalty shall not be subject to review.
11 ll(6) COMPROMISE OR OTHER ACTION BY SECRETARY. --The
12 Secretary may compromise, modify, or remit, with or
13 without conditions, any civil penalty w�ich is or may be
14 imposed under this section.
15 (d) FORFEITURE.--
16 ,(1) IN GENERAL. --Any vessel (including the vessels
17 equipment, stores, and cargo) and other item used, and
13 any sanctuary resource taken or retained, in any manner,
19 in connection '4ith or as a result of a^y 71clation of
20 this title or of any regulation or permit 'issued under
21 this title shall be subject to forfeiture to the United
22 States pursuant to a civil proceeding -4.nder t�is
23 subsection.
24 ..(2) APPLICATION OF THE CUSTOMS LAWS. --The Secretary
25 may exercise the authority of any United States official
r
LOWRY150
1 granted by any applicable and consistent customs law
w1.2 relating to the seizure, forfeiture, condemnation,
3 disposition, remission, and mitigation of property in
4 enforcing this title.
5 .1(3) OISPOSAL OF SANCTUARY RESOURCES. --Any sanctuary
6 resource seized pursuant to this title may. be disposed of
7 pursuant to an order of the appropriate court, or, if
8 perishable, in a manner prescribed by regulations
9 promulgated by the Secretary. Any proceeds from the sale
10 of such resources shall for all purposes represent the
11 items so disposed of in any subsequent legal proceedings.
12 (4) PRESUMPTION. --For the purposes of this section
13 there is a rebuttable presumption that all sanctuary
14 resource found on board a vessel that is used or seized
15 in connection with a violation of this title or of any
16 regulation or permit issued under this title were taken
17 or retained in violation of this title or of a regulation
18 or permit '-issued under this title.
19 (e) PAYMENT OF STORAGE, CARE, AND OTHER COSTS.--.
20 .%(1) IN GENERAL. --Notwithstanding any other law, the
21 Secretary may use amounts received under this section in
22 the form of fines, civil penalties, forfeitures of
23 property, and costs imposed under paragraph (3) to pay--
24 " (A) the reasonable and necessary costs incurred
25 by the Secretary in providing temporary storage,
LOWRY150
17
1 care, and maintenance of any sanctuary resource or
2 other property seized under this section pending
3 disposition of any civil or criminal proceeding
4 relating to any alleged violation with respect to
5 which such property or resource was seized; and
6 1.(B) a reward to any person who furnishes
7 information leading to an arrest, conviction, civil
8 penalty assessment, or
forfeiture
of property for a
9 violation of this title
or of any
regulation or
10 permit issued under this title.
it „ (2) USE OF EXCESS AMOUNTS. --Any amounts referred to
12 in paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines are not
13 needed to make payments authorized by paragraph (1)(Aj
14 and (B) shall be deposited by the Secretary into the
15 Treasury.
16 (3) LIABILITY FOR COSTS. --Any person assessed a
17 civil penalty for, or convicted of, a violation of this
18 title or of any regulation or permit issued under this
19 title, and any claimant in a forfeiture action brought
20 for such a violation, shall be liable for the reasonable
21 costs incurred by the Secretary in storage, care, and
22 maintenance of any sanctuary resource or other property
23 seized in connection with the violation.
24 (f) SUBPOENAS. --For the purposes of conducting any
25 hearing under this section, the Secretary may issue subpoenas
LOWRY150
18
1 for .the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
�2 production of relevant papers, books, and documents, and may
3 administer oaths. Witnesses summoned shall be paid the same
4 fees and mileage that are paid to witnesses in the courts of
5 the United States. In case of contempt or refusal to obey a
6 subpoena served upon any person pursuant to this subsection,
7 the district court of the United States for any district in
8 which such person is found, resides, or transacts business,
9 upon application by the United States and after notice to
10 such person, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order
11 requiring such person to appear and give testimony before the
12 Secretary or to appear and produce documents before the
13 Secretary, or both, and any failure to obey such order may be
14 punished by such court as contempt.
15 (g) JURISDICTION. --The district courts of the United
16 States shall have jurisdiction to restrain a violation of
17 this title and regulations and permits issued under this
18 title, and to'grant such other relief as may be appropriate.
19 (h) USE OF RESOURCES OF STATE AND OTHER FEDERAL
20 AGENCIES. --The Secretary shall, whenever appropriate, use by
21 agreement the personnel, services, and facilities of State
22 and other Federal departments,• ager.cie's, and
23 instrumentalities, on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable
24 basis, to carry out the Secretary's responsibilities under
25 this section.
LOWRY150
19
1 �(i) COAST GUARD AUTHORITY NOT LIMITED. --Nothing in this
%,�2 section shall be considered to limit the authority of the
3 Coast Guard to enforce this or any other Federal law under
4 section 89 of title 14, United States Code.
5 (b) SANCTUARY RESOURCE DEFINED. --Section 302 of the
6 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16
7 U.S.C. 1431) is amended--
8 (1) in paragraph (4) by striking '�and " ;
9 (2) in paragraph (5) by striking the period and
10 inserting in lieu thereof *�; and"; and
11 (3) by adding at the end the following:
12 1.(6) sanctuary resource means any living or
13 nonliving resource found in a national marine
14 sanctuary.
15 SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
16 Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and
17 Sanctuaries Act of 1972 is amended by adding at the end the
18 following:
19 ��SEC. 314. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
20 1%There are authorized to be appropriated to the
21 Secretary to carry out this title the following:
22 (1) GENERAL ADMINISTRATION:= -For general
23 administration of this title--
24 (A) $1,800,000 for fiscal year 1989;
25 (a) $1,900,000 for fiscal year 1990;
LOWRY150
20
1 "(C) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1991; and
2 �(D) $2,100,000 for fiscal year 1992.
3 �(2) MANAGEMENT OF SANCTUARIES. --For management of
4 national marine sanctuaries designated under this title--
5 �(A) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1989;
6 �(B) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1990;
7 (C) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1991; and
8 (D) $3,250,000 for fiscal year 1992.
9 (3) SITE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS. --For review and
10 analysis of sites for designation under this title as
11 national marine sanctuaries--
12 (A) $450,000 for fiscal year 1989;
13 (B) $500,000 for fiscal year 1990;
14 (C) $550,000 for fiscal year 1991; and
15 (0) $600,000 for fiscal year 1992'.".
16 SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.
17 The Secretary of Commerce shall issue regulations
18 implementing ,the amendments made by this Act and the
19 amendments made by the Marine Sanctuaries Amendments of 1984
20 not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
21 this -Act.
3
i
n.L%I nkmv 'lia"zX & ASSOCIATES
INVOICE #6
LABOR
RICHARD TINNEY
($60/HOUR)
TASK 1.2
10 HOURS
600
TASK 2.3
38 HOURS
2280
TASK 2.4
3 HOURS
120
TASK 3.1
3 HOURS
180
TASK 4.1
16 HOURS
960
4140
JAMES CROWELL
($60/HOUR)
,
TASK 1.3
•- 6 HOURS
360
TASK 1.5
8 HOURS
480
TASK 2.3
6 HOURS
360
TASK 3.2
10 HOURS
600
1800
RENATTA HEGEMAN
($50/HOUR)
TASK 2.3
20 HOURS
1000
1000
RUTHANN CORWIN
($45/HRS)
TASK 2.3
48 HOURS
2160
2160
ALAN WALTNER ($100/HOUR)
TASK 2.3
8 HOURS
800
800
EUGENIA LAYCHAK
($35/HOUR)
TASK 2.3
12 HOURS
420
420
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 1550
MAIL & EXPRESS 34
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 89
TELEPHONE/TELEX 75
TOTAL ODC
SUBTOTAL
FEE @ 5%
TOTAL
PERIOD OF PERFORMA
DT7Vr9A..cv npnRR vn.
DATE: June 16, 19
NAME:
1748
12,068
603.40
12,671.40
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
June 17, 1988
Ms. Patricia Temple
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Dear Pat:
P.O. BOX 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(202) 3791874
Pl�r �� � .• �`
DLw.: ���C
iONZ ��+; r""I
> CrTy a;=
u� CAcw,
You may have recently heard from the State Lands Commission,
asking you to endorse H.R. 920, a bill sponsored by Barbara Boxer
and Mel Levine to establish the California Ocean Sanctuary. In
essence, the bill would prohibit exploration for or extraction of
oil, gas, or other minerals from the OCS out to 200 miles (the
entire California Exclusive Economic Zone). The only exceptions
would be for existing leases and permits. The bill also would
ban ocean dumping and ocean incineration in the same area.
In case you haven't seen H.R. 920, I've enclosed a copy with this
letter. If your jurisdiction hasn't endorsed the bill, you might
consider doing so, perhaps with the proviso that the bans be in
place until adequate environmental and economic safeguards have
been demonstrated.
No hearings have been scheduled on this bill, and it is unlikely
that any will be in the near future. It has been used mainly as
a tool in the presidential campaigns, with Governor Dukakis
having endorsed it, and Vice President Bush not having done so.
We believe that endorsement of the bill by Southern California
jurisdictions may be useful to show that concern over oil and gas
development is more than a Northern California issue. It may
also encourage Southern California Legislators to more actively
promote the protection of the Southern California coast from
environmental and economic degradation.
Sincerely,
J� Crowell
Vice President
Enclosure
/pas
• .J
r[5 n
4.'
I
100CONGRE
SS
M R. 920
1ST SESSIONON
To establish the California Ocean Sanctuary.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBBUABY 3, 1987
Mrs. Boma (for herself and Mr. LBvmE of California) introduced the following
bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries and Interior and Insular Affairs
•A :; BILL
To establish the California Ocean Sanctuary.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "California Ocean Sanctu-
5 ary Act of 1987".
6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
7 The Congress finds that-
8 (1) the California coast possesses unique histori-
9 cal, ecological, educational, recreational, economic, and
10 research values which are appropriate for protection
11 under Federal law; and
J�
1 (2) there is an existing and mounting threat to
2 this sensitive national treasure in the form of fossil fuel
3 exploration and development, mineral extraction, and
4 the burning and dumping of toxic and hazardous
5 wastes, which could result in irreparable damage to
6 this coastal resource.
7 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION.
8 (a) IN GENERAL. —The area described in section 4 is
9 designated as the California Ocean Sanctuary (hereinafter in
10 this Act referred to as the "Sanctuary").
11 (b) RE$TRICTIONB.-
12 (1) MuaERAL EXPLORATION AND EXTRA0-
13 TION.—(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of
14 law, a Federal agency may not issue a lease, permit,
15 or license for the exploration for or extraction of oil,
16 gas, or other minerals on or from submerged lands
17 located within the Sanctuary.
18 (B)(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
19 a person may not explore for or extract oil, gas, or
20 other minerals on or from submerged lands located
21 within the Sanctuary after the date-
22 (I) of the cancellation, expiration, transfer,
23 relinquishment, or termination of a lease, permit,
24 or license which permits such exploration or
25 extraction;
•®t 920 m
1y
f to
I to
I of
w^�
I or
fVAP
I or
3
1 (EL) of the suspension of such exploration or
2 extraction operations under regulations described
3 in clause (iii); or
4 = on which a lease, permit, or license for
5 such exploration or extraction in any way be-
6 comes inactive under regulations described in
7 ... clause O, a
8 (ii) This Act shall not prohibit exploration for or
9 extraction of oil, gas, or other minerals on or from sub-
10 merged lands- .
11 (n under the terms of a lease, permit, or li-
12 tense in effect on the date of the enactment of
13 this Act which permits such exploration or extrac-
14 tion; and
15 (l) before the date referred to in clause (i).
16 (iii) The regulations referred to in clauses (KED
17 and (i)(DI) are regulations implementing the Outer
18 Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.;
19 as in effect on January 1, 1986).
20 (2) OCEAN INCINERATION AND OCEAN DUMP-
21 iNG.—(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
22 a Federal agency may not issue a lease, permit, or
23 license-
24 (i) for ocean incineration or ocean dumping
25 within the Sanctuary; or
•Ht 920 ie
�r
• Y ..N�'di
,;•
1 (ii) for an onshore facility which exists to fa-
-2 cilitate ocean ` incineration or ocean dumping
:•' i-. ::L a 3 within the Sanctuary. •'
:. 4 (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
5 ' vessel may not travel within the Sanctuary while en
6 route to or from ocean incineration or ocean dumping.
7 (c) MsHING NOT PROHIBITED. —This Act shall not
8 prohibit'commercial or recreational fishing or other harvest-
;.
wt.5mwy.y5ry :_ 9 ing of ocean life in the Sanctuary.
10 SEC. 4. DESCRIPTION OF AREA WITHIN SANCTUARY.
11 ' The area referred to in section 3(a) is the area of the
a 12 outer Continental Shelf extending 200 miles seaward from
, ' 13"the seaward boundary of California (as approved and con-
• 14 firmed by section 4 of the Submerged Lands Act (67 Stat.
;,yam?:
' �. _ '•�; 15 31; 43 U.S.C. 1312)). '
z 16 SEC. 5.OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.
17 For purposes of this Act, the term "outer Continental
18 Shelf" has the meaning given such term in section 2(a) of the
19 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)).
.-j p
*88 920
5
FOCUSON OL
OFFSHORE OIL BULLETIN
1988
600 S. Commonwealth Ave., Suite 1000, Los Angeles, Ca 90005
600 Louth Commonwealth
IC
RIlOCIRTIW1. _. __._.e.........-
pvenue •Iuite 1000 • Lot Rngeler. California • 90005.213/385-1000
Energy Program
FOCUS ON OIL
OFFSHORE OIL BULLETIN
APRIL/MAY, 1988
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE OIL BULLETIN, VOLUME II, No._2
Focus On Oil is designed to inform SCAG local governments and
other interested parties of issues relating to offshore oil
development in Southern California. Anyone interested in
receiving earlier copies of Focus On Oil should contact Catherine
Tyrrell, SCAG's Energy Program Manager, at (213) 739-6748.
SCAG is interested in your comments, information and opinions
regarding offshore oil issues and appreciates your response to
Focus On Oil.
SCAGUPDATE...................................................i
First Coalition 95 Meeting Scheduled For May 13..............1
Resource Estimate Near Completion ............................1
LEASESALES...................................................2
MMS Delays Lease Sales Four Months ...........................2
Lease Sale 91 DEIS Draws Criticism From Many Fronts .......... 2
LEGISLATION.............................................6.....3
California Congressmen Push For Moratorium on
North Coast Drilling............................6........6...3
Hayden Bill Would Impose Strict Requirements On
Future Offshore Development.....................:............4
LEGALDEVELOPMENTS.............................................5
Angeles Pipeline Notice Of Determination Rescinded ........... 5
Local Ordinances Upheld In Court .............................5
Coastal Commission Wins Battle Against Commerce
Department...................................................6
Celeron Pipeline Nearing Completion ..........................6
LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS............................................7
Los Angeles Voters May Decide Fate Of Occidental's
Drilling Plan................................................7
Oil Spill Northeast Of San Francisco Damages Wetlands ........ 7
Measure A Approved By Coastal Commission; Nipomo Mesa
Facility Vote Will Be First Test .............................8
Supplemental EIR Required For Chevron Sour Gas Pipeline ...... 8
Coastal Commission Approves Exxon's Santa Ynez Project ....... 9
CORRECTIONS..................................................10
SCAG UPDATE
First Coalition 95 Meeting Scheduled For May 13
SCAG has organized the Coalition 95 Steering Committee, comprised
of elected officials from throughout Southern California, to
provide a forum for the exchange of information and a means of
preparing for the Lease Sale 95 public hearings. The many
positive responses to Coalition 95 from federal, state, county,
and city elected officials representing all areas of Southern
California attest to a widespread interest in and concern about
offshore development issues.
The first meeting of Coalition 95 will be held on Friday, May 13,
from 10 am to noon at SCAG's offices. A few of the scheduled
topics of discussion are public perception of and attitudes toward
offshore oil drilling, the potential environmental and economic
impacts of Lease Sale 95, the status of the negotiated rulemaking
process, and the recent Northern California Lease Sale 91 public
hearings.
One of the functions of Coalition 95 will be to increase public
awareness of Lease Sale 95 and encourage participation in the
public hearings, currently scheduled for November. Many elected
officials have expressed concern that the public hearings be
accessible to the greatest possible number of interested Southern
Californians. In early April, SCAG's President sent a letter to
Dr. Lisle Reed, Director of MMS' Pacific OCS office, requesting
that the hearings be conducted during evening hours or on weekends
in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Newport Beach or
Laguna Beach, and San Diego (included in this issue of Focus On
Oil). To date, Dr. Reed has not responded to this request.
Resource Estimate Near Completion
SCAG is putting the finishing touches on its Lease Sale 95
resource estimate report. SCAG's report will be combined with a
similar report prepared for the Orange County Consortium of
Cities, to form the first part of a regional OCS impacts
assessment. Drafts of the regional air quality and economic
impacts reports are also nearing completion.
One preliminary conclusion of the resource estimate reports is
that the crude oil contained in the OCS located off Los Angeles
and Orange Counties, if extracted, is likely to meet less than two
weeks worth of the nation's petroleum demand. An important
question for policy makers is whether the benefit derived from
this quantity of oil justifies the impacts associated with its
development.
fib ��'I.�'!•`�.�y
MKS Delays Lease Sales Four Months
MMS recently changed the Lease Sale 95 and 119 (the Central
California lease sale) schedules, delaying all steps for four
months. This means that the Lease Sale 95 draft HIS, originally
scheduled for publication in July, will now be issued in November
and the public hearings will be held during December. The actual
sale will not take place until January 1990. For further
information, please refer to the Lease Sale 95 map and revised
schedule included in this issue of Focus On Oil. The Lease Sale
119 Call for Information --the beginning of the lease sale
process --has been rescheduled from August to November, delaying
the actual sale until March of 1991.
According to MMS' Regional OCS office in Los Angeles, the delay is
necessary because of the unanticipated time and resource
requirements of Northern California's Lease Sale 91. Others have
suggested that the delay is politically motivated, as publication
of the Lease Sale 95 DHIS has been postponed until just after the
November 8 presidential election. They reason that Secretary of
Interior Donald Hodel is hoping the delay will de -politicize the
lease sales, which have become a campaign issue for the democratic
candidates, and derail the opposition movement. 'While democratic
presidential hopefulls Dukakis and Jackson have voiced their
opposition to the current 5-Year Plan, George Bush has not
responded to requests for his opinion on the issue. The delay may
relieve pressure on Vice President George Bush to voice an opinion
which will lose him support among the state's republicans, who are
increasingly opposed to the drilling plans.
Others contend that MMS is pursuing a 'divide and conquer'
strategy by delaying the Southern and Central California lease
sales while Lease Sale 91 proceeds on schedule. In a draft letter
to the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Panetta
wrote that the Department of Interior is attempting to "split the
state's congressional delegation along regional lines."
Lease Sale 91 DHIS Draws Criticism From Many Fronts
Under Lease Sale 91, MMS proposes development of 1.1 million acres
of the OCS off Mendocino and Humboldt Counties. The Lease Sale 91
Draft HIS, issued last January, has drawn criticism from members
of California's congressional delegation, the Coastal Commission,
local governments, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
U
One of the major points of criticism is what is seen as MMS'
failure to recognize local impacts as significant. Throughout the
DEIS, MMS repeatedly concludes that potential local impacts may be
effectively disregarded because they are insignificant when
considered from the perspective of the entire lease sale area.
The results of such an approach may not accurately reflect what
can be substantial localized impacts.
Another point of contention is the drastic change in MMS'
development and resource estimates between the time the 5-Year
Plan was issued and publication of the DEIS. In the 5-Year Plan
EIS, published in January 1987, MMS estimated that the two sales
scheduled for Northern California would produce 231 million
barrels of oil from 48 production wells on two platforms. Yet in
the Lease Sale 91 DEIS; published in December 19879 MMS estimates
that as many as 790 million barrels of oil could be produced from
480 production wells on twenty-two platforms, and all of this in
only one sale!
Initiators of a legal challenge to the 5-Year Plan (including the
states of California, Florida, Massachusetts, Oregon, and
Washington, and the Natural Resources Defense Council) obtained
documents which indicate that MMS was aware of the higher resource
estimates as early as November 1986, prior to publication of both
the 5-Year Plan EIS and a Congressionally mandated comparative
analysis of the alternatives proposed by Governor Deukmejian,
Representative Panetta, and Representative Regula. In addition to
the possible legal implications of this finding, use of the higher
figures might have resulted in a different outcome for the
comparative analysis and thus a different 5-Year Plan.
The Coastal Commission held a hearing on Lease Sale 91 in late
February. Most of those who testified at the hearing, whose
statements were incorporated into the Commission's comments to
MMS, expressed opposition to Lease Sale 91. The Environmental
Protection Agency, in their official comments on the DEIS,
criticized MMS for not excluding sensitive areas from the sale,
and for not adequately considering the potential for oil spills.
LEGISLATION
California Congressmen Push For Moratorium On North Coast Drilling
Bills introduced by members of the California Congressional
Delegation to,designate sanctuaries off the coast of California or
alter the offshore development regulatory process have not made
significant progress over the last few months. The Congressmen
now seem to be focusing their attentions toward the next
3
presidential administration. They have recently been working
through the fiscal year 1989 appropriations process in an attempt
to delay Lease Sale 91 for one year, until February 1990, in the
hopes that the newly -elected president will halt or alter the
sale. Because the federal government operates on a (fiscal)
year-to-year basis, similar action to delay Lease Sale 95 beyond
the current January 1990 date cannot be taken until the fiscal
year 1990 appropriations process is under way.
In a letter to the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations,
thirty-one of California's Congressmen ask that Lease Sale 91 be
delayed. In a draft of the letter written by Representative
Panetta, the Committee is told that there are a number of
"critical" gaps in the Lease Sale 91 DEIS and that Congress will
need "at least a year" to address these concerns. Panetta claims
that the "additional time is essential if the new administration
and Congress are going to be able to evaluate the impact ... of the
entire five-year plan." The Appropriations Subcommittee will
decide on May 19 whether to attach the moratorium provision to the
approriations bill. If passed by the Subcommittee, the provision
will come before the full Committee on June 10.
Hayden Bill Would Impose Strict Requirements on Future Offshore
Development
State Assemblyman Hayden's AB 4479 would impose requirements on
offshore development similar to those proposed for the 5-Year Plan
by Representative Panetta. Panetta's 'stipulations' were not
Included in the Lease Sale 91 DEIS (and are therefore unlikely to
appear in the other California OCS lease sales under the 5-Year
Plan). Under AB 4479, the State of California would be obligated
to declare a federal offshore oil development proposal
inconsistent with the California Coastal Management Program until
certain requirements are met. These include: certification by the
California Energy Commission that the federal government is
pursuing an energy conservation and research program; a
comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of OCS oil
development; and a plan to phase OCS leasing. In addition, all
OCS oil development activities would be subject to the strictest
air quality provisions applicable in any area affected by the
emissions resulting from the development. The bill would increase
the Coastal Commission's authority to regulate offshore oil
development in federal waters.
AB 4479 was passed by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on
April 11. It goes before the Ways and Means Committee on May 25
and, if approved, will then go to the full Assembly.
4
LEGAL DEULOPMEMTS
Angeles Pipeline Notice Of Determination Rescinded
In September of 1987, Caltrans gave its stamp of approval to the
Angeles Pipeline project by filing a Notice of Determination. In
February of this year, Caltrans rescinded the Notice. According
to Caltrans officials, the Notice was issued prematurely because
encroachment permits for the 330,000 barrel per day, 135 mile
pipeline have not yet been issued. Caltrans also claims that the
rescission is a technicality which does not stop the project but
does halt the lawsuits filed against Caltrans by the Cities of Los
Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale, the Metropolitan Water'District,
and the Tejon Ranch, all of which contend that the EIR was
inadequate.
Los Angeles City Attorney James Hahn, however, claims that
Caltrans' rescission of the Notice halts the pipeline project
until more environmental study is conducted. Others have
suggested that lagging support for the project might have
influenced Caltrans' actions, which come in the wake of ARCO's
withdrawal from the project and Chevron's decision to use tankers
to transport oil from its Point Arguello field to Los Angeles. In
essence, the project's backers must re -initiate the approval
process.
Local Ordinances Upheld In Court
In April, a U.S. District Judge dismissed claims by the Western
Oil and Gas Association (WOGA) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a division of the Commerce
Department, that ordinances restricting onshore support facilities
in ten coastal cities and counties are unconstitutional. WOGA and
NOAA had filed the suit in an attempt to have thirteen such
ordinances declared unconstitutional because, they claimed, the
ordinances would effectively prohibit oil development in federal
waters off the coast of California. The judge drew a distinction
between the ten ordinances which require voter approval of onshore
facilities on a case -by -case basis, and the three ordinances which
ban such facilities altogether.
In the former case, the judge decided that the ordinances do -not
defy federal supremancy over OCS development, as oil companies
retain the ability to appeal voter decisions. The ordinances make
offshore development more difficult, but not impossible.
Furthermore, the proper time to try the constitutionality of these
ordinances is after an appeal has failed. For the remaining three
ordinances, passed by the City and County of San Diego and the
5
City of Oceanside, the judge decided that the question of whether
they violate the commerce clause of the Constitution could be
tried. WOGA and NOAA must now decide whether to try this one
remaining aspect of the suit or to appeal the entire case.
Contrary to the opinion of some of their proponents and opponents
alike, the ordinances have withstood their first legal challenge.
Johanna Wald, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, an intervenor in the case, contends that "the judge has
recognized the authority of local governments to control land -uses
within their jurisdictions. By implication, the judge has
recognized that they have good reason to be concerned about the
Impacts and effects onshore facilities can have on the quality of
their environments."
Coastal Commission Wins Battle Against Commerce Department
On April 14, a U.S. District judge in San Francisco barred the the
Commerce Department from forcing the Coastal Commission to change
its approval process. The Commerce Department, through NOAA, had
demanded that the Commission use $227,000 of its federal funding
to develop guidelines and standards to be applied to all offshore
oil projects. Such standards, which would require NOAA's
approval,, would reduce, if not eliminate) the Commission's
regulatory authority. In deciding to grant a- preliminary
injuction against NOAA, the judge ruled that NOAA does not have
the authority to force a state to alter its federally approved
coastal program, either directly or through the financial award
process.
The Commission had feared that NOAA would withdraw its federal
certification and $2 million budget. State Attorney General Van
de Kamp stated that the decision is "a strong signal that the
court believes that the federal government has acted far beyond
its authority in attempting to coerce the Coastal Commission into
abandoning its statutory responsibilities." Now the Commission
will be able to proceed as usual until the State's suit against
the Commerce Department comes to trial.
Celeron Pipeline Nearing Completion
A federal judge in Austin, Texas recently dismissed an injunction
that had delayed construction of the final 550 mile segment of the
Celeron All -American Pipeline, to run from McCamey to Houston,
Texas. The pipelines when complete, will carry up to 300,000
barrels per day of offshore California crude oil from Santa
Barbara to the Gulf Coast of Texas. The segment already
completed, from Santa Barbara to McCamey) Texas, is now carrying
70,000 barrels per day of oil on a test basis. Full use of the
pipeline is not expected to occur• until the 19901s, when OCS
V
production off Santa Barbara is expected to peak. Construction of
the segment of the pipeline running along the coast of Santa
Barbara County is scheduled to begin in mid July.
LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS
Los Angeles Voters May Decide Fate Of Occidental's Drilling Plan
On February 21, the Los Angeles City Council Board of Referred
Powers voted three to two against repealing a 1985 ordinance
approving Occidental Petroleum's proposal to drill for oil in the
Pacific Palisades. In a final attempt to keep Occidental from
going forward, Los Angeles City Councilmembers Braude and
Yaroslaysky, State Assemblyman Herschel Rosenthal, and U.S.
Representative Mel Levine launched a petition drive on March 21 to
place a no -drilling initiative before the voters. 69,000
signatures are needed by June 1 to qualify the initiative for the
November ballot. In addition to stopping Occidental's project,
the initiative would ban future drilling 11000 yards inland of the
' mean high tide line along much of Los Angeles' coast.
A committee funded by Occidental to galvanize support for the
drilling proposal launched a'petition drive of its own on March
30. Their petition focuses on the projected $100 - 200 million in
annual revenues which the project will bring to the City, money
which will they claim will be spent on police enforcement and
public works efforts.
The proponents of the anti -drilling initiative claim that by
allowing drilling in the Palisades, Los Angeles residents will
weaken the position of those who oppose Lease Sale 95. Supporters
of Occidental's plans, first proposed twenty years ago, contend
that the Pacific Palisades, an affluent section of Los Angeles,
should not be exempt from the type of development which has gone
on in poorer sections of the City, and that environmental and
other safeguards proposed by Occidental negate the opponents'
concerns.
Oil Spill Northeast Of San Francisco Damages 'Wetlands
At least 175,000 gallons of San Joaquin crude oil leaked in late
April from a Shell oil holding tank forty miles northeast of San
Francisco Bay and spread to the State's largest coastal wetland
area, killing hundreds of birds and other animals. High tides and
winds caused the oil to spread through the Carquinez Strait,
Suisin Bay, and -other sensitive areas. These conditions, combined
with the thickness of the San Joaquin crude, rendered clean-up
very difficult. Experts have estimated that it may take years for
• 7
the wetlands to recover from the damage caused by the spill.
The spill occurred when a drain -pipe inside the oil tank broke and
oil, instead of rainwater, was carried outside the tank. Shell
may have violated federal regulations by allowing rain collected
on the roof of the tank to flow through the pipe and into a marsh.
The company has taken full responsibility for the accident, and
may face penalties and clean-up costs of $4 million.
Many of the comments on the Northern California Lease Sale 91
DEIS, including those from the EPA, focused on MMSP oil spill risk
analysis and containment and clean up -analysis. They contend
that MMS underestimates the likelihood that spills will occur as
well as the ability of clean-up crews to contain the spills in the
rough waters and adverse weather conditions prevalent off the
North Coast. The recent spill, which has spread quickly and
proved difficult to contain and clean up, lends support to these
contentions.
Measure A Approved By Coastal Commission; Nipomo Mesa Facility
Vote bill Be First Test
The Coastal Commission rejected the recommendation of its staff,
voting 7-3 to approve San Luis Obispo County's Measure A as it was
originally presented to the voters and to incorporate it into the
County's local coastal plan. Staff had recommended that the
aspect of Measure A which provided for a project -by -project
approval by the voters be altered, based on legal concerns.
Measure A and similar ordinances were subsequently upheld by a
federal judge (see "Local Ordinances Upheld In Court"). The
Commission did decide to strike a clause of the Measure which had
not been in the version voted on by the public. This clause
stated that Measure A shall supercede all other provisions of the
local coastal plan.
The first application of Measure A will come in June, when the
voters decide whether to approve development of onshore facilities
on the Nipomo Mesa to support Shell's Platform Julius. Measures B
and C, which concern pipeline and lot line adjustment approval for
Shell's proposal, will also appear on the June ballot. If the
vote is in favor of Shell's plan, the company will have the option
to move forward under an agreement with the County Board of
Supervisors, or to locate its onshore facilities elsewhere. Shell
can appeal to the Coastal Commission if the voters reject its
proposal.
Supplemental EIR Required For Chevron Sour Gas Pipeline
Chevron may soon run 'sweet', or low sulfur, gas purchased from
the Southern California Gas Company from shore to its Point
Arguello platform in order to test the gas pipeline which has been
a subject of controversy for the past few months. Levels of
hydrogen sulfide, a poisonous gas, found in the natural gas
produced from the platform are over twice as high as originally
estimated by Chevron. Chevron hopes that the test will assure the
Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors that the pipeline is
leak -proof. The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission will
consider Chevron's 'gas buy-back' proposal on May 17.
Santa Barbara County Officials have ordered that a supplemental
EIR be conducted before approval can be given to Chevron to run
the sour gas through the pipeline, which is intended to run from
the Point Arguello platform to Chevron's Gaviota processing
facility. Concern among community members about the safety of the
pipeline is widespread because the pipeline will pass under
Highway 101' and cross Gaviota Park on its way to the Gaviota
plant, site of one of Santa Barbara County's consolidated
facilities.
Natural gas recovered from offshore Southern California is
• generally similar to that found off Santa Barbara County, in that
it contains relatively high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide.
Consequently, Los Angeles and Orange Counties may face similar
dilemmas during the next decade, as oil companies begin to seek
permits for onshore facilities related to Lease Sale 95 offshore
development.
Coastal Commission Approves Exxon's Santa Ynez Project
Exxon's five year struggle to gain approval for its $2.5 billion
Santa Ynez offshore project ended on February 23, when the Coastal
Commission granted the final necessary approval. Local
politicians and environmentalists alike have hailed the agreements
made between Santa Barbara County and Exxon as precedent -setting
for the environmental impact mitigation strategies which they
include, such as use of electric power on the platforms. In
addition, Exxon has made a committment to spend at least $2
million to conduct research on innovative techniques to improve
air quality.
On April 16, Exxon held a ground -breaking ceremony at the Las
Flores Canyon site which will house the onshore processing
facility for the Santa Ynez unit. The Las Flores Canyon plant
will also be one of Santa Barbara County's consolidated processing
facilities.
9
COxxsCTIONS,
In the last issue of Focus On Oilt Vol. II, No. 1, the Lease Sale
95 area was described as "an approximately five million acre area
encompassing the OCS from San Diego to the south end of Big Sur"
(p.3). A more accurate statement would have been the following:
Under Lease Sale 950 the Minerals Management Service is proposing
to lease approximately fourteen million acres within the Southern
California Planning Area, which encompasses the federal OCS
extending southward from the San Luis Obispo -Monterey County
border to the United States -Mexico Provisional Maritime Boundary.
Exxon's Santa Ynez development was described as a "$2.5 million
project" (p.9). This figure should be corrected to $2.5 billion.
Thank you to those of you who commented on the last issue of Focus
On Oil. You input is encouraged and appreciated.
10
. +w
-, I
Rs _
National energy
policy should
become a major
campaign issue
Saa2rwiltisto ({ip•obilir Ilmsday, Decembar 19, 1985
1•
Coastal Preservation
Rates Hi94 With Public
/fy'Hervilt Field.
OVur lltu years, Culifur-
uluns have demonstrated a
great deal of custceru and coin-
nlitlucnl to presurviug Cullfor'
still's euvlruitinvilt.
A Califurula Pull survey cool•
pined earlier this mouth fhids Ihu
relative bnpurtauce the public atilt.
elites to prulevihig C'ahfurilfal l IV►
little cD:lalhilL at a high level.
ltuSirundvitts wcru asked let rate
lilt: hulivi tauev of etrinr of 111e husk
pl uvlSions of tilt• Call(urula Coastal
Act, which dvuls with the ►latv's
cualtal cavieuuolem. flue results
Shaw that Large majuritivs of like
politic rutisider each pruvislun all
extra iriy important task.
C•Idifural'r coaS1al act, up from the'
f16 percent awareness figure found
lit a 11,1110sm'vey.
Itespuulluuts were also asked
whether overall they thlnk the act
IS a goud or a butt lawAlic !lading"
Sltuw that of Ihuse with an uphdun,
more than tUrep out of four belivve
It is a good law.
~ CALIFORNIA COA57AL ACT''
STATEWIDE APPRAISAL
Good law
Dead law
lluvon't hulled uLoul lha low ell
hullutvbq; IS a ilS1 of Six of the
91allrls re411111): at lilt•
drvrluphu nt id C allfurnia's
arc's pruvlsium, and the dvgrre to
citnslhugarl:III like h:uulsuflike
w14101 like public thinkS eavlt Is "t'x• '
t'.allforilla t'tlaMal C'11lmoilvlulh
tremely hllpbltalIV,
\llnt'huYl'1'Sl•l•Sapd Ie lowstike.
_
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
driiS'tlulS(If SIX rcgiunalruuslu1
--
l'un11111SS11111%.
Controlling aeon toett wasiot
and towage d ipotal 939a
lit ruct•lll)'lars, the State:
Coastal C'uuuniS>iun lilts hall Its
iraerving the wusl's
Midge(clll, rt'Slllling, In the 01is11111
iconic beauty 81
1)(Sumelocal u(firesanda
Iroteivingtootlellwetlands
IvilucllunIII the number ofpubllq
send wildbfel habiltrt 77
llraring%.I IUwever, III reSIMIMP ID A
Mobctiny somaive emdme, areas
Survey question about like agutcy's
front affshotooil and got drilling 77 le,/Ludget,
there St•Gustohc!Ittvgg
Gvoruntesing public access
public Sultimesit for ralling
to beaches and coastal
filalicitlgabove tile curreullevel.
recreationaloppwlvnilios 66
—� FINANCING FOR TfIB —_
CoouollingcautlulatiJemiuland
COASTAL COMMISSION ^
ewmarciald•velopneltt J/
---
_
In each vale. fewer than One ha
Inoowred alloys Its previous
higher level 91_0''e
1USaysIIlaIaoyoflhUse UbjueIivvS
_ _ _ _
of cuallal Iliv.Nurvallult is
ketioesdlnpeeveoutLvel 79
ulllUllua'lalll.
RomoeiU at cull site udutled lore l 22
Allot:dslaIt&toVallful'itlaus4A1
k•duunplunJ.Uen—._'_._...1
In'I rPnl)SJ)'lIM)'laiael•St't•II UI
� � � �•�
livaldlUlall•Illhg•.IlnWt for
I.q.,,yM I Il i. lhrluLllmnrpM
5, F ExdM. y/18/88
Most foes fear new oil rigs
would threaten environment
By Jane Kay
EXAMINER ENVIRONMENTAL WRnEn
A majority of Californians op-
pose an increase in oil development
off the coast while one-third favor
it, according to an Examiner/News-
Center 4 poll.
The opposition is up from a pre-
vious poll in 1985, also conducted by
Teichner Asso-
ciates, when Exafnirsr!
opinion was NewsCegei 4
"fairly evenly Poll
split."
Californians are 51 percent
against and 35 percent for expand-
ing oil exploration and develop-
ment, the new poll said. The accura.
cy of the poll results is plus or mi-
nus 2.8 percent.
Among opponents, an over-
whelming 'no' — 35 percent —
comes from those who believe it
will threaten the environment. Six
percent oppose more drilling be-
cause they consider the oil plat-
forms "an eyesore." And 10 percent
of those polled want to shut down
wells already in operation.
Those in favor tend to see dril.
ling more as a way to increase
American independence from for.
eign oil (20 percent) than because it
will create jobs and help the econo-
my (15 percent).
"It'll just spoil our beaches. The
coast is part of our heritage," 74-
year-old native Californian Henry
Pimentel said.
Which comes closest to your
view on expanding offshore oil
drilling along the California
coast? _
Favor ....................................
35DS
For America's energy
independence
20%
.....................
For jobs and money............
15%
Oppose ................................
Environmental threat ..........
3500
Platforms an eyesore..........
6110
Remove all wells .................
101S
Don't care ................................
5413
Don't know ...............................
8?'0
Pimentel, a Hayward resident
and one of the 1,400 Californians
polled by Teichner, said, "I bate to
see the coast, the fish and the birds
be destroyed."
Sue Young of Novato, a Califor-
nian for 40 years, favored more de-
velopment. "It's rather selfish, 1
suppose. If we could keep from im•
porting oil, it could not only help
our economy but also lower the
price of gasoline."
In the poll, San Francisco was
the state's bastion of anti -oil drilling
sentiment, with 67 percent against
and 15 percent for it.
The strongest showing for more
exploration and development came
from Orange County, with 43 per-
-See POLL. B-9
cent in favor and 51 percent op-
posed.
In Santa Barbara, wbere Callfor-
nia's offshore drilling began at the
turn of the century, 53 percent op-
posed more rigs compared to 33
percent who favored them. That
Split was similar to the one found in
Los Angeles and the rest of the
state.
California is the fourth -largest
oil -producing state. But controver-
sy has been high here in the last
year because in February the Inte-
rior Department wants to sell leases
on as much as 1 million acres off
Mendocino and Humboldt counties.
It would be the first chunk of a
flveyear effort to increase energy
development along the coast.
Stephen Teichner, of Teichner
Associates of Fullerton, said that
three years ago when he polled peo-
ple about more offshore oil devel-
opment, he found the state "fairly
evenly split" and a greater percent
of people who did not care.
It seemed to be an issue defined
more by where you lived linked to
what you thought about it," he said.
Coastal dwellers tended to oppose it
and inland dwellers to be for it.
"We don't find that going on any-
more."
Democrats strongly opposed
drilling, and Republicans were split
with the opponents edging ahead.
People aged 18 and 24 were 46
percent against, 42 in favor. Teich-
ner said, "The environmentalists
are losing the young."
.hfore men than women favored
oil development, and people who
described themselves as liberals
heavily opposed drilling while peo-
ple who identified themselves as
conservatives supported It.
Vice President Bush had the
largest pro -drilling following: 50
percent in favor and 40 percent op-
posed. Sen. Bob Dole's followers
were 47 to 41 percent.
People who said they would vote
for Jesse Jackson and Gov. Michael
Dukakis heavily opposed oil devcl.
opment. Albert Gore's followers
were next in opposition, while Rep.
Richard Gephardt's supporters
were equally split for and against.
Teichner said he forms his ques-
tions by taking the arguments that
both sides put forward.
Nearly 1,400 registered voters
were polled March 9.12 by calling
random phone numbers through.
out the state. The poll represents
proportionately all geographic and
pb!:,.iral are.^." of
JO
AffOCINTI
600 Louth Commonwealth Nv*nu* .Nit* 1000 - lot Rng*I*i- California - 90005.213/385-1000
April 8, 1988
Dr. Lisle Reed
Regional Director
Minerals Management Service
Pacific OCS Region
1340 West 6th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
RE: Public Hearings an Lease Sale 95
Dear Dr. Reed:
As a representative of the Executive Committee of the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), I am writing to request
that the upcoming Lease Sale 95 public hearings be held in those
locations most accessible to the public, and during evening/weekend
hours.
The Lease Sale 95 public hearings will provide most Southern
Californians with their only opportunity to voice concerns and opi-
nions about the potential impacts of development resulting from the
lease sale. All potentially impacted individuals, communities, organ-
izations, and governments should be encouraged to participate. Their
attendance and input can be assured only if the hearings are held in
areas which are easily accessible by all who wish to attend.
On behalf of the Executive Committee of SCAG, I hereby request that
the Lease Sale 95 public hearings be held in the five locations which
best fit this criterion: San Luis Obispo; Santa Barbara; Santa
Monica; Newport Beach or Laguna Beach; and San Diego. I am deeply
concerned about this important aspect of the Lease Sale 95
environmental review process, and look forward to soon receiving your
written response to my request.
SCAG would be happy to assist the Minerals Management Service in
finding suitable facilities for the hearings to be held in Santa
I
Monica and Newport Beach or Laguna Beach. Please contact Catherine
Tyrrell, SCAG's Energy Program Manager, at (213) 739-6748 in this
regard, or if you have any questions concerning this letter.
Sincerely,
►tin to
Don R. Griffin
SCAG President and Councilmember,
City of Buena Park
cc: Senator Alan Cranston
Senator Pete Wilson
Representative Mel Levine
q.1.�N [.YIOIW
Y,O.I�p..M.rl�l
600 Louth CowwonuNolth 8v9nue . Julte 1000. Lot HnyeNi. Collrornio . 90005.213/385-1000
OCS Lease Sale #95
Southern California
Areas Proposed For Leasing
---- State Waters Boundary
Schedule
Nov.1988 - Draft EIS
Dec.1988 - DEIS Hearing
Jan.1989 - Deadline for DEIS Comments
July 1989 - Final EIS
Aug.1989 - Proposed Notice of Sale
Oct.1989 - Governor's Comments Due
Dec.1989 - Notice of Sale
Jan. 1990 -Sale
Monterey
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara Co,
SanlaBarbara Ventura
•
F, \ Ventura Los Angeles
Charnel islands
7La Una Beach
00
ceanside
` San Diego Co.
_ San Diego
MEXICO
0 25 50 A�
N
miles
6—Tuesday, April 5, 1988, Santa Maria Times n a
a•qewNCam; x f' '
spills triggers warning.
WASHINGTON — Federal en-
vironmental • officials have told -
the Interior Department to. cut
back its plan to develop oil and
gas off the Northern California
coast or risk large oil spills that
could damage the environmental-
ly sensitive Farallon Islands and
Point Reyes National Seashore.
Specifically, 'he officials have
recommended that the Interior
Department consider deleting
any tracts off the coast off'south-
ern Mendocino County from de-
velopment.
In addition, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency — in
its first official comments on the
environmental effects of the off-
shore proposal — criticizes the
Interior Department for not ex-
amining the threat of small oil
spills of less than 1,000 barrels.
And the EPA criticizes Interior
for not adequately addressing
how difficult it is to clean up oil
spills in the rough seas off the
Northern California coast.
The EPA review concluded
that "there are significant envi-
ronmental risks associated with a
possible oil spill, particularly one
originating" off the coast of
southern Mendocino County. At
risk, it said, are the northern
coast's "diverse, biologically pro-
ductive areas."
The EPA was commenting on
Interior Secretary Donald Hod-
el's plan to develop oil and gas on
1.1 million acres off the coast of
Mendocino and Humboldt coun-
ties.
A report issued in December
by the Interior Department says
that as much as 790 million
barrels of oil — requiring as
`It certainly ap-
pears the Interior
Department has
gotten caught
red-handed...'
Richard Charter
oil opponent
many as 22 drilling platforms —
might be found off the North
Coast.
The EPA's comments are par-
ticularly important because the
agency has specific responsibility
under federal law to review and
approve such ernp=ls.
The Farallon Islands, about 30
miles off the coast of :+Sarin
County, are part of the 100-acre
Farallon Islands National Wild-
life Refuge. The islands are con-
sidered the most important sea-
bird nesting site on the California
coast.
More than 15 percent of Califor-
nia's different plants are found
along the Point Reyes National
Seashore, and an estimated 360
different birds have been ob.
served there, according to the
resource guide.
In a March 18 letter to the
Minerals Management Service,
Richard Sanderson, director of
EPA's Office of Federal Activi-
ties, also suggested the service
consider a "buffer zone" along
portions of the coast to protect
other sensitive areas in Mendoci-
no County, including the Noyo.
Albion and Navarro rivers and
Point Arena.
"It certainly appears the Inte:
rior Department has gotten
caught red-handed by ignoring
scientifically verifiable environ-
mental concerns," said Richard
Charter, an opponent of offshore
oil development who lobbies for
California coastal communities.
"We've been saying for years
that this is a sensitive area that
deserved special protection and,
in some cases, no leasing at all."
Officials with the Interior De-
partment's Minerals Manage-
ment Service, which drafted the
study, said on Monday that they
were not ready to comment.
Barbara News -Press, Sunday, April 24,1988
ers seek oil drilling delay
Letts Tayler
es News Sarvlp
WASHINGTON — A group of
California lawmakers is poised to
demand a one-year delay on the
Interior Department's controver-
sial plan io open the North Coast
0 offshore oil drilling.
The lawmakers are drafting a
letter urging the House pane. that
,c,contrMs 'Interior Department
funding to block the North Coast'
(leasing plan until at least Febru-
ary 1990. That is one year after the
,lease sales to petroleum compa-
nies are scheduled to begin —and
well Into the term of a new presi-
dent who may be lets favorable to
large -Scale leasing.
Details of the letter are still
'being worked out However, the.
thrust is expected to be almost
identical to that contained in- a
first draft of the letter written by
Rep. Leon Panetta, D-Monterey.
That draft says- Congress will'
need "at least a year" to address
"critical gaps" in the Interior's
(current North Coast leasing plan,
which would allow oil companies
to bid on leases for about 1 million
acres off Mendocino and Hum -
The Interior falls short on issues
eluding "protection of air and
ater quality, consideration of the
weds of the fishing Industry, oil
lilt prevention and cleanup and
ishore development," the draft
tter says. ,
Panetta's letter is being passed
round to members of California's'
mpressional delegation who tra-
Letter will urge lease sales be stalled 1 year
The draft letter
says Congress will
need `at least a
year' to address
`critical gaps' in
the Interior's
current North
Coast leasing plan.
dittonally have opposed large-
scale leasing, most of them Demo-
crats. Rep. Doug Bosco, the Occi-
dental Democrat whose district
Includes portions of the North
Coast, has already signed his
name to the letter. Other lawmak-
ers including Reps. Barbara
Boxer, D-Greenbrae, and Nancy
Pelost, D-San Francisco, are still
studylgg the letter but are expect-
ed -to join the bandwagon, accord-
ing to aides.
A final version of the letter is ex-
pected to be in the hands of the
House Appropriations Subcom-
mittee on Interior by the erd of
the month. The panel will hold
further hearings on the offshore'
oil issue In the coming weeks and
is -expected to draw up the Interi-
or Department's fiscal 1989 budget
In May.
The letter wit. be sent to Rep.
Sidney Yates, the Illinois Demo-
crat who chairs the Interior sub-
committee. In the past, Yates has
persuaded his panel to impose
moratoria on lease sales off Cali-
fornia because of similar environ-
mental concerns. The latest ban
expires In February.
Yates "is aware of the letter"
and "is certainly listening to the
concerns of the California delega-
tion," said his spokeswoman Mary
Bain: But she added that be
"hasn't come to any conclusion
yet" on whether he would support
anew moratorium. ,
Panetta's draft letter stops short
of calling for a permanent bnn on
lease sales off the North Coast or
elsewhere in California — a no-
tion that most Democrats in the
state's congressional delegation
believe is politically impossible.
The draft letter cites several
concerns over the North Coast
lease sale, including:
■ Interior Initially estimated that
two North Coast lease sales -would
result in only two oil production
platforms. But Its draft environ-
mental impact statement (DEIS)
on the leasing estimates that up to
21 platforms could be built for just
one lease sale.
18 "Critical gaps" have been found
in the DEIS. For instance, the
draft statement says a "precise de-
termination" of whether offshore
oil rigs would pollute coastal
towns "is not possible because of
the lack of site specific informa-
tion." In addition, Interior says it
wont be able to finish a study on
possible oil spilt patterns off the
rough North Coast until after the
lease sales are slated to begin in
February.
■An Environmental Protection
Agency review of the impact state-
ment says Interior failed to pro-
vide certain information needed
to evaluate the environmental
risks of drilling discharges, tended
to underestimate the "overall im-
pact of a potential oil spill" and
"does not adequately discuss the
capability of oil spill cleanup in
California."
The draft letter also accuses In-
terior of trying to "split the state's
congressional delegation along re-
gional lines" by revealing last
month that it plans to delay cen-
tral and southern California lease
sales by several months, but pro-
ceed full speed ahead with leasing
off the North Coast
Critics of that announcement
have also charged that Interior's
goal was to delay hearings on cen-
tral and southern California leas-
ing until after the November elec-
tions, because a growing number
of the. state's Republican voters
are questioning the need for large-
scale oil drilling off their shores.
S.B. Nevis -Press Pf,� 0 413�4
Is tto r
By Chuck Schultz
News•Press Stott Writer
The slate Department of Trans-
portation has backpedaled some-
what in reviewing a proposed
t pipeline that would carry oil
pumped offshore from Santa Bar-
bara County and in Kern County
fields to refineries in the Los An-
geles area.
Itut there is disagreement on
what effect the retraction by the
state agency will have, with some
contending it effectively halts the
project and others saying it's a
"technical" change of little collse-
i n er ft, for . po peg i no
quence.
The planned 135-mile Angeles
pipeline would carry up to 330,000
barrels of crude oil daily from Enl-
idio in southern Bern County to'
refineries near Los Angeles ifar-
bor. As much as 60 percent of that
oil would be from offshore fields
in the Santa Maria Basin. (That oil
would first be transported from
the coast to Emidio through the
existing Celeron-All American
pipeline.)
The Angeles. pipeline is being
proposed by Southern California
Pipeline System, a consortium of
oil companies including Chevron,
Texaco and Shell Oil Co. ARCO
was also originally a partner, but
withdrew from the project in De-
cember.
Anthony J. Ituffolo, a Caltrans
attorney in :.os Angeles, Thursday
said the department's decision
last week to rescind a "notice of
determination' issued in Septem-
her for the pipeline project will
have little effect. "It does not stop
the project," lie said.
Caltrans officials decided to res-
cind the notice because it "was
premature" and should not have
been issued until encroachment
permits —allowing the pipeline to
cross or parallel state highways —
are approved by the department.
Rutrolo explained.
However, Ruffolo said rescind-
ing the notice will forestall law-
suits filed against the project in
October by the cities of Los Ange-
les, Burbank and Glendale, the
Metropolitan Water District and
the privately owned Tejon Itanch,
which is along the pipeline route.
"The thrust of the lattsuits was
that" an environmental impact re•
port IEIRI prepared on the project
uas inadequate, Huffolo said.
"Now what were saying is the no.
lice of determination (cerliQing
the Flit) was Issued too soon ...
and Ihercfnre the lawsuits uere
(also) premature."
Rescinding the notice will `not
in any way" block the project but
uill delay the lawsuits, according
to Ronald Van Buskirk, a San
Francico lawyer representing the
pipeline companies. "what they
(Caltrans) did Is essentially ... a
technical thing and has nothing to
do with the menu of the project
or the merits of the EIJI.- Van
Huskirk said.'•1 gums the rontro.
vvrsy over whether the Fill is adr.
quite or not is just left far another
day."
However. James ltahn, tas An.
. geles City Attorney, said Wcdnes-
day the Feb. 26 action by Caltrans
"effectively halts this project until
further study can be gisen to the
environmental impact it would
cause."
Mahn and other opponents of
the project claim the proposed
pipeline route is dangerous be.
cause it crosses earthquake faults
and they contend the potential en.
vironmental -consequences base
not been Hilly analyzed.
The pipeline route could rough.
ly parallel interstate 5 from Kern
County to the Valencia -Newhall
area. enter the San Fernando Val•
ley near Sylmar. then pass through
sections of Los Angeles. Burbank.
Glendale and eight other common.
itics.
%A 0=3 1 1488
:GuarMA ma Our Coast
. California,has won two significant court victories
in recent weeks that should send a strong signal to
federal authorities. Californians must have a major
'role in determining the conditions for oil and gas
company operations in federal offshore waters.
In the first case, a federal judge enjoined the U.S.
Department of Commerce from its attempt to deny
the California Coastal Commission federal funds
for. ongoing implementation of the coastal -zone
management plan. U.S. District Judge Eugene F.
Lynch said the Commerce Department and its
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
were wrong to challenge state controls over
Offshore oil operations. Lynch wrote that Congress
-clearly did not confer on NOAA "the. ability to
manipulate the coastal policy of the states."
The federal law was designed to encourage and
help states in planning strong coastal protection,
,not to punish them for it: But punishment is what
;the Interior and Commerce officials sought, be-.
cause they did not like the stringent safeguards
'California wanted for its coastline..
The second case, brought by the. industry,
challenged the legal standing of California cities
and counties to impose conditions on onshore
activities' associated with offshore drilling and
Production. U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Mar-
shall dismissed most of the claims by the Western
Qil & Gas Assn. against 13 cities and counties. The
industry group contended that the local ordinances
attempting to control oil and gas operations would
qreate a wall from,,Memko to Oregon against the
development of oil in the outer Continental shelf.
Judge Marshall ruled that while local regulations
might mean added inconvenience and expense for
the Industry, they did not make it impossible to
operate.
The federal government has. exclusive authority
to grant oil and gas leases beyond the three-mile
limit of state control, but offshore oil and gas
activities are not confined to the ocean depths.
Pipelines must be built. There must be storage
tanks and processing plants. Support services are
based on shore. All of these operations can
dramatically affect the coastal area, which is .
under the land -use control of state and' local
government
The idea of a , wall against offshore oil was
debunked just two months ago when Exxon won
approval for its $2.5-billion Santa Ynez project
after working out a compromise with Santa
Barbara area officials.
The California coast is a special resource with
special meaning to Californians. This is a concept
that the Reagan Administration seems never to
understand. Thus, the Administration has joined
with thi industry in a campaign to bulldoze over,
through and around state and local government
control. These t.„o rourt cases, Along with earlier
precedents, shculd•demo"ai:,at" that such a strate-
gy is doomer.. If the Administration ;rants to have
any offshore oil program in California, the best
way —perhaps the only way —is through negotia-
tion arrd cooperation with Californians.
B.B. zews-Press APR 2 71988
O'hall spill estimate
boosted eight -fold
AuaelUM Prot
MARTINEZ — The Shell Oil Co.
on Tuesday increased its estimate
of the magnitude of the oil spill
from 21,000 gallons to 175,000 gal-
lons, company officials said.
The eight -fold increase in the
oil spilt came as scores of workers
toiled to rescue waterfowl and
other wildlife, and the state Water
Quality Control Board announced
it could cost Shell at least $1 mil-
lion for the cleanup alone.
The Water Quality Control
Board made its cleanup estimate
before an afternoon news confer-
ence where a Shell official an-
nounced the increased oil spilt.
The Audubon Society and biolo-
gists
ens of birds and other deaths do
z-
ens as
well as the threat to eggs in nests
in the soiled marshes oozing with
thick, black crude. They said a dab
of oil on an egg can kill the chick
inside.
"Now we're looking at a dead
marsh," said Neal Welsh, an offi-
cer of the Audubon Society, look-
ing at the dirtied marsh flanking
Peyton Slough. "Don't get your
hopes up for the next few dec-
ades."
Thp area, so rich with fowl that
the society gathers here every
year for bird watching and counts.
is the most prized wetland of
Northern California. The oil hit
the marshes Saturday after leak-
ing from a Shell holding tank, the
company has acknowledged.
The cleanup estimate does not
include probable penalties and
other items, including damage to
boat bottoms caught in the Satur-
day spill of thick San Joaquin
County crude, said Larry Kolb, the
regional board's assistant execu-
tive officer.
Overnight, said the Coast Guard.
the spill, propelled by wind and ti-
dal currents. sent a slick west
through the Carquinez Strait into
San Pablo Bay. Easterly, the spill
extents roughly 10 miles to Byer
Island.
The marshes, 35 to 40 miles
northeast of San Francisco, are
home to dozens of species of water
and shore bids and small crea-
tures, including egrets, avocets,
grebes, sandpipers, ducks, herons,
teals, the endangered clapper rail
bird and salt marsh harvest
mouse, tortoises, muskrats and
otters.
State Department of Fish and
Game official Brian Hunter said
about 200 soiled but living birds
have been collected for treatment,
and some 75 birds have been
found dead.
There could be years of damage
to the oiled stretch of salty
marshes, a major stopover along
the migratory bid route that ex-
tends virtually the length of Cali-
fornia, said Kolb.
"It's very likely that the cost to
Shell for the cleanup is going to
far exceed the penalties," said
Kolb. "It is conceivable that the
cleanup effort that Shell is under-
taking could cost the company in
excess of $1 million, based on our
experience with other spills," he
said.
Under state law, • Shell could
face a $10 •a gallon fine — and
more if the state attorney kener-
al's office files a successful law-
suit.
Kolb said he had changed his
mind about a statement he made
Monday night that the oil spill into
Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay
may have been leaking for 12
hours.
"I got that from one of our field
people," said Kolb, adding that
the estimate had to be spiked be-
cause it wasn't possible to know at
this time how long the oil was
coming from a damaged drain on a
tank.
/ ECE11V"ED)
MAY 16 1988 �-
M ow, r"
Orange County
Lease Sale 95
Video Script
SFX -- SURF AND PEOPLE PLAYING IN IT
FADE IN -- PEOPLE AT THE BEACH
NARRATOR (V/0)
The Orange County Coast.
LONG SHOT -- SUNBATHERS AT THE BEACH
NARRATOR (V/0)
People come here from all over
the county, the state, the nation,
and even the world to enjoy our
sunshine . . .
LONG SHOT --'SURFERS WAITING OUT WAVES
CLOSER SHOT -- SURFER RIDING IN
NARRATOR (V/0)
. . . our surf . . .
NEWPORT HARBOR
SAILBOAT UNDER SAIL
NARRATOR (V/0)
. . . our sailing . . .
CHARTER FISHING BOAT UNDERWAY
PEOPLE FISHING FROM PIER
HAPPY FISHERMAN WITH CATCH
NARRATOR (V/0)
. our fishing . . .
SURF CRASHING AT ROCKY SHORE LIKE PELICAN POINT
NARRATOR (V/0)
. and our great natural beauty.
MORE SURF
showing birds flying past
BIRDS AT REST IN QUIET WATER
BIRDS AT REST ON ROCKY SHORE
TIDEPOOLS AT LAGUNA BEACH
NARRATOR (V/0)
Now the federal government wants to
add something else to our coast . . .
CLOSE SHOT -- LETTERS TO M.M.S.
t CLOSE SHOT -- OIL PLATFORM FROM THE AIR
NARRATOR (V/0)
Oil drilling.
LONG SHOT -- PLATFORMS WITH SHORE IN BACKGROUND
NARRATOR (V/0)
Recently the federal Department of
the Interior announced plans to allow
drilling for -.oil and gas in the waters
three miles off our beaches -- what they
call the outer continental shelf or O.C.S.
CLOSE SHOT -- FIVE—YEAR PLAN SCHEDULE
NARRATOR (V/0)
The plan calls for two auctions of
oil drilling rights -- lease sales --
on the Southern California O.C.S.
SCHEDULE, WITH LEASE SALE 95 HIGHLIGHTED
NARRATOR (V/0)
The first -- called Lease Sale 95 --
is to be held in January of 1990.
SCHEDULE, WITH LEASE SALE 138 HIGHLIGHTED AS WELL
NARRATOR (V/0)
The second -- Lease Sale 138 -- is
set for 1992.
MAP OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LEASING AREA
showing areas to be offered in Lease Sale 95
NARRATOR (V/0)
This is the area to be opened up for
drilling in Lease Sale 95.
CLOSER SHOT OF MAP
showing area off Orange County
NARRATOR (IV/0)
Almost all the O.C.S. near the Orange
County coast is being offered--f-or-- —
drilling, from Huntington Beach, past
Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, to San
Clemente and out past Catalina Island.
thous Q41
abo La a (Vu' u2s
NAHKRIUK W/UJ
The County and the coastal cities
asked the federal government to
creat a buffer off the coast to
protect our resources from the
possibility of oil spills. The
State of California already has
declared most of the Orange County
coast an oil sanctuary, banning any
drilling in waters under the State's
control: But the federal government has
declined to go along.
DRILL SHIP, JACK -UP, OR SEMI -SUBMERSIBLE
DRILLING CREW WORKING
NARRATOR (V/0)
This means that drilling coul.d
start as soon as 1990 as close as
three miles offshore.
MEDIUM SHOT =- PLATFORM OFF HUNTINGTON BEACH
pulling back to reveal that the shot is taken from the beach
NARRATOR
These platforms
seven miles off
(V/O)
are located about
Huntington Beach.
PLATFORMS OFF CARPINTERIA
NARRATOR (V/0)
These are about three miles off
Carpinteria near Santa Barbara.
That's how close new platforms
could be to our beaches by the
mid 19901s. And for 20 years or
more thereafter.
AERIAL SHOT OF BEACHES AND SHORELINE PARKS
ON -SHORE TREATMENT FACILITY NEAR SANTA BARBARA
NARRATOR (V/0)
And if there is drilling for
oil, there will need to be somewhere
to bring it ashore, like these plants
on the coast near Santa Barbara. Some
people are concerned about what this
kind of industrialization will mean
to our coast . . --- -- - -
PLATFORMS
NARRATOR (V/0)
about losing the pristine
ocean views we enjoy . . .
CROWDED FREEWAY
NARRATOR (V/0)
. . . about adding more pollutants
ft
to our already substandard air.
According to the federal government
each oil platform will produce
hundreds of tons of nitrogen oxides, sulfur
oxides, and carbon monoxide every year.
That could mean restrictions on shore.
PLATFORM
CLOSE SHOT -- PIPES ON PLATFORM DUMPING INTO WATER
NARRATOR (V/0)
Each platform produces millions of
gallons of liquid wastes, too,
including chemicals and sewage.
All of 'that is dumped into the water.
OIL SPILL (STOCK)
NARRATOR (V/0)
And of course there's the risk of
oil spills.
OIL ON BEACH (STOCK)
OIL ON PLEASURE BOATS (STOCK)
CLOSED SIGN IN SHOP DOOR
WORKERS
NARRATOR (V/0)
That can mean closed beaches,
closed harbors, and lost customers.
NARRATOR (V/0)
Some people argue that all the activity
from oil drilling off Orange County
would be good, that it would mean
more jobs for the area, and more
economic growth.
PLATFORM
showing workers
NARRATOR (V/0)
There may be a few jobs, but - - -- -
most of the workers on the
platforms come from Texas and
Louisiana.
SHIPYARD (STOCK)
NARRATOR (V/0)
And most of the platforms on the
west coast are built in Korea
or elsewhere in the Orient.
DORY FLEET ON THE BEACH AT NEWPORT BEACH
NARRATOR (V/0)
While we may get a few oil —related
jobs in Orange County, we might
lose some, too. Oil drilling has
been shown to harm fish, and that could
hurt the fishing industry.
PLATFORM
NARRATOR (V/0)
Drilling vessels and platforms make
fishing harder, too, by closing off
important areas to fishing boats.
And they create invisible snags on the
ocean floor that catch and destroy
fishing equipment.
SHORE BIRDS RUNNING ALONG BEACH.
NARRATOR (V/0)
Wildlife can be hurt, too.
OILED BIRDS (STOCK)
NARRATOR (V/0)
The victims we usually see are birds.
OILED ROCKY SHORE (STOCK)
NARRATOR (V/0)
` But just as important are victims we
have to look closer to see, like the
many tiny animals and plants that
live on the rocks of our coast . . .
OILED BEACH (STOCK)
NARRATOR (V/0)
. . . in the sand . . .
OILED MARSH (STOCK)
NARRATOR (,V/0)
. and in the wetlands. And the
most important wild-life-1-osses- of - — all are the habitats lost in oil
spills, that scientists say could
take tens of years to recover from
an oil spill.
OILED BEACH (STOCK)
INT. -- WATERFRONT RESTAURANT
showing view of beach
NARRATOR (V/0)
Losses from offshore oil drilling
aren't just to animals, or just to
wildlife.
PEOPLE SUNBATHING ON BEACH
NARRATOR (V/0)
People can lose, too.
PEOPLE ON BEACH
pulling back to show platforms
NARRATOR (V/0)
The views from our beaches could
be hurt by oil platforms. Oil spills could
close popular beaches.
BUSY SHOPPINP AREA LIKE LAGUNA BEACH
NARRATOR (V/0)
Our coastal cities depend on tourism
for jobs and for taxes to pay for
city services.
PEOPLE UNLOADING TRUNK OF CAR AT -HOTEL
COUPLE WALKING ON BEACH
NARRATOR (V/0)
And tourism depends on a clean
environment.
PEOPLE ON BEACH
pulling back to wide ocean
NARRATOR (V/0)
An unspoiled environment.
HOTELS
RESTAURANTS
SHOPS
NARRATOR (V/0)
That's what we really sell here
on the Or-ange County—c-oas-t— --- — -
BEACH
NARRATOR (V/0)
What we depend on. What you depend on.
FACES IN THE CROWD
NARRATOR (V/0)
You have a voice in what happens to the
Orange County coast.
CAPITOL BUILDING -- WASHINGTON, DC
showing West front, dome
INT. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CHAMBER (STOCK)
showing House in session
NARRATOR (V/0)
Congress is considering whether to allow
offshore oil drilling in California.
INT. CONGRESSMAN'S OFFICE (STOCK)
showing staffer opening and reading mail
NARRATOR (V/0)
Your Congressman would like to hear what
you have to say about it. So would
Senator Cranston and Senator Wilson.
WHITE HOUSE -- WASHINGTON, DC
showing fountain, flowers
NARRATOR (V/0)
The President will decide whether to go
ahead with Lease Sale 95'as scheduled, or
to cancel or delay the sale.
MEDIUM SHOT -- GEORGE BUSH (STOCK)
MEDIUM SHOT -- MIKE DUKAKIS (STOCK)
NARRATOR (V/0)
One of these men will have to make
that decision early next year.
CLOSER SHOT -- POLITICIAN TALKING ONE—ON—ONE WITH CITIZEN
NARRATOR (V/0)
You can let them know what you want.
A few people may get a chance to talk
to them. Just as important are letters
telling them just how you feel about
oil drilling off Orange County.
EXT. SIGN SAYING "DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR"
EXT. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUILDING
NARRATOR (V/0)
And you can tell the Department of the
Interior what you think.
INT. LEASE SALE 91 HEARINGS (STOCK)
NARRATOR (V/0)
They will hold public hearings on
Lease Sale 95 soon.
WITNESS
We don't want oil on our beaches
Cor whatever7.
NARRATOR (V/0)
The hearings are going to be held
on at . You can testify
in person or you can send you written
comments. -The Department of the Interior
is required by law to consider what you
have to say. You can make a difference.
For more information, contact
FAMILY ON BEACH AT SUNSET
SFX -- SURF
FADE OUT
r
DATE: May 12, 1988
f
MEMORANDUM I
C( -
TO: Jim Palin, Huntington Beach
Bob Wynn, Newport Peach
Jim Hendrickson, San Clemente
Patrick Lee, Orange County d1NA
Cathy Tyrrell, SCAG
FROM:Richard Tinney, Richard T. Tinny & Assoc.
Kenneth Frank, Laguna Beach
SUBJECT: RECAP OF MEETING HELD IN MAY 61 1988
RECEIVED '
MAY 171988m-
Oity.Manager
City of Newoorm Beach ^
'This meeting was attended by Greg Hulsizer of San Clemente, Susan Hunt of
Huntington Beach, Pat Temple of Newport Beach, Ken Frank and Carolyn (Thompson)
Solomon of Laguna Beach, Cathy Tyrell and Cindy Jacobs of SCAG, and Richard
Tinney, Jim Crowell and Renata Hageman of Richard T. Tinny & Associates.
Jim Crowell distributed copies of the revised Oil Volumes Report, noting that a
methodological error in the first draft was pointed out by SCAG, correction of
which resulted in a revised estimate of oil available: a little less than four
days' worth rather than a little more than three days' worth. Any comments on
this final draft should be sent to RT&A. by May 20.
No re -drafted issue papers were distributed except the Socio-Econonic Effects
report. C mmments on this paper should be sent to RSA by May 20.
SCAG representatives advised that "Coalition 95," the, group of elected officials
organized to oppose offshore drilling, has 35 members presently, but no Orange
County Supervisors are yet involved. The next meeting of the Coalition 95 will
be May 13.
Renata Hageman reported on the mechanics and preliminary results of the beach
survey. A total of 301 adults responded to the survey. A question was raised
regarding %tether or not the sample included hotel and restaurant users as well
as "brown -baggers" on the beach. It was agreed that the survey tean will survey
the guests at two or three of the large hotels along the south coast. Ken Frank
agreed to contact the hotel people first to find out what form of contacting
guests would be acceptable and perhaps induce than to provide an incentive to
respond, such as a free drink.
Discussion took place regarding possible reasons for and effects of the delay in
the EIR release date, which is being postponed until after the election. In
effect, the delay means that
- the one -month review period will include holidays
- the process was taken out of this fiscal year
- DOI is taking a more systematic, aggressive effort to push through the
drilling program, trying to isolate California by making deals with
Florida and possibly Washington State
(over)
- presidential politics are involved, since George Bush is not doing well
in Florida and California, and he opposes the current moratorium on lease
sales.
RT&A pledged to stretch their activities on behalf of the grant group to cover
the time extension. They want now to work more closely and aggressively with
DOI and Congressional staff on all this. RZA advise reinforcing efforts to
influence these people with technical reports and contacts. The upcoming
hearings are DOI's Achilles' heel and m should be armed with data at that time.
lobbying efforts by elected officials need to begin soon; it may be time to get
the elected officials of the four grant cities together to show them the results
of the work products and the knowledge gained.
Ken Frank expressed frustration that the grant group is not getting enough
answers or direction from RT&A regarding where we are going and what we should
be doing. He wants reports to be delivered on time and agendas to be followed,
and information on key people to talk to and when. Jim Crowell suggested
supplying "hotline" reports and integrated reports to the grant agencies. He
will begin sending than by June 3. He assured that the information is being
gathered and that work is on schedule.
Pat Temple suggested the Congressional primaries and candidates as opportunities
to use our material and get soae"comnitnents on record.
It was agreed that issues should be well defined and available to elected
officials by the last week of June at a two to three hour buffet dinner with
briefing to be held Thursday, June 16 and organized by RT&A. RT&A will dis-
tribute issue papers and make a visual presentation with charts to brirg them up
to speed on what has occurred, brief them on the next six months, define their
part in the process, and get their input. Each representative will let his/her
respective. City Manager know about this meeting. It will be held somewhere in
Newport Beach, will be charged to the grant, and will probably be attended by 12
to 16 people from the cities plus RT&A representatives and any (bngress members
and candidates who can be persuaded to cane. The agenda should, in general, be
A. OCS issues and specifics of Lease Sale 95
B. Scope of work of RT&A's contract
C. Progress report
what we have done
what we know
what is left to do
D. Suggestions for involvement by elected officials
E. Questions
F. Dinner
G. %ere do we go from here
There will be a dry run with agency .,;representatives.and ,RT&A on the mornirg..of
June 16-ats9:00-.a::mrvat-NewportZeach-City �Hall.
cc: Carolyn (Thompson) Solomon, Sr. Administrative Assistant
Monthly Report
Report No.: 05
Period of Performance: April 1, 1988 to April 30, 1988
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Objective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service
Task Status:
Report Overview:
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during April 1988.
During this month, RT&A made progress in all task areas. Work
continued on the identification and collection of pertinent
documents and the beach survey was conducted. The Lease Sale 95
schedule was changed in April, as reported earlier, and the DEIS,
FEIS, and sale have been delayed.
1.0 Program Management and Support
RT&A managers continued the project management function as well
as project administration. The monthly report on project
activities in March was provided to the project sponsors.
2.0 Technical Analysis and Review
During April, significant activity took place in this task area.
Information gathering and evaluation continued in the various
task areas. RT&A now has all task areas underway as described
below.
Oil and Gas Volumes
An initial draft of the oil and gas volumes report was provided
to the program sponsors at the February 24 meeting. Comments
were to be submitted to-RT&A-by the -end of March. Comments were
received from Ken Frank (Laguna Beach) and Kathy Tyrrell and
Cindy Jacobs (SCAG). As a result of these comments the report
was substantially revised and a new draft was to be submitted -to
the sponsoring jurisdictions at the May 6 meeting.
Geological Hazards and Constraints
We have entered into an'agreement with the firm of Wilson Zublin,
Inc. of Bakersfield for the assessment of the geological hazards
and constraints of Lease Sale 95 in the Orange County area.
Wilson Zublin is a woman -owned firm devoted to geotechnical and
environmental projects. They have done substantial work in the
area of site evaluation and geological services for a variety of
oil industry and engineering clients. We will be working with
Ms. Mary Jane Wilson, a petroleum engineer,•Ms. Susan Kiser, a
petroleum geologist, and others on this project. Information
gathering in this -area has begun and we plan to have a draft
report in this area in July.
Air Quality
RT&A is working with Alan Waltner of Gorman & Waltner on this
aspect of the project. We have been coordinating regarding the
requirements and institutional arrangements for the technical
report, and Mr. Waltner has been gathering necessary materials.
We expect a draft report in this area in August.
Socio-economics
During this period RT&A began the evaluation of the each surveys
regarding the effects of offshore development on the quality of
the beach experience. This effort produced preliminary results
showing that beach users would be willing to pay $.59 per visit
to maintain the present status and avoid further offshore
development. With the mean number of beach visits per year being
108, this amounts to a mean of $63.72 per person per year. This
is an excellent result. We also determined that each household
would be willing to pay an average of about $5.00 per year to
prevent more offshore development, regardless of amount of beach
use. We will be performing substantial evaluations of the
results of the study to product other figures regarding the
effects of offshore oil on beach recreation and tourism.
Biological Resources
During this month RT&A completed most of the task of identifying
significant biological resources -in the coastal zone and the
Orange County OS. RT&A gathered additional information on
biological effects and began drafting the report on this area.
Because of the complexity and 'breadth of this report, we do not
anticipate a draft rer�rr „nt;i-rrP enrT nf August.
Contingency Planning
RT&A has received oil spill contingency plans from the oil spill
cooperatives, industry, federal and state agencies, and Orange
County. In.this month we continued our examination of them and
have reached the conclusion that they generally are out of date
and incomplete regarding the economic and environmental resources
of value of the Orange County coast. Moreover, they generally
disregard technological advances in oil spill trajectory
prediction and are inadequate in terms'of the level 'of response
and preresponse stagi-ag for the adequate protection of the
coast. We will begin report preparation in May and anticipate.a
draft report in July.
Fisheries
RT&A has finalized the institutional arrangements with the
Coastal Fisheries Foundation this month. We expect substantial
progress on the fisheries data gathering in May and a draft
report by August. The fisheries personnel have been working
closely with the biological resources personnel in order to avoid
duplication of effort and unnecessary overlap.
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
RT&A maintained its contacts with public agencies and private
interest groups.
RT&A personnel attended a press conference held in the Dirksen
Senate Office Building kicking off the American Oceans Campaign.
Ted Donson of the Cheers television show was the principal focus
of the conference, speaking on his revulsion on learning that
certain Southern California ocean areas are unfit for swimming
and that shellfish from those areas are inedible. The American
Oceans Campaign is directed toward "getting the old ocean back"
via a national ocean conservation and protection policy. To this
end, they support a National Ocean Protection Commission, ocean
dumping legislation, and increased use of national marine
sanctuary designations. Also speaking were Senator Cranston
(D-CA), Senator Weicker (R-CT), Senator Graham (D-FL),
Representative Boxer (D-CA), Representative Bill Lowery (R-CA),
Representative Jean Panetta (D-CA), Representative Schneider
(R-RI), Representative Mike.Lowry (D-WA), and Representative
Saxton (R-NJ).
RT&A personnel also—me-t-with staff o-f-f-iz^ials—f-ronr -Oregon and
Washington regarding OCS development in those states. RT&A
learned that the Washington governor may be in the process of
cutting a deal wi-th the Department of the Interior, similar to
that reached with Florida, to remove Washington from the current
five year leasing plan. This would remove another plaintiff from
the pending law suit on the five year plan and further isolate
California.
Law Suit
Most of the oil industry case against local ordinances regulating
onshore support facilities for offshore oil operation was
rejected by Judge Consuello Marshall on April 25. She left open
the question of whether outright bans on such development
violates the commerce clause of the Constitution. Much of the
resolution of the case was based on procedural rather than
substantive grounds, but found that the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act do not'pre-empt the
local legislation.
4.0 Public Participation
RT&A continued its work on the educational video. The script was
approximately half written by the end of the month, and should be
completed by early June.
K.LVki& V T.LNNCI m hbAV�.1tll L'A
INVOICE #5
LABOR
RICHARD TINNEY ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.2
12
HOURS
720
TASK
2.3
35
HOURS
2100
TASK
2.4
3
HOURS
180
TASK
3.1
3
HOURS
180
TASK
4.1
13
HOURS
780 3960
DOUG CANETE
($60/HOUR)
TASK
2.3
-•16
HOURS
960
TASK
2.4
10
HOURS
600 1560
JAMES CROWELL ($60/HOUR)
TASK 1.3
5 HOURS
300
TASK 1.5
7 HOURS
420
TASK 2.�
4 HOURS
240
TASK 3.2
8 HOURS
480 1440
RENATTA HEGEMAN
($50/HOUR)
TASK 2.3
19 HOURS
950 950
RUTHANN CORWIN
($45/HRS)
TASK 2.3
54 HOURS
2430 2430
ALAN WALTNER ($100/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 2.25 HOURS 225 225
MAUREEN WITKOWSKI ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 11 HOURS 275 275
,
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 1280
MAIL & EXPRESS 84
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 143
TELEPHONE/TELEX 210
TOTAL CDC 1717
SUBTOTAL 12,557
FEE W 5% 627.85
TOTAL 13,184.85
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
DATE: May 16, ,1"8
04-01-88 to 04-30-88
P.O. No. 08384
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
June 2, 1988
Mr. Robert Wynn
City Manager
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. BOX 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(202) 379.1874
RECEIVED
JUN 71988►
City Manager
City of Nmvport Beach it
l
Enclosed is a draft strategy document describing the potential
strategies available to the Orange County jurisdictions for
affecting Lease Sale 95, and how the products being developed by
RT&A can be used to influence the leasing process. The purpose
of this document is to establish a basis for linking the contract
effort and deliverables with key action points.
Please review it and give us your comments.
Sincerely,
James J. Crowell
Vice President
Attachment
/pas
DRAFT
LEASE SALE 95
STRATEGY DOCUMENT
I a
0
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. BACKGROUND
SECTION II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOALS
OBJECTIVES
SELECTED STRATEGIES
SECTION III. PLAN AND SCHEDULE
FIGURES
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3. POTENTIAL PRODUCT USES
FIGURE 4. INTEGRATED ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
17mem
1
1
4
4
4
5
2
3
6
7
STRATEGY DOCUMENT
SECTION I. BACKGROUND
The Minerals Management Service, a unit of the Department of
the Interior, is planning to offer the Outer Continental Shelf
lands off the coast -of Southern California for leasing in Lease
Sale 95. The purpose of this lease sale is to comply with' the
OCS Lands Act Amendments (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), requirement
that the DOI plan for and conduct OCS lease sales.
As a result of this mandate, the MMS has selected the
Southern California planning area (see Figure 1) for lease sale
during 1990 to interested oil companies. Based on assessment of
geological formations and a variety of other exploratory
techniques, this planning area appears to hold some promise for
oil and natural gas development.
The process leading up to the ultimate sale of federal
government off -shore tracts for development is a series of
activities, taking approximately two years, that must be
completed by the MMS prior to any such offering to the public.
This process was Congressionally mandated in order to ensure that
the economic and environmental interests of communities affected
by any OCS development were protected and considered equally to
the nation's need for energy resources.
Specifically, the process established for OCS development is
illustrated in Figure 2.
SECTION II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
_-The following goal represents the intent of the sponsoring
jurisdictions with respect to Lease Sale 95 process.
-1-
r
..L!E
/✓ ■u uu•r
won
■. ds
ES2 9 Y c ■.■. A �
� .■on;
4N4G/f rih H � �.� 1.
pIAA�AA■■ng
VA■lP
FA
kyoiv
'. Ys'rLJi. /4 Y/ Zia
♦sN r &//
yg
H kBDik2� D4xa2D#SRF f;Y# l\
D##.O#Rbr �
v SY✓#kSDD/ i1S9 li
r7fikHYrO✓HD? D! s< � a\f !
�t�ah
.lD>/SO/ bHZ..,
r„ray A9.
�.SDiFS#'b.D//NSSE ##?k Hi yR
SpD#Z#LHfl6 FSL!#i#D RG
H"%t Y.
62bbD'kSDRFH #iG 'C DD � �/C•...
F2i45
BF41EH#RSWR #'b1/n♦<9�:g5b / ..� ✓k0
#.iSL3'S##GvkSSSS###Y.Hi s
"O�u�3/F�
.
#xEDisKfk#z8LSD0t#S#Aa GDR v y."
Ste': °-"za'f�G�
#'Iffit#ZY/SAQNikZ 2KZSSYSk\H/ -,
'/43[�Dii''S�HS#inz+fkriRl.'lfvi#
4£,
FSS IM:#%3ifk4Si3#S#R/Fax.
��
9##[fbiN8Sf9###RRE04/ e
.....y 4yF.
HNo
#h'9J9.#%9r14f3$26YYL@I 4�Nade r.
C F✓,x
R!
o
r Y
2?
HF-
y.
G
y rpR✓Ri'il#H/a
Fx
i All
a
Il■sleSwiSH e'
Ills■#H/F
Iss\sdD '6 ,
•.,
■ [JllltlRt�Lt
■ C7�sssR■1FliMpC
■ C9■llilS\9llSiaS -
s�[�lllflsl�ll"�r .
,. "�
FIGURE 2
�---NON-DOI �---- --- DOI
OTHER
FEDERAL FWS/NPS MMS SECRETARY
PUBLIC
NPUT
FEDERAL 4—
MONTER
I KRAL
'IIlGIETER
INPUT
INPUT
NOTICE OF
AVAILABILITY
IN FEDERAL
REGISTER
HEARINGS
NOTICE OF
AVAILANLITY
IN FEDERAL
REGISTER
NOTICE OF
AVAyNLIry
N FEDERAL
REGISTER
FEDERAL
REGISTER
NOU5 Or
S - YEAR
OCS OIL - AND - OAS LEASING SCHEDULE
INPUT
H APPROVE
Ll
OEOLOOY ANO
RESOURCE REPORT.
DEFINE AREA OF
HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL
REQUEST FOR INTEREST
vm n an. a..O
INPUT
46-DAY COMMENT
PERIOD
CALL FOR INFORMATION
AND NOMINATIONS
NOTICE OF INTENT TO
PREPARE EN
•
CALL CLOSES
-EVALUATE COMMENTS
-EVALUATE MULTIPLE USE.
IN EIS PROCESS
AREA IDENTIFICATION
SCOPNO PROCESS
DRAFT EIS
(Repbml Olike) a
60-DAY COMMENT
PERIOD
FINAL EIS
(ReOknal Office)
SECRETARIAL ISSUE DOCUMENT
TENTATIVE
BALE
DECISION
H APPROVE
PROPOSED NOTICE OF SALE a
PUBLISHED
GOVERNORS
GOVERNORS 60-GAY COMMENT
NOTICE
00 DAYS PRIOR TO SALE
PERIOD ON
B AJEC�...'O.NPROPOSED
MS.
ION.
OF SALE
H APPROVE
FINAL NOTICE OF SALE
BOB
PillSALE
_--_-REVKW
JUSTICE
FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION
IREVIEY/E
LTEDECISIONSuualANCELESSEE
gLEASEISSUANCE
aal
- 3 -
L
GOAL
To provide Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, San
Clemente, and Orange County with the maximum amount of impact on
Lease Sale 95 thereby ensuring mitigation of any negative
economic and/or environmental effects on these communities.
OBJECTIVES
The following objectives are alternative approaches to
meeting the goal stated above:
1. Cancellation of Lease Sale 95.
2. Deletion of areas and/or specific tracts of concern to
the sponsoring jurisdictions.
3. Stipulations in the leases issued as a result of Lease
Sale 95, based on technological or policy -induced
requirements.
3 4. Delay of the EIS process and/or Lease Sale 95
indefinitely.
These objectives have been developed to focus the efforts of
the sponsoring jurisdictions. They are not mutually exclusive of
one another. Therefore when we carry out an action to meet the
first objective, the efforts will also support the accomplishment
of the other three. In this fashion we will be obtaining maximum
impact for the resources utilized.
SELECTED STRATEGIES
Strategies have been selected that are common to meeting all
stated objectives and have been demonstrated to be successful in
the past. Those strategies are:
1: Demonstrate, —through the development of pertinent
technical documents, adverse economic and environmental
effects of OCS operations in the -targeted area, in
order to affect the EIS and lease sale process.
-4-
2. Increase public awareness, through informational media,
regarding the effects of OCS development on their
economy and environment.
3. Impact the Congressional appropriations process through
the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
4. Include riders in pending legislation, reflecting the
issues concerning OCS development in the Southern
California area.
SECTION III. PLAN AND SCHEDULE
The purpose of this section is to describe how RT&A products
can be utilized during the Lease Sale 95 process to implement the
selected strategies.
RT&A's products can be utilized in several ways. The first
is to scrutinize and where appropriate illustrate shortcomings in
the DEIS and FEIS. This will be based on the technical reports.
Through the video, the summary technical reports and the
workshops, RT&A intends to inform the public and elected
officials of the issues surrounding Lease Sale 95.
RT&A's products may also be used to carry out legislative
strategies, as well. Figure 3 depicts RT&A products and their
potential application to support the strategies. Figure 4,
Integrated Activity Schedule, depicts the chronology of RT&A's
products development relative to opportunities to.affect the
outcome of Lease Sale 95. Each opportunity is identified by its
-performing-organization.- — --
-5-
FIGURE 3
POTENTIAL PRODUCT USES
PRODUCT
Volumes Report
OCS Video
Technical Reports
Summary Technical Reports
Comments - DEIS
Comments - FEIS
Comments - PNS
APPLICATIONS
Public Awareness
Legislation
Public Awareness
Legislation
EIS/Lease Sale Process
Public Awareness
Legislation
Public Awareness
Legislation
EIS/Lease Sale Process
EIS/Lease Sale Process
EIS/Lease Sale Process
Comments - Section 19 EIS/Lease Sale Process
-6-
FIGURE 4
INTEGRATED ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
PRODUCTS/ACTIVITIES ORGANIZATION
1. Volumes Report RT&A
2. FY89 House Appropriations
Mark-up
3. OCS Video
4. FY89 Appropriation Bill
5., Technical Reports
6. Summary Technical Reports
7. DEIS Issued
8. Sponsor Workshops
9. DEIS Hearings
10. Comments, DEIS
11. FY90 Budget to Congress
12. FY90 House Appropriation
Hearing
13. FY90/FEIS Issued
14. Comments - FEIS
15. Proposed Notice of
Sale (PNS)
16. Comments - PNS
17. Comments - Section 19
18. Governors - Section
19 Due
19. Notice of Sale Issued
20. Lease Sale
Congress -Yates
RT&A
Congress -Yates
RT&A
RT&A
DOI/MMS
RT&A
DOI/MMS
RT&A
President
Congress -Yates
DOI/MMS
RT&A
DOI/MMS
RT&A
RT&A
STATE
- DOI/MMS
DOI/MMS
-7 -
0
8-88
9-88
10-88
10-88
11-88
12-88
12-88
12-88
1-89
4-89 &
5-89
8-89
8-89
9-89
9-89
10-89
12-89-
1-90
STUDY METHODOLOGY
4. STUDY METHODOLOGY
A. General Approach
As dictated by the request for proposal the project will
incorporate work in the following program areas:
o Program Management and Support
o Technical Review and Analysis
o Strategy Formulation and Coordination
o Public Participation
Given the level of resources available to the sponsoring
jurisdictions for thi5 project, it is apparent that a careful
balancing df the--four¢program areas will be necessary. RT&A
believes that special attention must be given to ensuring that
the last two areas of the program, Strategy Formulation and
Coordination, and Public Participation, receive sufficient
resources to effectively communicate and implement the results of
the Technical Review and Analysis. As such, the project will be
directed at development of a Coordination Program designed to
-- - -take--ma-ximum-advantage—of—the—r-esou-r-ces-of--each—of--the—sponso-r-i-ng----
jurisdictions, local and national public interest groups and
trade organizations, academic institutions, Congress, the State
government, and the Federal government.
Briefly, the proposed Coordination Program will be organized as
follows:
1) Identification of significant issues (i.e., those
impacting the sponsoring jurisdictions) within the context of
the milestones of the Lease Sale 95 process (e.g., the Notice
of Intent, DEIS, FEIS, and the Governor's comments)..
2) Identification of organizations (other jurisdictions,
public interest groups, trade associations, etc.) concerned
with one or more of the significant issues identified by the
sponsoring jurisdictions.
3-) Establishment of an informal network among the sponsoring
jurisdictions and the identified organizations for advancing
specific positions regarding the issues of concern.
4) Coordination of the research program of sponsoring
5) Implementation of an effective information distribution
network, ensuring that the sponsoring jurisdictions'
positions reach the desired audiences (i.e. MMS, other
Federal agencies, Congress, the Governor, State legislature
and agenciesr public interest groups, the media, and the
general public).
6) Development of opportunities for public participation
(such as surveys, town meetings, media events, letter writing
campaigns) designed to inform the public about issues of
concern and the roles the public can play in impacting the
OCS decision -making process.
There is a vast amount of research data and information
concerning issues and impacts involved with OCS development in
Southern California. The Federal Government has spent tens of
millions of dollars studying the impact of OCS development on the
environment and economy of affected communities, including
studies in the MMS Environmental Studies Program and others by
the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. EPA,
tkk��.e Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce's National
X4rine Fisheries Service, and other agencies. Additionally, a
great deal of information is available from the California
Coastal Commission, other State agencies, public and
environmental interest groups, and academic institutions.
Given the extensive nature of past and ongoing research in
support of MMS's Southern California OCS leasing programs, RT&A
---be-132ves--that t-he-r-esou-r-ces-o-f-Or-a-nge-Csun-ty-wou---
allocated to analyses and evaluations of MMS's research results
and interpretation rather than on new research. Particular
emphasis should be put on critiquing the methodologies employed
by MMS in evaluating the data collected and the criteria used by
MMS in establishing impact levels and lease sale priorities.
With this in mind, RT&A recommends that the budget allocated to
this program be directed towards identification of pertinent
issues and positions followed by a detailed assessment and
evaluation of existing research results rather than initiation of
original research projects that would not be adequately funded or
would adversely impact on the coordination and public
participation aspects of the effort. It is our belief that
Orange County and the other sponsoring jurisdictions can most
effectively influence the MMS OCS decisions -making process via a
careful evaluation and analysis of relevant research data
concerning pertinent issues, augmented by a strong, highly
visible coordination and public participation program. .
B.
Detailed
Technical
Approach
1.
Program
Management
and
Support
Our first activity in this project will be to meet with such
personnel as the sponsoring jurisdictions wish for the purposes
of finalizing the project schedule, identifying areas of
particular concern, and establishing a foundation for future
project coordination. RT&A has found that such kick-off meetings
are invaluable in ensuring that projects are conducted consistent
with the goals of the project sponsors.
Based on this meeting, RT&A will prepare a memorandum report
including a detailed management plan and a final project
schedule. RT&A will present the plan to the sponsoring
jurisdictions for their review, comment, and ultimate approval.
The plan will include a preliminary assessment of issues,
prioritized according to their relative importance to the local
jurisdictions and their constituents. The plan will be revised
over the period of the program to reflect the dynamic nature of
the OCS leasing process, events and other factors that may impact
the relative importance assigned to the various issues.
1.2 Program Management and Oversi hchtt
This task will be designed to ensure that the program is well
managed, products meet the highest--stanfaards of technical
quality, and that the work is performed'on schedule and within
budget. The program management organization provides for clear
lines of management authority, project reporting, and oversight.
Project assignments, both administrative and technical, will be
made based upon the experience, training,_and technical expertise
of project team members. Regular project team meetings will be
- --held-ar least -monthly and-at—t-imling —to—thy
production of major deliverables. Each major program manager and
selected members of the technical staff will review each
deliverable to ensure technical accuracy and clarity. After the
internal review/revision process, draft deliverables will be
provided to the sponsoring jurisdictions' designated program
manager for review and comment. Any necessary revisions will be
incorporated into the final product.
1.3 Program Administration
This segment of the program will involve the internal
administrative activities necessary for management of the
contractual effort. As such, activities concerning budget
management, contractual administration, billing, payroll, and
other accounting related activities will be conducted under this
task element. It should be noted that these activities are
charged directly to the contractual effort, rather than being
charged under an overhead multiplier. By charging these directly
the overall cost of administration will be lower, allowing for a
greater proportion of the contract resources to be dedicated to
conduct of substantive work. This approach also ensures that
there are no hidden charges. All of the resources allocated to
associated with this program.
1.4 Program_Support
This cost element includes word processing support, copying,
materials and supplies, travel, local transportation, printing,
-computer time, equipment rental fees, and other direct costs
(ODC). As noted above, only those costs incurred that are
directly attributable to the cost of the contractual effort will
be charged against the contract's resources.
1.5 Program Management and Administrative Reporting
This effort will include both written and oral reports on the
status of the program. Written reports will be in the form of
monthly reports (Pro uct #1) submitted to the sponsoring
jurisdictions' pio am manager and will include a summary of
progress of the technical aspects of the program as well as the
management and administrative details, including progress toward
achievement of milestones and budgeting resource expenditures
broken down by major cost elements of the program.
In addition to the written monthly management and progress
-- -epo-ts-,-regu-1a-r-meetings w. 1 be sch-edui-et-lse-twe-err-tkre grogram --
manager, the technical staff, and the program sponsors. The
number and frequency of these meetings will be decided based upon
discussions with the program sponsors at the time of contract
negotiation. Additional meetings beyond those regularly
scheduled will be held as events dictate. The Program Manager
and members of the technical staff shall make themselves
available to the program sponsors given reasonable advance notice
from the sponsors. The reports and meetings outlined under this
sub -element shall be in addition to those outlined in other
sub -elements.
2. Technical Analysis and Review
2.1
Given that the contract award is to be made on.October 1, 1987
and that the .response to the notice of Intent is due,on October
9, the selected contractor will have only six working days (eight
calendar days) following contract award to respond to the MMS's
Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS. During that limited time
period the contractor will identify major issues of concern to
issues and methodologies the MMS should address during the
preparation of the EIS for OCS Lease Sale 95. Given the quick
turnaround requirements necessary for development of this
product, the contractor will necessarily rely upon inputs from
the program sponsors, data acquired prior to the contract award,
preliminary contacts with Federal agencies and public interest
groups, and background knowledge and expertise of the project
team technical staff.
A draft letter to be submitted by the sponsoring jurisdictions to
the MMS will be prepared for the program sponsors. The letter
will suggest MMS perform a detailed assessment of specific issues
of concern to the Orange County jurisdictions as well as
providing recommendations concerning methodologies, data sources,
and criteria to be used in evaluating impacts associated with the
issues of concern. For example, MMS may be requested to identify
specific sources of air emission offsets that must be obtained
for offshore production and onshore processing facilities
associated with suggested maximum production levels predicted for
OCS Lease Sale 95.
2.2 Environmental Impact Statement Scopino Process (Product #3).
Sometime during the month of September, 1987, the Department,of
Interior will issue an Area Identification, specifying the=y'reas
of the Southern California OCS that have been nominated and'
selected as areas proposed for inclusion in OCS Lease Sale 95.
During the month of October, MMS will be holding 4 public
hearings throughout Southern California. These hearings are
_ designed to solicit comments regarding: 1) Areas and subareas
that should be deferred from the 1989 OCS lease sale; and 2)
— - -----I-nf- rma-Lion-r-egar-ding-.de-v-el-opment-s-tr-teg-i-e-- d-trans^^-r--nation ----
scenarios that should be addressed during preparation of the EIS
for Lease Sale 95.
RT&A will prepare a press release in support of the sponsoring
jurisdiction's testimony at the hearings.
2.3 Orange County Impact Analysis and Assessment (Product #4).
This phase of the study program will account for the major
research and analytical assessments to be performed during the
contract period. It will be designed to identify, assess, and
prioritize the major issues and impacts associated with OCS Lease
Sale 95 and, as such, provide the opportunity for the sponsoring
communities to adequately respond to MMS's release of the draft
EIS document. As noted earlier, most of the data necessary to
perform an assessment of the impacts of OCS Lease Sale 95 has
already been developed. MMS plans to rely heavily on this
historical data base, including the information, findings and
conclusion incorporated into previous MMS Southern California OCS
Lease Sale EIS's. Most new data to be used in preparing the next
EIS will be released prior to publication of the EIS document.
predict the contents, approaches, methodologies, and even the
conclusions contained in the EIS long before it is published.
Given this advance knowledge, -the following approach is suggested
for responding to the comment period following release of the
draft EIS:
a. Development of an Information Base and Establishment of a
Library. This sub task will entail collection of all relevant
literature not acquired in the previous data collection efforts.
Any remaining relevant reports prepared by or on behalf of the
MMS concerning OCS lease sales will be ordered from MMS or the
Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service.
Additional reports prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Parks Service will also be
collected for inclusion in the library. As of this year, the DOI
has spent $55.2 million on environmental and socio-economic
studies related to OCS development in Southern California.
Thirty-five additional studies are currently being conducted on
behalf of the MMS at a total cost of $30 million. As data and
information from these studies becomes available, it will be
added to the program library.
Research programs conducted for the U.S. EPA in support of air,
water, and hazardous waste programs along with regulations
impacting off -shore drilling, transportation, and on -shore and
off -shore processing also will be acquired. Research efforts by
other Federal agencies will also be identified and collected
including reports prepared for the Department of Energy's Office
of Foss l EneS.gyf . tbE._Dep mmerce_s_National Marine
Fisheries Service and Marine Sanctuary program, the Army Corps of
engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, etc.
Other sources of reports and data will also be pursued, including
any previous studies funded by the California Coastal Resources
and Energy Assistance Block Grant Program and the Coastal energy
Impact Grant Program. California State agencies will also be
contacted to identify any relevant research reports (e.g.,
California Coastal Commission, California State Lands Division,
the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California
Department of Fish and Game, and California Department of Natural
Resources).
Relevant departments within California's academic institutions
(e.g., University of California, California State Universities,
USC) will be approached to identify useful studies, papers,and
thesis projects. Additional organizations to be contacted
include public and environmental, interest groups (e.g., National
Resources Defense Council, trade associations representing the
commercial and sport fishing industries (e.g., the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations and the Coastal Fisheries
Foundation), recreation and tourism industries, and real estate
hearings on MMS's OCS leasing programs along with any relevant
OCS legislation will be obtained from Committees in U.S. Congress
and the California State Legislature. Finally, any available
studies and research generated by the American Petroleum
Institute, the Western Oil and Gas Association, the American Gas
Association and companies involved in the production of oil from
the California OCS will be acquired. The MMS's OCS Lease Sale 95
docket, maintained in the Los Angeles Regional Office, will also
be monitored to collect copies of comments submitted in response
--to MMS's-v-&rioue-commenthing--opper-ttrn+t-ies. - —
The reports, studies research papers, and testimony obtained
during the various data collection efforts will be used to
establish a comprehensive library on the OCS leasing process and
associated impacts. An index will be prepared to include the
title, subject and topics, authors, and sponsoring organizations
for each document included in the library. Library materials
will be made available to the project research team as well as
the technical staffs of the sponsoring jurisdictions during the
contract period. In addition a list of all organizations
involved in the DOI OCS leasing process will be developed and
updated regularly during the study program. The list will
contain the name of the organization, names of contacts,
addresses and telephone numbers along with an indication of the
issues of concern to the contacts and their respective roles and
positions regarding OCS Lease Sale 95. This list will be
extremely valuable for implementation of the coordination and
public participation portions of the study program. Both the
library index and the list of contacts will be automated for
timely access by project sponsors and the research team.
b. Issue Analysis and Impact Assessment. During the data
collection phase of the program, the research team will conduct
interviews--w-i.th--members- of--_edezal---and_-State_agencier,_Fede-r.al--
and State legislatures, public and environmental interest groups,
industry and trade associations, members of other impacted
jurisdictions, academia, MMS contractors, members of the oil and
gas industry, interested private citizens, etc. to identify and
prioritize issues of concern to the sponsoring jurisdictions. In
cases where MMS and industry interests appear to be contrary to
the interests and welfare of the sponsoring jurisdictions, the
interviews will be used to identify strategies, alternatives, and
mitigating measures to influence the OCS decision -making process
or reduce the ultimate impacts of OCS development of the Southern
California coastline.
Information obtained from interviews with experts on the various
issue topics will serve as a basis for identifying and
prioritizing areas of concern to the sponsoring communities and
selecting specific topics for assessment and evaluation. Rather
than conducting original research, the project team will rely
primarily on data contained in the program library and the on
going efforts of organizations that have taken positions that
meet the objectives of the sponsoring jurisdictions.
Issues to be addressed by the research team likely will incluue:
Air Quality: RT&A has reason to believe that MMS will rely on
the air quality stipulations from earlier lease sales as its
approach to handling air quality impacts from Lease Sale 95.
Recent experience has shown these stipulations are deficient and
that much better air quality reductions and mitigations are will
be achieved. To this end, RT&A will identify the full range of
air quality effects likely to be caused by Lease Sale 95
activities, plus the likely cumulative effects of all these
activities and other existing and planned activities in the
affected areas.
Based on this, RT&A will critically review the stipulations from
past lease sales to identify how these matters have been
addressed. RT&A then will identify deficiencies in thes.
approaches and recommended corrective actions. For �xaiple, the
stipulations in the past have established very high trigger
thresholds for emissions control, meaning that the lease sale
activities have released large amounts of uncontrolled
emissions. This likely would be unacceptable in a non -attainment
area.
Additionally.,__RT&A-_will _examine—the-MMS-mexhodologies _for__
identifying the impacts of OCS emissions. RT&A will look to
whether adequate modeling has been done (such as modeling of
photochemical ozone impacts), whether all available or promising
control technologies have been evaluated (such as selective
catalytic reduction for NOx), and whether all feasible project
configurations have been explored (such as the use of on -shore
power sources to make different control technologies applicable).
Tourism and Recreation. RT&A will examine the effects of Lease
Sale 95 on Orange County tourism and recreation by evaluating the
MMS methodology for assessing these impacts and comparing this
methodology, and its results, to available literature and studies
on the subject. Past MMS evaluations have looked only at actual
dollar losses to tourists and the tourism industry, and have been
extremely conservative even in this effort. Recent MMS and DOI
efforts in this area reiterate MMS's reliance on this approach.
More than these actual dollar losses must -lie evaluated, however.
RT&A will collect available studies and the results obtained for
them for information on "quality of experience" measures,
including both travel cost measures and contingent valuation
measures. RT&A also will compare the results of these studies to
the DranOP County Situation to identify nnacjhl--range-%- Pf v-alu,eyc,
for these measures relative to Orange County.
RT&A will compare these studies to Orange County parameters to
determine the extent to which MMS will have to undertake
site -specific surveys in order to develop accurate estimates of
the effect of Lease Sale 95 on the Orange County tourism industry
and on tourists. This effort will focus on the extent to which
MMS is able to accurately estimate the changes in numbers of
tourists, the changes in the quality of their experiences, and
the changes in the type of tourists coming to Orange County.
Past experience has shown that while the number of tourists may
not change much, the quality of their experience may be reduced
significantly. Moreover, the higher income tourists are the ones
most able to go elsewhere when the quality of their tourism
experience is reduced, and this could substantially affect
tourism expenditures in the affected area (i.e., Orange County).
Finally, RT&A will determine whether MMS has adequately addressed
the fact that tourist's perceptions about the possibility of oil
spills in the Orange County area may affect their tourism
destinations and expenditures. Increased OCS activity may cause
tourists to go elsewhere rather than run the risk of having their
trips degraded by oil spills, regardless of how likely spills
_ actually_ are. _This can be identified via- a -survey ,_and-MMS-nay__.
need to undertake such an effort in order to adequately address
and evaluate this issue.
Biological Resources. RT&A will identify sensitive marine
environments and habitats in Orange County and the location and
abundance of protected marine species. RT&A also will determine
the extent to which Lease Sale 95 activities could affect these
biological resources. RT&A's analysis will focus on specifically
defining the impacts of OCS activities on each Orange County
coastal and marine site and species of concern. This will be
accomplished trough review of the relevant literature and
discussions with qualified scientists familiar with the Orange
County coastal region.
RT&A will address both chronic and acute effects of OCS
operations, and lethal as well as sublethal effects. The
analysis will address effects from normal operation of OCS
activities including seismic surveys, exploratory drilling,
development drilling, production, platform and pipeline
installation, crew boat and air craft operation, dumping of muds
and cuttings, wastewater discharge, etc. Additionally, the
analysis will address the effects of abnormal operations, i.e.,
The RT&A analysis will be directed toward identification of key
biological resources that will need special protection through
stipulations, area deferrals, or other actions. It will include
an assessment of the adequacy of biological stipulations in past
lease sales.
Local Services and Resources. OCS operations and their support
activities generate substantial demands for local public
services. RT&A will identify the likely magnitude of these
demands through critical review of the proposed development
scenarios and available information regarding the demand for
services created by each type of activity such as drill ship,
onshore terminal, and crew base likely to be involved in OCS
activities flowing from Lease Sale 95. In discussions with the
staffs of the sponsoring jurisdictions and through review of
relevant information regarding availability of public services,
plans for development, and related information, RT&A will
identify the extent to which OCS Lease Sale 95 will likely affect
the availability of public services in the sponsoring
jurisdictions and the economic costs associated with this effect.
In this regard, RT&A will address the following services:
o water
o Sewer
o Sanitary waste disposal
a Electricity_-and_gas.
o Roads
o Schools
Contingency Planning. Oil spill response is the subject of a
series of plans developed at national, regional, and local
levels. RT&A will assess these plans for their adequacy in terms
of protecting the Orange County coast from OCS-generated oil
spills. RT&A will first identify the resources to be protected,
including both economic and environmental resources. RT&A will
then critically review the various oil spill contingency plans to
determine how well they address the need for protecting these
resources. RT&A also will determine the adequacy of the proposed
response technologies and institutional arrangements for oil
spill response and control.
Most oil spill contingency plans in the past have been inadequate
for a number of reasons. Generally, they overlook key resources
needing protection. Also, they tend to be overly optimistic in
their assessment of response time and technological
capabilities. Also, they tend to disregard the effects of oil
spill slide spreading, effects of tides, currents, and winds on
slicks after they reach shore, and even disposal of cleaned up
assessment of the contingency planning for Lease Sale 95.
RT&A also will identify steps•needed to give the best possible
protection to Orange County resources including such things as
dispersed basing of response equipment, basing of booms at key
locations, availability of response vessels, needed capabilities
of response equipment and vessels, needed training, and
availability of wildlife cleanup and rehabilitation facilities.
Fisheries. RT&A will examine the potential for impacts from
Lease Sale 95 on commercial and sports fisheries. Such impacts
have been documented in the past in the course of such oil and
gas development projects as the Santa Ynez Unit, Point Arguello
Field, Point Pedernales, and the San Miguel project. These
impacts are generally of four kinds, and include effects on fish
eggs and larvae from geophysical surveys, loss of fishing grounds
and gear to offshore facilities and vessel traffic, pollution
from platform and vessel discharges and oil spills, and
competition for onshore support facilities. RT&A will evaluate
each of these areas to determine the magnitude of the impacts,
their cumulative effects when considered with other OCS
activitiesi and possibility of mitigating.them. Special
attention,will be given to the distribution of the costs and
benefits of OCS development relative to fisheries. Generally,
the costs are borne by the local and regional communities, while
the benefits go to the Federal Government and the petroleum
industry. RT&A will determine the extent to which the costs of
loss of fisheries resources in the local communities is offset by
any benefit from OCS development that may accrue to the
communities.— — — — -- —
The research team will attempt to analyze these and other issues
of concern in terms of their impacts on the Orange County
jurisdictions. In order to conserve resources, the analyses will
be conducted using existing data, data generated by MMS during
the preparation of the draft EIS, data generated by other
organizations, and other available sources. In addition,
assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions that have appeared in
previous EIS's for Southern California OCS lease sales will be
analyzed in preparation for commenting on the Lease Sale 95 EIS.
C.
Conclusions. This subtask will entail compilation of the
analytical research performed during the previous two subtasks
into a series of issue papers. These will summarize the
available information on the subject areas and demonstrate what
analyses are necessary for an adequate EIS. These will serve as
the major reference source for use in developing comments and
responses to the Mineral Management Service's Draft EIS for Lease
Sale 95. These will include analytical evaluation of all
pertinent impacts. Six copies of the reports will be submitted
report by the project team. Copies will be sent to other key
persons upon approval of such by the project sponsors.
2.4
This portion of the study program will flow out of the previous
task and will identify and prioritize positions that the
sponsoring jurisdictions may wish to adopt in responding to the
Draft EIS. The positions will include alternatives to the
suggested leasing program as well as mitigation measures and
stipulations that the Orange County jurisdictions may wish to
propose to DOI for adoption by DOI for leased tracts that may
impact on the Orange County jurisdictions.
Data sources contained in the study library along with
information obtained during interviews conducted during the
previous tasks will be augmented by additional interviews with
experts on the issues assessed during the previous task to: 1)
identify a series of positions that may be proposed during the
Draft EIS process; 2) assess and evaluate the positions in terms
of acceptability to the sponsoring jurisdictions; and, 3)
prioritize the positions.
RTaA will prepare a report to discuss each of the alternatives,
mitigation measures, and stipulations identified during the
research effort. The various positions will be organized
according to the issues and impacts identified in the issue
reports prepared in the previous tasks. The discussions will
address the effect the various alternatives, mitigating measures,
and stipulations will have in reducing or eliminating potential
impacts posed by Lease Sale 95. This report will be used as a
discussion paper for decision -making regarding the various
alternatives. Six copies of a draft report will be submitted to
the sponsoring jurisdictions for comment. Following the comment
period, appropriate revisions will be made to the document and
six final copies will be submitted to the sponsoring
jurisdictions.
3. Strategy Formulation and Coordination
3.1 Coordination of Lease Sale 95 Activities with Other Affec
Groups and jurisdictions. The purpose of this subtask is to
establish an informal network with other Southern California
jurisdictions, public interest groups, and other organizations
that have established goals and objectives that are consistent
objective of this network is to take advantage of the allied_
organizations' research programs, analytical efforts, and
programs to enhance the efforts of the program.sponsors. By
coordinating the sponsoring jurisdictions' advocacy program
efforts with those of other affected groups, the Orange County
jurisdictions are more likely to have an effect on the OCS
decision -making process. That is, if MMS is confronted by,a
large number of organizations who have taken similar positions on
a series of issues, it will be more likely to: 1) focus on this
— set of� sues; 2-)-address the-i ss-aes -i-n-deve-kopment--of bot -the-- -
Draft and Final EIS; and 3) implement measures designed to
effectively eliminate or reduce the impacts.
a. Information Sharing and Coordination. The first step in
this process is to identify the organizations and jurisdictions
that are concerned with the major issues felt to have a
significant impact on the local environment and economy of Orange
County. This will be accomplished during the conduct of the
"Technical Review and Analysis" portion of the program via
development of a list of the organizations involved in the OCS
leasing process. The list will serve as a basis for identifying
positions of the various impacted interest groups. As
appropriate we will contact each organization to share
information concerning proposed positions and strategies designed
to influence the OCS decision -making process. This information
sharing will be a major step towards coordinating activities of
the various groups. yy
b. Preparation and Distribution of Summary Technical Reports
(Product W . Based upon the research conducted under the
_wTechnical Review and Analysis" portion of'the Program, a series
of short (one to three page) summary reports will be prepared.
Each summary report will provide details concerning impacts of a
single issue of concern to the Orange County Jurisdictions. The
summary rep9sts _will al sQ_ provide_ fle_tailed-information_ con.ce.rnj.ng
alternatives, mitigation measures, and stipulations that MMS
should adopt to alleviate the impacts of the proposed lease
sale. Following review and comment by the study team and the
program sponsors, the position papers will be distributed as
appropriate to allied public and environmental interest groups,
representatives in Congress and the State Legislature, the MMS,
and the media. They also will be used in the public
participation task of this project.
3.2 Implementation of Orange County Coordination Program.
This task will entail design of strategies to be employed to
influence the decision -making process for OCS Lease Sale 95 and
implementing selected strategies via a strong, well organized,
and coordinated program. Strategies likely to influence the
process will include staging for elected representatives'
lobbying efforts in Congress and the State legislature, meetings
with allied jurisdictions and public interest groups, media
events, and
education of the general public. Depending on the issues
involved, it may be valuable to initiate discussions with the
Department of Interior and representatives of the oil and gas
industry regarding the feasibility and acceptability of proposed
leasing alternatives, mitigation measures, or lease
stipulations. The coordination program should be initiated at
the earliest possible time and be carried out throughout the
leasing process up to the time of the sale.
a. Strategv Design and Coordination. Positions adopted by the
five sponsoring jurisdictions will be presented to allied
jurisdictions and interest groups in an on -going liaison effort.
Discussions with these groups will be oriented towards forming a
consensus of positions to be advanced Strategic targets will be
identified within Congress and the State legislature to apply
pressure on MMS decision -makers involved with the leasing
process. A schedule for advancing various initiatives will be
drawn up.
b. Staging for Advocacy Efforts. Select members of Congress,
including California Senators and Members of Congress, as well as
members of-relevant-oversight_committees.,._will--be identified_as.-
---
key persons to be kept informed throughout the course of the
program. Washington, DC, study team members will provide the
staff of these members of Congress with all reports and issue
papers generated during the study program and keep them
up-to-date regarding issues of concern and any progress made with
the Department of Interior regarding mitigation of important
impacts. These activities will have the important benefit of
easing the access of the sponsoring jurisdictions' elected
representatives to these persons and offices in their advocacy
efforts.
RT&A has noted during a review of the Lease Sale 80 EIS, that the
DOI ignored many of the concerns regarding site specific impacts
of OCS leasing despite the comments provided to MMS by the Orange
County jurisdictions. With this in mind, RT&A expects to request
select members of Congress to make written inquiries to, and
request formal oral testimony from, responsible officials of the
Department of the Interior concerning the development of
alternatives and mitigation measures designed to alleviate site
specific impacts in Orange County. Similar measures will be
taken with the help of the California State Legislature. In
addition, RT&A will identify any aspects of MMS's leasing program
other Federal agencies (e.g., the U.S.yEPA, NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Park Service). These
agencies will be informed of the conflicting aspects of the
program and requested to open negotiations with the MMS
concerning the 1989 leasing initiatives. These efforts will be
coordinated and conducted in concert with allied organizations
and jurisdictions. .
C. Media Relations. A major aspect of the advocacy program
will be directed at using the local media to publicize leasing
issues of concern to Orange County jurisdictions and its
citizens. As with members of Congress, the media will be
provided with copies of all summary reports generated by the
research team. The media will also be kept well informed of all
meetings and public hearings that will address the lease sale.
As with Congress, the media will be directed to the MMS
decision -makers to ensure that these members of the
Administration are aware that issues of concern to Orange County
are being well publicized. The local media will also be asked to
publicize town meetings, all MMS public hearings, and the
program's workshops regarding the impacts of the proposed
lease -sale.
d. Negotiations with MMS and Industry. There may be cases
where a potential alternative, mitigation strategy or
stipulation, if properly presented to industry or the DOI, may
provide room for negotiation regarding a particular concern to
the sponsoring jurisdictions. These opportunities, if they
arise, should be vigorously pursued by the sponsoring
j.urisdictions.- If- an -acceptable _middle-grounc--can-be-negotiated---
between potentially impacted jurisdictions and industry, or the
MMS, regarding one issue, it may open the door to further
negotiations which may benefit the sponsoring jurisdictions as
well as the MMS and industry. As such, it is proposed that
informal lines of communication be maintained by the study team
to both MMS and industry representatives (e.g., western Oil and
Gas Association) whereby proposed alternatives, mitigating
measures and stipulations are presented for discussion with MMS
and industry representatives.
e. monitoring or Legal Developmentsxegaraing uus issues ana
Lease Sale 95_ RT&A will keep track of pending law suits and
other legal activities (proposed Legislation, regulatory changes,
etc.) affecting OCS activities generally and Lease Sale 95
specifically. RT&A will keep the sponsoring jurisdictions
informed of these developments via the monthly progress reports.
As necessary, RT&A will modify the areas of issue analysis (after
consultation with sponsoring jurisdictions) to take advantage of
or respond to these legal developments.
4. Public Participation
summaries will be distributed to other interested organizations
and jurisdictions, the media, and, to the extent possible, the
general public. Distribution of these papers will serve to
inform the residents of Orange County of the status of issues
relating to the leasing program as well as methods by which the
public can participate in the lease decision making process. The
remaining efforts of the program will thus be oriented towards
ensuring that Orange County businessmen and residents have the
opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the ultimate
content -&Lease -Sale 95. The-eppe-rt-unties availa�e wz.11--
include:
o Providing
written
comments
to DOI concerning the Draft EIS;
0 Providing
oral testimony at
the Draft EIS Public Hearings;
o Providing
written
comments
to DOI concerning the Final EIS;
0 Providing
written
comments
concerning the Proposed Notice of
Sale;
o Providing
written
comments
concerning the Governor's Section
19 solicitation.
4.1 Conducting -Lease Sale_95 Workshops (Product #7)
RT&A will conduct three workshops. They will be held to or just
after publication of the Draft EIS. The workshops will be
designed to provide attendees with background information
concerning issues arising from OCS Lease Sale 95 and impacts of
related OCS development ac-ti3rities on Orange County. The
workshops will also present a series of OCS lease alternatives,
mitigating measures, and lease stipulations that may serve to
eliminate or reduce the impacts of OCS development on the economy
and environment of Orange County. Finally the workshops will
provide a schedule of opportunities for participating in the OCS
decision making process. The first two workshops will be
condu_c-ted for the—t-e-chnicaI st-aff-s and elected.-off-icials--of-- --
Orange County jurisdictions respectively, while the final
workshop will be open to the general public and the media.
a. Notification of Workshops. Once the workshops have been
scheduled, members of county staffs and elected officials of the
sponsoring jurisdictions and other impacted jurisdictions, as
well as members of regional planning organizations, will be
informed through established channels of the date and time of the
workshops. The public will be notified through the local
newspapers, radio, and television announcements. A telephone
number and address will be provided so that interested parties
may obtain advance copies of relevant issue papers to prepare
their comments and questions prior to attending the workshops.
b. Workshop Advance Preparation and Logistics. Using the
research papers and research summaries prepared during the
conduct of previous tasks, we will prepare outlines of talking
papers to be given by.the program team, and as appropriate by
officials of the sponsoring jurisdictions. We will select a site
will be selected for holding the workshops based on discussions
with the program sponsors. To minimize costs, RT&A recommends
using a public facility such as a hearing room or a school
(i.e., workshops to be held for the benefit of members of local
government bodies), these workshops will be held during normal
working hours. RT&A recommends holding the final workshop in the
evening or on a weekend to maximize attendance by the general
public.
C. Preparation or videotape ana/or biiae Snow on Lease bale vD
Issues. Depending on negotiations with the sponsoring
jurisdictions, RT&A will prepare a videotape and/or a slide show
for presentation at the workshops. These will present a balanced
look at what offshore oil exploration, development, and
production is about and what its effects on Orange County may
be. A tentative outline of the videotape and slide show is
presented in Appendix A. The videotape and slide show will be
available for presentation in other forums including cable TV and
group meetings.
d. Workshop for Technical Staffs of the County, Affected Cit
and Interested Agencies (works_nop 11). Tne purpose or tnis
workshop will be to both: 1) inform technical personnel of the
status of the OCS leasing program snd issues likely to impact -
Orange County and surrounding jurisdictions; and 2) coordinaf"e
and mobilize local government resources in preparation for
responding to the pending issuance of the Draft EIS. In addition
to requesting attendance from the Orange County jurisdictions,
officials from surrounding counties and regional and state
planning organizations may be asked to participate.
PTssentations_svill_be-made--by memharc of the__psoj.ect--team and—__
other persons such as local officials or other consultants as
appropriate, focusing on the impacts of OCS development as well
as strategies for affecting the OCS process. The meeting will be
designed to pursue identification and implementation of positions
to be presented to elected officials during the next workshop.
e.
will be designed to inform elected officials of issues likely to
impact on their respective jurisdictions and to identify those
issues of specific concern to their constituents, as identified
during the previous workshop held for the agency technical
staffs. Following presentations of the various issues and
potential alternatives, mitigating measures, and lease
stipulations designed to reduce the impacts, the meeting will
focus on developing a consensus on positions to be taken by the
elected officials with regards to the MMS leasing program.
Potential strategies for pursuing the positions will subsequently
be discussed. RT&A suggests that attending officials allocate
resources in the form of work time of their technical staffs to
pursue implementation of the selected strategies.
f. Workshop for the General Public and the Media (worKsnop
#3). This workshop will be oriented towards providing the
general public with an opportunity to express opinions regarding
their feelings about future OCS development. Specific time
periods will be allocated for gathering testimony concerning each
of the major impact areas (e.g., air quality, visual/aesthetic
impacts, water supplies, economic impacts). A ten to fifteen
minute presentation describing each of the issues will precede
open microphone testimony and question/answer sessions by members
of the public. At the end of the meeting, a schedule of future
public participation alternatives will be supplied to each
attendee. Included with the schedule will be names and mailing
addresses of public officials, including members of Congress, the
state legislature and the Department of Interior. The
participants will be requested to write these public officials
concerning their respective opinions on OCS development off the
Orange County coastline. An additional form will be provided
that will serve to place the attendees name on a mailing list for
receiving future information on MMS's Lease Sale 95. The media
will be requested to publicize both the mailing addresses of the
public officials and those of the-s_ponsoring_j.urisdictions_s.o____
that other members of the general public may be included on the
mailing list.
4.2 Response to
The objective of this task is to provide the MMS with comments
and other inputs that will affect on the OCS lease sale process
in a manner that will reduce adverse effects and provide benefits
to the Orange County communities. As past DEIS responses
submitted to MMS concerning specific community impacts have been
virtually ignored in MMS's Final EIS's, it is imperative that
responses to the DEIS for Lease Sale 95 be: 1) coordinated
between Orange County, other surrounding communities impacted by
the lease sale, and allied public and environmental interest
groups; and, 2) delivered in a manner that will ensure that the
MMS provides specific analytical responses, rather than simply
responding with meaningless observations such as "Comment Noted".
a. Review and Assessment of DEIS. Upon release of the DEIS,
the study team will have a limited time to review the DEIS,
identify and coordinate comments and positions with allied
__ _ jnriadiri-innc and inharaat grnnnc; proparp Wrii-tan nnmmanta and
submit draft responses to the sponsoring jurisdictions for review
and comment, revise the comments, and prepare the comments for
submission to MMS by the program sponsors. A majority of the
issues, impacts, and suggested alternatives, mitigating measures,
and lease stipulations will have been prepared by the study team
during previous program activities. Some analyses will still be
required, but based upon review of previous MMS EIS's, very few
differences are to be expected.
b.
and Interest Groups. Based upon the results or to
other coordination activities conducted throughout
program, minor changes to the coordinated responses
expected. Any changes that are negotiated will be
urisdictions
e workshops and
the study
are
made in
concert with allied jurisdictions and interest groups.
C. Preparation of DEIS Written Comments. As noted above
written comments will be prepared, subjected to review and
revision, and submitted by the sponsoring jurisdictions to MMS.
The comments will address the specific areas of concern outlined
in earlier tasks and any other issues identified in the review of
the DEIS. The comments will be detailed, specific, and supported
by citation to authority wherever appropriate.
4.3 MMS Public Hearings on the DEIS (Product #9)
This effort will entail coordination a public hearing testimony
before MMS, preparation of outlines for testimony given by
members of sponsoring jurisdictions, and compilation and
distribution of summarized public hearing comments.
a.---Coo-r-d-inati-on -o-f--Public-Hea-r-i-nq_Commen-ts—on—DE-I-S,—,T41i-S— —
subtask will entail last minute review and coordination positions
and responses to be given during the testimony before MMS by
sponsoring jurisdictions and allied organizations. At this
stage, the responses should be fairly well coordinated between
the responding parties.
b. Preparation of Oral Comments for Sponsoring Jurisdiction.
Outlines extracted from written comments will be prepared for use
by representatives of sponsoring jurisdictions in providing oral
comments during the MMS public hearings.
The period between the public hearings on the DEIS and
publication of the FEIS will be critical to influencing the
ultimate format and content of the 1989 OCS lease sale. During
this period of time, the project team will coordinate efforts to
advocate the positions of Orange 'County jurisdictions within
Washington, DC. Issues of concern identified during the DEIS
comment and public hearing process will be presented to
interested Congressional staffs, representatives of the Minerals
Management Service and other relevant DOI agencies. As
appropriate, RT&A staff will establish contacts and opportunities
for elected representatives of the sponsoring jurisdictions to
federal agencies. Further contacts will be initiated with the
U.S. EPA and other agencies whose programs may be impacted by the
MMS initiatives. In addition, the local media will be supplied
with a series of previously developed and newly developed issue
analyses and position statements addressing problems with the
Draft EIS that conflict with the goals and objectives of the
sponsoring Orange County jurisdictions. The point of these
activities will be to bring pressure on the MMS to address those
issues raised by the Orange County jurisdictions in MMS's
measures to mitigate the impacts are incorporated into the sale.
i . P
4.4. Response to Public_ Review of Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Product #10).
The steps followed in response to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement will be similar to the procedures followed in
responding to the DEIS with the exception that the review and
assessment will concentrate on an evaluation of the MMS's
responses to Orange County and allied interest group comments.
The evaluation will determine which, if any, of the tracts
proposed for deferral by the Orange County jurisdictions have
been deferred and if any of the proposed mitigating measures
and/or lease stipulations have been adopted. Given that the EIS
process is coming to a close, a li;tiited time remains to fu-rtJer
impact MMS's decisions concerning the lease sale. Thus, this and
the following efforts will be directed at examining alternatives
to influencing the lease sale process (e.g., gathering evidence
demonstrating that MMS has not fulfilled the requirements of NEPA
for future use in potential law suits.)
-- -- -a-.- U,L_cf.-.-- ---- a+tu---—u----- —
Responses to the DEIS Comments. The study team will prepare an
evaluative analysis of MMS's responses to Orange County and
allied group's comments regarding alternatives, mitigating
measures, and lease stipulations. The team will also identify
any modifications to the methodologies, assumptions, and
conclusions MMS has employed in preparing the FEIS. This will
involve a comparison of each of the points covered in the DEIS
comment with the results found in the FEIS. RT&A will critically
examine the FEIS and determine the extent to which the sponsoring
jurisdictions' concerns have been adequately addressed in the
FEIS. The examination will cover an analysis of the quality of
the changes in the FEIS (meaning whether the changes, though not
necessarily what was requested, are adequate to respond to the
concerns voiced) and a discussion of continued needs for changes.
b. Preparation of Comments on the FEIS. Based on the above
analysis? RT&A will prepare written comments. Comments will then
be submitted to sponsoring jurisdictions for review and suggested
revisions. Once revised by the study team, the comments will be
submitted to the sponsoring jurisdictions for submission to MMS.
The comments will also be distributed to interested members of
Congress, the California legislature, other federal and state
for submission to MMS regarding issues of concern.
4, P' . h
C. Review, Compilation and Summarization of the MMS EIS process
for Lease Sale 95,_includinq_a Summary of Comments submitted to
MMS. The study team will acquire copies of letters and comments
submitted to MMS and maintained in the Lease Sale 95 docket. A
summary of the MMS Lease Sale docket will be prepared, providing
an assessment of impacts made on the Lease Sale Process and areas
that are still of concern to the Orange County jurisdictions.
The assessment will also summarize areas where MMS has apparently
not fulfilled its responsibilities with regard to the NEPA
process along with strategies for affecting changes via the two
remaining comment periods (i.e., the Proposed Notice of Sale and
the Governor's Section #19 Comments). RT&A will identify any
,organizations planning to bring suit against the MMS in order to
Alaffect the lease sale process and discuss what support the
project sponsors wish us to provide them.
4.5 Proposed_Notice of Sale (Product_#11)
a. Review Lease Sale Tracts and Adopted Mitigating Measures and
Lease Stipulations. This subtask will be designed to identify if
any additional tracts have been deferred from the sale and/or the
MMS has adopted any of the mitigating measures and lease
stipulations suggested by comments submitted in response to the
FEIS.
b. Preparation, Coordination, and Submission of Comments.
Comments submitted in response to the FEIS will be revised to
reflect any changes to the lease sale the MMS has adopted
following the FEIS. The comments will be turned over to the
sponsoring jurisdictions for submission to MMS. A summary report
discussing the status of the lease sale will also be submitted to
the sponsoring jurisdictions and distributed to all interested
parties. Final contacts will be made with Congressional
Representatives to solicit letters to be written to the Secretary
of Interior and/or to hold hearings regarding the remaining
issues of concern to Orange County and the four sponsoring
communities.
4.6 Governor's Section 19 Consultation (Product #12)
a. Solicitation of Comments. Via media contacts and/or direct
mailings to members of the public that have provided written
comments or oral testimony during the leasing process, requests
will be made for final comments -regarding Lease Sale 95. These
comments will be summarized for submission to the appropriate
jurisdictions.
b. Preparation of Comments for Submission to _the Governor. A
final set of comments reflecting the remaining concerns of Orange
County jurisdictions and residents will be prepared in draft
form, revised, and finalized for submission by the sponsoring
jurisdictions to the Governor. In addition a report summarizing
the results of the program will also be provided for the
sponsoring jurisdictions records.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 28, 1988
TO: Jim Palin, Huntington Beach
Bob Wynn, Newport Beach
Jim Hendrickson, San Clemente
Patrick Ise, Orange County EMA
Cathy Tyrrell, SCAG
Richard Tinney, Richard T. Tinney & Assoc.
FROM: Kenneth Frank, Duna Beach \ I&4-1
SUBJECT: REMINDER OF MEETING ' \
On Friday, May 6, the group will gather again at 9:00 a.m. in the may.���-�
O"oi ers conference room at Newport Beach City Hall. The agenda
will include discussion of: —
- the completed Oil Volune report (w-hich should be received by each
agency several days before the 6th),
- revised outlines for the issue papers,
- results of the beach survey, and
- effects of the Lease Sale 95 EIR release date delay fron July to
November.
Attached is a copy of RTA's most recent invoice and activity.report.
Attachments
cc: Carolyn (Thompson) Solomon, Sr. Administrative Assistant
v
C
tt pAPY 2 1988. �
\ CITY c>;
NEWPOR, uEACH,
CAIiF
RICHARD TINNEY & ASSOCIATES
INVOICE #4
LABOR
RICHARD
TINNEY
($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.2
10 HOURS
600
TASK
2.3
36 HOURS
2160
TASK
2.4
8 HOURS
480
TASK
3.1
6 HOURS
360
TASK
4.1
8 HOURS
480
4080
DOUG CANETE ($60/HOUR)
TASK
2.3
17 HOURS
1020
1020
DAMES CROWELL
($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.3
3 HOURS
180
TASK
1.5
6 HOURS
360
TASK
2.3
3 HOURS
180
TASK
3.2
5 HOURS
300
1020
RENATTA HEGEMAN
($50/HOUR)
TASK
1.2
10 HOURS
500
TASK
2.3
19 HOURS
950
1450
RUTH ANN
KORWIN
($45/HRS)
TASK
2.3
42 HOURS
1890
1890
ALAN WALTNER ($100/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 1.75 HOURS 175 175
DIANE KOPEC ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 124 HOURS 3100 3100
MAUREEN WITKOWSKI ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 32 HOURS 800 800
SURVEY TEAMS
TASK 2.3 1900 1900
TOTAL LABOR 15,435
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 194.20
MAIL 242.50
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 125.00
TELEPHONE/TELEX 96.76
TOTAL ODC 658.46
SUBTOTAL 16,093.46
FEE @ 5% 804.67
TOTAL 16,898.13
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 03-01-88 to 03-31-88
PURCHASE ORDER NO: P.O. No. 08384
DATE: Apri 15, 88
Monthly Report
Report No.: 04
Period of Performance: March 1, 1988 to March 31, 1988
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Objective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service
Task Status:
Report Overview:
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during March 1988.
During this month, RT&A made progress in all task areas. Work
continued on the identification and collection of pertinent
documents into the study library. Major work was accomplished in
Task 2, Technical Analysis and Review.
1.0 Program Management and Support
RT&A managers continued the project management function as well
as project administration. The monthly report on project
activities in February was provided to the project sponsors.
2.0 Technical Analysis and Review
During March, significant activity took place in this task area.
RT&A continued its information gathering with respect to the
biological resources of the Orange County coast and OCS. We
believe that at the end of this effort RT&A, and the sponsoring
jurisdictions, will have one of the most comprehensive
information bases on the area's significant biological resources
and habitats. Concurrently, RT&A has gathered substantial
information on the wide range of possible effects OCS operations
could have on those resources.
In March we also made significant progress on the oil spill
contingency planning phase of the project. We have obtained
contingency plans from numerous agencies and organizations
including the oil industry, oil spill cooperatives, and local,
state, and federal governments.
With respect to the socio-economic effects of oil operations,
RT&A finalized the questionnaires for the beach surveys and
identified the beaches to be surveyed. Surveys were conducted
March 28-31, with over 300 persons being contacted on the four
days. Surveys were conducted at Corona del Mar, Main Beach in
Laguna, Huntington Beach, and Monarch Beach. Information
gathering continued at a brisk pace as well.
During March RT&A began revisions on the oil and gas volumes
report. The final version of the report will be available for
the May 6 meeting with the project sponsors.
Meetings and Contacts
Name Organization Discussion
Mr. Walter Wilson Orange County Contingency planning
Communications Division
Mr. Ted Stevenson
Orange County Harbor
Contingency planning
Patrol
Huntington Harbor
Ms. Peggy Herring
Clean Seas
Contingency planning
Santa Barbara
Ms. Gerri Pymm
Clean Coastal Waters
Contingency planning
Long Beach
Lt. Danzk
U.S. Coast Guard -
Contingency planning
Region 9
Marine Safety Division
Lt. Lance Bennett
U.S. Coast Guard -
Contingency planning
Region 9
Marine Safety Office -
Long Beach
Mr. Jorge Penaba
Naval Energy & Environ-
Contingency planning
mental Support Activity
for Seal Beach, Camp
Port Hueneme
Pendleton
Dr. Robert Hofman
U.S. Marine Mammal
Distribution of marine
Commission
mammals, oil effects
Washington, DC
Dr. Steven Swartz
Center for Environmental
Effects of drilling
Education
muds and cuttings on
Washington, DC
lactating gray whales
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
RT&A is pursuing and maintaining contacts with public agencies
and private interest groups. The American Oceans Campaign
continues to go forward with its efforts, and local conservation
organizations are beginning to come together to form a
coalition. The main stumbling block on the coalition path is
deciding on an overall lead organization, as the local Save Our
Shores chapter, perhaps the logical choice due to its long
involvement with OCS issues, is perceived by some as too much in
the "aging hippie" mold.
New Leasing Schedule
In early April, MMS issued a revised 5-year leasing schedule. In
relevant part, the new schedule pushes several key events back
four months for Lease Sale 95, as shown here:
Event
Draft EIS Issued
Public Hearing
Final EIS Issued
Proposal Notice of
Sale
Governor's Comments
Due
Notice of Sale
Sale
New Schedule
November 1988
December 1988
July 1989
August 1989
October 1989
December 1989
January 1990
Old Schedule
July 1988
August 1988
February 1989
April 1989
June 1989
August 1989
September 1989
Note that while most milestones are delayed by four months, the
issuance of the final EIS is delayed by five months. This
appears to be due to the extent of the comments on Lease Sale 91,
and gives MMS a little more time to incorporate changes prompted
by comments on the DEIS for Lease Sale 95 when that is issued.
Sale 138, also a Southern California lease sale, remains
scheduled for June 1992. The so-called supplemental sales, SU-2
and SU-3, remain scheduled for September 1990 and September 1991,
respectively. These sales may include blocks on which bids were
rejected in the previous fiscal year, blocks forfeited in the
previous fiscal year, blocks subject to drainage from adjacent
blocks, and other selected blocks.
The Department of the Interior has removed the Florida keys from
the 5-year plan. DOI held behind -the -scenes negotiations with
the Florida Congressional delegation after Secretary Hodel
visited the Keys and went diving there with the Governor. The
Florida delegation was firmly against drilling in the Keys and
likely would have supported the moratorium. The price for
removing the Keys from drilling is unknown at this time. The
area was considered to have poor hydrocarbon potential. The
removal of the Keys may affect the on -going litigation over the
5-year plan by taking out Florida as a party to the suit. The
west coast of Florida may be removed from consideration in future
Eastern Gulf of Mexico lease sales as a result of similar
negotiations.
Moratorium
A movement has developed to reinstate the Congressional
moratorium on DOI spending any money on lease sales for Northern
and Southern California. It is by no means assured that there
will be a moratorium, as it depends on a vote of the House
Appropriations Committee and the full House of Representatives.
With respect to Southern California, the moratorium would have
little meaning because the change in the lease schedule, as
described above, creates a de facto moratorium by taking the
lease sale process outside Hi s f'scal year. It would, in
effect, Congressionally ratify action MMS has already taken. It
may have symbolic significance, however.
Recent Lease Sale
Lease Sale 113, covering the Central Gulf of Mexico, was held
March 30, 1988. Industry submitted 931 bids, totalling $593
million, for 684 blocks, almost half of which were in deep
water. High bids totalled $405 million. The heavy bidding on
deep water blocks (greater than 600 feet in depth) reflects both
the relative maturity of the region as an oil drilling area, and
industry expectations that oil prices may rise in the future,
justifying the greater expenses that deep water blocks involve.
4.0 Public Participation
RT&A began working on a draft script for the educational video.
RT&A_ also _researched- the _Availability_ of_ -stock footage from_ a
variety of sources including the news media (for such items as
the Santa Barbara oil spill and tanker spills), Congress (for
views of the Capitol and Congress -in -action), and environmental
groups (for wildlife) .
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND LETTERS
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182
(619) 265.5471
ORANGE COUNTY BEACH SURVEYS:
EL MA HUNTINGTON BEACH, SALT CREEK
MAIN BEACH (LAGUNA), CORONA Dj
March 30 - April 3, 1988
Preliminary Results : Mean Values
Dr. R. K.
+.
Hageman)
(Do not quote without permission from
-
Per cent who feel offshore oil rigs will detract:
87% ^
Mean willingness to pay a fee for beach use:
$.59/person ,
$4.89/household/yr.
Mean contribution to preservation fund:
2:
Residents of Orange —Count
66%
—
Per cent of responts sampled:
_
Mean of visits to Orange County beaches:
108/year ,
Per cent who feel property values will be affected:
63%
Mean expected change in property values:
-5.6%
Mean distance of property from the coast:
3.7 miles
Visitors to Orange Countv:
44%
Per cent of respondents sampled:
Mena of distance traveled:
437 miles
Per cent who would return after 005 drilling:..
95%
Mean of visits to Orange County beaches:
i6.5/year
Socio-economic Characteristics:
Mean age of respondent:
33.3 years
14.8 years
Mean education:
$42,600/year
Mean household income:
2.94 persons
Mean party size:
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Socio-Economic Effects
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Summary
1. Background
1.1 Brief history of OCS oil and gas leasing and production
in general
1.2 Brief history of OCS oil and gas operations in Southern
California
1.3 Current 5-year OCS leasing program and Southern
California
1.4 Description of proposed Lease Sale 95
2. Statement of the Issues
2.1 Market values lost (a.k.a. economic damages) due to OCS
development
2.1.1 Shipping and Transportation
2.1.2 Commercial Fishing
2.1.3 Tourism: hotels, retail sales, marinas
2.2 Non -market values lost (a.k.a. aesthetic damages):
discussion of how these values can be assessed in
economic terms
2.2.1 Recreation (beach visitation, boating,
sportfishing, scuba diving, nature
observation/spectator outings)
2.2.2 Community stress, a.k.a. "boomtown effects
(congestion, pollution from petroleum
industry -related demands on local
infrastructure)
2.2.3 Real estate values detrimentally effected
(property value loss due to degraded ocean
views)
2.2.4 Societal losses due to impacts on wildlife and
the marine ecosystem
2.3 Discussion of the importance of evaluating all above
losses in each category for the following three types
of scenarios:
2.3.1 Risk of oil spill vs no oil spill (valuation of
losses should not focus only on damages which
occur during/a ter a spill)
2.3.2 Impacts on current tourism -related industries vs
impacts on projected hotel/retail developments
which are p annI ed or could take place in the
future
2.3.3 Commercial loses due to impacts on non -locals vs
aesthetic losses to current/projected resident
populations
3. Current Economic Values (both market and non -market values
described)
3.1 Harbor and offshore marine activities
3.1.1 Shipping and transportation
3.1.2 Commercial fishing
3.1.3 Sportfishing and other recreation
3.1.4 Protection of wildlife and nearshore ecosystem
3.2 Onshore activities
3.2.1 Tourism and related businesses
3.2.2 Beach visitation {tourist and residents)
3.2.3 Real estate values affected; community
aesthetics
3.2 Projected Economic Value with no OCS
3.2.1 Harbor and offshore marine activities
3.2.1.1 Shipping and transportation
3.2.1.2 Commercial fishing
3.2.1.3 Sportfishing and other recreation
3.2.1.4 Protection of wildlife and nearshore
ecosystem
3.2.2 onshore activities
3.2.2.1 Tourism and related businesses
3.2.2.2 Beach visitation (tourist and
residents)
3.2.2.3 Real estate values affected; community
aesthetics
4. Effects of Lease Sale 95
4.1 Profit loss - market values foregone without any oil
spills
4.1.1 Shipping and transportation
4.1.2 Commercial fishing
4.1.3 Tourism and related businesses
4.2 Non -market implicit losses without any oil spills
4.2.1 Sportfishing and other recreation impacts
4.2.2 Increased demands on public service
infrastructure (fire, police, roads, health
care, transportation)
4.2.3 Aesthetic values - for example, real estate
values reflecting degradation of ocean views
4.2.4 Protection of wildlife and nearshore ecosystem
4.3 Economic damages with a serious oil spill
4.3.1 Shipping and transportation
4.3.2 Commercial fishing
4.3.3 Tourism and related businesses
4.4 Non -market losses with a serious oil spill
4.4.1 Sportfishing and other recreation impacts
4.4.2 Increased community stress on public service
infrastructure from cleanup activities
4.4.3 Aesthetic values, especially declines in coastal
property values
4.4.4 Degradation to wildlife and nearshore ecosystem
5. Action Required to Address Issues: starred entries will be
sample studies conducted in the Newport/Laguna Beach areas;
other entries will be descriptive guidelines for MMS studies
supported by comprehensive reviews of economic studies
conducted in other coastal areas.
5.1 Assess profit losses - market values
5.1.1 Survey fishermen and tourism -related merchants
5.1.2 Collect past impact studies of OCS development
(e.g., Santa Barbara, Georges Banks, and Gulf
Coast)
5.1.3 Discuss projections of economic growth without
OCS impacts
5.2 Assess Non -Market Values
5.2.1 Survey sportfishermen and recreationists
5.2.2 Discuss boomtown effects in previous oil.
developments (congestion, pollution); describe
input/output modeling for local services
5.2.3 Employ analytical methods developed by
environmental economists:
*(A). Contingent valuation survey of beach users,
both local and non -local visitors
(B) Travel cost studies for coastal recreation
values
*(C) Hedonic property value analysis to assess
the impact of visual degradation on coastal
properties
5.2.4 Preservation values for wildlife and nearshore
ecosystem
u
DATE'=,
MA�YO
0
FIRE
TO:O
COIkNCIL
O
GENERAL SERV.
O
MANAGER
O
LIBRARY
0
ASST. TO MGR.
0
MARINE
0
EXEC. ASST.
0
PARKS & REC.
0
ATTORNEY
O
PERSONNEL
0
BUILDING
X
PLANNING
O
CITY CLERK
POLICE
ED
DATA PROCESS.
0
PUBLIC WORKS
O
DUPLICATING
0
PURCHASING
ED
FINANCE
0
TRAFFIC
0
BUSINESS LIC.
0
UTILITIES
FOR: Cl ACTION & DISPOSITION
❑ FILE
INFORMATION
Y-YREVIEW& COMMENT
❑ RETURN
REMARKS.
FROM• 1 G r�-
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
April 20, 19
(202) 379.1874
Please find enclosed RT&A's Monthly Report #04 and Invoice for
cost incurred.
Should you require further information, please feel free to
contact Richard or me at 703-685-0066.
Enclosure
/pas
Sincerely,
James J. Crowell
Vice President
RECEINED �
APR2 619*0�
city Manager h ,f
city at Named Be3c.0
Monthly Report
Report No.: 04
Period of Performance: March 1, 1988 to March 31, 1988
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Objective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions' efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service
Task Status:
Report Overview:
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during March 1988.
During this month, RT&A made progress in all task areas. Work
continued on the identification and collection of pertinent
documents into the study library. Major work was accomplished in
Task 2, Technical Analysis and Review.
1.0 Program Management and Support
RT&A managers continued the project management function as well
as project administration. The monthly report on project
activities in February was provided to the project sponsors.
2.0 Technical Analysis and Review
During March, significant activity took place in this task area.
RT&A continued its information gathering with respect to the
biological resources of the Orange County coast and OCS. We
believe that at the end of this effort RT&A, and the sponsoring
jurisdictions, will have one of the most comprehensive
information bases on the area's significant biological resources
and habitats. Concurrently, RT&A has gathered substantial
information on the wide range of possible effects OCS operations
could have on those resources.
In March we also made significant progress on the oil spill
contingency planning phase of the project. We have obtained
contingency plans from numerous agencies and organizations
including the oil industry, oil spill cooperatives, and local•,
state, and federal governments.
Meetings and Contacts
Name
Mr. Walter Wilson
Mr. Ted Stevenson
Ms. Peggy Herring
Ms. Gerri Pymm
Lt. Danzk
Organization
Orange County
Communications Division
Orange County Harbor
Patrol
Huntington Harbor
Clean Seas
Santa Barbara
Clean Coastal 'Waters
Long Beach
U.S. Coast Guard -
Region 9
Marine Safety Division
Lt. Lance Bennett U.S. Coast Guard -
Region 9
Marine Safety Office -
Long Beach
Discussion
Contingency planning
Contingency planning
Contingency planning
Contingency planning
Contingency planning
Contingency planning
Mr. Jorge Penaba Naval Energy & Environ- Contingency planning
mental Support Activity for Seal Beach, Camp
Port Hueneme Pendleton
Dr. Robert Hofman U.S. Marine Mammal Distribution of marine
Commission mammals, oil effects
Washington, DC
Dr. Steven Swartz Center for Environmental Effects of drilling
Education muds and cuttings on
Washington, DC lactating gray whales
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
RT&A is pursuing and maintaining contacts with public agencies
and private interest groups. The American Oceans Campaign
continues to go forward with its efforts, and local conservation
organizations are beginning to come together to form a
coalition. The main stumbling block on the coalition path is
deciding on an overall lead organization, as the local Save Our
Shores chapter, perhaps the logical choice due to its long
involvement with OCS issues, is perceived by some as too much in
the "aging hippie" mold.
New Leasing Schedule
In early April, MMS issued a revised 5-year leasing schedule. In
relevant part, the new schedule pushes several key events back
four months for Lease Sale 95, as shown here:
Event
Draft' EIS Issued
Public Hearing
Final EIS Issued
Proposal Notice of
Sale
Governor's Comments
Due
Notice of Sale
Sale
New Schedule
November 1988
December 1988
July 1989
August 1989
October 1989
December 1989
January 1990
Old Schedule
July 1988
August 1988
February 1989
April 1989
June 1989
August 1989
September 1989
Note that while most milestones are delayed by four months, the
issuance of the final EIS is delayed by five months. This
appears to be due to the extent of the comments on Lease Sale 91,
and gives MMS a little more time to incorporate changes prompted
by comments on the DEIS for Lease Sale 95 when that is issued.
Sale 138, also a Southern California lease sale, remains
scheduled for June 1992. The so-called supplemental sales, SU-2
and SU-3, remain scheduled for September 1990 and September 1991,
respectively. These sales may include blocks on which bids were
rejected in the previous fiscal year, blocks forfeited in the
previous fiscal year, blocks subject to drainage from adjacent
blocks, and other selected blocks.
The Department of the Interior has removed the Florida keys from
the 5-year plan. DOI held behind -the -scenes negotiations with
the Florida Congressional delegation after Secretary Hodel
visited the Keys and went diving there with the Governor. The
Florida delegation was firmly against drilling in the Keys and
likely would have supported the moratorium. The price for
removing the Keys from drilling is unknown at this time. The
area was considered to have poor hydrocarbon potential. The
removal of the Keys may affect the on -going litigation over the
5-year plan by taking out Florida as a party to the suit. The
west coast of Florida may be removed from consideration in future
Eastern Gulf of Mexico lease sales as a result of similar
negotiations.
Moratorium
A movement has developed to reinstate the Congressional
moratorium on DOI spending any money on lease sales for Northern
and Southern California. It is by no means assured that there
will be a moratorium, as it depends on a vote of the House
Appropriations Committee and the full House of Representatives.
With respect to Southern California, the moratorium would have
little meaning because the change in the lease schedule, as
described above, creates a de facto moratorium by taking the
lease sale process outside this f scal year. It would, in
effect, Congressionally ratify action MMS has already taken. It
may have symbolic significance, however.
Recent Lease Sale
Lease Sale 113, covering the Central Gulf of Mexico, was held
March 30, 1988. Industry submitted 931 bids, totalling $593
million, for 684 blocks, almost half of which were in deep
water. High bids totalled $405 million. The heavy bidding on
deep water blocks (greater than 600 feet in depth) reflects both
the relative maturity of the region as an oil drilling area, and
industry expectations that oil prices may rise in the future,
justifying the greater expenses that deep water blocks involve.
4.0 Public Participation
RT&A began working on a draft script for the educational video.
RT&A also researched the availability of stock footage from a
variety of sources including the news media (for such items as
the Santa Barbara oil spill and tanker spills), Congress (for
views of the Capitol and Congress -in -action), and environmental
groups (for wildlife) .
RICHARD TINNEY & ASSOCIATES
INVOICE #4
1
LABOR
RICHARD
TINNEY ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.2
10
HOURS
600
TASK
2.3
36
HOURS
2160
TASK
2.4
8
HOURS
480
TASK
3.1
6
HOURS
360
TASK
4.1
8
HOURS
480 4080
DOUG CANETE
($60/HOUR)
TASK
2.3
17
HOURS
1020 1020
JAMES CROWELL ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.3
3 HOURS
180
TASK
1.5
6 HOURS
360
TASK
2.3
3 HOURS
180
TASK
3.2
5 HOURS
300 1020
RENATTA HEGEMAN
($50/HOUR)
TASK
1.2
10 HOURS
500
TASK
2.3
19 HOURS
950 1450
RUTH ANN KORWIN ($45/HRS)
TASK 2.3
42 HOURS
1890
1890
ALAN WALTNER
($100/HOUR)
TASK 2.3
1.75 HOURS
175
175
DIANE KOPEC
($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3
124 HOURS
3100
3100
MAUREEN WITKOWSKI ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3
32 HOURS
800
800
SURVEY TEAMS
TASK 2.3 1900 1900
TOTAL LABOR 15,435
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 194.20
MAIL 242.50
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 125.00
TELEPHONE/TELEX 96.76
TOTAL ODC
SUBTOTAL
FEE @ 5%
TOTAL
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 03-01-88 to 03-31-88
PURCHASE ORDER NO: P.O. No. 08384
ril 15, 1988
658.46
16,093.46
804.67
16,898.13
18, 1988
DETAILED WORK PROGRAM FOR OCS REGIONAL AIR/LAND ANALYSIS
Objective - To ihfiuence Department of Interior decisionmaking on Lease Sale
95. This will be accomplished through 1) a careful evaluation of MMS
methodologies and existing research findings, 2) an assessment of the specific
Los Angeles County, Orange County, and SCAG region impacts and concerns that
tend to lose their significance in the larger scale analysis of a lease sale,
and 3) the development of an informed local government elected offical and
staff base in both Los Angeles and Orange Counties through a strong, highly
visible coordination program.
PRODUCT 1
BUDGET - $140,000 ( $100,000 - L.A. County / $402000 - Orange County)
(Note that the tasks below for Product 1 will depend in part on data
contributions from the Orange County Consortium of Cities project. This
information will be provided as an in -kind contribution to a report which
equally covers the two counties, and their cumulative REGIONAL impact.)
Task 1 - Research methodology and data base for impact assessment. Develop
final scope of work which reflects coordinated data gathering with Orange
County cities and expanded financial support for the study and which targets
the particular analysis needs of the study area. (October of 1987 and February
of 1988).
Task 2 - In order to identify, assess, and prioritize the major issues and
impacts associated with oil development off the coast of Los Angeles and
Orange Counties, SCAG will develop a library of the pertinent documents
prepared by various organizations (particularly MMS) on OCS impacts, and
summarize their findings. Since a major element of the Orange County
consortium of cities OCS program is to gather documents, SCAG will rely
heavily on the research efforts of that program so as to minimize duplication
of effort. (Ongoing)
Task 3 - Establish and coordinate a special forum for Los Angeles
County/Cities and Orange County/Cities to review and publicize SCAG impact
assessments. A suggested name for this steering committee is Coalition "95".
This committee made up of elected officials representing Orange and L.A.
County coastal communities and refinery cities will meet bimonthly (about 6
times) to review impact assessment reports as they,are prepared, to assess
progress on the Lease Sale, and to develop a coordinated approach to Lease
Sale 95. Also establish and coordinate a technical working group made up of
staff members of interested jurisdictions and agencies (to meet about 10
times). This task will be performed between January and December 1988.
Task 4 - Prepare a series of focused reports which establish the environmental
and economic context for OCS development in Southern California and the
resulting impacts of Lease Sale 95. Presenting all information by county and
for the region as a whole whenever possible, the paper will discuss the
baseline and projected data in the following categories:
-- OCS RESOURCE AND PRODUCTION LEVEL SCENARIOS
Scenarios representing a range of potential production levels
(this will include a critique of the ranges used in previous
Southern California Lease Sale EIS's) and the likely quality of the
Lease.
crude. It is important that scenarios reflect a true high end
scenario as the Santa Barbara development experience has
demonstrated. (to be completed in March of 1988)
-- EXISTING AND PROJECTED RECREATIONAL USE AND RELATED ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
Using existing data and SCAG economic and population projections,
determine current and future attendance at regional beaches and
expenditures at beach locations along with the economic profile of
those visitors. SCAG is predicting as many as 5 million additional
people in the region by the year 2010. It is important to look at
the impact of this population increase on future beach attendance,
and the increased value of the region's beaches as urban open
space. It is also important to assess recent projections of
tourist activity and the role the quality of the beaches plays in
attracting tourists. (to be completed in April, 1988)
-- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SCAG will compile from the Orange County Study and from the Santa
Monica Bay study a listing of sensitive marine environments and
habitats off the coast of Orange and L.A. counties and the
location and abundance of protected marine species. (to be
completed in April, 1988)
-- VISUAL IMPACTS FROM OCS LEASE SALE 95
Conduct a survey of Los Angles beach users (a parallel to the
survey to be conducted under the Orange County contract) using
established and tested survey instruments to determine effects of
OCS visual intrusions on potential beach area use. This is to be
conducted by a consultant for $4950 to be completed in June, 1988.
-- ABILITY OF REFINERIES TO HANDLE OCS CRUDE
Number of refineries by geographic location and an assessment of
their current and projected ability to refine OCS crude. This will
include an analysis of the trends in capacities of Southern
California -refineries and their ability to meet demands for light
products if they replace current crude slates with OCS - quality
slates. Staff will project gasoline demand based on SCAG's official
population projections and existing per capita consumption data.
A consultant report on the technical refining aspects of the
relationship of increased OCS crude to additional heat production
and resultant air emissions will also be pursued at a cost of
$5000. (to be completed in June, 1988)
-- ADEQUACY OF EXISTING OIL PROCESSING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OCS
I
Status of and need for related OCS processing infrastructure (to
be completed in June, 1988)
-- LOCAL IMPACTS
Assess the upcoming Lease Sale impacts and related concerns for
each coastal units (i.e. Communities of Santa Monica Bay,
communities of South Orange County, Communities of North Orange
County, etc.)and present the specific mitigations required. (to be
completed in June, 1988.
--REGIONAL IMPACTS
Assess and present the key regional concerns and cumulative impacts
and present mitigations required. (to be completed in June of 1988.)
Task 5 - Analyse and critique the draft Lease Sale 95 EIS from the
perspective of focus reports prepared in Task 4 to be completed
before final comments are due on the draft, about August of 1988.
Task 6 - Prepare specialized analyzes and have consultants assess particular
issues pertinent particularly to Lease Sale 95 draft EIS.
PRODUCT 2
REPORT ON
Budget - $35,000 (L.A. County - $35,000)
TASK 1 - Participate as a team member of the coastal communities caucus at
caucus meetings and at plenary sessions to develop a federal rule governing
air quality regulations for projects in OCS waters. This work will be
performed from May through December of 1987.
TASK 2 - Prepare briefing materials and brief the Executive Committee of SCAG
on the positions of the caucus to assure that SCAG's leadership, represen-
tative of the region, finds the caucus position acceptable. This work will be
performed during June and December of 1987.
TASK 3 -Prepare a white paper and bibliography which a) discusses the
viscosity, metals content and sulfur content to be expected from OCS finds
offshore of L.A. and Orange counties based on expert opinions and current
offshore experience, b) determines what air monitoring studies (such as the
major South Coast air monitoring study) are being done or have recently been
done c) interpretes the technical findings pertinent to offshore development
of those reports and studies , d) reviews refinery literature and reports the
results of interviews with industry experts to determine the capacity of
L.A.'s refineries to handle OCS crudes and the air emissions, refinery
retrofits and potential need for new refineries which could result from
increased refining of OCS crudes in L.A. Area refineries, and e) determines
scope of and technical assistance needs to complete cumulative air analysis
for PRODUCT 1. This work will be performed between July 1, 1987and May 30,
1988.
For product 2, the balance of the $35,000 budget ($2,654) is allocated to
cover travel expenses and library purchases ($1361), and one staff week for
word processing at $1206.
PRODUCT 3
BUDGET - $25,000 (L.A COUNTY - $15,000 / ORANGE COUNTY-'$101000)
Task 1 - Research, publish and distribute a bi-monthly bulletin on OCS lease
sale activities, offshore and offshore -related project dgvelopment focusing
on the L.A. and Orange County impact areas, and OCS activities elsewhere as
they affect these counties and the SCAG region. This task will be completed
between September 1987 and November 1988.
Task 2 - Comment on federal lease sale documents including the draft Lease
Sale 95 EIS, provide information on offshore oil and related projects and
respond to requests from local governments, the public and the press as
needed. Coordinate with Southern California organizations'and governments to
ensure that project work is well coordinated and not duplicative. Prepare
management reports for funding agencies. This task will be undertaken between
May of 1987 and December of 1988.
$ 358.00 of this Product will be allocated for graphics.
RICHARD TINNEY & ASSOCIATES
INVOICE #2
LABOR
RICHARD
TINNEY
($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.1
15 HOURS
900
TASK
1.2
8 HOURS
480
TASK
1.5
3 HOURS
180
TASK
2.3.
25 HOURS
1500
TASK
3.2
4 HOURS
240
TASK
4.1
3 HOURS
180 3480
DOUG CANETE ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.5
2 HOURS
120
TASK
2.3
10 HOURS
600 720
JAMES CROWELL
($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.1
10 HOURS
600
TASK
1.3
6 HOURS
360
TASK
1.5
3 HOURS
180 1140
MAUREEN WITKOWSKI ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 15 HOURS 375 375
DIANE KOPEC ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 . 25 HOURS 1250 1250
TOTAL LABOR 7415
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 1100.00
MAIL 66.00
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 121.00
TELEPHONE/TELEX 315.26
TOTAL ODC 1602.26
SUBTOTAL 9017.26
FEE @ 5% 450.86
TOTAL 9468.12
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:
PURCHASE ORDER NO:
DATE: February 1 , 1988
NAME:
12-01-87 to 01-29-88
P.O. No. 08384
�,.
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
February 19r 1988
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(202) 3791874
r RECAf l)
FEBz 2 19884..
cy
ah of Ne�Or' er
808ch z
Please find enclosed RT&A's outlines for the Technical Reports.
The OCS topic areas for development are:
- Fisheries;
- Geologic Hazards;
- Oil Spill Contingency Planning;
- Biological Effects;
- Air Quality; and
- Economic Impacts.
The RT&A Report on Oil Reserves will arrive
from this submission. Please feel free to
questions and we look forward to seeing you
26, 1988 at 9 am.
Sincer 1
James J. Crowell
Vice President
Enclosure
/pas
under separate cover
call if you have any
on Fridayr February
' RECEivpo
M_
FEB221988.
cln ".
Nl1NPORr CALIF -
BEACH,
' To he dvoc- b� goy-vv-aYL a-yo(
AIR QUALITY
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Summary
1. Background
1.1. Brief history of OCS oil and gas leasing and production in general
1.2. Brief history of OCS oil and gas operations in Southern California
1.3. Current 5-Year OCS leasing program and Southern California
1.4. Description of proposed Lease Sale 95
2.0. Statement of the Issues
2.1. Background -- pollution at all stages
2.2. Air emissions sources
2.2.1. Crew and supply boats
2.2.2. Exploratory drilling vessels
2.2.3. Platform power sources
2.2.4. Tanker loading emissions
2.2.5. Processing, treatment, storage
2.3. Effects of air emissions
2.3.1. Health effects
2.3.2. Property value effects
2.3.3. Tourism effects
a
y
M
2.4. Problems with MMS regulation
2.4.1. Conflict of interest
2.4.2. Exemption of major sources
2.4.3. Cumulative effects
2.4.4. State air quality standards
3. The Orange County Situation
3.1. Nonattainment area for federal standards
3.1.1. Ozone
3.1.2. Carbon monoxide
3.1.3. Particulates
3.1.4. Others
3.2. Pollution increasing
3.2.1. Rapid growth
3.2.2. More stringent controls
3.3. Orange County required to meet standards
3.3.1. Possible federal sanctions
3.3.2. No authority over OCS
3.3.3. Compensating controls onshore
3.3.3.1. Subsidy to OCS development
3.3.3.2. Preclusion of onshore growth
4. Expected effects of Lease Sale 95
4.1. Background
4.1.1. Emissions proportional to size of development
4.1.2. Type of crude affects pollution
4.1.3. Transportation mode affects emissions
4.2. Effects from exploration
4.3. Effects from development
4.4. Effects from production
4.5. Effects from transportation
4.6. Effects from processing, treatment, storage
4.7. Effects from nearby refining
5. Actions needed to address anticipated effects
5.1. Research needed
5.2. Regulatory and lease stipulations
5.3. Deletion of specific blocks
5.4. Other mitigating measures
References cited
2
15
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Summary
FISHERIES
1. Background
1.1. Brief history of OCS oil and gas leasing and production in general
1.2. Brief history of OCS oil and gas operations in Southern California
1.3. Current 5-Year OCS leasing program and Southern California
1.4. Description of proposed Lease Sale 95
2. Sources of Effects on Fisheries from OCS Operations
2.1. Seismic exploration
2.1.1. Vessel traffic and activities
2.1.2. Pressure effects
2.2. Exploratory drilling
2.2.1. Anchoring of drilling rigs
2.2.2. Permitted waste discharges
2.2.3. Oil spills
2.2.4. Vessel traffic
2.3. Development and production
2.3.1. Structure emplacement
2.3.1.1. Platforms
A
2.3.1.2. Pipelines, other facilities
2.3.2. Permitted waste discharges
2.3.3. Oil spills
2.3.4. Vessel traffic
3. Orange County fisheries potentially affected
3.1. Commercial fisheries
3.1.1. Trawl fisheries
3.1.2. Gill net fisheries
3.1.3. Longline fisheries
3.1.4. Others
3.2. Sport fisheries
3.2.1. Beach and pier fisheries
3.2.2. Party boat fisheries
3.2.3. Private vessel fisheries
4. Potential effects of Lease Sale 95 on Orange County fisheries
4.1. Effects on fish
4.1.1. Displacement and movement of fish
4.1.2. Direct mortality
4.1.3. Reproductive losses
4.1.4. Productivity changes
4.2. Effects on fishing operations
4.2.1. Displacement of fisheries
4.2.2. Interference with fishing operations
4.2.3. Gear losses
4.2.4. Prevention of operations -- oil spills
5. Actions needed to address anticipated effects
5.1. Research needed
5.2. Regulatory and lease stipulations
5.3. Deletion of specific blocks
5.4. Other mitigating measures
References cited
w
c
omme l�XL
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS flta�V IbM //&ttk`6'
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Summary
1. Background
1.1. Brief history of OCS oil and gas leasing and production in general
1.2. Brief history of OCS oil and gas operations in Southern California
1.3. Current 5-Year OCS leasing program and Southern California
1.4. Description of proposed Lease Sale 95
2. Sources of Effects on Biota from OCS Operations
2.1. Seismic exploration
2.1.1. Vessel traffic and activities
2.1.2. Pressure effects
2.2. Exploratory drilling.
2.2.1. Anchoring of drilling rigs
2.2,2. Permitted waste discharges
2.2.2.1. Drilling muds
2.2.2.2. Cuttings
2.2.2.3. Deck wash and other discharges
2.2.3. Accidental and illegal discharges
2.2.3.1. Oil spills
2.2.3.2. Other
2.2.4. Vessel traffic
2.3. Development and production
2.3.1. Structure emplacement
2.3.1.1. Platforms
2.3.1.2. Pipelines, other facilities
2.3.2. Permitted waste discharges
2.3.2.1. Drilling muds
2.3.2.2. Cuttings
2.3.2.3. Formation waters
2.3.2.4. Deck wash, sewage, and other discharges
2.3.3. Accidental and illegal discharges
2.3.3.1. Oil spills
2.3.3.2. Other
2.3.4. Vessel and air traffic
3. Oran¢e County environments potentially affected
3.1. Habitat types
3.1.1. Bays and estuaries
3.1.1.1. Marshes
3.1.1.2. Mudflats
3.1.1.3. Benthos
3.1.1.4. Water column
3.1.2. Coastal
3.1.2.1. Beach and surf zone
3.1.2.2. Rocky intertidal
2
3.1.2.3. Subtidal benthos
3.1.2.4. Kelp beds
3.1.3. Pelagic
3.1.3.1. Water surface
3.1.3.2. Water column
3.1.3.3. Benthos
3.2. Specially protected areas
3.2.1. Beaches
3.2.2. National Wildlife Refuges
3.2.3. State marine life refuges
3.2.4. State ecological reserves
3.2.5. Bays and estuaries
3.2.6. Harbors
3.2.7. Kelp bed lease areas 8-18
4. Effects of Lease Sale 95 on Orange County biota
4.1. Effects from facilities and operations
4.1.1. Displacement of organisms
C,aqA-rhc I Co oe., S
4.1.2. Direct mortality
4.1.2.1. Coating and asphyxiation
4.1.2.2. Acute toxicity
4.1.2.3.' Long-term toxicity
4.1.2.4. Habitat changes
4.1.2.5. Competition
4.1.3. Reproductive losses
4.1.3.1. Behavioral effects
4
A
4.1.3.2. Teratogenicity
4.1.3.3. Larval and juvenile mortality
4.1.3.4. Habitat changes
4.1.4. Productivity changes
4.1.4.1. Metabolic and life history changes
4.1.4.2. Food chain alterations
4.1.4.3. Nutrient availability changes
4.1.4.4. Mutagenicity
4.1.5. Ecosystem changes
4.1.5.1. Diversity
4.1.5.2. Total productivity
4.2. Total effects by species types
4.2.1. Plankton
4.2.2. Seaweeds
4.2.3. Invertebrates
4.2.4. Fishes
4.2.5. Seabirds
4.2.6. Marine mammals
5. Actions needed to address anticipated effects
5.1. Research needed
5.2. Regulatory and lease stipulations
5.3. Deletion of specific blocks
5.4. Other mitigating measures
References cited
4
PArzk jinv,07
OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLANNING
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Summary
1. Background
1.1. Brief history of OCS oil and gas leasing and production in general
1.2. Brief history of OCS oil and gas operations in Southern California
1.3. Current 5-Year OCS leasing program and Southern California
1.4. Description of proposed Lease Sale 95
2. Statement of the Issues
2.1. Introduction to contingency planning
2.2. Federal government roles
2.2.1. Coast Guard
2.2.2. EPA
2.2.3. Other federal agencies
2.3. State government roles
2.3.1. Department of Fish and Game
2.3.2. Coastal Commission
2.3.3. Other state agencies
2.4. Local government roles
2.5. Industry roles
t
2.5.1. Oil company roles
2.5.2. Spill cooperative roles
2.5.3. Contractor roles
3. Description of the Orange County Situation
3.1. Resources at risk
3.1.1. Natural resources
3.1.1.1. Reserves, refuges, and parks
3.1.1.2. Beaches
3.1.1.3. Estuaries and bays
3.1.1.4. Pelagic resources
3.1.2. Human resources
3.1.2.1. Harbors
3.1.2.2. Fisheries
3.1.2.3. State kelp bed leases
3.2. Existing contingency plans
3.2.1. National and regional federal plan
3.2.2. Local federal plan
3.2.3. State plan
3.2.4. Orange County plan
3.2.5. Beta field plan
3.2.6. Specific tract plans
3.2.7, Clean Coastal Waters plan
3.3. Understanding of Environmental Conditions
3.3.1. Background -- needed information
3.3.2. Physical oceanography of Orange County OCS
3.3.3. Meteorology of Orange County OCS
3.4. Demonstrated effectiveness of contingency planning
3.4.1. In Orange County area
3.4.1.1. Spills
3.4.1.2. Tests
3.4.2. In Southern California generally
3.4.2.1. Spills
3.4.2.2. Tests
3.4.3. Elsewhere
3.4.3.1. Spills
3.4.3.2. Tests
4. Effects of Lease Sale 95 on Oil Spill Contingency Plannin
4.1. Exploration phase
4.2. Development phase
4.3. Production phase
4.3.1. At platforms
4.3.2. Transportation -related
4.3.2.1. Pipelines
4.3.2.2. Tankers
5. Actions Needed for Adequate Contingency Planning
5.1. Provisions to be included in plans
5.1.1. Area -wide plans
5.1.2. Tract -specific plans
5.2. Equipment staging
W:
i
5.3 Re
References c
5.2.1. For protection of key natural resources
5.2.1.1. Parks, refuges, and reserves
5.2.1.2. Estuaries and bays
5.2.1.3. Beaches
5.2.1.4. Pelagic resources
5.2.2. For protection of key human resources
5.2.2.1. Harbors
9 9.9.9_ Fishinv
- y
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Q
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Summary
1. Background
1.1. Brief history of OCS oil and gas leasing and production in general
1.2. Brief history of OCS oil and gas operations in Southern California
1.3. Current 5-Year OCS leasing program and Southern California
1.4. Description of proposed Lease Sale 95
2. Statement of the Issues
2.1. Introduction to geologic hazards -- definition
2.2. Seismic activity -- defined/described
2.3. Faulting -- defined/described
2.4. Seafloor instability -- defined/described
2.5. Steep slopes -- defined/described
2.6. Shallow gas -- defined/described
2.7. Hydrocarbon seeps -- defined/described
3. Description of the Orange County Situation
3.1. Seismic activity
3.1.1. Location of earthquake epicenters, including figure
3.1.2. Description of significant earthquakes in the area
3.1.3. Analysis of earthquake potential
3.2. Faulting
3.2.1. Location of known faults, including figure
3.2.2. Description of significant faults in the area
3.2.3. Analysis of potential for fault -related hazards
3.3. Seafloor instability
3.3.1. Known areas of seafloor instability, including figure
3.3..2. Description of significant instability episodes
3.3.3. Analysis of instability potential
3.4 Steep slopes
3.4.1. Known areas of steep slopes, including figure
3.4.2. Description of significant steep slopes episodes
3.4.3. Analysis of steep slope problems potential
3.5. Shallow gas
3.5.1. Known areas of shallow gas, including figure
3.5.2. Description of significant shallow gas episodes
3.5.3. Analysis of shallow gas problems potential
3.6. Hydrocarbon seepage
3.6.1. Known areas of hydrocarbon seepage, including figure
3.6.2. Description of significant seepage incidents
3.6.3. Analysis of hydrocarbon seepage potential
4. Effects of Geological Hazards on Lease Sale 95
4.1. Significance of earthquakes to OCS development off Orange County
4.2. Significance of faulting to OCS development off Orange County
4.3. Significance of seafloor instability to OCS development off Orange
County
C]
I
4.4. Significance of steep slopes for OCS development off Orange County
4.5. Significance of shallow gas to OCS development off Orange County
4.6. Significance of HC seepage to OCS development off Orange County
5. Measures Needed to Minimize Geologic Hazards
5.1. Background -- types of mitigating measures
5.1.1. Technological fixes -- a lagging indicator
5.1.2. Stipulations
5.1.3. OCS Orders
5.1.4. Prohibitions
5.2. Needed risk mitigation measures
5.2.1. Performance standards related to possible conditions
5.2.2. Stipulations and orders
5.2.3. Prohibitions on leasing in areas where risks are too high
References cited
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
l���WLQPn2� W f� K--t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Summary
1. Background
1.1 Brief history of OCS oil and gas leasing and
production in general
1.2 Brief history of OCS oil and gas operations in
Southern California
1.3 Current 5-year OCS leasing program and Southern
California
1.4 Description of proposed Lease Sale 95
2. Statement of the Issues
2.1 Potential Losses
2.1.1
Commercial
fishing
industry
& tourist
revenue
2.1.2
Community
stress of
OCS and
quality of
life
2.2 Detrimental economic effects of OCS
2.2.1 Marine life and ecosystem
2.2.2 Ocean recreation experiences (tourists &
residents)
2.2.2.1 Boating
2.2.2.2 Sport fishing
2.2.2.3 Beach visitation (undeveloped
coastal areas)
2.3 Commercial pressure on community service
infrastructure (e.g., "Boom Town" effect)
I-
2.4 Market loss due to OCS development
2.4.1 Commercial fishing
2.4.2 Tourism (projected gross revenues)
2.5 Non -Market loss due to OCS development
2.5.1 Wild life
2.5.2 Community stress
2.5.3 Beach visitation
3. Description of Effected Areas
3.1 Effected population
3.1.1 Harbor and offshore marine activities
3.1.1.1 Shipping & transportation
3.1.1.2 Commercial fishing
3.1.1.3 Sport fishing & other recreation
3.1.1.4 Protection of wildlife & nearshore
ecosystem
3.1.2 Onshore Activities
3.1.2.1 Tourism & related businesses
3.1.2.2 Beach visitation (tourist &
residents)
3.1.2.3 Real estate valued affected
3.1.2.3.1 Community esthetics
(congestion & obstructed
ocean view)
3.2 Current Economic Value to Area
3.2.1 Harbor and offshore marine activities
3.2.1.1 Shipping & transportation
3.2.1.2 Commercial fishing
3.2.1.3 Sport fishing & other recreation
3.2.1.4 Protection of wildlife & nearshore
ecosystem
I
M
3.2.2 Onshore activities
3.2.2.1 Tourism & related businesses
3.2.2.2 Beach visitation (tourist &
residents)
3.2.2.3 Real estate valued affected
3.2.2.3.1 Community esthetics
(congestion & obstructed
ocean view)
3.3 Projected Economic Value with no OCS
3.3.1 Harbor and offshore marine activities
3.3.1.1 Shipping & transportation
3.3.1.2 Commercial fishing
3.3.1.3 Sport fishing & other recreation
3.3.1.4 Protection of wildlife & nearshore
ecosystem
3.3.2 Onshore activities
3.3.2.1 Tourism & related businesses
3.3.2.2 Beach visitation (tourist &
residents)
3.3.2.3 Real estate valued affected
3.3.2.3.1 Community esthetics
(congestion & obstructed
ocean view)
4. Effects of Lease Sale 95
4.1 increased demand on service -infrastructure (fire,
police, roads, health care, transportation)
4.2 Profit loss - market Values
4.2.1 Shipping & transportation
4.2.2 Commercial fishing
4.2.3 Sport fishing & other recreation
4.2.4 Tourism & related business
4.3 Non -Market implicit losses
4.3.1 Sport fishing &_other recreation
4.3.2 Protection of wildlife & nearshore ecosystem
4.3.4 Esthetic value - real estate
5. Action Required to Address Issues
5.1 Assess demand on service infrastructure
5.1.1 Input/output modeling
5.2 Assess profit loss to market values
5.2.1 Survey fishermen & merchants
5.2.2 Collect past impact data (e.g., Santa
Barbara, Georges Banks, and Gulf Coast)
5.2.3 Develop projections
5.3 Assess Non -Market Values
5.3.1 Collect existing relevant data
5.3.2 Survey tourist & residents
5.3.3 Visual degradation analysis
5.3.4 Employ analytical methods
- Contingent evaluation survey
- Travel cost studies
- Hedonic property evaluation
T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
February 20r 1988
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(202) 379,1874
RECE ED
FEB 2 319884- L
t
City Manager n
City of Newoort Beach /
Richard Tinney & Associates is pleased to present this draft
report on An Estimate of Orange County OCS Oil Volumes. We would
like to discuss this document at our meeting on February 26. If
you have any questions about thisr please call me at (703)
684-9293.
Sincerely,
r:
Enclosure
/pas
dtPftZr.z�nrofi �,
;-h FLt'8231988 fm.
11-0- �[
DRAFT
AN ESTIMATE OF ORANGE COUNTY O.C.S.
OIL VOLUMES
Submitted to
Orange County
Huntington Beach
Laguna Beach
Newport Beach
San Clemente
Richard Tinney & Associates
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(703) 684-9293
Table of Contents
Section
Page
List of
Tables
ii
List of
Figures
ii
1.0 Background
1
1.1
Recent OCS Development and
Production Trends
1
1.2
Past Federal OCS Lease Sales
1
1.3
Lease Sale 95
3
1.4
Leasing Trends in State Waters
3
1.5
Onshore Oil Fields in California
4
2.0 Estimate of Amount of Oil Available
in Lease Sale 95 4
2.1 The Orange County OCS 5
2.2 Past Estimates 7
2.3 The Volume of the Orange County OCS 7
3.0 Comparisons
7
3.1 National Consumption vs Orange
County OCS Reserves 7
i
List of Tables
Table
Page
Table 1. Production of Federal Offshore Oil
and Natural Gas from the Southern
California Planning Area 2
List of Figures
Figure
Page
Figure 1: The Orange County OCS Following Page 5
ii
1.0 Background
1.1 Recent OCS Development and Production Trends in California
Low prices and a volatile market for crude oil have led to
substantial reduction in exploratory activities all along the
Pacific coast, affecting both onshore and offshore activities.
The number of OCS lease tracts managed by the U.S. Department of
Interior has decreased each year since 1984, as have the
production levels of oil and natural gas.
Despite these apparently unpromising conditions, drilling in the
Pacific OCS has resulted in significant upward revisions in the
estimated quantities of oil and gas reserves off the coast of
Southern California. The drilling has all occurred in the
Southern California Planning Area in 24 OCS oil fields, eleven
which have been discovered since 1981. The upward revisions in
reserves are attributed, in part, to the development of
production wells which, in contrast to exploration activities,
has continued to be pursued by industry for the past four years.
Industry investments directed at developing Southern California
OCS resources, during a period of depressed crude oil prices,
clearly demonstrates a very strong interest in the potential
exhibited by the oil fields located in the Southern California
Planning Area. This interest can be expected to be translated
into highly competitive bidding for federal offshore tracts made
available to the petroleum industry during the upcoming 1989
Southern California Planning Area Lease Sale (#95).
1.2 Past Federal OCS Lease Sales
During the 25 years of Federal leasing in the Pacific OCS
leasing, eleven sales have been conducted. Nine of these sales
have concerned federal lands located in Southern California
Planning Area. There are 147 federal leases currently held by
the private sector. Resources associated with existing leases in
the Southern California area amount to 360 million barrels of oil
equivalent (BOE) of crude oil and natural gas or about twelve
percent of projected resources from all federal lands in the
Pacific OCS. These federal offshore resources are currently
under development and/or production from 21 offshore platforms
(as of August 1, 1987) scattered offshore from Point Arguello in
the north to the four southernmost platforms located off the
coast of Orange County on top the highly productive Beta and Beta
Northwest fields.
As shown in Table 1, production from federal offshore leases
in the Pacific OCS Region has remained relatively constant in the
period from 1984 to 1986. California's overall contribution
towards production of offshore resources has been approximately
30 million barrels of oil per year and 5 to 9 billion cubic feet
of natural gas. In relation to national development of federal
oil and natural gas resources California has generated
approximately 8% of federal OCS crude oils and 1% of all federal
OCS natural gas.
Table 1.
Production of Federal Offshore
Oil
and Natural Gas from the
Southern California Planning Area
% of National
of National
CCrude Oil
Federal OCS Natural Gas
Federal OCS
Year
106 Barrels)
Production 5106 Barrels BOE*)
Production
1984
30.2
8.2% 4.9
0.61
1985
29.7
7.7% 8.8
1.23
1986
29.2
7.5% 7.6
1.08
*BOE: Barrels of Oil Equivalent = natural gas (NG) given in 109 cu ft
- 5.62 106 barrels of oil
The four lease tracts making up the Beta and Beta Northwest
fields are among the most productive oil fields in California.
The Beta fields are the only existing federal OCS leases off the
Orange County coastline. The two fields, which lie next to one
another, are located 7 miles west of Huntington Beach and total
23,040 acres in size.
Development of the Beta field began in 1980 with eight wells
drilled from platform Ellen in 1980. Twenty-one additional
development wells were drilled from the same platform during each
of the next two years (1981 and 1982). Including one additional
development well drilled in 1987, a total of 6 wells have been
drilled from Ellen, which has a total of 80 well slots. Shell
Western Exploration and Production, Inc. (SWEPT) or Shell
operates two other platforms in addition to Ellen, Eureka and
Elly. Development drilling from Eureka commences in 1984 and has
led to the drilling of 42 development wells from a platform with
a capacity of 60 well slots. Shell's third platform in the Beta
fields is Platform Elly, a processing platform from which no
wells will be drilled. Only initial treatment and storage will
be conducted at Elly. Chevron operates the fourth platform off
the coast of Orange County; Edith. Chevron has drilled 21
development wells since 1983 from Edith which is located over the
Beta Northwest field.
The only significant increase in oil and gas production from
offshore oil fields (including both federal and state lands) in
1986 came from the Beta fields which increased production by
700,000 barrels in 1986 from 1985 levels. Overall, oil from
federal OCS leases off California was generated from 341
producing wells on 21 platforms located in federal waters. Total
production of crude oil from federal OCS leases in 1986 was
almost 29 million barrels according to California state figures
and a little over 29 million according to the Department of
Interior's Mineral Management Service. Of that production, crude
oil from the Beta fields reached a level of 7 million barrels of
oil in 1986, almost 25% of all oil produced from federal waters
in California.
1.3 Lease Sale 95
The Department of Interior's 5-year OCS leasing program
includes OCS Lease Sale 95 for September 1989. Lease Sale 95
includes federal offshore lands in the Southern California
Planning Area, an area that extends geographically from the
Mexican border in the south to the San Luis Opispo Monterey
County Line in the north. (It is within this area of federal
offshore lands that all past and current development and
production of federal oil and natural gas has occurred in the
Pacific arena.)
Supporters of this lease sale and of other Pacific OCS
development programs suggest development of these resources is
necessary to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. The
existence of substantial previously -discovered reserves within
the Southern California Planning Area suggest that OCS Lease Sale
95 will not only result in serious bidding, but will in all
likelihood lead to high levels of exploratory and developmental
drilling activity after the sale.
1.4 Leasing Trends in State Waters
The State of California has jurisdiction over the development
of natural resources locate in submerged lands and overlying
waters extending three geographical miles from its coastline.
Although leases were first granted in 1929, no sales for state
offshore lands have been held since 1969.
Without new development projects, production from State held
offshore lands has dropped steadily from the peak level of 1969.
Currently, oil production of almost 35 million barrels (1986) is
about 40% of the 1969 level.
Within the three mile limit off the coast of Orange County,
there are two major oil fields - the Belmont field and the
Huntington Beach field which extends offshore from the
coastline. The Belmont field has approximately 12 million
barrels of recoverable reserves. Production of oil was a half
million barrels in 1986 and 45 million cubic feet of natural gas;
production was from 30 wells. The offshore portion of the
Huntington Beach field has 323 producing wells accounting for
almost 5 million of the 7 million barrels of oil produced from
the field. Although onshore and offshore wells have produced
approximately half of the total quantity of oil from the field,
offshore reserves account for 61% of the remaining oil. This
field will probably continue to produce for a number of years.
Economics have dictated the shutdown of a number of wells in the
past couple of years. These operations for the most part relied
on recovery techniques that were considered too costly given the
market for crude oil at this time.
1.5 Onshore Oil Fields in California
California ranks fourth in total crude oil produced behind
Texas, Alaska and Louisiana.
Oil in the state is produced from 246 fields accessed by
43,000 operational wells (a drop of 6,600 wells from 1985).
Onshore production accounts for 84% to 85% of all crude oil and
natural gas produced in the state. In 1986, production of oil
fell for the first time since 1978 dropping to 407 million
barrels from 423 million barrels in 1985. Onshore production
accounted for 344 million barrels of the State total.
Recoverable reserves (proved economically recoverable) total 5.5
billion barrels for the State or about 84% of the total reserve
base.
Within Orange County there are thirteen active onshore oil
and gas producing fields. Four of these fields cross the Orange
County border into Los Angeles County.
2.0 Estimate of Amount of Oil Available in Lease Sale 95
Because the Minerals Management Service does not make its
estimates of oil volumes in OCS blocks public, there are no
reliable estimates of the amount of oil contained in the Orange
County OCS. Using available information, an estimate may be
made, however. This is done here, after first defining just what
the Orange County OCS is.
2.1 The Orange Countv OCS
The area of the OCS off Orange County has never been
precisely defined, primarily because county jurisdiction does not
extend into the federal waters of the OCS. For the purposes of
this report, however, some definition is necessary.
The Orange County OCS may be defined by extending the county
boundaries seaward in a direction perpendicular to the general
trend of the Orange County coastline. These lines reach to the
landward edge of the area excluded from leasing in Lease Sale 95
by the Secretary of the Interior. Also outside the Orange County
OCS are blocks in buffer zones around the Palos Verdes peninsula,
off the central Orange County coast, and around Santa Catalina
and San Clemente Islands, and the four blocks currently under
lease. This defines an area containing 167 whole and partial
blocks, as shown in Figure 1.
2.2 Past Estimates
In the course of planning for past and future lease sales of
the Southern California OCS, the Minerals Management Service (and
its predecessor, the Bureau of Land Management) has developed
estimates of the quantity of oil to be found there. To the
extent they have been made public, these past estimates have not
specifically addressed the full group of 167 blocks of the Orange
County OCS. However, they are useful in developing an estimate
of amount of oil in this area.
2.2.1 Lease Sale 48
In 1978 the Bureau of Land Management prepared to hold Lease
Sale 48. This sale involved an offering of 148 blocks in various
areas of Southern California. (Fifty-four of these blocks were
leased.) Twenty-one of the offered blocks were grouped into a
so-called "San Pedro Bay Area" and other 26 into a "Dana
Point/San Diego Area". The 21 San Pedro Bay blocks, all but four
of which were entirely within the Orange County OCS as defined
here, were estimated to have 80 million barrels of oil, or 3.8
million barrels per block. The 26 Dana Point/San Diego blocks,
five of which were within the Orange County OCS, were estimated
to have 30 million barrels of oil, or 1.15 million barrels per
block. If these estimates were extrapolated over the entire
Orange County OCS, the 167 blocks would contain a volume of 192
to 634 million barrels of oil. Such an extrapolation is
unwarranted, however, since oil is not distributed in such
quantities uniformly throughout the Orange County OCS.
Accordingly, the figures of 192 to 634 million barrels are
overestimations.
5
Word
■M50
�\
MOVIR
I`r �.♦
1.
��,.ur'
III WA4
AM
w ps'Nu■■■■'�Vol
jig on
:�///�y�� ,�►
.jl-&
,
(/
�� Gr►psi,
ON
F: �i
2.2.2 Lease Sale 68
In the 1981 environmental impact statement for Lease Sale 68,
the Bureau of Land Management analyzed 31 partial and whole
blocks off the Palos Verdes peninsula and Orange County. Of
these, 15 were among those offered in Lease Sale 48, and 25 were
wholly or partially within the Orange County OCS as defined
here. These 31 blocks were among 75 offered in the so-called
"Inner Banks"•area, stretching from Anacapa Island to San Diego.
These 75 blocks were estimated to have a risked mean oil volume
of 35 million barrels, or about 0.46 million barrels per block.
Extrapolating this figure over the entire Orange County OCS
yields an estimate of 76.8 million barrels for all 167 blocks.
This figure is considerably lower than that developed from Lease
Sale 48 figures, reflecting the growing knowledge of the Southern
California OCS.
2.2.3 Lease Sale 80
The 1983 environmental impact statement for Lease Sale 80
involved, in relevant part, an analysis of approximately 400
blocks in the Inner Basins area of Southern California. These
400 blocks were estimated to have a "most Likely' volume of 100
million barrels of oil, or about 0.25 million barrels per block.
applying this figure to the 167 blocks of the Orange county OCS
gives an estimated volume of 41.75 million barrels.
The Lease Sale 80 EIS included an analysis of an alternative
involving the deletion of 44,900 acres, the equivalent of 7.8
blocks, off Orange County. The area deleted under this
alternative was estimated to contain about 10 million barrels of
oil, or 1.28 million barrels per block. If this quantity were
found in all 167 blocks of the Orange County OCS, this would
amount to 2213.76 million barrels. This figure is much too high,
however, as deep water blocks are believed to hold little or no
oil, and most others are believed to hold much less than 1.28
million barrels.
2.2.4 5-Year Plan
The EIS for the current 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing
program, issued in 1987, analyzes several different alternatives
for leasing off Southern California. the whole of the Southern
California OCS is estimated there to hold 0.094 million barrels
per block. This would give the Orange County OCS 15.74 million
barrels, a figure too low since it includes large areas of
unprospective blocks.
The "preferred alternative" in the 5-year plan EIS, covering
a smaller area, basically excluding deep water blocks and certain
nearshore blocks, is estimated to hold 0.072 million barrels per
block. This amounts to about 12 million barrels over the 167
blocks of the Orange County OCS. This, too, is likely to be too
low.
Governor Deukmejian proposed a leasing alternative that
excluded most deepwater blocks and some nearshore blocks. The
Minerals Management Service estimated that the remaining blocks
hold about 0.176 million barrels per block. This would amount to
29.33 million barrels for the Orange County OCS, a figure more
likely to be reasonably accurate since the Deukmejian proposal
excludes more of the unprospective blocks.
Congressman Regula proposed another leasing alternative, this
one even more focused on blocks in areas similar to the Orange
County OCS. Because of the exclusion of additional unprospective
blocks, this proposal, also analyzed in the 5-year plan OCS,
produces a better estimate than any of the others covered there.
The Regula proposal was estimated to hold about 0.273 million
barrels per block, or 45.62 million barrels for the Orange County
OCS.
2.3 The Volume of Oil in the Orange County OCS
Because precise figures on the oil volumes to be found in the
OCS are not publicly available, estimates must be based on what
information is available. Reasonable assumptions must be made,
and that is what is done here in estimating the volume of the
Orange County OCS.
Because the Regula proposal of the 5-year plan EIS contains
areas most like those making up the Orange County OCS, the
estimate produced using figures from that proposal. 45.62 million
barrels, appears to be reasonable. This conclusion is buttressed
by the fact that Lease Sale 80 figures produce a similar
estimate. For these reasons, we estimate that the Orange County
OCS contains about 45.62 million barrels of oil. Adding the
natural gas estimate from the Regula proposal gives a total of
57.6 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE).
3.0 Comparisons
3.1 National Consumption vs Orange County OCS Reserves
Each year the nation consumes approximately 6 billion barrels
of oil (5.75 x 109 Bbls). This figure is equivalent to
approximately 16 million barrels 'of oil per day (15.7 MMBbls).
Given that the Orange County OCS contains approximately 45.62
million barrels of oil, resources in this lease area would supply
our nation's requirements for petroleum products for a little less
than three days (approximately 69 hours).
Given that our nation imports approximately one-third (33.4%)
of all petroleum consumed, oil from the Orange County OCS would
account for 8 and one half days of national oil imports.
Alternativelyr if we compare the oil plus the natural gas
resources projected to be found in the Orange County OCS (i.e.,
57.6 million BOE) against total consumption of energy in the United
States, the resources of Orange County appear even more
insignificant. The nation consumes over 64 quadrillion Btus of
energy annually. This translates to 11 billion barrels of oil
equivalent (BOE) per year or 31.4 million BOE per day. Thus,
resources contained in Federal offshore waters west of Orange
County would meet for the national energy demand for a period of 44
hours (less than two days).
II
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource'Management Consultants
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
/9 r
.
REC
`�765179
\'
uV
hing onn, D.CX 20035
FEB 2 2 19889-
` (202) 379,1874
dtry Manager
City of Newport deach
\<,7
b
February
13, 1988
Please find enclosed RT&A's Monthly Report #02, Revised Work
Plan, Video outline and invoice for cost incurred.
Should you require further information, please feel free to
contact Richard or me at 703-684-9293.
Enclosure
/pas
I
I
Sincerel
James J. Crowell
Vice President
Monthly Report
Report No• 02
Period of Performance: December 1, 1987 to January 31, 1988
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Obiective: To provide technical and coordination
services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of Interior's Mineral
Management Service.
Task Status•
Report Overview
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during the two previous
months. During this period, progress was made in all four task
areas. Work continued on the finalization of the Work Plan and
the identification, collection and input of pertinent documents,
research papers and reports into the study library. In addition,
work has been initiated on Tasks Areas 3.0 and 4.0 to complement
work conducted in Task Area 2.0.
1.0 Program Management and Support (58 hours)
The second team meeting was held with RT&A and the program
sponsors on December 17, 1987. The major issues addressed by
RT&A were:
(a) Revision of RT&A's Work Plan to reflect:
- Library location and content,
- Oil & Gas reserve report,
- Reinstatement of seismic issue, and
- Video description and plan.
(b) Development of annotated outlines for technical papers
referenced in the Work Plan.
Attached to this report are copies of RT&A's revised Work Plan,
an outline of the planned Video presentation and Invoice No. 21
which addresses expenses incurred during the past two months.
Unless major changes are warranted, the newly submitted Work Plan
and related cost estimates will be executed as written. RT&A
will remain flexible in its overall approach to reflect the
changing requirements normally associated with the long-term
nature of such a project.
2.0 Technical Analvsis_and Review
As of the last reporting period, Tasks 2.1 - Response to Notice
of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Statement and Task 2.2 -
nvironmental Impact'Statement ScoAing Process are complete and
final. RT&A continued its effort on data collection,
categorization, preliminary analysis and input to the project
document library. During the course of the reporting period,
RT&A staff collected sponsor OCS documentation pertinent to the
current effort.
Documents concerning seismic activity and geologic hazards have
been collected from U.S. Geological Survey offices located in
Washington, D.C. and McLean, VA. This documentation was used to
prepare the first of several detailed report outlines to be
addressed by the study team members. In addition, study team
members have been reviewing the DEIS for Lease Sale 91 to
identify effective technical and analytical approaches for
addressing issues of concern to the Orange County coastal
communities. Critiques of the DEIS prepared by various public
interest groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council,
an organization that is particularly adapt at critical evaluation
of federal resource development programs.
RT&A has included a map depicting the OCS lease tracts of
specific concern to Orange County (See Figure 1) and the four
county beach communities sponsoring this study program. The
areas outlined by a bold dark border line in the map range from
three miles off the Orange County coastline out to areas
surrounding the southern half of Santa Catalina island, including
areas between the Western bottom of Santa Catalina and the
Northeastern coast of San Clemente Island. Within the lease area
are four tracts that have been darkened to represent those tracts
that are currently leased and developed. Four producing
platforms are currently situated over these lease areas. The
area outlined that is directly west of San Clemente is currently
subject to negotiations to DOD and therefore may or may not be
included in Lease Sale 95. (This area of potential
defense -related conflicts will be included as part of the study
area.)
RT&A held a series of meetings during this reporting period with
various representatives from MMS, Department of Energy, U.S.
Geological Survey, and public interest groups. In addition, two
conferences were attended by RT&A staff.
Regarding #95, he showed the following twelve scoping issues
identified at the October 1987 public meetings:
1. nearshore focus
2. effects on tourism
3. local economic effects
4. quality effects
5. local services
6. marine life effects
7. fishing effects
8. military use effects
9. air quality effects
10. risk of oil spill
11. human health effects
12. transportation of oil and gas out of the area
Then he listed his de artment's goals, which focus on air quality
model analysis, resou ce estimates, and oil spill model
analysis. The schedule is to complete the DEIS by July 1988,
with public hearings in August 1988. The public comment period
ends September 1988 and FEIS will be available February 1989.
Public meeting sites have not yet been set, and interested
parties can provide input on their choice of. sites.
Although many onshore and recreation/tourism effects were "scoped
out", Mr. Alcorn did not mention any economic modeling of the
area. He said there is no specific modeling of economic impacts
planned. A generalized PC model for identifying
employment/infrastructure impacts which has been applied to Lease
Sale #91 will also be applied to #95. The economist responsible
for analysis is Mel Horton in Mr. Alcorn's section in L.A. at
(213) 894-6741.
Tom Dunaway provided a summary of 1987 post -lease activity on OCS
leases, including some interesting stats on spills. In the
Pacific OCS area in 1987, less than 20 barrels (an average of
1-15 gallons per spill) were spilled, which he claims is about
the annual industry standard for the last 10-20 years. He also
made a point of discussing the tightness of MMS environmental
monitoring activities. For example, MMS has special biological
stipulations on leases wherein the leasee is required to conduct
extra biological surveys. At Pt. Arguello, hardbottom areas were
identified which may support unique biological communities. As a
result, Chevron and Texaco have been required to avoid placing
anchors in these areas; MMS inspectors have been onsite and are
requiring companies to conduct sonar -scan surveys and identify
impacts on these hardbottom communities. Results from the scan
have shown that no detrimental impacts have resulted; Mr. Dunaway.
concludes that the special stipulation process has successfully
provided protection of identified areas.
Conferences Attended
Date: January 12, 1988
Name: Pacific Regional Technical Working Group (RTWG)
Place: Los Angeles, CA
The Pacific RTWG held its meeting on January 12; the public was
welcome to attend and ask questions, but no public comments or
suggestions were to be addressed. The second day was a wrap-up
meeting for the RTWG, which has apparently been meeting with the
purpose of identifying appropriate strategies for the Pacific
coast 5-year oil and gas offshore leasing program. Bill Grant,
the regional Director for MMS is leaving and will be replaced
temporarily by Wallace Silva, the current Deputy Director. New
to the working group was Jody Giannini of San Luis Obispo who
represents the fishing community.
The speakers provided brief summaries of technical information.
Bill Grant had some MMS statistics he provided to the panel. Of
the $22.7 million MMS studies budget, he said $8 million has been
budgeted for California.
At this time, there is no current exploratory activity in
California, but some permits are pending. Pt. Arguello comes on
line in February, and Santa Ynez will probably be permitted very
soon, after a 15-year permitting process. Under the current
5-year plan for this coast, the first offering will be Lease Sale
491, scheduled for February of 1989, but the expectation is that
it will be delayed because of the elections.
Fred White, Chief of Leasing Activities, presented the 5-year
Leasing Program Schedule for MMS. There are 24 Standard Sales
planned, 5 in the Pacific OCS Region. Be can provide maps of the
areas which are deferred and which are open for sale. After Sale
#91 in February 1989, #95 is second in September 1989, Sale #138
is last in Southern California in July 1992. A special point was
made of the extent of the deferred areas, although these areas
didn't appear large relative to the open lease areas.
Steve Alcorn, the Chief of Environmental Assessment provided a
very brief rundown of the EIS activity on Lease Sale #91 and
#95. Regarding #91, he stated the dates and places of public
hearings in February, and listened to a few suggestions by the
Oregon and Washington panel members and fishing representative
concerning how the DEIS was not provided in a timely manner and
the vague nature of the maps.
Other topics covered: During the meeting include proposals for
the building of - two pipelines to.Texas from Bakersfield and
Santa Barbara (only one has been approved so far) each with a
300,000 bbl/day capacity. Also, plans are in process for
acquiring permits to place a pipeline from Santa Barbara. In
addition, five to seven exploratory wells and one platform are
planned for development this year in the Pacific OCS.
John Lane, Chief of Environmental Operations, talked about
post -lease experience so far. He says most exploratory activity
and potential disruption occurs during the first 5 years after
the sale. Two physical impacts were stressed, air quality and
fishing (no economic effects were addressed). Regarding air
quality, MMS models both inert and photochemical emissions;
industry projections are required to identify potential
exceedance of state and local attainment standards.
Regarding commercial fishing (no mention of sport fishing), MMS
identifies all relevant commercial fishing activity and potential
conflicts with the oil industry, relying partly on the experience
gained in sales 473 and #80 wherein special stipulations required
the oil industry to contact local fishermen and identify
potential impacts and discuss mitigation possibilities. Data are
collected for the peak fishing areas to try to coordinate timing
with oil activity and peak fishing area. Both trawling and gill
netting were addressed. Two impacts have been identified in the
past: fish loss and space loss. Space loss results primarily
from oil industry vessels. Fish loss has been very minimal in
past studies, and space loss problems have been handled by
establishing "vessel corridors" for the oil industry traffic,
placed where fishing does not occur (though because fish move,
I'm not sure how they do this from season to season.) Another
space loss problem which has to be addressed is that each
platform removes 0.5 to 1.5 square miles from commercial fishing
areas.
Meeting and Contacts
Name
Title
Discussion
o Mr.
Steve Alcorn
Chief, MMS Environmental
Lease Sale 95 DEIS
Assessment Division
- 30 days behind
schedule - expected
date August
1988/copy of Lease
Sale 91
o Ms.
Beth Leeds
President, Orange Cty
3 day National Oil
Save Our Shores
Consumption
documentation
o Mr.
Al Willard
State Lands Commission
Data collection -
OSC development
o Ms.
Frieda Star
MMS Document Specialist
FEIS - MMS 5 year
plan
o Lt.
J. Talbot &
U.S. Coast Guard
Contingency
Lt.
Moore
planning and area
of coverage
o Mr.
Mike Herz
Independent Consl't
NRDC documentation
on Lease Sale 91;
Oil Spill
contingency
planning
o Ms.
Bonnie Porter
California State Parks
Oil Spill
Contingency Plans
o Mr.
Ron Schaffer
Chief, Visitor Services
Oil Spill
- Orange County District
Contingency Plans
- California Parks &
Recreation
o Ms. Sally Reed
o Mr. Dave Zeiner
o Mr. Warner Chabot
Consultant, Former
President of Sierra Club
California Department
of Fish & Game
Regional Coordinator,
Central Coastal Cities
Listing of Orange
County
environmental group
Acquisition of
Wildlife habitat
relationship
database for Orange
County coastal
waters
OCS Impacts, Grass
roots organization
Name
o Mr. John Bennett
o Ms. Ann Haywood
Warner
o Ms Suzan Prestwich
Title
President, Bennett
Consultants
Scientific Support
Coord, Central Atlantic
Region EPA
Department of Energy,
Idaho National
Engineering Lab
Discussion
Oil Spill
Contingency
Planning
Oil & Hazardous
Substance Spill
Planning
Geophysical Effects
of OCS
Work continues on the development of the technical outlines in the
topic areas described in RT&A revised work plan (see Attachment A).'
Copies of each outline wil be forwarded to the program sponsors for
review prior to RT&A's next coordination meeting with the program
sponsors.
3.0 Strategy Forumlation and Coordination
RT&A is currently pursuing identification of private/public interst
groups for information and coordination purposes during this
engagement. Organizations (same noted in Meeting & Contacts)
involved with previous lease sales are currently being contacted.
RT&A has initiated the monitoring of legal developments related to
the issues of OCS. The following is a brief synopsis of issues of
interest.
Legal Developments. The five-year OCS leasing plan is being
challenged by the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal
Commission. Additional challenges to the plan have been filed by
Oregon, Washington, Florida, and Massachusetts, as well as several
national conservation organizations, commercial fishing
organizations, and local governments.
Eighteen local governments in California have adopted local land -use
ordinances requiring permits for onshore support facilities to be put
to a vote of the local electorate, or outright banning onshore
support facilities. The Western Oil and Gas Association has sued to
overturn certain of these ordinances. (The City of Laguna Beach has
had a ban on onshore facilities since the 19501S.)
AMOCO CADIZ Damages
On January 11, Senior Judge Frank McGarr of the U.S. District Court
in Chicago issued his opinion on damages for the 1978 oil spill
resulting from the grounding of the "Amoco Cadiz" off the coast of
France. He took a very narrow view of what kinds of damages are
recognizable in court. Although he based his conclusions on the law
of France, he noted that the law of damages in France is
substantially identical to that of the United States. Of particular
interest in this case are the following:
1. The judge allowed claims by local and national governments for the
costs of responding to the spill and the clean up. Apparently he
accepted the notion that an event of this magnitude was outside
the ban on recovering for the costs of public services provided
for protection from fire or safety hazards in the absence of a
statute allowing it.
2. The judge denied claims by the local governments for their
citizens' loss of enjoyment of the coast, which was characterized
as a loss of quality of life. The court also observed that the
calculation of damages for loss of enjoyment, should it be
allowed, would be highly speculative.
ATTACHMENT A
STUDY MRTHODOLOGY
Based on this meeting, RT&A will prepare a memorandum report
including a detailed management plan and a final project
schedule. RT&A will present the plan to the sponsoring
jurisdictions for their review, comment, and ultimate approval.
The plan will include a preliminary assessment of issues,
prioritized according to their relative importance to the local
jurisdictions and their constituents. The plan will be revised
over the period of the program to reflect the dynamic nature of
the OCS leasing process, events and other•factors that may impact
the relative importance assigned to the various issues.
1.2 Program Management and Oversight
This task will be designed to ensure that the program is well
managed, products meet the highest standards of technical
quality, and that the work is performed on schedule and within
budget. The program management organization provides for clear
lines of management authority, project reporting, and oversight.
Project assignments, both administrative and technical, will be
made based upon the experience, training, and technical expertise
of project team members. Regular project team meetings will be
held at least monthly and at times corresponding to the
production of major deliverables. Each major program manager and
selected members of the technical staff will review each
deliverable to ensure technical accuracy and clarity. After the
internal review/revision process, draft deliverables will be
provided to the sponsoring jurisdictions' designated program
manager for review and comment. Any necessary revisions will be
incorporated into the final product.
1.3 Program Administration
This segment of the program will involve the internal
administrative activities necessary for management of the
contractual effort. As such, activities concerning budget
management, contractual administration, billing, payroll, and
other accounting related activities will be conducted under this
task element. It should be noted that these activities are
charged directly to the contractual effort, rather than being
charged under.an overhead multiplier. By charging these directly
the overall cost of administration will be lowex, allowing for a
greater proportion of the contract resources to be dedicated to
conduct of substantive work. This approach also ensures that
there are no hidden charges. All of the resources allocated to
the program are strictly dedicated to performance of efforts
associated with this program.
1.4 Program Support
This cost element includes word processing support, copying,
materials and supplies, travel, local transportation, printing,
computer time, equipment rental fees, and other direct costs
(ODC). As noted above, only those costs incurred that are
directly attributable to the cost of the contractual effort will
be charged against the contract's resources.
1.5 Program Management and Administrative Reporting
This effort will include both written and oral reports on the
status of the program. written reports will be in the form of
monthly reports (Product #1) submitted to the sponsoring
jurisdictions' program manager and will include a summary of
progress of the technical aspects of the program as well as the
management and administrative details, including progress toward
achievement of milestones and budgeting resource expenditures
broken down by major cost elements of the program.
In addition to the written monthly management and progress
reports, regular meetings will be scheduled between the program
manager, the technical staff, and the program sponsors. The
number and frequency of these meetings will be decided based upon
discussions with the program sponsors at the time of contract
negotiation. Additional meetings beyond those regularly
scheduled will be held as events dictate. The Program Manager
and members of the technical staff shall make themselves
available to the program sponsors given reasonable advance notice
from the sponsors. The reports and meetings outlined under this
sub -element shall be in addition to those outlined in other
sub -elements.
2. Technical Analysis and Review
2.1 Response to Notice of Intent_ to_Prepare _an_Environmental
Given that the contract award is to be made on October 1, 1987
and that the response to the notice of Intent is due on October
91 the selected contractor will have only six working days (eight
calendar days) following contract award to respond to the MMS's
Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS. During that limited time
period the contractor will identify major issues of concern to
the sponsoring jurisdictions and develop comments concerning
issues and methodologies the MMS should address during the
preparation of the EIS for OCS Lease Sale 95. Given the quick
turnaround requirements necessary for development of this
product, the contractor will necessarily rely upon inputs from
the program sponsors, data acquired prior to the contract award,
preliminary contacts with Federal agencies and public interest
groups, and background knowledge and expertise of the project
team technical staff.
A draft letter to be submitted by the sponsoring jurisdictions to
the MMS will be prepared for the program sponsors. The letter
will suggest MMS perform a detailed assessment of specific issues
of concern to the Orange County jurisdictions as well as
providing recommendations concerning methodologies, data sources,
and criteria to be used in evaluating impacts associated with the
issues of concern. For example, MMS may be requested to identify
specific sources of air emission offsets that must be obtained
for offshore production and onshore processing facilities
associated with suggested maximum production levels predicted for
OCS Lease Sale 95.
2.2 Environmental Impact Statement Scopina Process (Product #3).
Sometime during the month of September, 1987, the Department of
interior will issue an Area Identification, specifying the areas
of the Southern Californi- OCS that have been nominated and
selected as areas proposed for inclusion in OCS Lease Sale 95.
During the month of October, MMS will be holding 4 public
hearings throughout Southern California. These hearings are
designed to solicit comments regarding: 1) Areas and subareas
that should be deferred from the 1989 OCS lease sale; and 2)
Information regarding development strategies and transportation
scenarios that should be addressed during preparation of the EIS
for Lease Sale 95.
RT&A will prepare a press release in support of the sponsoring
jurisdiction's testimony at the hearings.
2.3 Orange County Impact Analysis and Assessment (Product #4).
This phase of the study program will account for the major
research and analytical assessments to be performed during the
contract period. It will be designed to identify, assess, and
prioritize the major issues and impacts associated with OCS Lease
Sale 95 and, as such, provide the opportunity for the sponsoring
communities to adequately respond to MMS's release of the draft
EIS document. As noted earlier, most of the data necessary to
perform an assessment of the impacts of OCS Lease Sale 95 has
already been developed. MMS plans to rely heavily on this
historical data base, including the information, findings and
conclusion incorporated into previous MMS Southern California OCS
Lease Sale EIS's. Most new data to be used in preparing the next
EIS will be released prior to publication of the EIS document.
Given that this is the case, it will be a simple matter to
predict the contents, approaches, methodologies, and even the
conclusions contained in the EIS long before it is published.
Given this advance knowledge, the following approach is suggested
for responding to the comment period following release of the
draft EIS:
a. Deyeiopmenc or an information base anu nsLauiisi„uCnL yL a
Lib�rar�. This sub task will entail collection of all relevant
1 ti erature not acquired in the previous data collection efforts.
Any remaining relevant reports prepared by or on behalf of the
MMS concerning OCS lease sales will be ordered from MMS or the
Department of Commerce's National Technical 'Information Service.
Additional reports prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Parks Service will also be
collected for inclusion in the library. As of this year, the DOI
has spent $55.2 million on environmental and socio-economic
studies related to OCS development in Southern California.
Thirty-five additional studies Are currently being conducted on
behalf of the MMS at a total cost of $30 million. As data and
information from these studies becomes available, it will be
added to the program library.
Research programs conducted for the U.S. EPA in support of air,
water, and hazardous waste programs along with regulations
impacting off -shore drilling, transportation, and on -shore and
off -shore processing also will be acquired. Research efforts by
other Federal agencies will also be identified and collected
including reports prepared for the Department of Energy's bffice
of Fossil Energy, the Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service and Marine Sanctuary program, the Army Corps of
engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, etc.
Other sources of reports and data will also be pursued, including
any previous studies funded by the California Coastal Resources
and Energy Assistance Block Grant Program and the Coastal energy
Impact Grant Program. California State agencies will also be
contacted to identify any relevant research reports (e.g.,
California Coastal Commission, California State Lands Division,
the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California
Department of Fish and Game, and California Department of Natural
Resources).
Relevant departments within California's academic institutions
(e.g., University of California, California State universities,
USC) will be approached to identify useful studies, papers,and
thesis projects. Additional organizations to be contacted
include public and environmental interest groups (e.g., National
Resources Defense Council, trade associations representing the
commercial and sport fishing industries (e.g., the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations and the Coastal Fisheries
Foundation), recreation and tourism industries, and real estate
and land development groups. Testimony from congressional
hearings on MMS's OCS leasing programs along with any relevant
OCS legislation will be obtained from Committees in U.S. Congress
and the California State Legislature. Finally, any available
studies and research generated by the American Petroleum
Institute, the Western oil and Gas Association, the American Gas
Association and companies involved in the production of oil from
the California OCS will be acquired. The MMS's OCS Lease Sale 95
docket, maintained in the Los Angeles Regional Office, will also
be monitored to collect copies of comments submitted in response
to MMS's various commenting opportunities.
The reports, studies research papers, and testimony obtained
during the various data collection efforts will be used to
establish a comprehensive library on the OCS leasing process and
associated impacts. An index will be prepared to include the
title, subject and topics, authors, and sponsoring organizations
for each document included in the library. Library materials
will be made available to the project research team as well as
the technical staffs of the sponsoring jurisdictions during the
contract period. In addition a list of all organizations
involved in the DOI OCS leasing process will be developed and
updated regularly during the study program. The list will
contain the name of the organization, names of contacts,
addresses and telephone numbers along with an indication of the
issues of concern to the contacts and their respective roles,and
positions regarding OCS Lease Sale 95. This list will be
extremely valuable for implementation of the coordination and
public participation portions of the study program. Both the
library index and the list of contacts will be automated for
timely access by project sponsors and the research team.
Documents obtained during the course of this project will be
turned over to Orange County at the conclusion of the project.
b. Issue Analysis and Impact Assessment. During the data
collection phase of the program, the research team will conduct
interviews with members of Federal and State agencies, Federal
and State legislatures, public and environmental interest groups,
industry and trade associations, members of other impacted
jurisdictions, academia, MMS contractors, members of the oil and
gas industry, interested private citizens, etc. to identify and
prioritize issues of concern to the sponsoring jurisdictions. In
cases where MMS and industry interests appear to be contrary to
the interests and welfare of the sponsoring jurisdictions, the
interviews will be used to identify strategies, alternatives, and
mitigating measures to influence the OCS decision -making process
or reduce the ultimate impacts of OCS development of the Southern
California coastline.
Information obtained from interviews with experts on the various
issue topics will serve as a basis for identifying and
prioritizing areas of concern to the sponsoring communities and
selecting specific topics for assessment and evaluation. Rather
than conducting original research, the project team will rely
primarily on data contained in the program library and the on
going efforts of organizations that have taken positions that
meet the objectives of the sponsoring jurisdictions.
Issues to be addressed by the research team likely will include:
Oil and Gas Volumes: The amount of oil and gas expected to be
found off Orange County has been described as being equivalent to
about three days' worth of national consumption. RT&A will
gather available information on the quantity of oil and gas off
the Orange County coast and prepare a report placing this
information in the perspective of national consumption. In
addition; RT&A will gather available information about total oil
production in Orange County to date (both offshore and onshore)
and relate it to national, state, and (if possible) county
consumption. Based on preliminary information, RT&A believes
that Orange County is a significant oil and gas exporter. This
information may be useful in showing that Orange County already
is a substantial contributor to the nation's energy supply and
that further OCS leasing off Orange County will not strike the
proper balance between the benefits and risks of OCS development
as required by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Finally,
RT&A will describe certain conservation measures (such as
automobile energy efficiency standards) that could eliminate the
need for Orange County's OCS oil and gas.
Geological Hazards and Constraints: RT&A will examine identified
geologic hazards in the Lease Sale 95 area including seismic
activity, faulting, seafloor instability, steep slopes, shallow
gas, and hydrocarbon seeps. RT&A will describe the location of
areas off Orange County affected by each of these hazards and the
significance of each to oil and gas exploration, development, and
production. RT&A will describe the various options available to
MKS to deal with problems and the strengths and weaknesses of
each option (which include technological solutions, regulatory
provisions, stipulations, and prohibitions on drilling). RT&A
will then describe what MMS must do in order to address
specifically each of the identified geologic hazards in the
Orange County OCS.
RT&A believes that in the past, MMS has been deficient dealing
with geologic hazards. For example, MMS has consistently
underestimated the severity of potential geologic hazards, with
the consequence of several lost platforms in the Gulf of Mexico
as a result of seafloor instability. RT&A will examine the
record with respect to this matter and will use this analysis in
developing its recommendations regarding ways to address the
geologic hazards posed by the Orange County OCS.
Air Quality: RT&A has reason to believe that MMS will rely on
the air quality stipulations from earlier lease sales as its
approach to handling air quality impacts from Lease Sale 95.
Recent experience has shown these stipulations are deficient and
that much better air quality reductions and mitigations are will
be achieved. To this end, RT&A will identify the full range of
air quality effects likely to be caused by Lease Sale 95
activities, plus the likely cumulative effects of all these
activities and other existing and planned activities•in the
affected areas.
Based on this, RT&A will critically review the stipulations from
past lease sales to identify how these matters have been
addressed. RT&A then will identify deficiencies in these
approaches and recommended corrective actions. For example, the
stipulations in the past have established very high trigger
thresholds for emissions control, meaning that the lease sale
activities have released large amounts of uncontrolled
emissions. This likely would be unacceptable in a non -attainment
area.
Additionally, RT&A will examine the MMS,methodologies for
identifying the impacts of OCS emissions. RT&A will look to
whether adequate modeling has been done (such as modeling of
photochemical ozone impacts), whether all available or promising
control technologies have been evaluated (such as selective
catalytic reduction for NOx), and whether all feasible project
configurations have been explored (such as the use of on -shore
power sources to make different control technologies applicable).
Tourism and Recreation. RT&A will examine the effects of Lease
Sale 95 on Orange County tourism and recreation by evaluating the
MMS methodology for assessing these impacts and comparing this
methodology, and its results, to available literature and studies
on the subject. Past MMS evaluations have looked only at actual
dollar losses to tourists and the tourism industry, and have been
extremely conservative even in this effort. Recent MMS and DOI
efforts in this area reiterate MMS's reliance on this approach.
More than these actual dollar losses must be evaluated', however.
RT&A will collect available studies and the results obtained for
them for information on "quality of experience" measures,
including both travel cost measures and contingent valuation
measures. RT&A also will compare the results of these studies to
the Orange County situation to identify possible ranges of values
for these measures relative to Orange County.
RT&A will compare these studies to Orange County parameters to
determine the extent to which MMS will have to undertake
site -specific surveys in order to develop accurate estimates of
the effect of Lease Sale 95 on the Orange County tourism industry
and on tourists. This effort will focus on the extent to which
MMS is able to accurately estimate the changes in numbers of
tourists, the changes in the quality of their experiences, and
the changes in the type of tourists coming to Orange County.
Past experience has shown that while the number of tourists may
not change much, the quality of their experience may be reduced
significantly. Moreover, the higher income tourists are the ones
most able to go elsewhere when the quality of their tourism
experience is reduced, and this could substantially affect
tourism expenditures in the affected area (i.e., Orange County).
Local Services and Resources. OCS operations and their support
activities generate substantial demands for local public
services. RT&A will identify the likely magnitude of these
demands through critical review of the proposed development
scenarios and available information regarding the demand for
services created by each type of activity such as drill ship,
onshore terminal, and crew base likely to be involved in OCS
activities flowing from Lease Sale 95. In discussions with the
staffs of the sponsoring jurisdictions and through review of
relevant information regarding availability of public services,
plans for development, and related information, RT&A will
identify the extent to which OCS Lease Sale 95 will likely affect
the availability of public services in the sponsoring
jurisdictions and the economic costs associated with this effect.
In this regard, RT&A will address the following services:
o water
o Sewer
o Sanitary waste disposal
o Electricity and gas
o Roads
o Schools
Contingency Planning. oil spill response is the subject of a
series of plans developed at national, regional, and local
levels. RT&A will assess these plans for their adequacy in terms
of protecting the Orange County coast from OCS-generated oil
spills. RT&A will first identify the resources to be protected,
including both economic and environmental resources. RT&A will
then critically review the various oil spill contingency plans to
determine how well they address the need for protecting these
resources. RT&A also will determine the adequacy of the proposed
response technologies and institutional arrangements for oil
spill response and control.
Most oil spill contingency plans in the past have been inadequate
for a number of reasons. Generally, they overlook key resources
needing protection. Also, they tend to be overly optimistic in
their assessment of response time and technological
capabilities. Also, they tend to disregard the effects of oil
spill slide spreading, effects of tides, currents, and winds on
slicks after they reach shore, and even disposal of cleaned up
oil and sorbents. RT&A will address each of these matters in its
assessment of the contingency planning for Lease Sale 95.
RT&A also will identify steps needed.to give the best possible
protection to Orange County resources including such things as
dispersed basing of response equipment, basing of booms at key
locations, availability of response vessels, needed capabilities
of response equipment and vessels, needed training, and
availability of wildlife cleanup and rehabilitation facilities.
Fisheries. RT&A will examine the potential for impacts from
Lease Sale 95 on commercial and sports fisheries. Such impacts
have been documented in the past in the course of such oil and
gas development projects as the Santa Ynez Unit, Point Arguello
Field, Point Pedernales, and the San Miguel project. These
impacts are generally of four kinds, and include effects on fish
eggs and larvae from geophysical surveys, loss of fishing grounds
and gear to offshore facilities and vessel traffic, pollution
from platform and vessel discharges and oil spills, and
competition for onshore support facilities. RT&A will evaluate
each of these areas to determine the magnitude of the impacts,
their cumulative effects when considered with other OCS
activities, and possibility of mitigating them. Special
attention will be given to the distribution of the costs and
benefits of OCS development relative to fisheries. Generally,
the costs are borne by the local and regional communities, while
the benefits go to the Federal Government and the petroleum
industry. RT&A will determine the extent to which the costs of
loss of fisheries resources in the local communities is offset by
any benefit from OCS development that may accrue to the
communities.
The research team will attempt to analyze these and other issues
of concern in terms of their impacts on the Orange County
jurisdictions. In order to conserve resources, the analyses will
be conducted using existing data, data generated by MMS during
the preparation of the draft EIS, data generated by other
organizations, and other available sources. In addition,
assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions that have appeared in
previous EIS's for Southern California OCS lease sales will be
analyzed in preparation for commenting on the Lease Sale 95 EIS.
C.
Conclusions. This subtask Will entail compilation of the
analytical research performed during the previous two subtasks
into a series of issue papers. These will summarize the
available information on the subject areas and demonstrate what
analyses are necessary for an adequate EIS. These will serve as
the major reference source for use in developing comments and
responses to the Mineral Management Service's Draft EIS for Lease
Sale 95. These will include analytical evaluation of all
pertinent impacts. Six copies of the reports will be submitted
to the program sponsors following an internal review of the
report by the project team. Copies will be sent to other key
persons upon approval of such by the project sponsors.
2.4
This portion of the study program will flow out of the previous
task and will identify and prioritize positions that the
sponsoring jurisdictions may wish to adopt in responding to the
Draft EIS. The positions will include alternatives to the
suggested leasing program as well as mitigation measures and
stipulations that the Orange County jurisdictions may wish to
propose to DOI for adoption by p0I for leased tracts that may
impact on the Orange County jurisdictions.
Data sources contained in the study library along with
information obtained during interviews conducted during the
previous tasks will be augmented by additional interviews with
experts on the issues assessed during the previous task to: 1)
identify a series of positions that may be proposed during the
Draft EIS process; 2) assess and evaluate the positions in terms
of acceptability to the sponsoring jurisdictions; and, 3)
prioritize the positions.
RT&A will prepare a report to discuss each of the alternatives,
mitigation measures, and stipulations identified during the
research effort. The various positions will be organized
according to the issues and impacts identified in the issue
reports prepared in the previous tasks. The discussions will
address the effect the various alternatives, mitigating measures,
and stipulations will have in reducing or eliminating potential
impacts posed by Lease Sale 95. This report will be used as a
discussion paper for decision -making regarding the various
alternatives. Six copies of a draft report will be submitted to
the sponsoring jurisdictions for comment. Following the comment
period, appropriate revisions will be made to the document and
six final copies will be submitted to the sponsoring
jurisdictions.
3. Strategy Formulation and Coordination
3.1 Coordination of Lease Sale 95 Activities with Other Affected
Groups and Jurisdictions. The purpose of this subtask is to
establish an informal network with other Southern California
jurisdictions, public interest groups, and other organizations
that have established goals and objectives that are consistent
with positions adopted by the Orange County jurisdictions. The
objective of this network is to take advantage of the allied
organizations' research programs, analytical efforts, and
programs to enhance the efforts of the program sponsors. By
coordinating the sponsoring jurisdictions' advocacy program
efforts with those of other affected groups, the Orange County
jurisdictions are more likely tq have an effect on the OCS
decision -making process. That is, if MMS is confronted by a
large number of organizations who have taken similar.positions on
a series of issues, it will be Tqore likely to; 1) focus on this
set of issues; 2) address the issues in development of both the
Draft and Final EIS; and 3) implement measures designed to
effectively eliminate or reduce the impacts.
a. Information Sharing and Coordination. The first step in
this process is to identify the organizations and jurisdictions
that are concerned with the major issues felt to have a
significant impact on the local environment and economy of Orange
County. This will be accomplished during the conduct of the
"Technical Review and Analysis" portion of the program via
development of a list of the organizations involved in the OCS
leasing process. The list will serve as a basis for identifying
positions of the various impacted interest groups. As
appropriate we will contact each organization to share
information concerning proposed positions and strategies designed
to influence the OCS decision -making process. This information
sharing will be a major step towards coordinating activities of
the various groups.
b. Preparation and Distribution of Summary Technical Reports
(Product W . Based upon the reoearch conducted under the
"Technical Review and Analysis" portion of the Program, a series
of short (one to three page) summary reports will be prepared.
Each summary report will provide details concerning impacts of a
single issue of concern to the Orange County Jurisdictions. The
summary reports will also provide detailed information concerning
alternatives, mitigation measures, and stipulations that MMS
should adopt to alleviate the impacts of the proposed lease
sale. Following review and comment by the study team and the
program sponsors, the position papers will be distributed as
appropriate to allied public and environmental interest groups,
representatives in Congress and the State Legislature, the MMS,
and the media. They also will be used in the public
participation task of this project.
3.2 Implementation of Orange County Coordination Program.
This task will entail design of strategies to be employed to
influence the decision -making process for OCS Lease Sale 95 and
implementing selected strategies via a strong, well organized,
and coordinated program. Strategies likely to influence the
process will include staging for elected representatives'
lobbying efforts in Congress and the State legislature, meetings
with allied jurisdictions and public interest groups, media
events, and education of the general public. Depending on the
issues involved, it may be valuable to initiate discussions with
the Department of Interior and representatives of the oil and gas
industry regarding the feasibility and acceptability of proposed
leasing alternatives, mitigation measures, or lease
stipulations. The coordination program should be initiated at
the earliest possible time and be carried out throughout the
leasing process up to the time of the sale.
o Providing written comments to DOI concerning the Draft EIS;
o Providing oral testimony at the Draft EIS Public Hearings;
o Providing written comments to DOI concerning the Final EIS;
o Providing written comments concerning the Proposed Notice of
Sale;
o Providing written comments concerning the Governor's Section
19 solicitation.
4.1 Conducting Lease Sale 95 workshops (Product_#
RT&A will conduct three workshops. They will be held to or just
after publication of the Draft EIS. The workshops will be
designed to provide attendees with background information
concerning issues arising from OCS Lease Sale 95 and impacts of
related OCS development activities on Orange County. The
workshops will also present a series of OCS lease alternatives,
mitigating measures, and lease stipulations that may serve to
eliminate or reduce the impacts of OCS development on the economy
and environment of Orange County. Finally the workshops will
provide a schedule of opportunities for participating in the OCS
decision making process. The first two workshops will be
conducted for the technical staffs and elected officials of
Orange County jurisdictions respectively, while the final
workshop will be open to the general public and the media.
a. Notification of Workshops. Once the workshops have been
scheduled, members of county staffs and elected officials of the
sponsoring jurisdictions and other impacted jurisdictions, as
well as members of regional planning organizations, will be
informed through established channels of the date and time of the
workshops. The public will be notified through the local
newspapers, radio, and television announcements. A telephone
number and address will be provided so that interested parties
may obtain advance copies of relevant issue papers to prepare
their comments and questions prior to attending the workshops.
b. Workshop Advance Preparation and Logistics. Using the
research papers and research summaries prepared during the
conduct of previous tasks, we will prepare outlines of talking
papers to be given by the program team, and as appropriate by
officials of the sponsoring jurisdictions. we will select a site
will be selected for holding the workshops based on discussions
with the program sponsors. To minimize costs? RT&A recommends
using a public facility such as a hearing room or a school
auditorium. To maximize attendance at the first two workshops
(i.e., workshops to be held for the benefit of members of local
government bodies), these workshops will be held during normal
working hours. RT&A recommends holding the final workshop in the
evening or on a weekend to maximize attendance by the general
public.
C. Preparation or viaeotape ana/or Siiue snow on Lease saie !in
Issues. Depending on negotiations with the sponsoring
jurisdictions, RT&A will prepare a videotape and/or a slide show
for presentation at the workshops. These will present a balanced
look at what offshore oil exploration, development{ and
production is about and what its effects on Orange County may
be. A tentative outline of the videotape and slide show is
presented in Appendix A. The videotape and slide show will be
available for presentation in other forums including cable TV and
group meetings.
d. workshop for Technical Staffs of the County. Affected Cities
and Interested Agencies (workshop W . The purpose of this
workshop will be to both: 1) inform technical personnel of the
status of the OCS leasing program and issues likely to impact
Orange County and surrounding jurisdictions; and 2) coordinate
and mobilize local government resources in preparation for
responding to the pending issuance of the Draft EIS. In addition
to requesting attendance from the orange County jurisdictions,
officials from surrounding counties and regional and state
planning organizations may be asked to participate.
Presentations will be made by members of the project team and
other persons such as local officials or other consultants as
appropriate, focusing on the impacts of OCS development as well
as strategies for affecting the OCS process. The meeting will be
designed to pursue identification and implementation of positions
to be presented to elected officials during the next workshop.
e. worKsnop for Elected officials of the County. Affected
Cities, and Interested Agencies (workshop #2), This workshop
will be designed to inform elected officials of issues likely to
impact on their respective jurisdictions and to identify those
issues of specific concern to their constituents, as identified
during the previous workshop held for the agency technical
staffs. Following presentations, of the various issues and
potential alternatives, mitigating measures, and lease
stipulations designed to reduce the impacts, the meeting will
focus on developing a consensus on positions to be taken by the
elected officials with regards to the MMS leasing program.
Potential strategies for pursuing the positions will subsequently
be discussed. RT&A suggests that attending officials allocate
resources in the form of work time of their technical staffs to
pursue implementation of the selected strategies.
f. Workshop for the Generai PUDiic ana une meaia twyLn�11VN
#3 . This workshop will be oriented towards providing the
general public with an opportunity to express opinions regarding
their feelings about future OCS development. Specific time
periods will be allocated for gathering testimony concerning each
of the major impact areas (e.g., air quality, visual/aesthetic
impacts, water supplies, economic impacts). A ten to fifteen
minute presentation describing each of the issues will precede
open microphone testimony and question/answer sessions by members
of the public. At the end of the meeting, a schedule of future
public participation alternatives will be supplied to each
attendee. Included with the schedule will be names and mailing
addresses of public officials, including members of Congress, the
state legislature and the Department of Interior. The
participants will be requested to write these public officials
concerning their respective opinions on OCS development off the
Orange County coastline. An additional form will be provided
that will serve to place the attendees name on a mailing list for
receiving future information on MMS's Lease Sale 95. The media
will be requested to publicize both the mailing addresses of the
public officials and those of the sponsoring jurisdictions so
that other members of the general public may be included on the
mailing list.
4.2
The objective of this task is to provide the MMS with comments
and other inputs that will affect on the OCS lease sale process
in a manner that will reduce adverse effects and provide benefits
to the Orange County communities. As past DEIS responses
submitted to MMS concerning specific community impacts have been
virtually ignored in MMS's Final EIS's, it is imperative that
responses to the DEIS for Lease Sale 95 be: 1) coordinated
between Orange County, other surrounding communities impacted by
the lease sale, and allied public and environmental interest
groups; and, 2) delivered in a manner that will ensure that the
MMS provides specific analytical responses, rather than simply
responding with meaningless observations such as "Comment Noted".
a. Review and Assessment of DEIS. Upon release of the DEIS,
the study team will have a limited time to review the DEIS,
identify and coordinate comments, and positions with allied
jurisdictions and interest groups, prepare written comments, and
submit draft responses to the sponsoring jurisdictions for review
and comment, revise the comments, and prepare the comments for
submission to MMS by the program sponsors. A majority of the
issues, impacts, and suggested alternatives, mitigating measures,
and lease stipulations will have been prepared by the study team
during previous program activities. Some analyses will still be
required, but based upon review of previous MMS EIS's, very few
differences are to be expected.
b. Coordination of Written Comments with Alliea aurisaictions
and Interest Groups. Based upon the results of the workshops and
other coordination activities conducted throughout the study
program, minor changes to the coordinated responses are
expected. Any changes that are negotiated will be made in
concert with allied"jurisdictions and interest groups.
o. Preparation of DEIS Written Comments. As noted above
written comments will be prepared, subjected to review and
revision, and submitted by the sponsoring jurisdictions to MMS.
The comments will address the specific areas of concern outlined
in earlier tasks and any other issues identified in the review of
the DEIS. The comments will be detailed, specific,, and supported
by citation to authority wherever appropriate.
4.3 MMS Public Hearings on the DEIS (Product #9)
This effort will entail coordination a public hearing testimony
before MMS, preparation of outlines for testimony given by
members of sponsoring jurisdictions, and compilation and
distribution of summarized public hearing comments.
a. Coordinatn ioof Public Hearing Comments on DEIS. This
subtask will entail last minute review and coordination positions
and responses to be given during the testimony before MMS by
sponsoring jurisdictions and allied organizations. At this
stage, the responses should be fairly well coordinated between
the responding parties.
b. Preparation of Oral Comments for Sponsoring Jurisdiction.
Outlines extracted from written comments will be prepared for use
by representatives of sponsoring jurisdictions in providing oral
comments during the MMS public hearings.
The period between the public hearings on the DEIS and
publication of the FEIS will be critical to influencing the
ultimate format and content of the 1989 OCS lease sale. During
this period of time, the project team will coordinate efforts to
advocate the positions of Orange County jurisdictions within
Washington, DC. Issues of concern identified during the DEIS
comment and public hearing process will be presented to
interested Congressional staffs, representatives of the Minerals
Management Service and other relevant DOI agencies. As
appropriate, RT&A staff will establish contacts and opportunities
for elected representatives of the sponsoring jurisdictions to
present their views to Members of Congress and the relevant
federal agencies. Further contacts will be initiated with the
U.S. EPA and other agencies whose programs may be impacted by the
MMS initiatives. In addition, the local media will be supplied
with a series of previously developed and newly developed issue
analyses and position statements addressing problems with the
Draft EIS that conflict with the goals and objectives of the
sponsoring Orange County jurisdictions. The point of these
activities will be to bring pressure on the MMS to address those
issues raised by the Orange County jurisdictions in MMS's
revision of the Environmental Impact Statement and to insure that
measures to mitigate the impacts are incorporated into the sale.
4.4.
The steps followed in response to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement will be similar to the procedures followed in
responding to the DEIS with the exception that the review and
assessment will concentrate on an evaluation of the MMS's
responses to Orange County and allied interest group comments.
The evaluation will determine which, if any, of the tracts
proposed for deferral by the Orange County jurisdictions have
been deferred and if any of the proposed mitigating measures
and/or lease stipulations have been adopted. Given that the EIS
process is coming to a close, a limited time remains to further
impact MMS's decisions concerning the lease sale. Thus, this and
the following efforts will be directed at examining alternatives
to influencing the lease sale process (e.g., gathering evidence
demonstrating that MMS has not fulfilled the requirements of NEPA
for future use in potential law suits.)
a. Review and Assessment or the FEIS and Evaluation or MMS
Responses to the DEIS Comments. The study team will prepare an
evaluative analysis of MMS's responses to Orange County and
allied group's comments regarding alternatives, mitigating
measures, and lease stipulations. The team will also identify
any modifications to the methodologies, assumptions, and
conclusions MMS has employed in preparing the FEIS. This will
involve a comparison of each of the points covered in the DEIS
comment with the results found in the FEIS: RT&A will critically
examine the FEIS and determine the extent to which the'sponsoring
jurisdictions' concerns have been adequately addressed in the
FEIS. The examination will cover an analysis of the quality of
the changes in the FEIS (meaning whether the changes, though not
necessarily what was requested, are adequate to respond to the
concerns voiced) and a discussion of continued needs for changes.
b. Preparation of Comments on the FEIS. Based on the above
analysis, RT&A will prepare written comments. Comments will then
be submitted to sponsoring jurisdictions for review and suggested
revisions. Once revised by the study team, the comments will be
submitted to the sponsoring jurisdictions for submission to MMS.
The comments will also be distributed to interested members of
Congress, the California legislature, other federal and state
agencies and the general public to solicit additional comments
for submission to MMS regarding issues of concern.
C.
MMS. The study team will acquire copies of letters ana comments
submitted to MMS and maintained in the Lease Sale 95 docket. A
summary of the MMS Lease Sale docket will be prepared, providing
an assessment of impacts made on the Lease Sale Process and areas
that are still of concern to the orange County jurisdictions.
The assessment will also summarize areas where MMS has apparently
not fulfilled its responsibilities with regard to the NEPA
process along with strategies for affecting changes via the two
remaining comment periods (i.e... the Proposed Notice of Sale and
the Governor's Section #19 Comments). RT&.p, will identify any
organizations planning to bring suit against the MMS in order to
affect the lease sale process and discuss what support the
project sponsors wish us to provide them.
4.5 Proposed Notice of _Sale (Product #11
a. Review Lease Sale Tracts and Adopted Miti4atin4 Measures and
Lease Stipulations. This subtask will be designed to identify if
any additional tracts have been deferred from the sale and/or the
MMS has adopted any of the mitigating measures and lease
stipulations suggested by comments submitted in response to the
FEIS.
b. Preparation, Coordination, and Submission of Comments.
Comments submitted in response to the FEIS will be revised to
reflect any changes to the lease sale the MMS has adopted
following the FEIS. The comments will be turned over to the
sponsoring jurisdictions for submission to MMS. A summary report
discussing the status of the lease sale will also be submitted to
the sponsoring jurisdictions and distributed to all interested
parties. Final contacts will be made with Congressional
Representatives to solicit letters to be written to the Secretary
of Interior and/or to hold hearings regarding the remaining
issues of concern to Orange County and the four sponsoring
communities.
4.6 Governor's Section 19 Consultation (Product #12)
a. Solicitation of Comments. Via media contacts and/or direct
mailings to members of the public that have provided written
comments or oral testimony during the leasing process, requests
will be made for final comments regarding Lease Sale 95. These
comments will be summarized for submission to the appropriate
jurisdictions.
b. Preparation of Comments for Submission to the Governor. A
final set of comments reflecting the remaining concerns of orange
County jurisdictions and residents will be prepared in draft
form, revised, and finalized for submission by the sponsoring
jurisdictions to the Governor. In addition a report summarizing
the results of the program will also be provided for the
sponsoring jurisdictions records.
ATTACHMENT B
LEASE SALE 95 VIDEO OUTLINE
1. Introduction: The Orange County Coast
Popular beaches
Boating capital of the west coast
Outstanding natural areas
Opening the Orange County coast to oil leasing
Who is behind this? Outside 3 miles, the US Department of the Interior
The five-year plan -- focus on California
Two sales for Southern California
When -- 1989 for lease sale 95, 1992 for lease sale 138
Where -- Nearshore waters of the entire Southern California coast
Local governments requested buffer -- ignored
Created tracts 3 miles square and will auction them off
Exploration follows, then drilling
Inside three miles, the'State of California -- oil sanctuaries
What does this mean?
Exploration as early as next year
Drilling as early as 1990 or 1991
Permanent platforms as close as 3 miles as early as mid-1990s
What are the impacts?
Industrialization of the shoreline for support facilities
Degraded view
Air pollution
Drilling wastes
Potential oil spills -- closed beaches, boomed -off harbors, lost revenue
Effects on recreation and tourism
Possible that beaches will be closed. Tar. Views degraded
Coastal cities depend on tourism for employment, taxes
Tourism depends on clean, unspoiled environment
Restaurants, lodgings market unspoiled views, non -industrial setting
Survey shows visitors will go elsewhere if views, reputation spoiled
Effects on wildlife
Damages to seabirds
Damages to fur seals
Damages to habitats -- wetlands, rocky shores, tidepools, beaches
Effects on fishing
Drilling would go on right where fishing is now
Platforms and pipelines close fishing areas
Mounds of mud make snags ,
Effects on employment
Most jobs highly specialized, employees from Texas, Louisiana
Platforms built overseas -- Korea, Japan, Singapore
What can I do?
Express concerns at public hearings
Write Congress
You make a difference
RICHARD TINNEY & ASSOCIATES
INVOICE #2
LABOR
RICHARD
TINNEY
($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.1
15
HOURS
900
TASK
1.2
8
HOURS
480
TASK
1.5
3
HOURS
180
TASK
2.3
25
FOURS
1500
TASK
3.2
4
HOURS
240
TASK
4.1
3
HOURS
180 3480
DOUG CANETE ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.5
2
HOURS
120
TASK
2.3
10
HOURS
600 720
JAMES CROWELL
($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.1
10
HOURS
600
TASK
1.3
6
HOURS
360
TASK
1.5
3
HOURS
180 1140
MAUREEN WITKOWSKI ($25/40UR)
TASK 2.3 15 HOURS 375 375
DIANE KOPEC ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 25 HOURS 1250 1250
TOTAL LABOR 7415
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 1100.00
MAIL 66.00
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 121.00
TELEPHONE/TELEX 315.26
TOTAL ODC 1602.26
SUBTOTAL 9017.26
FEE @ 5% 450.86
TOTAL 9468.12
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 12-01-87 to 01-29-88
PURCHASE ORDER NO: P.O, No,, 08384
DATE: February 13, 1988
NAME:
MEMORANDUM
r
� Eo
DATE: March 8, 1988
TO: Jim Palin, Huntington Beach 9
Bob Wynn, Newport Beach M c;iv cN
Jim Hendrickson, San Clemente b N 901
Patrick lee, Orange County EMA
Cathy Tyrrell, SCAG w i
Richard Tinney, Richard T. Tinney'& Assoc. ra
FROM: // Kenneth Frank, Laguna Beach
SUBJECT: RECAP OF MEErM HELD ON FEBRUARY 24, 1988
Attending this meeting were Pat Temple of Newport Beach, Brian Helve of
Orange County, Cathy Tyrrell of SLAG, Jeff Abramowitz of Huntington Beach,
Ken Frank and Carolyn Thompson from Laguna Beach, and Richard Tinney, Jim
Crowl, and Renata Hageman of Richard T. Tinney & Associates.
1. The revised Scope of kbrk was discussed and approved. A copy of the
signed Consultant Agreement (minus the Scope of Tbrk section, which
each agency already has) is attached.
2. Monthly Report #2 was discussed and the second invoice, for $9,468.12,
was approved for payment.
3. Issue Papers
A. Discussion of the Oil Volume Report was postponed. Each agency
will review it and send comments by the end of March to RTA for
incorporation into a final report. RT wi revise the report
accordingly and send out a final edition.
B. Air Quality - Some alternative scenarios and their outcomes should
be included rather than general comments about the potential for
damage. For example, half of the emissions related to offshore oil
drilling platforms come from supply boats not just the platforms
themselves. Tinney will attend the SCAG Lease Sale 95 assessment
meeting on Monday, February 29.
C. Fisheries - At the request of Newport Beach, party boat fisheries
will be deleted from consideration under "sport fisheries."
D. Biological Effects - A discussion of Crystal Cove State Park will
be added, because there are portions of two reftges off that area.
The report will address sub area deferrals/3-mile buffers declared
by the State and whether they lessen the impacts of the leasing.
E. Oil Spill Contingency Planning - RTA needs a copy of each agency's
Local Coastal Plan and oil spill contingency plan.
(over)
4.
5.
F. Geologic Hazards - No changes.
G. Economic Effects (and Tourism and Recreation) - Information for
this report is based on a literature review and on a survey to be
made of beach users, including the beach north and south of Main
Beach, Corona del Mar beach, and the beach below the Ritz Carlton
Hotel between Laguna Niguel and Dana Point. There are very high
quality areas in Dana Point, Huntington Beach and along the
Newport/Irvine coast which are scheduled for the construction of
large new hotels above and inland from the beach. Developers in
these areas may support our effort, as well as activists in the
cityhood efforts of Laguna Niguel., Dana Point, and Capistrano
Beach. Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the outline will be clarified.
Subsections will be added to tie specific effects to specific
causes. The revision of this outline will be sent out to the
agencies along with the revised Oil Volume report.
The issue papers were approved with the changes noted above. Revisions
are to be sent out by April 20.
Video Script - The "%hat can I do" section should be of the League of
Vkmen Voters type; i.e., Riving factual information such as "write to
these legislators . . . "these organizations' chairpersons are . .
" "the time tables are ." Also, a "Why" question should be
added to the first page of the script briefly stating the Department of
Interior's arguments to add balance.
RTA reported that:
- there are possible legal challenges ccming against the DOI by NEPA
for poor work on the DEIS
- an organization called American Oceans Council, a grass roots
movement with financial support from Martin Sheen, is at work in
Northern California against OCS 91
- RTA met with a Huntington Beach representative regarding use of
that city's police helicopter
- drafts of comments for the DEIS are due to DOI in early June and
the document itself should be out in September
The next meeting will be held on
will include the finished Oil Volume
and results of the beach survey.
Attachment
Friday, May 6 at 9.00 a.m. The agenda
report, revised issue paper outlines,
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 13th day of October, 1987, by and between
the City of Laguna Beach, a Municipal (brporation (hereinafter referred to
as "CITY"), and Richard Tinney & Associates, located at 1501 S. George
Mason Drive, Arlington, Virginia, 22204, (hereinafter referred to as
"CCNSULTANT") .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to render certain pro-
fessional services hereinafter described to review DOI proposed Lease Sale
95 and its effects on Orange County and to formulate and direct a strategy
for effective participation in the lease sale decision making process; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified and agreeable to render the aforesaid
professional services;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual
promises hereinafter expressed and intending legally to be bound hereby,
the parties hereto do mutually zgree as follows:
Article 1. Employment of CONSULTANT
CITY hereby agrees to engage CONSULTANT to perform the professional
services as hereinafter set forth.
Article 2. Scope of Services
CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner
satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in Appendix A, attached hereto
and by reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
r
2.
Article 3. Personnel
A. CONSULTANT represents that it employs, or will employ, at its own
expense, personnel required in performing the service under this Agreement,
and as set forth in Appendix A.
B. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by
CONSULTANT and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified
and be authorized or permitted under State and local law to perform such
services.
Article 4. Time of Performance
The services of CONSULTANT are to commence immediately after this
tgreenent has been approved by CITY and CITY has authorized work to start
by the issuance of a Purchase Order
completed by May 30, 1989.
The CONSULTANT'S services shall be
Article 5. Reports and Final Reports
CONSULTANT shall submit a progress report with each invoice for
payment submitted to CITY. Each product as identified by CONSULTANT'S
proposal shall become the property of the CITY and shall be submitted with
eight (8) copies.
Article 6. Payment and Limitation Cost
CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for services performed under
Article 2 on a monthly basis: CONSULTANT will submit monthly billings
detailed by task and hourly rates to CITY for services performed to date as
' 3.
described in an activity report which will be attached to the billing;
provided, however, that the amounts billed will be proportional over the
life of the agreement.
Adjustment of total cost
of
CONSULTANT'S
services will be
permitted
when the CONSULTANT establishes
and
CITY agrees
in writing that
there has
been or is to be a significant change in:
a. scope, complexity or character of the services to be performed;
b. conditions under which the work is required to be performed; and
c. duration of work if the charge from the time period specified in
the Agreement for completion of the work warrants such adjustment
in accordance with Clause 13 (c) of General Provisions.
Article 7. Records and Audits
CONSULTANT shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect
to costs incurred under this Agreement to include the records supporting
cost proposals used to enter into a contract with the CITY. All such
reports shall be maintained on a generally accepted accounting basis and
shall be clearly identifiable. CONSULTANT shall make available to the
representative of CITY, or its appointees, during normal business hours,
all of such books and records, and the right to examine and audit the sane,
and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and the CONSULTANT shall
allow inspection of all work data, documents, proceedings, and activities
related to the Agreement for a period of one (1) year from the date of
I.
final payment under this agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain records to
show actual time and allowable costs with respect to each task -set forth in
the Appendix A as required by CITY.
4.
CONSULTANT shall permit the authorized representatives of CITY to
inspect and audit all data and records of CONSULTANT relating to his/her
performance under the contract.
Article 8. Compliance with Civil Rights Act
During the performance of this contract, CONSULTANT agrees as follows:
a. Equal Bnployment Opportunity
In connection with the execution of this contract, CONSULTANT
shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, color, sex, age, marital
status or national origin. Such actions shall include, but not be
limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, devotion, or
transfer; recruitment, or recruitment advertising; layoff or
termination; rate of pay, or other forms of compensation; and
selection for training, including apprenticeship.
b. Sanctions for Noncompliance
In the event of the CONSULTANT'S noncompliance with the non-
discrimination provisions of this contract, CITY shall impose such
contract sanctions as CITY may determine to be appropriate,
including, but not limited to:
1) withholdirg of payments to CONSULTANT under the contract until
CONSULTANT complies, and/or .
2) cancellation, termination, or suspension of the contract, in
whole or in part.
5.
Article 9. Covenant Against Contingent Fees
CONSULTANT warrants that she/he has not employed or retained any
company or person to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not
paid or agreed to pay any company or person any fee, commission, per-
centage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon
or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or
violation of this warranty, CITY shall have the right to annul this
contract without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from the
contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of
such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
Article 10. General Provisions
Those provisions as set forth in the General Provisions attached
hereto are by reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
Article 11. Subcontracting
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the irk, other than
as set forth in Attachment "A".
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to
be signed by their proper corporate officers and have caused their property
corporate seal to be hereto affixed the date and year first above written.
CITY OF L GUNA BEACH
By
City Ma ager
City Clerk / 1
i
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following general provisions clauses are incorporated herein and made
a part of this Agreement:
1. Changes in Scope and Complexity of Work
2. Specifications
3. Termination for Convenience of CITY
4. Termination of Agreement for Cause
5. Interests of Members of CITY and Others
6. Interest of CONSULTANT
7. Assignment
B. Copyrights
9. Insurance and Mutual Assistance
C10. Jurisdiction
11. Successors and Assigns
12. ownership of Documents
13. Extension of Time for Delay
14. Responsibility for Claims and Liability
15. Notices
16. Attorneyls Fees
17. Extent of Agreement
C
L
L
GP-1
C
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Clause'l. Changes in Scope or Complexity of Work 4
No payment for extra services caused by a change in scope or complexity
of work shall be made, unless and until such extra services and a price
therefor have been authorized in writing and approved by CITY. Such written
approval shall set forth the changes of work, extension of time for preparation,
and adjustment of the fee to be paid by CITY to CONSULTANT. Redesign or
redrafting necessitated by conditions beyond the control of CONSULTANT will
be considered as extra -work and will be a basis for negotiation or additional
fee. No claim for said additional work shall be made unless specifically
authorized in writing by CITY. All controversies arising out of the work which
cannot be settled by mutual agreement shall be resolved as provided in the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1979 Edition, as
amended, for the settlement of such disputes.
Clause 2. Specifications
All specifications, manuals, standards, etc., either attached to this
Agreement or incorporated herein by reference, are deemed to be the issue
in effect as the date of this Agreement and are binding as to the performance
of the work in this Agreement unless they are changed by written amendment
and this Agreement modified in writing to incorporate such changes. Any
changes are subject to CITY approval.
Clause 3. Termination for Convenience of CITY
CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving written notice
to CONSULTANT of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished
documents and other materials shall, at the option of the CITY, become its
property. If this Agreement is terminated by CITY as provided herein,
GP-2 `
i� CONSULTANT will be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total
1 compensation as the services actually performed bear to the total services
of the CONSULTANT covered by this Agreement, less payments of compensation
previously made.
Clause 4. Termination of Agreement for Cause
A. CITY may, subject to the provisions of Paragraph "C" of this Clause 4,
by written notice to CONSULTANT, terminate the whole or any part of this
Agreement in any of the following circumstances:
1. If CONSULTANT fails to perform the services called for by this
Agreement within the time(s) specified herein or any extension
thereof; or
2. If CONSULTANT fails to perform the services called for by this
CAgreement or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance
of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and in either
0
of these two circumstances does not correct such failure within
a period of ten (10) days (or such longer period as CITY may
authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from CITY specifying
such failure.
B. In the event CITY terminates this Agreement in whole or in part as
provided in Paragraph "A" of this Clause 4, CITY may procure, upon such terms
and such manner ds it may determine appropriate, services similar to those
terminated.
C. Except with respect to Zefaults of subcontractors, the CONSULTANT
shall not be liable for any excess costs if the failure to perform this
Agreement arises out of causes beyond the control and'without the fault or
C' negligence of CONSULTANT. Such causes may include, but are not restricted
GP-3
C to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of the Government in either
its sovereign or contractual capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine
restrictions, strikes, and unusually severe weather; but in every case,
the failure to perform must be beyond the control and without the fault or
negligence of CONSULTANT.
D. If this Agreement is terminated as provided in Clause 3 or Paragraph "A"
of this Clause 4, CITY may require CONSULTANT to provide all finished or
unfinished documents, data, studies, services, drawings, maps, models,
photographs, reports, etc., prepared by CONSULTANT. Upon termination as
provided in Paragraph "A" of this Clause 4, CONSULTANT shall be paid the
value of the work performed, less payments of compensation previously made.
E. If, after notice of termination of this Agreement under the provisions
of this Clause 4, it is determined for any reason that CONSULTANT was not
in default under the provisions of this Clause 4, or that the default was
excusable under the provisions of the Clause 4, then the rights and obligations
of the parties shall be the same as if the notice of termination had been
issued pursuant to Clause 3.
Clause 5. Interests of Members of CITY and Others
No officer, member, or employee of CITY and no member of its governing
body nor other public official of the governing body of the locality or
localities in which the work pursuant to this Agreement is being carried
out, who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval
of the undertaking or carrying out of the aforesaid work, shall:
F
A. Participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects
his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or
association in which he has, directly or indirectly, any interest, or
C `
Op-4
t
`\
B. Have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the
proceeds thereof during his tenure or for one year thereafter.
Clause 6-. Interest of CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT hereby covenants that he has, at the time of the execution of
this Agreement, no interest, and that he shall not acquire any interest in the
future, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with
the performance of services required to be performed pursuant to this Agreement.
CONSULTANT further convenants that in the performance of this work no person
having any such interest shall be employed.
Clause 7. Assignment
Except as permitted in Article 11 (Subcontracting) herein, the CONSULTANT
shall not assign, sublet, or otherwise transfer its rights and obligations
under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the CITY. Any
such assignment or subletting without such consent shall be void and shall,
at the option of the CITY, terminate this Agreement. CITY may employ additional
consultants as it deems necessary to work with CONSULTANT any time during
the term of this contract.
Clause 8. Copyrights
No reports, maps, or other documents produced in whole or in part under
this Agreement shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or
on behalf of CONSULTANT.
Clause 9. Insurance and Mutual.Assistance
The CONSULTANT will maintain insurance to protect the CITY from claims
under the Worker's Compensation Laws and from general liability claims for
0
GP-5
I
C
C
bodily injury, or death, or property damage which may arise from the
negligent performance by its employees in the functions and services
required under this Agreement. The amount of insurance which CONSULTANT
will carry as protection for general liability claims for bodily injury,
or death, or property damage shall name the City as an additional insured
and shall be not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for each
occurrence.
The CONSULTANT agrees to maintain professional liability insurance to
protect the CITY from CONSULTANT'S negligent acts, errors, or omissions of
a professional nature. If any claim related to the performance hereunder
be asserted against either party hereto, the party claimed against shall
f
receive all reasonable assistance from the other.
Clause 10. Jurisdiction
This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the statutes and
laws of the Federal Government and any State and local government having
jurisdiction in the premises.
Clause 11. Successors and Assigns
Each of the parties hereby binds himself, his partners, successors,
assigns and/or legal representatives to this Agreement, in respect to all
covenants of this Agreement.
Clause 12 ownership of Documents
Original documents, methodological explanations, computer programs,
drawings, designs, and reports generated by.this Agreement shall belong to
and become the property of CITY in accordance with accepted standards relating
to public, work contracts. Any additional copies will be the responsibility
of the CITY.
GP-6
Clause 13. Extension of Time -for Delay
A. If the work is delayed at any time by reason of a suspension ordered
by the CITY or because of any other act of the CITY, or because of neglect
by the CITY without contributory fault or neglect on the part of the
CONSULTANT, or if the work should be delayed at any time by reason of
strikes, acts of God, the public enemy, acts of the CITY, fire, floods,
epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, abnormal force,
violence of the elements, or for any other unforeseen cause beyond the
control and without the fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT, or for any
other reason which in the opinion of the CONSULTANT is proper justification
for such delay, then the CONSULTANT shall be entitled to an extension of
time equivalent to the time actually lost by such delay.
B. .The CONSULTANT shall file a written request with the CITY for extension
of time within ten (10) days following the beginning of such delay, and
failure to do so shall constitute a, waiver thereof; provided that in case
of a continuing cause of delay, only one claim will be necessary.. The CITY
shall decide whether and to what extent any extension of time shall be allowed.
C. A request for an extension of time or the granting of an extension
of time shall not constitute a basis for any claim against the CITY for
additional compensation. The CONSULTANT shall be deemed to have waived any
claim for additional compensation and does hereby so waive any such claim
unless he shall, at the time of filing a request for an extension of time,
likewise file a claim for additional compensation on account of such delay.
4
Clause 14 Responsibility for Claims and Liability
It is expressly understood that In the performance of the services herein
Cprovided for, CONSULTANT shall be, and is, an independent, and is not an
agent or employee of CITY. The CONSULTANT has and shall retain the right
GP-7
to exercise full control and supervision of the services, and full control
over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of all persons
assisting CONSULTANT in the performance of said services hereunder. CONSULTANT
shall be solely responsible and save CITY harmless for all matters relating
to the payment of his employees, including compliance with social security,
withholding, and all other regulations governing such matters.
Clause 15. Notices
Any notices required to be given hereunder shall be in writing with copies
as directed herein and shall be personally served or given by mail. Any
notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been given when, deposited in
the United States mails, certified and postage prepaid, addressed.to the
party to be served as follows:
To City: City Clerk
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
To Consultant:
Clause 16 Attorney's Fees
A. If any person not a party to this Agreement shall institute an action
against the CITY.arising from the performance of the services herein provided
for, the CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold the CITY (and its City Council,
committees, boards, officers and employees) harmless from all liabilities
by reason thereof, including reasonable attorney's fees and all costs incurred
by the CITY in such action.
C
GP-8
" . {
B. In the event that either party hereto fails to comply with any of
the terms of this Agreement to be complied with on its partandthe other
party commences legal proceedings to enforce any of the terms of this
Agreement or to terminate this Agreement, the prevailing party in any
suit shall receive from the other a reasonable sum as attorney's fees
and costs as may be established by the Court or Jury.
Clause 17. Extent of Agreement
This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between the
CITY and the CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations
or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may not be modified
or amended except by a writing signed by both the CITY and the CONSULTANT.
C
C
wl.
ATTACHMENT A
STUDY MRTHODOLOGY
Richard T. Tinney & Associates
Resource Management Consultants
Mr. Robert Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wynn:
P.O. Box 65179
Washington, D.C. 20035
(202) 379,1874
March 11, 1988 _rh
1g48�-
MpRl �rcaGe1,�,eb j.
� Ciry of Nee a., `�i
Please find enclosed RT&A's Monthly Report #03 and Invoice for
cost incurred.
Should you require further information, please feel free to
contact Richard or me at 703-684-9293.
Enclosure
/pas
Sincerely,
9""' � . etx'�
James J. Crowell
Vice President
R E` C'e.11VLF'
P&-rXT'9
MAR 171988 �-
CRY(I=
tiFVV?a,T B
CAU,F.
0
Monthly Report
Report No: 03
Period of Performance: February 1, 1988 to February 29, 1988
Contract Title: OCS Lease Sale 95 Support
Contract No: Purchase Order No. 08384
Contract Objective: To provide technical and coordination
•services supporting the sponsoring
jurisdictions efforts regarding the Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale 95 conducted by
the Department of Interior's Mineral
Management Service.
Task Status:
Report Overview
This report covers work conducted by RT&A during the month of
February. Generally, RT&A's effort has accelerated with the
preparation of contract deliverables and coordination/contact
meetings.
1.0 Program Management & Su port
The third team meeting was held with RT&A and the program
sponsors on February 26, 1988. The major issues addressed at
this meeting were:
(a)
Acceptance
of RT&A's
revised Work Plan;
(b)
Acceptance
of RT&A's
annotated outlines for the
technical
areas outlined in the Work Plan;
(c)
Acceptance
of the VIDEO outline for development;
(d)
Discussion
of RT&A's
"Volumes Report" draft; and
(e)
Expected progress
of
RT&A through our next scheduled
meeting in
May.
2.0 Technical Analysis & Review
Work on this task during the month of February included:
(a) Preparation of the draft oil & Gas Volumes;
(b) Meetings and contacts; and
(c) Attendance of SCAG OCS conference.
r
a. Oil and Gas Volumes Report
A draft report providing estimates of potential oil and gas
recoverable resources likely to be found in the Southern
California -OCS. Planning Area, offshore from Orange County was
prepared and submitted to the sponsoring jurisdictions for their
review and comment. Following the review and comment period,
RT&A will incorporate any necessary additions/changes to the
report and submit a final draft of the report to the study
program sponsors.
b. Meeting and Contacts
Name Title
o Ms. Suzette Jackson Geophysicist;
Environmental & Earth
Sciences Group; Idaho
Engineering Laboratory
o Dr. Chip Groat &
Virginia Van Sikle
Geological Engineers,
Louisiana State
University
Discussion
Geological effects
of OCS development
OCS development and
subsidence on the
Louisiana Coastline
o Mr. Michael A. Kahoe Chief, Offshore Develop- MMS lease sale
ment; Secretary of comments
Environmental Affairs -
State of California
o Mr. Jim Crouch Principal; Crouch, Oil volume potential
Bachman and Associates, off Orange County
Inc.
o Ms. Susan M. Hansch
o Mr. Brian Baird
o Mr. Warner Chabot
Mgr, California Coastal
Commission
Planner, California
Coastal Commission
Central Coast Counties
Consortium
Discussion of Lease
Sale 95
Oil Spill
Contingency Planning
Relationships of
Lease Sale 91 & 95
Of particular note were meetings held with Mr. Kahoe, Mr. Crouch, and
Mr. Baird.
Mr. Michael A. Kahoe is Chief of Offshore Development, Secretary of
Environmental Affairs, State of California.
a
Mr. Kahoe is responsible for assembling the comments at each stage in
the leasing program for the State of California and the Governor. His
attitude was very sympathetic to MMS, stating that his inclination was
to propose only things that MMS was likely to accept. He is aware of
what MMS will accept because of his frequent contact with MMS
officials; he said. His solution for problems is to use stipulations
rather than deletions. If something can be shown to be unique in the
State or subject to irreparable harm, then he might be willing to push
for deletions to protect it.
He said that he will attach local governments' comments in their
entirety to the Governor's comments, giving the local governments'
comments the same legal weight as the Governor's.
Mr. Jim Crouch is a principal in the geophysical consulting firm of
Crouch, Bachman & Associates, Inc. of Santa Barbara.
We discussed potential oil volumes off the Orange County coast, areas
of industry interest, and possible development scenarios. He said
that the main areas of industry interest -off Southern California south
of the Santa Barbara Channel are the nearshore waters from Laguna
Beach on down to Pt. Loma. This is the area of the Newport-Ingelwood
fault zone, the home of such huge onshore fields as the Huntington
Beach field, Belmont field, and others.
He said that there are particularly good chances of major discoveries
in the area off San Clemente and Oceanside, areas currently under
discussion with DOD regarding deletions and timing restrictions. If
these waters are excluded from the sale, he does not expect much
activity, with the possible exception of some deep water tracts in the
San Pedro basin off Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. These deep
water tracts would require a strike of at least 50 million barrels to
be economic.
He said that MMS's 5-year plan estimates of the volume of oil off
Orange County, which form the basis for RT&A's estimates, are the best
currently available, but they have limited reliability since the area
has not been fully explored. Better estimates will be available this
summer as results from seismic exploration currently underway will be
known. We can expect MMS's estimates to change substantially in the
DEIS, he said.
Mr. Brian Baird is an oil spill contingency planner for California
Coastal Commission.
We discussed oil spill contingency planning generally. No advances in
oil spill response capability has occurred in last several years.
Clean Coastal Waters has no real open water capability and only has
one response vessel that is useful on open water and limited spill
recovery and storage capabilities.
Conference Attended
Date: February 29, 1988
Name: SCAG Offshore Oil Impacts Assessment Meeting
Place: Los Angeles, California
SCAG convened a kick-off meeting for a proposed Lease Sale 95
coalition on February 29, 1988. In attendance were representatives
from SCAG, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Laguna
Beach, Orange County, the City of Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach,
Torrance, and Santa Fe Springs. The meeting began with a brief
overview of the potential effects of Lease Sale 95 on Southern
California jurisdictions, the status of the negotiated rulemaking
regarding air quality standards for OCS projects. The negotiated
rulemaking is essentially completed, but its results are unknown since
MMS has not published any proposed rule.
Also covered were the SCAG Offshore Oil Regional Impacts Assessment
Study, as described in the statement of work distributed by Cathy
Tyrrell at our February 26 meeting in Newport Beach. Richard Tinney
of RT&A gave a brief description of the Orange County impacts
assessment project. The possible effects of refining the highly
viscous, high -sulfur oil in Southern California refineries were
discussed briefly as well, as were the possible make-up of a coalition
steering committee, to include representatives from Los Angeles and
Orange Counties, coastal cities, and refinery cities.
3.0 Strategy Formulation and Coordination
Noted in our progress meeting in February, RT&A is pursuing and
maintaining contacts with public and private interests groups.
Rudimentary formations exist of interest groups concerned with Lease
Sale 95. Legal developments will be reported as required.
4.0 Public Participation
Prior to our February 26, 1988 meeting with the sponsors, RT&A met
with the program sponsors, on February 25, 1988, of Newport Beach,
Huntington Beach and Orange County and Laguna Beach (Laguna Beach was
contacted during the group meeting). Discussion during these meetings
surrounded OCS development experiences and assessments of the
communities OCS posture (i.e., Development of Oil Spill Contingency
Plans, etc.)
During our visit to Huntington Beach, contact was made with Mr. James
Reid, Public Information Officer for Huntington. RT&A and Mr. Reid
agreed to work cooperatively on the development of the OCS video.
..\1 vWt�LW r1t4 LVY1 {L pJ✓V1r101Y✓
INVOICE #3
LABOR
RICHARD TINNEY ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.5
11
HOURS
660
TASK
2.3
25
HOURS
1500
TASK
3.1
10
HOURS
600
TASK
3.2
15
HOURS
900
TASK
4.1
5
HOURS
300 3960
DOUG CANETE
($60/HOUR)
TASK
2.3
20
HOURS
1200 1200,
JAMES CROWELL ($60/HOUR)
TASK
1.3
3
HOURS
180
TASK
1.5
11
HOURS
660
TASK
2.3
10
HOURS
600
TASK
3.1
8
HOURS
480
TASK
4.1
5
HOURS
300 2220
RENATTA HEGEMAN ($50/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 8 HOURS 400 400
RUTH ANN KORWIN ($45/HRS)
TASK 2.3 19 HOURS 855 855
DIANE KOPEC ($25/HOUR)
TASK 2.3 39.5 HOURS 987.50 987.50
TOTAL LABOR 9622.50
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL 1366.00
MAIL 88.00
TYPING & REPRODUCTION 214.50
TELEPHONE/TELEX 127.57
TOTAL ODC 1796.07
SUBTOTAL 11,418.57
FEE @ 5% 570.00
TOTAL 11,988.57
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 02-01-88 to 02-29-88
PURCHASE ORDER NO: P.O. No. 08384
DATE: March 9, 19S6
NAME: ct
a ° d
Wi+
Warner Chabot &
1725 Montgomery
San Francisco, CA
(415) 398-3355
November 11, 1987
TO: Pat Temple, Newport Beach Planning Department
Ken Frank, Laguna Beach City Manager
Richard Tinney, Richard Tinney and Assoc.
FROM: Warner Chabot
Dear Friends:
Associates
Street
Noll'
Nam, Cfr's��QJ'� 1
I want to offer some suggestions on your proposed work on the issues of OCS development
Impacts on Orange County tourism and property values.
Tourism
The enclosed pages are from a WOGA (Western Oil and Gas Association), brochure on OCS
impacts. Their theme, used extensively by industry, is that tourism in Santa Barbara has
increased by 320% in the 18 years since the 1969 spill. Therefore, they conclude that OCS
development and tourism are compatible.
What they don't (nor can anyone), say is what Santa Barbara's tourism rate might have been
If there was no OCS development at all. It may be worthwhile to compare the economic value
of Orange (and L.A., San Diego, Monterey, Mendocino), County tourism during this same 18
year period. I would predict that the increase in values are likely to be much more than
320%. While there are no simple conclusions that can be drawn (since the number of
variables are substantial), this may at least provide some basic measure of comparison to
challenge the WOGA claims of no significant increase.
This is another difficult issue to prove. Any range of conclusions can probably be drawn,
depending on how you structure the questions. However, the enclosed two pages are from a
1980 speech that Don Zieglar (Chevron), gave to a conference of oil officials. He cites a
1974 WOGA study which supposedly shows no decrease in coastal property values due to OCS
development. 1 haven't seen the study. If you can't get one from WOGA, try the MMS library
in Los Angeles (contact: Nollie Owens - 213 894-2039). She might be willing to find report
and even possibly xerox the relevant pages for you.
It may be possible to challenge WOGA's property values finding using the same methodology
suggested above for tourism.
I hope this information is helpful in your planning efforts. Please send me a copy of your
work program when you get it finalized.
�R�esspectfully,
lN
/ 6al--
Warner Chabot
Attachments 1) "Why Offshore California" (WOGA brochure)
2) Selected pages/references from Chevron speech on OCS development
impacts on property values.
Offshore oil and gas development has been the
subject of intense debate in California for several
years. Supporters see it as a safe, reliable source of
domestic petroleum for the future. Opponents fear
that offshore operations pose a danger to marine life
and the coastal environment. The record, however,
speaks for itself- offshore development has taken
place along the California coast for several decades
without harming fishing, tourism, or other coastal
acfiities.
U.S. oil production is in a serious decline. Thousands
of small fields, not a handful of giant fields, are the
source of most ofour domestic oil and gas right now. As
these small fields decline in production, new oil must be
found.
During the past two years, collapsing crude oil prices
further eroded domestic oil production and stimulated
demand for petroleum products. As a result, foreign oil
imports have surged and now supply roughly 40 percent
of U.S. oil demand. Oil imports account for a large por-
tion of the U.S. trade deficit. Unless current trends are
reversed, imports could swell to 60 percent or more of
U.S. daily demand by 1995, creating potential dangers
for the economy and national security.
One answer to the growing problem of foreign oil
dependence is to search for new domestic oil. It only
makes sense to look for oil where geologists believe
large quantities may be found. The U.S. Geological Sur-
vey estimates that as much as one-half of America s
undiscovered oil reserves lie offshore, and geologists
believe that several areas off the coasts of califomia and
Alaska show promise for major new discoveries. Those
who say "drill elsewhere' ignore geological reality.
While research continues into alternative sources of
energy, America must produce more oil to meet future
energy needs. In the meantime, conservation cannot do
it alone. If we want to lessen our growing dependence
on imported oil, the evidence suggests that we must step
up Outer Continental Shelf oil production, especially
offshore California.
WHY
OFFSHORE
CALIFORNIA
P'i:, Vt: cv-t V:Izll
The alternative to a carefully planned, environmen-
tally sensitive leasing process is to wait until an emer-
gency strikes. If we are unprepared when an emergency
occurs, deliberate debate may be an unafford-
able luxury.
The offshore leasing and development process, cre-
ated by Congress, is painstaking, ensuring careful eval-
uation of each of the many steps along the way. Eight to
12 years of environmental impact studies, public hear-
ings, permit reviews, exploration and development take
place before commercial production of offshore oil ever
begins to flow.
Today, within the framework of the Department of the
Interiors Five -Year Offshore Leasing Program, critical
needs can be balanced: energy resources can be devel-
oped in harmony with a healthy environment.
Tltr. Cli;,Imm Uninn PIRr.1'•
Offshore oil development is a complex, far-reaching
issue. Many competing interests need to be balanced.
Local government officials, environmental preserva-
tionists, business groups, the oil industry, minority
organizations, senior citizens and others, all have a
stake in this debate. It is vital that each participate, and
the opportunities to participate am many.
In July 1987, a new Five -Year Offshore Leasing Pro-
gram went into effect, with congressional consent, set-
ting forth a leasing schedule for 1987 to 1992. Nation-
ally, 38 offshore sales are scheduled in 21 different
planning areas. Five lease sales are scheduled off the
California coast. The first two. Lease Sale 91 off north-
em California and Lease Sale 95 off southern Califor-
nia, arc set for 1989. Later in the program, one sale is
scheduled in each of the northern, central and southern
California planning areas.
The new Five -Year Program excludes about 75 per-
cent of the total Outer Continental Shelf off California,
including areas off Santa Monica, Big Sur and San
Francisco: only 13 percent of the acreage formerly cov-
ered by moratoriums will be considered for leasing.
And based on past experience. only a fraction of the
remaining tracts under consideration will actually be
leased.
During previous lease sales off California, tremen-
dous numbers of tracts were deleted based on comments
from the state, local communities, public interest
groups, the Department of Defense, the oil industry and
others. Between 1963 and 1987,101ease sales were con-
ducted in federal waters offshore California. A total of
18,361 tracts were initially eligible for lease. After the
evaluation process, only 1.691 tracts were offered for
lease. Of those, oil companies leased 369 tracts, just two
percent of the planning area. And today there are only
21 platforms on federal tracts off California.
The new Five -Year Leasing Program reflects wide-
ranging public input. Before submitting the final plan to
Congress, the Department of the Interior received over
4,500 comments from the public, state and local gov-
ernments, environmental organizations, members of
congress, the oil industry and others. The final plan
incorporates many of those concerns and provides
numerous environmental safeguards.
Lrivimnrnen:i.! Prottdion:
Let iIil Itfccid ; DCCI;
Protection and preservation of the Califomia coast-
line and the delicate ecological balances in the Pacific
Ocean are important concerns. Development of off-
shore energy can be done —and is being done —without
damaging marine environments or harming America's
coastline. Since 1953, more than 30,000 wells have
been drilled on the federal Outer Continental Shelf in
several pans of the country, producing more than 10
billion barrels of oil and 72 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas.
In all that time, the U.S. offshore oil industry has had
only one major accident from which a measurable quan-
tity of oil reached shore: the blowout in the Santa Bar-
baro Channel on January 28, 1969. Within a few
months, however, the channel's ecology began to
restore itself. University of Southern California studies
showed no lasting effects.
Today, new drilling and production technology and
tougher controls ensure a higher degree of safety. U.S.
offshore energy development carefully follows the
world's strictest guidelines to protect air quality, water
quality, marine life and more. Offshore operations must
comply with-74 sets of federal regulations, secure up to
17 major permits or plan approvals, and be consistent
with state coastal zone management progmms.
Erempinryy record. Overall, offshore platforms have
an exemplary spill record. According to the Department
of the Interior, total spills from all platforms on federal
leases offshore California add up to about 10 barrels of
oil a year, most of which is recovered. That compares to
annual production of about 30 million barrels.
Natural seeps. For centuries, long before petroleum
production began, natural seeps on the floor of the Santa
Barbara Channel have oozed bits of oil and tar, some of
which washes up on the beach. Each day, these natural
seep,; release 60 to 100 barrels of oil into the marine
environment.
Tough emissions standards. Air emissions from off-
shore platforms on federal leases are regulated by the
Department of the Interior. The department has devel-
oped strict requirements in areas where those emissions
could significantly impact onshore air quality, including
the installation of Best Available Control Technology.
Cl�tis:� a; Gvlipr ii':1
Commercial fshing. Fishing and offshore energy
development can live sideby side. In the Gulf of Mex-
fen, where offshore petroleum operations have been
heaviest, substantial increases have resulted in both the
volume of fish landed and the value of the catch. In the
waters off Santa Barbara, the catch has increased from
14.6 million pounds in 1968 to 31 million pounds in
1969, and to 56.3 million pounds in 1982.
Sporf fishing. Sport fishermen often anchor
platforms. The platforms serve as artificial reefs.
as piers always have, attracting sea life, such as barna-
cles which draw small fish and, in ram, larger fish
which thrive around the platforms.
Mussel harvesting. Many of the mussels served in
California restaurants are harvested in theSantaBarbara
Channel from the legs of oil platforms. The State of
California has found them to he much cleaner than mus-
sels from more traditional shellfish farms closer
to shom
t{ t
The US. tourism industry has a major stake in off-
shore energy development. Tourism in America is
directly dependent on a stable, reasonably priced supply
of petroleum fuels.
if hit with another energy shortage and soaring fuel
prices as it was in the 1970s. Califomias multi -billion
dollar tourism industry would suffer significant eco-
nomic losses. More than 90 percent of travel -related
finis are small businesses, many of them familyowned
and operated. Energy crises affect not only these busi-
nesses, but also the people they employ, including large
numbers of the unskilled• minorities, women and
young people.
History clearly shows that coastal tourism and off-
shore oil and gas development are compatible. The
Santa Barbara Channel area is one place where this
symbiotic relationship has existed for years —and con-
tinues today. Tourism is thriving. Visitors flock to
resorts and recreational areas adjacent to offshore oper-
ations. According to the Santa Barbara Visitorand Con-
vention Bureau, tourist expenditures are up to over 320
percent since the 1969 spill. And more new resort hotels
are planned on coastal property, which continues to
increase in value.
oft hue FIC•'nave(- Rruetit
Local Eranamlce
Offshore drilling is the second largest source of reve-
nue to the U.S. Treasury (income tax is first). From
1954, the first year of federal OCS leasing, through
1986, oil companies have paid more than S85 billion in
bonuses• rentals and royalties for the right to drill and
produce oil. More leasing couldprovide painless mlief
to the federal deficit. A portion of these funds return to
the states in the form of revenue sharing and gtantsfor
parks and recreational facilities.
In 1986, several coastal states also received a total of
$1.5 billion as their share of accumulated revenues
granted from federal oil and gas leases adjacent to state
waters. An additional S650 million will be distributed to
these states over the text 15 years. Califomia s share in
1986 was $448 million, and the state will receive S290
million of the future distributions. New explomtionand
development will generate even more state and federal
revenues.
pff; IIC.'( Ct:'i'r �ri['t• fr( ( rrn c c `.nto
Offshore development creates jobs in all 50 states —
not just oil industry jobs but also caterers, machinists,
tool makers, suppliers and more. For every job created
offshore• approximately four are created onshore. A
study completed by Battelle, pacific Northwest labora-
tories in 1985. estimated that as a result of accelerated
leasing off the U.S. coasts, about 80,000 new jobs and
almost $9 billionln cconomicoutput could be added to
the California economy by the year 1995.
The economy itself is heavily dependent on petro-
leum products for transportation fuels, heating• medi-
cine, plastics, and a myriad of other products. A steady
supply of oil and gas means employment and resulting
local tax revenues in every community.
In the last oil shock in 1978-79, a mere five percent
shortfall in supply led to the layoff of more-thah one
million workers. Heavily petroleum -dependent indus-
tries were severely impacted, including agriculture,
tourism. manufacturing, transportation, fishing and
timber. Most heavily impacted by layoffs and rising
prices were those least able to afford it —small busi-
nesses and farms, the poor, minorities, senior citizens
and the underskilled.
l":1is Q:: hftte Czlitefnia
Need for domestic exploration. America must
increase domestic production to reduce a growing
dependenryon imported oil. Geologists agree that up to
one half of our furore oil reserves will be found off-
shore: these resources are too important to ignore. Off-
shore California is believed to be one ofthem most prom-
ising areas for new discoveries.
Environmental protection. Many years of offshore
development show that oil and gas can be produced in
harmony with marine life, airquality, and water quality.
Commercial and sport fishing, tourism and other
coastal industries prosper side -by -side with offshore
operations.
Economic Benefds. Benefits from offshore develop-
ment include the creation of both coastal and inland
jobs, enhancement oflocal, state, and federal menue&
and a more secure domestic energy supply.
Offshore development is a many -faceted issue. But
after all things are considered, one essential question
remains-. how to balance energy needs with environ-
mental conccms—in the public interest. The answer to
that question is the key to our future.
Western Oil and Gas Association
727 W. 7th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 627-4866
a-MrAg:.NtlCN-r
web contamination is extremely remote or non-existant. The Gulf Univer-
sities Research Consortium (1974) recently completed a two year synoptic
study of a 400 square mile oil producing area in offshore Louisiana and
adjoining Timbalier Bay with the conclusion that no significant or
persistent effects assignable to oil producing operations could be
recognized based on the analysis of about 1,000,000 bits of data.
Onsite studies of crude oil spills that have -been stranded show
no long term damaging effects to the marine biota. Two highly publi-
cized spills of diesel and $2 fuel oil into a small bay at West Falmouth,
Mass. and into a lagoon on the coast of Baja California are acknowledged
to have had slow recovery. These two spills of refined oil products
can not be used, but frequently are, as evidence of the threat to the
environment from offshore exploration and production operations. Fuel
oil is not crude oil.
Currently there are oil spill clean up cooperatives located at
San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles. These cooperatives have
an organizational plan which is compatible with both state and national
oil spill contingency plans. They have a stockpile of equipment, a
complement of trained personnel on call, and a nucleus staff which is
also well trained. There is no question that state of the art oil
spill clean up and containment technology is readily available in the
Santa Barbara channel today. Oil industry associations interested in
exploring virgin areas have pledged to the Department of Interior,
Council of Environmental Quality and Federal Energy Agency that equipped
coop's will be formed prior to exploratory drilling.
An objective analysis of these observations concerning safety,
sources of oil spills, consequences of oil spills and clean up and
containment technology strongly suggests that continued deferral or
prohibition of offshore drilling and producing operations can not he
justified on any of these grounds.
I have purposely not discussed the asethetics of platforms or the
effect of oil spills on bird life as both these are highly emotional
issues. Uniformity of opinion concerning aesthetics can hardly be
exepected. However, studies done for -Western Oil and Gas Association
(1974) indicate that the price of ocean view property is not affected
th e resence of latforms. Even though a large number of birds might
be In!?
nvolved, the threat to bird life from an oil spill from offshore
operations can be no larger than the probability that a spill will
occur. With a historic safety record of 99.96 to 99.70% there is only
a slight chance that the threat will ever materialize and have a
significant impact. If offshore operations are to be denied on these
grounds, so be it - but such should be clearly stated so the public can
judge the trade off of energy benefits to the local, regional, state
and national population versus platform aesthetics and the rare chance
of an accidental spill significantly involving bird life.
596
REFERENCES CITED
California State Lands Commission, 19749 Final Environmental
Impact Report Resumption of Drilling Operations in the
South Elwood Offshore Field from Platform Holly
3 volumes.
Curran, J. R. et al, 19710 Geology, Oil Fields, and Future
Petroleum Potential of Santa Barbara Channel Area,
California; Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 15
p. 192-211.
Gulf Universities Research Consortium, 1974, The Offshore Ecology
Investigation, GURC Report no. 138.
Kash, D. E. et al, 19730 Energy under the Oceans; Univ. of
Oklahoma Press 378 p.
Mertens E. W., 19739 Statement on BLM Hearing on Environmental
Impact of Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Outer Continental
Shelf, Offshore Louisiana: Nov. 28-290 19730 New Orleans
LA., 1975, Statement on BLM Hearing on Proposed Increase
In Acreage to be Offered for Oil and Can Leasing on the
Outer Continental Shelf: Feb. 6-8 19750 Beverly Hills, CA.
The Resources Agency of California, 1971, The Offshore Petroleum
Resource.
U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1974, Final Environmental Statement
Proposed Plan of Development of Santa Ynez Unit Santa
Barbara Channel, Off California: YES 74-20 3 volumes.
U.S. Department of Interior, 1974, Draft Environmental Statement
Proposed Increase in Acreage to be Offered for Oil
and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf DES 74-90
2 volumes.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1971, Exploratory Drilling Operations
on Federal Oil and Can Leases Issued Under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act Santa Barbara Channel Area
off the Coast of California.
postern Oil and Can Association, 19749 Environmental Assessment
Study Proposed Sale of Federal Oil and Can Leases
Southern California Outer Continental Shelf. 3 volumes.
CHABOT AND ASSOCIATES
1725 MONTGOMERY STREET
5AN FRANCiscO, CA 94111
Pc� �x ►7��
`72-C. -P715-
16• �- � t 22
Ica
a A
Natural Resources
Defense Council
90 New Montgomery
San Francisco, CA 94105
415 777-0220
COMMENTS OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
on the
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR'S
PROPOSED 5-YEAR OCS LEASING PROGRAM
February 25, 1987
100%Recycled Payer
..4110•21
New York Office:
122 East 42nd Street
New York, New York10168
212 949-0049
FOR CALIFORNIA
1987-1991
Novi
N ART t S3C,4
%, G11IF,
Prepared by:
Lisa Speer
Johanna Wald
Ann Notthoff
Sarah Chasis
Dr. David Goldstein
James Love
Dr. Michael Kavanaugh
Washington Office:
1350 New York Ave., NW.
Washington, DC20005
202 783-7800
New England Office:
850 Boston Post Road
Sudbury, MA 01776
617443-6300
Toxic Substances
Information Line:
USA:1-800 648-NP.DC
NYS: 212 687-6862
A. The Secretary Has Failed to Develop a Reasonable Compromise. . . . .2
B.
Proposed Subarea Deferrals. .. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .3
1.
Problems with the Department's Approach
. . . . .
. . . .4
2.
Impacts not mitigated by the proposed deferrals
. . . . .
. . . .7
a. Spills. . .
. . . .7
b. Pollution from drilling and production operations . .
. . .7
c. Air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . 10
d. onshore impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . 13
C.
Stipulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . 13
D.
Alternative Energy Supply Options . . . .
.
. . . 14
1.
The Department's alternative energy analysisis
d
flawed
and fails to adequately consider: . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . 14
a. Improved auto efficiency standards. . .
. . . . .
. . . 15
b. Government funded conservation research . .
. . . . .
. . . 17
c. Incentive programs for building retrofit. .
. . . . .
. . . 18
d. Mass transit. . . . . . . .
. . .
18
e. Appliance efficiency standards. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . 19
2.
Advantages of conservation over drilling. . . .
. . . . .
. . . 20
3.
"Least -cost" energy planning. .. . .
. . . . .
. . . 20
4.
Current U.S. Policy Concerning oil Imports . .
. . . . .
. . . 22
S.
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . 23
E.
The
Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . 24
F.
The
Analysis of Social Costs . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . 24
G. Focused Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
H. Supplemental Sales ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
I. Marine Productivity/Environmental Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . 32
J. Fair Market Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix I: Specific Inadequacies of the Proposed Subarea Deferrals by
Planning Area
Appendix II: Comments of James P. Love, Princeton University, on the
Economic Analysis
Appendix III: Comments of Dr. Michael Kavanaugh on the Economic Analysis
In compliance with Public Law 99-591, the Secretary of the
Interior has released the draft proposed 5-Year OCS leasing
program for California for review by Governor Deukmejian, state
and local officials, and a special Congressional panel convened to
resolve the longstanding conflict over OCS leasing off the
California coast. Included with the Secretary's submission is an
analysis of alternative proposals for leasing off California made
last year by Governor Deukmejian and the Co -Chairmen of the
Congressional panel, and a final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) on the Proposed Program.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has reviewed the
Secretary's draft Proposed Program for California. Our major
comments are summarized below.
1. The Department has failed to propose a reasonable compromise.
2. The proposed subarea deferrals offer no long term protection
and are too limited to adequately protect sensitive
resources.
3. The Department failed to adopt consistent lease sale
stipulations at the 5-Year Program stage despite requests for
such stipulations by Congressmen Regula and Panetta and
Governor Deukmejian.
4. The Department has failed to perform a meaningful analysis of
the many alternative energy supply options available to
replace the energy thought by DOI to lie off the California
coast.
5. The Department's economic analysis and it assessment of the
social costs of OCS leasing are seriously flawed.
6. The supplemental sale provision is unnecessary and undermines
the value of the 5-Year Program as a planning document.
7. The only section 18(a) factor used to influence the leasing
schedule is industry interest. Other factors, including
- 2 -
marine productivity and environmental sensitivity,
essentially play no role in determining the proposed leasing
schedule for California.
8. Despite very substantial criticisms by GAO and others, the
Department remains committeed to the option of holding huge
lease sales and to maintaining a bid evaluation procedure
which fails to assure receipt of fair market value for the
publicts OCS resources.
A. The Searetary Has Failed to Develop a Reasonable Compromise
The negotiations mandated by Public Law 99-190 between the
Department of the Interior and the Congressional Negotiating Team
resulted in a number of innovative proposals to resolve the
conflict over OCS leasing off California. In the 16 negotiating
sessions that took place last year, different parties suggested
compromises on the location of tracts to be offered to the oil
industry, the timing of leasing and development activity, and on
special stipulations that would protect sensitive coastal and
marine resources in areas where development is permitted to go
forward.
Unfortunately, the Department's 5-Year Program for California
incorporates very few of these compromise proposals and is little
changed from last year's Proposed Program. For example, of the
high interest blocks identified by industry in a 1985 Departmental
survey, the 1987 Proposed Program for California would keep 82%
available for leasing, as compared to 85% for the 1986 Proposed ,
Program. (proposed Program for California, Enclosure 2 at 8). The
number of lease sales scheduled for California (five) is identical
in both the 1986 and 1987 programs. No long term protection was
- 3 -
offered any area, even though long-term protection was seen as a
key element of any compromise by most of the key players of the
Congressional negotiating team. The 1986 Program was not modified
to include consistent lease sale stipulations on oil and gas
transportation, air quality, disposal of drilling and production
discharges, and fishing conflicts despite requests by Congressmen
Regula and Panetta and Governor Deukmejian to include such
stipulations. Indeed, with the exception of deepwater tract
exclusions, the Department's proposal is remarkably similar to its
proposal of a year ago, before the negotiations started.
The fact that the Department has made almost no effort to
incorporate the recommendations of the various members of the
negotiating team makes it abundantly clear that the Department is
not interested in resolving the conflict at this time. In view of
the Department's failure to put forward a reasonable compromise,
we believe that the 1989 lease sales off California should be
delayed until the Department exhibits a greater willingness to
address the concerns raised by members of the negotiating team and
others, or until a new administration assumes office.
B.
California's spectacular coast and irreplaceable coastal and
marine resources are world-famous. The 1987 Proposed 5-Year
Program reflects the Interior Department's continuing refusal to
offer meaningful protection to the coast's environmentally
sensitive areas from the adverse effects of oil and gas leasing
4 -
and development, despite strong, consistent and widespread support
for their protection by the California Coastal Commission, local
governments, fishermen, citizens groups and concerned individuals.
Generic problems with the Department's treatment of subarea
deferrals are discussed below; the specific inadequacies of the
proposed subarea deferrals in the different California planning
areas are described in Appendix I of these comments.
_1. Problems with the Department's Approach to Subarea
eferrals.
There are a number of generic problems with the Department's
approach to subarea deferrals. First, long term protection has
been a central issue for the California members of the negotiating
team. Many members of the team, including Congressman Regula,
recommended that some areas be protected to the year 2000. The
Department's failure to provide long term protection for any area
is a major failing of the Proposed 5-Year Program.
Second, the vast majority of areas deferred from leasing
under the Proposed Program are located in extremely deep water and
are either inaccessible to oil development or of little interest
to the oil industry. Deferring such tracts provides no protection
to irreplaceable biological, scenic and recreational resources
from the nearshore development that will be allowed under the
Proposed Program.
Third, a number of the proposed deferrals are already
protected under existing federal law or regulations, including the
Point Reyes Wilderness Area, the Point Reyes/Farallon Islands
National Marine Sanctuary, the Channel Islands National Marine
- 5 -
Sanctuary and the Santa Barbara Ecological Preserve and Buffer
Zone. Deferral of leasing in these subareas therefore provides no
additional protection above and beyond existing law.
Fourth, there are no clear criteria set out in the proposed
5-Year Program for California indicating how the Department
decided to defer certain areas and not others. This makes it
impossible to assess the validity of the Department's approach.
It is also impossible to evaluate the degree to which the
Department has complied with its own criteria in determining which
of the areas recommended for deferral by the Governor and'others
should be deferred from leasing.
Many areas that were not identified by the industry as high
interest tracts in the Department's 1985 survey inexplicably
remain in the Proposed 5-Year Program, despite their sensitivity.
For example, no high interest tracts lie north of Trinidad Head,
and yet the Department proposes to include virtually the entire
area from Trinidad Head to the Oregon border in the Proposed
Program. As another example, areas of very high sensitivity, such
as the northern Santa Maria Basin, were given no protection at
all, despite a level of sensitivity comparable to other areas of
the coast.
The Department has claimed that it is too difficult to
compare disparate areas of the OCS and that consequently it is not
possible to come up with a set of consistent criteria. It made
the same argument several years ago about the difficulty of
comparing the relative marine productivity and the environmental
- 6 -
sensitivity of different OCS areas. However, California v. watt
I, the court held that such an analysis must be conducted pursuant
to the OCS Lands Act. Since that decision the Department has
conducted such an analysis and has been able to come up with a
system for comparing the relative marine productivity and
environmental sensitivity of different OCS areas. So too should
it be able to devise a system for comparing OCS subareas in
determining which should be deferred.
At the briefing for staff held by MMS on February 12, 1987,
MRS Director Bettenberg admitted that decisions on subarea
deferrals were driven more by political considerations than
anything else. We believe that to base such important decisions
on political grounds is arbitrary and capricious and not in
conformance with the OCS Lands Act.
Last, but by no means least, the typical 3 mile coastal
buffer established by the new Program is far too narrow to provide
an adequate degree of protection from the adverse impacts of oil
and gas leasing and development, including oil spills, chronic
impacts resulting from routine discharges from offshore
operations, and onshore impacts. The Departments own analysis of
Congressman Panetta's proposal reveals that a buffer as wide as 20
miles can not conclusively prevent spilled oil from reaching
shore, or eliminate onshore air quality impacts from offshore `
operations and other adverse environmental impacts. FEIS at
IV.B.10-88-92.
- 7 -
2. Impacts Not Mitigated by the Proposed Subarea Deferrals.
a. Spills. According to a recent MMS report, seven major
spills involving 1,000 barrels or more occurred on the U.S. OCS
between 1976 and 1985 as a result of drilling and production
operations on the OCS.1 In the final environmental impact
statement for the Proposed Program, the Department has projected
12.08 spills of greater than 1,000 barrels from all sources in the
Southern California planning area. The cumulative probability of
one or more spills occurring from federal OCS platforms is 99+%.
FEIS at IV.B.10-32-34.
The Department has estimated that offshore containment and
cleanup operations average 5%-15% recovery of spilled oil.2
Weather conditions, particularly in the northern part of the
state, are frequently extremely adverse, increasing the likelihood
that spilled oil will reach the shore to foul beaches, wetlands,
birds and other coastal resources. Indeed, the 51000 barrel
Puerto Rican spill that occurred off San Francisco revealed that
the industry and the federal government clearly lack the ability
to respond effectively to spills on the California OCS.
b. Pollution from drilling and production operations.
Offshore drilling and production operations generate huge
quantities of waste materials, most notably drilling "muds" (which
lubricate the drill bit and maintain downhole pressure),
1 MMS, 1986. Oil Spills, 1976-1985: Statistical Report. OCS
Report MMS 86-0085 at 7.
2 Department of the Interior, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Lease Sale 97 at IV-A-15.
- 8 -
"cuttings," (pieces of rock ground by the bit that are coated with
mud), and "produced water" (water in the formation that is
produced along with oil). Each time a well is drilled offshore,
an average of 11500 to 2,00o tons of drilling muds and cuttings
are generated and must be disposed of, usually by discharge into
surrounding waters.3 The Department of the Interior has estimated
that drilling activities under the Five Year Program will "result
in the discharge of approximately 2.7 mill -ion barrels of drilling
muds and cuttings" in the southern California Planning area alone.
FEIS at IV.B.10-29.
In addition, enormous quantities of produced water are
generated by production operations. The oil industry has
estimated that over 1.5 million barrels of produced water are
discharged in to the Gulf of Mexico each day as a result of
offshore oil and gas production operations there.4 EPA data
indicate that this level of produced water discharge into the Gulf
is resulting in a daily input of roughly 25400 pounds of oil and
grease and approximately 3,o00 pounds of listed toxic pollutants,
including cadmium, silver, benzene, lead and other toxic organics
3 National Academy of Sciences, 1983 Drilling Discharges in the
Marine Environment at 16.
4 see 50 Fed. Rea. at 34598.
- 9 -
and metals.5 Moreover, EPA estimates that the total annual
biological oxygen demand (BOD) for muds and cuttings from the
offshore oil and gas industry may be more than six times higher
than the total BOD of all ocean dumped municipal sewage sludge.6
EPA research activities have shown that some constituent
components of drilling fluids and produced water and many commonly
used additives are highly toxic to a variety of marine organisms.?
Chronic sublethal effects have also been demonstrated. Research
conducted by scientists at the University of California at Santa
Barbara -- but ignored by the Department's EIS -- has revealed
that drilling muds, even at very small concentrations, can
interfere with the food finding ability of lobsters and other
crustaceans, and with the settling and metamorphosis of abalone,
which is an important commercial species in Southern California.
Indeed, the experiments conducted by the U.C.S.B. scientists led
them to conclude:
It is our professional judgment than many of the marine
organisms and the ecology of the Santa Barbara and Santa
Maria areas will be seriously disrupted by chronic exposure
5 The other listed toxic pollutants in produced water include
copper, nickel, benzo-a, 214-dimethyl, ethylbenzene, naphthalene,
phenol, zinc, and toluene. EPA 1984. Cost Effectiveness Analysis
Proposed Effluent Guidelines Regulations For the Offshore Oil and
Gas Industry at Table V-1 (concentrations are averaged from data
for oil. and gas platforms). Oil and grease inputs assume that
each barfel of produced water contains 48 mg/l oil and grease,
which is the lower limit on oil and grease in EPA's general NPDES
permit governing discharges from oil and gas operations in the Gulf.
6 EPA, 1985. Assessment of -Environmental Fate and Effects from
Offshore oil and Gas Operations at ES-3.
7 See generally id.
- 10 -
even at very low concentrations to drilling muds and
cuttings.8
The National Marine Fisheries Service has suggested that
overfishing, loss of wetlands and pollution from offshore oil and
gas platforms are possible factors in the recent decline in catch
per unit effort for commercial fish landings in Louisiana waters.
Over 88% of the offshore structures in the Gulf are located in
Louisiana offshore waters. EPA has cited this evidence as cause
for environmental concern with respect to discharges from oil and
gas platforms.9
C. Air pollution. Air pollution is an onshore impact of
major concern, both in northern California, where federal and
state air quality standards are being met, and in southern
California, where they are not. According to the Department of
the Interior, emissions from one exploratory drilling rig equal
those from 71000 cars driving 5o miles.10 If OCS air impacts are
not fully mitigated, onshore industrial sources are faced with the
burden of further controls or even a halt to further development
8 California Coastal Commission, February, 1985. Adopted
commission Findings on Consistency Certification, EPA's Draft
NPDES general permits for discharges from offshore oil and gas
facilities in federal waters off southern California, at 35-37.
9 EPA, 1985 at 5-52.
10 U.S. Department of Interior. Materials dated April 7, 1986
and provided to Congressional Negotiating Team on leasing off the
California coast.
0
,
if public health is to be protected.11
Ozone is a pollutant which is not itself emitted from OCS
facilities but is formed through a chemical reaction between
nitrogen oxides (NO.) and reactive hydrocarbons which are emitted.
It is the principal component of photochemical smog and poses
serious threats to public health, including irritation of the
respiratory system, coughing, wheezing, headaches, as well as
aggravation of asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.12 Additional
pollutants produced by OCS activities include oxides of sulfur,
along with NOx are precursors of acid rain, carbon monoxide and
total suspended particulates, as well as other photochemical
pollutants.
The Department assumes that air quality impacts from OCS
development in California will not be significant. FEIS at
IV.B.10-23. Numerous environmental documents, however, reveal
that development activities on the federal OCS do adversely impact
air quality and impede local efforts to attain applicable ambient
standards.13 For example, the 1986 Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Report for the San Miguel Project in the northern Santa
Maria Basin concluded that a single platform six miles from shore
would create onshore violations of the Clean Air Act in a zone
11 See. e.a., Letter dated April 8, 1985, from Allan Hirsch,,
Director, EPA Office of Federal Activities, to William Bettenberg,
Director, MMS.
12 See generally, California Air Resources Board, "The Effects
of Oxides of Nitrogen on California Air Quality's (March 1986).
13 See,e.g., id.; County of Santa Barbara, Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report, Exxon Santa Ynez Unit.
- 12 -
currently in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The air quality analysis conducted for
Platform Julius located 9.5 miles from shore concluded that
significant air quality impacts would result from offshore
operations.14 Additionally, the EPA noted in its comments on the
draft EIS on the 1986 Proposed Program that development of a
single project in the Santa Maria Basin could result in northern
Santa Barbara County and part of the San Luis Obispo County
becoming non -attainment for ozone.15 Indeed, even Interior has
recognized that emissions from proposed OCS projects can cause
onshore ozone violations,16 although it has refused to mitigate
those impacts.17
The Department in the past has implicitly recognized the
validity of the objections of the Governor of California and the
State Air Resources Board to its regulatory approach.18 Thus, for
example, in OCS Lease Sale 73, Interior negotiated a series of air
quality stipulations which provide controls which are more
14 EIS/Report for the San Miguel Project and North Santa
Maria Basin Study, November, 1985.
15 EPA, 1986 Detailed Comments at 8.
16 See Department of the Interior, Record of Decision, Santa
Ynez Unit Project, at 31 (October 1985).
17 See Response Brief of California Coastal Commission, In the
Matter of the Appeal by Exxon Company, U.S.A. to the Consistency
Objection to the California Coastal Commission to Exxon's Proposed
Development of the Santa Ynez Unit by means of Development Option
A (currently before the Secretary of Commerce), at 128.
18 State of California v Hodel, Central Dist. Cal. No. CV 81-
3234-JMI).
- 13 -
stringent than those contained in its regulations -- stipulations
which have not been adopted as part of the Five Year Program
notwithstanding the request of the Governor that they be
incorporated. Clearly, the Proposed Program does not adequately
reflect the major national interest in clean air.
d. Onshore impacts. Offshore oil development means onshore
support bases, transportation facilities, pipelines, storage
tanks, processing facilities, housing, roads and the like.
Particularly in undeveloped areas like the northern California
coast, where little infrastructure presently exists, onshore
construction will have major impacts on the coastal zone. Coastal
habitats will be physically destroyed or altered to accommodate
exploration, development, production and transportation, with
serious and longlasting effects.19
C.
Congressmen Regula and Panetta and Governor Deukmejian all
requested that a baseline set of stipulations be included at the
5-Year Program stage. A consistent set of stipulations on oil
spill containment and cleanup technology, air quality, drilling
and production discharges, fishing conflicts, etc., applied at the
5-Year Program stage would significantly reduce conflict at the
19 Boesch D. and G. Robilliard, 1985, Physical alteration of
marine and coastal habitats; results from offshore oil and gas
development activities. In Boesch, D. and N. Rabalais 1985. The
T �-�.L �.�TfCt l _ n � r. .•
Research strategy. Final Report to the National
Program Office, NOAA, at 13-1-29.
- 14 -
lease sale stage. Despite this, interior refused to incorporate
any stipulations into the 5-Year Program, claiming that location
or future circumstances may alter or obviate the need for
stipulations.
Interior's refusal to adopt any of the stipulations proposed
by any of the parties means that each time a sale comes uD the
State will have to wrangle with the Department over the same
stipulations. This process is wasteful and unnecessary. There is
no reason that Interior could not adopt 5-Year Program
stipulations and provide for their modification at the lease sale
stage to fit the nuances of a particular location, so long as
those modifications did not weaken the stipulations. Interior's
refusal to do so indicates an unwillingness to resolve conflict
and reduce controversy.
D.
1. The Department's Arnivaic of
The major failing of the draft Proposed 5-Year Program for
California lies in the absence of a meaningful analysis of
alternative mechanisms of supplying the energy thought to lie off
the coast of California. While Appendix F of the Secretarial
Issue Documentand Appendix C of the final environmental impact
statement describe various energy supply alternatives, there is no
attempt to quantify the replacement value of energy from other
sources, nor is there any quantification of the costs and benefits
Of pursuing various alternative energy strategies over those of
E
developing OCS resources.
Furthermore, the FEIS analyses possible energy replacement
scenarios in the context of the "no -action" alternative only,
rather than in the context of each different subarea deferral
alternative. Thus, there is no assessment of alternatives to_the
energy forgone by the adoption of the various subarea deferrals.
Given that the Department's.analysis is framed so that alternative
energy sources must replace the entire OCS program, it is
inevitable that the Department should conclude that no alternative
is satisfactory.
We believe that alternative energy sources should be
discussed in the context of the individual alternatives, rather
than in the context of cancelling the whole program, so that ways
of avoiding OCS production in highly sensitive areas proposed for
subarea deferral status can be explored. For example, as
discussed below, an increase in automobile fuel efficiency to 45
miles per gallon could save the nation as much as four times the
amount of oil thought to lie off the California coast. The
alternatives should be structured so that comparisons of this sort
can be readily made. This will permit the public to comment on
the desirability of pursuing one energy scenario over others. The
following energy alternatives should be examined.
a. Improved automobile gas mileage standards. The increase
in fuel efficiency from a fleet average of 13.9 mpg in 1977 (the
year prior to the year that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards took effect) to an estimated 18.4 mpg for 1985 is
- 16 -
currently saving the nation approximately 1.3 million barrels of
oil per day.20
The technology exists to continue to raise gas mileage to
above 40 mpg by 1995:21 Such an improvement does not entail
giving up big cars; instead it comes from making investments in
improving the technology of the car.
A national standard of.45 mpg for 1995 cars and 35 mpg for
light trucks could produce a savings of 2.2 million barrels per
day by the year 2005 or 2010.22 This amounts to a cumulative
savings over 20 years of about 8 billion barrels of oil.
Depending on which of.D0E's future oil price projections is
assumed, such savings could reduce our oil import bill in the year
2010 by between $45.8 and $93.1 billion.23 In addition, these
savings could help exert downward pressure on oil prices and
increase pressure on automobile manufacturers all over the world
20 Energy Information Administration (EIA), Enercry Conservation
Indicators, October, 1984 at 122, and EIA, Annual Energy Outlook
1984 January 1985 at 203. Based on EIA's projected total vehicle
mileage for 1985 (Id.) and 1977 fuel economy of 13.94 mpg. Cited
in Marc Ledbetter, Energy Conservation Coalition. Testimony on
Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Before the Subcommittee on
Energy Conservation and Power of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, September 19, 1985 at 8.
21 Office of Technology Assessment, September 1982. Increased
Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels. See also the
SERI/Solar Conservation Study, 1981. A New Prosperity• Bu ldina
a Sustainable Energy Future. Brick House Publishing, Andover
Massachusetts 1981, and Frank Von Hippel, Charles Gray, 'The Fuel
Economy of Vehicles$, Scientific American, May 1981.
22 Dr. Robert Williams, Princeton University. Testimony before
House Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, July 31, 1984.
23 Ledbetter, 1985 Testimony at 11.
- 17 -
to increase their fuel efficiency, resulting in even lower oil
demand and more downward pressure on prices. The cost of such a
program appears to be less than $25 per barrel24 -- lower than the
cost of OCS production in many areas.
Instead of aggressively pursuing strategies to achieve these
potential savings, the Administration has rolled back fuel economy
standards from 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) mandated by Congress to
26 mpg for 1986, 1987 and 1988 model year automobiles. The
decision not to enforce original fuel economy standards means that
an extra 110 million barrels of oil will be used over the life of
the 1986, 1987 and 1988 model year fleets.25
b. Government funded conservation research. According to
DOE126 federal investments in 18 major industrial/commercial
energy saving technologies will be providing 521 million barrels
per year in equivalent energy savings by the year 2010. These
technologies have been introduced into the market in the 1978-1983
period and savings are based on expected market penetration by
2010. Despite the success of these technologies, the
Administration's FY 1987 conservation research and development
24 SERI/Solar Conservation Study, 1981 at 297-307.
25 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
estimated that lowering the 1986 passenger car standard would
result in 1.54 billion gallons of additional fuel being consumed
over the'life of the model year 1986 auto fleet. Assumes 42
gallons of refined products (gas) per barrel of oil, which means
that 37 million barrels of oil would have been saved per model
year by the fuel economy standards. Ledbetter, 1985 Testimony at
12.
26 FY 87 Energy Conservation Multi -Year Plan, July 1985, Office
of Conservation, U.S. DOE.
budget request of $71.2 million represented a drop of 76% from
actual fiscal year 1981 appropriations of $292.5 million.27
Budget cuts of this magnitude will mean that potential further
major savings in energy conservation will not be realized.
C. Incentive proarams for building retrofit. Some 3.3
million barrels of oil equivalent per day are used in the form of
,oil or gas for heating homes. Incentive -based retrofit insulation
programs have the potential to save more than 1.5 million barrels
per day at a cost of less than that of oil.23 Pilot programs
sponsored by utilities have shown that almost 9o% of the potential
savings can be achieved within a three year implementation
period,29 yet the federal government has proposed no programs to
help this process along. The only direct government involvement
has been in solar and conservation tax credits. This program was
terminated at the request of the Administration.
d. Mass transit expansion. Mass transit is more fuel
efficient than automobiles and also allows a reduction in
automobile travel miles in areas well served by mass transit. A
50% change in transit ridership up from current levels could save
27 GAO, February 1987. Energy R&D: Changes in Federal Funding
Criteria and Industry Response GAO/RCED-87-26 at 52.
28 SERI/Solar Conservation Study, 1981 at 13.
29 Eric Hirst and R. Goeltz, "Potential Versus Practice Instal-
lation of Retrofit Measures in the Hood River Conservation
Project," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/CON-189 1985, at
26-27.
- 19 -
over 3 billion barrels of oil over the next twenty years.30 Mass
transit is generally a much lower cost option to the nation than
automobile -based transportation systems, even excluding the
benefits of their lower energy costs. Yet the Administration has
consistently supported large cutbacks in federal mass transit
funding and has withheld money that Congress directed to be
invested in mass transit construction, despite the consequences on
oil imports.
e. Appliance efficiency standards. The economic and
environmental attractiveness of appliance efficiency standards was
demonstrated in 1986 when the appliance industry and the
conservation community jointly sponsored federal legislation to
enact uniform appliance efficiency standards. These standards
would have saved an estimated 1.3 billion barrels of oil equiva-
lent from gas savings in furnaces, water heaters, and ranges.31
This is only slightly less than the total unleased oil the
Department projects lies off the California coast. Despite the
swift passage of the legislation by overwhelming margins in the
Congress, the President chose to forego these significant energy
savings and vetoed the bill in November. It is difficult to
understand why the Administration feels so pressing a need to open
30 Dr. David Goldstein, Senior Scientist, Natural Resources
Defense Council, 1985. Testimony for House Appropriations
Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation, on Appropriations for
the Urban Mass Transit Administration, 2 May 1985.
31 Howard Geller, American Council on an Energy Efficient
Economy, 1986•. Energy and Economic Savings Potential from Natural
Appliance Efficiency Standards.
I
- 20 -
the California coast in light of its rejection of a far more
effective method of assuring energy security.
There have been recent indications that the Administration,
faced with a veto override, will support a similar bill that
passed the Senate last week by an 86-4 margin and will soon come
before the House. We hope this signals a broader shift by the
Administration away from policies that discourage energy
conservation.
2, Advantages of conservation over drilling.
The above analysis has focused on the relative costs of
efficiency improvements compared to oil drilling over the next 20
years. But the economy doesn't end after 20 years, and it is in
the long run
that
the special
advantage of
efficiency options is
apparent.
If oil
is produced
and consumed
for 20 years, it is
gone forever. But if efficiency improvements are adopted instead,
they can continue to save energy over the indefinite future. A
furnace purchased in 1995 under an appliance standards program
will still be saving energy in 2014, and its replacement can
continue these savings. A house insulated in 1990 will still be
saving oil in the year 2050.
3. "Least-costlf en ay planning.
The only way to make economically rational or defensible
decisions concerning the development of energy resources is the
method of least cost planning. This was recognized by Congress in
1980, when the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act authorized the creation of a new agency to plan
- 21 -
for electricity use in the Northwest and charged it with acquiring
electricity in a least -cost fashion. The Northwest Power Planning
Council found that a wide range of energy efficiency measures not
currently being pursued have economic priority over new power
plants, and that they can entirely substitute for fossil -fuel
plants in the most probable scenarios.32 The California Energy
Commission has operated under least -cost principles for a decade
under leadership from both political parties, and now claims that
these principles have saved that state's ratepayers billions of
dollars. The Commission has found since the early 1980s that
efficiency improvements and renewable energy sources not only can
avoid the need for new conventional power plants but also meet oil
import reduction goals.33
Before OCS leasing can be justified on an economic basis, the
government must develop a least -cost energy plan and see where OCS
leasing in different areas fits it. If it falls behind other
options not being pursued, then the program should be postponed
until other more attractive resources are exploited. Described
above are several energy conservation opportunities that can
together "produce' far more energy than the OCS leasing program
for California, in many cases at a lower cost. We believe that a
least -cost plan will reveal that these and other options that are
currently unexploited should be developed first, before resorting
32 1986 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan.
Northwest Power Planning Council, 1986.
33 See Biennial Reports of the California Energy Commission,
1981, 1983, and 1985.
- 22 -
to leasing in sensitive areas of the California OCS.
4. Current U.S. Policy Concerning oil Imports
For the last five years, government policy, as reflected in
the National Energy Plan, has emphasized reliance on market
mechanisms as.opposed to government actions. The U.S. has
decontrolled oil prices, after years of price regulation, and the
Administration has de-emphasized the role of government in
achieving desired results in the energy sector.
The problem with this approach is that market forces seek to
obtain energy supplies at the lowest cost. The market does not
care whether oil is obtained from Texas or from Libya, rather, the
market looks at price, quality, and availability. A reliance on
market forces is tantamount to asserting that the level of imports
is not of public concern. But, if this is the case, why should
government actions to reduce imports -- such as OCS leasing -- be
in the public interest?
A number of policies are potentially available to reduce oil
imports. These include reductions in the demand for oil as
discussed above, taxes on oil (to reduce consumption), taxes on
oil imports, or requirements (e.g., quotas, targets) for
reductions in imports. None of these policies has been pursued by
the Administration. In fact, as noted above, the Administration
policies frequently have frequently undermined energy self-
sufficiency.
Not only is the Administration failing to 'act to reduce oil
imports through other policies besides expedited oil leasing, it
- 23 -
has also failed to show how the OCS program will necessarily lead
to import reductions. To do so would require detailed economic
modeling to account for the following second -order effects (among
others), which tend to counteract the simple displacement of
imports.
For example, OCS production will add to the oil supply on the
west coast. This region has traditionally had surpluses of oil
over the past decade. With excess supply, coal prices may drop,
and more expensive local fuel sources may no longer be purchased.
For example, marginal resources, such as thermally enhanced
tertiary recovery, will be restrained. In this case, expanded OCS
production may simply displace other U.S. energy supplies.
Without detailed economic modeling, DOI cannot predict the
effect of OCS production on imports.
5. Conclusion
The economics of expanded OCS oil production are much less
attractive than a great number of other energy opportunities that
are currently being ignored by the Administration. The impact of
OCS leasing on reducing oil imports is speculative. Even if
imports were reduced by OCS leasing, there is no reason to believe
that this reduction is of any policy value to the nation, as
alternative means of achieving import reductions are not being
pursued, -(and are being undermined) by other government actions.
- 24 -
E. The Department's Economic Analysis is Seriously Flawed.
The Proposed Program is based on an economic analysis that
makes important value judgments and contains several errors.
These judgments and errors lead to a consistent bias in favor of
early and rapid leasing of OCS resources.
For example, the high discount rates,,(O and 9%) used by the
Department inflate the value of early leasing, as do the
Department's assumptions about oil price increases and the
practice of valuing gas at the energy equivalent of oil. These
and other problems with the economic analysis are discussed in
Appendices 11 and III to these comments.
F. The Analysis of Social Costs is Grossly Flawed
The social costs of leasing represent the Department's
assessment of the economic costs of environmental damage and
adverse impacts resulting from OCS leasing. Social costs are a
key component of the Department's calculation of the net social
value (NSV) of leasing in the different planning areas. Net
social value equals net economic benefits minus social costs.
We have a number of criticisms of the analysis of social
costs contained in Appendix G of the Secretarial Issue Document.
First, the estimate of social costs does not include an
assessment of the cost of impacts resulting from discharges of
drilling fluids and produced water on fisheries and other coastal
and marine resources. In view of the potential impacts of these
materials described earlier in these comments, DOI's failure to
- 25 -
incorporate pollution costs associated with drilling and
production discharges into its analysis of social costs is
inexcusable.
Second, the Department assumes that domestic production will
"back -out" foreign oil barrel for barrel and therefore oil spill
costs will be dramatically reduced. This assumption is totally
unfounded, and the Department backs this argument up with no
empirical data. As discussed earlier in these comments, the
Department has failed to show how the OCS program will necessarily
lead to import reductions. To do so would require detailed
economic modeling to account for second order effects (among
others) which tend to counteract the simple displacement of
imports. This the Department has failed to do.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that oil produced off the
northern and central California coast will be transported by
anything other than tankers. Indeed, even in the oil -rich basins
off southern California, OCS oil is being tankered (e.g., Platform
Hondo in the Santa Barbara Channel). In addition, U.S. tankers
are not immune to spills; the Department itself estimates that the
spill rate for domestic tankers is the same as that for foreign
tankers. (1987 Proposed Program, Appendix G at 22). To assume
that OCS production will back out foreign production and therefore
dramatically reduce tanker spills and related social costs is
purely speculative.
The fallacy of the import back -out concept is illustrated by
the curious results the Department obtains when it calculates the
-26-
environmental costs of the alternative proposals for leasing off
California. For example, the net social cost per billion barrels
of oil produced for the Departments proposal for northern
California is $20.1 million (Appendix G at 76, assuming $14 per
barrel starting price.) For the Panetta proposal, which protects
far more areas of the northern California coast from leasing,,the
net social cost for northern California is $133.5 million --
almost an order of magnitude higher. (Id.at 86). The Department
accounts for this by claiming that the social costs avoided by a
reduction in OCS leasing is offset by an increase in social cost
from oil spills from the additional imports presumed to occur when
smaller amounts of OCS oil and gas are produced. Id. at 81. This
is totally unjustified given that 1) tankers and not pipelines are
likely to transport any oil found in northern California, 2)
domestic tankers have a spill rate equal to that of foreign
tankers (Id. at 22), 3) central and northern California take up a.
very small percentage of imported crude oil according to the
Department (2.3%) (Id. at 66), and 4) the fact that the Department
has not done any quantitative analysis of the real impact of OCS
development on imports.
Third, we seriously question the assumption that social costs
will be far greater if oil comes ashore. (Appendix G at 6). This
is far Prom being the case in all instances. For example, the
social costs of a spill affecting a shallow offshore fishing area,
such as Tanner, Cortex and Farnsworth Banks off southern
California, could be enormous even if the spill never reaches
- 27 -
shore. Offshore spills also have the potential to affect
migrating marine mammals and fisheries. To minimize the costs of
offshore spills is therefore indefensible.
Fourth, according to the SID, the social cost of all southern
California air quality impacts is $3.8 million. (Appendix G at
104). By comparison, Exxon has claimed that it will cost $1.7
billion to purchase the offsets needed to comply with conditions
imposed by Santa Barbara County on a single OCS project.34 While
Exxon's claim is undoubtedly greatly exaggerated, it casts
considerable doubt on the credibility of Interior's estimate.
Since Interior has taken Exxon's side against the County in its
appeal to the Secretary of Commerce, we question this enormous
discrepancy.
Fifth, we strongly object to the valuation for wetland
losses. The methodology utilized by the Department results in a
calculation of $20,898 per acre as the loss in value of wetlands
as a result of oil and gas development in Central California.
(Appendix G at 49). This is unjustifiably low for the permanent
loss of an acre of wetland.
For example, wetlands have been
34 Appeal of the California Coastal Commission finding that
"Option All of the Santa Ynez Unit Development and Production Plan
is inconsistent with the California Coastal Management Program,
Appellant's Supplemental Response Statement II. January, 1987 at
120-122.
-28-
valued at $2,429 to $6,400 Der year.35
Finally, a major category of costs excluded are most of the
onshore infrastructure costs associated with offshore development.
The only infrastructure cost included in Dolts calculation of
social costs is the cost of planning. (Appendix G at 52).
Otherwise, OCS development is assumed to have "neutral fiscal
impacts" on-OCS areas. (Id. at 53). Yet the Interior Department
itself recognizes that in remote areas such as northern
California, infrastructure costs can be expected because, in part,
present facilities are limited. (id. at 51). The assumption that
OCS development is on balance neutral in terms of fiscal impacts
for such areas is unfounded.
Each of these failings in the social cost analysis are
significant in and of themselves. Taken together, they result in
a gross underestimation of the social costs of OCS leasing. This
is reflected in the fact that wherever production is projected to
be economic by Doi in a planning area, estimated economic benefits
so far outweigh social costs that social costs would have to be 60
times greater to change the net social value of leasing (i.e., the
net economic benefits of leasing minus social costs) from positive
to negative.
(SID at 78).
35 Constanza, R. and S.C. Farber 1985. Economic Value of
Coastal Wetlands in Louisiana. Final Report to the Coastal
Protection Section Louisiana Department of Natural Resources,
Center For Wetlands Resources, LSU, Baton Rouge.
G.
- 29 -
The press release accompanying the proposed 5-Year Program
for California indicates that the Department is proceeding with a
presale process of "focusing on promising acreage". This
supposedly represents a retreat from areawide leasing. However,
the Proposed Program fails to articulate the criteria that will be
utilized for focused leasing. Furthermore, the Secretarial Issue
Document describes the total unpredictability of focused leasing
in terms of the size of sales likely to result. For example, Sale
92 in the North Aleutian Basin identified 5.7 million acres for
lease through the Department's focusing process. On the other
hand, the Department identified over 50 million acres for lease in
the most recent Eastern Gulf of Mexico lease sale (No. 94). SID
at 153.
While the Call for Information for Sale 91 in Northern
California focused on a relatively small number of tracts, there
is no guarantee that other sales will be limited in a similar
fashion.
In light of the serious criticisms leveled by the General
Accounting Office, which estimated that areawide leasing has
resulted in a loss to the Federal Treasury of $7 billion in bid
revenues,36 we believe that the Department's refusal to articulate
a clear set of criteria that will substantially narrow down lease
36 Early Assessment of Interior's Areawide Program for Leas
Offshore Lands (GAO RCED-85-661 July 15, 1985) and Views on
Interior's Comments to GAO Reports on Leasing Offshore Lands (GAO
RCED-86-78 BR, March, 1986).
- 30 -
sales represents a clear disregard for the economic impacts of
large scale leasing.
For this reason and because focused leasing provides a
totally unpredictable and unsatisfactory process for planning
purposes, we strongly urge the Department to return to the tract
selection process which was utilized for a decade or more at a
time of lower oil prices and decreased competition. The revenue
and planning benefits obtained from the tract selection process
far outweigh those obtained by focused leasing or modified
areawide approach.
H.
The Department has proposed a provision under which annual
supplemental sales offering a "small number" of rejected and
forfeited bid blocks and drainage and development blocks could be
offered. This provision presents several problems.
First, the Department claims that such sales will be small
(Enclosure 2 at 10, FEIS at II-3) but refuses to put a ceiling on
the number of tracts that could be offered in a supplemental sale.
Without such a ceiling, there is nothing to prevent large numbers
of tracts for which bids were rejected in the previous standard
sale from being offered in the supplemental sale. Supplemental
sales could thus easily evolve into large-scale annual lease
sales. If the Department is convinced that only a small number of
tracts will be offered in supplemental sales, we see no reason why
it cannot place a cap on the number of tracts that could be
- 31 -
offered in supplemental sales at any one time. We suggest a cap
of five tracts based on the comments of MMS Director Bettenberg at
the staff briefing on February 12, 1987.
Second, the supplemental sale provision seriously undermines
the program's value as a planning document, i.e., one which
provides predictability to the State, to local communities and the
public at large. The supplemental sale provision means that
leasing can occur both more frequently and sooner than scheduled.
We understand the Department's motivation in being as flexible as
possible for administrative and economic reasons. But we believe
that so much flexibility fails to serve the purposes for which a
5-Year Program is required to be developed.
Third, we fail to see the rationale for offering tracts in
which bids were rejected in sales held the previous year. It
would appear that the only reason the Department would want to
reoffer such tracts is because of new information suggesting that
these tracts are more valuable than had previously been thought.
However a year is too little time for the companies to explore the
areas leased in the previous sale. Consequently, the Department
is unlikely to have any more new information than it had when it
originally offered the tracts and rejected the bids.
Finally, we fail to see how advancing sale dates by a year or,
two through supplemental sales could alleviate or respond to a
short term rise in oil prices or a supply crisis. As the
Department itself admits, the lead time until production in
frontier areas in particular is the minimum 5 to 10 years.
- 32 -
Moreover, whether any oil and gas will be found in commercial
quantities in these areas is a matter of pure speculation. Much
more reliable means of protecting our national energy security in
the event of a significant supply disruption or a price increase
are described in Section D of these comments.
I.
Social costs should reflect the environmental sensitivity and
marine productivity of a planning area. Because Dolls calculation
of social costs are negligible compared to the net economic
benefits of leasing in all planning areas, it would appear that
the assessment of marine productivity and environmental
sensitivity of the different areas ultimately had no effect on the
proposed schedule. Indeed, as noted above, wherever production is
projected to be economic by DOI in a planning area, estimated net
social value (the difference between estimated economic benefits
and estimated social costs) is so large that the social costs
would have to be many times larger than estimated in order to
reduce the expected net social value to zero. (Enclosure 4 at 5,
SID at Table 12.1) It is therefore clear that marine productivity
and environmental sensitivity of different planning areas
ultimately had no effect on the proposed schedule for California.
- 33 -
J. Fair Market Value
According to the 1986 GAO Report, DOI needs to adjust to a
number of its data gathering and bid evaluation procedures in
order to assure receipt of fair market value for OCS oil and gas
resources.37 For example, bids are automatically accepted on
tracts which the Department has determined are "nonviable" or on
tracts which have received three or more bids. However, GAO has
criticized DOI's methodology and existing data base for
determining whether certain areas are nonviable as inadequate.
GAO Report at 21. Furthermore, the fact that three or more bids
have been received on a tract does not necessarily guarantee
receipt of fair market value. Id. at 27.
It is not clear whether or not the Interior Department has
totally abandoned the use of the geometric mean in its evaluation
procedures as recommended by GAO. (See for example, Appendix K at
10). This should be clarified and should reflect the total
abandonment of reliance on this concept.
With respect to the minimum bid, the Department notes that
"the minimum bid would remain at $150 per acre as the basic
approach subject to reconsideration on a sale by sale basis."
Enclosure 2 at 10. We very strongly oppose any such
reconsideration of lowering the minimum bid on a sale by sale
basis. The basis for our objection is outlined in comments
submitted by James P. Love on behalf of NRDC on DOI's request for
37 "Views on Interior's Comment to GAO Reports on Leasing
Offshore Lands" (GAO/RCED-8.6-78 BR)
0
- 34 -
comments on lowering the minimum bid.38
Fair market value issues raised in the context of focused
leasing (pages 29-30 of these comments) are also very significant.
The Department has yet to adequately revise it's procedures for
.reducing the size of lease sales.
38 NRDC comments dated March 12, 1986 on DOI's Proposed Minimum
Bid Policies.
NRDC Comments on Proposed
5-Year Program for California
1987-1991
APPENDIX I
SPECIFIC INADEQUACIES OF THE PROPOSED
SUBAREA DEFERRALS BY PLANNING AREA
0
- 1 -
A. Southern California Planning Area
1. Resources at Risk
The coastal and marine resources of Southern California are
diverse, economically significant and environmentally sensitive.
Fisheries. Major purse seine and trawl fisheries exist in
the Southern California planning area. In the FEIS for the 1980
5-Year OCS Leasing Program (hereafter 1980 FEIS), "Southern
California ports receive about 75 percent of the total landings
of commercial marine fisheries in the state." 1980 FEIS at
IV.B.10-18. In 1980, the halibut fishery alone was valued at
more than a quarter of a million dollars per year in the Santa
Barbara area. Id. at 213. The Department has acknowledged that
"severe" impacts to important commercial fish species could
result from oil spills contacting coastal areas, particularly "in
the shallow intertidal zone where bottom dwelling organisms could
be contaminated by oil." Id. at 214. Harvests of shellfish such
as spiny lobster, sea urchin and rock crab, could be
"substantially reduced" for as long as "several years." Id. cf.
1987 FEIS at IV.B.10-50 (impact analysis limited to anchovies and
squid).
Birds. Vast numbers of birds, including both migratory and
resident species, are found in the Southern California planning
area. The area's high sensitivity to adverse impacts from oil
spills affecting bird populations was conceded by the Department
in 1980:
[t]he coastal wetlands of Southern California and many
offshore areas of the Southern California Bight experience
- 2 -
seasonal population increases. These concentrations of
birds are especially vulnerable to massive oil mortalities
which can affect entire populations.
1980 FEIS at 228.
The "great" possibility that the light-footed clapper rail,
an endangered species sighted in salt marshes from Goleta to
Baja, would be adversely affected by an CCS related oil spill
that entered or occurred in a salt marsh was specifically
acknowledged. Id. at 245.
Recreation. The Final EIS on the 1980 Five Year Plan
acknowledged the extraordinary environmental and economic
significance of Southern California's recreational resources.
"Southern California (Point Conception to the Mexican border)
accounts for about 75 percent of California's coastal recreation.
For this reason, the area would be very sensitive to oil spills
occurring as a result of [OCS leasing and development]." Id. at
263.
The Southern California coast contains isolated rocky shores
which if coated by a crude oil spill as a result of this
proposal may not rapidly be repopulated due to the distance
over which colonizing life forms would have to be recruited.
Sandy beaches in this area are of great recreational
importance and would tend to trap spilled oil for long
periods and experience erosion as a result of the oil
contamination.
Id. at 228.
Not only would waterborne --and seashore -related recreational.
activities be adversely affected by oil spills, but "[a] loss of
beach usage and boating opportunities due to an oil spill could
have a significant impact to the coastal recreation economy,"
id., "possibly resulting in millions of dollars lost," id. at 264.
- 3 -
Marine Mammals. The migratory routes of the world's entire
population of California gray whales as well as the North Pacific
stocks of blue, humpback and fin whales are located off of the
southern California coast. Forty percent of the world's
population of California sea lions and northern elephant seals
breed on the Channel Islands before returning to their homes.
"Chances of at least one spill occurring at some time during [the
next five years] and hitting waters within the Channel Islands
Marine Sanctuary or areas of cetacean migration are probably
high," and could result in "very high impacts to marine mammals."
1987 FEIS at IV.B.10-33 (emphasis added).
Air duality. The severe air quality problems of Southern
California are well known. Even in 1980, "most coastal locations
in this area [were] experienc[ing] violations of the ozone
standard especially from Point Conception south to the Mexican
border." 1980 FEIS at 275. State and national air quality
standards for other pollutants are currently being exceeded in
Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. EPA in commenting on the draft
EIS on the 1986 Proposed Program noted that OCS development in
southern California could cause areas to "become nonattainment
for ozone," thereby impeding local efforts to curb air pollution
and protect public health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Five -Year Outer Continental Shelf oil and Gas Leasing
Program/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Detailed Comments,
page 8 of Enclosure 2 to May 9, 1986 letter from Allan Hirsch,
Director, Office of Federal Activities to William Bettenberg,
- 4 -
Director, MKS, (hereafter EPA 1986 Detailed Comments).
According to the SID, the social cost of all southern
California air quality impacts is $3.8 million. (SID Appendix G
at 104). By comparison, Exxon has claimed that it will cost $1.7
billion to purchase the offsets needed to comply with conditions
imposed by Santa Barbara County on a single OCS project.1 Svhile
Exxon's claim is undoubtedly greatly exaggerated, it casts
considerable doubt on the credibility of Interior's estimate
since Interior has taken Exxon's side against zhe County in its
appeal to the Secretary of Commerce.
Areas of Special Concern. A large number of areas of
special concern -- marine life refuges, ecological reserves,
Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) -- have been
designated by the state and federal government in the Southern
California planning area. They include important bird and
pinniped habitats as well as intertidal or subtidal benthic
communities. See, e.g., 1987 FEIS at IV.B.10-45. They also
include southern California's few remaining wetland areas such as
Balsa Chica in Huntington Beach. id. at IV.B.10-35. The
Interior Department has conceded that "[a] spill offshore any of
southern California's few wetland areas,... could seriously impact
important feeding, resting and nesting areas for both migrating
and resident bird species." Id., (emphasis added). Similarly,
1 Appeal of the California Coastal Commission finding that
"Option All of the Santa Ynez Unit Development and Production Plan
is Inconsistent with the California Coastal Management Program,
Appellant's Supplemental Response Statement II. January 1987 at
120-122.
- 5 -
it has stated that 11[a]'n oil spill occurring in the vicinity of
an ASBS and driven -by winds and currents into the ASBS proper,
would degrade the natural water quality creating a situation the
ASBS Act was designed to prevent." Id. at IV.B.10-45.
Sensitive Areas. In its EIS on the 1980 Five Year Program,
the Department acknowledged the wealth of sensitive areas found
in the southern California area and the harm that could occur to
them as the result of OCS development.
Tanner, Cortex and Farnsworth Banks are notable for their
populations of "purple coral," Allopora californica. The banks
have been singled out by the Department in the past for their
"recreationally and commercially important shellfish and finfish"
as well as for "important habitats for benthic communities" --
all of which could be adversely affected by activities at every
stage of exploration and development and by oil spills, including
smothering by drilling muds. 1980 FEIS at 227, and 1987 FEIS at
IV. B.10.27-28.
In 1980 the estuaries of Mugu Lagoon, Upper Newport Bay and
Tijuana Lagoon were recognized to be at risk from leasing and
development. 1980 FEIS at 227. "If contaminated by an oil spill
reaching shore and impacting them, these estuaries would undergo
significant population changes and may not return to their
natural'state for years." Id.
- 6 -
2. Sources of Risk to the Resources of southern California
The new Five Year Program assumes a total of 524
exploration wells, 2145 development and production wells and 48
production platforms in southern California. 1987 FEIS at
IV.B.10-31. "There is a 99 percent probability that one or more
spills greater than 11000 barrels will occur' as a result of this
program. Id, at IV.B.10-55. The Department's own analysis
repeatedly concedes that deferral of subareas will help protect
sensitive resources and areas from the adverse impacts of
development, including, in particular, oil spills. see, ea.,
id. at IV.B.10-31 (fish); -33 (marine mammals); -38 (Brown
pelican); -41 (Light-footed clapper rail). Under the proposed
program, however, a total of only six subareas in the Southern
California planning area will be deferred and consequently
receive any protection from these impacts. Two of these subareas
are areas in which oil development has already been permanently
prohibited by Congress -- the Santa Barbara Ecological Preserve
and Buffer Zone and the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary. A third, the San Nicolas operating Basin, is an area
of military significance. Additional subareas have been deferred
within Santa Monica Bay, between Newport and Laguna Beaches and
in the vicinity of La Jolla and S'an Diego. As the following
analysis clearly reveals, these deferrals will not adequately
protect the important, environmentally sensitive resources of the
southern California planning area from the adverse impacts of
leasing and development.
- 7 -
3. Areas receiving inadequate protection
Santa Monica Bay. Tracts have been deleted within Santa
Monica Bay in ostensible recognition of its outstanding
recreational attributes. However, the number and location of the
tracts deleted is insufficient to achieve this objective and
ignores other important resources.
Santa Monica Bay is the largest bay in southern California.
Some 21 state beaches and parks are located along its shores and
are the most intensely used in the nation. In 1982, the state of
California estimated that "close to 60 million people use Los
Angeles County beaches annually and use is expected to continue
increasing." The California Governor's Detailed Comments on the
Proposed Notice of Sale and Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale 68, Southern California,
March 27, 1982, at 8 (hereafter Governor's Detailed Comments on
OCS Sale 68). In addition, it is one of the nation's most
heavily used coastal recreational boating areas. In 1982, the
state also estimated that the City of Santa Monica alone
generated approximately $lo0 million annually from recreation and
tourism, id., and noted that "a billion dollar -plus recreation
industry and hundreds of thousands of related jobs" were
dependent on the Santa Monica Bay. Id.
Deretion of tracts only within the mouth of the Bay will not
avoid visual pollution of the Bay shoreline with resultant
adverse impacts to the tourism industry and recreational values.
Id. Even the Department of the Interior noted that a "platform
- 8 -
placed off Santa Monica Bay will have a far higher impact than a
similar platform placed off Point Conception, due mainly to the
Very high level of use of Santa Monica Bay beaches, and the
economic value of those recreationists...,' 1987 FEIS at IV.B.10-
54.
Moreover, the sea floor in deep water outside the bay is
"highly faulted and subject to fault ruptures, liquefaction,
slumping and mass sliding." Recommendations from Governor, State
of California to Secretary of the Interior regarding proposed OCS
Sale 68 (March 29, 1982) at 4 (hereinafter Governor's
Recommendations re OCS Sale 68). Not only would laying pipeline
be difficult, id., but the risks of spills and harm to beach
resources would be enhanced. Additionally, sensitive biological
areas will be jeopardized, including rocky intertidal areas
around Point Dune and the Palos Verdes Peninsula which will
suffer "high ecological losses if 6iled.11 Governor's Detailed
Comments on OCS Sale 68 at S. There will also be threats to the
Point Mugu-Latigo Point "Area of Special Biological
Significance," and Point Mugu -Point Dume "Significant Ecological
Area," as well as the wetlands of the Ballona Creek estuary and
Malibu Lagoon -- all that remain of Los Angeles County's
wetlands, which represent irreplaceable habitat for threatened
species: Ballona Creek alone is estimated to include 20% of the
State's nesting ground for the endangered Least Tern. Wind and
current will carry oil spills into all of these sensitive areas.
Id.
- 9 -
As the State noted in 1982, the fishing industry will also
be inadequately protected by deferral solely of tracts within the
Bay, while valuable kelp beds along the Malibu coast may also be
damaged. Id. at 9. As discussed above, air quality will be
adversely impacted -- in what is already the most polluted air
basin in the nation.
The State said in 1982, "[t]he economic value of the oil and
gas that is likely to be recovered from [leasing tracts outside
the Bay] is slight," whereas "[t]he value of the resources placed
at risk is enormous." Governor's Recommendations re OCS Sale 68
at 4. More recently, Governor Deukmejian recommended tracts
outside the mouth of Santa Monica Bay be deferred from the
current Five Year Program. SID at B-16. Nonetheless, none of
those tracts were deferred, leaving the Bay without adequate
protection.
Tracts off Los Angeles/Ventura Border. It appears from
the map that none of the tracts located along the border of the
federal OCS and state waters, offshore Point Mugu and the
Ventura/Los Angeles County border have been deferred. The state
waters adjacent to the non -deferred tracts have been designated
an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), while the
adjacent onshore area was designated by the state Coastal
Commissfon as unsuitable for major power plant facilities in
order to protect the ASBS and kelp resources. In addition, these
tracts are close to the Mugu Lagoon wetland complex which has
long been recognized as one of the more sensitive wetland systems
c
- 10 -
in southern California. The area is a major stopover for birds
on the Pacific Flyway during both string and fall migrations.
Santa Barbara Channel. The waters of Santa Barbara
Channel "are important because they are part of the coastal
migration route of the world's entire California gray whale
population and the offshore routes of the North Pacific stacks of
the blue., humpback, and fin whales." FEIS at IV.B.10-32,. They
also support major commercial fisheries. See, e-a., id. at
IV.B.10-18.
A few tracts have been deleted off Santa Barbara, but the
remainder of the Santa Barbara Channel remains available for
leasing. Many tracts in the Channel have already been leased and
substantial development is occurring there now, with significant
adverse impacts to air quality and other resources. As the
California Coastal Commission recognized in 1984, "[a]dditional
leasing of tracts in the Santa Barbara Channel will exacerbate
the many problems that Santa Barbara County and the State of
California have been having in addressing the cumulative impacts
of past leasing and in providing appropriate facilities to
accommodate expanded oil and gas production.', Synopsis,
California Coastal Commission Comments to the Department of the
Interior on the Five -Year Oil and Gas Lease Program, Adopted
August 22, 1984, at 7 (hereinafter 1984 Coastal Commission
Comments).. The County already fails to attain the federal
ambient air quality standard for ozone and may not attain that
standard by the date mandated in the, Clean Air Act, (December 31,
1987). Additional development in the Channel is highly likely to
further impede the County's efforts to comply with state as well
as federal air quality standards. See, e.g., Department of the
Interior and County of Santa Barbara, Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Report, Santa Ynez Unit/Las Flores Canyon Development
and Production Plan ,Tune 1984. Accordingly, such development is
inconsistent with the major national interest in clean air.
Additional development will, in addition, exacerbate existing
problems involving vessel traffic, fisheries and the County's
ability to provide essential services.
Orange County Coastline. Valuable economic and
environmental resources are located along the orange County
coastline, which is noted for its rocky nature, tidal pools and
visual beauty. The region's biologically rich oceanic resources
include the Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge and Area of Special
Biological Significance, the Laguna Beach Marine Life Refuge and
Area of Special Biological Significance, the Irvine Coast Marine
Life Refuge and Area of Special Biological Significance, the
Orange County Ecological Reserve -- all designated to provide
special protection for sensitive marine habitats and biological
communities -- and the wetlands of Newport Bay and Bolsa Chica
in Huntington Beach. Habitats of the California Brown Pelican
and California Sea Lion as well as six State beaches and a State
Park are.found along this section of the coast and a State oil
and Gas Sanctuary has been established there. Newport Beach and
Laguna Beach, in particular, are heavily dependent on the tourist
C
- 12 -
industry. Geohazard risks are serious. Governor's detailed
comments on OCS Sale 68 at 14. ••
The Department of the Interior has conceded that special
biological areas as well as wetlands along the orange County
coast will suffer high ecological losses in the event of an oil
SD -ill. See, e.a., FEIS at IV.B.10-35, -43. As the state of
California noted in 1982, "[h]abitat of the California Brown
Pelican and California Sea Lion will be jeopardized by oCs
operations" while "recreational boating and sport fishing will be
seriously threatened." Governor's Detailed Comments on OCS Sale
68, at 14. Additionally, "[b]oth chronic, day-to-day spills and
major oil spills could have a devastating economic impact" on
local communities as well as on the difficult -to -clean rocky
coast which will require a "significant" recovery period. Id. at
15. "Absent a buffer zone, visual blight would be severe." The
state concluded, "OCS activities on [tracts along the coast]
would add to air pollution in orange County, conflict with
Department of Defense operations, degrade a valuable viewshed
band contribute to the dispute over drainage of oil and gas from
State tidelands." Governor's Recommendations re ocs Sale 68 at
5. An adequate buffer zone is needed to help minimize geohazard
risks, air and water quality degradation, and military and
recreational conflicts. Such a buffer "is essential to protect
the tourist -based economy of orange County's coastal
communities." Governor's Detailed Comments on OCS Sale 68 at 14.
- 13 -
Although, as indicated above, some tracts have been deferred
off the Orange County coastline, they cover only a tiny fraction
of it and only a single row of tracts at most; the bulk of the
coast, including areas recommended for deferral by the Governor
in both Orange and San Diego counties, see SID at B-16, remains
unbuffered and consequently totally unprotected from the adverse
impacts of leasing and subsequent development. As the state
recognized in 1982, "[e]xploration and development of OCS oil and
gas resources close to the orange County coastline poses
unacceptably high risks to valuable economic and environmental
resources." Governor's detailed comments on OCS Sale 68 at 14.
San Diego County
Although the federal OCS along San Diego coastline was
previously included in Congressionally -imposed leasing moratoria,
and although the Governor recommended that it receive substantial
protection, (SID at B-16), only a single row of tracts at La
Jolla and tracts around the harbor at San Diego have been
deferred under the new Five -Year Program. Indeed, in previous
lease sales, near -shore tracts were included in the initial
proposal, studied in depth, then excluded from the final
offering. The remnant wetland complexes located in the northern
part of the county such as Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos and
Penasquitos Lagoons have not been provided the protection of even
a single row of tracts.
The area's coastal communities are heavily dependent on the
tourist industry and have invested heavily in projects to
14 -
revitalize their urban waterfronts. In addition, the token
buffer along the La Tolla shoreline will not protect such
sensitive coastal resources as the Scripps Shoreline Underwater
Reserve, for example.
2. Areas receivincs no orotect;on.
- Santa Catalina island. It appears that no buffer has
been established around Santa Catalina Island, which is
approximately 22 miles south of the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los
Angeles County, notwithstanding the Governor's 1986
recommendation that it be protected. (SID at B-16). The
California Coastal commission, which had previously recommended
no tracts be leased within six nautical miles of the island, has
noted that it is "surrounded by abundant marine resources that
are the basis of much of its tremendous recreational potential.
The surrounding waters are used for diving and commercial and
sport fishing because of the abundance of marine life present.
The overnight visitor population can be as much as 14,000 ... and
much of the surrounding waters are also designated as an Area of
Special Biological significance." synopsis, California Coastal
commission Comments to the Department of the Interior on the
Five -Year Oil and Gas Lease Program, Adopted August 22, 1984, at
5-6.
The total absence of a buffer zone leaves the island's
unique marine resources without any protection from the adverse
impacts of oil development. As the Coastal Commission has noted,
0
- 15 -
"[s]pecial marine habitats such as the offshore islands should be
protected from the adverse impacts of oil spills and drilling
operations by buffer zones." Id. at 6.
Santa Rosa/Cortes Ridge,. The Santa Rosa-Cortes Ridge
is part of a relatively shallow shelf extending to the south of
the Santa Barbara Channel Islands. Marine mammals and seabirds
feed along this shelf and are found in great numbers within the
Santa Rosa/Cortes Ridge Region. In addition, one of the highest
swordfish producing areas in southern California is located in
this region. The Ridge's benthic communities are sensitive even
to "normal" oil production activities, 1987 FEIS on the Five Year
Program at IV.B.10-28, and will suffer very high impacts if
platforms are located in the area. Failure to delete this region
denies needed protection to its unique resources.
- 16 -
B. Central California Planning Area
The Department's proposal to add four narrow buffer areas
and deepwater tracts to the list of subarea deferrals proposed in
the 1986 Five -Year Program for the central California planning
area does little to ameliorate the impacts of offshore oil and
gas activity in this region of exceptional environmental
sensitivity. The Proposed Program runs counter to the
recommendation made repeatedly by the California Coastal
Commission, the state agency responsible for determining whether
OCS proposals conform with California's federally approved
Coastal Management Program, to confine leasing off the California
coast to areas south of the Santa Maria River. There are
numerous factors that argue for the Commission's position.
1. Marine Resources of the Central California Planning
Area
Immediately south of the central California planning area,
Point Conception marks a major transition zone between northern
and southern marine species. A major upwelling -- one of three
between San Francisco and Point Conception -- occurs in this area
north to Pt. Buchon. Upwellings constitute only one percent of
the ocean surface, but support 50 percent of the world's
fisheries.2 This area of upwelling and the fishery associated
with it 'is biologically significant and important to the
commercial fishing industry. Yet there are no tracts recommended
2 California Coastal Commission staff recommendation on DEIS,
OCS Lease Sale 73, Santa Maria Basin, April 5, 1983.
- 17 -
for leasing deferral in the Santa Maria Basin.
The Northern Santa Maria Basin was recently the subject of a
formal Endangered Species Consultation conducted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS).3 The USFWS analyzed the effects of
oil development in the region and found that projected
development of tracts already available for lease "is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the southern sea otter.ii4
This is due to the otters extreme sensitivity to oil spills
coupled with the increased likelihood of spills attendant with
projected development. The southern sea otter range is generally
considered to extend from Point Ano Nuevo in the north to the
area between Morro Bay and the Santa Maria River in the South.
According to the USFw5, the combined effect of existing and
projected development in the southern part of the range alone
could result in the loss of about 60 percent of the breeding
females from the current population. Yet the FEIS for proposed
program concludes that impacts to threatened and endangered
species in the central California planning area are expected to
be low. 1987 FEIS at IV.B.9-25.
Given the fact that development of already available tracts
could decimate the southern sea otter population, the
Department's proposal to offer additional tracts in their home
range is unjustified. Virtually the entire range between the `
3 Formal Endangered Species Consultation, Case No. 1-1-86-F-74,
September 16, 1986.
4 Id., page 2.
- 18 -
Monterey County/San Luis Obispo County Line south to the Santa
Maria River and beyond will be offered for lease under the
proposed Five -Year Program. This proposal ignores Governor
Deukmejian's recommendation to delete all tracts within twelve
miles of shore from Point Ano Nuevo to the Santa Maria River.
The southern sea otter is not the only marine mammal
threatened by oil spills and construction activities resulting
from development in frontier OCS areas. As noted in the 1980
FEIS "Nowhere else in the world is the pinniped [seals and sea
lions] species diversity so great as off the coast of California
where six different species may be found." 1980 FEIS at 117.
(Emphasis added.) In addition, thirty-four percent of the
world's 80 species of whales are found in California's coastal
waters. Seven endangered whale species and four endangered
species of turtles occurring in waters of the Pacific coast OCS.
Finally, the elephant seal breeding ground at Point Ano
Nuevo, on the San Mateo/Santa Cruz County border, is the only
location in the country where these marine mammals breed and rear
their young. They are present at the site for an average of four
months each winter. There is a discrepancy between the textual
description of the areas recommended for deferral in the Point
Ano Nuevo region and the maps issued by MMS. Despite the extreme,
sensitivity of this site, the proposed program is unclear as to
whether even the meager one line of tracts off Ano Nuevo is
recommended for deferral.
- 19 -
2. Air Quality
The coastal air basins of the Central California planning
area are classified as attainment areas under the Clean Air Act.
Exceedences of state and federal ozone standards have been
measured very occasionally in San Luis Obispo County.
The prevailing winds off central California would transport
OCS air emissions into onshore areas. Since the central coast is
an attainment area and generally rural in character, locating
onshore air pollution sources to offset OCS emissions would be
very difficult. The relatively clean air of the region could
therefore be allowed to degrade to the levels established by the'
NAAQS. The Negotiated Air Quality Rulemaking process currently
taking place may address this problem, but there is presently no
solution. Without a policy prohibiting degradation of air
quality in attainment areas, the proposed program is a blueprint
for significant pollution of the air along the central California
coast.
3. Areas of Special Concern
The central California planning area contains several
particularly significant coastal resource areas that have been
designated by the state and federal governments as deserving
special protection. The proposed program provides inadequate
deferral recommendations to protect the following such areas:
Ana Nuevo Point in San Mateo County, Gerstle Cove in Sonoma
County, and the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve in San Mateo County.
As discussed earlier, it is unclear whether Point Ano Nuevo is
r
- 20 -
protected. While the other two sites are bordered by a proposed
singe -tract buffer zone, as discussed in our general comment, a
six mile buffer offers insufficient protection to shoreline
resources. In its comments on Lease Sale 735 the California
Coastal Commission found that "existing oil spill containment and
cleanup equipment cannot protect sensitive coastal resources,
even in moderate seas." Even the International Tanker Owners
Pollution Federation acknowledged that if a large volume of oil
is released into the sea relatively close to shore, it is "highly
unlikely that even the best organized flotilla can prevent some,
if not most, of the oil from reaching the coastline.6 The
Department itself has estimated that offshore containment and
cleanup operations average 5t - 15t recovery of spilled oil.7
5 DEIS, OCS Lease Sale 73, California Coastal Commission, April
1983, page 11.
6 Id.
7 Department of the Interior, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Lease Sale 97 at IV-A-15.
- 21 -
C. Northern California Planning Area
The 1987 program leasing deferrals for the Northern
California planning area differ from the 1986 proposal in only
three modest respects. There are two narrow nearshore buffer
zones recommended for deferral along with deepwater tracts that
are essentially beyond the industry's technical drilling
capability. The balance of the planning area would be made
available for leasing and currently undergoing analysis through
preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for Lease Sale 91, which is scheduled for release in August of
this year.8
In comments on the February, 1986 proposed program, the
California Coastal Commission found that "the environmental and
economic costs exceed the benefits of leasing9 within the
Northern California planning area. DOI estimates indicate that
400-450 million barrels of oil equivalent lie within the planning
area. When this marginal energy supply is contrasted with the
natural resources of the area the costs clearly outweigh the
benefits of oil exploration and drilling.
1. Marine Resources
The Northern California planning area contains an
extraordinarily diverse and significant array of sensitive marine
and natural resources. One survey conducted by the California
8 MMS statement, Sale 91 Scoping Hearing 12/2/86.
9 California Coastal Commission Comments To The Department of
the Interior On the Five -Year Oil and Gas Lease Program, April 23,
1985, page 4.
- 22 -
Coastal Commission documented the following marine resources in
the proposed Lease Sale 91 area alone:'
1) fifteen marine mammal breeding and haulout areas;
2) forty-one major wetland systems including Humboldt Bay,
the Eel River delta and over a dozen major estuaries in
Mendocino County;
3) areas of Biological Significance at Trinidad, Ring
Range National Conservation Area, Mendocino, and
Saunders Reef;
4) Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge;
5) Point Cabrillo Marine Ecological Reserve; and
6) twenty-four major anadromous streams and rivers.
Much of the coastline in northern California is rocky with
small coves or bays, marshes and esteros. It would be extremely
difficult to clean up these areas (particularly the marshes) and
consequently they would sustain the heaviest damage and take the
longest time to recover. In addition, the area supports a
healthy commercial fishing industry focusing on salmon and crab
harvesting. The endangered gray whale regularly migrates through
the proposed Sale 91 area.
The coastal zone in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino
Counties is characterized by a predominantly rural landscape.
There are no existing OCS-related oil and gas activities, nor are
there any onshore support facilities for oil and gas exploration
and development. The resource -based economies of the area (e.g.
agriculture, fishing, timber) depend heavily on the non-
industrial quality of the area to maintain healthy, productive
operations.
- 23 -
Tourism (primarily coastal) in Mendocino County alone
accounted for $83 million in tourist spending and $18 million in
payroll last year according to the Mendocino County Chamber of
Commerce. Here, again, the undeveloped nature of the northern
California coastline is the principal draw for tourists. The
recreational opportunities offered by areas onshore from the
proposed sale area emphasize wilderness recreation and low -
intensity development. The Humboldt Bay area is home to the
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge and several state and
county parks. There are more than a dozen major state parks,
beaches and preserves along the proposed Lease Sale 91 area alone
in Mendocino County. The King Range National Conservation Area
includes significant portions of the "Lost Coast," one of the
wildest stretches of coastline in the coterminous forty-eight
states. The Sinkyone Wilderness State Park is found along this
rugged stretch of coast.
2. Air Quality
The air quality of the Northern California planning area is
unusually pure. The town of Point Arena on the Mendocino coast
has been the site of several experiments that must be conducted
in under extremely clean air conditions. Redwood National Park
extends to the coastline in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties. As
discussdd earlier, the narrow buffer zone proposed along the park
is insufficient to prevent significant degradation of the Class i
air quality of the park from offshore oil and gas operations.
- 24 -
The non -urbanized coastline of the Northern California
planning area offers very few opportunities for the provision of
Offsets to mitigate the emissions from offshore operations. As
currently proposed the program does not defer areas from leasing
to prevent significant air quality degradation in this planning
area.
3. Areas of Special Concern
The diverse recreational resources of the northern
California coast were determined to be highly sensitive to
impacts from oil spills in the Final 1980 Five -Year cIS (page
264). This conclusion was based on the fact that the area offers
"limited opportunities for beach use (the most intense
recreational use of the shoreline)," and since there are fewer
beach areas, there are fewer alternative use sites should an oil
spill contact the resource.'$ in the event of a spill ,some
disruption, and very possibly foreclosure, of recreational
opportunities can be expected to occur."
Despite the fact that there is not a plethora of sandy
beaches along the north coast, there is a great variety of other
recreational resources in the area. The California coastal
Access Guide10 identifies 28 recreation sites in Del Norte
County, 45 sites in Humboldt County and 35 sites in Mendocino
County.' With the exception of the narrow buffer along Redwood
National.Park, Trinidad Head, Kings Range National Conservation
Area and the Pygmy Forest Ecological Reserve, these sites
10 U.C. Press, 1982, pp. 45-75.
- 25 -
received no special consideration in the proposed program.
Legislation (A.B.-284, Hauser) has been introduced in the
California legislature to create a state oil and gas sanctuary in
state waters off the entire length of Mendocino and Humboldt
Counties. The Department's proposed program, on the other hand,
recommends leasing virtually all of the OCS off Mendocino's
coast, and the entire northern Humboldt coast and Del Norte
coast, with the exception of a single row of tracts deferred from
leasing for the next five years. As discussed earlier, this six
mile buffer is insufficient to provide any real protection for
these state sanctuary areas.
Conclusion
The Department has a heavy burden to demonstrate that the
benefits of offering additional areas of the federal OCS off
California outweigh the potential costs to the exceptional
natural resources and resource -dependent economies of the
proposed sale area and surrounding areas. Clearly, the deferrals
the Interior Department has proposed are inadequate to ensure the
necessary degree of protection for the area's resources which are
extremely sensitive to oil and gas exploration, development and produc
� ft
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 15, 1987
TO: Jim Palin, Huntington Beach
Bob Wynn, Newport Beach
Jim Hendrickson, fan Clenente
Patrick Lee, Orange County EMA
Kathy Tyrrell, SCAG
Richard Tinney, Richard T. Tinny & Associates
ofCity tleWwoorrtte6011 LIJ
FROM: — Kenneth Frank, Laguna Beach
SUBJECT: RECAP OF KICK-OFF MEETING WITH CONSULTANT FOR OFFSHORE DRILLING
The meeting, held on October 13 at Newport Beach City Hall, was attended by
Greg Hulsizer of San Clemente, Paul Carey of Supervisor Riley's office, Pat
Lee and Brian Helvey of Orange County, Pat Temple of Newport Beach, Ken
Frank and Carolyn Thompson from Laguna Beach, Maryanne Yamaguchi from SLAG,
and Richard Tinney of Richard T. Tinny and Associates..
Invoices were distributed to each city represented and to the County for
payment of their share of the funding into the account administered by
Laguna Beach. Richard Tinney & Associates (hereafter RT) will contract
only with Laguna Beach, who will guarantee payment.
RT distributed a letter summarizing the mmndifications to the scope of work
in his proposal. A revised scope of work will be sent to the designated
contact person for each agency (those listed at the top of this memo).
Status reports and bulletins will be mailed simultaneously to each of these
individuals from RT's offices. Financial reporting will be made directly
to Laguna Beach.
Questions and camments regarding the scope of work were discussed:
1. Ninety percent of the dollars allocated to preparing the response to
the DEIS will be shifted to technical review since the work on the DEIS
commments was finished quickly. RT will prepare a press release package
for each agency before the October 20 public hearing in Long Beach for
distribution by the agencies and use by the agencies' elected
officials. Greg Hulsizer will be the staff person to attend that
hearing. The permanent press contact person for each agency will be
the one listed at the top of this memo. Copies of the coaments to be
made by each elected official at the October 20 hearing will be
exchanged anong the agencies.
2. At the expiration of the contract with RT, the information base and
library gathered by RT will be kept in Orange County, possibly in the
County library system reference section, to be permanently available to
cities and the County. Newport Beach has files on offshore oil dating
to 1963 which would be available to RT.
RT was asked'to fine-tune the product descriptions in his scope of wark
so that number of hours, staff names, and more exact descriptions of
the ;ork to be done are given for each product. ibis will be available
to each agency by December 4, 1987. The nextgroup meeting will be
i held on Thursday, December 17 at 8:30 a.m. n the Newport Beach City
Council Chambers conference room.
4. RT will perform an analysis of data to determine if it really supports
the claim that the amount of oil secreted off the shores of Southern
California would supply the country's needs for only three days.
5. The "advocacy program" as described in the scope of work will be
changed to "coordination program" or something similar so that RT is
advisirg the agencies of appropriate timing and information for the
agencies to prepare comments on the OCS leasing, and the elected
officials are doing the lobbying. For purposes of the state grant,
specific reporting is required regarding the time and money spent for
this purpose. -
6. The three workshops to be coordinated by RT should be scheduled to take
advantage of important milestones in the leasing process and are for
the purpose of educating a) staff, b) elected officials, and c)
environmental groups and business people. The workshops should include
revised aids (slide presentations and a short video tape w'nich could be
made available to cable television companies' public access channels).
The visual aids would then be used by agency staff people in giving
presentations of their own to local groups. Refreshments should be
provided by the consultant at these workshops.
7. RT will monitor pending legal and legislative developments on OCS
leasing for their relevance to Orange County's position on offshore
drilling.
8. Any substituted subcontractors will be listed in the revised proposal.
9. All agencies will send a copy of their Local Coastal Plans to RT. The
County will provide RT with maps. The address is: Richard T. Tinny &
Associates, P.O. Box 65179, Washington, D.C. 20035
We will meet again on December 17 in Newport Beach.
cc: Sr. Administrative Assistant