Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCS #68114"VV 1 1"" - 2i• - -.45 30 15 120• - - 45• ., - 30' ,S 319• _ - - ♦ 55N 4 Pr. Conupb on 2 3 <. 0 5 7 8 - - 53N - 1 12 uA, Golua SANTA BARBA -, - 14 52N 15 6 " 17 � � 1 61 ; .,� 6 � F 68 TRACT 51N"' 2C 21 22 b � ��, 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 63 64 NF 73 P,Ir. PI 66 67 1 32 33 5ON 5 -m 36 37 38 39 71 72 7 NT�RA t ,.`. 7 40 49N 44 5 46�t 47" `" 8 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 48 4 50 - 52 53 8 8 89 92 94 95= glum --1 1.: . " '4 7 N 55%y@.'� RlcGplerpn =5° . 9 7 - `ka",>k:.�� 96 RY - .W„3Cn RI _ �:z ; 41G - - 30 IS - - lie' 45' 30 ip 117 30 UNITED STATES THE LOCATION SALE , 68 BUREAU OFNLAOND MANAGEMEONT PACIFIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFFICE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE AREA. 03 45N Son Mrpu•/lgpny y - 34N q3W 92W - 91W 90W '89W .88W .B7W 86W 85W - - - C'lur /r/ An4cePo�lane 6 SANTA _ 104 Doan MONICA =y 43N r,yny109 110. 1,112'113114 n_ 42N 84W _ 83w 151 16 1 71 1 20 1 122123 LINE 41N 125126127 128129 N SEE 40 N 1 321 ruN,134135 136 137138 39N r 13914 1° I 1 143,144 145146 147 LEGEND 38'N 48149 9 151152 37N 153 EXISTING LEASE 36N 1 8 'Sp ,� f •.00 184 TRACT NO. 35N 34N - ♦ - F,b SALE #68 TRACT NUMBER 9 v Y 7 2 W 7 1 W 7 0 Y E45 45 `TP n N . .cop y r /rlyn 0 97 E50 30' ESS 15' I ...�✓j snn,e Isiondo rslpne 1:9 1 E65 45 > 1 ��HMO SCALE 1:50Q000 p,000 o io,000 b0,000 �00,000 FEET STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM- - Blocks Inat are based on the California (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System Zone 6,have on x origin:' 2,000,000 of 116015, and y origin=0 00of 32010' The Identification of the State Plane blocks are based on the numerical sequence N (North) starting of y origin, and the numerical sequence W (West) starting at the central meridian. Example Block 26 N-82W Each regular block In the State Plane System contains 5760 acres. - - - UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (UTM) - - svoo The boundaries of the regular UTM blocks are 4,800 international meters on a side and contain 2,304 hectares. The regular boundaries are defined In terms of x and y coordinates of the Universal Transverse L OS - Mercator Grid System based.on the Clark Spheroid of 1866. ' A N G E L E S The blocks are numbered starting with the first tier northerly of the equator as "N 1:' The first range of blocks westerly of the central meridian of each UTM zone Is designated "E 100'. Thus,O block numbered "N 200-E 96 would be the 200th block northerly of the equator and the 5th block westerly of the central meridian 6f the reweetrve UTM zone. Base compiled from G.S. Topographic Sheets Long Beach,and Santa Marla, 1:250,000 series. (United States) LONG BEACH The approximate position of a line 3 geographic' miles from the coast Is-ihown thus— The areas 6 Of the fractional blocks abutting that line have not been determined, J R - Bothymetry in meters at selected intervals, - -' 45' 164 - Bose Prepared 6/3/76 16 Revised .613/80 / 65 HUNTINGTON - BEACH 1 6 COST. MESA 68 169 ... 171 r . 178 LAGUNA BEACH 173 174175 176 1 18418 `F 3° z ° 3-3 187188 17 80 1 86 3Po ' son M.1.0 Pr , C F ♦° R i s c i ♦ • 00 9 � nc - 0 EANSIDE - CARLSBAD - �I�, I I(",, I I \70 d° \ s s FA SO rb 10, 32 31W 30W 29 W' 28W 27W 26W 25 Y. tin 2, 33 W E75 / 3 9 W 38 W 3 7 W 3 6 W MAR SAN DI EGO 45' s �o . bin • 1CW 19W � � ' CAL_FOR -- MEXICO tc Q� E70 E75 1 - 30 - - �3' ,�e• 45 30' •5 - ur• 1 1 � City of Newport Bea Office of the 'Mayor February 3, 1982 This, is a recap of the February 2 meeting with Mayor Tom Brad- ley, representatives of Southern California coastal cities and attorneys representing the Governor, Attorney General and City of Los Angeles. The Department of the Interior published in the Federal Register on January 29 the Proposed Notice of Sale for OCS oil and gas Lease Sale 68. The proposed sale is tentatively scheduled for June 2, 1982 and contains 172 tracts located offshore Southern California. The Governor has 60 days (March 31) to review the proposal and to comment upon the size, timing and location pursuant to Section 19 OCS Lands Act. The Act requires that DOI accept the Governor's recommendations if they determine that "they provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the interest of the State." However, you may remember that in Lease Sale 53, the DOI chose not to accept the Governor's recom- mendation and decreed that it did not have to meet the consis- tency requirement of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Teddy Berger, State Attorney General's Office, reported on the progress of the State'-s suit challenging DOI's action. U.S. District Court agreed with California and local government. On January 15th the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has accepted appeal as an expedited case. (This could take up to two years, however, and extend past the date for initiation of the lease sale.) • On OCS 68, DOI issued a negative declaration and made the finding that the sale does not affect the Coastal Zone. The State indicated that as soon as DOI does Something on 68, they would challenge as they did in OCS 53 if they get local government support. in a decision by the Court of Appeal of the District of Columbia in October, the five-year leasing plan adopted by former DOI Secretary Andrus was held to be invalid. Now there is a controversy over what that means in regard to Secretary Watt's accelerated leasing plan. DOI is contending that Secretary Watt knew in r . 0 Page Two advance what the court would hold and has already adopted a new plan in compliance with the court's opinion. The State's position is that a new draft plan should be prepared and subject to the statutory procedures set forth in the OCS Lands Act. If the court does not agree with DOI, Andrus' earlier plan will remain in effect until Watt complies. The new leasing program will be circulated in March for 30 days for comment. Up until the time the revision is completed, scheduled leasing could go forward. Air Quality The Air Quality regulations promulgated by DOI and finalized on 3-80 were challenged by the State as inadequate on 6-81 (John Saurenman, AG's Office). Jan Chatten-Brown filed an Amicus for LA and is carrying legal action on behalf of LA, South Coast Air Quality and AQMD. The air quality impacts have been determined as substantial and if local governments want representation, they need to be involved. Mike Foley of Science Applications, Inc. 1-454-3811 (our air quality expert in JWA EIR suit) has a good handle on what needs to happen here. Local Government Comments Local government concerns need to be in the Governor's Office by the first week in March. In discussing the role of local government in the commenting process, Ms.. Berger stressed the need for a complete administrative record. Points not raised in the EIS or commenting period may be precluded from being raised in court. Emphasis should be placed on impacts which might affect local revenue and economy. Although non -quantifia- ble issues like species survival and aesthetics should be raised, DOI will probably give greater consideration to quantifiable items such as decline in property value or tourist revenues. It is imperative to meticulously and logically articulate the resources that are at risk and what the stakes are before stating political or emotional positions. We were urged to review and comment upon proposed stipulations as well as the tracts to be leased since the environmental acceptability of leasing can be greatly influenced by conditions imposed. In commenting on the FEIS, emphasize its failures. If our tracts have been excluded in the past, we should force DOI to justify putting them up for sale now. Page Three Governor's Position Up to this point in time, the Governor's Office has indi- cated that he will be supporting most of Lease Sale 68. The only exceptions are Santa Monica Bay and several tracts off Santa Barbara. Those are the only ones he is aware of as sensitive"(according to Mike Shapiro of the Governor's Office) By default, Orange County tracts are not recognized. Except for my personal letter to the Governor, hand delivered by Pacific Mutual, we have not sent any documentation to support our position. Coastal Commission Mari Gottdiener is the OCS staff person on the Coastal Commis- sion. She indicated that the Coastal Commission will challenge DOI's ruling. The Commission will address this issue and make recommendations at the second meeting in March in Los Angeles. Since they have not heard from us officially, Newport tracts have never been considered. It is imperative that we document the coastal act policies impacted by this sale and get our material to them in time to be considered in their staff report. Summary Documentation individually geared to respond to the various agency's areas of oversight must be pulled together as soon as possible. I believe a strong letter of protest and a request to reopen and extend the comment period should go to Secretary Watt and Pacific Office Director Bill Grant because our original comments were not either included or responded to in the final EIS. Coordination between coastal cities, political action and a public awareness program must be orchestrated right away. I will be meeting with Bob Badham on Friday. He advised me to meet with Tyler Brinker, Western Regional Drilling Manager for Union Oil to get a feel for the attractiveness of the Newport Beach leases to the industry. Mr. Brinker advised me that Union bid $1 million for tract 177 at the last sale and was rejected as too low. He said "soundings" have been encouraging. I will appreciate the opportunity to meet and plan our course of action. JACKIE HEATHER ayor JH/jmb C] United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 JAN 2 9 199- Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor of California Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor Brown: Pursuant to section 19 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, we have enclosed for your review a copy of the proposed Notice of Sale for OCS oil and gas lease sale 68. This proposed sale is tentatively scheduled for June 1982 and contains 172 tracts located offshore Southern California. The proposed sale notice will also be published in the Federal Register We would appreciate receiving within 60 days of the date oT t is letter any comments you might have concerning the size; timing, or location of the proposed sale.. , While the total number, of tracts considered for the sale was 208 (218 blocks), we have decided to defer leasing on those tracts or parts of tracts which are located.within six nautical miles of the Channdl Islands as well as 23 tracts which the Department of Defense had requested not be in this sale. The stipulations on leases proposed for this sale includes a requirement for smooth wellhead and pipeline design if feasible and appropriate. This "is the same language adopted in the recent Cook Inlet sale offshore Alaska 060). We have also incorporated language pertaining to a fisheries training program and the State requested shallow gas clause in the Notice to Lessees section. The comments you provide on the proposed Notice will be used in'making our final decision on the proposed sale. As you know; the OCS Lands Act requires that we accept your recommendations regarding the size, timing, or location of the proposed sale if we determine that they provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the. interests of your State. If you believe that changes in the size, timing, or location of the sale as proposed are necessary to protect the interests of your State, and that these changes need to be discussed personally with Depart- ment of the Interior officials to achieve a balanced sale decision, you may have your representative contact Mr. Alan Powers, Director of the Office of OCS Program Coordination (202-343-9311) who will arrange for Assistant Secretary J. Robinson West or myself to call you or meet with you. If this type of consultation will be necessary, please advise us as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the 60-day comment period. Your written comments, however, will be given as much considera- tion as any personal consultation. ,j 2 In order to fully consider your recommendations, and to -allow opportunity for further consultation if necessary, it is important that wereceive your comments by the end of the 60-day comment period provided by section 19(b) of the OCS Lands Act. We have included a•copy of the Secretarial Issue Document and the decision memorandum used for this sale for your convenience in reviewing the proposed Notdce of Sale. tcerely, %• Enclosures United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. =40 JAPE 2 81982 Mr. Michael L. Fischer California Coastal COMmission 631 Boward street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Mr"ischer: The Draft Environmental 'Impact Statement (LEIS) for OCS Sale 68 (Southern California) was sent to the California Coastal Owmission (CCC) this Past June. Your office responded by Providing eomaents on -ire DEIS and they were considered in preparation of the FEIS. BOwever, as of this date, which is well beyond the 45 day notification period provided for by 15 CFR 930.35(b), we have ractvi eceiveda request from the CCC for a consistency determination for the pre- ties associated with this sale. Fie are, though, enclosing for your information our assessment of Sale '68 which we performed in aceor3ano>e -witht Act (its promulgated under Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Mang (See Attachment l.) In short, we found no direct effects on the California coastal zone from the pre - lease activities associated with Lease Sale 68. The effects on coastal land and water uses which may arise from post lease activities are not, for Sale 68, direct effects of leasing decisions but rather the effects of subsequent decisions and events. These effects are subject to a consistency certification under Section 307(c)(3), but not a consistency determination under Section 307(c)(1). Through your authority under Section 307(c)(3), the can, barring the exceP- tional case of an override by the Secretary of Ommerce, prevent or require the modification of any of the federally permitted OCS operational activities, and their associated faeilitiesth, which ffectean land use nt the C r ova er use in this stat- utory zone and are fourkr by Y� exercising its own authority, only franxywork, California is assured that, by consistent activities will occur after lease away. While we found no -direct effects on the California coastal es nevertheless have examined the enforceable provisions of the CQ4p as approved ythe Secreary . activities, of Commerce and found none that applies to OCS oil and gas P e-lea the nV with OCS lease sales, or lease award. in fact, we found nothing which OCS Sale 68 is inconsistent. The provisions of the COT which may be relevant to OCS oil and gas activities for purposes of consistency are appli- cable only to exploration and development activities, their associated facilities, and their potential effects on the coastal zone. Notwithstanding our finding of no "direct effects" for activities n "ea�reparampre- for Sale 68, we want to assure that you have an opportunity a hensive review of proposed federal leasing activities" as indicated in your letter of October 28, 1981. We have thus enclosed a copy of the proposed notice of sale and an extra copy of .the FEIS for ,Sale 68 for your review (Attachments 2 and 3). These documents reflect the bestinformationwe erom the � includingn the Potent me effects of Post -lease activities which may f best information on potential cumulative effects which may -occur over the next ,, when, wherer how muchr and few decades. Due to the high uncertainty as rich may affect the California what kind of production activity may teplace effects is based on hypothetical coast, the enclosed information about Po effects scenarios and must, of course, be viewed as spec As indicated in my $eQtember 301 1981, letter to Governor Blown �Aas �letachmnt ,, we are keenly interested in and would like to understand consas istency Problems your views and any concerns You may have about potentialprojected in the associated with the exploration and development activities scenarios for Sale 68. Specifically, would You Please inform us of any of the exploration and development operational activities, associated facilities the ex for Sion a ► a the specific effects of these activities and facilities CPRconsistency probndic under the COMP. If which, in your view, may Pose future you identify potential consistency problems, Please ixdicate in detail the each activity, facility, or effect has subsections of the CC" with which the potential to be inconsistent. Please also explainr with reference to the the CCMP, the rationale for your belief that each relevant subsection of potential consistency Problem exists and the manner in which the applicable subsection of the COMP is enforced. your thorough response to these requests will allow us to adequately consider your consistency concerns before the Secretary makes his decisions on the final notice of sale. We believe that a full exchange of information and views as outlined led Such early ccnr- above would be extremely useful ito n re moving obstacles which in the Past may conflicts between the CCC and the Department of the Interior. munication and consultation is one of the key purposes of the CZM Act and the CCS Lands Act Amendments. It is also vital to sound decisionmaking at both the state and federal levels. We look forward to your response. Sincerely. i. 1;?Abinson West policy, Budget Assistant Secretary - and Administration EnclosUM 0 ATTACHMENT 1 Description of Assessment of Effects of OCS Lease Sale 68 In accordance with the Section 307(c)(1) federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and Subpart C of 15 CFR 930, we have assessed the possible effects of the Department's pre -lease activities associated with OCS lease Sale 68 and found that none directly affects the California cciastal zone. The rationale for this finding is set forth below. We have determined, after a careful review of the proposed Notice -of sale, that, in itself, a lease award for any of the tracts listed in the proposed Notice of Sale for OCS Sale 68 will neither permit nor require a lessee to undertake an activity with coastal zone effects. Before the California coastal zone could be affected by any exploration or development activity, the lessee of any of these tracts must seek area receive the approval of Deputy Conservation Manager for such an activity. Therefore we have found, in light of the April 20, 1979 Opinion of the Department of Justice, the October 101 1979 Opinion of our Solicitor regarding the plain meaning of the section 307(c)(1) requirement, and the facts associated with the proposed lease sale, -that none of the terms and conditions of proposed lease Sale 68 nor the subsequent award of leases for any of these tracts will directly affect the California coastal zone. in making this finding, particular attention was paid to the following aspects of the proposed'sale: the stipulations, the final configuration of lease tracts and the award of leases. In general, lease stipulations impose legal requirements on the lessee. Consequently, the requirements of each proposed stipulation for this sale were examined. She Secretary's decision to issue the Final Notice of sale will identify exactly which tracts will be offered for sale. The notice provides the best proposed estimates of these tracts. We thus examined the geographical location of the tracts listed in the Proposed notice. She subsequent award of leases to successful bidders grants them conditional rights. Therefore, we scrutinized the terms of the potential leases to determine if lessees would be permitted or required to urdertake an activity with coastal zone effects. None of these three aspects or any other aspects of the activities associated with the lease sale were found to directly affect the coastal zone. The effects on the California coastal zone which -may arise from exploration, development and production activities associated with Sale 68 are not•the direct effects of leasing decisions. Father, they are the effects of actions resulting from subsequent decisions and events, the details of which are in large part unknown prior to the exploration stage. These post -leasing stage actions are S Geol ical Survey permits and thus the rigorous consistency subject to U. . 09 requirements of section 307(c)(3). to a • AzzaerjMent 4 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 SEP 3,0 1981 Honorable Edmund G. Brownr Jr. Governor of California Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor Brown: At a September 16, 1981 hearing before the Oceanography Subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, questions were raised by coastal state witnesses about the federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). One of the key concerns expressed was the need for comprehensive review of early phases of federal activities and consideration of state views by federal agencies. The witnesses expressed a desire to have such coordination so that potential consistency problems could be discussed and if possible resolved at the early planning stages. We believe that such an exchange of information and views would be beneficial to coastal states and our Department, especially for the Outer Continental Shelf (CCS) oil and gas program. Consequently, in the future our Department will provide your state's CZM agency with a copy of each proposed notice of sale for each OCS sale which affects your state, along with the environmental inmpact statement and any other pertinent information. We will request that your state CZM agency respond by indicating the particular potential exploration and development activities and effects that might pose future consistency conflicts with specific enforceable provisions of your CZM program. We will then consider this information in our decisions on the content of the final notice of sale. In essence, we want you to know that under this procedure states will have an even more active and significant voice in the planning phase of the OCS program. We believe that many state consistency concerns can be understood more fully and addressed more precisely by such consultation. However, if this coordination isn't fully successful, under the CZMA your state still has extensive authority to block the issuance of permits for any inconsistent OCS exploration or development activities. This provides a safeguard to resolve any remaining problems. We want to be a good neighbor, especially in terms of the OCS oil and gas program. Both the CZM and OCS programs are too important to the nation to allow conflicts to evolve from misunderstanding and unanswered questions. We believe this new policy 0 consistent with the spirit of the CZMA and will go a long way to assuring the cooperation we both seek. We hope you agree. Sincerely, J. Robinson West Assistant Secretary — Policy, Budget and Administration t. 4310-84 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT CF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Outer Continental Shelf southern California Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale 68 With regard to oil and gas leasing on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to Sec. 19 of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, provides the affected States the opportunity to review the prcposed- sale notice. The following is a prcposed sale entice for Sale 68 in the waters offshore Southern California. This notice is hereby published as a matter of information to the public. Notice is hereby given that the area previously withheld from leasing as an adjunct to the Federal Ecological Preserve in Public Land Omer 4587, March 21, 1969 (34 Federal Recce 5655, March 26, 1969) is now being considered for leasing. JAI 15 1982 Date: Apvoved: JAN 2 9 1982 Z Secretary oJ the Interior Donald Paul Hodel Robert F. Burford { a r • • 11 Proposed Notice of Sale OCS Sale No. 68, Southern California 1. Authority This notice is published pursuant to the outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1331-1343), as amended, (92 Stat. 629), and the regulations issued thereunder (43 CFR Part 3300). i 2. Filing of Bids. Sealed bids will be received by the -Manager, Pacific outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1340 West 6th Street, Room 200, Las Angeles, California 90017. Bids may be delivered, either by mail or in person, to the above address until 4:00 p.m., p.s.t., June 1, 1982; or by personal delivery to the (place of sale), (address), (City and State), between the hours of 8:30 a.m., p.s.t. and 9:30 a.m., p.s.t., June'2, 1982. Bids received by the Manager later than the times and dates specifier] above will be returned unopened to the bidders. Bids may not be modified or withdrawn unless written modification or withdrawal is received by the Manager prior to 9:30 a.m., p.s.t., June 2, 1982. All bids must be submitted and will be considered in accordance with applicable regulations, including 43 CFR Part 3300. The list of restricted joint bidders which applies to this sale was published at _ FR , 1982• 3. Method of Bidding. A separate bid in a sealed envelope, labeled "Sealed Bid for Oil and Gas Lease (insert number of tract), not to be opened until 10 a.m., p.s.t., June 21 1982," must be submitted for each tract. •A suggested form appears in 43 CFR Part 3300, Appendix A. Bidders are advised that tract numbers are assigned solely for administrative purposes and are not the sane as block numbers found on official protraction diagrams or leasing maps. All bids received 1 r N. • ru shall be deemed submitted for a numbered tract. Bidders must submit with each bid one -fifth of the cash bonus in cash or by cashier's check, bank draft, or certified check, payable to the order of the, Bureau of Lard Management. No bid for less than a -full tract as described in paragraph 12 wail be considered. Bidders submitting joint bids must state on the bid form the proportionate interest of each participating bidder, in percent to a maximum of three decimal places after the decimal point, e.g., 50.123%, as well as submit a sworn alified under 43 crR Subpart 3316. statement that the bidder is qu The suggested form for this statement to be used in joint bids appears in 43 CT'R Part 3300 Appendix B. Other documents may be zeguired of bidders under 43 CFR 3316.4. Bidders are warned against violation of 18 r U.S.C. 1860, prohibiting unlawful combination or intimidation ofbidders. 4. BjggR Systens. All leases awarded 'far this sale will provide for a yearly rental payment and a minimum annual royalty of $8 per hectare or $3 per acre, or fraction thereof. The follaving system, will be utilized: al Bids on tracts (a) Bonus Bidding with a 16-2/3 Percent_ oy ty 68-9, 68-101 68-13, 68-17, 68-23, 68-24, 68-57, 68-58, 6829, 68-60, 68-61, 68-62, 68-63, 68-64, 68-65, 68-66, 68-67, 68-681 68-70, 68 71, 68 72, 68-74, 68 78, 68 79, 68-80, 68-81, 68-82, 68-83, 68-84, 68-85, 68-90, 68-91, 68-92, 68-93, 68-94, 68-95, 68-96, 68-101, 68-124, 68-131, 68-139, 68-140, 68-148, 68-149, 68-150, 68-153, 68-154, 68-155, 68-156, 68-157, 68-158, 68-164, 68-165, 68-168, 68 169, 68-170, 68-171, 68-1731 68-174, 68-175, 68-199, 68 200, and 68 201 must be submitted on cash bonus basis with a fixed royalty of 16-2/3 percent. 2 �y F (b) Bonus Bidding with a 12-1/2 Percent Royalty. Bids on the remaining tracts to be offered at this sale must be submitted on a cash bonus basis with a fixed royalty of 12 1/2 percent. 5. Equal Opportunity. Each bidder must have submitted by 9:30 a.m., p.s.t., June 28'1982, the certification required bry 41 CFR 60-1.7(b) and Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as anended by Executive order No. 11375 of Octcber 131 1967, on the compliance Report certification Form, Form 1140-8 (November 1973), .and the Affizmative Action Representation Form, Form 1140-7 (December 1971). See Item 14, "Information to Lessees." 6. Bid opening. Bids will be opened on June 2, 1982, beginning at 10:00 a.m., p.s.t., at the second address stated in Paragraph 2. The opening of the bids is for the sole purpose,of publicly announcing bids received and no bids will be accepted or rejected at that time. I£ the Department is prohibited for any reason from cpening any bid before midnight, June 2, 1982, that bid will be returned unopened to the bidder, as soon thereafter as possible. 7. Deposit of Payment. Any cash, cashier's checks, certified checks or bank drafts submitted with a bid may be deposited in a suspense account in the D.S. Treasury during the period the bids are being considered. Such a deposit does not constitute and shall not be construed as acceptance of any bid on behalf of the United States. 8. Withdrawal of Tracts. The United States reserves the right to withdraw any tract fran this sale prior to issuance of a written acceptance of a bid for that tract. 9. Acceptance or Rejection of Bids. 3 The United States reserves • . • y the right to reject any and all bids for any tract. In any case, no bid for any tract will be accepted and no lease for any tract will be awarded to any bidder unless: (a) The bidder has cmplied with all requirements of this notice and applicable regulations; (b) The bid is the highest valid cash bonus bid; and (c) The a=mt of the bid has been determined to be adequate by the Secretary of the Interior. No bid will be considered for acceptance unless it offers a cash bonus in the amount of , or more per acre or fraction thereof or _ or more per hectare or fraction thereof. (The Department Of 'the Interior is considering increasing the miniu^ bid on a tract by a substantial amount over the previous 425 Per acre or $62 Per hectare.) 10. Successful Bidders. Each person %t:o has submitted a bid accepted by the Secretary of the interior will be required to execute copies of the lease specified below, pay the balance of the cash bonus bid together with the first year's rental and satisfy the bonding requirements of 43 CFR Subpart 3318 within the time Provided in 43 CPR 3316.5. il. Leasing M s/Official Protraction Diagrams. Tracts offered for lease may be located on the following leasing maps or official protraction diagrams vhich are available from the Manager, Pacific outer Continental Shelf office at the first address stated in Paragraph 2: "(a) outer Continental Shelf Leasing Maps, Channel Islands Area. Maps 6A, 6B and 6D sell for $1.00 each; Map 6C sells for $2.00. (b) outer Continental Shelf official Protraction Diagram NI 11-10, San Clenmte. This map sells for $2.00. 4 a h Y 12. Tract Descriptions. The tracts offered for bids are as follows: Note: There may be gaps in the numbers of the tracts listed. 5 „, OCS LEASING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CHANNEL ISLANDS AREA LIST OCS SALE #68 MAP NO. 6A (REVISED JULY 24 1967) Tract Block No. Description Acres 68-001 55N 891? All 4632.80 68-002 55N 88W All A542.04 68-003 55N 87W All 4451.17 68-004 55N 86W All 4360.19 68-005 54N 89W All 5760 68-006 54N 88W All 5760 68-007, 54N 87W All 5760 68-008 54N 86W All 5760 68-000 54N 82W 1/ *3700 68-010 54N 76W 1/ * 160 68-011 53N 87W All 5760 68-012 53N 86W All 5760 68-013 53N 72W 1/ *3700 68-014 52N 86W All 5760 68-015 52N 85W All 5760 68-016 52N 84W All 5760 68-017 52N 82W All 5760 68-018 52N 73W All 5760 68-019 52N 72W All 5760 68-020 51N 87W All 5760 68-021 51N 86W All 5760 68-022 51N 85W All 5760 68-023 51N 80W All 5760 68-024 51N'79W All 5760 68-025 51N 77W All 5760 68-026 51N 76W All' 5760 68-027 51N 75W All 5760 68-028 51N 74W All 5760 68-029 51N 73W All 5760 68-030 51N 72W All 5760 68-031 50N 86W All 5760 68-032 50N 85W All 5760 68-033 50N 84W All 5760 68-034 50N 82W All 5760 68-035 50N 81W All 5760 68-036 5ON 78W All 5760 68-037 50N 77W All 5760 68-038 5ON 75W All 5760 68-039 50N 74W All 5760 68-040 49N 85W All 5760 68-OQ 49N 84W 2/ *5754.03 68-042 49N 83W 2/ *4378.54 68-043 49N 82W 2/ *2983.98 68-044 49N 81W 2/ *4235.62 68-045 49N 8OW 2/ *3376.41 68-046 49N 7,9W 2/ *3950.41 TENTATIVE TRACT LIST OCS SALE #68 LEASE MAP N0. 6A (Continued) Tract Block No. Description Acres 68-047 49N 74W All 5760 68-048 48N 85W All 5760 68-049 48N 84W 2/ *4118.04 68-052 48N 73W All 5760 68-053 48N 72W 2/ *5602.12 68-054 47N 84W 2/ *1406.43 68-057 ON 73W 2/ *975.14 68-058 ON 72W 2/ *3410.96 68-059 37N 73W All -5760 OCS LEASING MAP CHANNEL ISLANDS AREA MAP NO. 6B (REVISED JULY 24, 1967)_ 68-060 53N 71W 1/ *1200 68-061 52N 71W 1/ *5600 68-062 52N 70W 1/ *4000 68-063 51N 70W Ell, ElVk 4320 68-064 51N 69W All 5760 68-065 SIN 68W S31N'�, S31 4320 68-066 51N 67W S'k 2880 68-067 51N 66W 2880 68-068 51N 62W, 1/ *2520 SON 62W 68-070 SON 68W All 5760 68-071 SON 67W All 5760 68-072 SON 66W All 5760 68-074 SON 61W, l/ *2921 SON 60W 1/ 68-078 49N 67W All 5760 68-079 49N 66W All 5760 68-080 49N 65W All 5760 68-081 49N 64W All 5760 68-082 49N 63W All 5760 68-083 49N 62W All 5760 68-084 49N 61W All 5760 68-085 49N 60W, l/ *4464 49N 59W 1/ 68-087 48N 71W 2/ *3671.80 68-088 48N 70W 2/ *3690.13 68-089 48N 69W 2/ *4673.60 68-090 48N 68W 2/ *5742.67 68-091„ 48N 67W All 5760 68-092 48N 66W All 5760 68-093 48N 65W All 5760 68-094 48N 64W All 5760 68-095 48N 63W All 5760 68-096 47N 59W, l/ *5069 47N 58W 1/ 68-101 45N 58W 2/ *2688.86 68-105 44N 58W 2/ *994.97 68-112 43N 58W 2/ *2005.77 4 LEASE MAP NO. 6B (Continued) Tract Block No. :Description Acres 68-115 42N 6ZW 2/ *243.34 68-122 42N 54W All 5760 68-123 42N 53W All 5760 68-124 41N 71W, 2/ *5091.15 40N 71W 2/ 68-125 41N 60W 2/ *4864.51 68-128 41N 51W All 5760 68-129 41N 50W All 5760 68-131 ON 70W All 5760 68-132 ON 69W All 5760 68-136 ON 51W All 5760 68-137 ON 50W All 5760 68-138 ON 49W All 5760 68-139 39N 71W All 5760 68-140 39N 70W All 5760 68-141 39N 69W All 5760 68-145 39N 50W All 5760 68-146 39N 49W All 5760 68-147 39N 47W All 5760 68-148 38N 717All 5760 68-149 38N 70W All 5760 68-150 38N 69W All 5760 68-151 38N 47W All '5760 68-152 38N 46W All 5760 68-153 37N 71W All 5760 68-154 37N 70W All 5760 68-155 37N 69W All 5760 68-156 36N 71W All 5760 68-157 36N 70W All 5760 68-158 36N 69W All 5760 68-159 34N 41W All 5760 68-160 34N 40W All 5760 68-161 33N 41W All 5760 68-162 33N 40W All 5760 68-163 32N 40W All 5760 OCS LEASING MAP. CHANNEL ISLANDS AREA MAP NO. 6C (REVISED APRIL 25, 19i 00-1V4 JV. 35N I.., 37W, =/ NENE'� 35N 36W 1/ 68-165 35N 38W 1/ *5100 68-16� 34N 39W All '5760 68-169 34N 36W All 5760 68-170 33N 39W All 5760, 68-171 33N 38W All 5760 68-172 32N 39W All 5760 68-173 32N 37W A11 5760 68-174 32N 35W All 5760 , TENTATIVE TRACT LIST OCS SALE #68 LEASE MAP NO. 6C (Continued) Tract Block No. Description Acres 68-175 32N 34W All 5760 68-176 32N 33W 1/ *5700 68-177 32N 32W 1/ *3900 68-178 32N 31W, 1/ *4900 31N 31W 1/ 68-179 31N 39W A11 5760 68-180 31N 38W All 5760 68-181 31N 37W All 5760 68-182 31N 34W All 5760 68-183 31N 33W All 5760 68-184 31N 32W All 5760 68-186 30N 37W All 5760 68-187 30N 32W All 5760 68-188 30N 31W All 5760 OCS LEASING MAP CHANNEL ISLANDS AREA MAP NO. 6D (APPROVED AUGUST 8, 1966) Tract Block No. Description Acres 68-195 20N 66W All 5760 68-196 20N 65W All 5760 68-197 20N 64W All 5760 68-198 19N 66W .All 5760 68-199 19N 63W All 5760 68-200 19N 62W All 5760 68-201 19N 61W All 5760 68-202 13N 54W All 5760 68-203 13N 53W All 5760 68-204 13N 52W All 5760 68-205 12N 54W All 5760 68-206 12N 52W All 5760 68-207 12N 51W All 5760 68-208 11N 53W All 5760 68-209 11N 52W All 5760 68-210 11N 51W All 5760 68-211 ION 50W All 5760 68-212 ION 49W All 5760 68-213 ION 48W All 5760 r 9. TENTATIVE TRACT LIST OCS SALE #68 OCS OFFICIAL PROTRACTION DIAGRAM NI 11-10 SAN CLEMENTE (APPROVED SEPTEMBER 27, 1977) Tract Block No. Description Hectares 68-214 N751 E66 (426) All 325.60 68-215 14751 E67 (427) All 342.99 68-216 N751 E68 (428) All 360.34 68-217 N750 E66 (470) All 2304 68-218 N750 E67 (471) All 2304 68-219, N750 E68 (472) All 2304 6B-220 N749 E67 (515) All 2304 68-221 N749 E68 (516) All 2304 * Estimated l/ That portion seaward of the Three Geographical Mile Line. 2/ Seaward of straight lines defined by coordinates based on the California (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System, Zone 6, with X origin - 2,000,000 at 1160 15', and Y origin - 0.00 at 320 101; as follows: X Y 1. 1 083 116.775 659 028.110 2. 1 090 706.145 668 411.986 3. 1 095 458.081 689 505.297 4. 1 089 764.637 706 897.326 5. 1 079 496.859 717 556.263 6. 1 067 952.171 722 765.464 7. 1 049 567.015 723 635.502 8. 1 046 245.123 723 092.415 9. 1 038 155.138 724 350.732 10. 1 032 254.837 724 355.602 11. 1 022 654.512 730 932.219 12. 1 019 326.153 732 622.546 13. 1 013 397.117 736 301.031 14. 989 692.237 739 534.295 15. 983 015.566 738 568.150 16. 968 383.353 732 739.562 17. 957 170.832 737 567.743 18. 936 446.824 743 185.260 19. 933 072.704 743 002.280 20. 928 459.797 743 236.506 21. 925 409.789 744 379.354 22. 915 538.620 747 443.255 23. 910 748.956 748 718.057 24. 899 713.001 750 272.216 25. 886 261.357 751 086.957 26. 878 730.328 749 810.OB0 27. 859 696.145 736 934.674 28. 852 938.315 737 775.497 29. 839 611.004 735 696.449 30. 831 912.313 734 113.427 31. 816 880.230 734 813.OB2 32. 801 204.129 729 901.097 33. 796 632.417 730 515.155 34. 789 160.912 739 918.764 35. 779 318.761 746 523.282 36. 777 402.971 750 484.062 37. 771 877.911 757 339.723 38. 767 915.796 760 722.078 39. 760 382.615 765 047.179 40. 740 272.507 767 604.303 41. 737 046.583 767 054.160 42. 727 246.513 762 837.874 43. 713 276.546 768 088.489 44. 703 420.467 768 297.318 45. 684 780.675 760 677.050 46. 670 966.876 732 206.934 47. 671 599.869 724 689.151 48. 674 371.152 716 183.286 49. 686'779.840 701 481.035 50. 690 029:831 699 142.297 51. 692 298.780 689 391.058 52. 701 747.522 675 677.421 53. 723 069.900 666 264.467 54. 735 049:054 665 081.067 55. 748 789.017 660 536.666 56. 764 228.804 661 054.023 57. 769 122.179 658 108.385 58. 772 836.313 650 753.300 59. 779 449.843 633 994.492 60. 792 078.702 628 782.802 61. 799 909.378 623 445.039 62. 804 520.649 620 503.974 63. 820 422.101 614 161.279 64. 830 174.377 613 631.191 65. 840 007.314 615 467.730 66. 848 179.204 619 149.401 67. 851 849.836 620 378.195 68. 872 385.591 629 382.180 69. 885 199.943 631 622.818 70. 897 823.727 639 091.019 71. 901 394.249 638 113.359 72. 925 712.146 634 751.562 73. 931 467.929 635 433.826 74. 939 736.895 633 861.638 75. 956 778.905 634 162.461 76. 966 857.459 637 824.916 77. 975 764.663 642 187.773 11 X Y 'I ft 78. 985 465.332 642 167.877 79. 988 953.297 648 497.139 80. 999 386.345 644 365.129 81. 1 008 333.302 646 451.071 82. 1 019 643.123 651 576.513 83. 1 026 037.610 649 650.043 84. 1 037 229.744 646 868.729 85. 1 042 340.607 645 566.294 86. 1 049 479.392 645 430.853 87. 1 055 695.598 646 218.407. 88. 1 058 718.100 646 989.213 89. 1 065 052.124 649 236.492 90. 1 068 364.568 651 053.089 12 13. Lease Terms and Stipulations. Leases resulting from this sale for tracts 68 132, 68-195, 68=198, 68-204, 68-206, 68-207, 68-208, 68-209, 68-210, 68-218, 68-219, 68-220 and 68-221 will be for an initial terns of ten years. All other leases issued as a result of this sale will be for an initial term of 3 years. Leases issued as a result of this sale will be on Form 3300 1 (September 1978), available from the Manager, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf office, at the first address stated in paragraph 2. (b) kept as otherwise noted, the following stipulations will be included in each lease resulting from this sale. In the following stipulations, the term D=FO refers to the Pacific Area Deputy Conservation Manager, Offshore Field Operations of the D.S. Geological Survey, and the term Manager refers to the Manager of the Pacific OCS Office of the Bureau of Lard Management. Stipulation No. 1 (a) If the DCM0FO has reason to believe that biological populations or habitats exist and require protection, he shall give the lessee notice that the lessor is invoking the provisions of this stipulation and the lessee shall comply with the following requirements. Prior to any drilling activity or the construction or placement of any structure for exploration or development on lease areas including, but not limited to, well drilling and pipeline and platform placement, hereinafter referred to as "operation," the lessee shall conduct site specific surveys as approved by the DCWFO and in accordance with prescribed biological survey requirements to determine the existence of any special biological resource including, but not limited to: (1) Very unusual, rare, or uncommon ecosystems or ecotones. (2) A species of limited regional distribution that may be adversely affected by any lease operations. If the results of such surveys suggest the existence of a special biological resource that may be adversely affected by any lease operation, the lessee shall: (1) relocate the site of such cperation so as not to adversely affect the resources identified; or (2) establish to the satisfaction of the DCMDFO, on the basis of the site specific survey, either that such operation will not have a significant adverse effect upon the resource identified or that a special biological resource does 13 not exist. The DCWM will review all data submitted and determine, in writing, whether a -special biological resource exists and whether it may be significantly affected by the lessee's operations.. The lessee may take no action until the DCMOM has given the lessee written directions on how to proceed. (b) The 'lessee agrees that if any area of biological significance should be discovered during the conduit of any operations on the leased area, he shall report immediately such findings to the DCMDM, and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect the biological resource from damage until the DCMXD has given the lessee directions with respect to its protection. Stipulation No. 2 If the DCM.7Fo, having reason to believe that a site, structure or object of historical or archaeological significance, hereinafter referred to as a "cultural resource," may exist in the lease .area, gives the 'lessee written notice that the lessor is invoking the provisions -of this stipulation, the lessee shall upon receipt of such notice canply with the following requirements: Prior to any drilling activity or the construction or placement of any structure for exploration or development an the lease, including but not limited to, well drilling and pipeline and platform placement, hereinafter in this stipulation referred to as "operation," the lessee shall conduct remote sensing surveys to determine the potential existence of any cultural resource that may be •affected by such operations. All data produced by such remote sensing surveys as well as other pertinent natural and cultural environmental data shall be examined by a qualified marine survey archaeologist to.determine if indicators arepresent suggesting the existence of a cultural resource .that may be adversely affected by any lease operation. A report of this survey and assessment prepared by the marine survey archaeologist shall be submitted by the lessee to the DCMJFO and the Manager for review., If such cultural resource indicators are present the, lessee shall: (1) locate the site of such operation so as not to adversely affect the identified location; or (2) establish, to the satisfaction of the Dam, on the basis of further archaeological investigation conducted by a qualified marine survey archaeologist or underwater archaeologist using such survey equipment and techniques as deemed necessary by the DCMDFO, either that such operation shall not adverseiy affect the location identified or that the potential cultural resource suggested by the occurrence of the indicators does not exist. A report of this investigation prepared by the marine survey arch'heologist or underwater archaeologist shall be submitted to the DCMOM and the Manager for their review. Should the DCMDFO determine that the existence of a cultural resource which may be adversely affected by such operation is sufficiently established to warrant protection, the lessee shall take no action that may result in an adverse effect on such cultural resource until the DCMOM has given directions as to its preservation. 14 The lessee agrees that if any site, structure, or object of historical or archaeological significance should be discovered during the conduct of any operations on the leased area, he shall report immediately such findings to the DCM7Fo and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect the cultural resource from damage until the DCNDFO has given directions as to its preservation. Stipulation No. 3 (To be included in any lease resulting from this sale for tracts: 68-61 68-7, 68-81 68-91 68 11, 68-12, 68 13, 68 14, '68-18, 68-19, 68-21, 68-25, 68-26, 68-27, 68 28, 68 29, 68-30, 68 34, 68-35,•68-36, 68-37, 68-38, 68-39, 68-44, 68-45, 68-52, 68-53, 68-59, 68-601 68-61, 68-62, 68-63, 68-65, 68-66, 68-67, 68-68, 68-821.68-83, 68-84, 68-85, 68-1011 68-105, 68 123, 68 128, 68 129,-68 137, 68 147, 68-1591 68-160, 68 162, -68-163, 68-168, 68-170, 68 171, 68 172, 68 173, 68 174, 68-175, 68-176, 68-177, 68 178, 68-1821 68-1831 68-184, 68 199,,68-205, 68-2081 68-209, 68-220, and 68-221.) All or portions of this tract may contain mass transport deposits, steep slopes, or active faulting. Exploratory drilling operations, emplacement of structures (platforms) or seafloor wellheads .for production or storage of oil or gas, and the emplacement of pipelines will not be allowed within the potentially unstable portions of this lease block unless or until the lessee has demonstrated to the DCM3FO's satisfaction that mass transport of sediments or faulting is unlikely, -or that exploratory drilling operations, structures (platforms), casing, wellheads, and pipelines can be safely designed to •protect the environment in case such mass transport or faulting occurs -at the proposed location. This may necessitate that all exploration for and development of oil or gas be performed from locations outside of the area of instability, either within or outside of this lease block. If exploratory drilling operations are allowed, site -specific surveys shall be conducted to determine the potential for faulting and mass transport of sediments. If emplacement of structures (platforms) or seafloor wellheads for production or storage of oil or gas is .allowed, all active faults or mass transport deposits in the lease block must be mapped. The DCM7Fo may also require soil testing before exploration and production operations are allowed. Stipulation No. 4 (This stipulation applies to the following tracts located in military operating areas: 68-1 through 68-39, 68-57, 68 58, 68-59, 68-1011 - 68-1,05, 68-112, 68-125, 68-128 through 68-132, 68 136 through 68-141, 68-145 through 68-188, and 68-195 through 68-221.) (a) The lessee agrees that prior to operating or causing to be operated on its behalf boat or aircraft traffic into individual, designated warning areas, the lessee shall coordinate and canply with instructions from the Commander, Western Space and Missile Center (W=), the Caimander, Pacific Missile Test Center (PWC), and the C=nander, 15 4 Fleet Area Control and surveillance Facility (FACSFAC),'Or other appropriate military agency. Such coordination and instruction will provide for positive control of boats and aircraft operating in the warning areas at all times. (b) The lessee, recognizing that mineral exploration and exploitation and recovery operations of the leased areas of submerged lands can impede'tactical military operations, hereby recognizes and agreesght to pend operations of the�see under this lease inreserves and has the lthhe interests of 1Y national security requirements. Such temporary suspension of operations, mp including the evacuation of personnel, and appropriate sheltering of personnel not evacuated (an appropriate shelter shall mean the protection of all lessee personnel for the entire duration of any Department of Defense activity from flying or falling objects or substances), will cane into effect upon the order of the DCM)Fo, after consultation with the Commander, Western Space and Missile Center, (WSW), the Commander, Pacific Missile Test Center (PMTC), and the Commander, Fleet Area Control and surveillance Facility (FACSFAC), or other appropriate military agency,. or higher athority, when national security interests necessitate such action. It is understood that any teporary suspension of operations for national security may not exceed 72 hours; however, any such suspension may be. extended by order of the DCM7F0. During such periods equipment may remain in place. (c) The lessee agrees to control his own electromagnetic emissions and those of his agents, employees, invitees► independent tractors or emanating anating from individual, designated defense warning areas in accordance with requirements specified by the Commander, Western Space and Missile Center (WSMc)► the Commander, Pacific Missile Test Center (PM2_), and the Cammander, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC)► or other appropriate military agency, to the degree necessary to prevent damage to, or unacceptable interference with Department of Defense flight, testing or operations activities conducted within individual, designated warning areas. Necessary monitoring, control, and coordination with the lessee, his agents, employees' invitees, independent contractors or subcontractors, -will be effected by the Commander of the appropriate onshore military installation conducting operations in the particular warning area: provided, however, that control of such electromagnetic emissions shall permit at. least mecontinuous channel of communication between a lessee, its agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors or subcontractors and onshore facilities. Stipulation No. 5 Whether or not carmpensation for such damage or injury might be due under a theory of strict or absolute liability or otherwise, the lessee assumes all risks of damage or injury to persons or property, white sons or to on, or above the outer Continental Shelf, ardr any son employees penes ns any property of any person or persons or invitees of the lessee, its agents, indent contractors or subcontractors doing business with the lessee in connection with any activities being performed by the lessee in, on, or above the outer 16 0 • Continental Shelf, if such injury or damage to such person or property occurs by reason of the activities of any agency of the D.S. Government, its contractors, or subcontractors, or any of their officers, agents or employees, being conducted as a part of, or in connection with, the programs and activities of the Western Spare and Missile Center (WSW), the Pacific Missile Test Center (PMTC), or other appropriate military agency. Notwithstanding any limitations of the lessee's liability in .section 14 of the lease, the lessee assuam the risk whether such injury or damage is caused in whole or in part by any art or omission, regardless of negligence or fault, of the United States, its contractors or subcontractors, or any of their officers, agents, or employees. 'The lessee further agrees to indemnify and save harmless the United States against all claims for loss, damage, or injury sustained by the lessee, and to indemnify and save harmless the United States against all claims for loss, damage, or injury sustained by the agents, employees, or invitees of the lessee, its agents or any independent contractors or subcontractors doing business with the lessee in connection with the programs and activities of the aforementioned military installations and agencies, whether the same be caused in whole or in part by the negligence or fault of the United States, its contractors, or subcontractors, or any of their officers, agents, or employees and whether such claims might be sustained under theories of strict or absolute liability or otherwise. Stipulation No. 6 68-1b1, ncl 0ed on1112, 68-an125,r6 u1t4ng6f1om 68 sale for207antr 68-212 and 68-213.) --No structures or drilling rigs will be allowed within that portion of the tract described below. Tract No. Restricted Portion 1 S1/ZTE1/4, SE1/4 68-10E1/2NE1/4 68-101 68-105 South and East of a diagonal line from NE corner to 99 corner 68-125 South and East of a diagonal line from NE corner to SW corner To be determined later) 68-164 68-169 NE1/4 68-204 E1/2 68-207 68-212 (To be determined later) 68-213 (To be determined later) 17 Stipulation No. 7 (a) Pipelines will be required: 1) if pipeline rights -of -way can be determined and obtained; 2) if laying of such pipelines is technologically feasible and environmentally preferable; and 3) if, in the opinion of the lessor, pipelines can be laid without net social loss, taking into account any incremental costs of pipelines aver alternative methods of transportation and any incremental benefits in the foam of increased environmental protection or reduced multiple use conflicts. The lessor specifically reserves the right to require that arry pipeline used for transporting production to shore be placed in certain designated management areas. 'in selecting the means of transportation, consideration will be given to any recommendation of the intergovernmental planning program for assessment and management of transportation of outer Continental Shelf oil and gas with the -participation of Federal, State, and local governments and the industry (b) Following the development of sufficient pipeline capacity, no crude oil production will be transported by surface vessel from offshore production sites, eKcept in the case of emergency. 'Determinations as to emergency conditions a appropriate responses to these conditions will be made by the DCNS) - (c) Where the three criteria set forth in the first sentence of this stipulation are not met and surface transportation must be employed, all vessels used for carrying hydrocarbons to shore from the leased area will conform with all standards established for such vessels, pursuant to the Port and Tanker Safety Prat of 1978 (33 D.S.C. 1221 et seg.). Stipulation No. 8 (a) Wells. Subsea well heads and temporary abandonments, or suspended operations that leave protrusions above the sea floor, shall be protected, if feasible and as appropriate, in such a manner as to allow commercial fisheries trawling gear to pass over the structure without snagging or otherwise damaging the structures or the fishing gear. Latitude and longitude coordinates of these structures, along with water depths, shall be submitted to the DCNDFo. The coordinates of such structures will be determined by the lessee utilizing state-of-the-art navigation systems with accuracy of at least +50 feet (15.25 meters) at 200 miles (322 kilometers). (b) Pipelines. All pipelines, unless buried, including gathering lines, shall have a smooth surface design. in the event that an irregular pipe surface is unavoidable due to the need for valves, anodes or other structures, it shall, as appropriate, be protected in such a manner as to allow trawling gear to pass over the object without snagging or otherwise damaging the structure or the fishing gear. . 14. Information to Lessees. The Department of the Interior will seek the advice of the State of California and other Federal agencies to identify areas of special biological or cultural resources. RE • Operations on sane of the tracts offered for lease may be restricted by designation of fairways, precautionary zones, or traffic separation schemes established by the Coast Guard pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 D.S.C. 1221 et seq). Bidders are advised that because of a Precautionary Area established by the D.S. Coast Guard, surfage occupancy will probably not be allowed on tract 68-165 and operations may have to be conducted from off the lease site. Corps of Engineers permits are required for construction of any artificial islands, installations and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed located on the outer Continental Shelf in accordance with section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended. Bidders are advised that the Departments of the Interior and Transportation have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated May 6, 1976, concerning the design, installation, operation and maintenance of offshore pipelines. Bidders should consult both Departments for regulations applicable to offshore pipelines. Notice is hereby given that portions of traits 68-3, 68-4, 68-7, 68-8, 68-15,, 68-32, 68-34, 68-35, 68 36, 68-701 68 112, 68-1281 68-129, 68-137, 68-138, 68-146, 68-151, 68-159, 68-163, 68-168, 68-170, 68-1711 68 172, 68-175, 68 180, 68-181, 68-182, 68-186, 68-202, 68-206, 68-207, 68-209, and 68-213 may contain a shallow "bright spot" seismic ampXtude anomaly which may be indicative of a shallow gas deposit. Surface occupancy above this anomaly and drilling through the anomaly will not be allowed unless or until the lessee has decnstrated to the 19 E DCNDFb's satisfaction that a potentially hazardous accumulation of shallow gas does not exist or that exploratory drilling operations, structures (platforms), casing, and wellheads can be placed or drilling plans designed to assure safe operations in the area above the anomaly. This may necessitate that all exploration for and development of oil and gas be performed from locations outside the area of concern, either within or outside this lease black. Lessees are encouraged to include a fisheries training program in their exploration and development plans. This training program should be designed to familiarize platform and shore -based supervisors and persons involved in vessel operations with the value of the commercial fishing industry, the methods of offshore fishing operations, and the potential hazards, conflicts, and impacts resulting from offshore oil and gas activities. This program should be formulated and implemented by qualified and experienced instructors in fishing activities, methods of communication, and navigational safety. For those tracts listed.in paragraph 13 above providing for leases ! with an initial period of more than 5 years, bidders are advised that pursuant to 30 CFR 250.34-1(a)(3), the lessee shall submit to USGS either an exploration plan or a general statement of exploration intentions prior to the end of the ninth lease year. Bidders are advised that Tract Numbers 68-082 and 68-095 may be deleted prior to the actual sale due to potential Congressional action. 15. OCS Orders. Operations on all leases resulting from this sale will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of all Pacific Orders, as of their effective date, and any other applicable OCS Order as it becomes effective. 20 I( I� United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 NOV 2 ; 1981 Memorandum To: 'The 'Secretary Through: Executive Secretariat From: Assistant Secretary --Policy, Budget and Administratimni-q-. Subject: Decision on Proposed Notice of Sale, OCS Sale #68 Introduction Your decision is sought on the proposed Notice of Sale for OCS sale #68 offshore Southern California. The sale would be the fifth held in this area and consists of 208 tracts comprising approximately 1.1 million acres. The sale is tentatively scheduled to be held in April 1982 accord- ing to the July 1981 proposed teasing program. Water depths range from 46 to 1500 meters. The tracts range from Point Conception to south of San Clemente Island and are from three to 84 miles from shore. See Figure 1 for a map of the sale area. If you decide to proceed with the sale, a proposed notice will be sent to Governor Brown which will allow him to comment on the size, tiering, or location of this sale under section 19 of the DCS Lands Act, as amended. The Notice will also be printed the the Federal Register in order to provide potential bidders early advice dn—which tracts are likely to.be included in the sale and the bidding systems to be used. For your use in arriving at a decision, there are attached a Secretarial Issue Document (SID) and a Final Environmental Statement (FES), both prepared by the BLM. Oil and gas resources in the area under consideration are estimated by the USGS to be 123 million barrels of oil and 285 billion cubic feet of natural gas (conditional mean). From the four previous OCS sales in this area, 96 of 182 leases are still active. Tracts that were leased at the recent sale 53 in the Santa Maria Basin are adjacent to the northern part of the sale area. is There is already existing OCS production as well as in State waters. Ten million cubic feet of gas were produced from the 2 in the Southern California area barrels of oil and three billion Southern CaliforMa OCS to 1980. Based on the projected hydrocarbon resources, it .is estimated mat deve)ap- ment may require 58 exploratory wells 167 platform wells. The long-term projectionht pisdthatooij)atforms and tion from the Santa Barbara Channel area and gas be transported from the offshore platforms to shone -Inner Banksdarea `P�r„uc- pro projects that oil production from the Outer,8a y piPeline. The processed and barges to the a red in Los Angeles -Long Beach Ports and nks area could be nks on the Platforms taftdhat then transferred by there would be insufficient for production. that the amQunt of gas Benefits and Costs The social value of the sale is estimated at $3.6 billion and the difference equivalent ammounthofcoil andigasron the 00Css-cost of ever represents obtains much of the savings through lease sale bonuses, cTheost rove Producing the share payments, and taxes. g rmnent An additional $189 mt)1ion�inoeconomic profit - benefits benefits are estimated because of the reduced need for stockpiling in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Balanced against these and other benefits is small potential of low to high costs resulting or damage to the Channel islands Marine Sanctua from interference with Ecological Preserve, commercial fishing, shoreline recreational anthe Buffer d tourism, recreational fishing, air quality, and other environecreal amenities. A more detailed discussion of these benefits and costs of the SID and pages 2-2 to the a the FES. appears at pages 14-16 It is estimated that 1.1 oil spills over 1,000 barrels are statistically likely over the 25 year production period. The actual spill would depend on an array of factors such as effects of any weather, wind direction, etc. rotation, volume effect on biological or other resources expected from an oil spill. (See FES no 9 term significant tia 2fo to 2-5, 4-1 to 4-26 and others.) However, there is some potential fora high ecological loss. As part of the analysis there Of cumulative impacts, the FES notes that there are already 22 spills over 1,000 barrels expected from tankerin g ofCalifornia and the existing OCS leases and thatisalee668 �Ou,d Southern represent a four percent increase in spi11' potential. that is, increase the most likely number of spills from 22 to 23." represent (FES, P. 4-9). The FWS and NOAA have concluded that the leasing and exploration of these Of endaneed ortracts is not likely to jeopardize the populations or critical habitats p oductionron thet ttracts w ulhreatened derequireEfcies urther ecological6c� Actual onsultation. I% 3 Stipulations Seven stipulations are -proposed for leases resulting from the sale. A biological stipulation is proposed for all tracts and requires the lessees to interpret the surveys of areas around proposed drill-ing sites to identify the existence of a special biological resource. If present, relocation of operations or other avoidance techniques may be required. A cultural stipulation is proposed for all tracts and is designed to protect sites or objects of historical or cultural value (archaeology) by providing USGS the authority to require the conducting of .a remote sensing survey. Based on the survey results, the USGS could require either location of operations to -avoid the site or further investigation to demonstrate that it is not a site or object. ° A transportation stipulation is proposed for all tracts and is designed to require the use of pipelines for transportation if technologically feasible, environmentally preferable and if they can be laid without net social loss. • A stipulation to mitigate potential -conflicts with military acti*i- ties is proposed for all tracts. It is a "hold harmless" clause for harm or injury. Another military stipulation on 65 tracts reserves the right to the United States to temporarily suspend the operations of the lessee in the interest of the national security and requires control of boat and aircraft traffic as well as electronic emissions. ' A geohazard stipulation is proposed for 79 tracts and warns the lessees that, because of either potential mass movement of bottom sediments, or submarine canyons, or areas of active faults, all exploration and development activities may have to be performed from safe area locations either within or outside the lease block. ° A well and pipeline stipulation is proposed for all tracts. It requires a smooth design so as to avoid snagging of fishing gear. Public Comment The State of California, in commenting upon the Draft ES, expressed support for "leasing and eventual development of much: of the sale 68 proposed areas." However, leasing is "not acceptable" to California within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Santa -Barbara Ecological Preserve or Buffer Zone, Santa Monica Bay, approattr-routesto- the Ports of Los Angeles or Long Beach, and offshore- San •Diego., California • l 4 also expressed concern about leasing 12 tracts to the west of the south of Santa Monica Bay and tracts off Orange County. The text of the August 149 19819 letter from the State ,appears beginning at page 7-134 of the FES. In aggregate, the State appears to have objected to leasing of about 70 full or partial tracts of the 208 in the sale. In addition, the State raised concerns about the proposed sale's effects on air and water quality; the adequacy of technology to prevent, control and clean up oil spills; the potential effects of leasing tracts which are seismically yactive npilnu;dect of tivooperations oil spillson marinePoulationsadhabitatancumuateeffect of leasing in the area. No commenting California county or city government supports the lease sale as proposed. A few expressed support for deleting the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary t4cts, or deleting the Ecological Preserve Buffer Zone tracts, or deleting tracts adjacent to Santa Monica Bay, and a few oppose the sale entirely. The City of.Avalon and Ventura and Santa Barbara County governments supported deletion of the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary tracts as did five environmental groups. NOAA, in its August 17, 1981, letter, recommended deletion of the Charnel Islands National Marine can t c uary tracts. Issues 1. Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary Thirty-five tracts in the proposed sale lie entirely or partially within the area designated on September 22, 1980, as the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The NOAA implementing regulations became effective on March 30, 1981- The Sanctuary is a six nautical mile area surro five of the Channel Islands and does not include the land . The National unding Park Service manages the Channel Islands National Park which includes the land of the same five islands and an ocean area extending out one nautical mile. Figure 2 is a map of the area. The Sanctuary was established to protect the significant biological and archaeological resources of the area. "For example, they contain the largest and most diverse temperate water pinniped (seals and sea'lions) community in the world." FES, p. 2-12. The islands support intertidal, subtidal, kelp, and seabird communities. The area also has high scenic value and is heavily used for diving, fishing and recreational boating. The NOAA regulations implementing the sanctuary contained provisions which ban all oil and gas operations. The Interior Department has consistently supported the sanctuary but opposed such a ban as unneeded - and unwarranted in view of the full array of tools available to it to regulate OCS operations. NOAA has suspended the hydrocarbon ban regulations white it conducts a regulatory impact analysis pursuant to the President's Executive Order 12291. The suspension is scheduled to last until March 30, 1982, or just a matter of weeks before scheduled sale date. 10 Figure 2 SALE 68 TRACTS 1N CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY SANTA BARBARA 531 RT� °-.4.w.11-9190 iA13.lAlG' JELISL •.. --- . ACAPA ISL SANTA CRUZ I Camel NTA ROSA IS D loci r f6f7 1 :::158 QCHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY SS PROPOSED. SALE NO. SS TRACTS (IN THE MARINE SANCTUARY) 9110 M li Portions of seven tracts are currently under lease in the sanctuary, Two of these were teased in sale 48 in 1979, then -proposed sanctuaryTwentY-four other tracts in the biological resources. Overproduction Platform t exists osale In n one of of Protect tracts but it is located outside the sanctuary The State of California, City of Avalon, and Ventura and Santa Barbara County asked that the 35 tracts be deleted. The California Coastal Commission noted that deletion of these 35 tracts ■ more closely conforms with the California Coastal Management Program than the other alternatives Sea NOAA, Sierra Club, Whale Center, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the they believeand thatNature OCS leasingisrp Conservancy yinconsistent with the Purposes of the sanctuary and may result in harm to its varioalso us resources.these because FES The contains a.discusslp leasinging these tn of the potential environmental effects of racts. FES "would result in a significant�though2-12 to fiableDeleting these tracts impacts to intertidal and subtidal benthic organisms, and coujdin Potential sult ti in a slight reduction in potential impacts to marine Potential fisheries, and recreational, visual and cultural rids, the major chance of an adverse effect would cowee from fish, there are only 1.1 spills over 1,000 barrels an oil spit] and sale for 25 years of production. The FES rates. for the entire five percent chance of a 1,000 barrel spill occurring he cis a one the land segments composing the sanctuary within 30 days. Deleting these tracts could increase the time for slled ogl�to�eachl2j shore by at least four to five hours and thus allow additional time to respond to and contain the spill. Deletionestimateohesetheact and Its about percent Percent of the conditional p gas and reduces the economic value of the sale $191 million. 2, Ecological Preserve and Buffer Zone In March 1969, following the Santa Barbara spill, Secrete Nickel wi from leasing by a public land order (P.L.O. 45871. an area designat d asr a Federal oil an g Preserve of about two miles in width, adjacent to Reeisterenotice,�dhea"withheld sanctuary ooff leasSanta Barbara. Inathe sa u er one, as an adjunct to the Ecological Preserve ■ a, Federal a e era Policy. Tracts in the Ecological Preserve are not includedainathis s 1e but eight Partial and whole tracts' in the buffer zone are included in this sale. Figure 3 is a map of the area. rigure j • OCS SALE #6E • BUFFER ZONE TRACTS TO ECO-'OGICAL PRESME at 70 shl"Alow"m ...... . ...... ...... 72 70 i 90 91 I W is* I S4 67 SS EO at 62 j EE ....... ..... Ise WXTA CWA M&AM AIVAMA A6AM "04kAl so 110 71 h. I I Ills Illervir [I -Is ■ SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL ECOLOGICAL PRESERVE ADJUNCT TO THE ECOLOGICALPRESKRVE CRU"XRZp V 9XISTINO'LEA&ED, TRACTS PROPOSED SALE NO. so TRACTS 6 The Preserve and Buffer Zone were established 6 drainage of the State Sanctuary and to protectpaesthetic and marine rage ecological values. Since that time, the Department has greatly Improved its regulatory capability and the content of regulations and and section 8(g)-of the Act now allows the Department to deal more adequately with potential drainage of State lands. OCo orders Whi area the public land order creating the buffer zone did•sta area was being "withheld from leasing", it did not cxplicitl. the area from leasing. that the been susceptible to being considered foer r leasingInce tat thheebdi kntion of Withdraw the Secretary. A decision to offer all or part of .the buffer zone for the 1969 mineral leasing would represent a revision of the policy announced in not necessaryifor athe nd oPublic land rder. The Sorder titselfffice advises that it is order for the buffer zone to be offered for lento be formally Policy toward leasing the buffer zone tracts should he publiclythe change nnoin e if that decision is made. The announcement could be made Proposed notice of sale. Partannounced Part of the In commenting on the Draft ES, the State of California and the Counts of Santa Barbara requested that these tracts be withdrom The County Board of Supervisors (see FES from the sale. tracts be deleted an act of good fai* Pon7the5) asked that the eight Government in honoring a previous commitment. [The Preseryt f vee andBuffer Federal Zone] have stood for twelve years as a symbol of the Interior Departments commitment to the preservation of sensitive environmental areas and to marine productivity. P r'Gaent's Of our most scenic resourcgs,Ithe sview eshed lfrom Montecito to Goleta. The Preserve and Buffer Zone protect the adjacent state of one Sanctuary from drainage. Increased incentives to drill Witi aind grit to Sanctuary would result if the Buffer Zone was sacrificed for oil development.' ent The FES concludes that the deletion of these tracts wool d result in a seabirds, visual slight reduction in Potential losses to intertidal coasunities, fish resources and harbor seals. It will also result in a modest reduction in the estimated value of the resources of the sale. The eight tracts in the Buffer are on a proven W'drocar"bon trend and thus there is a high probability of a discovery. The estimated resources of these tracts can be discussed at the decision meeting. 3. Near Santa Monica Ba Twelve tracts in the proposed sale are adjacent to Santa Monica B closest is about 15 miles from the City o�'�a Monica. They are part Of 27 tracts which were deleted by Secrets Kle �'l the sale 35 in late 1975 primarily at the request OfPCaliforni Slease tate and local governments. At that time, the Secretary promised that the area • 1• would not be in the Call for the next7 State and local opposition to leasininlthis 8area hand as not While the area of the Call for Nominations for sale 66 included the Santa Monica Bay and industry nominated other tracts directl in the Bay, these were excluded at tentative tract selectioneta State waters in 'the Santa Monica Bay is an oil and gas sanctad cities of Santa Monica and Redondo Beach, Con res_nRobert K. Dry nan and No Oil Inc., commented on the Draft ES and urged delet onofthei12 adjacent tracts. The Cityof Santa Monica was fearful of for oil spills, -air polluion, and geohazards which could cause harm to its 16 million '� Potential that enjoys its beaches,�municipalip'ieron eetction (and tourist) industry Deleting these tracts would reduce the acreage in . Of and would result in a reduption of 22% of the cond��oat Oil and 26% oOfthe findingConditional economicallyerecoverab a retimate Of sources i deletion of these tracts would only modestly reduce gas. Because of the sale. the economic value The deletion would also afford a slight reduction (as c full scale) in potential effects to water quality,,dared andto the organisms, marine mammals and seabirds, anfisnd intertidal riesas �1lthic as a moderate reduction in the potential impacts on recreation and visual �- resources. 4. Militar Conflicts The Department of Defense has indicated that leasing and operations on 50 OCS tracts would interfere with military operations. -- two (2) tracts would interfere with operation of the Navy's Shipyard Electronic System Evaluation Facility (SESEF) -' twenty-five (25) tracts would interfere with operation of the Pacific Missile Range --.twenty-three (23) tracts would in teffere with the operation of the San Clemente Island Test Range. In negotiations, DOD and BLM have reached agreement to delete 23 tracts (six in the San Clemente Test Range and 17 in the Pacific Missile Range), and to use a stipulation on 11 tracts that will prohibit drilling on various portions of these tracts. A copy of the drilling stipulation appears in the Appendix of the SID. A letter of agreement to confirm the details. On five of the 11 tracts* thr-estrictednPortio sred have not yet been determined but will be before the Final Notice of Sale. Deletion of the 23 tracts would reduce the value of the sale by an estimated $80 million or about 2%. �J I " DOD maintains that these 23 tracts must be deleted because of the danger8 of collision by missiles .and debris with platforms and interference of aircraft traffic as well as -rigs and platformsewithd the naval "gunnery practice. While two other military stipulations are proposed for most tracts in this sale to mitigate interference, DOD believes the _ stipulations are not enough for the 23 tracts. would regulate electronic emissions and boat and eir; aftttraffiio include a "hold harmless clause" and allow suspension of operatimns and/or sheltering or evacuation of personnel. 5. Precautionar Zone Tract 'One tract, number 1650 lies in the approach to the Los ATr Beach Harbor. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has developed TrafficoSeparation Scheme Precautionary Areas at various harbors pursuant to its statutory authority and is engaged i'q a study to determine vessel traffic density and need for safe access routes in accordance with the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. As part of that study USCG has proposed to reconfigure the existing precautionary areas and shift the various northbound, southbound and separation lanes. (For more detail, see USCG letter, FES, P. 7-20un Without the proposed USCG reconfiguration, three tracts Give blocks: 164-71 169) would have been completely within the Precautionary area. No exploratory drilling will be permitted by the USCG for any tract or Portion of a tract that is within such an area. With the Proposed recon- figuration, two tracts are now only partially within the area, and one tract (165) is completely within the area. All three tracts had been previously deleted from OCS sale 48 (held in 1979) because they were in the precautionary area. Deletion of this one tract would reduce potential routing conflicts Within the USCG proposed reconfiguration of the Precautionary Area. Since the tract is on the same hydrocarbon trend as the proven reserves of an adjacent tract, there is a good chance for hydrocarbon discovery. It is unlikely that a new USCG plan could be developed to take Place on -this tract. If the tract were leasd, witi�lthedpropos� USCG reconfiguration plan, it could prove to be undevelopabh 6. State Recommended Sti ulations The State of California proposed adoption of four additional stipulations, and the rewording of one proposed stipulation. a. Fisheries TrainLnR Program. This stipulation would require rF ng o personne n e value of commercial fisheries methods of fishing operations, and the potential for conflicts between oil and gas activities and commercial fishing operations. A similar stipulation was adopted for sale 53 tracts which are north of this sale. The FES indicated that the stipulation is not needed because the oil industry is already familiar 9 in Southern California and there has been resolution of fishing conflicts between oil and gas activities and commercial fishing operations. b• Disposal of Drillin Muds and Cuttin a met o s. The State asked that spec s oosa a cons eyed although it noted that barging was extremely cost? the proposal was assumed to require onshore disposal rated that the barging) of drilling muds and cuttings which isp primarily (and presumably otherrview of specialmethod of disposalhin too Costly to es considered and no C. Prohibit Drillin in Adverse Weather. In adverseweather,di recovery equ pment mlg t e—ineffective, As oil discussed, an oil'sp'ill is not iikel previously that this proposal was determined tobehe FE saesponse stated slicks are expected to emulsify into the water columns and doll appear from the water surface in sea states greater than 9 feet; oil spill equipment would be deployed in sea states up 'to 5_7 feet; and that California DCS currents are y well below the 1-2 knots current in which ailspp�ijjlclea� knots,, p ' equipment is ineffective. d. Shallow Gas De)osits., The State of California rec st pu at on a eve oped to alert lessees to the Pottentiial risksa from shallow gas deposits. Such a warning was included in sale 53, although it was contained in the "Information to Lessees" 'Section rather than as a lease stipulation. Similar language has been prepared for this sale and is included as an option for decision for 39 tracts. e. at the time�of leasing.rather as sharing the information ani The FES notes that this is an tracts may never be drilled. 7. Biddin S stems N rea�oThe ao g —0 surveys on tracts than prior to drilling, as well decision -making wtth the State. unnecessary burden, as some leased There are at least four relevant considerations in fashioning on the choice of what bidding systems to use. requirement to use an alternative biddingSystem your decision These are: the statutory of the acreage, and analytical results tdatofothe lower fixed royalty sliding scale royalty, and fixed net profit sh Percent are (FHPS) systems. I/ a. 20% minimum 10 This sale will be the fifth in the relevant annual minimum, under the OCS statute, 20 percent of the accreage where, at sale must use alternative bidding systems. To date, In this for 25.47% of the acreage offered will have been under alternative bidding systems. Using no alternative bidding system in this sale would bring the yearly total down to 20.49%. Of course, there are other sales planned in the "year" which can be used to reach the mintmum 20 percent. In addition, 159 tracts previously offered under a fixed net profit share (FNPS) system have received bids and an appropriate statistical sample size exists to analyze the FNPS as to its ow that analysis is being conducted (a contract is now being pre dell, there may be a "window" of, two or three months while no further rtesting Of FNPS may be warranted -until analytical results are avaiable. b. 1/8 Royalty The use of a lower fixed royalty (1/8) bidding system appears in some situations. Modeling suggests that some additiattractive structures may be economic to produce, given the lower contingency p tto the government, e.g., 12-1/2 percent royalty rafter than 16-2 3 Punts ractstInndeeperction. This water where development craoch is osts cart be very high naffs eat included in three options. Because this is stilt a fixed royalty system, it does not count as an "alternative" bidding systemm under the statute In calculating the 20 percent minimum. c. Sliding Scale Royalty The Department has previously tested a sliding scale royalty system on 573 tracts using six different formulas. The basic design of the formula has been to require, after some fixed point, an increasing amount of royalty payment the bigger the value of production. Two options developed for this sale would introduce a new (seventh) formula. The thrust is to start the royalty payment at a lower level (12-1/2% instead of 16-2/3%) on the first production, begin increasing royalty at a latter point. As the value of production increases, the slope (increasing royalty) is not as steep as in past formulas. d. Fixed Net Profit Share (FNPS) The option developed for 44 tracts for this sale would use a 40 percent profit share payment to the government and a 1.0 capital recovery factor. The effect of this system, according to the modeling, is to make deeper water tracts more attractive by lowering the contingency p*,ments firms make to the government. This in effect allows the lessee to recoup the higher costs for deeper water development more easily. For four additional tracts, a 50 percent profit share rate and a 0.25 capital recovery factor has been designed. Under11 •all bidding system options these four tracts would use a FNPS system. e. Options Six options were developed by BLM for your consideration. tracts in each ,option is: The number of Bonus Bid & Bonus Bid & Bonus Bid & Bonus Bid & 0 tions Fixed 1/6_ Rcya` 1ty 1/8 Royalty Profi Share Sliding Scale R- C-1 161 (77%) 47 • (23%) C-2 161 (77%) (2a) 43 (21%) C-3 63 (30%) 98 (47%) 47 (234) C-4 (30%) (47%) 43 (2+) (21Z) C-5 68 136 4 (33%) •(65%) (2%) C-6 204 (98%) 4 (2a} 9. Longer Lease Terms 900 Nineteen tracts lie in or are adjacent to tracts with water depths of term ofers or up to 10 years if you reater.' Under find0"thatLands suchclon er � adopt a lease to encourage exploration and development in areasofunusually deod is eepssary water or -other unusually adverse condtions.' Recently, in sales 66 and 599 South and Mid -Atlantic, and 67, Gulf of Mexico, you decided to offer 136, 234, and 6 tracts respectively,. with 10 year lease terms because Of unusually deep water and the effect this had on the timing and encourage- ment of exploration and development. In general, industry has consistently asked that longer lease terms be considered for tracts in deeper water in all*OCS sales. Exxon USA requested that longer tease terms be used in this sale for tracts in deeper water. E I( 12 USGS untilestimates that sometime aroundrthection on 8th year. As discussed intracts othe ld SID on expected these factors plus the need to develop new deepwater technology, the number of deepwater drilling rigs, the remote distance of existing pipe- lines, and the comparative uncertainties and disadvantages of administrative relief options (such as suspensions of production; SOP's) seem to indicate a need for SO year lease terms on these nineteen tracts. Highly relevant Is the fact that industry now has the technical eapabflity to produce in water depths out to 900 meters and would have to develop new techniques for depths greater than that. (FES for sales 56 and 67/69.pp. 559 and 659 respectively.) Four of the 19 tracts are in waters less than 900 meters but are adjacent to or surrounded by tracts that do, and have considerable depth themselves. To avoid disincentive in the timing of exploration and production by having adjacent tracts with different lease terns, a judgment was made to include these four tracts as part of the group subject to a longer lease term. While other tracts are also located in it appears that the technical and othe severe enough to warrant a longer leas and production. This same distinction sale 67. 10. Minimum Bid r e 'deep" water, i.e., over 400 meters, factors on U'tose tracts are not term in order to encourage expioratic was recently wade in Gulf of Mexico The Office of Policy Analysis has completed an analysis of substantially increasing the minimum bid requirement as suggested by USGS and BLM in their proposals for streamlining the tract evaluation and bid rejection procedures. Although this analysis should be carefully reviewed in the Department and more consideration given to the issue before a final decision is made, the option to increase the minimum bid in sale 68 could be preserved by alerting bidders to the possibility in the proposed Notice of Sale. The primary benefit from use of a higher minimum is likely to arise in the much larger sales being proposed for 1983 under the new 5-Year Leasing Program. However, substantial testing in 1982 will be very worthwhile because it will allow evaluation of the effects of the higher minimum without the problem created by trying to control for the effects of much, larger lease sales. Beneficial effects on bidding may be possible even in 1982 sales. For these reasons, it may be useful to alert bidders as. to the potential use of a higher minimum bid in the proposed Notice of Sale and use the intervening two months before a final Notice of Sale to develop a departmental consensus of the appropriateness of this device. 'To keep the option to increase the minimum bid requirement for sale 68, 13 the proposed notice should contain a statement that the Department is considering increasing the minimum bid from the current 425 per acre to as high as $150 per acre. Delay the Sale This sale could be delayed one or two years pending the'receipt of addi- tional environmental information. Several years of environmental studies have already been conducted in the area. While others are planned in FY 1982 and later, they are not judged to likely produce results that could affect a decision on whether to lease. They will 'improve our understanding of the area and assist in making post -lease regulatory Judgments. Environmentally Preferred'Alternative(s) Under CEQ regulations, you are required to identify.the environWntaily thiserred subject. Youralternative identificationalternatives. theThe enviroanmtea�tajl22 discusses alternatives) need not be the same as your choice of the structure of the sale. This is because your decision on the structure of the sale is a mixture of economic, technical, resource and environmental goals as well as national policy objectives and is not conffoed solely to environ- _ mental considerations. COther Items 1. Aire The State of California and others have objected to the way the Department is implementing its section 5(a)(8) statutory mandate to issue regulations for compliance with air quality standards and with the analysis in the environmental statement of what effects the operations resulting from this sale will have on air quality in Southern California. In July 1981, the State of California brought suit against the Department challenging the final regulations USGS issued on March 7, 1980 which regulate air emissions from OCS oil and gas operations. Two environmental groups --Citizens for a Better Environment and the Coalition for Clean Air --have intervened in support of California. The Western Oil and Gas Association (WOGA) has intervened in support of the objects to the regulations because it claims that (1) the rules doanotorrtia protect the onshore areas from cumulative effects of platforms, (2) any onshore air quality impact should be considered significant" because the Southern California area is in "nonattainment" for most air quality standards, and (3) an environmental impact statement should have been prepared on the regulations. Coincident with the final national OCS air regulations the USGS issued proposed regulations which would have been --- more stringent for the California area. No further action on those proposed regulations has occurred. rI I /" I( 14 ?he State of California criticized the sale 68 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for inadequately analyzing the effects on air quality from projected activities on leases resulting from sale 68. (See FES, page 7-139). Similar concerns were raised by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Counties of Santa Barbara and Ventura and Cities -of Redondo Beach and Santa Barbara. The Final ES issued by the Department responds in detail to all of these concerns. Examination of the effect of the sale proposal on air -quality in the FES used two modeling techniques. A "worst case" analysis was performed as part of the evaluation. The FES concludes (p. 4-61 to 4-67) that the proposed sale activities are not expected to cause violations of any State or national air standard in areas already meeting the standards and could slightly deteriorate air quality in non -attainment areas. The cumulative impacts of all projected OCS effecttambientnairuthern qualityalifornia onshore. iWhile Californiected acriticized nthe modeling techniques used, the BLM, and the consultants used by BLM, know of no other methodology that has the potential of assessing the OCS emissions impact and the California Air Resources Board has made no suggestion of an alternative approach. 2. 8(g) Tracts Eighty-eight tracts proposed in this sale are within three miles of California's ofsection8(g)aofrthe oOCSaLands TAct which hese trequires tis are �t,tfothe Provisions that share a common pool or field with the State, you must make an ofr tracts fer for the fair and equitable division of revenue from these tracts. Such an offer will be prepared shortly after your decision on the proposed Notice of Sale. In the past, California has not accepted our offer of mnitization under section 8(g) for sales 48 and 53. There is little reason to expect its escrow position achanged. waccountfromtht e8(g)trpr esent, ere is ;billion1.045 the twoprevioussales. No litigation with California exists on this matter. '3. "Directly Affecting" Litigation Under section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Man agesent Act (CZMA), each deral agency conducting pactivities tlyanr the coastazeshallcoduct oor supporting supportthosactivies�n'ae" which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved State [coastal] management programs." The Department has consistently maintained that decisions made in the holding of a lease sale usually do not "directly affect" the coastal zone of a State, though this determination is made on a case -by -case basis. In OCS sale 53 13 ,.California sued the Department on this interpretation of the statute. The judge's opinion in California vFit . flat{, found that (1) the final notice of lease sale 53 of tracts, did directly affect the coastalezone of the State to the i 34 en a nfr leasestissued7mustlbe evaluated forand consis encythe underetheiCDiI activities o The government has appealed the court's rulI M that 'directly affecting" be construed p this way. It is anticipated that the hearing on the governments appeal will be held in January, 1982. A determination will have to be made as to whether the Secretary's decisions on sale 68 directly affect the coastal zone of the State of California. If requested by the California Coastal Commission, either a negative determination (no direct affect) or a consiste=y determination (covering direct affects) will be fried by the Department. 4. Geohazards Geologic hazards are defined as a ny existing or potential, that would inhibitthefeatures or Processes, resources. while such hazards exist within the sale parreea, Of SGSlhasd gas recommended that no tract, deletions are necessary for the adequate tion of the environment and safety. Rather, a stipulation spratec- show of mass transport of sediments, active faults, steep slopes or steep wailed proposed for 79 tracts in which portions of the tracts canyons. This stipulation is presented in Option B along with five other stipulations. Essentially, the stipulation alerts the lessee to potential for geohazards and requires demonstration that activities can be carried on safely. This may require that all activities take place outside the lease block ofda easealso blockutoedeterminelessee thepotent alsurveys a�asspasoyn� of seT� The State of California indicated concern over the basis for concludingnts. that nine tracts previously deleted in sale 48 for geohazard reasons could be offered again in this sale with only .a stipulation. The FES has explained this rationale based on.USGS reinterpretation of the criteria for deletion, redefinition of steep slope, and the preparation of a new comprehensive report that is to be released by USGS in March 1982. S. Tracts Formerly Leased to Pauley 6rou This sale includes two tracts (Nos. 82 and 95) which were formerly leased to a group headed by the Pauley Petroleum Company when they expired). Litigation over whether hgovernmentfrom 8h d violto ated the group's lease rights ended in 1979, when the U.S. Court of Claim ruled in favor of the government, denying the group's claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied the group's petition for certiorari. There is l 16 presently no legal impediment to the two tracts being offered for leasing at proposed Sale No. 68. While there are no outstanding interests in the two tracts adverse to the United States' interest. the House of Representatives in July of .this year passed legislation (H.R. 1946) to reinstate the former leases of the two tracts, presumably in the names of the lessees it the time the leases expi-red. One of the reasons given In support of reinstating the expired leases was that the two tracts would be more quickly developed through reinstatement than if they were leased again. Similar legislation (S.506) is now pending in the U.S. Senate. The Department did not recommend the enactment of legislation to reinstate the expired leases. Including the two tracts in -the proposed Notice of Sale would preserve the option of offering them for sale pending results of the action in Congress. A decision sheet is attached outlining your alternatives'for decision. Six separate decisions are requested. Attachment r. • DECISION WT Proposed Notice of Sale for Sale 68 A. Structure of the sale 1. Offer for sale 208 tracts 2. Delete 35 tracts in the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary 3. Delete 8 tracts in ecological preserve buffer zone 4. Delete 12 tracts in Santa Monica Bay 5. Delete 1 tract in precautionary zone 6. Delete 23 military area conflict tracts 7. Delay the sale 1 or 2 years, pending receipt of additional environmental information 8. Cancel the sale 9. Other B. Stipulations for the sale 1. Adopt seven stipulations as discussed in the SID 2. Adopt California recommendations a. Fisheries training program b. Disposal of drill muds and cuttings c. Prohibit drilling in adverse weather d. Shallow gas information to lessees clause (39 tracts) e. Biological stipulation wording 3. Adopt drilling restriction on 11 military tracts (linked with option A-6) 4. Other C. Bidding Systems (choice of bidding system implies the necessary stipulations to implement it) 1. Use bonus bidding with fixed net profit share (47 tracts) and use bonus bid with fixed 1/6 royalty (161). 2. Use cash bonus bidding with a fixed 1/6 royalty (161), bonus bidding with a fixed net profit share (4), and bonus bidding with a sliding scale royalty (43). E r i SECRETARIAL ISSUE DOCUMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OCS SALE 68 November 1981 Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior SECRET•AL ISSUE DOCENT (SID) PROPOSED SALE NO. 68 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROPOSAL FiguTe 1 PUBLIC Pp,RTICIPATION AND MAJOR EVENTS II. BALANCING ORDERLY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT III, INFORMATION FOP, WITK ENVIOPIMNTI'L PROTECTION A, Introduction B, Social Benefits C. Social Costs Measures D. Equity Considerations/Mitigating, IV. ISSUES OF SPECIAL CONCERN A. Air quality g, Effects of Sale 53 Court Ruling C. Pauley Tracts D. MllitarY Conflicts F. %arise Sanctuary Buffer Zone Tracts Pam$? 1 R 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 9 10 • A. Geohazards 10 I. Tracts Near Santa Monica Bay 11 J. Precautionary Area Tract 11 K. Bidding Systems 11 L. Longer Lease Terms 13 V. OPTIONS FOR DECISION 13 A. Structure of the Sale 14 B. Stipulations in the Sale 19 C. Bidding Systems 21 D. Lease Terms 22 E. Environmentally Preferred Alternative 23 Appendix A — Stipulations Appendix B — Studies Activities I. PROPOSAL The proposed Sale No. 68, scheduled for April, 1982, is located offshore Southern California (see Figure 1). The proposal includes 218 blocks or 208 tracts with a total area of about 1.112,975 acres; ten small parcels of 1 acre to 300 acres in size have been combined with adjacent partial blocks to form more viable leasing units. The sale area is located between 3 to 84 miles offshore in water depths 46 to 1,500 meters (150 to 4,900 feet). This sale would be the fifth sale in Southern California waters including the 1966 drainage sale of a single tract. The U.S Geological Survey estimates that if the proposed lease area has commercial amounts of hydrocarbons, the most likely expected production will be 67 million barrels (mmbbls) of oil and 133 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas from the Santa Barbara Channel, 70 mmbbls oil and 93 bcf gas from the Inner Banks and Basins and 93 mmbbls oil and 436 bcf gas from the Outer Banks and Basins. Total conditional estimates for the entire sale area are 233 million barrels of oil and 629 billion cubic feet of gas. These estimates form the basis for the social costs (potential environmental and socioeconomic losses) discussed in Sections III and V. Exploratory drilling is expected to take place over the 5 year period from 1982 to 1986, while platform installation and development drilling should be completed between 1987 and 1992. Production of proposed Sale. No. 68 oil and gas is estimated to start in 1987 and to continue until 2006 with a maximum total daily production occurring during the period 1989-1993 for the three subareas. The development scenarios and detailed impact assessments are discussed in the proposed Sale No. 68 FEIS (Section I.B.l.d and Chapter IV). Eighty-eight tracts are involved with Section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act and thus require an offer of an agreement for the fair and equntable division of revenue. Previous leasing activity in the general sale area included the 1966 drainage sale, the 1968 sale in the.Santa Barbara Channel, and Sales 35 and 48 spanning the entire sale area. Of the 182 leases issued as a result of these sales, 96 are still active and they cover 508,236 acres. Existing leases are shown in Figure 1. The tracts leased at recent Sale 53 in the Santa Maria Basin are just north of the sale area of this proposal. Development in the sale area has occurred in the Santa Barbara Channel and the San Pedro Bay Area (Federal waters: 12 platforms and 2 production facilities, and State waters: 9 platforms and artifical islands). Since early 1966, 185 exploratory wells have been drilled on the Southern California OCS. Of this total, 25 wells resulted in the discovery of 12 offshore oil fields and 2 gas fields. Offshore production from Federal waters totals 195 million barrels of oil through 1980, about 10 percent of the almost 2 billion barrels produced off the California coast. Cumulative production of natural gas is about 80 billion cubic feet or 11 percent of the gas produced. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND MAJOR EVENTS 1 • h , Federal, State, and local agencies, special and private interests, academic and research institutions, and the general public are provided the opportunity to comment during the lease sale process. Preliminary tract selection meetings were held in Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., and included representatives of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara, City of Los Angeles, and Federal agencies. Nine scoping meetings were held in five locations in southern California but these meetings resulted in no new alternatives. Written comments and four days of Public Hearings on the Draft EIS resulted in the formulation of three new alternatives. Alternatives III and IV were recommended by the State of California, and supported by a. variety of local governments, public interest groups and private citizens. Alternative V was recommended by the United States Coast Guard and is supported by the State of California.and local governments and agencies. Generally, the State and various local governments and agencies supported all the alternatives which would delete tracts from the sale proposal. For example, the California Coastal Commission indicated that adoption of Alternative 2 (deletion of the Maine Sanctuary tracts), "more closely conforms with the California Coastal Management Program than other alternatives" and went on to also support the other deletions. For example, the California Coastal Commission indicated that adoption of Alternative 2 (deletion of the Sanctuary tracts), "more closely conforms with the California Coastal Management Program than other alternatives," and went on to urge the adoption of other deletion alternatives. The State's Office of Planning and Research supported leasing in much of the sale area but stated that "leasing is not acceptable within the Santa Barbara Ecological Preserve or Buffer Zone, the Santa Barbara Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Santa Monica Bay,'the approach routes to the Ports of Los Angeles or Long Beach, and offshore San Diego." The State of California in its written comments on the DEIS requested consideration of four additional stipulations and a change in the wording of another stipulation. These are discussed in the Issues section below. Public participation and major events are discussed in more detail in Sections I.B.2 and VII.G-H of the FEIS. III. INFORMATION FOR BALANCING ORDERLY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT WITH PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT A. Introduction From a national perspective, the goals of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, include: 1. Expediting exploration and development of OCS oil and gas in order to achieve national economic and energy and policy goals, assure national security, reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil, and maintain a favorable balance of payments in the world trade. 2 2. Assuring receipt of fair and equitable return on oil and gas resources. 3. Preserving and maintaining competition. 4. Balancing orderly resource development with protection of the environment. As a measure of this sale's contibution to the national goal of expedited OCS oil and gas development, an estimate of the value of oil and gas resources and economic security benefits is presented in Section III.B. which briefly explains the basis for the social benefits associated with the proposal. The development of oil and gas resources in 'the proposed sale area may also generate multiple -use conflicts. Estimates of the magnitude of the losses due to multiple -use conflicts represent the social costs of proceding with the sale as proposed or in modified form. These estimates are given in Section III.C. Issues which are of special concern for this sale are discussed in Section IV. Environmental protection involves the reduction or elimination of these conflicts. At this point in the leasing process, measures for environmental protection range from sale cancellation to delay or modification of the proposal. These mitigating measures are set out as, decision options in Section V. If the sale proceeds as proposed or in modified form, post -lease plans for enviromental protection include further measurement of potential multiple -use conflicts and the use of leasing stipulations, operating orders, and other measures to reduce these conflicts. Basic to the prediction and management of multiple -use conflicts is the OCS Studies Program, designed to help refine information on the magnitude of potential losses due to multiple -use conflicts, and the proper use of measures available for the reduction or elimination of these losses. B. Social Benefits The social benfits of proceeding with proposed Sale No. 68 include: (1) the economic value of the oil and gas resources; (2) national security benefits; (3) regional economic benefits; and (4) environmental benefits. 1. Economic Value of Resources: The main benefit of proceeding with proposed Sale No. 68 is the savings from producing oil and gas domestically rather than purchasing equivalent imports. These savings represent the difference between the cost of imports and the cost of producing the energy equivalent amount of oil and gas on the OCS. The estimated value of these savings, considering the economic risk, is $3,635 million. Most of the savings will be in the form of the lease sale bonus, royalties, profit share payments, and taxes deposited in the Federal Treasury. 3 2. National Security Benefits: The United States' dependence on oil imports exposes the country to both threats and actual interruption of oil supplies with resultant economic, military, .and diplomatic implications. In 1980 39% of U.S. crude petroleum needs were imported, an average of 6.9 million barrels a day. To reduce U.S. vulnerability to interruptions in its oil supply, a Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) Plan was mandated by law in 1975. The required stockpile was based on the level and mix of imports. Anticipated OCS production was considered an important domestic source which would reduce both the need for imports and size of the required stockpile. Based upon the estimated oil and gas resources and the economic value of this sale, the stockpile savings are estimated at $189 million. 3. Regional Economic Benefits: Development of offshore resources is expected to generate a modest increase in employment in the region from new jobs offshore and in the adjacent onshore development areas. Total employment resulting from proposed Sale No. 68 during peak development years could exceed 4,500 should resources be found at the high range of estimates. 4. Environmental Benefits: Natural gas production from this sale would yield some environmental benefits by replacing more environmentally hazardous fuels such as coal and oil. Generally, domestic production of oil and gas poses less risk of a large oilspill than does the importation of equivalent amounts of these fuels by tanker. C. Social Costs Proceeding with proposed Sale No. 68 could have adverse impacts of varying degrees upon many of the resources and activities comprising the biological, physical, and socioeconomic environments of affected offshore and offshore areas. The analysis in the FEIS provides an assessment of potential losses and conflicts. The findings of this assessment are summarized under alternative A-1 in the Options section, which lists the estimated costs of proceeding with the sale as proposed. A major oilspill is a significant impact producing agent associated with development of offshore reoources. Results of the oil spill model indicated that one such spill greater than 1,000 barrels is likely over the production period of 25 years. The estimates of expected losses are nonquantitative, in dollar terms, because of the difficult problem of estimating expected environmental damage and then linking the damage to financial loss. However, it is believed that a qualitative assessment conveys an adequate though admittedly less than precise measure of environmental loss which in many cases is more meaningful than the common denominator dollar cost approach. It should be noted that the estimated impacts of the proposed sale were made under the assumption that all appropriate mitigating measures provided for by law, regulation, operating orders, etc., will be used and will be effective. Major mitigating measures included within 4 -the proposal are OCS Operating Orders, and the applicable regulations of the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation and the lease cancellation provisions in the OCS Lands Act as amended. The effectiveness of the proposed lease stipulations are also treated here and in the EIS as additional measures to reduce sale -related impacts. D. Equity Considerations Some environmental losses may occur as a result of the sale, even after mitigation. Equity payment programs exist to reimburse individuals and localities for damages resulting from OCS related activities. The - allocation of costs resulting from oil and gas activities on the OCS has been of frequent concern to those most directly affected. Statutes and regulations have assigned liability for losses in a number of instances to help assure a fair and equitable division of these burdens. Oa balance, when lessees or their operations are the cause of damage due to oil spills or offshore operations, those suffering losses are entitled to compensation. Also when operations on the OCS place an unusual burden on the capabilities of onshore jurisdiction, Federal monetary assistance is authorized. The following specific equity considerations address the concerns for resource conflicts. Offshore Oil Spill Pollution Fund. Title III of the OCS Lands Act Amendments established a renewable fund, up to $200,000,000, to be administered by the Secretary of Transportation to compensate claimants for economic loss arising directly from oil pollution. Claims may generally be asserted for oil removal costs, or for injury to or destruction of property or natural resources. This provision explicitly places strict and severe liability for all losses resulting from oil and gas operations. This protection is a method of alleviation of severe losses to fishermen, recreation, marine and coastal ecosystems, ports and navigation, and water resources. Costs can be assessed against those responsible and this may also work to lessen the probability of losses. Fishermen's Contingency Fund. Title IV of the OCS Lands Act Amendments establishes this renewable fund up to $1,000,000 administered by the.Secretary of Commerce. The fund provides for compensation for damages to fishermen's vessels and gear caused by obstuctions resulting from oil and gas exploration, development and production. The fund may make payments from the appropriate area account to compensate commercial fishermen for actual and consequential damages, including lost profits assessed against lessees, operators, and permittees engaged in oil and gas operations; this may also work to lessen the probability of losses. Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act (91 Stat. 1566) (1977), which amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also applies to offshore operations and provides that lessees or operators may be held financially liable for damages due to oilspills. It established a National Contingency Plan and provides for liability up to $50 million for actual cost of oil removal and cleanup in FJ cases where liability has not been,established pursuant to the OCS Lands Act. IV. ISSUXS OF SPECIAL CONCERN The following issues are of special concern because each has related decision options that would result in deletion of tracts from the sale or are of a nature which could affect the conduct of the sale or lease management. Additional environmental issues and major areas of concern were identified through the scoping process. The impact/losses related to these issues and concerns are summarized in the Option section below and are covered in more detail in the FEIS for proposed Sale No. 68. A. Air Quality Southern California has substantial air pollution problems so that air quality remains a sensitive issue. Comments were received from the State questioning the analytic methods used, the conclusions drawn as to sale -related impacts to air quality, and the effectiveness of mitigating measures. All such comments were addressed in the FEIS. The conclusions from the FEIS indicate that neither Sale 68 development itself nor the cumulative impacts from this and all other Federal leasing, are expected to significantly affect ambient air quality onshore. A. Effect of the California v. Watt decision re Sale No. 53 on the proposed sale In the judge's ruling in California v. Watt, the court found inter alia, that (1) although a final notice of lease sale would invariably directly affect the coastal zone of a state within the meaning of section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA, such a determination must be made on a case -by -case basis; and (2) that the consequences of the lease sale, as well as resulting activities, must be evaluated under the CZMA. An administrative decision will have to be made as to whether proposed Sale No. 68, or the activities expected to result from it, are believed to directly affect the coastal zone of the State of California. Either a negative determination (no direct affect) or a consistency determination (some direct affect) will then be filed by the'Department with the State. The government has appealed the court's rulings that "directly affected" be defined in an expansive way; that a final notice of a lease sale will require either a negative determination or a consistency determination; and that the consequences of a lease sale, as well as its resulting activities, must be evaluated under the CZMA. It is anticipated that the hearing on the government's appeal will be held in January, 1982. C. Tracts Formerly Leased to Pauley Group Proposed Sale No. 68 includes two tracts (Nos. 68-82 and 95) which were formerly leased to a group headed by the Pauley Petroleum Company (from 1968 to 1973, when they expired). Litigation over whether the government e • bad violated -the group's lease -rights came to an end in 1979, when the U.S. Court of Claims ruled in favor of the government, denying the group's claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied the group's petition for certiorari. There is presently no legal impediment to the two tracts being offered for leasing at proposed Sale No. 68. While there are no outstanding interests in the two tracts adverse to the United States' interest, the House of Representatives in July of this year passed legislation (H.R. 1946) to reinstate the former leases.on the two tracts, presumably in the names of the lessees at the time the leases expired. One of the reasons given in support of reinstating the expired leases was that the two tracts would be more quickly developed through reinstatement than if they were leased anew. Similar legislation (S.506) is now pending in the U.S. Senate. The Department did not recommend the enactment of legislation to reinstate the expired leases. D. Military Space Use Conflicts The Department of Defense (DOD) conducts military operations throughout the sale area which can conflict with offshore oil and gas activities. Some conflicts, such as those with Air Force and NASA missions can be mitigated by lease stipulations similar to those used for previous sales. The more serious naval space use conflicts led.DOD to originally request deletion of 50 blocks, later increased to 56 blocks or 53 sale tracts. Negotiations between•BL%l staff and representatives from the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics, have resulted in an agreement regarding disposition of the tracts with potential for conflicts. A letter of agreement ,has been prepared to confirm the details. Sale tracts in the Pacific Missile Range (PMR) involve the most serious conflict. Of 25 affected tracts, it is proposed to defer the offering of 17 tracts at this time. Five'additonal tracts are proposed,to be offered with restrictions on drilling activities and on the placement of platforms over portions of the tracts, as contained in a stipulation to the lease. There are 26 tracts in the San Clemente Island Test Range. The proposed deletions would delay leasing on a northern grouping of six tracts. Operations on four tracts in a southern group are proposed to be restricted by stipulation. Finally, two.tracts are in conflict with the Navy's Shipboard Electronic System Evaluation Facility (SESEF) where line -of -sight capability needs to be maintained between an onshore facility and a buoy. Again, stipulations have been proposed to restrict operations on parts of the tracts while still allowing the opportunity to explore for resouces. Resolution of the space use conflicts could result in a reduction in the sale area of 23 tracts or 127,160 acres, about 12 percent of the proposal addressed in the EIS. While 19 percent of the conditional oil estimates and 11 percent of the natural gas could be affected, the reduction in the 7 value of the sale would amount to $80 million or about 2 percent less than the value of the full sale proposal of 208 tracts. Stipulations are proposed to be applied to the leases for 11 additional tracts affected by military operations while 19 tracts within the operating acres would be offered without additional restriction. The restricted areas on 5 of the 11 tracts proposed for stipulation'have not yet been determined. This information will be available before the Final Notice of Sale. The removal of the tracts will have the effect of slightly reducing the impacts associated with the sale proposal and several alternatives. For example, deletion of all 23 military conflict tracts will reduce the number of tracts in Alternative 2 (Option A-2) by one and also reduce the number of tracts affected by the proposed geohazard stipulation by one. The marginal effects of the military option on other issues or options are quite small and do not significantly affect the treatment of such issues in this document. E. Alternative Stipulations and Alternative Wording of Stipulations The State of California recommended adoption of four additional stipulations, and the rewording of one proposed stipulation. State proposed stipulations are as follows: 1. Fisheries Training Program Stipulation- This Stipulation would require training of personnel in vessel operations and platform and onshore supervisors in the value of commercial fisheries, methods of fishing operations, location and sensitivity of marine mammals and seabirds, and the potential for conflicts between oil and gas activities and commercial fishing operations. -A similar stipulation was adopted for Sale 53 tracts which are north of this sale. Our response in the FEIS indicated that the proposed stipulation is not needed because of the history of operations in the Santa Barbara Channel and the resolution of most conflicts between oil and gas activities and commercial fishing operations. 2. Soecial methods of disposal drilling muds and cuttings.- The FEIS response noted that the proposal was assumed to require onshore disposal of drilling muds and cuttings, activities which are within the purview of other agencies of government and would be beyond the responsibility of BLM. 3. Prohibitions on drilling in adverse weather conditions in which oilspill recovery equipment would be ineffective - The FEIS response stated that this proposal was determined to be unnecessary because oil slicks are expected to emulsify into the water columns and disappear from the water surface in sea states greater than three meters; oilspill equipment could be deployed in sea states up to 5-7 feet; and that California OCS currents are generally 0.5 knots, well below the 1-2 knots current in which oilspill clean up equipment is ineffective. 4. Shallow Gas Deposits - The State of California recommended that a stipulation be developed to alert lessees to the potential risks from shallow gas deposits. Such a warning was included in Sale 53, P, 0 although it was contained in the "Information to Lessees" section rather than as a lease stipulation. Similar language has been prepared for this sale and is included as an option for decision. 5. Alternative Wo=din to the Biological Stipulation - The alternative wording proposed would require biological surveys on all affected tracts at the time of leasing rather than prior to drilling. The FEIS response indicated that the alternative language would pose an unnecessary burden as some leased tracts may never be drilled. F. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, designated on September 22, 1980, includes the ocean area seaward to 6nm around San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara islands. The National Park includes land portions on some islands and the open ocean around all the islands out to lum. The islands contain significant marine biological, archeological, and paleontological resources. For example, they contain the largest and most diverse temperate water community of seals and sea lions found anywhere in the world. The islands support important intertidal, subtidal, kelp, and seabird communities. 'The area also has high scenic value and is heavily used for diving, fishing, and recreational boating. An alternative has been developed (Alternative 2 in the FEIS Option A-2 in this document) which would delete 11 complete and 24 partial tracts which lie within the 6nm boundary of the sanctuary. Deletion would reduce the sale area by about 94,000 acres and reduce estimated conditional resources by about 18 million barrels of oil and 94 billion cubic feet of gas. Taking probability of success into account, the risked oil resources could be reduced by 5 million barrels and the gas by 34 billion cubic feet. Deletion would reduce the economic value of the sale by an estimated $191 million. Deletion of the tracts would reduce sale related threats to the Sanctuary's resources, most notably by increasing the time for a possible oil spill to reach shallow waters and the shore by 4-5 hours. The quantity and toxicity of any spill would be reduced and additional time would be allowed for containment and clean-up equipment to be mobilized. Vessel traffic, human intrusion, and noise would be reduced as would any deliterious effects of pipelines, drilling muds and fluids and formation waters. The summary statements in the FEIS indicated that the full sale could result in low to moderate expected losses to Sanctuary resources with a potential for high ecological losses. However, the model results indicate a 1-5 percent chance of a spill reaching the land segments in the Sanctuary within 30 days, from the full sale proposal.. Adoption of the deletion alternative would result in "a significant though unquantifiable reduction in potential impacts to intertidal and subtidal benthic organisms" and a slight reduction in potential impacts to other resources in the area. In comments on NOAA's current suspension of its hydrocarbon operations in the Sanctuary, the Department pointed out its existing authority to regulate offshore oil and gas activities was sufficient to assure protection of the area's resources. G. Tracts in the Adjunct to the Santa Barbara Channel Ecological Preserve (Buffer Zone Tracts) Three full and five partial blocks in the buffer zone beyond the Federal Ecological Preserve and are included in the Sale 68 proposal. The Federal Ecological Preserve was established by Secretary Walter Hickel in March, 1969, by a public land order (P.L.O. 4587) withdrawing the lands therein from all forms of disposition, including mineral leasing, and reserving them for scientific, recreational, and other similar uses, as an ecological preserve. Three full and five partial tracts in the buffer zone were also identified in the 1969 public land order, not as an area being withdrawn, but as an area that would "be withheld from leasing as an adjunct to the Ecological Preserve," as a matter of policy. The buffer zone consists of 36,000 acres, and its establishment was intended to help protect the Preserve and maintain the sanctuary concept of the State of California. The buffer zone is a reflection of the Departmental policy concerning that area announced in P.L.O. 4587. While the public land order creating the buffer zone did state that the area was being "withheld from .leasing", it did not explicitly withdraw the area from leasing. The buffer zone, since its establishment, has been susceptible to being considered for mineral leasing at the discretion of the Secretary. A decision to offer all or part of the buffer zone for mineral leasing would represent a partial rescission of the 1969 public land order, i.e., the Department's policy to withhold the area from leasing. The Solicitor's office has advised that it is not necessary for the public land order itself to be formally amended in order for the buffer zone to be offered for leasing, but the change in policy toward leasing the buffer zone tracts should be publicly announced, e.g., with the Proposed Notice of Sale, if that decision is made. The eight tracts were treated in the FEIS as Alternative 3 and are included in this document as decision Option. A-3. Deletion of the tracts would result in slight reductions to potential impacts to intertidal communities, fish and fishing, marine bids and mammals, the Goleta Slough Estuary, and to the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary. The oil spill model indicated that full sale would result in a four percent probability of an oil spill reaching the affected area within 30 days. The eight tracts are on a proven hydrocarbon trend with a high probability of discovery. While resource estimates cannot be given without disclosing proprietary information, it is estimated that deletion of the eight tracts would result in a modest reduction of the economic value of the sale. H. Geohazards 10 BANTA BARBARA 03 4. �:......i��iAT:: 73 :::::.. 74 70 :JLi'.:l►t;yia Jt::l 75 ;j5a�; :ls:i� 79 70 a0 1 &1 32 83 84 as 0 ...... ................ �..a , a7 as as s0 at ! 92 j 93 I 94 95 jai : i r =ia ii, J i�i-� — { :::::: ::: Jam:: ..:... •-• I i � � � I :t:c0• .16B:::lBl�l•a6 � ::ios::::iai•.:Boa:1 'ss 100 MNTA CRUZ HAND _ ANACA►A NSLANO t09 110 11 /I \Fs kwb i I 115 11a 117I11a !!' SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL ECOLOGICAL PRESERVE !!!� ADJUNCT TO THE ECOLOGICAL PRESERVE CBUFFER ZONE) :=J EXISTING LEASED TRACTS ss PROPOSED SALE NO. as TRACTS Location of Tracts in the Adjunct to the Santa -Barbara Channel Ecological Preserve (Alternative 3) „ • Geologic hazards are defined as any geologic features or .processes, existing or potential, that would inhibit the development of oil and gas resources. While such hazards exist within the sale area, USGS has recommended that no tract deletions are necessary for the adequate protection of the environment. Rather, a stipulation has been proposed for 79 tracts in which portions of the tracts show evidence of mass transport of sediments, active faults, steep slopes, or steep walled canyons. Adoption of this stipulation is presented in Option B below. Essentially, the stipulation alerts the lessee to potential for geohazards and requires demonstration that activities can be carried on safely. This may require that all activities take place outside the lease block and may also require the lessee to perform surveys upslope or downslope of a lease block to determine the potential for mass movement of sediments. I. Tracts Adjacent to Santa Monica Bay Alternative 4 in the FEIS (Option A-4 in this document) treats a sale modification option involving the 12 sale tracts closest to Santa Monica Bay. Moderate reductions in sale -related impacts to bay area could result, particularly to water quality, rocky intertidal and soft bottom areas, and to the coastal economy and recreation resources. Deletion would remove about six percent of the sale and something less than 22 percent and 26 percent respectively, of the conditional oil•and gas resources estimated for the sale. Because the tracts are in water depths greater than 750 meters, and the probabilities of success in finding economically recoverable hydrocarbons are low, deletion would likely result in only a modest reduction in the value of the sale. J. Tract 165 in the Precautionary Area Alternative 5 in the FEIS (Option A-5 in this document) addresses the deletion of a single tract which lies in the Los Angeles - Long Beach Precautionary Area. Current U.S. Coast Guard policy does not permit exploratory drilling operations or permanent structures within precautionary areas. Deletion would reduce the potential impacts caused by routing conflicts. While less than one percent of the sale area is involved, the tract is on the same hydrocarbon trend as the proven reserves of a nearby leases tract. Deletion would likely involve a moderate reduction in the economic value of the sale. K. Bidding Systems There are six bidding systems available for use at this sale: (1) Cash bonus bid with a fixed royalty, (2) cash bonus bid with a sliding scale royalty, (3) cash bonus bid with a fixed net profit share, (4) profit share bid with a fixed cash bonus, (5) royalty bid with a fixed cash bonus, and (6) work commitment bidding with a fixed cash bonus. The bidding systems differ in their potential effects on (1) the receipt of fair market value, (2) the amounts of recovery of resources, (3) levels 11 0 A LONG BEACH 166 169 160 166 •2ii6 :;• s; 1 9 161 !16211701171 ,3Q0':#Q_:, zas: EXISTING LEASED TRACTS EEEXISTING TRAFFIC LANES DEXISTING PRECAUTIONARY AREA' ® TRACT 166 1" PROPOSED SALE NO. 88 TRACTS ------------------------------------ 8 r LONG BEACH r R`466 164\ 1611162117011 �20G :soo: :6 •EXISTING LEASED TRACTS PROPOSED TRAFFIC LANES I PROPOSED PRECAUTIONARY AREA' TRACT 166 169 PROPOSED SALE NO. 68 TRACTS 9rnnantinnary AraA Located South of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors: A) Existing Boundaries; B) Proposed Reconfiguration. *Boundary Extends to Shore Inside Breakwater. of competition, (4) distribution of perceived risks between lessor and lessee, and (5) administrative costs. The table.below shows six sale design options which use varying combinations of three bidding systems. A 23 percent sample of alternative bidding systems was developed to meet the 20 percent yearly minimum required to be offered under such systems by OCSLAA. However, the minimum applies to the total area offered each year so that there is no absolute requirement to use alternative systems at OCS Sale No. 68. Options C-5 and C-6 use virtually no alternative systems. 1. Cash Bonus with a Fixed Royalty All options contain the traditional cash bonus system with a fixed royalty. This system has been used extensively for offshore leasing. It imposes greater risk on the lessee but may yield more rewards in terms of fairly low contingency payments if a commercial field is discovered. Options C-3, C-4, and C-5 contain a cash bonus bidding system with a 1/8 royalty. This system is proposed for use on tracts in water depths 400 meters or greater where costs are higher. It is estimated that in deepwater the 1/8 system will reduce developable field size by about 14 percent compared to a 1/6 royalty and increase the number of tracts likely to be produced. 2. Cash Bonus with a Sliding Scale Royalty The intent of this system is to reduce front-end bonuses which may increase competition and to avoid production disincentives associated with high fixed royalties. In the formula R; - b[ln(Vj/S] ,parameter "b" determines the slope of the sliding scale formula and "S" is the scale factor which sets the point where the scale exceeds the minimum royalty. (Rj is the resulting royalty percentage and, V; is millions of dollars of inflation adjusted production in quarter j.) Various parameters were tested and a formula developed where b - 10 and S 111 4.5, and the minimum royalty is 1/8. The result is a estimated six percent decrease in bonus compared to a 1/6 royalty system and a two percent increase in Government receipts. The low minimum rate should allow firms to cover costs on marginal tracts while the "b" factor should ensure a fair return to the Government if a large field is discovered. Options C-2 and C-4 use the Bonus Bid - Sliding Scale Royalty System for 47 tracts or 23 percent of -the sale. 3. Cash Bonus with a Fixed Net Profit Share The fixed net profit share system may be capable of generating improved exploration, development, and production_ incentives in high cost areas. The system is proposed to be used under all options. 12 A Various values were tested for the capital recovery factor (CRF) and for the profit share rate. The tests resulted in a recommended 1.00 CRF and a 40 percent profit share rate which should provide adequate incentives to the lessee and guarantee an adequate return to the Government. Four tracts are proposed to be offered with a 50 percent profit share rate. 4. Profit Share Bidding with a Fixed Bonus This system also has the intent of sharing risks and increasing competition by reducing front-end money requirements. However, the potential for very high profit share bidding could result in dampening exploration and losses of production. This system is not proposed under any Option for Sale 68. 5. Royalty Bidding with a Fixed Cash Bonus.* Very high royalty bidding can serve as a disincentive to exploration and lead to foregone production and losses in national income. This system is not proposed under any option for Sale 68. 6. Work Commitment Bidding with a Fixed Cash Bonus and Fixed Royalty This system has the intent of increasing competition at the same time, encouraging exploration by permitting credits for expenditures. However, this could create incentives for firms to waste exploration expenditures and lead to a misallocation of resources., The system can also create a bias against firms which have developed efficient exploration techniques since such firms would have less costs to credit and so would submit lower bids than less efficient firms. This system is not included in any option for Sale 68. L. Longer Lease Terms A lease term of up to 10 years is allowed by OCSLAA in cases where the Secretary finds a longer period necessary to encourage exploration and development in areas of unusually deepwater or other unusually adverse conditions. Ten year leases were issued in 1979 at the Beaufort Sale because of unusually harsh environmental conditions and at the recent South Atlantic Sale 56 because of deepwater. About one-half of the tracts in this sale are in water depths of 400 m. or more, a deepwater criteria used at other recent sales which corresponds to the water depth of the deepest existing conventional platform set in 312 m. However, the Sale 68 area is fairly close to the shore and is a developed area with both onshore and offshore infrustructure in place. Tracts have been leased off California with five-year terms in water depths 500-600m. A water depth of 900 m. has been identified as the limit of current industry capability using existing prototype technology. Therefore, an option has been developed to offer ten-year terms for the 19 deepest tracts at Sale 68 where the water depth ranges from 900m. to 1500m. (A 13 0 request was received from one company for longer primary terms for all tracts in water depths greater than 300m. but this seems hardly justifiable given past California leasing in 500-600m.). The option would extend the primary term to ten years to give the lessee a predictable length of time in which to develop and execute a well -conceived and properly -timed exploration and delineation strategy for the discovery of resources. The predicatability of the primary term is important since the lease terminates unless there is drilling, well -reworking, production, or an approved lapse of drilling. Should a lessee perceive that the traditional five year term may not be long enough, it will lessen its uncertainty by reducing its bid or choosing not to bid at all on the less favorable prospects. After acquiring a tract, a lessee may adopt a non -optional exploration strategy if the primary term is inappropriate which could result in prospects not being fully explored because of time contraints. The time constraints appear real since there are only 44 drillships in the world which can drill in water depths greater than 380m and only ten of those can operate at 900m. It currently takes about three years lead time to construct a deepwater drillship. Time is also a factor for production considerations since the deepest installed platform is in 312m. and current technology extends to 900m. At the greater depths involved, it would appear that new production technology and techniques will have to be developed to allow production to ensue. The combination• of exploration and production constraints suggests that it will be difficult at best, to bring the deeper tracts into production within a five year primary term and that there is some uncertainty as to whether the tracts can be explored within that timeframe. The alternative to granting a longer primary term is to rely on the suspensions of operations or production (SOP'•s) by which USGS can extend the lease term on a case -by -case basis. However, such reliance on discretionary administrative action may not be the optimal leasing strategy when hundred million dollar investments are involved. The option to offer ten-year terms on the deepest tracts was developed to allow consideration of a leasing policy which addresses potential time constraint problems known to exist before the leases are issued. V. OPTIONS FOR DECISON A. Structure of the Sale A-1. Proceed with the proposal to offer 208 tracts for sale. (This corresponds to Alternative 1 in the FEIS.) a. Benefits 1. Economic Value: $3,635 million 2. Economic Security: $189 million 14 L 3. Environmental: Modest benefits from replacement by natural gas of more hazardous fuels and the reduction of oil spill risks from tankered imports. 4. Regional and Local Economic: Minor increase in local or regional economies. b. Costs: The following is a summary of the social costs for each significant issue and/or major area of environmental concern which was identified and given detailed analysis in the FEIS. Oil Spills - A major oil spill is a significant impact producing agent associated with development of offshore energy resources. Results of the oil spill model indicate that there is a 67'percent probability of a spill occurring greater than 1000 barrels. For larger spills greater than 10,000 barrels, the probability falls to 39 percent. One spill greater than 1000 barrels is likely over the production period of 25 years, while the most likely number of spills greater than 10,000 barrels is zero. A spill can impact one or more of the resources and areas of concern. Probabilities of a spill hitting and the expected impacts on resources are generally low, given the low number of expected spills. There remains the possibility of a high ecological loss, however low the probability of such an occurrence, should a spill occur and hit a sensitive resource. Water Quality: Short term effects of discharges from platforms should be localized and moderate. Effects of the one expected oil spill should also be minimal over the sale area, given the dilution capability of open water. Severe water quality degradation would occur only if a spill or discharges were to mitigate into restricted bays and estuaries. Air Quality - Sale related activies will slightly increase pollutant loadings in onshore areas. Incremental increases are below levels considered significant by DOI air quality regulations and are not expected to cause new exceedances in areas which presently meet air quality standards. Intertidal Areas - Impacts to the benthos from oil spills are predicted to be low to moderate. Three sensitive areas have been identified which have a potential for significant loss should a spill occur and impact the areas. Plankton - Impacts are expected to be insignificant. Subtidal Bottom Communities - Low ecological loss expected from either a spill or drilling operations. Fish and Fisheries - A large oil spill may cause low to moderate ecological losses to surface fishes and result in temporary economic losses to both commercial and sport fisheries. The probability of such impacts is considered low. 15 ZIarine Mammals - Low ecological losses are expected for cetaceans and most pinnipeds. Moderate losses could be sustained by elephant and harbor seals if their nurrsey areas were oiled. Moderate to high losses could be suffered by northern fur seals. Seabirds - Low ecological losses are expected to be sustained by nesting and migrating seabird populations. Endangered Species - Ecological losses could range from low to high, however the existence of no species or its habitat is threatened. Estuaries - Ecological losses could be high in the event of a direct hit by a spill however, the probability of a direct hit is low since most estuaries can easily be protected from spills. Marine Sancturies - Low to moderate ecological losses are expected. Terrestial Biological Resources - Low ecological impacts are expected. Public Facilities and Services - Electricity supply could be disurpted, however the probability of disruption is low. Other public services and facilities may be stressed by the increases in population. Land Use - The impacts on land use are expected to be minimal. Recreation - The impacts are expected to be short term, localized, and minimal in economic consequences. Transportation Systems - Ships may be delayed or rerouted in the event of an oil spill. Slight increases in the possibility of vessel accidents. Cultural Resources - There may be some loss of historic and prehistoric archaeological site on the OCS. Visual Resources - Degradation of view may range from minimal to substantial, depending upon the level of development and the viewer's perception of the impact. A-2. Modify the sale by Deleting Tracts in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. (This corresponds to Alternative 2 in the FEIS.) This alternative consists of deleting 11 complete and 24 partial tracts, or 94,000 acres from the proposed sale. Deletion would increase the time for a possible oil spill to reach shallow waters by 4-5 hours and would allow additional time for containment and clean-up equipment to be mobilized. a. Benefits: A significant reduction in the low to moderate impacts to intertidal and subtidal benthic organisms, and a slight reduction in potential impacts to marine mammals, seabirds, fish, fisheries, recreational and cultural resouces could result from adoption of this alternative. 16 b. Cost (benefits not realized). Deletion would reduce the estimated mean conditional resources by about 1S million barrels of oil and 94 billion cubic feet of gas. 1. Economic Value: $1.91 million less than could be realized under the full sale proposal. 2. Economic Security: $10 million less than the full proposal. 3. Enviroimental: Slight reduction in the modest benefits expected from the full sale. 4. Regional and Local Economic: Slight reduction in these benefits could result from this alternative. A-3. Modify the Sale by Deleting Tracts in the Adjunct to the Santa Barbara Channel Ecological Preserve. (This is Alternaive 3 in the FEIS). This alternative would delete three complete and five partial tract or 36,680 acres from the proposed sale and would continue the policy of withholding this area from oil and gas leasing. a. Benefits: The adoption of this option would result in a slight reduction in the potential losses by intertidal communities, fish, commercial and sport fisheries, seabirds and harbor seals. Potential impacts to Goleta Slough Estuary, Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary, visual resouces, transportation and cultural resouce would also be reduced. b. Cost (benefits not realized). 1. Economic Value: Modest reduction in the estimated value of the hydrocarbon resources as compared to the full proposal. 2. Economic Security: Modest reduction 3. Environmental: Insignificant loss 4. Regional and Local Economic: Slight reduction in these benefits could result from this alternative. A-4. Modify the Sale by Deleting Tracts Adjacent to Santa Monica Bay. (This corresponds to Alternative 4 in the FEIS). This alternative deletes 12 complete tracts and consists of 69,120 acres. a. Benefits: Selection of this option would result in a moderate reduction in potential impacts to water quality, intertidal and subtidal benthic organisms, marine mammals and seabirds, and fish and fisheries. A moderate 17 reduction in the potential impacts on recreation and visual resources would result from this option. b. Costs (benefits not realized). Deletion would remove about 22 percent of the mean conditional estimated oil resources and 26 percent of the natural gas. The probabilities of finding economically recoverable hydrocarbons at these amounts are low. 1. Economic Value: Modest reduction in the estimated value of the resources as compared to the full proposal. 2. Economic Security: Modest reduction 3. Environmental: Insignificant loss 4. Regional and Local Economic: Slight reduction in these benefits could result from this alternative. A-5. Modify the Sale by Deleting Tract 165 in the Los Angeles -Long Beach Harbor Precautionary Area. (This is Alternative 5 in the FEIS). a. Benefits: This option would result in a slight reduction of potential impacts caused by routing conflicts within the USCG proposed reconfiguration of the Precautionary Area. b. Costs (benefits not realized) 1. Economic Value: Moderate reduction in the estimated value of the resources as compared to the full proposal. 2. Economic Security: Modest reduction 3. Environmental: Insignificant loss 4. Regional and Local Economic: No measurable change from the full sale proposal. 4-6 Modify the Sale be Deleting 23 Tracts (127,160 acres) Involved with Military Space Use Conflicts. (This option is not an alternative specifically addressed in the FEIS). a. Beneifts: Deletion would resolve the serious space use conflicts with naval operations in the sale area. Deletion would also reduce some sale -related impacts to other environmental resources in the area. b. Costs (benefits not realized). Deletion would remove 19 percent of the conditional mean oil resources and 11 percent of the natural gas. 18 • 1. Economic Value: An estimated $80 million less than could be realized under the full sale proposal might result. 2. Economic Security: About $4 million less than the full sale option. 3. Environmental Benefits: Slight reduction in the modest benefits expected from the full sale. 4. Regional and Local Economic Benefits: A slight reduction in these benefits could result from adoption of this option. A-7. Cancel the Sale. (This is Alternative 6 in the FEIS. Selection of this Alternative eliminates all costs and benefits associated with the proposal. A-8. Delay the Sale. (This corresponds to Alternative 7 in the FEIS. This alternative postpones the expected benefits and costs from the proposal. Delay of the sale allows time to gather more information on the potential impacts from OCS development. A one-year delay would reduce the economic value of the sale by $181 million, a two-year delay by $324 million. B. Stipulations B-1. Stipulations Treated in the FEIS. The following stipulations and their effectiveness as mitigating measures were addressed in the FEIS. All measures adopted will be included in the Notice of Sale and will become integral parts of the leases issued. a. Biological Stipulation This stipulation is designed to protect unusual or rare ecosystems or ecotomes and species of limited regional distribution which might be adversely affected by oil and gas operations. A biological resource survey could be required before drilling activity or construction is permitted. This stipulation would apply to all leases. b. Cultural Resources Stipulation This stipulation is designed to protect sites, structures or objects of historical or archeological significance by requiring surveys before operatons begin. It will be applied to all leases but has particular application to 44 nearshore tracts in water depths less than 120 meters. C. Geological Stipulation 19 r This stipulation requires lessees to demonstrate that operations can be conducted in an environmentally safe manner on 7.9 tracts where potential geohazards have been identified. 'd. Military Stipulation No. 1 This stipulation is designed to minimize conflicts through the lessee's control of boat and aircraft traffic and electromagnetic emissions. It also allows for temporary suspension of operations. It would be applied to 65 tracts. e. Military Stipulation No. 2 This is the standard "save harmless" stipulation applied to all tracts, which removes liability on the part of the Government for damages or injuries sustained by the lessee as a result of military activities. f. Transportation of Hydrocarbon Products Stipulation This stipulation is proposed for all tracts and is designed to minimize environmental impacts associated with oil and gas transportation. It identifies pipelines as the preferred mode and places restrictions on the use of surface transportation. g. Wells and Pipelines Stipulation This stipulation is designed to prevent damage to fishing gear by subsea pipelines and structures. It is proposed for all leases. B-2. Stipulations Proposed by the State of California. The merits of these proposed changes are discussed above as Issue E. a. Fisheries Training Program This stipulation would require special training of personnel. It would apply to all sale tracts. b. Special Methods of Disposal Stipulation This stipulation would presumably require onshore disposal of drilling muds and cuttings from all tracts. C. Adverse Weather Stipulation This stipulation would apply to all tracts and would require a shutdown of drilling operations in adverse weather conditions during which oilspill recovery equipment would all be legedly ineffective. d. Shallow Gas Stipulation A warning to lessees was given in Sale 53 alerting them to the possibility of shallow gas deposits. It was not presented as a stipulations but rather within the Sale Notice section entitled, 9E "Information to Lessees." Similar language has been prepared for this sale to apply to 39 affected tracts. le. Alternative Wording for the Biological Stipulation This stipulation would require biological surveys on all affected tracts at the time of leasing rather than prior to drilling. B-3. Stipulation Developed after the FEIS An additional military stipulation was developed after the completion of the FEIS. A Military Stipulation No. 3 would restrict activities on portions of 11 tracts to reduce conflicts with naval operations. This stipulation is also tied to the military deletion Option A-6. C. Bidding Svstem Options Bonus Bid Bonus Bid Bonus Bid Bonus Bid Fixed Profit Sliding Scale Options 1/6 Royalty 1/8 Royalty Share Royalty C-1 161(77%) - 47(23%) - C-2 161(77%) - 4(2%) 43(21%) C-3 63(30%) 98(47%) 47(23%) - C-4 63(30%) 98(47%) 4(2%) 43(21%) C-5 68(33%) 136(65%) 4(2%) - C-6 204(98%) - 4(2%) - C-1. Continue Use of the Fixed Profit Share System Profit sharing is a way of shifting government revenues from the front-end bonus to downstream payments. At profit share rates at the proposed 40%, bonuses could be reduced by 18 percent. Since profit share payments are not required until costs are recovered, this system may generate improved exploration, development and production incentives. C-2. Continue Use of the Sliding Scale System This system was developed to reduce bonus payments by increasing royalties while avoiding substantial production and income losses. C-3. and a 1 The 1/8 royalty system is estimated to decrease the minimum developable field by about 14 percent compared to 1/6 royatlty and so could encourage more deepwater tracts to be brought into production. C-4. Continue Use of Sliding Scale and 1/8 Royalty System 21 This is a variant of C-3 in that Sliding Scale rather than the Fixed Net Profit Share system is proposed for 43 tracts. C-5. Discontinue Use of Alternative Systems All tracts (except for four) would be offered under the Cash Bonus Fixed Royatly system with royalties set at 1/6 or 1/8 depending on water depth. C-6. Use Only the Traditional System This option would offer all tracts (except for four) under the Cash Bonus -Fixed 1/6 Royalty system. It should be noted that if Option C-5.or C-6 is chosen, Sale 68 will not significantly contribute to the 20 percent minimum annual requirement for the use of alternative bidding systems. D. Lease Terms The option here is to establish the terms of the leases offered at the sale. 1. Maintain the Standard 5-year Term for all 208 Tracts. 2. Offer 19 Tracts in Deepwater with 10-year Primary Terms and the Balance of the Sale Tracts with 5-year Terms. Adoption of this option would acknowledge the need to offer longer primary terms in order to.encourage exploration and development of the tracts in water depths greater than 900m. The merits of this option are discussed in the Issues section. E. The Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s) The option presented here is to identfy one or more of the decision , options A-1 through A-8 above as environmentally preferred and consistent with CEQ guidelines and regulations. Candidate alternatives range from the full sale option A-1 through the various tract deletion options to the delay or the cancellation options. It is important to note that the full sale proposal and any of the modification options include all practical post -lease plans for environmental protection. Lease Stipulations, OCS operating orders and other measures delineate the Secretary's existing regulatory base for implementing measures for environmental protection. The ongoing studies program and other analysis efforts targeted for post -lease activities provide information for the use of this regulatory control over the life of the leases. The USGS has broad permitting and monitoring authorities to assure safe operations. Such measures as the use of best available and safest technology (BAST) during exploration and development; the Platform Verification Program to assure compliance with structure standards; and 22 • the siting authorities of the biological, archaeological, and geological stipulaitons, are just a few of the many measures designed to prevent environmental damage before any.activity begins. USGS also monitors operations after drilling has begun and carries out periodic inspections of facilities to ensure safe operation over the entire life of the lease. The identification of the environmentally preferred alternative need not coincide with the decision option chosen for the sale since the sale decision must consider economic and other social factors as well as environmental concerns. I 23 C. Geological Stipulation l Survey (USCS) aspotentially ahazardous idue dbelow b tomasstransport,y the etlo steepsl peso=ical steep -walled canyons, and/or active faults based on -pre -sale high resolution surveys will be subject to the following stipulation. Additionally• lessees are required to conduct site specific geological hazard surveys prior to -explor- ation or development activities on leased blocks to deronstrate to USGS the operational feasibility and safety of the proposed activities. *'here 'surveys indicate the presence of hazardous conditions not previously noted, the USCS has the authority to require the lessees to conduct proposed activities safely; i.e., to acquire mitigating measures comparable to those contained in the following stipulation.) Yass3536. 71 y.tie-en;3899, s 75229 , $3, 61, 62, 63, 65. 66, 67., 99, 101,1028.2 128. 129 , 184, 205, 208 will �be6subject to8the following 7Stipulation: 178. 182, 183. txploratory drilling operations, emplacement of structures (platforms) or seafloor wellheads for production or storage of oil or gas, and the emplace- rt•r.t or -ilaulines will not be allowed within the potenti:lly'unstable portion of this lease block unless or until the lessee has demonstrated to the UCNON's satisfaction that %ass movement of sediments is unlikely or t1lat exploratory drilling Operations, structures (platforms), casing, wellheads and pipelines can be safely designed to protect the environment in case such mass movement occurs at the proposed location. This may necessitate that all exploration for and development of oil or gas b area of unstable, sediments, eittherwithin oreoutside-of athis sOutside leaseblock. the if exploratory drilling operations are allowed. site specific surveys shall be conducted to determine the potential for unstable bottom conditions. Also. an extension of these surveys may be required outside of the leased block. If emplacement of structures (platforms) or seafloor wellheads for production or storagnstable DCWFOemay also requiressoilotestinglsuch beforeuexplorationaandust be ed. The of oil or gas production operations are allowed. Submarine Canyons or Channels Tracts. 6, 9, 13, 21. 44, 45. 56, 60, 65, 66, 67, 99, 101, 102, 105, 133. 142, 170, 176, 183. 189, 190, 192, 193, 206, 209, 220. 221 will be subject to the following stipulstion: Exploratory drilling operations* emplacement of structures (platforms) or seafloor wellheads for production or storage of oil or gas or emplacement of pipelines will not be allowed within the potentially unstable portions of this lease block unless or until the lessee has demonstrated to the DCl10F0's satis- faction that exploratory drilling operations, structures (platforms), easing, wellheads and pipelines can be safely designed to protect the environment At the proposed location. This may necessitate that all exploration for and developmet of from rea Of Submarinencanyons lorrchannels, either dwithin lOraoutsidtionseofithis de fthe a gas be lease block. xM - 1 • TENTATIVE TRACT LIST OCS OCS OFFICIAL PROTRACTION DIAGRAM NI 11-10 SALE #68 SAN CLEMENTE (APPROVED_S_EPTEMBER 27, 1977) Tract Block No. Description Hectares 68-214 N751 E66 (426) All 325.60 68-215 N731 E67 (427) All 342.99 68-216 N751 B68 (428) All 360.34 68-217 N750 E66 (470) All 2304 68-218 N750 E67 (471) All 2304 68-219 N750 E68 (472) All 2304 68-220 N749 E67 (515) All 2304 68-221 N749 E68 (516) All 2304 Estimated i 1/ That portion seaward of the Three Geographical Mile Line. 2/ Seaward of straight lines defined by coordinates based on the California (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System, Zone 60 with X origin - 2,000,000 at 1160 15', and Y origin -•0.00 at 320 10'; as follows: X Y 1. 1 083 116.775 659 028.110 2. 1 090 706.145 668, 411.986 3. 1 095 458.081 689 505.297 4. 1 089 764.637 706 897.326 5. 1 079 496.859 717 556.263 6. 1 067 932.171 722 765.464 7. 1 049 567.015 723 635.502 S. 1 046 245.123 723 092.415 9. 1 038 155.138 724 350.732 10. 1 032 254.837 724 355.602 ` 11. 1 022 654.512 730 932.219 12. 1 019 326.153 732 622.546 13. 1 013 397.117 736 301.031 14. 989 692.237 739 534.295 15. 983 015.566 738 568.150 16. 968 383.353 732 739.362 17. 957 170.832 737 567.743 18. 936 446.824 743 185.260 19. 933 072.704 743 002.280 20. 928 459.797 743 236.506 21. 925 409.789 744 379.354 22. 915 538.620 747 443.255 23. 910 748.956 748 718.057 24. 899 713.001 750 272.216 25. 886 261.357 751 086.957 FIC NA = Y OR DF o� . CO?ircl5 SUIT TO: [r RECF pip rlor,u'n1„ `JAN281�'� RECEIVED JAN 2 5 1981¢ Mayor, City of Newport �, Beach 1 CITY HALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TOM BRADLEY LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 January 21, 1982 MAYOR (213) 485.3311 TO: Representatives of Coastal Cities in Southern California FROM: Mayor Tom Bradley z-,ti 1101,Lez_IC51 711 SUBJECT: MEETING ON OCS LEASING ACTIVITIES As was indicated in the attached December 23, 1981, press release, the Department of Interior is about to publish in the Federal Register and send to the Governor the Proposed Notice of Sale on OCS Lease Sale #68. According to the press release, DOI intends to lease all the Southern California tracts analyzed in the Lease Sale Final EIS with the exception of: 1) those lying within the six nautical mile boundary of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) 23 Tracts which conflict with Defense Department operations. The Governor is allowed 60-days from the Notice's date of publication to review the proposal and to comment upon the size, timing and location of the sale. It is important for representatives of local coastal cities to once again meet to discuss our concerns and response to the Interior Department's actions. Other matters to be considered include the status of the law- suits over Lease Sale #53 and the DOI OCS air quality regulations. I would, accordingly, like to invite you and your staff to join with me and other elected officials on Tuesday, February 2, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. in the Mayor's Third Floor Conference Room, Room 305, Los Angeles City Ball. Representatives of the State Office of Planning and Research will attend to discuss the issues and provide a current update on OCS activities. The Interior Department expects to publish the Proposed Notice prior to February 2 and -it will be sent to you in advance of the meeting if time allows. Also for your information I have enclosed a copy of my comments to the Governor on the Final EIS. If you have any questions concerning the meeting or the status of the regulations please contact Tom Brady of my staff on (213) 485-6330. Please confirm Tour attendance and arrange parking by January 29 with Janet Bohart (213) 485-4438. I look forward to seeing you on Feburary 2 and thank you for your continuing interest and support in this issue. 0 ' •M BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Fergus (213) 688-6740 For Release December 23, 1981 Robinson (202)343-5717 PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE OFFERING (OCS #68) ANNOUNCED BY INTERIOR DEPARTMENT A Proposed Notice of Sale (OCS#68) for 174 oil and gas tracts totaling about 892,000 acres in the waters offshore southern California has been announced by the Department of the Interior: The lease offering is tentatively scheduled for June 1982. The submerged tracts are located in waters up to 4,900 feet deep and as far offshore as 84 miles. The proposal originally studied in an Environmental Impact Statement by the Department's Bureau of Land Management included 218 blocks (208 tracts) covering 1.2 million acres. Interior Secretary James Watt`Ueferred from this lease offering 35 tracts and portions of tracts that are within six nautical miles of the Channel Islands of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa. Watt also deferred from further consideration in this sale 23 tracts that would have conflicted with U.S. defense operations in the -area. Additional safeguards were added by Secretary Watt to the provisions covering the exploration and development activities expected to result from the sale. At the suggestion of the State of California, the Secretary included in the Proposed Notice of Sale an information clause to lessees noting the possible presence of shallow gas deposits on 34 of the tracts in the proposed offering. A notice to'lessees clause was also included in the Proposed Notice of Sale urging lessees to include a fisheries training program in their exploration and development plans that are filed with the U.S. Geological Survey. The Proposed Notice will be sent to the Governor of California who will be asked to comment on the size, timing, or location of,the proposal within 60 days. The Proposed Notice of Sale will be published in the Federal Register in early January. It will contain details about the various bidding systems to be used. These include bonus bidding with a 16-2/3 percent royalty on 64 tracts and bonus bidding with a 12-1/2 percent royalty on 110 tracts. In order to encourage exploration and development of tracts posing technological challenges, 13 tracts in deep water will be offered with a 10 year lease term. Bidders will also be advised that the Department is considering raising substantially the minimum bid for each tract from the present $25 per acre. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made available May 29, 1981, and public hearings were held July 28-30, 1981. A Final EIS reflecting Interior's consideration of all comments received from the public and from Federal and State agencies was issued on November 25, 1981. A map of the area being considered is attached. X CITY HALL LOS ANGCLCS. CALWORNIA 00012 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (213) •SS•]]N December 23, 1981 The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor State of California Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor Brown: TOM BRADLEY MAYOR I am writing to urge the State of California to support the deletion of the twelve tracts adjacent to the Santa Monica Bay from OCS Lease Sale #68. The deletion of the Bay tracts was considered as Alternative #4 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Lease Sale #68 released by the Bureau of Land Management on November 24, 1981. As I indicated in comments on the Draft EIS, I believe that development of tracts so close to the shores of Santa Monica Bay would both threaten our ability to eventually comply with the national ambient air quality standards and significantly endanger the recreationally based economy of the most heavily used beach area in the State. In addition, the EIS stresses that the geologi& hazards involved in drilling in this area reduce the chances of finding any of the estimated petroleum resources to less than 5 percent. These same hazards, would, of course, also increase the accident potential from any drilling operation. While I remain supportive of the reasonable development of our off- shore resources, I am opposed to drilling in an area where the predicted increase in both air pollution and oil spills will inevitably degrade the environmental quality of a shoreline visited by approximately 60 million people last year. It also makes little sense to endanger the economy of the Bay region to commence drilling in tracts which -are estimated in the EIS to contain less than 5 percent of the economically recoverable -resources in the Lease Sale based upon the "probability of success" in finding the resources. -over- AN EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY -AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" Based upon these concerns and others previously noted by public officials in the Santa Monica Bay area, I urge you to strongly support the deletion of the twelve Bay Tracts included in EIS Alternative #4 as part of your comments on the Final EIS and in subsequent testimony. Sincerely, 4; ti - TOM BRADLEY MAYOR TB: jlb RECEIVE®? SEP 0 41981 �► Mayor City 01Newport .. Beach CITY HALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TOM BRADLEY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 MAYOR (213) 485.3311 September 2, 1981 TO: Members of the Southern California Local Coastal Cities Coalition FRO14: Mayor Tom Bradley I want to thank those of you who were able to participate in our July 29, 1981 meeting of local coastal cities. It was an effective meeting and an important part of our efforts to maintain full communication and support among local jurisdictions. The updates from OPR, the Attorney General's Office and the City representatives provided a very full and timely account of actions to date relative to the five year leasing plan, Lease Sales 7#53 and 68, and the issue concerning air quality regulation. Several important items for future action were recommended, including a designation of the principle contact persons for each jurisdiction. These names can be sent to my office and we will compile an up- dated list for distribution. Additionally, other recommendations being pursued include: improving communication with and involvement of the general public in the current issues of offshore oil drilling; more actively involving the business community in supporting OCS activities; an examination of possible legislative amendment to clarify the process of tract exclusion and to provide some longer term protections for tracts deleted due to proximity to major population centers, recreational significance or protection of marine sanctuaries; and involving the non -coastal cities, emphasizing the recreational use and impact to all people of southern California. Also we are making greater efforts to insure active cooperation with northern and central California coalitions on offshore issues. I have also inclosed for your information copies of the City's comments on both the -;v._ Year Leasing Plan and Lease Sale 68. We will continue to keep the coalition informed of future coastal developments and will schedule a follow-up meeting in the fall. Should you have questions or need additional information, contact Julie Sgarzi of my staff (213) 485-4438 or Jan Chatten-Brown of the City Attorney's Office (213) 485-6492. Thank you for your continued interest in coastal issues. 0 -A TESTIMONY OF L W. CITY ATTORNEY IRA REINER ON DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ' PROPOSED 'REVISIONS lTO THE FIVE"YEAR ''OCS IWL SCHEDULE JULY 23, I98I BILTMORE HOTEL SINCE THE EARLY I970'S, THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE ISSUE OF OFFSHORE OIL LEASING, AS THE RECENTLY ELECTED LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY, I INTEND TO CONTINUE INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CRITICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUE. TODAY, I JOIN OTHER STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS IN URGING YOU TO ABANDON PROPOSED PROCEDURES WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE'MISMANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL OCS RESOURCES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOLDS IN TRUST FOR THE PUBLIC, IN I978, CONGRESS ADOPTED CAREFULLY CRAFTED AMENDMENTS TO THE OCS LANDS ACT REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN WHICH WOULD REFLECT CONSIDERATION OF THE LAWS, GOALS AND POLICIES OF AFFECTED STATES, MULTIPLE USES OF THE COASTAL ZONE, AND AN EQUITABLE SHARING OF DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AMONG THE VARIOUS REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY, THE ACT MANDATED ADOPTION OF A SCHEDULE INDICATING, AS PRECISELY AS POSSIBLE, THE SIZE, TIMING, AND LOCATION OF LEASES SO AS TO OBTAIN A PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, THE DISCOVERY OF OIL AND GAS, AND THE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO COASTAL COMMUNITIES. 43 USC SEC. I344. THE GOAL OF CONGRESS WAS TO OBTAIN THE ORDERLY, SENSIBLE AND BALANCED DEVELOPMENT OF THE OCS. I SUPPORT THAT GOAL. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROPOSED REVISED PROGRAM DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. A NUMBER OF PRACTICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS ARE CREATED BY THE NEW PLAN. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) REVIEW PROCESS HERETOFORE HAS BEEN THE KEY MECHANISM FOR THE LOCAL PARTICIPATION MANDATED BY THE OCS LANDS ACT AND THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT. THE PROPOSED PLAN INCREASES THE NUMBER OF SALES AND REOFFERINGS, DRAMATICALLY EXPANDS THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE IN EACH SALE, AND BROADENS THE SCOPE OF EVERY LEASE SALE EIS. UNDER THE REVISED PROCEDURES, EACH EIS NECESSARILY WILL BE MORE GENERAL AS TO THE DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS AND CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES, SINCE LARGER AREAS WILL BE SUBJECT TO ANALYSIS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEASE SALE #80 EIS MAY ANALYZE 33 MILLION ACRES, WHILE THE #68 EIS FOCUSED UPON LESS THAN W MILLION ACRES. AS A RESULT OF THE FREQUENCY AND GENERAL NATURE OF THE ANALYSIS, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENS WILL BE UNABLE TO INTELLIGENTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE NEPA PROCESS. RESOURCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO ALLOW EVERY LOCAL GOVERNMENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTED TO COMMENT ON EACH REGIONAL SALE. EVEN ASSUMING THAT COMMENTS ARE MADE, THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE ANALYSES IN THE DRAFT EIS WILL MAKE DETAILED, USEFUL COMMENTS DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE. BROADENING THE SCOPE OF THE EIS IS PARTICULARLY IRONIC WHEN CONTRASTED WITH REFINEMENTS IN THE NEPA PROCESS UTILIZING SCOPING AND TIERING, AS SET FORTH IN THE PRESIDENT S COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS NEPA REGULATIONS, 40 CFR - 2 - i SEC I500 ET SEQ, INTERIORS PROPOSED PROCESS STANDS THE NEPA PROCESS ON ITS HEAD AND IS GUARANTEED TO SPAWN A NEW GENERATION OF LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS, DELAYS RATHER THAN MORE RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF OUR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS RESOURCES WILL RESULT, THE ENTIRE OCS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS MAY BECOME USELESS PAPERWORK AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS, A RESULT CONTRARY TO THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION S STATED PURPOSE OF AVOIDING EXCESS PAPERWORK, IN ADDITION TO REDUCED PARTICIPATION IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE PUBLIC, MAY SUFFER ECONOMIC LOSSES FROM THE NEW PROCEDURES, DUE TO COMPRESSED TIME PERIODS, INTERIOR MAY OBTAIN LESS RESOURCE INFORMATION WITH WHICH TO ANALYZE THE COMPETITIVENESS OF BIDS, THIS COULD RESULT IN ACCEPTANCE OF INADEQUATE BIDS, SINCE ENTIRE PLANNING AREAS WILL BE OPEN TO BIDDING, BIDS MAY BE WIDELY DISPERSED AND LOW RATHER THAN COMPETITIVE WITHIN CONCENTRATED AREAS, WHILE OCS REVENUES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THUS TO THE PEOPLE, MAY BE LOWER AS A RESULT OF REDUCED COMPETITION, THE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DISPERSED ONSHORE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE GREATER. WHILE I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE GOAL OF FACILITATING DOMESTIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPOSAL IS BASED UPON THE FALACIOUS ASSUMPTION THAT OFFERING A GREATER NUMBER OF - 3 - TRACTS WILL RESULT IN GREATER OCS DEVELOPMENT. THIS ASSUMPTION IS CONTRARY TO COMMON SENSE AND THE OCS LEASING EXPERIENCE, HISTORICALLY, INDUSTRY HAS BID ON LESS THAN HALF OF THE TRACTS OFFERED. MANY OF THOSE TRACTS SOLD HAVE REMAINED UNEXPLORED AND UNDEVELOPED, RATHER THAN INCREASING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TRACTS DEVELOPED, THE PROPOSED PLAN MAY SIMPLY RESULT IN GREATER DISPERSION OF DEVELOPMENT. SUCH DISPERSION INCREASES THE NEED FOR COSTLY ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES IN A GREATER NUMBER OF COASTAL COMMUNITIES, WITH ALL THEIR ATTENDANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT. FEDERAL MONITORING OF OCS ACTIVITIES WILL BECOME MORE COSTLY AND LESS EFFICIENT. THE PLAN ALSO RESULTS IN A LESS EFFICIENT USE OF DEVELOPMENT EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL. A MORE SENSIBLE APPROACH IS TO DEVELOP LIMITED AREAS FULLY BEFORE MOVING INTO UNDEVELOPED BASINS. UNDER PRESENT PROCEDURES SOME AREAS ARE NOMINATED AND SUBJECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS, BUT NOT SOLD. THIS IS LESS THAN IDEAL. ABDICATING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOROUGH STUDY OF LEASING AREAS, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE SOLUTION. GREATER ATTENTION SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON AVOIDING LITIGATION BY ENHANCING PUBLIC AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INPUT, TO ASSURE A FAIR RETURN TO THE PUBLIC, DOI SHOULD OBTAIN THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE ABOUT RESOURCE POTENTIAL, MOST IMPORTANTLY, INTERIOR SHOULD WORK TO ASSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR IN THOSE AREAS LEASED, -4- WHILE I URGE THE CONTINUED USE OF THE CALL FOR NOMINATIONS PROCESS, TRACT SELECTION, AND PREPARATION OF DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES, THERE IS ONE DEFICIENCY IN THE EXISTING PROCESS WHICH SHOULD BE PROMPTLY REMEDIED. THE CONTINUOUS REINSTATEMENT OF TRACTS PREVIOUSLY DELETED ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS SHOULD CEASE. FOR EXAMPLE, AREAS SUCH AS SANTA MONICA BAY, OFFSHORE SAN DIEGO, AND THE CHANNEL ISLAND MARINE SANCTUARY AND ECOLOGICAL PRESERVE, WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN, AFTER DETAILED ANALYSIS, IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR SPECIAL VALUE AND SENSITIVITY, SHOULD REMAIN SET ASIDE AT LEAST FOR THE DURATION OF THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN. THIS WOULD ENABLE STATE, LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TO CONCENTRATE EFFORTS ON A COOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT OF, AND PLANNING FOR, OCS DEVELOPMENT IN A REASONED AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I URGE YOU TO RECOMMEND THE REVISIONS NECESSARY FOR ASSURING THE PROCEDURES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OCS LANDS ACT, THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT, AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, TO ASSIST YOU IN REVISING THE PROPOSED PROCEDURES, MY STAFF WILL SUBMIT MORE DETAILED COMMENTS. - 5 - `1 P TEST Ii10tiY Oil BEHALF OF LOS All-fGELES CITY OFFICIALS ON LEASE SALE NO. 63 JULY 31, 1931 LOtNG BEACH COIIVENITIOI CENTER GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM ROGER HOLT, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF Los ANGELES, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF Los ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY IRA REINER, MAYOR Tom BRADLEY, AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ZEV YAROSLAVSKY AND IMARVIN BRAUDE, WE URGE (1) EXCLUSION OF THE TEN TRACTS IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE SANTA MONICA BAY FROM LEASE SALE 63, AND (Z) DELAY OF THE LEASE SALE UNTIL PENDING OCS AIR QUALITY REGULATION LITIGATION IS RESOLVED OR INCLUSION OF LEASE STUPULATIONS THAT OCS ACTIVITIES MEET LOCAL AIR, QUALITY REGULATIONS, OUR MAJOR CONCERNS REGARDING THESE TRACTS ARE THE DEVASTATING IMPACTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT SO CLOSE TO THE SHORES OF SANTA MONICA BAY WOULD HAVE ON THE ECOIlOM1' AND RECREATION OF GREATER Los ANGELES; THE DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH LOCATING TRACTS IN TANKER. TRAFFIC LANES; AND THE THREATS POSED TO THE REGION S ALREADY SEVERELY POLLUTED AIR, ATTACHED TO MY-WRITTEF! TESTIMONY IS A REPORT PREPARED BY OUR OFFICE_ DETAILING THE NATURAL AND RECREATIO14AL RESOURCES OF SANTA 'MONICA BAY A14D THE THREAT POSED TO IT BY OIL DRILLING, THE REPORT WAS *SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF A LETTER. FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS TO THEN SECRETARY OF INTERIOR CECIL ANDRUS, REQUESTING DELETION OF SANTA MONICA BAY FROti PAGE 2 THE LEASE SALE 63 CALL FOR HOMINATIONS, SECRETARY ANDRUS SUBSEQUENTLY DELETED THOSE TRACTS IN RECOGNITION OF THE VALUE OF SANTA IMONICA BAY AND THE.HAZAP,D POSED BY DRILLING THERE. SIMILAR HAZARDS ARE POSED BY LEASING TRACTS IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE THE TECHNICAL BOUNDARY OF THE BAY BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC LANES, OIL SPILL TRAJECTORIES, AND ONSHORE NAND PATTERNS (SEE "ESTIMATES OF SPILL•TRAJECTORY LIKELIHOOD FOR THE SOUTHERN: CALIFORNIA OCS11 BY .1.1i. DEVANNEY III, MARTINGALE TECHNICAL REPORT 75-21 JULY 1, 1975). THE BAY IS PROBABLY THE MOST HEAVILY USED COASTAL AREA FOR RECREATIONAL BOATING AND SWIMMING IN THE COUNTRY. EIGHTY-THREE PER CENT (83;;) OF ITS SHORELINE IS USED FOR RECREATION AND, ACCORDING TO THE DEIS, APPROXIMATELY 60 MILLION PEOPLE VISITED ITS BEACHES LAST YEAR, OF THOSE SO MILLION PEOPLE, MANY WERE RESIDENTS WHO LACK THE MONETARY RESOURCES TO GO ELSEWHERE FOR RECREATION. NUMEROUS OTHERS WERE TOURISTS WHO FLOCK TO Los ANGELES BECAUSE OF ITS FAMED BEACHES, SANDY BEACHES TEND TO TRAP OIL FOR LONG PERIODS. WERE THE BEACHES TO BECOME SOILED,l•IITH OIL EITHER FROM A MAJOR SPILL OR CHRONIC DISCHARGES, MANY TOURISTS WOULD GO ELSEWHERE, L0.'! INCOME RESIDENTS WOULD EITHER CEASE BEACH - GOING, OR HAVE LESS SATISFYING RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCES, J PAGE 3 THE DEIS NOTES, ON PAGE 3-90, THAT TOURISM IS ONE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S LARGEST INDUSTRIES. TOURISM ADDS TO THE AREA'S ECONOMIC WELL-BEING BY CONTRIBUTING DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY TO'ALMOST EVERY SECTOR OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. IT IS SENSELESS' TO ENDANGER THE ECONOMY OF THE REGION FOR THE AMOUNT OF OIL AND GAS WHICH MAY BE FOUND IN THE TEN TRACTS ADJACENT TO SANTA MONICA BAY. . RISKS OF BLOWOUT CAUSED BY.HUMAN ERROR, MISCALCU- LATION, OR EARTHQUAKE ENGENDERED BY DRILLING WITHIN THE -BAY ARE GREAT. HOWEVER, THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH DRILLING IN T14E TRACTS JUST OUTSIDE THE BAY ARE EVEN GREATER BECAUSE THEY ARE LOCATED DIRECTLY IN VESSEL SHIPPING LANES. THE COAST GUARD TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEME (TSS) ROUTES TANKERS AND OTHER SHIPPING VESSELS THROUGH THE SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL AND DIRECTLY THROUGH THE TEN TRACTS TO LONG BEACH. IN THE CASE OF OIL TANKERS, THE HAZARDS FROM BOTH THE PLATFORMS AND THE NUMEROUS SERVICE VESSELS CRISS-CROSSING THE LANES ARE TREMEiJDOUS, MANY LARGE TANKERS REQUIRE OVER A MILE TO STOP. WHILE ACCIDENTS DO NOT HAPPEN EVERY DAY, A SPILL A FRACTION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF AN ARGO 10'IERCHANT OR AF50C0 CADIZ 1-16ULD DEVASTATE THE BAY'S BEACHES AND THE REGION'S TOURIST ECONOMY FOR MON7rJS OR EVEN YEARS. THERE SHOULD BE NO LEASING •IN THE TSS LANES OFF SANTA FIONICA. HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION WILL INEVITABLY HAVE A DELETERIOUS IMPACT ON THE ALREADY NOXIOUS AIR IN THE Los A14GELES BASIN, THE CITY IS ALREADY UNDER PAGE 4 SANCTION FOR NON-COMPLIA14CE 0ITH NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, ADDITIONAL POLLUTION FROii OFFSHORE SOURCES, BOTH THROUGH PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES AND HYDRO- CARBON EVAPORATION FROM SOILLAGE, WOULD CAUSE EVEN GREATER VIOLATION OF NATIONAL STANDARDS, UNSHORE SOURCES WOULD BE UNFAIRLY SUBJECTED TO EVEN'MORE STRINGENT REGULATIONS. IN ORDER, TO OFFSET OFFSHORE EMISSIONS, THIS IS*A FURTHER ECONOMIC BURDEN THAT LOCAL INDUSTRY, THE PUBLIC, AND GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BEAR, AN ADDITIONAL ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT WOULD BE THE REDUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES -NEAR THE BAY, BAY AREA RESIDENTS ARE WILLING TO PAY HIGHER PROPERTY PRICES IN PART BECAUSE OF CLEANER AIR, MANY DO SO TO AVOID RESPIP.A- TORY PROBLEMS. POLLUTION FROM OFFSHORE • SOURCES WOULD' SIGNIFICANTLY DEGRADE COASTAL AIR QUALITY, THUS REDUCING PROPERTY VALUES AND.ENDANGERING HEALTH. AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING ARE AGGRAVATED BY THE GROSSLY INADEQUATE INTERIOR OSS AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS, THESE REGULATIONS FAIL TO TAKE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF NU14EROUS RIGS INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING WHETHER EACH SOURCE'S EMISSIONS WILL BE It SIGNIFICANT 11; BASE THE EXEMPTION FORMULA ON INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE TRANSPORT OF EMISSIONS; AND FAIL TO REQUIRE MITIGATION EVEN WHERE A SOURCE S EMISSIONS ARE DEEMED TO BE "SIGNIFICANT��. PAGE 5 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS SUED THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ON ITS OCS AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS. WE ARE FILING AN AMIC CURIAE BRIEF IN THAT SUIT BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS MAY FURTHER JEOPARDIZE OUR ABILITY TO ATTAIN FEDERALLY'MANDATED AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. VIE URGE THAT EITHER THE SALE BE DELAYED UNTIL LITIGATION IS RESOLVED AND ADEQUATE REGULATIONS ARE IMPOSED, OR THAT THE LEASES INCLUDE STIPULATIONS THAT OCS ACTIVITIES MEET LOCAL AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS. RESPONDING TO THE REPEATED THREATS TO SANTA [jONICA BAY IS AN UNWARRANTED DRAIN UPON THE RESOURCES OF Los ANGELES' LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, UNFORTUNATELY, RECENT DCI POLICY HAS AGGRAVATED RATHER. THAN ALLEVIATED OUR CONCERNS ABOUT UPCOMING LEASE SALES, COMMENTS FROM WASHINGTON RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR S OILLINGNESS TO RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC CONCERNS IN THE WAY ENVISIOi;ED BY THE OCS LANDS ACT. 'WE HOPE OUR CONCERNS WILL BE PROVEN MISPLACED. BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF ACCIDENTS IN THE TSS LANES, THE IMPORTANCE OF SANTA PIONICA BAY TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE•CITY OF Los ANGELES, AND THE INADEQUACY OF THE CURRENT OCS AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS, WE URGE YOU TO DELETE TRACTS [10. 123, 129, 136, 137, 133, 145, 147 151, AND 152 FROM LEASE SALE NO- 68. F C17V HALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR LOS ANO[LL S, CAUFOR HIA 20012 (213) 485-331, February 29, 1980 The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus Secretary of the Interior Department of the Interior 18th and "Ct1 Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Re: Comments on Call for Nominations for Lease Sale No. 68 TOM BRADLEY "^,OR Dear Mr. Secretary: In response to the Department of Interior's "Call for Nominations" and Comments for Lease Sale 17o. 68, the undersigned urge you to exclude the Santa Monica Bay from consideration for oil and gas leasing. Tracts recommended for exclusion are those previously excluded by former Secretary Y.leppe in 1975, and are listed on attachment II. We are extremely cognizant of our country's need to develop new energy resources. We are also, however, acutely aware of the need to preserve and protect those natural resources essential to the quality of h =man life. T,fter careful consideration and a balancing of these interests, we have concluded that, in the present situation, the scales tip in favor of environmental protection. The tracts contained within the Santa Monica Bay represent but a small geographic proportion of the area proposed for the lease sale; current estimates of its oil and gas potential define it as a small field. Exclusion of the Bay would have little impact on the State's efforts, already begun, to achieve energy independence. Tracts yet to be leased in Sales pos. 35 and 48 are developed. The Santa Barbara Channel is presently the most intensely leased OCS area in the country and its already leased tracts encompass substantial additional resources. San Pedro Bay will shortly begin production. With many alternative offshore tracts still available, there are substantial reasons for continuing __at this time to exclude the Santa Monica Bay from drilling. "AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY -AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EHPLOYER•' The Honorable CeW D. Andrus • ' Secretary of the nterior February 29, 1980 Page 2 The potential impact to the environment of oil drilling in the Santa Monica Bay is detailed in the attached report. We believe that the risk to recreation, the natural environment and air quality outweigh any benefits to be gained at this time. Inclusion of the Bay among tracts selected for indepth environmental studies would represent a substantial commitment of time by the Department of Interior better spent elsewhere, and would necessitate a.detailed and tire - consuming response from Los Angeles local, government. it could also once again put local_ government and the Department of Interior on a collision course. We hope you will soon advise us that Santa Monica Bay has been deleted from further consideration for Sale in Lease Sale•No. 68. Thank you for your consideration. very truly yours, TOM BR'�D Mayor A27THONY C. BEILENS017 Member of Congress L . 1'7 SIERO Y Senator,' 22nd District BURT PINES City Attorney -Al' ROBERT K. D0.'tIvA`, United -States Congressman AS 51st Assembly G MARILYN RYAN . District The Honorable CA D.•Anarus Secretary of the Interior February 29, 1980 Page 3 A� YVOiNE BRATHNAITE BMRKE Supervisor, 4th District C nGh��� lJr' CHARLES ARONBERG, M.D�r 2•:ayor, City of Beverly Hills BLL C. JOHNSON favor, City of Palos Verdes Estates TOiiid J bF?•i3RICK ;ayor, City of Santa Monica Attachment 11ARVIN BP_yUDE Councilman, llth District HANK D6ERFLING Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach 7 — - JE OXE BELSKY AIa or, City of Rollin • lis states C� I P.tf�S R. mayor of STRONG . City of ToX ante PAT RUSSILL Councilwoman, 6th District REPORT ON RESOURCES OF SANTA MONICA BAY IN RELATIONSHIP TO OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING Prepared by the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and Submitted on Behalf of Los Angeles Area.Local Officials February 1980• It is hard to conceive of a place in the United States where offshore oil drilling might have more of an impact on more people than in the Santa Monica Bay. Its long sandy beaches are world-famous -- a trademark of Southern California. The Bay and its shores provide recreation for an urban population of pore than seven million. Long recognized as a state sanctuary and twice excluded from previous lease sales, the Bay is a unique national resource which deserves continued protection. OCS develop- nent ,aithin the Bay would imperil that resource and further degrade already unhealthy air in -the South Coast Air Basin. We recognize, of course, our local obligation to contribute to the achievement of energy independence. Reducin- the amount of oil we import requires a national effort, with some sacrifice by all of us. We cannot simply shift the burden onto others because it is uncomfortable or inconvenient. We also recognize that California presently imports_al,l one million barrels of -oil a day. However, the California Governor') Office of Planning and Research predicts that -California's supply rj and demand will 0 in balance by 1985, weloefore development from lease sale number 68 commences. '. This is largely due to the intensive development of California's offshore resources, which are well documented in the comments submitted by the County of Santa Barbara on the Call for Nominations. Having considered the risks inherent in oil drilling, the availability of other drilling locations in Southern California and the sensitivity of the Bay in the human environment of the region, we must argue, and argue strongly for its exclusion from proposed lease sale number 68. The Resources of Santa Monica Bay Recreation In Los Angeles County, 83 percent of the shoreline " Land management in 1975 is used for recreation. The Bureau o, called the County "pivotal in any discussion of recreation. in Southern California."1/ An estimated 56 million people visited the beaches of Los `Angeles County last year.2/ On su?.ier days, crowds at the beach often reached a million persons. The beach represents one of the few recreational resources available to virtually everyone in this community. Santa Monica Bay is probably the most heavily used coastal area for recreational boating in this country. At the County's marina at Marina del Rey, the largest on the Bay, there are 62000 boats in slips, 1,200 in dry storage. There were more than 19,000 launchings from the public ramp last year.3/ There are numerous yacht clubs and boat clubs active in the Bay and an extensive schecuie of both sail and powerboat racing: • 3 • Wetlands, Two sensitive wetlands require special protection. Only a fraction of Los Angeles County's original 6,800 acres of wetlands still exist. The 10 acres which contain the Malibu Creek and Lagoon in I•ialibu and the 70 acres of the Ballona wetlands in Venice, provide irreplaceable habitats for a variety of species as well as an educational resource for wildlife studies.11 The Ballona wetlands contain an estimated 20 percent of the State's nesting ground for an endangered species, the Least tern.5/ A study prepared for the Atlantic -Richfield Company (ARCO) listed the Malibu and Ballona Wetlands as two of 32 biologically sensitive areas between Point Dume and the Yexican border.6j Rating on a scale of high, middle and low, the I;alibu area was rated high and Ballona middle for ecological value. Both were given middle ratings for protection priorities. Although far from pristine, these wetlands remain a critical part of the 'ecological scheme because they are the only places in a wide geographic area that will support many species. Like all wetlands, they are also particularly vulnerable to damage from oil spills. Once it has entered a salt marsh, oil is extremely difficult to remove and clean-up efforts are often as damaging to the environment as the oil itself. Oil is very slow to be absorbed and while it remains it is extremely detrimental because many species most sensitive to oil and pollu- • tion congregate in wetlands. The ARCO study said of the Ballona wetlands that, "Since this wetlands site is of significant size and importance and since it is always open via a'drainage channel, 4. it is a high priority site to receive protection if there is an oil spill."7/ Should such protection prove inadequate however, the study notes, "Clean-up of Ballona Lagoon or inside'the marsh 8/ would probably not be effective."— Althou.ub sandy beaches better withstand oil pollu- tion than wetlands, they still require protection. The Bureau of Land Management has stated: "Sandy beaches in•this area [Santa Konica Bay] are of great recreational importance and would tend to trap spilled oil for 1•ong periods and experience erosion as a result of the oil contamination.119/ There are other coastal areas within the County that might suffer serious damage from oil pollution. The nutrient -I rich waters off l:alibu support one of the best kelp beds south of Santa Barbara. The rocky shore off Palos Verdes harbors inter- tidal marine life that no longer exists elsewhere in the region. Such an area was referred to in the Enviror-.ental Statement for Lease Sale Number 35: "The Southern California coast contains isolated rocky shores which if coated by a crude oil spill as a result of this proposal may not rapidly be repopulated due to the distance over which colonizing life would have to be recruited.I The Bureau of Land Management has concluded that: "Because of the prevalence of beaches, their high use and economic value, Southern California is considered to be relatively highly sensitive to impacts from oil spills."" / Impacts of Drilling in the Bay Facilities required -- It has been estimated that to fully develop the Bay 0 would require tOee to nine platforms, 120873 wells and'20-122 12t:e / arshore land facilities would require at Miles of pipeline. least four to five acres on the coast or directly inland. tidhile subsea completion may be possible, at least one platform would still be required according to industry representatives. Reliance on such technology to mitigate aesthetic effects would almost certainly increase the probability of oil spills. In 1975, the California Governor's office of Planning and Research study noted the lack of a suitably large area on the coast or directly inland for storage of oil spill recovery and clean-up equipment.— At least one oil company has contended that the consortium eauipme'' in Long Beach is close enough to handle all .spills, but given the igs in the Bay to the shore and the pattern proximity of offshore r of currents, reliance on Long Beach equipMent seems imprudent. oilj is Of course, the most obvious hazard of offshore oil drilling is that of oil spills. It is virtually inevitable that eventual production, spills will occur. The on' with drilling and question is their extent and the damage they cause. There is always the possibility of a major tanker spill or blowout. Althc ffshore drilling, blowouts do occur. They statistically rare in o represent probably the worst hazard. The Bay of Campeche blowout in Mexico which occurred on June 3, 1979, has, by now, discharge( an estimated five million barrels of oil into the sea.14/ Appare: all attempts to significantly reduce its flow have failed. The 1977 Ekofisk blowout in the North Sea spewed an estimated 8.215/ million gallons of oil in'the nine days before it was capped.— Neither of th & blowouts were nearshorip fortunately, and their worst effects were dissipated by the natural weathering action of the sea. A blowout in Santa Monica Bay, where a vast pro- portion of the oil vould reach shore in a brief period of tine, could be devastating. Only the 1.3 million barrel spill of the Amoco Cadiz off the coast of France in 1978 gives some clue to the effect of such a blowout. There, although the beaches and many species have apparently recovered from the oil, some species remain alnost entirely absent. The long-term effect will not be known for several years. Then, of course, there was the Santa Barbara spill. More certain than a blowout or a najor spill would be a succession of minor spills. Scientists are divided over the effect of these chronic spills, but the Bureau of Land Management has predicted a "moderate to severe degradation of water quality In localized areas.around platforms and rigs and in areas, parti- cularly those nearshore, that are affected by oil spills.ttl6/ Earthouakes Increasing the risk of a spill: is the possibility of earthquakes. Santa Monica Bay has been described as moderately active seismically, with several identified faults. Pipelines are particularly vulnerable to quake activity and, in the case of buried pipelines, leaks are often hard to pinpoint. Fault move- -I ments in the Bay may be most hazardous in their tendency to displace water and create tsunamis. The Bureau of Land Management has stated: "Earthquakes, fault movement., submarine . 7. 0. slumps and slides. are the principal hazards to emplacement of platforms and pipelines in Southern California. Normal physical oceano- graphic conditions are not a constraint on OCS development activities in this region though *the generation of tsunamis by -seismic 17/ activity is a probability." — The United States Geologic Survey in a report an the proposed lease sale noted that, "Because the area is seis- mically active, inundation of the coastal lowlands could result from tsunamis generated locally or distantly."18/ Complicating the whole issue of seismicity is the controversy over whether drilling operations, through the with- drawal of fluids, increases seismic risks. The USGS had recom- mended further study of drilling's secondary effects, such as seafloor subsidence as a result of fluid withdrawal, before the oil fields are developed. Air Pollution Drilling in the Bay will increase air pollution in what is already the most polluted air basin in the country. The basin has been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a non -attainment area for Carbon Monoxide, Oxidant, Nitrogen Dioxide, Hydrocarbons and Particulates. State and federal standards for these pollutants are regularly exceeded; for example in 1978, in West Los Angeles there were 22 days exceeding federal standards for Carbon Monoxide, 102 days for Oxidant, 20 days for Nitrogen Dioxide, and 140 days for Hydro- carbons.l9/-As a result, there are severe restrictions on certain ds of growth. • quality impact of development In a report on the air from earlier offshore lease sales, the Air Quality Management District (AQI"D) reported that if tankers were used in normal operations, 444 tons of hydrocarbons would be dumped into the 20 air each day./ 1:o natter how the drilling was conducted, I nitrogen oxides would exceed the federal standard of "signifi— "21/- In the event of the worst accident case considered cance. by the AQMD — a 10,000 barrel spill — oxidant concentrates would result in a change from a stage one to a stage two air pollution emergency episode.22/ Even graver consequences would result if such .,-t-'tent occurred during a stage two episode. The health impacts would be real and dangerous. And, there could be a spill larger than 10,000 barrels. The AQTO figures, while alarming, do not show the magnitude of the impacts if the emissions occur in the Bay. Pollution generated in the Bat' would quickly, and with little 23/ dissipation, be swept onshore by prevailing winds. The AQI-:D also did now take into account emissions from associated opera- torage, trznspo=Cation of the crude to tions such as onshore s refineries and of the finished product to market. - Added air pollution would increase the difficulty of attaining the air quality standards in this region. Failure to attain these sza-aaras nay result in further limitations on is sanctions; (Clean Air Act section 172(a) growth and even econo (1), 42 USC section 7502) (Clean Air Act section 176, 42 USC section 7505.) Emissions from offshore will also necessitate an additional tight ng of controls on exist* air pollution sources so the area can continue to make reasonable progress toward attainment of the standards. The Plan already is believed by many to be unacceptably stringent in the level of controls imposed. Aesthetics No matter where the platforr..s were placed within the Santa lfonica Bay, they would be visible from the shore. The Department of the Interior has said platforms in the Bay would be "fairly prominent objects exhibiting discordant vertical and angular lines and contrasting tone(s) against the soft flat of the sea. Those within ten miles of the shore will be very prominent objects and be seen from at least, two onshore directions. Nowhere will they be framed by a background of similar appearance. They will affect the view considerably."2 4, 1 That last sentence Is something of an understatement. It does not take much imagina- tion to realize how cifferent an experience beach going would be with huge oil platforms looming, out of the water as little as three miles from shore. Non -Spill Water Quality Impacts In addition to oil spills, water quality might be worsened by'the resuspension of sediments on the ocean bottom caused by the digging of trenches for pipelines and other opera- tions. This was noted in the Final Environmental Statement for Lease Sale No. 35: "Perhaps the potentially most dangerous impact would be from intertidal sedimentation from polluted sediments stirred up during pipeline laying. The ec• equence of this, althou�believed to be minor in relationship to the total of intertidal communities, is now known. . .-. This impact is most likely to occur around the Los Angeles area."27/ "Due to the large pollutant inputs from industrial and municipal ocean discharges, the pollutant concentration in the sediment is high in many parts of this area.. [Santa Monica Bay] Sediments around the Palos Verdes area have an extremely high concentration of pesticides. Any suspension of these sediments:or polluted sedi— ments from other locations within the Santa I-Ionica Bay area would have deleterious effects. . . . With existing poor water quality in some of the nearshore areas adjacent to these tracts, any additional stress may exceed the environment's ability to assimilate these pollutants."2o/ Any additional problem might be posed in the disposal of drilling muds and formation waters. These materials generally may not be dumped at sea and, with the onshore area being heavily urban, there is a lack, of sites for the disposal of muds. U'aste disposed from the oil and water separation facilities may also present a problem. Shipping and Boating Accidents With a heavily used body of water such as the Santa Monica Bay, the emplacement of large structures such as drilling platforms may create some navigational problems, espe— cially at night. Considering the varying levels of seamanship of those who use the Bay, there is always the possibility of collisions. It has been generally recognized that the highest probability of accidents involving platforms comes when they are located in•areas with high levels of vehicle traffic, such as Southern California-27/ Economic Losses It must be made clear that tangible, specific, economic losses mounting to the hundreds of millions of dollars also will be suffered as a result of drilling in the Bay. These losses include loss of beach use, loss of tourist taxes, diminu— tion in property values and loss in property tares. Together with the nuch greater adverse ir..pact on the quality of life in the greater Los Angeles area, economic losses provide cause for exclusion of Santa Monica Bay from further consideration at this time. ' OCS Development in Santa T4onica Bay Appears Inconsistent with California`s Coastal Piz We believe OCS development within.5anta Monica Bay would potentially conflict with California's Coastal Plan, and therefore not be permissible under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USC section 1456. It is in everyone's best interest for a "consistency review" to be made as early as possi: rather than awaiting specific development plans. We concur with the view of the State of California and the U.S. Department of 12. Justice that consistency review of prelea0g activities is legally appropriate, and have so contended in the Department of Con mediationmediation of this issue. The Department of Interior staff has already recommended exclusion of certain ecologically sensi tive tracts due to possible conflicts with California's Coastal Plan provi- sions for marine resources (Public Resources Code section 30230) and environmentally sensitive habitats (Public Resources Code section 30240). Malibu and Ballona wetlands may also justify a finding that leasing in Santa Monica Bay would be inconsistent ecting environmentally sensitive areas with the policy of Prot section 302�;D). ^a here are, however, a (Public Resources Code nu:-.ber of other coastal policies with which OCS development in Santa 19onica Bay could conflict. These include: 1, Protection of water oriented recreational ources Code section 30220); activities (Public Res 2. 'Protection of oceanfront land suitable for recreational use (Public Resources Code section 30221); 3• The requirement for protection against spillage of crude oil and provision for a clean-up and recovery facility (Public Resources Code section 30232); 4. Protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the Coast as a resource of public importance (Public Resource:, Code section 30251); 5• Consistency with requirement imposed by the Air Resources Board and Air Quality Management District (Public Resources Code section 30253(3)); and, 13. 6.4onsolidation of new or *anded oil and gas facilities (Public Resources Code section 30262). Bee ommendation Santa A;onica Bay is a unique natural resource in an urban setting. Leasing tracts for oil drilling there would seriously threaten: - a major recreational area used by more than seven million people, --the last of what were once thousands of acres of wetlands, and - air quality in a region already infamous for the most polluted air in the nation. For these and the other reasons cited above, we urge the Department of Interior to exclude Santa Monica Bay from further consideration for leasing as part of lease sale number 68. Report prepared by: Jan Chatten-Brown Sari Pillsbury (Los Angeles City Attorneys Office) F00T140TES 1. Final Enviornmental Statement, Proposed 1975 OCS, Oil and Gas General Lease Sale, Of Southern Cal. (OCS Sale No. 35) 2. Los Anoales,County Department of Beaches estimate 3. Los Angeles County Department of Small Craft 4. England and Nelson, "Land Capability/Suitability Study," Los Angeles County General Plan Revision. (Report ing notryetactcdupon dLos Angeles BoardCounty of Sup�visors)Commission but 5. California Department of Fish and Game 6. June Lindstedt-Siva, Oil Spill Respor.'se Planning for Biologically Sensitive Areas in Southern Califoftiantic Point Dume to the Mexican Border" April, 1977, Richfield Company 7. Lindstedt-Siva, Ibid. p. 18 8. Lindstedt-Siva, Ibid. p. 19 9 BLm' Final Environment Statement, OCS Lease Sales 1980-1985, p. 228 1D. Ibid. 11. Ibid., p. 264 12. F.E.S., OCS Lease No. 35, vol. 22 P. 598 13. Calif. Office of Planning and Research, "Onshore Impact of Offshore Southern California Lease Sale EO. 35," 1975 14. This is a ball park estimate figure. There has been a wide range of estimates since the beginning of the spill. The five million barrel total is based on a 20,000 barrel per day estimate suggested by American sources. 1Sexican figures showing a drastic reduction in the well's flow have been discounted by American scientists who, in weekly overflights, can detect no diminution in the flow. 15. New York Times, April 30, 1977 16. i90 final Environmental Statement, OCS Lease Sales 8 1, 17. BLM, FES is80-1985, supra, p. 172. 40 18. USGS, A Summary Report of the Regional Geology, Petroleum Potential, Environmental Geology, and Operational Considerations in the Area of Proposed Lease Sale No. 68, Offshore Southern California, p. 40. 19. South Coast Air Quality Management District Board, "Report on Impact of Potential Oil and Gas Development in the South Coast Air Basin," 1979, p. 25. 20. Ibid., p. 29. This figure was estimated for leases already sold and may not be applicable to the Santa Monica Bay. It assumes a 100,percent tankering operation; oil from producing wells in the Bay would probably be transported to shore by pipeline. Under a normal tanker- ing operation, the hydrocarbons would be 78 tons per day. 21. Ibid., p. 43. 22. Ibid., p. 40. 23. Note F.E.S., OCS Lease Sale No. 35, vol. 2, p. 274: "Because of the distance of most of the lease areas from shore, the impact of exhaust emissions from offshore facilities would probably be small and unim- portant. However, due to the prevailing meteorological conditions, emissions from operating facilities in the nearshore tracts of San Pedro Bay and Santa Monica Bay could add to the air quality degradation onshore." 24. F.E.S., OCS Lease No. 35, vol. 2, P. 347. 25. F.E.S., OCS Lease No. 35, vol_ 2, p. 211. 26. F.E.S. Sale 35, supra, vol.'2, P. 598. Note also BLM, Final EIS OCS Lease Sales 1980-1965, P. 196: "Because of past ocean dumping activities, potential for disturb- ance of toxic and other waste material will exist on the OCS, particularly offshore of intensively developed areas." 27. BLM, F.E.S., OCS Leases 1980-1985, P. 194. Negative nominations for Santa Monica Bay 43 N 42 1y 43 N 42 N 42 N 42 11 41 N 43 N 42 N 41- 1. 40 14 43 N 42 N 41 11 40 N 43 11 412 Id 41 11 410 11 39 N 43 N 42 1: 41 14 40 11 39 N 38 N 37 N . 42 N 41 1. 40 1: 39 17 38 1.1 37 N 41 1d 40 N 39 11 38 N 37 14 52 W 52 W 51 w 51 t:• 50 W 49 W 49 W 48 W 48 w 48 w 46 W 47 W 47 W 47 W 47 }I 46 W 46 w 46 w 46 w 46 W 45 W 45 v, 45 V? 45 W 45 W 45 W 45 w 44 w 44 W 44 W 44 w 44 w 44 4! 43 V 43 w 43 w 43 W 43 W ATTACIli • E i' 11 WECTEC Services, Inc. • 118 Brookhollow Drive 2159-MWW2372 Santa Ana, CA 92705 July 20, 1981 d7� (714) 556-9350 Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard, N Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Lease Sale 68 EIS Review Dear Fred: WESTEC Services has reviewed the DEIS and POCS Technical Papers Numbers 81-1 through -7 for the preparation by the Bureau of Land Management on Lease Sale 68. In summary, the document does not address generic impacts to the Newport Beach/Irvine Coast area. The questions raised by the city in its: correspondence of February 29, 19802 concerning recreation, sensitive habitats, and the National Urban Park have not been discussed in even a general manner, which would be expected in a programmatic document. It is our feeling that these issues, along with others such as oil spill containment, onshore infrastructure impacts, marine transportation safety, and air quality, have not been addressed with specificity because of the development assumptions in the DEIS. • Our review 'of those development 'assumptions and their inherent problems for Newport Beach is found in Section 1.0 of the report. As noted, we do not feel that these assumptions are realistic and, at a'minimum,' feel that under CEQA and NEPA that alternative scenarios should be proposed. Obviously, if the oil/gas is not extracted and transported in the manner suggested in the DEIS and technical papers, then the significance of the impact to Newport Beach increases. The overall content of the DEIS and technical papers is very generic with the exception of the air quality work (technical paper only), which is first class. Because the documents tend to draw on work previously done for Lease Sale 48, it is difficult to pinpoint the adequacy of methodology. We have noted throughout our discussion, however, specific areas which we feel require additional assessment. Due to the fact that much of our concerns revolves around the lack of alternative development scenarios, it is suggested that additional scenarios be presented. We hope that this is of some assistance to you and the Council. meet with you and the Council, if necessary, to explain the approaches for the city to pursue. Re ards,, Mi ael W. Wri Vice President MWW:pc Enclosure I would be happy to review and suggest REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED O.C.S. LEASE SALES NO. 68 DRAFT EIS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE AREA July 209 1981 Prepared For: The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared By: WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 1.0 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS The description of the proposed project as presented in the DEIS assumes a highly generalized development and transportation scenario for the Inner Banks region. Of paticular concern to the city of Newport Beach is the underlying project development assumptions serving as the basis of the impact analysis for the San Pedro Channel subarea. The scenario, as briefly indentified in section I.B.1 of the DE IS and the POCS Technical Paper No. 81-1 is construed to be as follows: Resource supply, production, development and transportation assumptions are based on the mean conditional estimates of 70 million Bbls. of oil and 93 billion ftY2 of gas that could be economically recoverable from the Inner Banks area. Of the total recource, the San Pedro Channel subarea is predicted to produce 13,521 b/d of oil and 15,949 Mc/d of gas by the year 1990. High resource estimates indicate a maximum of three production platforms, accommodating 69 wells, two subsea completions and a total of 55 exploratory wells and 70 delineation wells for the Inner Banks area as a whole. The transportation scenario assumes that all oil and gas production from the San Pedro subarea will be transported via a single platform located in Tract No. 181. Eight miles of 12 inch pipeline will be constructed to connect the platform with the existing 16 inch Shell Beta Unit oil pipeline which runs 17 miles to shore and connects to existing storage tanks for shipment to refineries in the L.A. basin. It is assumed that a 12 in. gas line will be installed paralleling the Beta line and tie into the Southern 1 C California Gas Co. commercial line. The document gives no clear validation for the utilization of this transportation scenario, a point which warrants consideration, as no alternative transportation scenarios are provided for this area. The designation of a single platform in Tract No. 181 remains unclear and no further elaboration is provided in the subsequent sections of the document. This may lead the reader to believe that: 1) the intention is to connect all of the oil pipelines (and gas?) subsequently generated from platforms in the San Pedro area to a transfer platform and then pump the consolidated resource through the existing Shell Beta pipeline to its landfall terminus at the Port of Long Beach. 2) the estimated resource will only support one platform in the area which will be strategically located in the approximate center of the tract sub- area (eight miles from the Beta Unit), and directionally drill from producible reservoirs located in the remaining San Pedro tracts (or install subsea completions or some type of well head device above the wells and run pipelines to the platform). This interpretation is highly unlikely in that one tract would be of intrinsically greater value as the transfer platform, regardless of its own resource potential. The political and legal implications of such a unitization of oil companies, in addition to the technical feasibility of the operation would need to be indentif led. 3) the scenario is a very simplistic example of a potential platform and pipeline route that could be generalized to any tract location within the channel. It becomes apparent that the project description is not developed well enough to properly assess the associated impacts of the project. Unless the maximum 2 number of platforms in the channel and associated transportation routes are to be a stipulation of the lease sale (and no doubt the subject of litigation), the BLM has very limited control over the industry's Plans of Exploration and Plans of Development. Therefore, the DEIS development assumptions should include a worst case or maximum build -out situation and alternative transportation scenarios for each subarea in addition to a qualified estimate of the most probable development conditions. It is recognized that due to the generic nature of the leasing document it is not possible to present detailed development plans; however, the lack of clarification as to what the scenario entails and rationale for its assumptions (as opposed to other development and transportation options) makes the corresponding Impact Analysis suspect. For instance, in regard to the San Pedro subarea, is the impact analysis assessing the effects of only laying eight miles of pipeline or upwards of 50? What are the implications of drilling 125 exploratory and delineation wells in a five year period? Obviously drilling and production operations within the 28 tracts of the San Pedro area will occur simultaneously. How may the impacts of multiple platforms differ form the construction of a single platform? Is the indentification of onshore support bases reflective of the one platform - one pipeline assumption or the total resource estimates? In summary, the development assumptions serving as the basis for the environmental analysis need to be clarified and expanded to a level of detail by which local planning agencies can identify the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts affecting their jurisdictions and adequately prepare for the project's influence upon established long-term planning goals. Alternative transportion and development schemes should also be provided that would reflect potential build -out 3 conditions and pipeline route options. It is felt that the overall impacts to the City of Newport Beach and similar coastal cmmunities has not been adequately addressed in regard to the DEIS' stated development scenario, and more importantly, the impacts of maximum recovery operations. The implications of such an operational scale presents far greater adverse effects upon the City of Newport Beach in terms of vessel hazards with recreational boaters, potential oil spills, the possibility of onshore operations, and the disturbance of significant biologial resources. 2.0 OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE The Draft EIS states on page 1-8, prargraph seven, that "Sale No. 68 production is assumed to use certain facilities developed or expected to be developed as a result of Sale No 48. This could include the sharing of pipelines (onshore and offshore), on shore operation bases and certain platform facilites:' The document also indicated that existing refineries in the L.A. basin have the available capacity to handle increased crude oil supplies. The limiting factors would be the crudes' high sulfur content and low API gravity rating. Refineries may ultimately have to make major alterations in their facilities to be able to process these crudes without blending feedstocks. While it is evidenced within the document that the L.A. refineries are capable of receiving the crudes generated from the Lease Sale 68 production actitivy, there is no indentification of the specific onshore and offshore oil and gas facilities and infrastucture that is assumed to be used, or their locations and capacities. The project as proposed in the DEIS tends to negate any infrastructure impacts associated with Lease Sale No. 68 by broadly assuming that all necessary facilities (i.e. pipelines on or offshore, service bases, marine repair and maintence yards, pipeline staging areas, oil storage terminals) will already be in place and able to accomodate new development demands. Due to the uncertainty of the future development potential of either Lease Sale No. 48 or No. 68, and the necessarily generic nature of the leasing document, a more in-depth discussion should be presented. Such an analysis should examine the potential locations and requirements of industry infrastructure needed to support Sale No. 68 exploratory and production operations with, and without, the provision of anticipated Sale No. 48 facilities. 5 • Due to the, intensity of urban land uses along the south coast and Long Beach Harbor areas, limitations exist as to locations which would be able to support the land and waterfront requirements of Sale No. 68. associated facilites. Coastal land uses should be inventoried for possible facility locations, or the rational presented for the determination that existing facilites will suffice. The potential for pipeline staging operations to occur in locals more proximate to the leaseholds, particulary the southern tracts offshore of Newport Beach and the Irvine Coast, should also be examined. The proposed utilization of exisiting offshore infrastructue in the San Pedro Channel may also require a closer assessment. The DEIS development assumption involves the use of the 17 mile -long, 40,000 b/d capacity Shell Beta pipeline to transport producible reservoirs to the refineries in L.A. Shell's maximum Beta Unit production is projected to be 24,000 b/d, including production from the proposed platform Eureka. Assumming that the contiguous Chevron leaseholds (platform Edith) would generate an estimated 16,000 b/d, the pipeline would eventually be at designed capacity and may not accomodate additional resource flows from Lease Sale No. 68 production. Even if these projections prove to be overly optimistic, the estimated 1990 daily production of 13,521 b/d for the San Pedro Inner Banks is a significant 34 percent of the total capacity of the Beta pipeline. It is therefore recommended that the DEIS present a transportation alternative for this subarea that does not rely totally on the utilization of the Beta line. In addition to the possible capacity limitations of the Beta line, existing topographical and environmental features offshore may complicate potential pipeline corridor routes from southern lease sale tracts to the Beta pipeline. As marine pipeline construction is considerably expensive, a greater expenditure of capital and 0 • 0 operating costs may be apparent in running a pipeline to Beta rather than on shore. The implications of any possible future considerations by leasehold operators to institute alternative routes to shore should be discussed at this time in the EIS so that local planning agencies may be made aware of all potential consequences of such a significant discretionary action as the leasing program. The document is far too general in identifing onshore impacts, both primiary and secondary, that may be associated with the project. The document should more clearly provide an analysis of the facility and manpower requirements to the extent by which local planning officals could more adequately determine the consequent effects upon land use, housing and public service demands. The mitigation measures presented for land use impacts resulting from industry -related facility construction and any secondary effects stimulated by the increased local population base are essentially local land use controls. Thus local agencies are responsible for accomodating any adverse situations presented by the proposed federal action. This is a further indication that all potential infrastructure alternatives should be adequately assessed. 5 7 3.0 BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS The EIS appears to provide less than adequate information concerning potential impacts to biological resources within the Newport Beach area. Lacking data centers around three aspects: 1. Oil spill models 2. Impacts from exploratory operations. 3. Lack of site specific analysis concerning potential impacts to biological resources in and around the City of Newport Beach. Specific mitigation measures are not suggested. Each of these aspects are discussed below: 3.1 OIL SPILL MODELS Based upon our analysis of the oil spill model, it is unclear whether probabilities presented in the document concern placement of a drilling platform only within Tract 181 or reflects the analysis of oil spills from drilling platforms that could be conceivably placed within any of the Tracts. If analyses were not conducted for each tract, probabilities could be higher for placement of drilling platforms closer to Newport Beach. Further, the need for spill containment would increase significantly with an increase in proximity to the three mile limit. Also, some reflection on the seasonal sensitivities of the wildlife refuges in the area should be made with reference to spill impacts and containment. 9 C 3.2 IMPACTS FROM EXPLORATORY OPERATIONS The EIS does not describe impacts from exploratory drilling within those tracts closest to Newport Beach. Exploratory operations could result in catastrophic events from oil spills as well as potential loss of important habitat from such activities as disposal of drilling muds. 3.3 LACK OF SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS A major limitation of this study is that it does not address the specific, and potentially disastrous impacts of an oil spill on the aquatic and wetland habitats of Newport Bay, particularily the upper Bay. Circulation patterns and tidal action would lend to keep oil spills within the bay, thus compounding their effect. Much of the ocean frontage in the area of Newport Beach is of high biological sensitivity, with marine refuges, (Corona del Mar Marine Life Refuge, Irvine Coast), and areas of special biological significance. The impact of an oil spill on this area is only discussed in the most general terms. Specific impact assessment for this section is justified based upon the apparent "high risk" from an oil spill. The impact discussion should also include the potential impacts upon endangered bird and plant species associated with the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, and the coast line, (eg. Brown Pelican, California and Light-footed Clapper Rail, Beldings Savamnah Sparrow and Southern Bald Eagle). The EIS does not include an analysis of specific mitigation measures that could be implemented to lessen impacts to these biologically sensitive areas. The analysis should include (either in the draft EIS or technical paper 81-2) a map of sensitive habitats along with specific cleanup techniques, locations of containment equipment 01 11 and access availability. Further, a generic discussion of responsibility for protection should be provided to clarify the extent of the cost and manpower burden that might be borne by the City of Newport Beach. 10 4.0 RECREATION The city of Newport Beach has historically derived its livelihood from its exceptional coastal location; as such it is a community with a long history of coastal - related developments and activities. "The desirability of the city as a water -oriented community is also a factor in the preference of non -marine uses to locate within the city..." (Local Coastal Program, 1981) but much of the city's economy is related to the recreational opportunities which exist both in the harbor and along its beachfront. Furthermore, land values are greatly affected not only by proximity to marine activities but the aesthetic values afforded by views of the ocean and harbor. The city has designated two sensitive habitat areas, Upper Newport Bay and the Corona del Mar Marine Life Reserve, which are available for appropriate recreational pursuits. The city also considers all waters of the lower bay and ocean to be significant, which provides a purpose for the following discussion. Recreational impacts are discussed in the Draft EIS on a general basis with emphasis placed on areas within the south central coast region, particularly Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Nearly all recreational aspects are noted, however, Newport Beach is not given due attention in the discussion of recreational amenities and the effects that the proposed lease sale and resulting activities could have on these amenities. Each stage of development could potentially produce various impacts on recreational use of the shoreline and subsea areas in addition to producing aesthetic impacts on both residents and visitors. Of particular interest to the city of Newport Beach are the impacts associated with each stage (exploration, development, 11 production, and eventual abandonment) as they relate to recreational enjoyment of its shoreline and the open ocean. Included in the impact assessment should be the type of impact) what activities oil exploration will affect and to what degree, and the duration of affect. In addition, actions which would serve to mitigate or lessen the identified impacts should be incorporated into the discussion as they pertain to each type of recreational use and development phase. The absense of adequate mitigation measures is disturbingly obvious. For example, will Newport Beach residents be subject to permanent visual and vessel obstructions due to the offshore structures or will they be removed as part of abandonment procedures once production is terminated? Such a broad description as that included in the DEIS is insufficient to determine the exact nature of the recreational impacts resulting from Lease Sale No. 68 which will affect the city of Newport Beach. A more detailed report is required for the city to properly assess the desirablity of the proposed action. The rationale used to minimize resulting recreational impacts is that there are a "...number of non -water oriented tourist facilites in the area" therefore "the impact on the recreation industry is expected to be minor, even in the event of a pollution incident" (p. 2-6). Newport Beach relies almost entirely on its marine amenity attraction which draws not only out of state tourists but in excess of 100,000 of Southern California residents to the city annually. While this is a localized effect of the lease sale, it is not considered to be minor. The city and its concessionaires would forfeit substantial revenues if an oil spill were to threaten or contaminate either the beach, harbor, or both. It is inevitable that local media would focus upon any such event related to the city, particularly if it was to occur during the peak summer season. 12 Newport Beach offers all of the major recreational acitivites listed on page 3- 89 indentified as being affected in the event of an oil spill. In addition, local residents would be required to tolerate the nuisances associated with beach or harbor contamination, and cleanup procedures. The likelihood of an oil slick entering the harbor should also be examined. The methodology used in the estimation should be described as well as the effects on boats and private properties within the area of contamination. If the harbor could be defouled, the effect on recreation and wildlife values of Upper Newport Bay should be considered, also. Generalized development effects on local boating activities are addressed in the document; however, Newport Beach, which supports the largest small craft harbor in the nation, is not given mention in the text. In addition, a statement is made on page 2-6 that "the placement of additional platforms in the area will have a very minor effect on recreational boating." as will increased vessel traffic, "due to the large number of vessels already operating in the area." The latter statement substantiates our point that high boating traffic levels already exist in the area and any regular increases will intensify the potential for boating hazards. To properly assess the impact on boating traffic originating in Newport Harbor, further study is required. It is commonly known that Catalina is a major destination of local boaters. The direct route to Avalon and the Isthmus would cross several offshore leasing tracts diagonally. Therefore, additional investigation is required to properly estimate interference with petroleum exploration and extraction operations and navigational hazards to recreational boaters presented by increased vessel traffic and offshore structures. Adjacent to, but closely related to, the city is a major portion of coastal land which has recently been purchased by the state for the creation of a National Urban 13 Park. This land is onshore from a section of the proposed lease area. The land has been acquired for preservation purposes and has significance as the first of the urban parks which will be easily accessible to the expanding populous of Orange County. Despite a request by the city during the scoping process, the project's effect upon the proposed park is not addressed in the DBIS. The city feels that the presentation of specific tracts Nos. 177, 178, and 185 for the lease sale prior to a determination of the Nation Urban Park could detrimentally affect the resource significance which provided the impetus for determining its preserved status. In summation, the city of Newport Beach is sensitive to and dependent upon a wide range of coastal resources which could potentially be seriously affected by operations resulting from Lease Sale No. 68. It is concern for the protection of these resources which indirectly affords protection of economic activities within the city that compels the city to request that a more in depth study be conducted. It is believed, however, that these are valid comments which deserve proper consideration by the Department of the Interior. 14 5.0 AIR QUALITY Upon review of the Air Quality Analysis sections in the DEIS for Lease Sale 68, the document itself is very limited and simplistic in the discussion of OCS emissions projected during the course of OSC development in the Newport Beach area and proposed mitigation measures. The reader is not provided with sufficient information in the text concerning emissions produced during the exploratory, development, and production phases to adequately assess and comprehend the potential onshore air quality impacts of the project. Further, the development scenario as discussed in Section 1.0 of this report is considered to be unrealistic and as such reduce the creditability of the air quality review. The exploratory activities described in the scenario are addressed in the technical paper 81-7 from a perspective of "mean" emissions and not on a cumulative worst case basis. Experience in the Santa Barbara Channel would indicate that multiple drilling activities may be in process and not one drill rig at a time. Conclusions made on page 4-54 of the DEIS (Alterative 1) state that Sales No. 68 activities, of themselves, are not expected to cause violations of any state or national ambent Air Quality Standard, nor deteriorate air quality to a degree considered significant. However DEIS does not define the airshed in which no significant deterioration of air quality will occur. For example, is the document referring to regional air quality?; (air quality prevailing in the South Coast air basin), subregional air quality? (air quality prevailing in Orange County), or local air quality? (that area in which a source increases the downwind concentrations above the upwind ambient concentrations) i.e., OCS offshore development in relation to the City of Newport Beach. We believe that this definition is extremely critical in that 15 it affects discussions concerning not only leasing but production development decisions and onshore siting evaluations. ,Regardless of whether OCS development will significantly deteriorate air quality, it is stated on page 4-130 in the DEIS that air quality will be decreased in areas already exceeding the air quality standards (i.e., Orange County). An important issue which the document fails to address is what affect might OCS No. 68 development as well as all projected OCS development in Southern California have on the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan which would form part of California's, not yet approved, State Implementation Plan both of which are responsible for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards by 1982 (1987 for oxidants and CO). Project -related pollutants are expected to occur beginning in 1982 (exploratory phase) and continue to the year 2005 if the Inner Bank Zone were developed according to Alternative 1. POCS Technical Paper No. 81-7 states that peak drilling activity is expected to occur in 1985 which is relatively small in comparision with peak emission years during development and production. The DEIS fails to discuss the relationship of the State Implementation Plan goals for achieving the specified EPA guidelines and the Department of the Interior (DOI) Final National Air Quality Regulations which the document uses to define significance levels (page 1II-15, DEIS). 16 6.0 OIL SPILLS The DEIS quantitatively indentifies a six percent probability of an oil spill reaching the Newport Beach area shorelines (segment 36) as a result of Lease Sale No. 68 and exisiting industry operations. In consideration of the important environmental and recreational resources characteristic of this segment, such a prediction is significant. Regardless of the probabilities, no matter how sophisticated, the assumption must be made that a major oil spill could occur. Thus, the focus of the analysis should concentrate on mitigating such an event. Section IV. A.b. provides a general description of the oil spill cleanup and containment cooperatives in the region but does not discuss the capabilities of these organizations in terms of response times, cleanup techniques or responsibility of local agencies for supporting these cooperatives during an emergency. Of concern to the city of Newport Beach is the estimated response times for SC-PCO and Clean Coastal Waters to mobilize equipment and manpower to the south coastal areas assuming worst case conditions (i.e. high seas, onshore winds, 2:00 a.m. incident). Also, the ability to contain the spill before entering the harbor and subsequent cleanup operations for the city beaches, rocky intertidal areas, and esturaine habitats should be indentif led. The secondary impacts associated with cleanup operations such as temporally restricting public beach access and recreational vessel traffic out of Newport Bay should also be discussed. The evaluation should include specific listings of responsibility so that local agencies such as Newport Beach can determine the level of effort and cost needed at the local level to protect wildlife and recreation resources. The DEIS should also generically describe procedures for updating spill contingency plans so that during 17 0 exploration or development phases local agencies can properly review discretionary actions needed to support these activities. 18 C� 7.0 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES The description of both the existing environment and impacts on public services and facilities is characterized by the situation in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. While elaborate methods of assessment are utilized, bo'th'Los Angeles and Orange Counties are neglected in the discussion. Department of the Interior researchers indicate in the DEIS that the'impact on services outside the Ventura and Santa Barbara area was not studied in detail because the relative impacts are believed to bre minor. It is -requested that 'a description of existing conditions in Orange County be provided'for the' "reader to make an individual assessment of this decision. The general tack' of" discussion of the effects on Orange County, particularly Newport Beach, warrants further study. In addition, the rationale used to determine that Orange County would not receive impacts resulting from the proposed action such as onshore, infrastructure requirements, housing, water and wastewater demands should be outlined. While increases in jobs and population resulting from the proposed action are listed for Orange County as a whole, no explanation is provided as to how these figures were allocated. Orange County is presently the most densely populated county in the study area , yet again no mention is made as to housing availability within the county and the effects that additional demand will produce. As the "settlement pattern of workers will not correspond precisely with the location of onshore facilities" (Technical Paper 81-4) workers could conceivably live in Orange County and work in Los Angeles County, which is expected to receive the largest total number of job openings provided by the proposed action. The desirability of Newport Beach as a place of residence is well known. It is therefore requested that a 19 a. �,oard�uo toul�,r: 3• Del��wN �c,�,:nto t9Joo�� '�• So��cei't+�,� sa�Po(t- �cor� �� �va� 5r,�t 5 t-eslactou -- p�q�Q °r ' u%�% I* TBCnfco.a I QwkLwtOJ;,o -'dlekev wl QC-,V P �.. , TM4MT QGS.--'lw CSJ,WA,P*Peu U�+, la1. civ Al more complete analysis of population increase with respect to housing availability T and cumulative sewer and domestic utility allocations be provided for Orange County with particular emphasis placed on the situation presently experienced in Newport Beach. Local issues include the displacement and ;general scarcity of moderate and low income housing within the city and the general lack of vacant sites for additional construction of -onshore staging facilities. 20 0 0 1 --J;mw qeC '� W v g(r+r+� tL A" 8.0 CONCLUSIONS•AND RECOMMENDATIONS In conclusion, our review of the DEIS' content has indentified certain inadequacies, primarily involving the lack of specificity' regarding the assumed development and transportation scenarios and characterization of the impacts upon the coastal resources of Newport Beach. ' To properly' fulfill the fequirements of CEQA and NEPA, it is recommended that additional analysis be preformed regarding the following topics: a., Clarification of- the eicisting, development and - transportation scenario and inclusion of additional alternatives which characterize a worst case or maximum operations condition for the Inner Banks. b. Development of a more detailed discussion of the exploration, production, and abandonment phases of OCS dperatiorls.. ` C. Examine the' potential locations and' requirements 'of industry infrastructure (i.e. labor, land or waterfront requirements, service availability) needed to support Lease, Sale No. 68 (exploratory and production operations) with, and without, the provision of anticipated Sale No. 48 facilities. Discuss the potential for locating any staging or storage facilities in the Newport Beach and south coast area. d. Catalog areas of biological significance in the Newport Beach environs and preform a specific oil spill impact assessment for the Newport Bay 21 t,.: ,.ewe �o -M pur soµ ��to �as�xtc, Laca.l Odcrr A00 Af00 wc�e �or�� q�r d/ow,t✓ aw �F rl �ro cf-o Sl ,�,ui' J � �Gr00 �, • •,• � InAh' surc-- cvc, q466r ©crlj(g will '401v-sj/. k'!ti Qualm l(//(� 1l A and coastal areas. Oil spill containment and cleanup procedures should be ` indentified for these sensitive areas. e. Discussion of specific oil spill cleanup techniques, locations of containment equipment, coastal access availability and an identification of the level df effort and cost required at the local level to protect wildlife and recreation resources. f. Greater consideration should be given to the potential impacts of Lease Sale No. 68 upon Newport Beach's valuable recreational resources in terms of economic effects, navigational 'hazards, disruption to recreational activities and the status of the Nation Urban Park. g: Az Discuss 'fhe project's affect on the'State Implementation- Plan and South Coast Air.Quality Management Plan goals for achieving the specified EPA standards for ambient air quality;"' h. Provide an adequate discussion of the existing conditions and potential impacts upon Orange County's public services and facilities, both in regard to infrastructure requirements and • deman& stimulated by project - related population iHcreases. l' ' 22 • t . It 54..a•, 005�(o8' 'fktj7 4Vw-ew 0 &X14 m Aauloao si y.0 Oev W i&VmG,v s tu-m �,M«e►�o dine �.,., c 1�a ucral to stokcy up d Alcr, touA, . Pror,7ose�5yr•,�/a.� . ouo ajo esven et*i.4. U . ra sae '"y/rd kura� plan . Q,kt tw..uuie,acerkN r --ar entC f« • 61S ude, eovn1c, plar.i itxx1�74S- p E,vo. Srudr ea pre ea.« '� G� ,SALrJ ��� "2 ItP�oArt►�1 � "! .fie , �iyii�: /Y r�i �Yl� : G�/'" N�KJ"6 �I`t., 'buy � J Nub �Crk.Q ,!MA 7 t ALOCC CZIJIId �t kc% bF sous-vS" I3 Na�v ea - 73 A 101/0 70 rl6. F.... y 45 yac platy: wtiwr ewe "tc= iw Oppoeee�►�r(lx.b�1Wl �eeeeeu� f �prtte�vto 4'a oQ�N o�• ..#► $tiWn� 6rr�ar�, t -- IJem 1A smy-e' up ftuwr� suroLioi U-� pwuL ,� a.P•�. _ WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 556-9350 NIN I July 9,V 19812 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Lease Sale 68 EIS Critique Dear Fred: WESTEC Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to provide technical assistance to the city of Newport Beach in evaluating the EIS for Lease Sale 68. As we discussed with you, the City Attorney, and representatives of the City Council, we would propose to conduct three phases of work. 1. Review the EIS for Lease Sale 68 to determine if the city's previously submitted comments have been answered adequately. 2. Review the overall technical content of the EIS to determine if issues such as oil spills, on -shore facility placement, air quality, and public safety have been properly analyzed and reflect Newport Beach's sensitive environment. 3. Specify areas of insufficient analyses and make specific recommendations as to the type of methodology which should have been used to assess impact. WESTEC Services, Inc. will not, however, redo the analyses using the new methodology in that the time -frame for submittal is inadequate. We will provide to the city a bound response by July 20, 1981 for distribution and review at the City Council's July 27, 1981 meeting. We will make available the project principal to the City Council for study session review of the information if necessary. We propose to be compensated for a fee not to exceed $32240.00. That fee breaks out as follows: Hours Cost Project Principal 40 $2,200 Research Assistant 32 736 Clerical 16 304 3,240 Mr. Fred Talarico • July 91 1981 Page 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY To: City Manager From: City Attorney January 28, 1981 Subject: Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Proposed Lease Sale.No. 68 On January 28, 1981, I received the attached communication from the Department of the Interior in regard to OCS Oil and Gas Proposed Lease Sale No. 68 - scop-i-ng--meetings. It appears that the scoping phase of the EIS has been completed and that the Department of the Interior intends to prepare an EIS containing the information contained in the Table of Contents attached to this memorandum. Should we have any comments in regard to this matter, they should be prepared rapidly and sent to Manager, Pacific OCS Office, as indicated in the cover letter. If you have any specific direction or desire in which, way the City will proceed, please let me know. Hugh R. Coffin Attachment xc: Am Hewicker Fred Talarico (both w/attach) RECEIVED F:'nn�rp `JAN29 1981=- NEl^1Pt;-; C4F,ILIt. -..JHL`� r� i •',,,,t \T OC ,�f • • T United States Department of the Interior ' BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT N^ Pacific OCS Office 1340 W.'Sixth St., Room 200 Los Angeles, California 90017 SUJIMARY OF OCS OIL AND GAS PROPOSED LEASE SALE NO. 68 SCOPING IMETINGS IN REPLY REFER TO JAN 2 3 1981 In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (Sec. 1501.7), which require that there be "an early and open process for significant issues related to a proposed action", BL14-POCS conducted a series of nine EIS scoping meetings in Southern California. Scoping meetings were held in each of the following cities on the dates and times shown. Newport Beach, August 4, 1980 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon 1:0b p:m. - 4:00 p.m. San Pedro, August 5, 1980 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Ventura, August 11, 1980 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Santa Barbara, August 12, 1980 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Los Angeles, September 15, 1980 _ 9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. (for Pacific States Regional Technical Working Group) At each location, except Los Angeles, the first meeting was aimed at Federal, State and local government agencies/representatives and special interest groups. The latter represented, for example, by the Western Oil and Gas Association and Get Oil Out. The second meeting was intended for the general public. The scoping meetings emphasized seven points relative to OCS leasing and the proposed sale: I;ECE' YN-9 `< CITY ATT - H JAN281981 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a CALIF. ,. Save Energy and'You Serve America! 1) An overview of the leasing process 2) history 3) Legal authority 4) Purpose and goal of scoping 5) EIS format and structure 6) 15 major issues 7) Alternatives to the proposed action. After presentations on the above topics were completed the attendees were encouraged to comment and participate with staff specialists in discussions. Franked, self-addressed envelopes were provided for any- one wishing to make future comments. Prior to holding these meetings an invitational letter, agenda and locational listing were sent to 442 locations in Southern California. The locations included the following: 1) Media outlets - 92 2) City officials/Agencies - 89 3) Elected/Appointed officials - 45 4) Oil and gas industry - 51 5) State agencies - 27 6) Federal agencies - 30 7) Academic institutions - 11 8) Special interest groups - 38 9) Association of governments - 2 10) Southern California businesses - 35 11) Southern California counties/officers - 34 The turn out at the scoping meetings was very low, ranging from two (2) attendees to a maximum of twenty-eight (28), at Santa Barbara. Total attendance at the nine meetings was approximately 100 people. No new alternatives to the proposal were recommended. Major issues discussed are tabulated below. 1) Cumulative impacts of previous sales. 2) Impacts to marine life, particularly intertidal organisms and near shore marine mammals. 3) Commercial fishing conflicts, especially debris and obstructions on the sea bed. 4) Shipwrecks and aboriginal sites on the OCS. 5) Air quality. 6) Marine sanctuary conflicts. 7) Submarine transit lanes and the Pacific Missile test range. 8) Pipeline corridors and seismicity. 9) Inaccurate or insufficient baseline data on air quality, ocean currents and rig monitoring. 10) Excessive pessimism of BLM's oil spill model. 11) Increased quantities of oil on Santa Barbara beaches during the last ten years. 12) Studies to determine cause of the increased oil on the Santa Barbara beaches. 13) Lack of previous BIM contracts awarded specifically to Santa Barbara residents. 14) Potential use of Huntington Beach's existing oil and gas facilities by OCS operators. z J.The. September 15, 1980 scoping meeting was'given to the Pacific States Regional Technical Working Group. The Group adapted five official .recommendations. 1. Leasing History of the Area. A discussion of the proposed Sale 68 tracts which were included in the environmental assess- ment process for past sales and were withdrawn prior to the sale. The tracts previously withdrawn and why each is being reconsidered at thi's time. A map showing these tracts should be included with the discussion. 2. Cost/Benefit - Risk/Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 3. Local impact Analysis Mode. Improved socioeconomic models should be used in determination of impacts. Information regarding socioeconomic impacts should be collected, analyzed and presented at both county and subcounty levels. 4. National and State Energy Needs. Discussion of the contribution of Lease Sale 68 and ongoing energy activity in the region to National and State energy needs. . 5. Cumulative Impacts. Discussion of the cumulative effects of leasing (Federal OCS and State Tidelands) in the Southern Cali- fornia Bight and associated areas to include environmental and - socioeconomic impacts. The competition for space.in the Santa Barbara Channel (commercial vessels, tankers/barges carrying hydrocarbons, crew boats, platforms, drilling rights/ships, commercial fishing,...) and in the harbors•'should be included. Whenever possible all the above concerns are examined and discussed in the DEIS. It should be noted that scoping is an ongoing process. Additional comments are invited and will be carefully considered throughout the preparation of the draft and final EIS's. Attached is a copy of the preliminary DEIS outline for proposed Sale 68. If you have any comments please address them to: Manager, Pacific OCS Office, BLM, Room 200, 1340 W. 6th St., Los Angeles, CA 90017. John Lane Chief, Environmental Assessment Division K Ui TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL.. 1 A. Purpose and Need for Action .......................... 1 B: Description of Proposal......, ........................ 1. Description of the Proposal ...................... a. Location and Hectarage of Proposed Sale...... b. Estimated Oil and Gas Resources .............. c. Projected Transport and Markets..* ........... d. Basic Development Assumptions ................ 2. Administrative Events Leading Up to Proposal..... a. OCS Planning Schedule ........................ b. Request for Resource Reports ................. c. Call for Nominations and Comments............ d. Tentative Tract Selection .................... e. Scoping Meetings .......... •.................. f. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS and Subsequent Public Hearings)........ g. Endangered Species Consultation .............. h. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).. i. Coordination with State ...................... j. Notice of Sale ............................... k. Sale ........................... ;.......... ... 1. Activity After a Sale.......... .............. m. Environmental Monitoring ..................... 3. Regulatory Framework ............................. a. Legal Mandates and Authority ................. b. Authorities o£ Federal Regulatory Agencies... c. Intergovernmental Planning Program........... 4. Environmental Studies ............................ 5. OCS Operating Orders ............................. 6. Standard Lease Stipulations ...................... a. Biological Stipulation ....................... b. Cultural Resource Stipulation ................ c. Geological Stipulation ....................... d. Military Stipulation No. 1................... e. Military Stipulation No. 2................... f. Transportation Stipulation ................... g. Wells and Pipeline Stipulation ............... 7. Other Mitigating Actions ......................... a. Contingency Plans ............................ b. Oil Spill Fund .................. 0............ c. Fishermen's Contingency Fund ................. d. Oil Spill Prevention and Mitigation.......... e. Oil Spill Modeling ........................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 II. f. Prevention of Groundwater Contamination...... g. Exploration and Development Plans............ h. Structural Verification Programs ............. i. Notices to Lessees and Operators ............. J. Aircraft Overflight Restrictions ............. S. Interrelationship of Proposal with Other Projects and Proposals ........................... a. Coastal 2bne Managment...................... b.' Marine Sanctuaries, and Oil and Gas Sanctuaries .............................. c. Channel Islands National Park ................ d. Sewage Outfalls .............................. e. Other ........................................ INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION............... Page 2 A. Resource Estimates and•Activities Estimated to Result from the Proposed Sale ..................... 2 B. Analysis of Proposal and Alternatives ................ 1. Alternative 1: Hold the Sale as Proposed........ a. Description .................................. b. Mitigating Measures ..................'........ c. Summary of Impacts ........................... d. Changes to Basic Development Assumptions..... e. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 2. Alternative 2: Modify the Sale to Reduce ' Potential Conflicts with the Channel Island Marine Sanctuary ................................. a. Description .................................. b. Changes to Development Assumptions........... c. Summary of Impacts .............. 0......... :.. 3. Alternative 3: Cancel the Sale .................. 4. Alternative 4: Delay the Sale ................... 5. Alternative 5: Other Alternatives ............... III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................... A. Physical Environment ................................. 1. Geology .......................................... a. Geological and Mineral Resources ............. b. Geohazards................................... 2. Physical Oceanography ............................ a. Physical Oceanography ........................ b. Chemical Oceanography ........................ 3. ,Water Quality .................................... 4. Meteorology ...................................... 5. Air Quality; ..................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 K3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 Page B. Biological Environment ............................... 3 1. Plankton ......................................... 3 a. Phytoplankton................................ 3 b. Zooplankton.................................. 3 2. Benthos.......................................... 3 a.' Intertidal ................................... 3 b. Subtidal..................................... 3 3. Fish and Fisheries ............................... 3 a. Fish ......................................... 3 b. Commercial Fisheries ......................... 3 c. -Sport Fisheries ............................... 3 4. Marine Mammals and Birds ......................... 3 5. Endangered and Threatened Species ................ 3 6. Sensitive Biological Areas..t..................... 3 a. Estuaries and Wetlands ....................... 3 b. Areas of Special Biological Significance, Reserves, Preserves .......................... 3 7. Proposed Marine Sanctuaries ...................... 3 8. Terrestrial Resources ............................ 3 C. Socio—Economic Environment ........................... 3 1. Demography ....................................... 3 2. Coastal Economy (including existing projects).... 3 3. Public Facilities and Services .................... 3 4. Coastal Land Use ................................. 3 5. Recreation ....................................... 3 6. Oil and Gas Infrastructure.......... ............. 3 7. Transportation Systems ......................... 0. 3 a. Ports and Shipping ........................... 3 b. Pipeline Systems ............................. 3 c. Other ........................................ 3 8. Military Uses ........................... 0........ 3 9. Cultural Resources ............................. 0. 3 10. Visual Resources ................................. 3 D. Future Environment Without the Proposal .............. 3 1. Expected Change in the Physical Environment...... 3 a. Geology ...................................... 3 b. Physical Oceanography ........................ 3 c. Water Quality ................................ 3 d. Meteorology .................................. e. Air Quality ..................... 0............ 3 2. Expected Changes in the Biological Environment... 3 a. Plankton ..................................... 3 b. Benthos...................................... 3 c. Fish and Fisheries ........................... d. Marine Mammals and Birds ..................... 3 e. Endangered and Threatened Species............ 3 7 Page f. Sensitive Biological Areas ................... 3 g. Marine Sanctuaries ........................... 3 h. .Terrestrial Resources ................. 0...... 3 3. Expected Changes in the Socio Economic 3 Environment ...................................... a. Demography ................................... 3 b. Coastal Economy .............................. 3 c. Public Facilities and Services,......... 3 d. Coastal Land Use ............................. e. Recreation .................................... 3 f. Oil and Gas Infrastructure ................... 3 g. Transportation Systems ....................... 3 h. Military Uses.. 3 J. Cultural Resources ........................... 3 J. Visual Resources ...................... 0...... IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................... 4 A.' Significant Impact Producing Agents .................. 4 1. Oil Spills ....................................... a. Oil Spill Model ... ........................... 4 b. Clean Up and Containment ..................... 4 c. Effects on Marine Life ....................... 4 2. Manmade Structures.......... .. ..................... a. Onshore ...................................... ...4 b. Offshore ...................... ..•.......... ... 3. Vessel Traffic ..................... :......... ..:. 4 a. Tankers and Barges ........................... 4 b. Supply and Crew Boats ........................ 4 4. Noise and Other Disturbances ..................... 5. Effluents and Discharges ...... :.............. .... 4 a. Water ........................................ 4 b. Air ........................................ 0. 4 6. Changes in Socio-Economic Activity ............... 7. Alternative Development Scenarios ................• 4 B. Effects of the Physical Environment on Oil 4 and Gas Operations ................................... 4 1. Geology .......................................... 2. Physical Oceanography ......................... 0.. 4 3. Water Quality .................................... 4 4. Meteorology ...................................... 4 5 • Page C. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives............ 4 1. Water Quality .................................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b.. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions . ................................ 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 2. Air Quality ...................................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b.' Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 3. Plankton ......................................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts .................. 0........ 4 4. Benthos..... :.................................... 4 a. Alternative 1..................... 0... 0...... 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 5. Fish and Fisheries ............................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .......... .t--o..... ............... 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 6. Marine Mammals and Birds ........... o............. 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 7. Endangered and Threatened Species ................ 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts..... 0..................... 4 8. Sensitive Biological Areas ....................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 i. Estuaries and Wetlands ................. 4 ii. Areas of Special Biological Significance, Reserves, Preserves...... 4 b. Other Alternatives......... ................... 4 i......................................... 4 ii........................................ 4 iii. .................. 0.................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 9. Marine Sanctuaries ............................... 4 I Page a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions ...................... 0........... 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 10. TerrestrialResources ............................ 4 _ »•, -_: •_ a. Alternative 1.................... 4............ b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions........ .......................... 4 d. Cumulative Impacts...... ...................... 4 11. Demography ........................................ 4 a. Alternative 1............... 0................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 Cd C. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts...... 0... 0................ 4 2. Coastal Economy ................................ 0. 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 13. Public Facilities and Services ................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 14. Coastal Land Use ............. ................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ............. it .......... ....... . c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 15. Recreation ....................................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 16. Oil and Gas Infrastructure ....................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives............ ................ 4 c.' Conclusions .................................. 4 d.. Cumulative Impacts......... ................... 4 17. Transportation Systems ........................... 4 a. Ports and Shipping ........................... 4 i. Alternative 1.......................... 4 . ii. Other Alternatives .................... 4 b. Pipeline Systems ............................. 4 i. Alternative 1............. 0...... 0..... 4 . ii. Other Alternatives .................... 4 c. Other ..................................... ... 4 4 i. Alternative 1......:................... 10 I Page ii. Other Alternatives ..................... 4 d. Conclusions .................................. 4 e. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 18. Military Uses .................................... 4 4 a. Alternative 1................................ b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d, Cumulative Impacts° .......................... 4 19. Cultural Resources ............................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 20. Visual Resources .................................. 4 a. Alternative 1..................6............. 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 21. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................... 4 22. Relationship between Short -Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity ........................ 4 23. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............... —:.-......:............. 4 V. REFERENCES ............................................... 5 VI. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................ b VII. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................ 7 A. Introduction ....................................... 7 B. Summary of Comments/Issues ........................... 7 C. Response to Comments ................................. 7 VIII. APPENDICES ............................................... 8 A. Approvals, Certifications, and Permits.-* ............ 8 B. GLOSSARY ............................................. 8 C. ABBREVIATIONS ........................................ 8 D. UNITS OF MEASURE ..................................... 8 11 IN REPLY REFER TO United States Department of the Interior O p 1 O ' BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT .iN 2 3 1981 M> Pacific OCS Office 1340 W. Sixth St., Room 200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Sul-kJARY OF OCS OIL AND GAS PROPOSED LEASE SALE NO. 68 SCOPING MEETINGS In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (Sec. 1501.7), which require that there be "an early and open process for significant issues related to a proposed action", BLII-POCS conducted a series of nine EIS scoping meetings in Southern California. Scoping meetings were held in each of the following cities on the dates and times shown. Newport Beach, August 4, 1980 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. San Pedro, August 5, 1980 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Ventura, August 11, 1980 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. 7:00 P.M. - 10:00 p.m. Santa Barbara, August 12, 1980 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Los Angeles, September 15, 1980 9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. (for Pacific States Regional Technical Working Group) n ;•. � rJA& , r 987, At each location, except Los Angeles, the first meeting was aimed at Federal, State and local government agencies/representatives and special interest groups. The latter represented, for example, by the Western Oil and Gas Association and Get Oil Out. The second meeting was intended for the general public. The scoping meetings emphasized seven points relative to OCS leasing and the proposed sale: Save Energy and YOU Serve America! 1) An overview of the leasing process 2) history 3) Legal authority 4) Purpose and goal of scoping 5) EIS format and structure 6) 15 major issues 7) Alternatives to the proposed action. After presentations on the above topics were completed the attendees were encouraged to comment and participate with staff specialists in discussions. Franked, self-addressed envelopes were provided for any- one wishing to make future comments. Prior to holding these meetings an invitational letter, agenda and locational listing were sent to 442 locations in Southern California. The locations included the following: 1) Media outlets - 92 2) City officials/Agencies - 89 3) Elected/Appointed officials - 45 4) Oil and gas industry - 51 5) State agencies - 27 6) Federal agencies - 30 7) Academic institutions - 11 8) Special interest groups - 38 9) Association of governments - 2 10) Southern California businesses - 35 11) Southern California counties/officers - 34 The turn out at the scoping meetings was very low, ranging from two (2) attendees to a maximum of twenty-eight (28)1 at Santa Barbara. Total attendance at the nine meetings was approximately 100 people. No new alternatives to the proposal were recommended. Major issues discussed are tabulated below. 1) Cumulative impacts of previous sales. 2) Impacts to marine life, particularly intertidal organisms and near shore marine mammals. 3) Commercial fishing conflicts, especially debris and obstructions on the sea bed. 4) Shipwrecks and aboriginal sites on the OCS. 55 Air quality. 6) Marine sanctuary conflicts. 7) Submarine transit lanes and the Pacific Missile test range. 8) Pipeline corridors and seismicity. 9) Inaccurate or insufficient baseline data on air quality, ocean currents and rig monitoring. 10) Excessive pessimism of BIM's oil spill model. 11) Increased quantities of oil on Santa Barbara beaches during the last ten years. 12) Studies to determine cause of the increased oil on the Santa Barbara beaches. 13) Lack of previous BLM contracts awarded specifically to Santa Barbara residents. 14) Potential use of Huntington Beach's existing oil and gas facilities by OCS operators. Gl The September 15, 1980 scoping meeting was given to the Pacific States Regional Technical Working Group. The Group adapted five official recommendations. 1. Leasing History of the Area. A discussion of the proposed Sale 68 tracts which were included in the environmental assess- ment process for past sales and were withdrawn prior to the sale. The tracts previously withdrawn and why each is being reconsidered at this time. A map showing these tracts should be included with the discussion. 2. Cost/Benefit - Risk/Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 3. Local impact Analysis Mode. Improved socioeconomic models should be used in determination of impacts. Information regarding socioeconomic impacts should be collected, analyzed and presented at both county and subcounty levels. 4. National and State Energy Needs. Discussion of the contribution of Lease Sale 68 and ongoing energy activity in the region to National and State energy needs. 5. Cumulative Impacts. Discussion of the cumulative effects of leasing (Federal OCS and State Tidelands) in the Southern Cali- fornia Bight and associated areas to include environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The competition for space in the Santa Barbara Channel (commercial vessels, tankers/barges carrying hydrocarbons, crew boats, platforms, drilling rights/ships, commercial fishing,...) and in the harbors should be included. Whenever possible all the above concerns are examined and discussed in the DEIS. It should be noted that scoping is an ongoing process. Additional comments are invited and will be carefully considered throughout the preparation of the draft and final EIS's. Attached is a copy of the preliminary DEIS outline for proposed Sale 68. If you have any comments please address them to: Manager, Pacific OCS Office, BLM, Room 200, 1340 W. 6th St., Los Angeles, CA 90017. John Lane Chief, Environmental Assessment Division 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL.. 1 A. Purpose and Need for Action .......................... 1 B. Description of Proposal.... .......................... i 1. Description of the Proposal ...................... 1 a. Location and Hectarage of Proposed Sale...... 1 b. Estimated Oil and Gas Resources .............. 1 c. Projected Transport and Markets .............. 1 d. Basic Development Assumptions ................ 1 2. Administrative Events Leading Up to Proposal..... 1 a. OCS Planning Schedule ........................ 1 b. Request for Resource Reports ................. 1 c. Call for Nominations and Comments............ 1 d. Tentative Tract Selection .................... 1 e. Scoping Meetings ............................. 1 f. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS and Subsequent Public Hearings)........ 1 g. Endangered Species Consultation .............. 1 h. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).. 1 i. Coordination with State ...................... 1 j. Notice of Sale ............................... 1 k. Sale ......................................... 1 1 1. Activity After a Sale........... .............. m. Environmental Monitoring ..................... 1 3. Regulatory Framework ............................. 1 a. Legal Mandates and Authority ................. i b. Authorities of Federal Regulatory Agencies... 1 c. Intergovernmental Planning Program........... 1 4. Environmental Studies ............................ 1 5. OCS Operating Orders ............................. 1 6. Standard Lease Stipulations........... 0......... 0 1 a. Biological Stipulation ....................... 1 b. Cultural Resource Stipulation ................ i c. Geological Stipulation ....................... d. Military Stipulation No. 1................... 1 e. Military Stipulation No. 2................... 1 f. Transportation Stipulation ................... 1 g. Wells and Pipeline Stipulation ............... 1 7. Other Mitigating Actions ......................... 1 a. Contingency Plans ............................ 1 b. Oil Spill Fund .............................. 0 1 c. Fishermen's Contingency Fund ................. i d. Oil Spill Prevention and Mitigation.......... e. Oil Spill Modeling ........................... 1 5, Page f. Prevention of Groundwater Contamination...... g. Exploration and Development Plans..........., h. Structural Verification Programs.* ... *so .... i. Notices to Lessees and Operators, ..... 6.0406. J. Aircraft Overflight Restrictions ............. 8. Interrelationship of Proposal with Other Projects and Proposals. -so ... ..... so* - a. Coastal Zone Managment...................... b. Marine Sanctuaries, and Oil and Gas Sanctuaries .............................I c. Channel Islands National Park ................ d. Sewage Outfalls .............................. e. Other ........................................ II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ............... 2 A. Resource Estimates and Activities Estimated to Result from the Proposed Sale ..................... B. Analysis of Proposal and Alternatives ................ 2 1. Alternative 1: Mold the Sale as Proposed........ 2 a. Description .................................. 2 b. Mitigating Measures .......................... 2 c. Summary of Impacts ....... ...0.... 0...... 4.... 2 d. Changes to Basic Development Assumptions...., 2 e. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 2 2. Alternative 2: Modify the Sale to Reduce Potential Conflicts with the Channel Island Marine Sanctuary.*., ...... 004, ... 040, ... *.4*00040 2 a. Description .................................. 2 b. Changes to Development Assumptions,.......... 2 C. Summary of Impacts ........................... 2 3. Alternative 3: Cancel the Sale .................. 2 4. Alternative 4: Delay the Sale ................... 2 5. Alternative 5: Other Alternatives ............... 1 III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...........,i........................ 3 A. Physical Environment ....................•............ 3 1. Geology .......................................... 3 a. Geological and Mineral Resources ............. 3 b. 3 2. Physical Oceanography ............................ 3 a. Physical Oceanography ........................ 3 b. Chemical Oceanography ........................ 3 3. Water quality .................................... 3 4. Meteorology ...................................... 3 5. Air Quality ....................................... 3 4 Page B. Biological Environment ............................... 3 1. Plankton ......................................... 3 a. Phytoplankton..............................0. 3 b. Zooplankton.................................. 3 2. Benthos.......................................... 3 a. Intertidal ................................... 3 b. Subtidal..................................... 3 3. Fish and Fisheries ............................... 3 a. Fish ......................................... 3 b. Commercial Fisheries ......................... 3 c. Sport Fisheries .............................. 3 4. Marine Mammals and Birds ......................... 3 5. Endangered and Threatened Species ................ 3 6. Sensitive Biological Areas....... ................ 3 a. Estuaries and Wetlands ....................... 3 b. Areas of Special Biological Significance, Reserves, Preserves .......................... 3 7. Proposed Marine Sanctuaries ...................... 3 8. Terrestrial Resources ............................ 3 C. Socio—Economic Environment ........................... 3 1. Demography ....................................... 3 2. Coastal Economy (including existing projects).... 3 3. Public Facilities and Services ................... 3 4. Coastal Land Use ................................. 3 5. Recreation ....................................... 6. Oil and Gas Infrastructure ......... 4............. 7. Transportation Systems ........................... a. Ports and Shipping ........................... b. Pipeline Systems ............................. c. Other ........................................ 8. Military Uses .................................... 9. Cultural Resources ............................... 10. Visual Resources ................................. D. Future Environment Without the Proposal .............. 3 1. Expected Change in the Physical Environment...... 3 a. Geology ...................................... 3 b. Physical Oceanography ........................ 3 c. Water Quality ................................ 3 d. Meteorology .................................. 3 e. Air Quality .......................... 0....... 3 2. Expected Changes in the Biological Environment... 3 a. Plankton ..................................... 3 b. Benthos...................................... 3 c. Fish and Fisheries ........................... 3 d. Marine Mammals and Birds ..................... 3 e. Endangered and Threatened Species............ 3 0 • IV. Page f. Sensitive Biological Areas.,..*., ..... s g. Marine Sanctuaries. 3 h. Terrestrial Resources... 3 3. Expected Changes in the Socio Economic Environment ...................................... 3 a. Demography ................................... 3 b. Coastal Economy .............................. 3 c. Public Facilities and Services ............... 3 d. Coastal Land Use ... ...- ....................... 3 e. Recreation ................................... 3 f. Oil and Gas Infrastructure ................... 3 g. Transportation Systems*.-,.-,** ... oo ....... 3 h. Military Uses ................................ 3 i. Cultural Resources ........................... 3 J. Visual Resources ............................. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.... 4 A. Significant Impact Producing Agents...•.•.•.••• ... 4 1. Oil Spills........ 4.0............................ 4 a. Oil Spill Model.****,.** .... 00004 .... $ .... 6 4 b. Clean Up and Containment ..................... 4 c. Effects on Marine Life.* ... 4 2. Manmade Structures ............................... 4 a. Onshore ...................................... 4 4 b. Offshore ..................................... 3. Vessel Traffic........"* ... .................... 4 a. Tinkers and Barges ........................... 4 b. Supply and Crew Boats ........................ 4 4. Noise and Other Disturbances ..................... 4 5. Effluents and Discharges..***..**..*** .... 4 a. Water.* ... ....... 4 b. Air .......................................... 4 4 6. Changes in Socio-Economic Activity ............... 7. Alternative Development Scenarios ................ 4 B. Effects of the Physical Environment on Oil and Gas Operations ................................... 4 1. Geology .......................................... 4 2. Physical Oceanography ............................ 4 3. Water Quality .................................... 4 4. Meteorology ...................................... 4 1 1 0 Page C. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives............ 4 1. Water Quality....... 0............................ 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 2. Air Quality ....................................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 3. Plankton ......................................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 4. Benthos.......................................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 5. Fish and Fisheries ............................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 6. Marine Mammals and Birds ........... A ............. 4 a. Alternative 1........................ 0....... 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 7. Endangered and Threatened Species ................ 4 a. Alternative 1................. 0....... 0...... 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 8. Sensitive Biological Areas ....................... 4 a. Alternative 1.... 0........................... 4 i. Estuaries and Wetlands ................. 4 ii. Areas of Special Biological Significance, Reserves, Preserves...... 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 i. .................. 0.................... 4 ii........................................ 4 ili........................................ 4 c. Conclusions......... 0........................ 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 9. Marine Sanctuaries ............................... 4 Page a. Alternative 1.......•........................ 4 b. Other Alternatives.• ... ••,•.Y................ 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d• Cumulative Impacts.•......•..•.• ............. 4 10. Terrestrial Resources.•......• ................... 4 a. Alternative i................Y............... 4 b. Other Alternatives.•..• ...................... 4 c. Conclusions.**.,.. .......................... 4 d, Cumulative lmpacts........................... 4 11. Demography...... ... •.... ....•....... .•.....,..... 4 a. Alternative 1..... •s.... a .... •..•.•... 6...... 4 b. Other Alternatives .................. a...... 4, 4 c. Conclusions ..... •............................ 4 d. Cumulative Impacts.*., ... a 0..... 4 12. Coastal Economy .................................. 4 as Alternative l•••.....•.......•.......•......• 4 b. Other Alternatives.• ......................... 4 c. Conclusions ..................•............... 4 d. Cumulative Impacts...•.••..•..•.....• ..... a.. 4 13. Public Facilities and Services..*.*.*.*.** ....... 4 a. Alternative 1... ••.•................. 0.0..... 4 b. Other Alternatives........ a ... •s...... a ... ..• 4 c• Conclusions...... I..•. ... ..... 0.0............ 4 d• Cumulative Impacts..* ........... *.a.*,, ...... 4 14. Coastal Land Uses., ........ *.-so .... a......... a.. 4 a. Alternative 1.... I ....... •................... 4 b. Other Alternatives.,.** ... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 15. Recreation ................................ a.** ... 4 a. Alternative I.... 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions... 4 d• Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 16. Oil and Gas Infrastructure .............•......... 4 a• Alternative Is .... ..................a. 4 b. Other Alternatives............*,.......... a.. 4 c• Conclusions....,..•..•........•.•...... ... ... 4 d• Cumulative Impacts•.•...... ... a .............. 4 17. Transportation Systems ........................... 4 a. Ports and Shipping..• ..............•.......•. 4 i. Alternative I.... 4 ii. Other Alternatives.•..• ................ 4 b. Pipeline Systems ............................. 4 i• Alternative 1.......................... 4 ii. Other Alternatives.......•....,...•..., 4 c. Other ........................................ 4 i. Alternative 1.............Y.•....,..... 4 !o 0 1 V • Page ii. Other Alternatives ..................... 4 d. Conclusions .................................. 4 e. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 18. Military Uses .................................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ............. 6............. 4 c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts. .......................... 4 19. Cultural Resources ............................... 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... 4 c. Conclusions .................................. d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 20. Visual Resources ........................ :........ 4 a. Alternative 1................................ 4 b. Other Alternatives ........................... c. Conclusions .................................. 4 d. Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4 21. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................... 4 22. Relationship between Short —Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long —Term Productivity. •... .............. 4 23. Irreversible and IrretrievableCommitment 4 of Resources ..................................... V. REFERENCES ............................................... 5 VI. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................ 6 VII. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................ 7 A. Introduction ......................................... 7 B. Summary of Comments/Issues ........................... 7 C. Response to Comments ................................. 7 VIII. APPENDICES ............................................... 8 A. Approvals, Certifications, and Permits ............... 8 B. GLOSSARY ............................................. 8 C. ABBREVIATIONS ........................................ 8 D. UNITS OF MEASURE ..................................... 8 11 11 m K UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Pacific OCS Office 1340 A. Sixth St.l In. 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 OFFICIAL BUBINEBB PM"TT FOR PRIVATZ YDf. SODD POSTAQ& AND FORM PAID U. a. D4AIITN WT OF TNa INTtlUDII u� INT.a1D Community Development Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 9-4 NEWS RELEASE B L.M�s . lUi IM N1gMI N� aCIfIC-- - _-- -- - RELEASE OAT ' IMMEDIATE outer continental- shelf=_-=== - - Ice - == - _ CONTACT:_Ms. Ellen Aronson w - -=(213) 688-6758 (8/20/80) OIL SPILL PREPAREDNESS PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALE #68 A meeting of the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Regional Technical Working Group Committee will be held September 15th (Monday) from 9:OOAM to 3:30PM at the Amfac Hotel, Rm. Kent B, 8601`Lincoln Blvd., Los Angeles, California. The RTWG is part of the National OCS Advisory Board and was established in September, 1979 in support of the Intergovermental Planning Program. The program was designed by the Department of the Interior to provide a formal coordination and planning mechanism addressing technical questions with respect to OCS oil and gas leasing, transportation and related facilities. The RTWG is directed to provide recommendations on these areas to the Director, Bureau of Land Management through the Manager, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office. At Monday's meeting, the Pacific OCS Office will conduct a scoping session regarding the significant issues and alternatives to be considered for inclusion in an Environmental Impact Statement for proposed OCS Lease Sale #68, offshore Southern California. At approximately 12:30PM the Group will be briefed on the state-of-the-art of offshore oil spill containment and clean up technology. The following groups will make presentations: the Southern California Petroleum Contingency Organization (SCPCO), the California Commission and the U.S. Coast Guard. The meeting is open to the public and interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Committee. Such requests should be made to Ms. Ellen Aronson, IPP Coordinator, (213) 688-6758 by August 28, 1980. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection and copying at the following locations: Pacific OCS Office Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Department of the Interior 1340 W. 6th Street, Rm. 200 and 18th & 'C' Streets, N.W. Los Angeles, California 90017 Washington, D.C. 20240 nY A9962B 1980- CALIF• r 0 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR XURKAU OF LAND MANAGWRNT Pacific OCS Office 1340 N. Sixth St., Ro. 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 OFFICIAL ■U/INtM PENALTY MR MVATE YIE, •000 POSTAGE AND FaEe PAID U. s. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIDII ,MAI NIT.d1e Community Development Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 NEWS RELEASE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY To: City Manager From: City Attorney July 16, 1980 Subject: U. S. Department of Interior - OCS EIS On July 15, 1980, we received the attached correspondence from the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. I would suggest the City should, at this early stage in the process, become involved in the environmental concerns regarding the OCS and not make a last ditch., eleventh hour effort to stop the process. Appropriate City technical per- son or persons should attend the August 4 meeting regarding the scope of the EIS of Lease Sale No. 68. Hugh R. Coffin Attachment JUL171980a- � �, �:0'�I•J;ti C+NCH, efl United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Pacific OCS Office 1340 W. Sixth St., Room 200 Los Angeles, California 90017 City of Newport Beach Attn: City Attorney 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Sir: IN REPLY REFER TO HE 11Eri:t rfL,3 t�li � i];rif / JUL ls-r C►TY OF KNFWAQR?' DF}tCN, v � CALIF. �p During the first two weeks in August, 1980, the Pacific OCS Office will be conducting a series of meetings in southern California on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed oil and gas Lease Sale #68 offshore southern California. (Please note attached schedule of meetings' dates and locations.) Your participation at an appropriate meeting and continued involvement in the EIS preparation is essential so that we may thoroughly understand your concerns. The purpose of the meetings is to identify the major issues and ' alternatives to be addressed in the EIS, which will be prepared by our Environmental Assessment Division. At each meeting members of our staff will be on hand to meet with those individuals having expertise or interests in the areas of economics, marine biology, air quality, oil spill probability, archeology, oceanography, geology, etc. Attached you will find an information sheet addressing proposed OCS Lease Sale #68 and the Scoping Process. Please review the section outlining major issues and alternatives to be discussed at the meeting as these represent our initial identification for inclusion in the EIS. Although we are primarily seeking an audience with appropriate technical expertise, these meetings are open to any interested individual. (To involve the public -at -large, we are also holding a separate series of meetings to receive their input toward EIS development.) Regardless of your position on'Outer Continental Shelf mineral resource development, the quality of the EIS, and ultimately the decision on whether or not to lease, will be enhanced by your participation in this process. Sincerely /GU� L Jjj William E. Grant Manager Save Energy and You Serve America! ,SCOPING MEETING (AGENDA) GENERAL INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION / OVERVIEW OF LEASING PROCESS OBJECTIVES OF 'SCOPING' - IDENTIFY MAJOR ISSUES - IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES WHERE & HOW THE PUBLIC INTERACTS CONTROLS AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENT PROCESS,�sIIDE PRESENTATION) OCS DEVELOPMENT / CONSEQUENCES (45 MTN - 1 HR) BREAK INTO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS; E.G. - RECREATION, COMMERCIAL FISHING, ETC. CLOSING REMARKS 0 * ,SCOPING MEETINGS** PROPOSED OCS LEASE-SALE#68 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AUGUST 4TH (MONDAY',8:OOAM - 12NOON) NEWPORTER INN (CAROUSEL ROOM) 1107 JAMBOREE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 (714) 644-1700 AUGUST 5TH (TUESDAY: 8:00AM - 12NOON) 'S.S. PRINCESS LOUISE' (CAPTAIN'S BALLROOM) BERTH 94, PORT.OF Los ANGELES SAN PEDRO, CA. 90731 (213) 831-2351 AUGUST 11TH (MONDAY: 1:00PM - 4:00PM) HOLIDAY INN (SANTA CRUZ ROOM) 450 E. HARBOR BLVD. VENTURA, CA. 93001 (805) 648-7731 AUGUST 12TH (TUESDAY: 8:OOAM - 12NOON) *MIRAMAR HOTEL (MIRAMAR ROOM) 1555 SOUTH JAMESON LANE MONTECITO, CA. 93108 (805) 969 2203 * (JUST OFF HWY 101, SAN YSIDRO EXIT) A SECOND SET OF MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN THE AFTERNOON FOR THE PUBLIC, 1:00PM To 4:00PM, EXCEPT YENTURA WHICH WILL BE 7:OOPM To 10:OOPM. SCOPING PROCESS: IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR ,ISSUES & ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL & GAS LEASE SALE N0, 68 (OFFSHORE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA) PACIFIC OCS OFFICE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 1340 WEST 6TH STREET, RM 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 688-,6741 Se eO ryfkT011 CD ) ra 24 04J MONICA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT(IM TRACT SELECTION PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALE NO. Si MAY 1950 GI[.0 �.M j ® OR. AND OAS SANCTUARY i SELECTED ES TRACT{ Proposed OCS Lease Sale #68 includes 221 tracts in the Southern California offshore area between Pt. Conception and south of San Clemente Island: These proposed tracts comprise approximately .1,130,415 million acres (457,479 hectares) located as far as 88 miles from shore in water depths of 150 to 3000 feet (50 to 1000 meters). WHAT IS OCS LEASE SALE #68? As part of the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Schedule, OCS Lease Sale #68 is one of 36 proposed lease sales nation wide over the next 5 years designed to increase domestic supplies of oil and gas. Specifically, OCS #68 is a proposal to lease submerged lands -on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf offshore southern California for the development of oil and gas. To meet growing domestic needs, the U.S. has turned increasingly to oil imports. Currently, the U.S. produces about 54 percent of its total oil consumption. While re- duction of oil imports has been an important element in national energy policy since the 1973 oil embargo,'imports have actually increased since that time. Therefore, Congress, the President, and the Departments of Energy and Interior have determined that oil and gas leasing policy can provide an important means by which dependence on foreign oil can be reduced. Currently, the Federal OCS supplies about 17 to 22 percent of our domestically supplied oil and gas with approximately 3 to 5 percent of the Federal OCS explored or under production. This is not to say that the remaining 95 or 97 percent of the OCS can make us energy independent, but that the OCS.holds strong potential for reducing forei= imports. C WHAT`IS THE STATUS OF OCS #68? In December, 1979 the Bureau issued a 'Call for Nominations and Comments, asking the Petroleum Industry to nominate specific tracts on which it would like to bid if a lease sale were held. The Bureau also asked Federal, State, and local governments, other industries, academia, research institutions, environmental groups and the public to comment on specific tracts they believed should be excluded from oil and gas leas- ing, or leased only under special restrictions due to conflicting resource values or environmental concerns. After the 'Call', in which the industry nominated 3.2 million acres, the results were evaluated and assessed with the Department of the Interior selecting 221 tracts comprising 1.1 million acres to be studied in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for leasing consideration. The following depicts the overall Lease Sale Process with various stages and.time frames. - Call for Nominations and Comments - Public Hearings (December, 1979) (July, 1981) - EIS Tract Selection' - Final EIS (May, 1980) (November, 1981) - Scoping Meetings - Proposed Notice of Sale (July, 1980) (January, 1982) - Draft EIS - Notice of Sale '(May, 1981) (May, 1982) - Sale (Lease Offering) (June, 1982) WHAT'S NEXT, HOW CAN THE PUBLIC GET INVOLVED? The schedule above shows OCS#68 at the 'Scoping' stage. A series of 'Scoping Meetings' are being held to determine the major issues and alternatives to be address- ed in the EIS. Scoping is a process, not just an event or meeting. It continues through the planning for the EIS, and may involve a series of meetings, phone con- versations or written comments from different interested groups. The Bureau has responsibility for selecting the issues and alternatives to be covered.in the EIS, and suggestions for.alternatives and identification of issues from various publics and official entities are very important to BIM in EIS content development. Individuals and organizations that have knowledge about a particular area(s) may be able to supply BLM with information which is otherwise not available. All of the expressed issues, concerns, and alternatives will be considered in developing EIS content. The following represents a general listing of issues identified by the Bureau relating to OCS#68: - Air Quality - Aesthetics - Oil Spills - Marine Mammals & Seabirds - Socio-Economics - Cultural Resources - Tourism/Recreation - Navigation - Fishing - Multiple Use Conflicts In addition to these issues, the Bureau will also cover the following general al- ternatives in the OCS#68 EIS: - Hold the Lease Sale as proposed - Delay the Lease Sale - Cancel the Lease Sale - Modify the Lease Sale These initially identified issues and alternatives are not all -encompassing. The involvement of the public. -in this EIS planning (scoping) process is essential,to the preparation of a high quality EIS. WHO WILL PREPARE THE EIS? The Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office of the Bureau of Land Management, located in Los Angeles, California, will be preparing the Environmental Impact Statement with an interdisciplinary team of specialists consisting of: - Economists - Geographer - Community Planners - Biological Oceanographers - Planning Coordinator - Geologist - Oceanographers - Air Quality Specialist - Natural Resource Specialists - Archeologists - Environmental Engineer - Fisheries Biologist - Petroleum/Civil Engineer - Writer/Editor - Physical Scientist - Public Affairs Throughout the EIS development, all members of the staff are available for con- tinued coordination of ideas, suggestions, queries as to the lease sale process, and any other information pertaining offshore mineral resource development. I B GA Pacific RELEASE DATE: 7_21-80 - outer continental shelf - office - _ CONTACT:_ PUBLIC AFFAIRS (no) OW67410 - - LOS ANGELES, OCS OFFICE INVITES PUBLIC PARTICIPAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Buread of Land Management, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office announced today that they will conduct a series of meetings to identify issues and concerns for the proposed oil and gas Lease Sale #68, offshore southern California. These meetings are being held'to involve key organizations from Federal, State, County, and local governments, as well as numerous environmental groups and the public in the earliest stages of the preparation of the lease sale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). During the first.and second weeks of August, representatives from BLM will hold these 'Scoping' meetings in Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Pedro, and Newport Beach, California. (See attached schedule) According to John Lane, Chief of the Environmental Assessment Division, Pacific OCS Office, "The purpose of the scoping meetings is to involve individuals and organizations in the identification of major issues and alternatives to be address- ed in an EIS for proposed OCS Lease'Sale #68.. These meetings are a vital part of the entire process of planning (scoping) for the lease sale EIS. These meetings are open to any person interested in proposed Lease Sale #68. All such persons are encouraged to attend. We are also seeking recommendations from persons with expertise in such categories as economics, marine biology, air quality, oil spill probability, archeology, oceanography, geology, etc. The lease sale EIS will be used as a major source of information by the Secretary of the Interior in deciding whether or not to approve the lease sale." After completion of a Draft EIS, scheduled for May, 1981, Public Hearings will be held on the Statement and the proposed action. A Final EIS will then be prepared, along with a Secretarial Issue Document outling alternatives and issues. The Secretary of the Interior will then consult with the Governor of California. If the Secretary does decide to hold a lease sale; it would take-place'in June, 1982. Note: Please find attached meeting agenda & meetings' location listing as well as a summary packet on OCS Lease Sale #68. r & • • IN REPLY REFER TO United States Department of the Interior 11 10020 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Pacific OCS Office 1340 W. Sixth St., Room 200 Los Angeles, California 9001; Community Development Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Sir; 91" t�yA4pGP~K ' During the first two weeks in August, 1980, the Pacific OCS Office will be conducting a series of meetings in southern California on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed oil and gas Lease Sale #68 offshore southern California. (Please note attached schedule of meetings' dates and locations.) Your participation at an appropriate meeting and continued involvement in the EIS preparation is essential so that we may thoroughly understand your concerns. The purpose of the meetings is to identify the major issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS, which will be prepared by our Environmental Assessment Division. At each meeting members of our staff will be on hand to meet with those individuals having expertise or interests in the areas of economics, marine biology, air quality, oil spill probability, archeology, oceanography, geology, etc. Attached you will find an information sheet addressing proposed OCS Lease Sale #68 and the Scoping Process. Please review the section outlining major issues and alternatives to be discussed at the meeting as these represent our initial identification for inclusion in the EIS. Although we are primarily seeking an audience with appropriate technical expertise, these meetings are open to any interested individual. (To involve the public —at —large, we are also holding a separate series of meetings to receive their input toward EIS development.) Regardless of your position on Outer Continental Shelf mineral resource development, the quality of the EIS, and ultimately the decision on whether or not to lease, will be enhanced by your participation in this process. Sin rely 74 William E. Grant Manager Save Energy and You Serve Americal 6� r 0 • SCOPING MEETING (AGENDA) GENERAL INTRODUCTION.' INTRODUCTION / OVERVIEW OF LEASING PROCESS OBJECTIVES OF 'SCOPING' - IDENTIFY MAJOR ISSUES - IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES WHERE & HOW THE PUBLIC INTERACTS CONTROLS AVAILABLE TO'.PUBL'IC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENT PROCESS,�sLIDE PRESENTATION) OCS DEVELOPMENT / CONSEQUENCES (45 MiN - 1 HR) BREAK INTO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS; E.G. - RECREATION, COMMERCIAL FISHING, ETC, CLOSING REMARKS • "SCOPING MEETINGS" PROPOSED OCS LEASE -SALE #68 ENVIRONMENTAL .IMPACT STATEMENT AUGUST 4TH (MONDAY, &:OOAM - 12NooN) NEWPORTER INN (CAROUSEL ROOM) 1107 JAMBOREE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA, 92660 (714) 644-1700 AUGUST 5TH (TUESDAY: 8:OOAM - 12NOON) 'S,S, PRINCESS LOUISE' (CAPTAIN'S BALLROOM) BERTH 94, .PORT -OF Los ANGELES 'SAN PEDRO,, CA.'90731 (213) 831-2351 AUGUST 11TH (MONDAY: I:OOPM - 4:0OPM) .HOLIDAY INN (SANTA.CRUZ ROOM) 450 E. HARBOR BLVD. VENTURA, CA, 93001 (805) 648-7731 AUGUST 12TH (TUESDAY: 8:OOAM - 12NOON) *MIRAMAR HOTEL (MIRAMAR ROOM) 1555 SOUTH JAMESON LANE MONTEC.ITO, CA. 93108 (805) 969 2203 " (.JUST OFF HWY 101, SAN YSIDRO EXIT) * -NOTE.- A SECOND SET OF MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN•THE AFTERNOON FOR THE PUBLIC, 1:OOPM To 4:OOPM, EXCEPT VENTURA WHICH-W-I.LL BE 7:OOPM To 10.00PM,$ SCOPING'PROCESS: IDENTIFICATION OF .MAJOR ISSUES& ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL & GAS LEASE SALE N0, 68 (OFFSHORE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA) PAC.IF!IC OCS OFFICE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 1340 WEST 6TH STREET, RM 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORN,IA 90017 (213) 688'-6741 PROPOSED LEASE SALE.4REI4 L .l r e.8. ComIM� 1� list 1fi N fYEMT A 00J MYMCNMENTAL ETATEMENT(90) TRACT SELECTION lM/OMD ODI LIME a" No. N .-MtUMN kIt 041 MAY 1860 _ Los^ AIML[s 16 'w� w OAM««. ON. AND 44*1EAWMANY . MLEDTN I/ T11ADT' Proposed OCS Lease Sale #68 includes 221 tracts in the Southern California offshore area between Pt. Conception and south of San Clemente Island. These proposed tracts comprise approximately 1,130,415 million acres (457,479 hectares) located as far as 88 miles from share in crater depths of 150 to 3000 feet 150 to 1000 meters). WHAT IS OCS LEASE SALE #68? As part of the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Schedule, OCS Lease Sale #68 is one of 36 proposed lease sales nation wide over the next 5 years designed to Increase domestic supplies of oil and gas. Specifically, OCS #68 is a proposal to lease submerged lands on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf offshore southern California for the development of oil and gas. To meet growing domestic needs, the U.S. has turned increasingly to oil imports. Currently, the U.S. produces about 54 percent of its total oil consumption. While re- duction of oil imports has been an important element in national energy policy since the 1973 oil embargo, imports have actually increased since that time. Therefore, Congress, the President, and the Departments of Energy and Interior have determined that oil and gas leasing policy can provide an imporgant means by which dependence on foreign oil can be reduced. Currently, the Federal OCS supplies about 17 to 22 percent of our domestically supplied oil and gas with approximately 3 to 5 percent of the Federal OCS explored or under production. This is not to say that the remaining 95 or 97 percent of the OCS can make us energy independent, but that the OCS holds strong potential for reducing foreign imoorts. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF O.CS W68? In December, 1979 the Bureau issued a 'Call for Nominations and Comments,; asking the Petroleum Industry to nominate specific tracts on which it would like to bid if a lease sale were held. The Bureau.also asked Federal,.State, and local governments, other industries, academia, research institutions, environmental groups and the public to comment on specific tracts they believed should be excluded from oil and gas leas- ing, or leased only under special restrictions due .to'conflicting resource values or environmental concerns. After the 'Call', in which the industry nominated 3.2 million acres, the results were evaluated and assessed with the Department of the Interior selecting 221 tracts comprising 1.1.million acres to be.studied in an Environmental Impact Statement ,(EIS) for leasing consideration. The following depicts the overall Lease Sale Process with various stages and time frames. - Call for Nominations and Comments - Public Hearings (December, 1979) (July, 1981) - EIS Tract Selection - Final EIS (May, 1980) . (November, 1981) - Scoping Meetings - Proposed Notice of Sale (July, 1980) (January, 1982) - Draft EIS - Notice of Sale (May, 1981) (May, 1982) - Sale (Lease Offering) (June, 1982) WHAT'S'NEXT, HOW CAN. --THE 'PUBLIC GET INVOLVED? The schedule above shows OCS#68 at the 'Scoping' stage. A series of 'Scoping Meetings' are being held to determine the major issues and alternatives to be address- ed in the EIS. Scoping is a process, not just an event or meeting. It continues through the planning for the EIS, and may involve a series of meetings, phone con- versations or written comments from different interested groups. The Bureau has responsibility for selecting the .issues and alternatives to be covered in the EIS, and suggestions for alternatives and identification of issues from various public& and official entities are very important to BLM in EIS content development. Individuals and organizations that have knowledge about a particular area(s) may be able to supply BIM with information which is otherwise not available. All of the expressed issues, concerns,. and alternatives will be considered in developing EIS content. The following represents a general listing.of issues identified by the Bureau relating to OCS#68: - Air Quality - Aesthetics Oil Spills - Marine Mammals '& Seabirds - Socio-Economics - Cultural Resources - Tourism/Recreation - Navigation - Fishing - Multiple Use Conflicts In addition to these issues, the Bureau will also cover the following general al- ternatives in the OCS#68 EIS: - Hold the Lease Sale as proposed - Delay the Lease Sale - Cancel the Lease Sale - Modify the Lease Sale These initially identified issues and alternatives are not all -encompassing. The involvement of the public.•in this EIS planning (scoping) process is essential to the.preparation of a high quality EIS. WHO WILL PREPARE THE EIS? The Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office of the Bureau of Land Management, located in Los Angeles, California, will be preparing the Environmental Impact Statement with an interdisciplinary team of specialists consisting of: - Economists - Geographer - Community Planners - Biological Oceanographers - Planning Coordinator - Geologist - Oceanographers - Air Quality Specialist - Natural Resource Specialists - Archeologists - Environmental Engineer - Fisheries Biologist Petroleum/Civil Engineer - Writer/Editor Physical Scientist - Public Affairs Throughout the EIS development, all members of the staff are available for con- tinued coordination of ideas, suggestions, queries as to the lease sale process, and any other information pertaining offshore mineral resource development. o w 7 Blo I__:_____ YO - - . PaCIfIC _::. RELEASE_DAT 7-2i-80-'= _outer contrnentil sh_e.Lf'°_=- off Ike _=' _— — _� CONTACrr PUBLIC AFFAIRS (218)e89.8740 LGS=ANGEIES CAr =__-- OCS OFFICE INVITES -PUBLIC PARTICIPAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Bureau of Land Management, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office announced today that they will conduct a series of meetings to identify issues and concerns for the proposed oil and gas Lease Sale #68., offshore southern California. These meetings are being held to involve key organizations -from Federal, State, County, and local governments,, as well as numerous environmental groups and the public in the earliest stages of the preparation of the lease gale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). During the first and second weeks,of August, representatives from BLM will hold these 'Scoping' meetings in Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Pedro, and Newport Beach, California. (See attached schedule) According to John, Lane, Chief of the Environmental Assessment Division, Pacific OCS Office, "The purpose of the scoping meetings is to involve individuals and organizations in the identification of major issues and alternatives to be address- ed in an EIS for,proposed OCS Lease Sale #68. These meetings are a vital part of the entire process of planning (scoping) for the lease sale EIS. These meetings are -open to any person interested in proposed Lease Sale #6&. All such persons• are.encouraged to attend. We are also seeking recommendations from persons with expertise in such categories as economics, marine biology, aft quality, oil spill probability, archeology, oceanography, geology, etc. The lease sale EIS will be used as a major source of information by the Secretary of the Interior in deciding whether or not to approve the lease sale." After completion of a Draft EIS, scheduled for May, 1981, Public Hearings will be held on the Statement and the proposed action. A Final EIS will then be prepared, along with a Secretarial Issue Document outling alternatives and issues. The Secretary of the Interior will then consult with the Governor of California. If the Secretary does decide to hold a lease sale, it would take:place'in June, 1982. Note: Please find attached meeting agenda & meetings' location listing as well as a - summary packet.on OCS_-Lease Sale.#68. X X X DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR news release BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Fergus (213) 688-6740 Shone (213) 688-7109 For Release May 30, 1980 Robinson (202) 343-5717 TNTERTOR SELECTS 1.13 MILLION ACRES FOR ENIVRONMENTAL Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus announced May 29th in Los Angeles the selection of 221 tracts comprising approximately 1,130,415 million acres (457,479 hectares) offshore Southern California for intensive environmental study for a proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sale (OCS#68) tentatively scheduled for June, 1982. "I am excluding from further consideration in OCS Sale #68, 40 tracts in and near Santa Monica Bay which were excluded from OCS Sales #35 in 1975 and #48 in 1979 and the Federal Ecological Preserve in the Santa Barbara Channel which includes parts of 10 tracts," Secretary Andrus said. "However, the buffer zone in the Channel, which is generally seaward of the Preserve, will be studied in the environmental statement." "The Carter Administration recognizes and respects the views of local citizens and State and local units of government. These are the people most concerned with the decisions that must be made. I took their view into consideration, weighed them against the potential for oil and gas in these offshore areas, and.decided accordingly," Andrus said. A total of 72 tracts were also deleted from sale consideration following consultation with the Department of Defense to reduce conflicts with the Pacific Missile Range. The excluded tracts total approximately half -a -million acres. The announcement follows the evaluation of the results from the Bureau of Land Management's (HIM) 'Call for Nominations and Comments' issued last February, and a series of open preliminary tract selection meetings. The 'Call' resulted in 609 tracts being nominated for leasing consideration by 10 companies and one individual as well as 94 comments from Federal, State, local governments, the general public, and environmental organizations expressing concern about offshore leasing or recommending specific areas for exclusion. Open preliminary tract selection meetings were held in Los Angeles, California, and Washington, D.C., and included participation by the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California State Lands Commission, California Coastal Commission, County of Santa Barbara, City of Los Angeles, Federal agencies and the media. Tracts selected for environmental analysis range from Pt. Conception to south of San Clemente Island and lie in waters from about 150 to 3000 feet (50 to 1000 meters) deep. Tracts selected are no closer than three geographic miles from shore and range seaward to 88 miles. (more) Although tracts have been of many steps in the continuin g Development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will take approximately one year followed by public hearings, publication of a Final EIS, 30 day review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a tentative lease sale decision slated for January, 1982. If the Secretary of the Interior decides to hold a lease sale (listed on the 5-year planning schedule for June, 1982), he will first notify the Governor of California of his tentative decision and allow 60 days for the Governor's comments before making his final decision. A copy of the tract selection list is available from BLM's Washington Office of Public Affairs (202) 343-57170 or the Los Angeles Pacific OCS Office (213) 688-6756. A map showing the tract selection area is attached. % X X F30 PT THR CS.B. CO.) AA B119� ARBRBARA ��FNT�Rq CO.J VENTURAI L ■ 118' 1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (ES) TRACT SELECTION PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALE NO. 88 C0o MAY 1980 MONICA LOS ANGELES / r0D 9�� i 00 rN 92 O� F� 0 00 'J 7'T!7ll ►AEX�O i i / ® OIL AND GAS SANCTUARY i % ■ SELECTED E8 TRACTS lie11 4 • 0 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BURLAU OF LAND MMtAOtIAENT Pacific OCS Office 1340 A. Sixth St., In. 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 OFFICIAL ■UlINRM ►f IALTY FOR ► VATR L416. "00 ►ORTAee AND ► u PAID Y. e. DOARTYWT O►TRe IRTORIOR am D11M1A1e Community Development Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 •NEWS RELEASE DATE: TO. FROM: SUBJECT:` DavavIo imeri1 February 27, 1980 Bob Wynn, City Manager Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator OCS #68 On Tuesday, February 26th, I reviewed Mayor Ryckoff's letter of January 9, 1980 to Senator Cranston on OCS #68 with Maura Kleeman (202-224-8124) of Senator Cranston's staff. She indicated to me that the Senator was considering our request, but was having trouble understanding why the deletion of certain tracts was being requested. In my discussion,.it was apparent that she did not have any knowledge of the Corona del Mar Marine Life Refuge nor of the proposed National Urban Park. An argument might be made that these tracts could be withheld until a decision on the National Urban Park is made so as to not preclude future actions or alternatives. An additional letter under the Mayor's signature thanking them for their concern and discussing the National Urban Park as it relates to OCS #68: might be helpful. Additionally,'Maura Kleeman informed me that the Senator had only received' letters from the City of Newport Beach and Santa Barbara. Support for our position from the City of Laguna Beach would be helpful. Fred Talarico /,/--- FT/dt /►,15(� T • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF'THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 January 9, 1980 An identical letter was also sent to Senator Cranston on same date. The Honorable.S. I. Hayakawa, Senator United States Senate 6221 Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Hayakawa: Recently, the City has received notification by the Federal Register and a news release from the Department of Interior that nominations and comments are being sought for proposed oil and gas exploratory lease sale (OCS #68) in the offshore Southern California area. The area in which comments, and ultimately proposals, are being sought would run from Santa Barbara to San Diego. San Diego, however, is being excluded as an environmentally -sensitive area and therefore deleted for exploratory consideration. The City of Newport Beach solicits your support in deleting Tracts Nos. 131, 137, 139, and 140 from consideration. These tracts are adjacent to the three-mile limit offshore from Newport Beach where the finest boating and.sunbathing recreation areas exist. Tracts Nos. 137, 139, and 140 have been included in previous bids in which the oil companies refused to submit pro - posAls. In the last OCS sale No. 48, one bid, however, was received for Tract No. 131. This tract has unique problems which permits deletion along with the other three. First, there is a geological fault across Tract No. 131 which poses a potential for earth movement. This fact is set forth in the Secretarial Issue Document at Page 1-45. A tract containing a geological fault imposes high risk in drilling in similar activities. Drilling should not be permitted under this condition. Second, Tract No. 131 is a deep water tract, i.e., it is in water 300 meters in depth or greater. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has previously recommended to the Department of Interior that deep water tracts be deleted from lease sale consideration because technology has not yet been developed to drill without substantial risk. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 The Honorable S. I. Hayakawa, Senator Page Two January 9, 1980 Third, Tract 131 is adjacent to a specially -designated biological area. This area has been designated by the State of California and the State has recommended that Tract 131 be deleted from further consideration by the Department of Interior. The Department of Interior has admitted in previous correspondence that considera- tion of lease sale for Tract 131 violates the State standard for areas of special biological significance.. Finally, the City of Newport Beach is concerned with air quality.' The offshore/onshore wind flow characteristics of our shoreline causes at times a recirculation of pollutants. This is in contrast to those areas where prevailing winds clear the source area. when inversion conditions prevail in the basin, little or no relief is obtained even when there is a wind flow. The City of Newport Beach is located in a non -attainment area,.i.e., the air pollution is such that this community has not been able to meet EPA requirements. Pollutants of the area already surpass the standards sought by EPA. It appears irresponsible to commence new programs, such as drilling offshore, until air quality standards in Newport Beach can be achieved. It is hoped that your office can support our request to delete Tracts Nos. 131, 137, 139, and 140 from further consideration for oil and gas'exploratory lease sale. Your comments and/or suggestions of further action that this City may take to achieve deletion of the above -named tracts would be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, X, ,7 PAUL RYCKOFF+ Mayor PR/jmb xc: Congressman Robert Badham Mayor Jack McDowell - City of Laguna Beach E Senator Cranston Page 2 February 29, 1980 are both owned by the State of California sensitive areas of environmental concern. NATIONAL URBAN PARK/STATE PARKS The State of California has major portion of the coastl ject area. This area forms County National Urban Park, agency support. It is the" tion of Tract Numbers 131, tion on the National Urban Both are extremely recently purchased for park land a ine immediately onshore from the sub - a cornerstone for the proposed Orange which has multi -jurisdictional and position of the City that any nomina- 137, 139 and 140 prior to a determina- Park would be premature. It is hoped that your office can support our renuest to delete Tract Numbers 131, 137, 139 and 140 from further consideration for oil and gas exploratory lease sale. Truly yours, Paul Ryckoff Mayor PR/gg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RED' February 29, 1980 br r MARE 1980s>- The Honorable Alan Cranston, Senator CAI-' cfi' United States Senate 6221 Senate Office Building �1 Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Cranston: The City of Newport Beach appreciates your attention to our concerns on the nominations for proposed oil and gas exploratory lease sale_ (OCS #68) in the offshore Southern California area, as expressed in our letter to you of January 8, 1980. Maura Kleeman of your staff has been most helpful in this regard. The purpose of this letter is to clarify some of the concerns based upon conversations with your staff. As previously indicated, the City of Newport Beach solicits your support in deleting Tract Numbers 131, 137, 139 and 140 from consideration. The four tracts were deleted from consideration in the last OCS Sale Number 48 for the reasons indicated in our letter of January 8, 1980. Tract Numbers 131, 137, 139 and 140•are adjacent to the three-mile limit offshore from the City of Newport Beach. In addition to the concerns we have previously expressed dealing with geological ha- zards, deep water drilling and air pollutants, we would offer the following information: RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES The City of Newport Beach is one of the nation's finest boating, swimming and sunbathing recreational areas. Newport Harbor is home port for over 10,000 recreational boats and a small commer- cial fishing fleet. The City's beaches provide recreational op- portunities for numerous regional visitors per year. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS There are several areas of environmental significance in close proximity to the proposed areas for nomination. The Corona del Mar Marine Life Refuge and Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT For Release December 28, 1979 K jv�.' t' a. 6 V •�' news release Robinson (202) 343-5719 Shone (213) 688-7109 Fergus(213) 688-6740 The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management today asked for information bearing on which submerged tracts of land offshore Southern California might be offered in a proposed sale of Federal Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases tentatively slated for June, 1982. Known as the 'Call for Nominations and Comments', this request solicits information and data on tracts having oil and gas potential, or any resource value, that might be affected by'the proposal. The area of the 'Call' covers an estimated 16.3'million acres (6.6 million hectares) or approximately 2,900 whole and partial blocks with each whole block being roughly 9 square miles. Ranging seaward from 3 to 210 miles in water depths to approximately 12,000 feet (3700 meters), the 'Call' area extends from Pt. Conception to the U.S. - Mexican border. Specifically, the 'Call' asks the petroleum industry to nominate specific tracts on which it would like to bid if a lease sale is held. It also asks Federal, State, and local governments, other industries, universities, research institutions, environmental organizations, and the public to comment on specific tracts they be- lieve have conflicting resource values or environmental concerns. Information requested in the 'Call' pertains to geological, environmental, archeological, socio-economic, and other factors. The area of the 'Call' appears on the following OCS Official Protraction Diagrams: n 66C 6B ($1.00 each) NI 11-10, San Clemente ($2.00 each) 6D NH 11-1, Bushnell Kno11 6E NH 11-4, The Rampart (more) These OCS Official Protraction Diagrams can be purchased from the Manager, Pacific OCS Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1340 West 6th Street, Room 200, Los Angeles, California 90017. (213) 688-7234. Nominations and Comments for proposed OCS Lease Sale #68 must be submitted not later than rebruary 29, 1980, in envelopes labeled }'Nominations of Tracts for. Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf --Southern California," or "Comments on Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf --Southern California," as appropriate. These must be submitted to the Manager, Pacific OCS Office, at the Los Angeles address listed for maps, with copies to the following; Director, Bureau of Land Management, Attention: 540, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240 Conservation Manager, U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific OCS Region, 1340 West 6th- Streat,..&om 1fi0.,,_L6& Aftwlaao C^W*9AU-%O011 The Call for Nominations and Comments, EIS tract selection, and subsequent Public. Hearings do not constitute a decision to hold a sale on the part of the Secretary of the Interior. They are each part of the series of steps required under the National Environmental Policy Act, guidelines issued by the President's Council on Environmental Quality, and Interior -regulations. After all mandates and prerequisites have been met, and if the Secretary decides to hold a sale, he may also determine whether to eliminate some areas and/or decide what lease stipulations shall be imposed on lessees in the exploration and develop- ment phases of oil and gas. BLM's Call for Nominations and Comments for proposed OCS Lease Sale #68 is being published in the Federal Register of December 2a, 1975 A map showing the area covered by the 'Call' is attached. w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, January 3, 1980 Manager, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office Bureau of Land Management 1340 West 6'th Street, Room 200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Re: Comments on leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf, Southern California Dear Sir: These comments are in response to your recent news release concerning nominations and comments, sought for proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore Southern -California (OCS #68). The City of Newport Beach believes that four tracts should be eliminated from further consideration by the Bureau of Land Management.. These Tracts are Nos. 131, 137, 139 and 140. With•respect to Tracts Nos. 137, 139 and 140, it should be pointed out that OCS Sale No. 48 included these -Tracts and no bids were received. With respect to Tract 131, only one bid was received. Tract 131, however, has unique problems which merits its deletion for further consideration. First, there is a geological fault which trends northwest - southeast across Tract 131 and which poses a potential for .future movement. This fact is set forth in the Secretarial Issue Document at Page A-45. Because of this fault, Tract 131 is subject to a special restriction concerning drilling and placement of structures. The fault also increases the potential risk to the environment. Second, Tract 131 is a deep water tract, i.e., it is in water 300 meters or greater. The'Federal Environmental Protection Agency has recommended deletion of all deep water tracts from a former lease sale because technology has not yet been -de- veloped to the extent where development can occur in such deep water tracts without substantial risk. Third, Tract 131 is close to several areas of special biological City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Page -2- significance. These areas have been specifically designated by the State and are subject to special restrictions regard- ing maintenance of natural water quality conditions. Be- cause of the potential impact on areas of special biological - significance the State of California recommended that Tract 131 be deleted from Lease Sale 48.' The Department of Interior at the time the State recommended deletion admitted that Lease Sale 48 (Tract 131) potentially violated the State stand- ard for areas of special biological significance. This ad- mission is found on Page 40 of the Secretarial Issue'Document. Finally, the City of Newport Beach is vitally concerned with the fixed sources of pollutants on shoreline locations. The offshore -onshore wind flow characteristics of our shoreline causes a recirculation of pollutants. This is in contrast to those areas where prevailing winds clear the source area. When inversion conditions prevail in the basin little or no relief is obtained even -when there is a wind flow. As you may know, the City of Newport Beach is located in a non -attain- ment area,• i.e., the.air pollution is such that this com- munity cannot meet -EPA requirements. Pollutants of the air already surpass the standards sought by EPA. It appears ir- responsible to commence new programs such as drilling off- shore until air quality standards in Newport Beach can be achieved. This City, therefore, urges you to delete from OCS 68;"Tracts Nos. 131, 137, 139 and 140. cerely, ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager CC: Director, Bureau of Land Management Attn: 540 Department of the Interior Conservation Manager, U.S. Geological Survey Pacific OCS Region ®EPARTME111 INTERIOR Planning 3 ^artment n e w-s release JAN7 1980... BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT cl-, oyr 4 Robinson (202) 343-5719 6 NEWPOR7BEACH, Shone (213) 688-7109 For Release December 28, 1979 CALIF. S Fergus(213) 688-6740 0 Wn?JTNATTnMq ANT) MMUFNTS SOUGHT FOR PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management today asked for information bearing on which submerged tracts of land offshore Southern California might be offered in a proposed sale of Federal Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas - leases tentatively slated for June, 1982. Known as the 'Call for Nominations and Comments', this request solicits information and data on tracts having oil and gas potential, or any resource value, that might be affected by the proposal. The area of the 'Call' covers an estimated 16.3 million acres ('6.6 million hectares) or approximately 2,900 whole and partial blocks with each whole block being roughly 9 square miles. Ranging seaward from 3 to 210 miles in water depths to approximately 12,000 feet (3700 meters), the 'Call' area extends from Pt. Conception to the U.S. - Mexican border. Specifically, the 'Call' asks the petroleum industry to nominate specific tracts on which it would like to bid if a lease sale is held. It also asks Federal, State, and local governments, other industries, universities, research institutions, environmental organizations, and the public to comment on specific tracts they be- lieve have conflicting resource values or environmental concerns. Information requested in the 'Call' pertains to geological, environmental, archeological, socio-economic, and other factors. The area of the 'Call' appears on the following OCS Official Protraction Diagrams: 6A I 6C 6B ($1.00 each) NI 11-10, San Clemente ($2.00 each) 6D NH 11-1, Bushnell Knoll 6E NH-11-4, The Rampart i I (more) These OCS Official Protraction Diagrams can be purchased from the :tanager, Pacific OCS Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1340 West 6th Street, Room.200, Los Angeles, C'alifornia.90017. (213) 688-7234. Nominations and Comments for proposed-OCS Lease Sale #68 must be submitted not _ later than February 29, 1980, in envelopes -labeled "Nominations of Tracts for ; Leasing on the Outer Continental Shalt --Southern California," or "Comments on Leasing on the Cuter Continental Shelf —Southern California," as appropriate.. These must be submitted to the Manager, Pacific OCS Office, at the Los AnSales address listed for maps, with copies to the followins: Director, Bureau of 'Land Management, Attention: 540, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.G. 20240 Conservation Manager, U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific OCS Region, 1340 West Angeles;" C 1ifar dJL 90017 _ . - • - The Call for Nominations and Comments, -EIS tract selection, and subsequent Public• Hearings do not constitute a decision to hold a sale on the part of the Secretary of the Interior. They are each part of the series of steps required under the National Environmental Policy Act, guidelines issued by the President's Council on Environmental Quality, and: Interior regulations. • After all mandates and prerequisites have been met, and if the Secretary decides to hold a sale, he may, also determine whether to eliminate some areas and/or decide what lease stipulations shall be imposed on lessees in the exploration and develop- mant phases of oil and gas« BLM's Call for Nominations and Comments for proposed OCS Lease Sale #68 is being - published is the Federal Register of December 28, 1979 A map showing the arm covered by the 'Call' is attached.