HomeMy WebLinkAbout22.93 C.I.E.P.- COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAMuA
11111111 lill 111111111111111111111111111111111 lill
*NEW FILE*
22.93 C.I. E. P.. - COASTAL
ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM
a
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
GGVERNon
,�$#a#o of aalifon is
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
December 28, 1977
TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES //'�
FROM: CARLA WALECKA, COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM`' V
RE: CERTIFIED CALIFORNIA INTRASTATE ALLOCATION PROCESS
The enclosed California Intrastate Allocation Process has been adopted
by the California Coastal Commission and certified by the federal Office
of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). This allocation process will guide
the distribution of CEIP funds to eligible local governments, councils
of governments, and state agencies.
OCZM plans to announce California's fiscal year 1978 allotment of CEIP
funds in early January. Applications for the 1978 funds will be accepted
in the spring, as outlined in the Allocation Process. Please direct all
inquiries on CEIP to:
Kevin Smith Carla Walecka
California Coastal Commission or Office of Planning & Research
1540 Market Street 1400 Tenth Street
San Francisco, CA 94102 Sacramento, CA 95814
(415) 557-3144 (916) 445-1114
V
OASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM
~ PRE -APPLICATION
Name of Applicant: County of Orange
Executive Project Director: Richard G. Munsell
Title: Asst. Director Advance Planning/EMA Phone: (714) 834-4643
Grant Officer: Robert Yablonski
Title: EMA Grant Coordinator Phone: (714) 834-6606
Project Manager: Manuel Nunes
Title: Manager, Community Planning Phone: (714) 834-5375
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702
Santa Ana River Mouth - Rehabilitation Plan of a Producing Oil Field
Project Title: for Wildlife and Recreational Uses
Expected Project Start Date: October 1, 1978 Months Required to Complete: 4
(Not sooner than Oct. 1,1978
r
PROPOSED BUDGET
Please Check: ( X) Grant ( ) Loan
Local Share/
Contribution Other Funds* CEIP Requested Total Budget
Personnel
Services:
$
$
$
$
Operating
Expenses:
$
$
$
$
TOTAL BUDGET: $ $ $ 25,000.00 $
* Please specify type
.. . . . . .. . . . . . f. .. . . . . + - - w .•
COASTAL COMMISSION USE ONLY:
Date Received: Assigned To:
9
COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRP
PRE -APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Santa Ana River Mouth Plan
Objective: Develop a plan for rehabilitating a producing oil field for wildlife and
recreational uses.
Summary: Currently the county proposes a regional park on the lowlands and east
bluffs and has acquired an initial 136 acres. The ultimate size and boundaries have
not been determined, though a site of 830 acres is under consideration. The U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers is proposing a 92 acre marsh restoration project as mitigation
and enhancement of their proposed river channel widening and improvements. In
addition, the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa have prepared a study for a
major marina (1,900 to 3,000 boats) on 420 acres of the lowland area. No comprehen-
sive analysis exists for the resolution of ultimate uses nor the phasing of development
with regard to the oil field with over 250 wells on and about a severely degraded marsh
area at the river mouth.
Work Tasks
1. Initiate a program for citizen participation and interagency coordination for
the project area.
2. Research and gather data on oil extraction facilities, longevity of field, potentiality
of clustering, phasing out of extraction.
3. Research and analyze land ownerships, tidelands issues, public interests and ease-
ments.
4. Research and analyze basic environmental information including archaeological
and paleontological resources, flora and fauna, including habitat of three rare and
endangered species, geologic stability and bluff erosion, water quality, hydrology
and flood control.
5. Develop alternative concepts, including _extensive marsh restoration, marina and
regional park options.
Page 2 •
•
6. Determine traffic, circulation patterns and parking facilities to accommodate the
various alternatives and serve regional needs.
7. Analyze the environmental impact of the various alternatives.
8. Analyze the economic and fiscal impact of the various alternatives, including
acquisition and development costs, impact on land values, and other uses.
9. Select the most desirable plan or composite plan based on conformity with coastal
commission policies.
Output: A comprehensive land use and circulation plan consistent with coastal commission
policies for the rehabilitation of a producing oil field.
Community Affected
Production of rare and endangered species has national and. statewide impact. Restora-
tion of marshland area has implications for southland sport and commercial fisheries. A
regional park is of countywide interest, serving a population of 1.8 million. Marina
interests are broad -based involving potential users from seven southland counties. In
addition the project area is the terminus of a 90 mile tri-county open space and
recreation corridor along the Santa Ana River from the San Bernardino Mountains to
the Pacific Ocean.
Relationship to Local Coastal Program
The county's local coastal program was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 10,
1978 and is in the process of being submitted to the State Coastal Commission. The
requested funding is $504,808.
The issues raised in the work program under the major policy areas identified in the
L.C.P. Manual have been integrated into the above task description.
Funding Sources
Besides the funding requested for the local coastal plan, funding is being sought to
integrate the West Newport field in the CEIP grant of $8,550 awarded for the fore: --
casting of energy production in the Balsa Chico area. This information would facilitate
task 2 noted- above. Besides the acquisition of 136 acres for park development
for approximately
has allocated $200,000 for the preparation
of a general development for the proposed regional
i
o 00La
1
STUDY AREA
BOUNDARY
�o
C
L
c fl tC71
_
MANTA ANA a ='\,1 �,
RIVER MOUTH"
.adep v^• /� 0 1 L11; IF 1 E l,D., :�.• ;.t� kr.
It, ``\,4 °? CONGR6%-f S7
qS, ,A •' .Wt' °I h i� ' VKTOR,A
It
• 13 - • :' '7UA=17wa ; ...' --'we oJc AT '$
9
\�•• EAWMG AY6 i• •' • I.7 .. �t '�•-S C6wT4L
'�ti\ •. cyt `fir<s� i��,A ?",_ .•�_ah,,,... �t i
l�\�•�� F 9f E•Q' n, /'• e. nn —� IBM .a.+
r; IPA
leav
PACIFIC �_ '' Hova
OCEAN
ou
2y
LEGEND
CURRENT OWNERSHIP'
PARK LIMITS AS IDENTIFIED
IN MASTER PLAN OF
REGIONAL PARKS
ORANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
.j TALBERT PARK zK
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
STUDY AREA
SCALE Irl= 20001 PLATE R-35
142
•
3
e
,n OF C
Greenville -Banning
c
o
0
7�•lr Channel
0 1 L
SEWAGE o;
DISPOSAL
HUNTINGTON/ t
F I E L D
a�
BEACH
I o�
i
IGO} Acres
Wildlife�
��������•' 11
M,tigation And
Preserveservation
-Tide Gate
Existing
Least Terna:NIO/C
Sanctuary
Santa Ana
River Mouth O4c
I
0 I/4 1/2 WILE
I I
UNITED STATES DEPARTr,E4T OF THE INTEa•3R
-FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
PROPOSED MITIGATION
AND PRESERVATION AREAS
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN AND ORANGE C:,k1NTY
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNAROINOCO CALjFaZRNIA
DECEMBER 1975 PORTLAND,C='EGON
PLATE IY
NEW
BEACH
ANCA
LOCATION MAP
I
•16)4
ErNRONIVIENTAL %IiA'iA S'iIE'4 AG—C-N&
400 CIVIC CENTER CRIVE %NUz T
S?,idi'A ANA, CALIFQRVIIA 92702
MI. David Dmohowski
Department of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
State of California
Memorandum
To : ALL COASTAL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
INTERESTED PARTIES
CARLA WALECKA Zip/
From : Governor's Office
Office of Planning and Research
Date MARCH 28, 1978
Subject: AN UPDATE ON THE COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM (CEIP)
1977 CEIP AWARDS
E
D
R pom�'1 m1ei+t
Deg 0 pt• 19.�a�,.
_P n OEpcN,
?Olt,
CPPf•
.�
The Federal Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) provides funds for mitigating
and preventing the adverse effects of coastal energy development. Now completing
its first year, the CEIP makes loans and grants available to coastal states to
plan for coastal energy development. Grants are available to local governments
to help prepare for the impacts of all new or expanded energy facilities in the
coastal zone, such as the development of improved public facilities and services.
Grants are also available to help prevent, reduce, or repair damage to, or loss
of, valuable environmental or recreational resources due to a' coastal energy
activity. Loans are available to local governments to provi'de new or improved
public facilities and services and may be used to finance capital expenditures.
AppZications Received. The Commission received 27 applications*requesting
2.9 million in grants; only $1.2 million was available. No applications were
submitted for $6.6 million in funds available.
The majority of applications related to one or more of five main coastal energy
impact issues: (1) Lease Sale #48 participation, (2) Lease Sale #53 participa-
tion, (3) Air quality impact monitoring, (4) Local Coastal Program Support,
(5) Oil spill contingency planning. All but three applications came from local
governments south of Point•Conception. Existing impacts and need for assistance
are clearly centered on the Santa Barbara Channel and San Pedro Bay. However,
the Commission awarded adequate assistance to San Diego County and central
California applicants to deal with impending offshore development due to Lease
Sales #48 and #53.
Table 2 on page 5 summarizes the applicants and their proposed projects by
subject area.
March 28, 1978
Page 2
Intrastate Allocation Process. To determine which of the proposed projects had
the greatest need for funding, the CEIP staff evaluated each applicant according
to criteria designed to assess eligibility, immediacy of the coastal energy
activity and its likelihood of occuring, compliance with coastal zone management
objectives, statewide significance, the severity of impacts anticipated and the
ability of the project to mitigate the loss, and the value of the resources
threatened. The complete criteria are listed on page 15 of Intrastate Allocation
Process adopted by the Coastal Commission on October 4, 1977.
Applicant and Agency Participation. Preliminary staff evaluations of the propo-
sals were reviewed by the applicants, and in most cases the applicants were in
general agreement with the recommendations. Comments received through the A-95 review
process, from State a encies, from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission (BCDC}q, and from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research
were also considered by the Commission.
Funds Committed. At its February 28, 1978 meeting, the Coastal Commission
committed $567,200 of the $1.3 million in Federal funds available for grants.
An additional $135,000 has already been allocated for administration of the
program, leaving approximately $600,000 in grants for future allocation. These
funds will be pooled with California's 1978 CEIP grants.
No Loans Made. During the program's first year, the Coastal Commission received
no applications for $6.6 million of loans available to California. A number of
factors contributed to the lack of interest: a high 8 - 82% Treasury rate on
loans; local governments reluctance to incur debts, and a longer lead time required
to develop loan project applications.
The Commission has another year to commit the FY 1977 loans before the funds
must be returned to the Federal government. The CEIP staff is studying ways to
use these loans at the local level during FY 1978.
Two applications for FY 1977 grants were found eligible for loans only for part
of their work programs and will be considered for loan assistance in 1978.
March 28, 1978
FINAL REGULATIONS
Page 3
Final Regulations governing the use of CEIP funds by Coastal States have been
published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 37 - Thursday, February 23, 1978.
FY 1'918 CEIP FUNDS
The Office of Coastal Zone Management announced California's share of the
FY 1978 Coastal Energy Impact Funds:
TABLE 1
FY 77 FY 78
Formula Grants $ 869,022 $ 544,998
Planning Grants 349,639 321,380
Environmental Grants 90,078 179,850
Loan Assistance 6,6052743 13,134,523
GRANTS 1,308,739 1,046,228
LOANS 6,605,743 13,134,523
TOTAL $7,914,482 $14,180,751
California actually lost $262,500 of valuable grants despite the nearly two -fold
increase in the State's total allotment. This loss of grants is due to the formula
used to calculate State allotments. The $600,000 remaining from FY 1977 funds
will be pooled with the FY 1978 allotment, for a total of $1.6 million in available
grants.
APPLICAT I.ON'S FOR FY 1A78 FUNDS
The Coastal Commission plans to accept applications for CEIP funds twice a year.
The next funding cycle will begin in April. Applications for CEIP grants and
March 28, 1978
Page 4
loans will be accepted from April 10 to July 1, 1978. Any questions concerning
applications and eligible projects should be addressed to:
Kevin Smith Carla Walecka
California Coastal Commission Office of Planning and Research
631 Howard Street or 1400 Tenth Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 Sacramento, CA 95814
(415) 391-6800 (916) 445-1114
March 28, 1978
APPLICANT
-JABLE 2
1977 CEIP AWARDS
Page 5
AMOUNT REQUESTED AMOUNT AWARDED
I
LEASE SALE 48 PARTICIPATION•
I
Santa Barbara County
$ 21,000
S 15,000
2
Los Angeles County
34,100
22,000
3)
Comprehensive Planning Organization, San Deigo
84,500
34,500
II
PIPELINE STUDY AND EIR
,
4))
Santa Barbara County
.61,750
61,750
5)
Santa Barbara County
75,480
-0- (+)
III
LEASE SALE 53 PARTICIPATION•
6)
AMBAG
12,500
12,500
IV
AIR
QUALITY ASSESSMENT
7))
San Diego County
166,000
125,000
8)
Santa Barbera County APCO
966,727
-Q- (+)
9)
Ventura County APCO
28,800
28,800
V
.LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUPPORT
10j
Huntington•Seach-LCP Energy Section
9,19E
9,200
11)
Orange County -Balsa Chica
8,550
8,550
12
Santa Barbara County -Energy Coordinator
31.400
17,500
131
Ventura County -Energy Assessment
196,100
60,000
14
Los Angeles County -Coastal Energy Planning
61,083
-0--
15
Coastal Commission -Moss Landing Study -
19,900
19,900
16
San Buenaventura -Getty Oil Tank Relocation
140,000
-0- N
17
Los Angeles City-liipacts on San Pedro
95,186•
-0- N
18
Los Angels City -Energy Terminal
250,000
50,000
19
Long Beach -Risk Management
75,000
62,000
20
Santa Barbara County-LCP Energy Section
22,510
22,510
VI
OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY
21)
Santa Barbara County
25,180
3,500
22)
Laguna Beach
21,000
3,500
23
Los Angeles County
49,968
-0- N
VII
LNG
24)
Oxnard
200,000
-0-•
VIII
MISCELLANEOUS
25))
Los Angeles County -Surfing. Reef
15,000
Ineligible.
263
Energy Commission Facility Siting
97,703
Withdrawn
27
Santa Barbara County -Monitoring Network
61,650
5,000
28)
Office of Planning & Research-OCS Policy
Coordination
69,370.
55,000
SUBTOTAL
JaZZ6 143
$616,210
AOMINISTRATIVE.COSTS
135,000
135,000
TOTAL
S3,011,143
5751.210
(+) Removed for Loan
Consideration
(4) Postponed.
00
r
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543.8555
March 7, 1980
�P ,7
TO: INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: MICHAEL L. FISCHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM (CEIP) APPLICATION ANNOUNCEMENT
California has been allotted $l,0 million in federal Coastal Energy
Impact Program (CEIP) funds including $5.5 million in grants and $4.5
million in loans from fiscal years 1977 — 80. Presently available"
assistance amounts to $2.1 million in grants. There is an additional
$32 million available in national loan funds under the CEIP. Additional
grant funds for California will be available after October 1980, at the
beginning of the 1981 federal fiscal year, and the application process
will be opened again in early 1981.
The purpose of CEIP is to plan for and mitigate the adverse environmental,
economic, and social effects of coastal energy development. The CEIP
provides six basic types of assistance: planning grants, environmental/
recreational loss grants, formula grants, OCS state participation grants,
credit assistance, and repayment assistance. The different types of
assistance and project eligibility requirements are described below.
Eligible applicants include cities, counties, special districts, councils
of governments and State agencies.
Beginning March 10, 1980 to June 14, 1980, preappl.ications will be accepted
for the assistance currently available. Eligible participants must file
a preapplication to'allow sufficient time for project revisions before
developing a complete work program and budget. Final^ applications will
A preapplication is relatively short and uncomplicated consisting of: (1) a
project narrative; (2) a draft budget; and (3) the appropriate state and
regional clearinghouse forms. The narrative should include a statement of
the goal(s) of the proposed project and the results expected, its relationship
to known or anticipated -energy development, the type of impacts expected, and
how the project would help mitigate the impacts. Other appropriate inform—
ation specified in the application instructions should be included as appro:
priate.
Preapplications must bepostmarked by June 14, 1980 and final applications
should be submitted by October 30, 1980. A resolution from the governing
body applying for the assistance is required in the final application.
When review of the final application is completed, a staff recommendation
will be prepared for Coastal Commission consideration and grant agreements
0
2-
will be be executed based on the Commission's action. Applicants located
within the San Francisco Bay region must receive prior approval of
project applications from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission.
Under certain circumstances, interim funds may be granted before October
309 1980 to preapplicants who must start-up earlier for timely and effective
completion of the work.
Application forms and complete instructions can be obtained from the State
Coastal Commission office in San Francisco. Kevin Smith, CEIP Manager, is
pleased to discuss project ideas or answer questions;
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-8555
Applicants and interested parties located within the San Francisco Bay .area
should contact Jeffrey Blanchfield, Chief Planner a
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 557-3686
CEIP application procedures are described in detail in the CEIP Grants Manual.
Overall objectives and procedures of the program are covered in the Intrastate
Allocation Process. Copies of both these documents are available from the
Coastal Commission.
In general, only one copy of this application announcement is being sent to
your department or agency. Please distribute it to all other interested parties.
0
Ll
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 643.8555
March 7, 1980
TO: PARTIES INTERESTED IN CEIP ASSISTANCE
FROM: KEVIN SMITH, CEIP MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM (CEIP) ASSISTANCE
To be eligible for CEIP funds, a project must meet a two-part test in which both
the purpose of the project and the type of energy development the project will
address or respond to are consistent with federal regulations. The following is
a summary of the eligibility requirements.
Coastal Energy Activities and Facilities
The regulations make an important distinction between the types of energy activities
and facilities impactingl the coastal zone:
Coastal Energy Activity is an energy activity that is dependent on or significantly
affects coastal waters and requires facility siting, construction, expansion, or
operation in or near the coastal zone due to the proximity of oil or natural gas
fields. Such activity is limited by legislation to: Outer Continental. Shelf (OCS)-
related energy activity; Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) -related energy activity; and
energy activity related to coastal transportation, transfer, and storage of coal,
oil, or gas (such as a deep water port).
Coastal Energy Facility is any equipment or facility impacting the coastal zone
used in the exploration for, or the development, production, conversion, storage,
transfer, processing, or transportation of, any energy resource. This includes
such facilities as electrical power plants (including nuclear and coal), petroleum
refineries, oil and gas storage tanks, ports and docks necessary for transfer of
petroleum, etc., as well as manufacturing facilities for energy -related develop-
ment.
Applicants should note the constraints on the use of each assistance category. For
example, of the six types of assistance available, all but one, planning grants, are
restricted to addressing coastal energy activity. Planning grants to help prepare
for the adverse consequences of all new or expanded2 energy facilities in the coastal
zone represent about 7% of the grant funds available.
1 Impact refers to two types of signficant effects that can result from coastal
energy activity:
(1) socio-economic effects of new or expanded coastal energy activity which
increase the need for new or improved public facilities and services; and
(2) the adverse environmental or recreational effects resulting from past, on-
going, or anticipated coastal energy activity.
2 New or expanded means that development took place after July 26, 1976.
• -2-
Objectives and Purposes
There are four general categories for which the six types of assistance can be
used.
I. Planning for the Consequences of Energy Facilities --Planning and Formula Grants
The objectives of the Planning Grant assistance available under this category are:
(a) to study and plan for social, economic, and environmental consequences of
past, ongoing, or anticipated energy facilities;
(b) to encourage rational, timely, and thorough planning for and management of
the impacts of energy resource development;
(c) to plan for public facilities and services; and
(d) to implement the state's coastal zone management program.
Allowable uses under this category include:
1. Planning for the consequences of new or expanded energy facilities significantly
affecting the coastal zone, including:
(a) analyzing government or private industry siting policies;
(b) devising strategies for the public purchase of land or the establishment
of other enforceable land -use controls for lands upon or near which energy
development is to take place;
(c) devising Methods of protecting environmental resources; and
(d) conducting risk management studies, hazard analyses, emergency contingency
planning and coordination studies, and assessment of mitigating measures
for maintaining or improving public safety.
2. Planning for the consequences of a specific new or expanded energy facility
significantly iffecting`the coastal zone, including:
(a) studying and planning for environmental consequences such as effects on
beaches, sand dunes, air quality, water quality, or other environmental
or recreational resources;
(b) conducting analyses required for state or local regulatory decisions,
including licenses, leases, permits, and zoning ordinances;
(c) performing cost/benefit analyses or otherwise comparing the consequences
of alternate sites or types of facilities;
(d) studying and planning for economic and social consequences such as fore-
casting employment, population, public facility and public service needs
and costs, and tax or user -fee revenues;
(a) coordinating on -going planning activities such as Air and Water Quality
Management Plans;
(f) developing an energy planning process that meets the requirements of the
state's coastal zone management program (LCP) and applying it to specific
locations and energy facilities;
(g) planning for the public facilities eligible for CEIP financing; and
(h) studying and planning for the consequences of the phasing out of energy
facilities.
Additional allowable uses of the Formula Grants under this category include:
1. Those allowable uses above that are directly related to the provision of new
or improved public facilities and public services required as a direct result
of OCS energy activity.
2. Architectural and engineering services for public facilities required as a
direct result of OCS energy activity.
Planning assistance may not be used for general energy studies or plans divorced
from actual, proposed, or likely energy facilities.
II.
The objectives of this category are to help states and units of general purpose local
governmental finance new or improved ptrblic facilities and public services needed -
because of coastal energy activity or OCS energy activity by providing front-end
financing that will be repaid from revenues generated by the coastal energy activi-
ty. In addition, assistance under this category is to assure that development in
coastal areas is consistent with the state's coastal zone management objectives and
to discourage unnecessary development in the coastal zone.
Credit and repayment assistance is to be used to finance new or improved public
facilities and services that are required as a result of coastal energy activity.
Grant assistance under this category is to be used for the development of, and the
carrying out of projects and programs necessary to provide new or improved public
facilities and services that are required as a result of OCS energy activity.
1 A unit of general purpose local government is limited to an agency located within
or having authority over the coastal zone that:
(1) has authority, to levy taxes or establish and collect user fees; and
(2) provides any public facility or service that is financed in whole or in
part by taxes and user fees. Units of local government include area wide
or regional comprehensive planning agencies as being eligible for CEIP
assistance, but these agencies are limited to grant assistance only.
• -4- 0
The term public facility includes the following divisions or topics:
(1) education;
(2) environmental protection (including land acquisition);
(3) government administration;
(4) health care;
(5) public safety and law enforcement;
(6) recreation;
(7) transportation;
(8) public utilities; and
(9) housing.
The term public service means any service authorized by law to be provided by a
state or unit of general purpose local government. Both public facilities and
services are limited to the extent that they are financed by the state or local
government and that they do not primarily serve industrial facilities.
The objectives of this, type of assistance are to: (1) help states and units of local
government design and implement projects that prevent, reduce or ameliorate losses
in the coastal zone of valuable environmental or recreational resources resulting
from coastal energy activity; (2) endure that the parties responsible for losses
pay for their full cost; and (3)'provide assistance only when losses cannot be
prevented through exercise of state or local regulatory authorities.
Allowable uses under this category are!
1. Protection, restoration, replacement, acquisition, or improvement of environ-
mental or recreational resources.
2. Design and implementation of programs and strategies to prevent, reduce or
mitigate unavoidable losses.
3. The cost differential between methods of providing a public facility required
as a result of coastal energy activity which meets minimum state and local
environmental and -construction standards, and a higher cost method that further
reduces an environmental loss.
IV. OCS State Participation Grants
The objectives of this category of assistance are to carry out development of OCS
oil and gas resources and protect valuable coastal environmental and recreational
resources by:(1) developing effective state participation in federal policy, plan-
ning, and management decisions; (2) carrying out state responsibilities under the
OCS Lands Act; and (3) developing cooperative management of OCS oil and gas re-
sources by federal and state governments.
Allowable uses include:
1. Cooperation with the federal government to enforce OCS-related safety, environ-
mental and conservation laws and regulations.
-s-
0
2. Participation in hearings held by the federal government with respect to
OCS-related leases or permits, and pipeline transportation capacities.
3. Review of federal actions affecting the OCS or its development to the extent
these actions relate to OCS energy activities, including (1) proposed environ-
mental, operation, or safety regulations; (2) exploration plans; (3) develop-
ment and production plans; (4) drilling permits; and (5) environmental
reports.
4. Participation in formulating the OCS lease program and OCS policy; and attend-
ing scientific and technical advisory board meetings and other OCS-related
meetings called by federal agencies.
5. Cooperation with the federal government in carrying out environmental studies
of, areas included in any OCS lease sale and facilitating permitting.proce-
dures.
6. Participation in training and information conferences on OCS-related issues.
7. Dissemination of information on OCS activities to local governments and the
public.
L"If east
R�orlRm-,�
YAC QA'.1/
1/
9
A�0.
Ekxon/,'
B�Imont
Island
/1
7%
'
JcN(vgov
I
vF,AG neu'x I
�••', /�Aw Li' 4%'y�"y7y�✓,' _ r � 5`A IF{`II , r �rwl }1���
,, �•� ,`^7� Sf h'v�j`..'r��� _ __ _ t:l� ��—.t _ nn7';Kn"+.arn`i �...
6r/y��• +T ,'•ryJ•» I i,1. t ', 1,Yepl I:r
r ; 3.: '1. 1r .A,,.L k j .�l• ITT 0 S
COAL "fA , ENERGY MPACT PROC
w ,�,y�,�:: a, r. �,• d z j
tr, a e+�• \ IF _d I1 r 1 V I i ;�Ip...... L'• :: seaeEit—V
, . ¢x ( _,� � +L'
e ' • 1 u,.n.... ,.
.,•..`+•'" '`;yin �r� n,tT'I Y
A-7.
Chovron,
Esthor
Island
INTRASTATE/
�w�ncr
wwur
vac mn
ewe IQ)
\ u /
uxlax
4qG Nq /
t /
/e
/ .'SOIL
/ pPGN
/
P-15.
Union,
ux Gx Eva
vac axn
LAY
.I
i'IdI,J
tt•
r� 1,
Wf��,lf
arrl'�
T(tiQE{P, �f IH
.$I'4 �• y R',,: Iti
.1.•
,ark:,*35 Iii•
LR,
\ IJ•INpIL � •
\ meal1
x
VXC "'
I}
I
4,1977
M1 1
M-11.
Gulf �
This California .intrastate Allocation Process
has been produced pursuant to Coastal Energy
Impact Program Final Regulations published in
the Federal Register, 9931,112a, et Igq.
r
Office of Planning & Research
Bill Press, Director
Michael L. Fischer, Deputy Director
Project Staff: Carla Walecka
California Coastal Commission
Joseph Bodovitz, Executive Director
William Travis, Assistant Director
Project Staff: Kevin Smith
Steve Stanley
San Francisco Bay Conservation
& Development Commission
Charles Roberts, Executive Director
Michael Wilmar, Deputy Director
Project Staff: Jeff Blanchfield
This report is printed on 100% recycled paper.
COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM
C A L I F
0 R N
I A
INTRASTATE
ALLOCATION
PROCESS
OCTOBER 4, 1977
California Coastal Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 557-3144
Office of Planning & Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 445-1114
San Francisco Bay Conservation
& Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 557-3686
I •I
M
contents
Page
I. THE COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM IN CALIFORNIA . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EZigibte Facilities and Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Five Types of Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Relationship to LocaZ CoastaZ Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Projects Within San Francisco Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intrastate Allocation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. CALIFORNIA INTRASTATE ALLOCATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Criteria and Method for SeZeetion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
charts
Chart A CEIP Allocation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8
Chart B Criteria Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chart C FY 77-78 CEIP Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
I. THE COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM IN CALIFORNIA
California has become eligible to participate in the Coastal Energy Impact
Program (CEIP) through enactment of the California Coastal Act of 1976 as
well as through continuing participation in the Federal Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program. The main objective of the CEIP is to provide coastal states
and units of local government with financial assistance to mitigate effects
of coastal energy activity.
The State is responsible for preparing an Intrastate Allocation Process which
will guide the distribution of California's allotment among state and local
government agencies according to need. The State will then be responsible
for selecting, coordinating, and submitting applications for grant and credit
assistance to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM).
Governor Brown has directed the California Coastal Commission to assume lead
responsibility for approval, distribution and administration of the CEIP funds
in California, with the Office of Planning and Research sharing responsibility
in the development of the allocation process and the review and selection of
applications, The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
will evaluate CEIP applications in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Background - The Federal CoastaZ Energy Impact Program
The expansion of energy supplies to meet increasing domestic and industrial
needs will place new demands on the lands and waters along the nation's
shores. Coastal areas, however, are also highly regarded for environmental,
recreational, and economic values, and competition for the use of coastal
resources is increasing. Over sixty percent of United States' refining capa-
city is already located in coastal areas, and much of -the anticipated growth
in electrical generating capacity will be in coastal locations. In addition,
accelerated development of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas will
require a variety of onshore support facilities.
The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management was established in 1972 to
assist coastal states and territories with the development of balanced
resource management programs. To meet national energy needs in an environ-
mentally sensitive manner, in harmony with the objectives of emerging state
coastal resource management programs, Congress amended the Coastal Zone
Management'Act in 1976 to create a ten-year, $850,000,000 funding program.
The Coastal Energy Impact Program is designed to help'coastal communities
prepare for the growth and impacts stimulated by energy development, through
the allocation of funds to relieve the impacts of such development.
In California, as in other coastal states, local coastal communities feel the
impacts of energy facility development most directly. Coastal communities
must plan for the consequences of energy development and devise strategies
for addressing environmental and socio-economic impacts in order to minimize
Be
damage. They must plan for accommodating new temporary residents during
construction of facilities and eventually for new permanent residents result-
ing from development. Coastal communities will have to provide the public
facilities and services required to meet the needs of new residents and
industry. In response to these kinds of needs, the CEIP aims to accommodate
development of energy resources in a manner consistent with the State's
Coastal Management Program objectives.
VigibLe Activities, Paci2ities and Agencies
The CEIP is aimed at energy -related activities within the coastal zone, as
this boundary is defined by the State's Coastal Management Program, which
includes San Francisco Bay. However, the CEIP is designed to deal with
impacts in this zone whether or not the energy facility is actually located
within the coastal zone. A facility which falls outside the coastal zone,
but which impacts resources in the coastal zone may be included. Impacts
are the adverse on -shore consequences of new or expanded coastal energy acti-
vity, including unavoidable loss of resources, public facilities required
as a result of the activity, and net fiscal loss to states and communities
expecting coastal energy activity.
The regulations make an important distinction between energy activities and
facilities impacting the coastal zone. These are;
Coastal Energy Activity is an energy activity that is dependent on
or significantly affects coastal waters and requires facility siting,
construction, expansion or operation in or near the coastal zone due
to the proximity of oil or natural gas fields. Such activity is
limited by federal law to; OCS-related energy activity; LNG -related
energy activity; and energy activity related to coastal transporta-
tion, transfer, and storage of coal, oil or gas (such as a deep water
port). New or expanded activities are those occurring after July 26,
1976.
Energy facilities covered by the CEIP include any equipment or facil-
ity used in the exploration for, or the development, production,
conversion, storage, transfer, processing, or transportation of any
energy resource. This includes such facilities as electric power
plants (including nuclear); petroleum refineries; oil and gas storage
tanks; ports and docks necessary for transfer of petroleum, etc., as
wei1'as manufacturing facilities for energy -related development.
Agencies eligible for CEIP funding include cities, counties, special districts,
councils of governments (COGS), and state agencies. Special districts and
single -purpose agencies are required to apply through a local general purpose
unit of government.
Although CEIP is intended primarily to assist coastal cities and counties,
and other eligible agencies within the coastal zone, inland cities within
coastal counties are also eligible for funds but only if impacts are clearly
linked to coastal energy activity. For example, an inland community which is
the site of pipeline fabrication to support offshore oil drilling may be
eligible.
w
M
-2-
Five Types of Assistance
The CEIP provides five basic types of assistance: planning grants, environ-
mental grants, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development grants, credit assis-
tance, and repayment assistance. California has received an allotment of,
funds in each category based on its share of nationwide coastal energy develop-
ment. In total, California is eligible for $7.9 million of assistance for
fiscal year 1977, approximately $100,000 of which will go to administrative
costs. California's FY 1978 allotment is expected to be announced in the fall
of 1977 and will be pooled with FY 1977 funds remaining.
Planning Grants are available on an 80% federal/20% non-federal basis
to help prepare for the consequences of all new or expanded energy
facilities in the coastal zone. .Planning grants can be used to study
and plan for the economic, environmental; or social impacts due to
the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of energy facilities.
Cost benefit, energy facility siting, and resource protection analyses
are also appropriate uses of planning grants.
California has been alloted a total of $349,639 for this purpose for
FY 1977, which will be available for obligation until September 30,
1978.
Environmental Grants, available on a 100% federal basis, are designed
to help prevent, reduce, or repair damage to or loss of valuable
environmental or recreational resources due to coastal energy acti-
vity. Environmental grants may be used for impacts resulting from
previous coastal energy activity which cannot be attributed to any
one party.
California has been alloted $90,078 for this purpose for FY 1977,
which will be available for obTigation until September 30, 1978.
OCS-Related Facility Grants, also called Formula Grants*, are available
on a 00° federal funding basis to plan for the development of public
facilities and services as a result of OCS-related development. These
funds are also the primary source of assistance to help local communities
prevent, reduce or ameliorate unavoidable losses of environmental or
recreational resources due to coastal energy activity. A loss is una-
voidable when the cost of preventing or repairing the damage cannot be
assessed to the responsible party(ies).
Another important feature of the Formula Grants is that monies can be
used to pay the difference in cost between the least expensive method
of providing a public facility and a more environmentally sound method.
California has been alloted $869,022 for these purposes for FY 1977
which will be available for obligation until September 30, 1984.
* These are usually referred to as "Formula Grants" because the amount of the
grant to a state is determined by a formula included in the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
-3-
0
E
4. Credit Assistance is available in the form of direct loans or guarantees
of loans or on`ds for the purpose of providing new or improved public
facilities and services required as a result of coastal energy activity,
especially when there will be a time lag between the time a facility is
needed and the time the new facility and residents are generating local
revenue,
California has been alloted $6 605,743 for both credit and repayment
assistance for FY 1977, which will a available for obligation until
September 30, 1978.
5. Repa ment Assistance is available to eligible applicants who cannot meet
CEIP cre it o igations because expected revenue fails to materialize.
Repayment assistance guarantees that a community receiving CEIP credit
assistance will not sustain a net fiscal loss from coastal energy acti-
vity, Repayment assistance includes modification of credit terms,
refinancing, a supplemental loan, or a repayment grant. Capital improve-
ment projects can be covered by CEIP funds if: (1) the community has
borrowed money directly from the CEIP, or has used a CEIP guarantee; and
(2) there is a change in scope of the energy activity so that sufficient
revenues do not materialize as projected.
Applicants should note the constraints on the use of each assistance category.
For example, of the five types of assistance available, all but one, planning
grants, are restricted to addressing coastal energy activity. Planning grants
to help prepare for the adverse consequences of all new or expanded energy
facilities in the coastal zone represent a small percentage of the total
funds available. Assistance from the formula grants is further restricted
to needs resulting from OCS-energy related activity. Legislation creating
the CEIP was in a large part intended to provide front-end money for coastal
communities impacted by energy activities initiated by or as a result of
federal actions such as OCS lease sales. Hence, the major portion of Califor-
nia's allotment is for loan payments in anticipation of increased revenues
forthcoming to these communities or the state over the -life of the energy
development.
Detailed information on each of the five assistance categories is published
in the Final CEIP Regulations, 95931.14931.114.
ReZationship to LocaZ Coastal Programs
CEIP activities are intended to complement work currently being done with the
Local Coastal Program funds for that area under Coastal Commission jurisdic-
tion. The Office of Planning and Research will be working closely with the
Coastal Commission to ensure that these two programs are mutually supportive.
Applicants for CEIP funds will be asked to demonstrate the consistency of the
proposed project with the applicable local coastal program. Projects which
support and enhance the local coastal program effort and are consistent with
the State's Coastal Management Program will be given preference.
.4-
Projects Within the San Francisco Bay
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission will be respon-
sible for carrying out the CEIP in the San Francisco Bay Area. Applicants for
CEIP funds will be asked to demonstrate the consistency of the proposed project
with BCDC's Coastal Zone Management Program for the Bay, in particular, the
San Francisco Bay Plan and the McAteer-Petris Act.
Intrastate Allocation Process
The 'purpose of the CEIP is to provide assistance where needed to assure that
coastal communities have the opportunity to accommodate energy -related develop-
ment in a planned and environmentally responsible manner. The State of Cali-
fornia will attempt to allocate funds in a manner consistent with this goal.
The Intrastate Allocation Process contains information about the criteria and
methodology for allocation of CEIP funds, the assessment of need and applica-
tion procedures.
Regulations governing the implementation of the CEIP, prepared by the OCZM,
prescribe direct involvement by state agencies, local government and regional
entities, interest groups, and the public in both the design and execution
of the allocation process. The Intrastate Allocation Process which follows
reflects public and agency comments received in writing and at three public
hearings held in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
II. THE CALIFORNIA INTRASTATE ALLOCATION PROCESS
Introduction
In 1976 when Congress amended the 1972 Coastal Act, the Coastal Energy Impact
Program (CEIP) was added to help coastal states respond to various impacts
associated with the development of new energy facilities along the coast.
California is participating in this program which makes five types of finan-
cial assistance available to local communities. Since funds are limited,
particularly for planning and environmental grants, California must ensure
that this assistance is distributed and used in the most effective way possible.
This document - the Intrastate Allocation Process - serves as a guide for the
distribution of CEIP funds in California. The purpose of this allocation
process is to ensure that coastal communities have sufficient resources to
plan for and respond to energy -related developments in an environmentally
responsible manner. Such activities must be consistent with statewide goals
and objectives, especially the California Coastal Management Program which
includes the objectives of the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay
Plan for the San Francisco Bay segment of the coastline.
The California Coastal.Commission will have overall responsibility for ad-
ministering the program, determining consistency with the 1976 Coastal Act,
approving the final ranking of projects, assigning funding amounts, and
submitting applications to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM).
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will
have responsibility for determining consistency of applications with the
McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan. The Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) will review applications for consistency with program
goals and objectives. Specific responsibilities of each agency are listed
on page 14.
Principles
The California Intrastate Allocation Process is based on seven principles
that reflect the federal regulations and California Coastal Management
Program objectives:
The distribution of CEIP monies will be based on a comparison of the
relative merits of proposed projects. Disbursements will reflect a
twice yearly evaluation based on immediacy of need; magnitude of im-
pacts; and relationships to the achievement of state, regional, and
coastal zone management goals.
2. The allocation process will allow the full participation of state
agencies, local governments, and interest groups as well as the general
public.
3. The allocation of funds will be consistent with:
* Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended;
* Final Regulations for the Coastal Energy Impact Program Federal
Registeerr: August, 1977);
* California Coastal Management program administered by the California
Coastal Commission;
* San Francisco Bay segment of the California Coastal Management
program administered by BCDC;
* Population projections by the applicable regional council of
governments;
* Applicable state, local, and regional plans and policies.
4. The allocation process will have sufficient flexibility to recognize local
and regional variations, as well as the different purposes of the five
basic types of CEIP assistance.
5. Applicants must clearly and conclusively demonstrate the need for the pro-
ject, its relationship to coastal energy facilities, its consistency with
the Coastal Act (and the McAteer-Petris Act in the San Francisco Bay area),
and the manner in which it supports and enhances local coastal programs,
6. In general, priority will be given to applications submitted by units of
local general purpose government and state agencies and those applicants
capable of implementing solutions to issues of greater -than -local concern.
7. Funds will not be approved if their expenditure will induce coastal devel-
opment that would be inconsistent with the California Coastal Management
Program.
Process
The following nine -step process is designed to assure that funds are allocated
to meet real expected needs in the most streamlined manner possible. (See
Chart A.)
'r
The allocation process applies to each of the funding categories:
1. Solicitation of A licationss. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) r
willsolicit applications ions from eligible agencies for CRIP funds. Preappli-
cations will be encouraged to allow applicants enough time to receive
technical assistance from OPR, the Coastal Commission and BCDC. Applica-
tion forms will request environmental and socio-economic information on
each project, including_the following tBe_of information:
a. A statement of the goal(s) of proposed project and how they will
be accomplished;
b. A description of the energy -related activity and the type of social
and physical impacts expected from it; a definition of the impact
area; an estimate of the resources affected; potential losses,
severity of impacts and the likelihood of occurrence;
-7-
r
OPR
Solicits Applicati
lications Su
OPR Determines
Project Eligibility
earinghouse Review
CCC Determines
Project Ranking
Public
Review and Comment
Appeals
OPR Forwards
Recommendations to
CCC and BCDC
BCDC Determines
Bay Area Ranking
CCC Integrates
BCDC and CCC Ranking
CCC Approves
Statewide Ranking
CCC Considers
Appeals and
Finalizes Ranking
Submit CEIP
Allocation to OCZM
BCDC
Comments on Appeals
10
c. A description of the size of the community affected, relevant
planning capabil.ities, and previous energy planning experience;
d. A description of the status of the local coastal program and the
project's relationship to the program or the San Francisco Bay
Plan;
e. A description of the measures taken to minimize adverse indirect
growth effects;
f. A listing of other funding sources pursued; and
g. A description of who will carry out and staff the project.
In addition to the application steps described above, applicants for
credit and repayment assistance must supply additional financial in-
formation. A fiscal management schedule must accompany the application.
Such a schedule should include forecasts of revenues and expenditures
in the borrowing jurisdiction. OCZM will provide technical assistance
upon request.
Applications involving capital improvement projects will require an
environmental assessment. OCZM will determine those projects requir=
ing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA guidelines.
If an EIS is required, the applicant may arrange for OCZM to prepare
the document.
Onshore construction projects may also require an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) according to CEQA. An EIS and EIR may be combined in a
single document. •Categorical exemptions should indicate class number.
Negative declarations should indicate findings supporting the declara-
tion of no significant adverse impact.
Awards will be contingent upon completion of all required environmental
documents.
2. Submission of Applications. All applicants must submit the original appli-
cation to the Coastal Commission. OPR should receive a copy of each appli-
cation. Applicants within the San Francisco Bay region must also submit
a copy to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
3. Clearinghouse Review. The applicant is also responsible for submitting
copies of the application to the State and areawide clearinghouses. The
clearinghouse will notify affected agencies and the public of the proposed
project, and receive comments on the applicants from COGs, state and local
agencies, interest groups, and the general public. Comments'should be
submitted to the appropriate areawide clearinghouse within the 30-day
review period, as provided in OMB Circular A-95.
Affected agencies and the public should submit comments to the appro-
priate areawide clearinghouse, as provided for in OMB Circular A-95,
within 30 days of the receipt of the applications.
-9-
Preliminar Screening and Recommendations. Upon receipt, OPR will
review all applications for eligibility and adequacy of information,
and screen them for the availability of other state and federal funds.
Applications will then be separated into the five funding categories:
(1) planning; (2) environmental and recreational resources; (3) credit
assistance; (4) repayment assistance; and, (5) OCS grants. Recommen-
dations will be developed by OPR based on the criteria listed in
Chart B, the Criteria Checklist, and Clearinghouse comments. Recom-
mendations will be developed for each of the five categories. OPR
will notify ineligible applicants that they will be removed from fur-
ther consideration or, upon request, assist them in completing or
amending _their applications to qualify.
5. BCDC�Ranking. Upon receipt of OPR's recommendations, BCDC staff will
eterd mine the project ranking for the San Francisco Bay area applica-
tions based on OPR's recommendations, A-95 review comments, and the
criteria listed in Chart B. BCDC will formally notify affected units
of government and other interested groups and individuals of the pro-
posed ranking and will conduct a public hearing on the proposed
ranking. Based on comments received and testimony at the public hear-
ing, BCDC will adopt a ranking for the San Francisco Bay Area. BCDC
will then submit the ranking to the Coastal Commission.
6. Coastal Commission Ranking. Upon receipt of OPR's recommendations,
A- 5 comments, an BCDC s ranking for the San Francisco Bay Area,
Coastal Commission staff will prepare a statewide ranking of CEIP
applications based on this input as well as the criteria listed in
Chart B. The Coastal Commission will formally notify affected units
of government and interested groups and individuals of the proposed
statewide ranking and will hold a public hearing to accept testimony.
Based on comments received and testimony at the public hearing, the
Coastal Commission will adopt a final statewide ranking and specify
appropriate funding amounts for each successful application.
Appeals Any party that has fully participated in the review and
comment process who wishes to appeal the Coastal Commission's final
allocation of funds to project proposals will be given an opportunity
to review all materials associated with the final ranking. Such
applicant may submit to the Coastal Commission reasons why the appli-
cation should be reconsidered. For any appeal that may affect the
ranking of projects in the San Francisco area, the Coastal Commission
will solicit comments from BCDC before deciding whether or not to
reconsider a project. The Commission will reconsider the project
upon a majority vote to do so and will give the party an opportunity
to present an appeal from the final ranking. The applicant will be
provided with a copy of the findings. The decision of the Coastal
Commission on appeal will be final and subject to appeal to the
Associate Administrator of OCZM only on the basis of non-compliance
with the procedures described above.
8. Submit Final Renkiu. The Coastal Commission's adopted final
ranking willsst2tea—o OCZM as California's allocation of CEIP
-10-
c-
rA
funds after all appeals are settled and adjustments are made. Upon
acceptance of the grant or loan offer from OCZM, the Coastal Commission
distributes the funds to the eligible applicants.
After awards are made, the Coastal Commission will have responsibility
for administering and monitoring all CEIP funds (assisted by BCDC where
appropriate). Funds will be available within 45 days after the appli-
cation for assistance is approved by the Coastal Commission and funds
are released by OCZM for distribution.
Criteria and Method for SeZeetion
The criteria and the selection process which follow provide a simple method
for evaluating applications within the complex framework of CEIP regulations.
The process includes public and agency input, a measure of each project's
strengths, and the means to systematically compare and contrast the gamut of
CEIP applications in California. The criteria for selection are designed to
ensure that projects funded will further the goals of California's Coastal
Management Program. The evaluation process is chiefly concerned with allo-
cating money to applicants in proportion to need in an equitable and efficient
manner. The selection process is composed of four factors:
1. Program Objectives,
2. Specific Criteria,
3. Public and Agency Input, and
4. Project Evaluation.
Program Objectives
When taken together, the proposed criteria measure the need for financial
assistance resulting from a coastal energy activity. The criteria chosen tc
evaluate the CEIP projects are founded on the following objectives of the
State in determining where and when assistance can be used most effectively:
1. Emphasis on the Environment and Safety. Emphasis will be given in the
following order to projects that mitigate or compensate for impacts on:
a. Environmental resources and health and safety issues;
b. Recreational areas or activities; and
c. Community and neighborhood infrastructure.
2. Cost Effectiveness. The most cost-effective alternative of addressing•
impacts must Se —considered. The costs of the proposed project will be
evaluated according to the extent the project attains desired goals.
Cost/Benefit. Benefits or returns must be equal to or exceed the costs
of t— ect. The State will estimate if the cost to prevent or reduce
-11-
resource loss is reasonable given the value of the resource. The amount
of money alloted will be balanced with the scale of the project proposal.
3. Ade uate Financial Support. The availability of financial support from
t e state ae tife applicant must be sufficient to carry out the project
effectively. A project which can be funded entirely from other available
federal or state sources is not eligible for CEIP assistance. Funds will
be awarded only when there are insufficient or non-existent alternative
funding sources.
4. Determination of Need. An applicant's need for financial assistance will
e determined by the following:
a. The immediacy of the coastal energy activity;
b. The impacts associated with these activities;
c. The prrtion of statewide impacts that the project addresses;
d. The likelihood of occurrence of energy project and associated impacts.
Specific Criteria
The different kinds of assistance available under the CEIP require different
combinations of criteria for allocation. Also, the amount of money and regu-
latory constraints for the five categories of assistance will affect which
projects and agencies are funded from each category.
Chart B. Criteria Checklist, lists the kinds of criteria which will be used
at different stages in the selection process by the reviewing agencies. The
criteria on the checklist translate the five objectives described above into
more specific measures of a project's strengths and weaknesses.
Each application will be examined in light of the appropriate criteria. The
criteria allow comparison with other proposed projects in the same funding
category. Some criteria may not be applicable to a given project proposal.
A low rating on any single criterion, except Major Criteria (Chart B), will
not disqualify a project from receiving funds.
Public and Agency Input
In addition to the State's overall objectives and specific criteria for pro-
ject evaluation, existing governmental processes will play an important role
in selecting projects. Agency and public comments, delivered at public hear-
ings or submitted as part of the A-95 review process, will be a determining
factor in ranking project proposals. Furthermore, the joint responsibilities
of OPR, the Coastal Commission, and BCDC ensure that many viewpoints will be
represented while ranking the projects, providing an interagency system of
checks and balances.
-12-
,a
Project Evaluation
Project evaluation will happen in two stages as indicated on Chart A, The CEIP
Application Process:
1. Preliminary Screening and Recommendations. OPR will take a broad over-
view of the projects for compliance with state and federal policies and
regulations. Projects will be screened for eligibility and recommenda-
tions will be made based on criteria in Chart B.
2. ProjjecttR_a�nkii The Coastal Commission and BCDC will rate projects
according g to OPR's recommendations and the criteria in Chart B, organ-
izing their evaluation in a systematic format for comparison. The
result will be a recommended statewide ranking of applications in each
funding category, subject to Coastal Commission adoption.
For each project that is assigned a priority in the ranking, staff will pre-
pare findings describing how the appropriate criteria have been weighted and
applied in the evaluation and how the staff's recommendation are consistent
with the principles and ,program objectives. The findings are to include a
description of the proposal's merits and drawbacks, a justification of the
priority received and the funding amounts assigned.
For proposals in the coastal zone that require a permit, the Coastal Commission
and BCDC will make their determination of consistency with the coastal manage-
ment program when the permit is approved. Even though a project has a permit
from the local government under a certified LCP, if the local decision can
be appealed under the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission will review the
local decision and make its own consistency determination. (See Chapter 11
of the EIS on California's Coastal Management Program for details of this
review.)
-13-
0
CEIP RESPONSIBILITIES
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
* Prepare proposed allocation process
*
Adopt allocation process
* Solicit CEIP applications
*
Prepare project ranking
* Screen applications and prepare
*
Approve final project ranking
preliminary recommendations
*
Handle appeals
* Coordinate and participate in review
*
Submit state allocation to
and comment on project ranking
OCZM
* Comment on final project selection
*
Administer and monitor projects
STATE AGENCIES
BCDC
* Review and comment on proposed
*
Review and comment on proposed
allocation process
allocation process
* Prepare CEIP applications
*
Prepare ranking of applications
* Review and comment on project
within the jurisdiction
ranking
*
Review and comment on CCC
ranking
*
Comment on appeals
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
*
Administer and monitor assis-
tance in the San Francisco
* Review and comment on proposed
Bay area
allocation process
* Prepare CEIP applications
* Review and comment on project
INTEREST GROUPS AND GENERAL PUBLIC
ranking
*
Review and comment on proposed
allocation process
COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS
*
Review and comment on project
ranking
* Review and comment on proposed
allocation process
* Review and comment on CEIP
applications within jurisdiction
* Coordinate local project proposals,
If appropriate
* Prepare CUP applications of
regional significance in conjunction
with member agencies
r.
I
N
-14-
U
A
I
CHART
B: CRITERIA
CHECKLIST
MAJOR CRITERIA (for use by OPR, CCC, and BCDC on all CEIP proposals)
1. Immediacy of coastal energy activity addressed
2. Type, extent, and severity of energy -related impacts
3. Likelihood of occurrence of energy project and associated impacts
OPR CRITERIA (Preliminary Screening and Recommendations - all projects)
4. Compliance with federal regulations and guidelines
5. Ability of community to absorb impacts without detriment and
without CEIP assistance
6. Consistency with overall state policies, state functional
plans, and state planning requirements
7. Availability of other funding sources
8. Ability of applicant to successfully carry out proposed project,
with or without assistance
9. Consistency with applicable local general and regional plans
10. Coordination with other planning/development programs (e.g.,
Local Coastal Programs)
11. Consistency with COG population projections, if applicable
12. Comments submitted through the A-95 process and public hearings,
and by state agencies
13. Ability to implement outcome of project to address real, expected
needs
CCC AND BCDC CRITERIA (Ranking)
CCC Only
14. Consistency with California Coastal Management Program
15. Consistency with applicable Local Coastal Programs
BCDC Only
16. Consistency with the San Francisco Bay segment of the California
Coastal Management Program
-15-
• 0
CCC and BCDC
17. Project supplements or furthers completion of the Local Coastal
Plan or the San Francisco Bay Plan
16. Local contribution to the project
19. Ability of project to mitigate anticipated energy related impacts
20. Value of resource or fiscal loss as a result of these impacts
21. Portion of statewide resource and fiscal impacts incurred by
the applicant
22. Applicability of process or products elsewhere, or ability of
proposed project to replace several individual efforts on similar
issues
23. Cost/benefit of project, especially in relation to changes in the
project's scale or scope
PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL PROPOSALS ONLY
24. Relative size of area affected
26. Relevant planning capabilities and previous energy planning
involvement
26. Addresses impacts of greater -than -local concern
27. Distribution of impacts
28. Duration of impacts
PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE PROPOSALS ONLY
29. Applicant's ability to carry out fiscal management and
implementation
30. Tax effort required to support proposed project
31. Anticipated environmental impacts due to the proposed project and
potential for indirect growth inducement
32. Type and duration of impacts project addresses
33. Growth in excess of public facility and service capacity
anticipated from energy activity
34. Permits received from the California Coastal Commission, BCDC,
and other required agencies
-16-
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
and Adopt Allocation Procgss
1 1 1
Lzee"L 31 Soliyit Appli4ations
, 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
2 - 11 /: 15 132D3 A-95 Rdview
nary;Screeni
- 1/6 1CCC andIJCDC Rank
jlL- 1
I
CHART
C0
TIMELI7NE
17 Publ1
2�7 CCC
L- 2
,
1
,
,
1
, 1 ,
1 i ,
, 1 1
, 1 ,
� 1 1 1
1 1 1
1
, 1
� 1 1
1
N
c Review,of Rank?g
1 1
Adopts Final Rankling
'20 File; Appeals
1 , 1
1 1
317 Settle Appeals and Ad'ust Ranking
1 , 1
3110 Sjbmit Finial Ranking to OUR
I loan I was meson as not
: 1
N
0 0
RC-CCIVEp''t
tom;
Dsaluprnunt
p
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
(714) 640-2151
January 17, 1978
Mr. Kevin Smith
California Coastal Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. Smith:
It is our understanding that the City of Laguna Beach
is making an application for a planning and research
grant to study the impact of oil spill on Orange County's
coastal communities. The City of Newport Beach has
recognized the possibility of an oil spill at sea and
the devastating effect it could have upon the beaches of
Orange County.
The City of Newport Beach, therefore, endorses Laguna
Beach's application for this study.
Thank you.
rS* cerely,
ROBERT L. WYNN U
City Manager
CC: City of Laguna Beach
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
0
e4ti'p'Quy,��
January 13, 1978
Mr. Robert L. Wynn, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA.
Dear Mr. Wynn:
The City of Laguna Beach has made application to the Office of Planning and
Research for funding under the Coastal Energy Impact Program, Environmental
Grant category, to conduct an oil spill contingency study for the Orange
County coastline. Future off -shore oil exploration resulting from Lease
Sale No. 35 suggests that local jurisdictions develop effective contingency
programs to minimize the negative economic and environmental impacts. If
an oil spill of any magnitude should occur, its effective containment may
require the concerted efforts of each of the county's coastal communities
and will only be possible if each of those communities has previously adopted
an oil spill disaster preparedness plan.
The intent of this grant application is to explore the possibilities for
preparedness and to disseminate this information to each affected agency.
A countywide mitigating program can then be developed, assuring minimum en-
vironmental disruption. A regional solution is favored over individual ones,
since the potential threat is of regional, rather than strictly local, concern.
We hope that you recognize the need for such an oil spill contingency study
in your LCP Work Program. We, however, see no need to duplicate local efforts
and seek your support for a program with countywide application. We request
that you forward any supportive comments to:
Carla Walecka Kevin Smith
IOffice of Planning and Research California Coastal Commission
1400 Tenth Street — 1540 Market Street
Sacramento, CA. 95814 San Francisco, CA. 94102
The final date to receive comments before final state recommendations are
formulated is January 27th.
We would appreciate your support, via letter, of this application.
Sincere ly,
Ju on S. Brand
Mayor
att.
505 FOREST AVE. • LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 TEL. (714) 497-3311, 546-4856
„
OMB Approval No. 29-R023E
a e. NUMBER 3. STATE A. yUMCER
ECEftAL ASSISTANCE Z.APP"' APPLICA-
CANTS TION
1. TYPE ?REAPPLICATION APPLI• b. DATEYaar month 4v IDENTI• b. DATE Year month day
❑
OF CATION 19 FIER I ASSIGNED 19
ACTION ® APPLICATION
(.Hark op. ❑ NOTIFICATION OF INTENT (Opt) Leave
b os)rt� ❑ REPORT OF FEDERAL ACTION Stank
5. FEDERAL EMPLOYER ILENTIFICATION N0.
4. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT
i
95-6000729
,. ACPIIunt Heme City of Laguna Beach
b. OrganitalltnUnit 6. ,, t11:MeET I1 Il to I4I2I1
c. Str,et/P.O. Doe : 505 Forest Avenue PRO•
CRAM b. TITLE
City : Laguna Beach e• County ° Orange (rrom
I. sale : Calif. a• zip code: 92651 r'aderal Coastal Energy Impact
�d,
h. Corbett Paton (Nam, Douglas J. Schmitz Catlop) Program
ti
u
di telephone No.) 23-9
7. TITLE AIJD DESCRIPTION OF APPLICAttT'S PROJECT 8. r/PE OF APPLICANT/RECIPIENT
A -State H-Commum?V Action Agency
"Impact Analysis of Oil Spill on Orange County's s-Intenate I- Hi.her Enuel"enAl Institution
Tribe
C-Subsas 1-Irman
Coastal Communities" - Develop an inter -agency pro- m.urtt K-cthar (Specify):
u
C;ty
gram designed to ensure the early notification and D-F-Cou
iD:tnat
effective deployment of manpower to minimize the G400cal Tarpon
OhVrtt Enter npPrar'riab lector
a
potential adverse environmental and economic effects
of an off -shore oil spill. 9. OF ASSISTANCE
h-Buie Cnnt 0-Imunnta
B-Supplemenal Grant E-Other Enter appro-
re
C-Loan pmtc tettcroA IH 1 I
taw+
AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT (Name Of eitiu. countin. s1. ESTIMATED NUtA•
BER OF PERSONS
112. TYPE OF APPLICATION
"trt C-11"islon E-AuDnenatlon
110.
State, Ate.)
BENEFITING
Orange County Coastal Communities 1.73 millio
8-Renard 0-CanOnuadan
Enter appropriate letter �l
: 13. PROPOSED FUNDING 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: 1q. misTYPm OF CHANGE (For p e or ice)
A-Oacrew Dollar F-0Uer (SPeeilv)s
a. FEDERAL S , d a. APPLICANT 0. PROJECT e-Otauso Dollars
C-Incra:a Cunpa•I
40tb 40thD-Deasus Duratlan
b. APPLICRIT .CO E-CarcalaUon
16. PROJECT START 37. PROJECT EnteraDDro-
r„ STATE •DO DATE Year month day DURA710h1 prate letter(A!
d. LOCAL .GO 194 6 Sfcnthe
1S. ESTIMATED DATE TO Year month day 19. EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
a. OTHER •00 B- SUBMITTED
I. TOTAL I It 21 , OOQ .001 FEDERAL AGENCYTO
► 1977
Z1P 004) 95814 21. REMARKS ADDED
20. FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST (Nano, City. Stab,
Yas No
22.
s. Ta the best or my lnonledgo end belief,
b. If required by OMB Circular A-95 thi eppllaUon me submitted, pursuant to in• No re• RHDona,
thermt to spinW,le eludnabeusas and elf mponses an attached: ,pones attaehsd
z
data In this InUPPlteatlon/eppiiation an
struulona
}•
I THE
true and correct, the document hu been
❑
APPLICANT
duly suthorieed by the Zmtring body Of
the topliunt and the 1Ppilurt nlll comply
-
Ili Office of Planning & Research �
�.,
CERTIFIES
THAT>
with the leached usunnus It the suit-
Go Southern Calif. Assn. of Governments ❑
YI
once a appm•'ed.
(3)
y, 23. 1 1. TYPED NAME AND TITLE b. SIGNA RE
a GATE SIGHED
Year month day
8 I CERTIFYING
GIREPRE• Douglas J. Schmitz, Director
1977 10 27
g1SENTATIVE n
Year day
24. AGENCY NAME.125.
4
TIRECEIVED
RECEIVED 19
127. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE128.
FEDERAL aPPLiCATiON
S. OR UNIT r•
i 2 1F
If IDENTIFICATION
-
130 F DEAL GRANT
` ADDRESS
I IDENTIFICATION
32. FUNDING Year month 4y
Year month 4y
Z 31. ACTION TAKEN
STARTING
STAR?(NG
❑ s. AWARDED a. FEDERAL S .00 33. ACTION DATED 19
DATE 19
13& day
z I135. CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA•
b. RE:ECTED I b. APPLICANT I 00
o TION (Name and telephone number)
Year month
I ENDING
w
i RETURNED FOR c STATE I .00 I
DATE 19
I
37• RE'dARKS ADDED
C AMENDMEYT I d LOCAL .00
it 5 I d. DEFERRED I s. OTHER i .001
Yes CNo
G, a.a,u .DD I
N'; '
33, 11. In taeNg lbcis Action. Any commons rxenud Irvin dwinebousn ran an • b. FE0E7A1 AGENCY A-95 OFFICIAL
I jdered. it seeaty moons, is due uncer proruwns of Fart 1, OUR Circular A-95. (Name and telephona no.)
FEDERAL AGENCY i it no teen or u rung made.
I A-95 ACTION
424-101
Prescribed by
0
0
,.
0
COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM
I
Applicant: City of Laguna Beach
Address: 505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
Project Title: Impact Analysis of Oil Spill on Orange Countyts Coastal
ommunities
Please check: �b Grant ED Loan
Amount Requested:- $ 21,000.00
BUDGET ALLOCATION
Personal Service:
Salaries and Wages
Benefits
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
Operating Expenses:
Travel
Indirect Charges (Overhead)
Professional & Consultant Services
$ 15,705
$ 12,564
$ 3.141
15,705
t 5,295
875
1,750
E
Other (Printing, Postage, Telephone, etc.) $ 2,670
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 59295
T 0 T A L B U D G E T $ 21,000 *
*Must agree with Amount Requested.
0 0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR
CEIP PLANNING ASSISTANCE
1.
NAME OF JURISDICTION:
City of Laguna Beach
Impact Analysis of Oil Spills on Orange
2.
TITLE OF PROJECT:
County's Coastal Communities — C.E.I.P. Envir
Grant
3.
PROJECT DIRECTOR:
Bruce Baird/Douglas Schmitz
TITLE: Director of
Marine Safety/Director of Community Planning
ADDRESS: 505 Forest
Avenue, Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
4.
FISCAL OFFICER:
Richard Reese
Director, Department of Finance
TITLE:
505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
ADDRESS:
Coastal Commission Use Only
5.
GRANT REQUESTED: $ 21,000.00 DATE RECEIVED:
ASSIGNED TO:
6.
PLANNING AREA STATISTICS:
Est. 1976 Population:
11722,094 (Total Jurisdiction)
Est. 1976 Population:
(Coastal Area)
Coastal Zone Area in Square
Miles:
7.
NAME OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL: Jon Brand
TITLE: Mayor
DATE: October 4. 1977
SIGNATURE:12 H
- .-- - -
nment a7
ENVIRONMENTAL GRANT APPLICATION
COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM
COASTAL PLANNING GRANT
PROJECT NARRATIVE
A. A statement of the goal(s) of the proposed project and how they
will be accomplished;
PROGRAM GOALS:
Develop inter -agency cooperation to ensure the early notification
and effective deployment of manpower to minimize the potential
adverse environmental and economic effects of an off -shore
oil spill.
PROGRAM PROCESS:
1. Formulation of a regional committee comprised of representatives
from local, county, state and federal government agencies;
2. Develop project goals and establish time line for completion;
3. Identify levels and areas of special concern;
4. Study potential spill trajectories based on existing and
proposed off -shore leases;
5. Investigate existing methodologies;
6. Select and/or develop appropriate mitigating strategies;
7. Identify inter -agency responsibilities and capital cost
requirements;
8. Implement on -going system;
9. Conduct training program
PROGRAM BYPRODUCTS:
1. Open an avenue for inter -agency communication and cooperation;
2. Publication of an informational booklet;
3. Conduct training program;
4. Develop a regionally coordinated capital expenditures program;
5. Develop an early warning system and an effective mitigating
strategy.
PROPOSED PARTICIPANTS: Official endorsement from these agencies will
will not be solicited until the city receives
Seal Beach a tentative commitment for project funding.
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Laguna Beach
San Clemente
County of Orange
State of California
U.S. Coast Guard
(California Coastal Commission)
B. A description of the proposal's relationship to know or anticipated
energy development.
In December 1975, the Department of the Interior held Lease Sale
# 35 letting 56 tracts along the Southern California coastline.
Placing 312,000 acres into future petroleum production.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research calculates that 112
wells will be ultimately constructed as a result of that sale; 30
wells to be drilled in San Pedro Bay. This number does not include
the exploratory development which has and will continue to occur.
Lease Sale # 4.8 is scheduled for February 1979. Nine hundred and
seventy (970) blocks have already been nominated as part of that
proposed sale (totaling 5,095,771 acres).
In their December 1976 publication Offshore Oil and Gas Development:
Southern California, the Office of Planning and Research concluded
that the shoreline most threatened as a result of petroleum development
within San Pedro Bay was the area between San Pedro and Laguna Beach.
That report concluded that "an evaluation of the physical impacts
in the event of an oil spill" should be conducted prior to significant
development activity.
Section 30232 of the California Government Code, added after the
passage of SB 1277, has mandated this local effort:
"Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum
products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in
relation to any development or transportation of such
materials. Effective containment and clean-up facilities
and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills
that do occur."
C. A description of the evergy development and the type of social and
physical impacts expected from it; a definition of the impact area;
an estimate of the resources affected, potential losses, severity
of impacts and the likelihood of occurance; and a description of
alternatives considered:
The Department of Interior has predicted that at least one maior
spill is inevitable from the Southern California OCS areas leased
in December 1975•
Based on various derived statistical release rates the Bureau of
Land Management estimates the total quantity of oil to be released
range from an estimated low of 230,000 barrels to a high of 2,600,000
barrels. The potential size of any individual oil spill is reported
by BLM to be as high as 150,000 barrels.
Oil spill trajectory studies conducted by the Environmental Petroleum
Agency identify the extreme vulnerability of the area between
Huntington Beach and Dana Point to oil spills.
The potential impact of an oil spill to the Southern California
coastline has been extensively documented as a result of the E.I.S.
and E.I.R. conducted for lease sale # 35. Rather than reproduce the
findings of those studies, we refer you to those publications. The
findings of those studies have been summarized below:
1. Potential to significantly effect the habitat areas of select
animals contained on the Federal list of endangered and threatened
species including the California Brown Pelican, Light-footed
Clapper Rail and the California Least Tern.
2. Significant adverse effects to the kelp beds of Southern California
resulting in a reduction of marine productivity and corresponding
reduction in commercial fishing.
3. Loss of tidepools as unique habitat areas.
4. Damage to marine ecosystem created by significant disruption
and death among marine bird populations.
5. Disturbances to nesting and feeding areas in Southern California
marshlands.
6. Loss of officially recognized "unique biological environments".
7. Temporary loss of coastal recreational opportunities (swimming,
diving, recreational fishing, boating, etc.)
8. Economic reprocussions for hotels, restaurants and other tourist
based small businesses.
9. Economic loss to local jurisdictions resulting from a reduction
in tourism.
10. Loss of taxable revenue and corresponding reduction in public
services.
The area anticipated for study includes an estimated 42 miles of
shoreline within Orange County. This area provides for the ocean
recreational needs for the 1.7 million residents of the County.
The number of people utilizing the county's beach however far exceed
that number.
It is estimated that 20 million people visit Orange County
annually, to take part in activities along the county's coastline.
A report prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research
(Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Southern California) identifies
the following areas within the zone:
Habitat Areas
4 Rare and Endangered Species Habitats
Significant Wetlands
10 Rocky Intertidal Zones
14 Kelp Beds
Areas of Recreational and Economic Importance
32+ Miles of Sandy Beaches
2 Major Marinas
14 Skin and Scuba Diving Areas
7 Recreational Shellfishing Areas
15 Recreational Fin and Flatfishing Areas
3 Commercial Shellfishing
State Designated Unique Biological Environments
1 Area of Special Biological Significance
6 Ecological Reserves and Marine Life Refuges
23 Miles of State Oil and Gas Sancturaries
Federally Designated Unique Biological Environments
1 Estuarine Sanctuary
Each of these areas would be physically or perceptually effected in
the event of a major spill. The degree of impact would however vary
relative to the sensitivity of that area. The Bureau of Land Management,
in its discussion on the environmental effects of a spill on rocky
intertidal zones states:
"Reproduction and repopulation will be retarded for several
months, and the extinction of rare endemics is a possibility.
Biological recovery will take up to five years. However,
the time required for the decimated intertidal community
to return to pre -spill conditions is unknown.
Clean-up operations of intertidal areas could cause total
destruction of the rocky shore communities and significantly
harm the communities of the sandy beach areas actually cleared."
The following table outlines the severity of impact that an oil spill
could have on each of these 14 resources. An examination of that table
indicates a significant adverse environmental effect is anticipated
in at least 10 of the 14 areas.
Additionally, significant impacts in four areas will result in long-
term reprocussions to the marine ecosystem and/or depletion of
non-renewable resources.
Actual or estimated costs can
An exact computation, however,
is outside the context of this
as part of the grant program.
be assessed t
has not been
application
I MPPLT
o each of these impacts.
n made. That investigation
and would be conducted
v
5
WW1f.'�+•E>•1PV.YIEICFb
51i{.IES NN;nnls
3
3
t
I
�
✓
a
WCTLAQVU
2
3
t
I
✓
FF4ce-W
iW1M1bAt- 7-0N6S
3
3
1
2
✓
�
M?N7i
2
2
2
L
✓
�
SANDY 1`.*1�C FIEs
3
2
3
3
✓
�
g
�
MN=V' MARWAS
I
I
y
3
✓
51cIN+ DIJiN5 N4Ti
I
u/n
I
2
✓
✓
RB icFATIONAL FIN r}l.AtF7SH1V1'I AREAS
I
I
I
7�
✓
`�
RC-CI:Eh7bNhL SVIEI.I..FiulllhYj f�F'�/(�
I
1
I
2
✓
�
GOMMEWwV E4aLR5WK
I
I
$
+Un
✓
PM5 OF ---FL gi0lIK1Y.R1, SIGN.
3
3
1
3
✓
✓
FiDI(�ICAL F.'c..E7�11S
3
3
1
y
✓
✓
�TA9E otL�'CIAS atlx,7unclEs
3
7.
t
3
✓
✓
✓
I,Fst,A�NE �rJ�tUARIEs
I
;
I
I
IMfALT+ I (IAW) i 2(MCDVVM)>3(I�rIH)
D. A description of the size of the community affected, relevent planning
capabilities, and previous energy planning experience.
The resident population of Orange County exceeds 1.7 million people
(1976). The number of people who utilizes the county's beach, however,
fax exceed that figure. Conversations with the marine safety
departments in the cities of Huntington, Newport and Laguna Beaches
indicate that the beach attendance in these three cities alone account
for an estimated 14..8 million visitors annually (3 million, 8.8 million
and 3 million respectively). Beach attendance for the city's of
Seal Beach and San Clemente or the unincorporated areas of Sunset Beach,
Irvine Coast and Dana Point have not been included. County estimates
for Beach attendance,exceed 20 million visitors annually.
The 9000 boat slips in Newport Harbor and 2400 slips in Dana Harbor
further supplement the areas population.
Each of the agencies whose jurisdictions extend along the coast
support planning and marine safety departments. Both state and
federal agencies as well as private corporations provide additional
involvement. This application is intended to create a mechanism
whereby the parochial concerns of each of these bodies can be
broadened into a regional perspective incorporating city, county,
state and private involvement.
County agencies have had little involvement in off -shore energy
development or energy facilities planning. The nomination and
leasing of off -shore tracts has often been without support at the local
level. Local governments have therefore had little experience and
developed only limited expertise in minimizing the effects of off-
shore development. The purpose of this application is to create
that level of understanding among local governments and equip the
county's coastal communities with the knowledge and corresponding
planning expertise to respond adequately to future off -shore development
proposals.
E. A description of the status of the local coastal program.
Each of the effected jurisdictions is currently involved in the
issue identification stage of the L.C.P. (The City of San Clemente is
having the L.C.P. performed by the Coastal Commission staff).
Because of the preliminary nature of these planning studies there is
as yet no official consensus as to what the regional issues are.
The Coastal Act, however, mandates that "effective containment and
clean-up facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental
spills". (Section 30232) . The City of Laguna Beach has perceived
this as a significant issue, and will include it as such in this
communities work program.
Each of these agencies is alread
both necessitated by location an
Each, however, continues to work
this proposal is directed toward
obviously transend that project.
F. Not Applicable.
y
involved in coastal planning
d now as a result of state regulation.
only within a local framework. While
a single issue, its effects will
G. A listing of other funding sources pursued and the amount of local
funding pledged to the project.
The planning studies indexed in this application, if not funded by an
Environmental Grant, may be included in the applications of individual
cities either for SB 90 of coastal planning funds (as authorized
under the provision of the California Coastal Act of 1976). The
lack of funding at this level will however, necessitate a reduction
in the scope of the program, requiring cities to address only local
impacts.
H.
The narrowness of scope would prevent the effective mitigation of oil
damage in the event of a major spill. The individuals programs would
therefore be restricted to what impacts each city can anticipate rather -
than what each city could do to prevent these impacts.
The grant application is for 100% of project costs.
A description of who will carry out and staff the project and
the duration of the proposed project.
The project will be coordinated concurrently by the Directors of
Community Planning and Marine Safety of the City of Laguna Beach.
Participation will be solicited from five coastal communities, (Seal
Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, San Clemente, Laguna Beach,
Newport Beach),two county agencies (Environmental Management'Agency,
Harbor, Beaches and Parks'Department), three state agencies
(California Coastal Commission, Department of Parks and Recreation,
Office of Planning and Research), one federal agency (U.S. Coast
Guard) and various homeowner associations (Sunset Beach, Huntington
Harbor, South Laguna, Dana Point). Estimated program expenditures
are outlined below:
Staffing
Project coordination and Development (80 hrs.
Regional Participation and Staffing (96 hrs @
Development of a Regional Strategy (240 hrs @
Report Publications (160 hrs @ $$.75/hr)
Training Seminars (20 hrs @ $$.75/hr)
Clerical (500 hrs @ $5.50/hr)
Other
Capital Costs
Travel
Telephone
Printing
@ $11.01/hr)
$8.75/hr�
$$.75/hr
Subtotal
Contingencies
$ $$0
8400
2100
1400
2750
920
875
1250
500
$192250
1,750
Total $219000
4.
-OCIIP I'I?OJC(?_I_iARRATIVE"
To qualify for CLIP funding, applicants irv.,L submit a complete project description
to the Ci;astal Coacnission. Tile narrative should cover the followiny points:
a. P% statement of the goals) of proposed project and hors they will be
accomplished;
b. , description of the proposal's relationship to known or anticipated
energy development;
c. A description of the energy develooment and the type of social and
physical impacts expected from it; a definition Of the impact area; an
estimate of the resources affected, potential losses, severity of impacts
and the likelihood of occurrence; and a description of alternatives
considered;
d. A description of the size of the couununity affected, relevant planning
capabilities, and previous energy planning experience;
e. A description of the status of the local coastal program and the project's
relationship to the program or the San Francisco Day Plan; .
f. A description of the measures taken to minimize adverse indirect growth
effects;
g. A listing of other funding sources pursued and the amount of local
funding pledged to the project;
h. A description of who Will carry out and staff the project and the dura-
tion of the proposed project.
The Coastal Commission may request additional information as needed to evaluate the
project proposal. Applicants are invited to include other relevant information not
listed above.
In addition to the above, applicants for credit and repayment assistance must supply
additional financial information. A fiscal management schedule must accompany the
application. Such a schedule should include forecasts of revenues and expenditures
in the borrowing jurisdiction. OCZM will provide technical assistance upon request.
Applications involving capital improvement projects will require an environmental
assessment. OCZM will determine those projects requiring an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) under NEPA guidelines. If an EIS is required, the applicant may
arrange for OCZPi to prepare the document.
Onshore construction projects may also require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
according to CEQA. An EIS and EIR may be combined in a single document. Categorical
exemptions should indicate class number. Negative declarations should indicate
findings supporting the declaration of no significant adverse impact.
Awards will be contingent upon completion of all required environmental documents.
1{nen CEIP funding is requested for only part of a largerlwork program, the entire
v;ork program must be submitted with the project app
STATEMLNT OF ASSURANCES
The Applicant hereby assures and certifi-irr that he will comply with the regulations,
policies, guidelines, and requirements in, luding OhiD Circular No. A-95 and Federal
Management Circulars 74-4 and 74-7, as the- relate to the application, acceptance and
use of federal funds for this federally assisted project. Also the Applicant assures
and certifies with respect to the grant that: '
1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, motion
or similar action has br_en.duly adoptrrd or passed as an official act of the
applicant's governing body authorizing the filing of the application, including
all understandings and assurances con'ained therein, and directing and authorizing
the person identified as the official representative of the applicant to act in
connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may
be required.
2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 19G4 (P.L.88-352) and in
accordance with Title VI of that Act, no person in the United States shall, on the
ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity for which the applicant received federal financial assistance
and will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement.
3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42USC 2000d) pro-
hibiting employment discrimination where (1) the primary purpose of a grant is to
provide employment or (2) discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal
treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant -aided activity.
4. It will comply with requirements of Title II and Title III of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L.91-646) which provides
for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of federal and
federally assisted programs.
5. It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limit the political
activity of employees.
6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, as they apply to hospital and educational institution
employees of State and local governments.
7. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for
a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private
gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family,
business or other ties.
8. It will give the grantor agency or the Comptroller General through any authorized
representative the access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers,
or documents related to the grant.
9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the federal grantor agency concerning
special requirements of law, program requirements, and other administrative require-
ments approved in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-102.
10. It will insure that the facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which
shall be utilized in the accomplishment of the project are not listed on the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that it will notify
the federal grantor agency of the receipt of any communication from the Director of
the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating that a facility to be utilized in
the project is under consideration for listing on the EPA.
11. It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, P.L.93-234, 87 Stat. 975, approved
December 3, 1976. Section 102(a) requires, on and after March 2, 1975, the purchase
of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a condition
Statement of Assurances
1
C�
for the receipt of any -federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition
purposes for use in any area that has been identified by the Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development as an area having special 'flood hazards.
The phrase "federal,financial assistance" includes any form of loan, grant, guarantee,
insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster assistance loan or grant, or any other
form of direct or indirect federal assistance.
12. It will assist the federal'grantor agency in its compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), E.O.
11593, and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1
et. seq.) by (a) consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office on the
conduct of investigations as necessary to identify properties listed in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that are subject to effect
(see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the activity, and notifying the federal grantor agency
of the existence of any such properties, and by (b) complying with all requirements
established by the federal grantor.agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon
such properties.
The cit of La na Beach hereby assures and
dame of Applicant
certifies that funds will be used in a manner that is compatible with the State's
developing, or consistent with the State's approved coastal zone management program
and the above assurances.
r