MtNU'rE ITEM

22

REMOVAL OF OIL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION PLATFORMS 11 HEf..EN 11 AND 11 HERMAN 11

08/20/87 w 40500 Gon~alez

Cohen

FROM STATE OIL AND GAS LEASES, PRCc 2206, 2275. SAr~TA BARBARA COUNTY, WITH DISPOSAL OF THE

STRUCTURES IN STATE WATERS AS ARTIF,ICIAL REEFS

Calendar Item 22. attached, was pulled from the aqenda prior to the meeting.

Att·~bment: Calendar Item 22.

A 3S, 51

s 18, 29

CALENDAR ITEM

22

REMOVAL OF OIL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION PLATFORMS "HELEN" AND "HERMAN 11

08/20/87 W .i!O~OO PRC 2206 PRC 2'l2S Gonzalez Cohen

FROM S~ATE OIL AND GAS LEASES, PRCS 2206, 2275, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, WITH DISPOSAL OF THE

STRUCTURES IN STATE WATERS AS ARTIFICIAL REcFS

LESSEE: Texaco, USA Attn.: Mr. Bill Peters 10 Universal City Plaza, Room 654 Universal City, California 91608-1097

LEASES, STRUCTURES AND LOCATION: State oil and gas lease PRC 2206 contains 3,840 acres of tide and submerged lands located in the Santa Barbara Channel, West of GAuiota, Santa Barbara County. The lease was awarded by competitive bjd on July 25, 19S8 to the Texas Company, now Texaco, for a bonus bid of $2 3 I 711 1 5 3 8 •

Platform Helen was installed on PRC 2206 in 1960 as a drilling and production pl'al:form from which nine wells were sµbsequently drilled and completed. The platform pr-Oduced until 1973 when it was shut ~n and abandoned~ The nine wells were abandoned between August 1984 and March 1985.

-1-

\CALENDAR PAGE 1 ~ ~ 0 3 i ~IM:IN:UT:::.!!.E~PA~;_~E-.. _,_:=:=::::=

•\;'' 0 • •\ ·• ... ~. • .. -, ...,.

l I~~ :.:~.,,:.:

: I '

, : ~-.;o.~.~~: ~~:- :>~,:~~r1.. ~::~~~!'··~·~· ""'"'"~' ·, ~,, ~ .. ,, t~*'" ~ '··,Ir"'"'",, ,;,~~ -"'""''}} idt~ · ,1'\<. "\..r.'I'

._, .Ji;;~:·,·~::·\. /::~ZS.:~~··~~'.~~,;;;~.-.

PROJECT SUMMARY:

C~LENDAR ITEM NO. 22 c coi\IT 1 tr)

State oil and gas leasa PRC 2725 contains 4,250 acres of tide and submerged lands located in the Santa Barbara Channel West of Gaviota, Santa Barbara County. The lease awarded by competitive bid to Texaco, Inc. on May 4, 1961 for a bonus bid of $9,SS0,900.

Platform Herman was installed on Lease PRC 2775 in 1964 as a satelite production pla~form serving as a separation and testing facility for the 20 subsea wells which were drilled and completed on the lease. The 20 subsea wells were abandoned in 1982 and 1963. Platform Helen stands in 94 feet of water and Platform Herman is in 85 feet of water. The two platforms are each approximately 1.5 miles apart.

Texaco, USA, "Texaco''• plans to remove and dispose of its platforms Helen and He~man located nn State lease PRCs 2206 and 2i2s, respectively, near Gaviota, California in ,the Santa Barbara- Channel. A contl'.'..actor, hired by Texaco, will, subsequent to appi"opriate cleanup measures, removed the platform sections as follows:

L Topside facilities. 2- Platform decks and associated material. 3. Jacket bracing. 4. Jacket structures and piling (to be cut at

the mudline.).

Additionally, the pipelines from both pl~tforms will be abandoned ir1 place by pl~q_gi·ng and severing them at the platform mudline as wa11· as removing them tnrough ~he surf zone.

-2-

CAU:NP!\P. P~GE

MINUTE PAGE

105 i 2/04 i .... ,

AB 884:

CALENDAR ITEM NO. 22 (CONT'Dl

The platform structural sections will be loaded onto a barge and transported to a disposal site selected by the Department of Fish and Game for use as an artificial reef for fishery · enhancement. The site selected by Department. of Fish and Gama is located in 120 feet of water in Santa Monica Bay in the jurisdiction of Redondo Beach. It is adjacent to an existing artificial 1·eef. The sunken liberty ship "Palawan" and close to the mooring point of a ~ubl±c fishing barge. Texaco, the Department of fish and Garn~. and Commission staff have coordinated with· the City of Redondo Beach on the placement of the platform sections. The City has indicated that it approves of the project dis~osal site.

N/A.

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION: 1. Pursuant to the Commission's delegation of

authority and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Adm. Code 1S02S), the staff has prepared a proposed Negative Declaration identified as EIR ND 417 State Clearinghouse 87040116; such proposed negative declaration was prepared anc circulated for public review pursuant to the provisions of the CEQA. A copy of this environmental document is attached as Exhibit 11 11

•

Based upon the initial stud~, the proposed Negative Declaration, and the comments received in response thereto, there is no substantial evidence th~t the p~oject will have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Adm. Code 1S07~(b)).

2. This activi~y involves lands identified as pos§essing significant •nvironmental values pursuant to ?.R.C. 6370 et. seq. Based upon the staff's consultation with the Department of Fish and Game and through the CEQA r.eurew process, it is the staff's opinion that the project, as proposed, is consistent with the use classificatiqn.

-3-C.\lENDAR PAGE 106

CALENDAR ITEM NO. ".2 (CONT'D)

3. As part of an ongoing artificial reef program, the Director of the Department of Fish and Game has selected the Santa Monica Bay Disposal site as suitable for placement of these platform s±ructures as artificial reef material for fishery enhancement.

EXHIBITS: A. Lease Location Map. B. Disposal Site Map. c. Negative Declaration

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION:

1. CERTIFY THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION EI~ ND 417 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #87040116. WAS 'PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GEQA AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMAfION CONTAINED THEREIN.

2. DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT, AS PROPOSED, WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFtCT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

3. FIND THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USE CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATED FOR THE LAND PURSUANT TO P.R.C. 6370, ET. SEQ. -

4. APPROVE THE PROCEDURES, AS REVISED, TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF IDLE PRODUCTION AND DRILLING PLArFORMS "HELEN" AND "HERMAN" FROM STATE OIL AND GAS LEASES PRCs 2206 AND 272S. RESPECTIVELY, TOGETHER WITH ABANDONMENT OF RELATED GAS AND OIL PIPELINES, ANO THE REMOVAL OF THOSE PIPELINE PORTIONS THROUGH THE SURF ZONE, WITH DISPOSAL OF THE Pl~TFORM STRUCTURES AS ARTIFICIAL REEFS IN STATE WATERS IN SANTA MONICA BAY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AS SELECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA~E.

; '

-4-

~6-C.\U:ll:DAR FAGE

MINUTE PAGE -··· -·· ~------- -- ··--

WIBI~ •A•

PRC 2206, PRC 2726

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION MAP OFFSHORE SOUTHERN CALIF'DRN1A

W406Qfl

SANTA MARIA .

$/;NT I>. BARBARA

GA~~O~·---·· ------- () VEMTURA

TEXACO LEAS£':Y. .

1 •• Hr'\NNFl. I~'LAMD:;

'-- ~ :.r • ~

'~~&~: ,_:-. i~rr-? i:

' :.0t

-~~'~S- ' ' ---~ ,..

EXHIJ:!lt ~a· PLA iFORM DISPOSAL ~ 'REEF SITE

SANT A MONICA BAY

W-tCSOO

I 11 (, .. , I

I} 1

.,J ~ I I

~ 1

z / ii ... I . '

I I

. •'

1 I

,.I ~ !

I

FOREST

C.\l~NDA~ PACE

MINUTE PACE

....... ,;·:,. ~9'1IL

STATE OF :ALIFORNIA-STATE LANDS COMMISSION Dn' nap ....- OEOROI! DCUKMEJIAN, Oa.v1rn~,

STAIE LANDS COMMISS:ON 1807 13TH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95914 ''c ,, £~H1B1r

PROPOSED,UEGATIVE DECLARATI~ @,I I

Project .!itle:

Project Proponent:

Project Loqation:

·~

~lIR Nb 417

File Ref. t W J0051:.

SCH#: 8704Ql'l6

Removal and Disposal of Oil Platforms "Herman" and nHelen"

Texaco· U.S.A. a Inc.

Sta~e leases PRC 2206.1 and PRC 2725.1 ·in the Santa Barbara Channel near Gaviota, Santa Barbara County

~roject Ducription: Proposed removal and ~isposal of two idle oil drilling and/or production platforms and rel~ted gas and oil pipelines.

Cone:act Person: Dan Cohen. Environmental Coor. Telephone: (91'5) 324-8497

Thi~ document is prepared pur•uant to the require111enta of the California Environmental Qualit7 Act (Section 21000 et seq., Public Resources· Code)-, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15000 et seq., Title 14, California Administrative Code), and' the State Lands Commission regulationr (Section 2901 et seq .. • l'itle 2 9 California Administrat.ive Cocie).

Ba•ed upon the attached Initial Study, it has been found that:

1--r tho project will n;t have a significant effect on the environment .. - '

, miti~,~i:ion measures included in the project w! U nvoid, potentially significant effects ..

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE

(. . ' t:

..

INITIAL S"rollV

REMOVAL OF TEXACO• S PLATFORMS t.1Hi"~EN• AND •H!RMAN" Santa Barbara Channel. Santa Barbara county

'evised. July 1987

Pi:epared By:

14835

State Lands commis~ii>n /

1807 - 13th Stc~~t Sacramento. CA· 95Si4' Contact:.: Dan Cohen·. Envi·ronmental. $pecialist

(916.) 324-8497

' ,. •·

- TABLE'OP' CON'l'!NTS -

i: PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE

l

l l 4 6 7 8 a 9

XI.

III.

A. :e. c. D. E. F. G. H. I.

Ove?:view . . . . . . . . . . • . • • . • . . . Preliminary Platform A~andonment Procedures •• The Alternatives • • • • • • • • • • a •

Platform Preparation & Removal • • • • • Platform Placement or Platform Disp~sal ~lanned Removal. Procedure for Pipeline • • ~ • Stages of the ProjecC/Equipment • • •• Equipment List • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix: • . • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • o Platform Helen - Jacket and Topsides

0

0 0 0 0

Structures • • • • • • • • • • • • Platform Herman - Jacket and ·Topsides

Structures • • • ; • • • • • • • • • • • Pipelines - Aleqria and Auquatine,Beaches. Onsho~e Disposal Sites • • • • • • Artif i~ial Reef Site • • • • • Pro)ect Timetable • ~

ENVIRONMENTAL SE~1NG - REMOVAL SITES • . " . A.

-B.

c. D. E.

F. G.

H. I. J.

K.

Marine Geology • • • • • • • • • •. • • • o Regional overview • • • • o Local Conditions • • ••• Air Quaiity ••••••••••.•••••.• o Applicable Rules. Regulations and Standaras Marine Biology • • • • • Tecrestrial Bioloqy ••••••••••• oceanaqraphy • • • • • ,. • • • ":. • • • ,, • • • o Wind Driven currents • • • • ,, • o Littoral curients o Temperature • • • • • • • • • • • • Water Qualit.y • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cultural Resources • • • • • • • • ••.•• o Platform Herman Project Area • • • o •

o Platform Helen Project Area ••• Land Use • • • • • • • • Socioeconomics • • • • Recreation • • • • • • • o Reqional Overview o Local Conditions • • $ • •

commercial Fishinq

. . .. . .. . . . . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL $ETTING - PRQPOSED REEF SITE (ALTERNATIVE il) • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • 0 •

ll

12-14

15-17 l8-2l

22 23 24

25

25 25 25 27 /27 28 ia 29 30 30 31 32 33 33 33 34 35 35 35 36 37

40

~LENOA;;:;; .... l.)1 f

MINUTE PAGE i 11

IV.

v.

~

IMPACTS/MITIGATION - REMOVAL SITES . . . . . . . . A. B. c. D. E. P. G. a. I. J .. K.

Marine Geology • • • • . . Air Quality • • • • • . ., Marine Biology • · •• Terre&'trial Biology • • • • Oceanography • • • • • • • • • Water Quality . . . . CUltural Resources • • • • •

• Q • •\ • •

• • • • • •

. . . . . . " . . . . .

Land Use • • • • • Socioeconomics : • Recreation • • • • commercial ~ishing

. . . . . . . . . • • • • • ~ • • • 6 . . . . . .

IMPACTS/MITlQATION - PROPOSED REEF Stir!: (ALTERNATIVE *l) , • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . .

FOOTNOTE REPERENCES

REL'EREUCES • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • ! c • • •

ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED • . . . . . .

- ·-· CALfNOAR PACE

MINUTE PAGE

f AGE

41

41 41. 41 43 43 44 45 45 46 46 47

48

49

50

Sl

• I '

I. f.ROJECT DESCRIPTtC!J

A. overview

Texaco USA. "Texaco". plans to remove and dispose of its Platforms Helen and Herman located on State Leases PRC 2206.1 and 2725.l near Gaviota. California in the sant3 Barbara Channel. Platform Helen stands in 94 feet of water and P1atform Herman is in 85 feet of water. The two platforms are located ap-proximately l. 5 lliles offshore and are about five miles apart. (Location maps are shown on pages 2 and 3.)

Platform Helen was im1talled in 1960 as a drilling and production platform from which 9 wells were subsequently drilled,... and completed. The platform was active until 1973 when it waa shut in and abandoned. T~e nine wel·ls were abandoned between August 1984 and March 1985. (See paqes 12-14)

Platform Herman was installed in 1964 as production platform serving as a separation facility for the 20 subsea wells wpich wgre com~leted on the lease. The 20 subsea abandoned in 1982 and 1983. (See pages 15-17)

a satel·lite and testing drilled and wells were

There are platforms pipelines .areas are with sand.

also idle oil and gas p~pelines from, the to shore. Some underwater portions of the are covered with marine growt:P'. "1hile other exposed with no marine growth. or are covered

B. Preliminary Plattorm Abandonment Procedures

Texaco will have contacted and investigated several marine contractors capable of p&r.f orming wotk of this nature prior to proceeding with any operations associated with platform removal. Advance arrangements will ·be made with the Hollister Ranch company to transport equipmen:t to the beach sites where the pipelines will be removed in conjunction with an existinq riqht-of-way on the pipelines.

The final list of contractors will be supplied with a bid document which will have also been ceviewcd b7 the State Lands Commission. Following bid evalu~tion. Texaco will review the succe~sful bidders plan o~ abandonment. and conduct a final job walk at both platforms and the beach crossings where the pipelin~s are to be ·removed.

-1-

CALENDAR PACiE

MINUTE PAGE

114 211 3 '

3: z ·~

~ C'; m

~ ... '" z 0 > ;;i

~r a m

i N I

...)

9

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION MAP =

DFFSHDR~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

0 SANTA MARIA

GAVfPTA

TEXACO LEASES

<:J ~ ~«:;.)<::)

0 .. CHANNEL ISLANDS

; e I •

. ~ 1 • , !

• LOCATION OF TEXACO PLATFORMS

IN S1ATE WATERS OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA

HOLLISTER RANCH ROAD

6' DIL. L 8" GAS PIPELitlES

STAT£ LEAS£ LINES

11111 lllf I- SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS

~ .

once all aqencies have been notified and pecmits have been obtained. the abandonment op'3dltions will begin. . -

c. The Alternatives:

TWO alternatives ~re bei~q considered tor platform abandonment. Under Alternative ~1. the &ontcactor would t~ansport the platform materials to an ~ffshoce site in ~ant&: Monica Bay. and place them for use as artificial reefs. The site is adjacent to the City of Redondo Beach, California and b!Jt·h the Department of Fish and Game and the City of Redondo Beach have qiven their app?oval to the pcoposal. Altecnative ·i2 ir'ivolves the disposal of both platforms onshore at either an approved disposal site or with an authocized scrap de~~er.

Alternative *l i:s the preferred option. Alternative *2' would be carried out only should perm!:ttinq and/or techn~cal problems make the preferred alternative not feasible.

Both of subsequent following:

the options require that the to appropriate cleanup measures.

1. Topside facilities 2. Platform d~cks and associated material

contractor. r~move the

3. Ja~ket bcacinq 4. JacKet structures and pilinq (to be cut ~t o~ below

th~ mudline1 whichever is both techni~ally a~d ~nvironmentally pcefecabie in consultation with the State Lands Commission)

Additionally, the pipelines from both platfocms will be abandoned in pi~c.e by pluqqing and seveting them. at t~e platform IflU~line as well as removinq them through the sucf zone.

Prior to the commencement of work, Texaco will notify those aqencies· ~hich have required permits ·and notification. once the agencies ar~ notitied and permits have been obtained, platform removal operati'ans will beqin. ·,

Alternative *1: Artificial Reef

The California Department ot Fish and Game (DFG) supp9rts placement of the platf otms in W~tecs BO that they can be used as artificial reefs. The DFG has conducted a number

-4-

C\LENOA:t PACE

MINUTE PACE

j l7 2'/l6

of surveys in California potential a~tificial reef placement of the platforms Beach •. ~alifornia.

off shore areas, to identify s i t~s • It has proposed

at a site offshore Redondo

The actual artificial reef site wiil be subject to a specific dive sur~ey by ~FG )ust before placeMent in oc:de:c to esta~li~J1 the Pr•~cise and ex~ct location ... Howevere it will be within 1/4 nautical mi-les of the following location where. it will auqment an alread~ existing artificial reef: ,, · - ~

Location: 33 deqrees~ so minutes~ 15 seconds north. and 118 deqrees. 24 minutes. 50 seconds west in approximately 120 feet of water.

Tbe DFG is requiring that tile platform, removal and' placement operation include the followinq· features: (l) all oil and contaminants be removed· from the platforms~ (2) platform ~opsides be removed from both platforms and deposited onshore: aud (3) the platfQrms be placed. on their sides at the site and in accordance with their detetminations made as"a resu~t of the dive su~vey.

In addition to oJ>tal.ninq. all requir.gd permits from the DFG. Texaco will a] so obtain permit-3 from the Army corps of Enqineers and the U. s. Cci-ast. Guard in or de~ to place the platforms at the artificial re\lf site. The ent:ire project (removal and placement) wil[l be bru11qht before the Califocnia Coastal Commission.. and before Santa

-EJarbata County and the Cit'y <>f Red(in,do Beac~ for those aspects o.f the project wherfl they havE1 jurisdiction.

Alternative #2: Onshore Disposal

Altecnative 412. onshor~ diaposaL wi\\l be carrieq, out should final permitting. and/or technic.al pr»blems make the ~rtif icial Reef option not feasible.

If the platforms are removed and disposed of at an onshore dump site. it is expected that the site would be i'n either th~ Los ~nqeles/Lonq Be~ch. Port Hueneme. ·or Santa Maria areas where there are existinq approved dump sites for such material~. The cctitractor hired ~or the project would -~..ake arranqcments for u'itimate .,gisposal at an approved onshore irlte. All r~qulatory agencies will be informed of the actual site pri'or 'to unde.r.t~kincj any of the operations associated with Alternative #2.

-5-

cALENDAR PAGE l 1 8 MINUTE PAGE .2} ·1 7

o. Platform Preparation and Removal:

Undei: both Alternatives *l and #2,. platfo.cm preparation and removal will involve the tollo~inq steps:

1 ..

2.

Clean and lift onto a barqe, all vessels; ~anks and piping. Prior to removal. all oi~ and other substaneas will be drained into appropriate contaitiers and ~ispose~ of in accordance with existing regulations at ,an ap~coved onshore site.

Remove all loose material. refuse and equipilleut on the platf9rms and take to an ·Approve4 on~hore disposal site.

Clean al-1 loose debris froiiJ. topside6 structures and dispose 'of this material and the tanks and equipment at an approved disposal site onshore.

4. Perform inG-pection of topside strUc;,~u~ds for lift point determina~ions.

5. Perfoi::m underwater inspections of jacket stru~tures to d~eecmine cut and lift points.

6. Pecf orm bottqm surveys prior to commencemest of removal operations to determine seafloor status. Determimu.ion will be made whether to cut the pilings from the jacket at oc J?elow m~dline. The survey will determine .which option is environmentally preferable. The survey shall_ cover an area having a diameter ot 350 feet with the platform at the center point.

7. With the preparatozy work completed. the t?pside structures will be riqged. dismantled and placed, on the work barqe. Cuttinqs will be do-ne .by oxyqen/acety;lene torches or . undetwater , cutting equipment.

8. Pluq and seal the ripelineo. emanatinq from each platform.

9. Rig and dismantle ,the jacke·c structure!>. Place jacket structures .on work barges. ~roceed with either Altern.ative *i or #2. discussed beiow.

~6-

CALENOAP. PAGE, -.1.;.....;;1..;9:..---1 MINUTE P~,\~GE:._-==2~~t:/ :::1:8;_:, ::;J

• • t I

10.

.. ll.

Cut off any remaining piling from the jackets at or below the mudline. based oh the iJeterminatioli made in tt6 (above}.

Remove the pipeline sections at the beach crosainqs through the surf zone to the palftfs indicated on the drawings in the Appendix (pages 18-212. Plug pipelines at cut points. (See discussion in Section "F" below for pipeline removal 1?rocedures.)

E. P.latform flaqarnent <Altttnatiye ttl.l,.,,or Plitfor:m Disposal <Alternative 'tt2> and Final Site Clearance Work

Under Alternative *l• the jacket etructures would be barqed to the artificial reef site :ido_n~itied above oft! ot Redondo Beach. California and placed in the water:. The DFG personnel will be present to monitor and direct all aspects relative to the placement of the platforms at the reef site.

Under Alternative *2· the jacket struc~ures would be barqed to port and. from there, taken to an approved dump site authorized to receive such m~terial. Aqencies wlll be notified of the dump site prior to any operations associated with this alternative.

A final subsea bottom survey will be p~rformed after all disposal 'items have been removed from the original platform. area. The final subsea survey will be compared with th~ initial survey. This surv~y shall also cover a -3-50 fo~t diameter area around the platform. with~ the oriqi~al platform site as the ceneer point. A colo2: video; camera will b_e used to p-rovide clear documentation of the bottom teatu:o:es. The su.cveys will be reviewed. and ·any additionc:l obstructive ·objects-:_ will be removed from the seafloor.

T~xaco will provide agencies with tha site clearar.ce d~cumentation. This documentation will include: tl) color videotape pict~res of th~ platform sites: (2) appr6priate visual reportinq of ttie pipeline cut points; and (3) still phO'toqraphs of the su.cfac~ b~ach sites.

An estimated project ti~etable sh-owing the days on site for each ataqe is shown in the Appendix (pag~ 2•>·

-1-

t -··- -C.\l,EUO/\:t rACE

MINUTE r:1CE

320 2/19

F. the Surf

Al!gria Baach

l. cut and plug pipelines at point (2) located on drawing [Pipeline·s - Alegria Beach. ~~awn by Land and Sea su~veys Inc.] (LSSI) (see page 18).

2. Remove 8 11 oil and 6" gas pipelines from cut p"oint th:ouqh nurt zone to th~ valve box located behi~d the railroad trestle.

3. Replace any ocean bo~tom or beach material that may have been displaced by the :emovcll operati~ns.

It. AYGU•tint Beach

l. cut and ~lug pipelines at point seven (7. located on the drawing on page 19 [Pipelines - st.. Augustine Beach by LSSIJ.

2. Remove 8 11 oil and 6" qas ,pipelines from cut point tJlCOUqh SUrf zone tO a point loeat~d 50 I 2>ehind the bluff overlooking the beach.

3. Replace any ocean bottom or beach material that may have been displaced by the removal operation~.

G. Stages of the Propose~ Proiect Corresponding to -~ment List <Part H, following>

Staqa l

Stage 2

Stage 3

iJnderwal:er inspection prior to commencement of platform dism~ntlinq.

Removal and c:leaninq of ·topsides structures .and associated lo~se items. Discarded material to be transported to Port ·au~neme and discarded at local disposal facirity nearby.

Riq and di~mantle topsides and jacket structures. Cut and pluq pipelines offshore and onshore. ~: Pipelines to· each platform will be cut at the platforats mud line. Transport topsides and jacket structures tO' dump &ite11 also shown OD accompanyinq map (page 22).

-8-

Ci\lENOA:t PACE

Mll'!UTE ='ACE

121 2'/ 20

.. . ••

e

Stage 4

Stage 5

cut and plug pipelines throuqh surf 2one at each beach. sit.e. Remove pipeline and associated material to disposal 1sita iri Santa Maria.

.;

Underwater inspection after dismantling of the platform, str~~tures. Calor video. magnetometer and possible side scan sonar survey of platform sites as described in oriqinal project descriptio~.

H. Equipment Li~t tor !ach,9~51.!!

Staqe 1

St&qe 2

Stage 3

30 • diving support vessel - 150 hp diesel enqine Remotely operated underwater inspection vehicle -

electrically powered 2 divers with Helium Oxygen diving equipment 2 support personnel for divers and ROV survey Time on sites - approximately two days per platform

180' work boat 225~ hp (turbocharged diesel engines)

+ 2 diesel generators - 50 kilowatts + 90 cubic feet/minute air compressor

- ~o hp electric . . a sets of oxygen/Acetylene cuttinq to:cches 2 - 250 ampere diesel powered a~-;: weldi:nq 11achines 15~~!1- ·hydraulic crane with 200 hp diesel powered power pack 10-15 wotkmen _ 2-3 supply boat round trips to 'Port Hueneme per pliatfotm Time on sites - approximately 4-7 days per platform

180' work boac diesel engines)

2250 hp (turbocha,r:qed

+ 2 diesel qenerators - 50 kilowatts + 90 c,1,bic feet/minute air compressor - 40 hp. ele~t~ic + 400 hp ,diesel powered c~,:~ntinq unit + '500 cubic foot bulk ceme'nt' tank + 400 of 3" cementing lin~• 250' - 300' derreck barqe + 6 point mooring system.with io.ooo~ anehor.s

-9-

C.'\!.l:~DA:? PAGE

MINUTE P,\CE

Stage 4

Staqe 5

+ 3 twin d~um ao~ooo~ winches. 200 hp diesel powered + 2 200 kilowatt diesel powered electric generators + 6 sets Of OXYARC 'U~deruater euttinq equi'pillent + 8 sets of Oxygen/Acetylene cutting torches + 350-400· ton diesel powered crane - 1750 hp + ~ sets of 0'-300' Helium/Oxygen diving equipment + e sets of o•-200 1 ail -d~vinq equipment 250' x 9Q 1 x 30t cargo barqe ~15' barge tug - 4800 hp diesel powered 20-·25 workmen with supervisory crew 12 divers with suppor~ crew of io 2-3 supply boat rJund trips to Port Hueneme pet· platform Time on site - approximately s ... e days per platform

Diesel powered backhoe - 250 hp Diesel powered tractor - 500 hp 2 - 60' flatbed trailer t£Ucks - 350 hp 4 sets ~xyqen/acetylene cuttinq torches 200 hp diasel powered air· compressor !200 cubic feet/min) with

two jackhammers 3-4 small pickup trucks 175 hp gasoline driven 400 hp diesel pQwered ce11&~ntinq unit ~1/250 cubic foot bulk tank 1000' of 3" cementing lines 7-10 workmen Time on site - ap~roximately 2 to 3 days ~er location

30' diving st.~pport vessel' - d:SO hp diesel engine Remotely operated underwater inspe~tion vehicle -

~lectrically powered 2 divers with, Helium Oxygen diving equipment 2 support personnel for divers and ROV surv~y 100-' survey boat With appropj:iate SU~-Vey equipment pcwe~ed by

two 400 hp diesel engines Time on sites .:. approxim.a·tely four days . per platfoz:m

-10-,_....,_._,. __ ..,1_"2·-?---,~

C.\Ll:NDACl l?AGE __ :d

MINUTE PAGE 2 °/ 2 2

0

O,

0

I. l\fPENJ)IX

Pl:_tform Helen - Jacket and Topsides Structures • • • • • • • •

Platform Herman - Jacket and Topsides Structures • • • • • • • r • •

. . . . .

. . . . . Pipelines - Alcqria and Augustine Beaches.

0

0

0

Onshore Disposal Sites • • • <:; oft • •

~~tificial Reef Site •

Project Tim~table • •

.. -

-11-

. .. . . . . . • • •

• • ~ • • • e • • •

C.'\L~NDAtt PAGE

MINUTE PACE

PAGE

12-i4

15-17

1.8-21

22

23

24

12~ J . 2723 .

. .

~ .. ... ; . I. .. • • :i

O'

'Pl.A TF()RM HELEN JACKl;T .ANO TOPS.IDES STRUCTURES

•

....

.· -12-

PLATFORM, TOPSIDEf.

........ ~

~\lENOAl? PACE

. MIN:J!E PAGE

l 45'

J (

SIDE VIEW' LAYING 'ON OCEAN ·FLOOR)

TO~LATFOR~ HELEN PLAN SIDES- ~rRUCTURE

PLACEtt:i'Tw 0~F0TOPSIDES • CEAN FLOOR

(figure 2)

.... "1

(, .... - FRONT m ~Y!NG ON OdEAN · FLOOR)

. . .~ • ~ f .. ' ... :_· ~ .. :

~ , ~ ! .... > • • • • ~~ '

I -~ I

-L. 100•

~ g :z ,. s ..,

z m 0

~ >

" ~l m C'I I m :

Q)

- SIDI 1Dnr (LAYDCG ON OCEAJt ru>oJt)

I 83'

J

PLATFORM HELEN JACKET STRUCTURE PLAN VIEW ·OF JACKET PLACEMENT

ON, OCEAN FLOOR

note:

r

/.

\~fiaurt\ 5)

The wtalled JaC?kel structure ts oompril•d of two secUons which are mtrror image= ., of each other. One aecUon ii a1 sholfD here. Please see the alte place'ment. .map for 1.he pn.lpoaed placnment. orlentat!on of the two seoUon.s.

....

. • • ttSS'

·1 ...

· (LlTtMG~rom:. nbol)

. •, • •

P.J.,~1Tf:PRM HERMAN JACl<ET AND TQJPSIDES S'TRJ.)CTURE,~

PL>.TFDRH TDP$lll£$

MUDLINf:

r~PILING

.,.

-15-r .......... --~..:.. ..... , I•'.: mNtlA:t FACiE

tAINUTE p,,cr; 2'/27 j 28

. ~..- .....

I .-0'\ I

N en

TOP VIEW (AS SEEN FROM SURFACE) Pl.ATFORM HERMAN

... I.. ___ 60' ____ J

l 32'

J SIDE VIEW

(LAYING ON OCEAN FLOOR)

TOPSIDES STRUCTURE· t PL_\N 'VIEW' OF TOPSIDES PLACEMENT ON OCEAN FLOOR

(figure 4)

••• 180'

FRONT VIEW ·(LAYING ON OCEAN FLOOR)

.. ' .

•

I -...., I

.. " t :: ~ 2 E -I - l' "' 0 > . ~ .. ' ""' ... ' ~ ~ i

m •

TOP VIE1f (AS VlE19ED FROM SURFACE)

~i-...----- · 1oa~ ------'4 ....... 1

SIDE VIEW (LAYING ·oN OCE~ FLOOR)

8

PLl'-'fFORM H-ERMAN • JACKET STRUCTURE

PLAN VIEW OF JACI<ET PLACEMENT ON OCEAN FLOOR

(tl~e 5}

l &;~

J

66' ~

FRONT viEW (LA:'YR{G ON OCEAN FI.DOR)

-, . !':._-:

'. ,_- :-

,,

.. ..

- l,'!JIS,'ZOO

COOllOINATCS :IKOWH OH THIS SICtTClf CONF'CiNM WITH TH( CA&.,,ll'IHIA COOl'!CIHAT( STSTt:M ( &.AMllMT l'ft0~£CTIOlf I ZOHE !I,

L'.£V.&Tl(JUS SHOWH 1-nt: Mf:AN &.OWER LOW WATEft, 2.77' lt'.OW NATIONAL Gf:OOtTIC VERTICAL DATUM (SEA Lt\ott. DATUM), 1'!11 U.S.C. a D.S. A~USTLIEKT.

+'

+

i.ssi LAND & .SEA SURVEYS INC.

• e

l1.X 7S7447

INIO~ -onUtOA& ~ CrVIL DOGOcaDlf

2259 PORTOLA Ro.a.D. Su!lc A VENTURA. C\ 93003 18051 ~

....

+

___ ,., -

Q) TCP CF PIPEIJ.VES X • 1,315,COO

.~ .. Y. :J~O,I zeo ,..··; ~/ EL.• - 7.a

.•· !~·· ...

\ \

@ TOP O!= PIPGLINES . X • I, :;,14,~t:ii<P

/'/ .. ·Y• 3~o. 117 f.. .. ,...... EL.. • -~ • .3

"r-PIPEL/Ne5 SURIEO ,, \

+

O't ~ ~~~root. TEXACO INC. "~~

0

~rD_A_TC-------1~;_;_:_:_:~;_:~6_: __ --t @ AP'P'AOVCO: =- L

DIS"l'RICT

DOMESTIC PIODUCING D£Pf. lOS ANCUU i>IVISION

7/15/BG CH. av

1-----1----1 INTERNATIONAL lh\10/!ERWATER CONTRACTOR5 OIVER LOCATIONS OF EXISTING r-~-=1s1111$~==

PIPELINIES - ALEGRIA Bl:ACH c.-.1.rno,\:? PAGE •

-18-

. . .....

A U<SUSTINE BEACH

©ToPOFt-IPEl.INE:5 (T.O.P.;· @ -"'1 X ,, I, 'Zt!J!J, '24 !5

T.O.P. t:;--.... .t:.."'y., 35(;,,477 $HORELINE , )( • /,-:i~'!!l,'Z'2.!J ........ :~':. @ EL.. o -1.~

- -.~ y • 3~ti,4t;.'Z ---... ___ _ .....,"_,. .,, e1..., -1.s .t:: ...• r.o... . .. )( .• I, 28'E1, 200

+ y • 3%,43.3 + EL. • -z.a -

~

·e ~l"J ....... -::• 'r.O.P. ~ ..::".' ...... X •I, 28~0?'"!'

,,.J '! • 2';!~..:. '2$8 ,nY:, /;;\ ,..'{,,.. • - "*"•lg

"\' ~ ' .__ .. -·:-· r.a P. ~l'A •• • ••• , ,;J, ~: ..... X ,, l '28~ 032 6r Y ,, .'3sd_ 227 -

fc EL. • .,. -10.B

SURF= ZONE

--- -~'V,

,, 0

,'ti.& ® ti. ;....-..... -:.~· T. 0.1";' ' V >i:: .... • X • I, 298, ~'24 ,_o .,. • 35~.100 p.v Et..• -rz.B

~+~

" --·-::® + ,,.. .::-.. i~ c:;1 'Z8S,S'37

y. 355,":=>~..,. Et...,. -12.s

+

COOllOIHl.TU SHOWN OH ~tilS $KCTC:H CON1011M !::!TH'• THC CALl,OllHIA COOROIHATt ~l~TEM I t.AMt!f:llT ,llOJtCTIQU I ZOHI! 5.

L·~~ -.1 LAND ~ SF-A SURVEYS INC. ---~ w.o~ .• °""'-~ ct.r:v•r10Hs sHOWH .ant uc.aH t.a~bt t.~ w•rt11, 2.n•

IS!:t.OW NATIONAL ~tOOCTIC. VtRTICAL,D.kTUM ( :StA t.EVEt. DATUM), Ptll U.$.C. a.c.~. ADJUSTLIENr.

-- r Cl'V& IJ'ICalitl:m 2259 PORrolA R~. 5Uh A

ll.X 757447 .YfNruAA. CA 93003 18051 ~

-~--• .t#_v_•G_a::_o_r_o::::b:V::1----.;..l'CO;;.;;;.;L~ ~ DISTRICT

....

TEX A·C 0 I N c. OOM£STIC PIOOUCIHG Of P'T,

lOS ANCElH 01'/IS!ON

SHORECROSSING REMOVAL SITE AT ALLEGRIA BEACH PLATFORM HELEN 6' OIL 8c 81 GAS PIPELINES . .

ALLEGRIA . BEACH ACCESS ROAD

HOLLISTER ~ANCH ROAD

PIPELINE RIGHT Dr \J AV

RAILRQAD TRESTLE

PIPELINE REMOVAL POINTS

•

SHDRECROSSING REMOVAL SITE AT ST. AUGUSTINE: B~ACH PLATFORM ·HERMAN 6.. OIL 8. a• GAS PIPELIN'i ~ · •

l / ..

ST. ~UGUSTINE: BEACH ACCESS ROAD.

PIPELINE RIGHT CF' \/AY

HOLL1STER RANCH ROAD

RA14?0AD RIGHT OF' VAY

·-;;-~:>': j

~l;~ } [?'.

y

ABAND(INMENT OF TEXACO PLATFORMS

<DISPOSAL. SITES)

DISPOSAL SITE FDR PIPELINE SECTJDNS F'RDH SURF ZONE CROSSINGS

MARIA

SANTA B/~RBAl~A

-~~VENTURA n1s1AHct·. 73.6 Mn.Es · · '\ n PT. HUENEME

.. ·1:;SH;E · .. •• ----·--;-_} ~ c::;i <J>ISPDSAL SIT(~;

c>·~ ~i

' . , '

'

CHANNEL ISLANDS

1

N

1"=100'

·- .... , ______ $98blMIMlllftl _ _,,tai __ •..... , ______ SAllllJflll,!111111111!4 •w1clll•--.. -·-W~i•-111t•••a9lil!C4111'C1Jaq;..-.......... _ --·· t

SANTA MONICA BAY: ARTiFICIAL REEF ~rrE Orientation of Platform Sections around Liherty Vessel PAlawan

Liberty Vessel Palawan Placed in 1979 Water Depth: 120' 33deg 50 15" N

Plattorm Herman Topaldn

(""1re4) ~ Cloerenbc: 1111' , Dblcuo11 to ablp: 270' llL ~ ~.

CSO'

J'kltorm Halen i.cke\ SeoUon 8 (ftgur. 3) C1caraDce: 6., . 118deg 24' 50.. '\f

HeadinlI: N 60deg W Obtance to ehlp: 3llO'

PlllUorm lblMi Jacket SRUon' A (ttiuN-3) Clearauco: ~'1' DbleDGe · to 111i!p: 230'

PS&U'orm Herm&A JubMlacUon (ftaure 6) Claanwoe: ei· Dillance lo 'hip: 2fl0'

- - '

1 L. -

-~'.~ ' <

,•

•

PROJECT TIMETABLE EMISSION GENERATING. EQUIPMENT - TIME ON-STATION

STAGE 1 ~!iif.I

STAGE 2

~ STAGE 3 .::-I •

STAGE 4

I 'l •(

11

l I

STAGE 5 , I

l t

'"

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i' 22

DAYS ON SITE PER PLATFORM r ·~ I (J

I )awwaa . ESTIMATED nAvs PER srtJE ~ CONTINGENCY DA. l /~ .

,~~

. '' --~ ----------"'&""'-,._..- ---::----..... ~~-- .. ~ ...... ~~-==-""~7"="'-"=''~""""=·---...---------~ ....... ...-....----.-.. ...... _

. . . .

II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETT!?~[) - R1™0VAL SITES

A •• MARINE GEOLOGYl

geqional overview

The two subject tracts lie along the northern perimeter of the Santa Barbara Channel {SBC)._ The entire region has a ccimplex geologic ~istory. as reflected by the structure ef the channel. -

The SBC is the submerged western ex:t~nsion of the Ventura Basin. and lies within the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province. It is bounded on the north by the Santa Ynez Mountains and on the south by the Channel Islands. A characteristic east-west structural trend is pcominent wi ttiin the province. This trend is .ref.locted in the channel by east-west trendinq folds with hiqh anq~e reverse frontal faults and cross cutting rotational faults caused by north-south compression.

The dominant structural feature of the province is the Santa Ynez Fault. extending from near Point conception east towa.td the San ~:r·briel Fault. The Santa Ynez Fault is a major. active. left-lateral oblique slip fault dipping steeply to the south.

Seaward (south) of the Santa Ynez Fault. a sequence of sedimentary rocks. ranqinq in age from cretac~ous to Pleistocene. dip steepiy to the south. These late Cenozoic strata are transected by several faults that palallel t'1e regional east-west structural trend. Farther south. ttie Santa Barbara Basin ·forms the central portion of the channel and contains more than 4.0ov ft. (1.200 m) of Quaterna~y sediment overlying so.ooo ft. (15.000 m) of hiqhly folded· and faulted cretaceous and Tertiary strata. The Channel 1~1ands form the southern margin of the SSC and Basin. They represent anticlical uplift and are considered to be the seaward extension vf the Santa Monica Mountains. with faults and fault-bounded folds continuinq the dominant western structural trend.

Local Conditions

Lease PRC 2725 (He.cman) is entirely on the Mainland Shelf which extends from the shoreline to water dep~hs of about 245 ft. (75 m) ~ The seafloor slopes qently southward in most of the lease area. with a gradient typically between one and three percent~

-25-

r-·---·~,--=--===· :;:.:..::==-=t

ic ~!.t:'!DA:c rACE ' 1\~l~H.JlC p,,GE

.·,

--------------------,--------------~~·----~··-~-~--·-=~""' . .

Lease PRC 2206 (Helen) lies mostly on the Mainland Shelf. but the extreme southern part extend~ onto the upper Nort.h Channel Slope to water depths of about 360 ft. (l.lO m). The head of a prominent submari·ne qully is in the southwest corner of the lease. In the northern three-quarters of the lease. the seafloor. slopes gently toward the southwest with a gradient that is typical,?.y less than one pe:ccent. The seafloor gradient increases abruptly at the crest of the Notth Channel Slope in the southern quarter of the lease. The seafloor in this area slopes toward the south-~~utheast. with a slope gradient ran9inq from about five· ·te ten percent.

Both parcels are und~rlain by a thick segue~~ of folded and faulted tertiary sedimentary strata~ These strata were eroded durinq late Pleistocene and ·Holocene time to form the relatively flat Mainland Shelf. Throughout much of the lease areas. the Tertiary rocks are covered by a thin mantle of younger unconsolidated sediment.

Acco.r.dinq to earthquake records an4 historical aC;counts. the project areas are loca~~d in an active seismic region. Since 1800 at least fou~ earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater have occurred in the: SBC vicinity. Many low-magnitude and some moderate-sized eart~qva~es have also been ,re~orded in the channel region.

Identification of most faults capable .. producinq earthquakes. but which have not been ass~cjated with historic earthquake ac~ivity. is based on field -abservations. A fault is classified as active if it shows evidence o~ displacement durinq the Holocene epoch (within the pas.t 11. ooo years). or it there is a conjectural correlation between recorded earthquake epicenters and the fault.

Faults are clai.:;sified as potentially active if they show evidence o.£ d1splacement during late Pleistocene time (between ll.OOO and about soo.ooo years aqo). A fault is inacttve if it displaces only strata of early Pleistocene age or older.

Much qeoloqic field work has been done onshore in the SBC Region: the onshore faults are fairly well known. Much less is known about the faults located offahore. Although many faults have been mapped offshore. their possible relationships to onshore faults and ages of most recent fault movement are large,ly speculative.

-26-

C'ILENDA~ PACE 139 MINUTE P,'\GE

''

B. AIR QUALIT{2

Applicable Rules, Regulations, Standards

Any proposed activity on the subject parcels must conform to federal. State and county ~ir quality rules. requlations. and standards. These laws define: (1) the maximum c:llowable incremental and cumulative ambient air quality impacts of a project: {2) the minimum acceptable emissions control technology requirements for various project sources and. hence. maximum allowable project emissions: and (3} the requirements for offsetting emission increases resultinq f~om the proposed development.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 and its -- Amendments- of 1977 delegated to the Environmental Protection Aq&ncy (EPA} the responsibility of establishinq national ambient air quality standards. and policies to attain and maintain these standards.

In addition. the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has also set standards which are stated in te.cms of concentrations that may never be exceeded.

In March 1984. the Santa Barbara county Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) revised its New Source Review Rule {?.ZSR) to make i-t consistent with EPA requirements under the Clean Air Act. On August 21. 1985, the E?A gave the SBCAPCD full Prevention of Sig-nificant Deterioration (FSD) permitting authority. Ccnsequently. a separate

"f'ede.r:al PSD permit ls not required.

Under Rule 205 .c. any new or modified source subject to NSR procedures must meet the followinq requirements:

l. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is required for net emissions increases g~eater than or equal to 2. 5 lbs/hr for any nonattainment ,pollutant e?.:cept carbon monoxide (CO). carbon monoxide levels of 20 lb/hr or 150 lbs/day triqqer BACT review.

2. Emission levels _above defined thresholds re';lui.i:~ an air quality impact analysis (AQIA) to ~emonstrate that emissio:is will. not cause an exceed-r.tnce of the CAAQS oc NAAQS,. interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any standard. or prever,t reasonable progress toward achievement of attainment. Triggering levels are net emissions incr~;ases of

-27-

'1• L :L~:~~:[\...;;:F=:AC=E==;;:J =::41~0::-----,

1.'.WIU'i'f:P,'\GE 2 ·,. 3 9

5 lbs/hr (but less than 10 lbs/hr), 240 lbs/day o.c 25 tons/yr of any nonattainme~c pollutant except co, for which the level is 100 tr,rtsJyr.

3. Any proposed source with net emissions increases less than 10 lbs/hr, 240 lbs/day or 25 tons/yr of a nonattainment pollutant (except CO}, which. has been shown by the AQIA to cause a violation of (or interference with) the attainment ¢f any NAAQS, must mitigate the emi~sions increases by reducing emissions from existing sources. sources emi~tinq nonattainment pollutants at levels above those limits must also provide emissions tcade-offs, even if the AQlA does not indicate any violation or interference. 0£,fsets fGI: CO emissions of 100 tons/day or more are required unless the AQIA demonstrates no violations of standards will occur and that such emissions will be consistent with reasonable furthet progress toward attainment qoals.

C. MARINE I IOLOGY3

The Santa Barbara Channel includes a diverse collection of marine biological resources and habitats includinq subtidal mud, sand. and rocky bottoms, sandy and rocky beaches, coastal estuaries and marsh~s, extensive kelp beds, and the Channel Islands. It is also located along importalit migration routes of birds and marine 'l\amma:ls.

-'fhe subject parcels lie within the Southern California Biqht, of which Point Conception is the nocthern boundary. Point Conception has lonq baen regarded as a distributional barrier between northern cold temperature and southern warm tempe::ature biota. These parcels are four to 21 miles (six to 34 km) east ~f Point Conce~tion, and the resident biota are represented by hQth D{)rthern and southern species, as well as species uniqµ~ to the area.

D. TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY4

The region from Point Conpeption to Mugu Lagoon suppor~s a tJide variety of natu'ral ana' man-made vegetation types. Grassland, shrub, and woodland communities occur as distinct lands along the coast. T_his zonation of vegetation is assoc-iated with the va.cious geologic focmations and soil types occurrinq alonq the coast.

-28-

2 .. ,,, ... I • L

Additional variations in natu.cal vegetation patte.cns have also beeu attributed to diff e.cences in elevation. exposure. and slope which ~esuit in _localized differences in temperature. precipitation~ and soil moisture.

The vegetation in the project area can be classified into eiqht native and two man-made plant communities. each characterized by its own physical features. composition and distribution of plant species. The native vegetation communi.ties i .lClude coastal strand. coastal bluff. coastal sage scrub. qrassland~ chaparral. oak savanna. oak woodland. and riparian woodland. The two man-made types are rude.cal (weedy and waste places) and aqricultu.cal/ cul~ivated areas.3• 4

A wide variety of a~phibians. reptiles. birds. and mammals occur in the p.coject area. Extensive species lists are available in previously prepared EIR's for the area (Arthur n. Little, Inc·. 1984 and science Applications Inc. l.984).

E. OCEANOGRAPHY

The oceanographic characteriseics of the southern California coastal reqion have been described in a variety of _major baseline atudies (MMS 1982. 1983: Allan Hancot!k Foundation (AHF) 1965: SCCwRP 1973: SA! 1983): much of the following information is drawn from these documents.

The tracts ~re located in the SBC. a portion of the southern California Bight generally considered to be in an area of complex coastal curcents which. are the result of the action and interaction of a number of smallto oceanic-s~ale force~ along th~ rough fluid boundary formed by the ~acif ie Coast east of Point conception. The overall pattern of circulation within the SBC is primarily a result of the interaction of the California cur.cent system with locally-qenerated wind-drift currents and tidal currents.

currents in the Santa Barbara basin are generally of low velocity (5 to 10 cm/sec) and are highly dependent upon flow between basins to th~ north and south (Eme:y 1960). Flow direction is dependent upon the driving current. Flow is· toward the northwest durinq the Davidson current perio~ (winter) and southeast duriQq the southern califc>!:nia countercurrent period (majority of the year). Flow velocities and directions are af f eeted only slightly by tides.

-29-

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE

141".1 ~, .... ·4-1-·

Episodic currents occasionally affect the waters of the Southern California Biqht. e.g •• 11El NinoJ" an episodic event of relatively lonq-term sca1e that results in abnormally warm water. These events last apJlrciximately one year. but occasionally terminel"te shoitly after ini·tiaeion. El Nino events have occurred moot cecently in l.9S7. 1965-. i.g.72. l.976. and l.982-1.983. o~ser,{ations and measurements of the 1982-1983 El Nino event are -qiscussed by Halpern et al. (1993).

Wind Driven currents

Movement of the surface layer -<>f th~ ocean is controlled by wind drag upon the sea surface and often differs from the undez:lying movement pat.tei:n established by regit~nal currents. Wind generates waves and modifies their surface orbits into a cycloidal elongation resulting in a net tran$port or drif~ downwind. Upon cessation of the wind# surface water continues to move because of its inertia.

Wind-generated waves contribute to upwelling. Observations of upwelling in the Santa Barbara Channel indicate that it is episodic in space and time. and. because it is dependent upon the prevailing wind field. can occur locally at virtually any time of the year. usually being most intense in the spring when northern to notthwest winds persist. Upwelling is usually detected by ~ the suddah appearance of cold. clear water at the surface ~ naarshore (Pirie et al. 1974). ·

"tittoral currents

Movement of littoral materials is in response to wave direction and the configuration of the coast. Waves approach the SBC predominantly from the west-to-northwest, pcoducing a sou~berly transpoi:t of littorals sands. Less frequent waves fr~11 the southeast cause occasional reversals in the direction of littoral transport. sources of littoral ~aterials include the streams enterinq the channel basin. erGded coastal rocks and sediment. and sands from coas~al dunes (Bowan a~d Inman 1966).

In southern. California. wind waves are predominantly from the northwest (prevailing wind) but swells may occur from any seaward direction. Nearly all of the southern Ca1i~otnia coast is protected. to some deqree. from swells qenera~ed ~utside the coastal area by the offshore is·lands. c~rtain portions of the coas·t are exposed to essentially unlimited fetches from the west and south. but

-30-

. . .. .

~ ,.. , ... ,_· ,r

'-""""=====-==== ~~~~.;-~.....!:.__~~ ... -~~~~----'.:!'.'.'---..-"'!"""--

no location is exposed to swell from all possible seaward directions. Along the coast from Santa Barbara to Point bume. most significant swells arrive fi:om 2600 and from 1600 to 1900 True North.

The protection offered by the Channel Islands is generally so complete that insignificant ~aves over the shelf are formed mainly in the lcca,l area. The restricted fetchee allow only the development ,,f low waves with short wave lengths and period3. Larger waves {to 6 or s feet [l.S to 2.4m]) are formed during frontal crossings but have short wave lengths and periods due to the limited fetch. It is only when gale winds of greater than 35 knots (64.8 km/hr) blow from the west that high waves are formed in the local region and travel over the shelf.

During the 1983 winter stoi:ms. the primary direction of wave flow was from the south and southea~t. Waves in excess of 12 to 15 feet (4 to s m) were observed (Scripps Institute of Oceanography. NORPAC Data Center). South-facing coastlines experienced shoreb~eak in the ranqe of 15 to 20 feet (4.5 to 6 m) and were dcmaged extensively.

Temperature

Temperature of the sea water in the SBC is controlled by the advective processes that move water into the area and by solar warming and evaporative processes. During the summer months (July. August. and Septe~ber). inshore

-waters are generally warm. and a well-defined thermocline exists. In late summer. colder northern water carried by the California current is moved inshore via the southern California Countercurrent. Part of the current flows north toward Point Conception: and the remainder reverses direction and moves south~ard along the coast. The surface waters become cooler due to wind-induced mixing the colder deeper waters. ~nd the thermocline gradually disappears. During the winter. storms maintain this mixing. In the spring. an upwelling of colder subsurface wat~rs occurs: summer heat gradually warming th.e inshore waters completes the cycle.

Str:atification of water along the southern California mainland shelf is principally the result of temperature differences with depth. In smnmez the temperature differential from surface to 200 feet (60 m) may be l5o to 200F (80 to llOC). summer thermoclines ar~ generally observed between 30 and SO feet (9 to 15 m) and

-31-r·-· -·= ·-i c:,t:;~L.:.'\~. ri\GE

1-'.~:.wi·r it:.c;e

143 2~43

"" "";;,.' v~~ ,.L • ~" " , - '> J. ~ : , c.._ ·~

. ~:,, ~ '

l ···········--------1111ra•--.--.... --- ,.,:;"'_ '\:.,' ,,," ,,-, ;, - --- --· - -..'-"""""'·--· ·---,·-·---~ -·-~--, - ~ rm pm ···-- -- :f = " - J,_ .

.. .

may show a temperature aoF (3o to 40c). dif f e~en~e from surf ace t~ as 1 to 2op (o.6 to decrease the depth of _the

decrease of as much as 50 to In winter the temperature 200 feet (60 m} may be as emall i.20c). u~wellinq tends to thermocline or to eliminate it.

altoqether.

F~ WATER QUALITY The SBC waters feature mean surface temperatures from 570F (l40C) near Point Conception to 590F cisoc} at the eastecn end. Temperatl.u:es xanqed from 47°F to 700F caoc to. 21oc on a yearly cycle at Little cojo Bay five miles (nine km) west of the project site. Salinity averages about 33.5 p&rts per thousand with very low vad.ability. Dissolved oxyqen generally ranges from six to seven milliqrams per liter at. the surface. and is about 2 milligrams per liter at a depth of 825 feet {250 m}. The sea water features low transparency within one mile (1.6 km) cf the shoreline.

Natural oil# gas. and tar seeps significantly contribute to the levels of oil substances and sediment~. More than 2,000 oil, qas. and tar seepage zones have been located in the California offshore atea (SLC, · 1977). The most widespread seepage occurs along the northe.cnmost pa.tt of the SBC, with a concentration in three areas: Coal Oil Point. Point Conception, and the Santa Barbara to Rincon area. The total volume of oil. qas. and tar rele·ased in -the SBC has been estimated ae up to 100 barrels per day (SLC. 1977).

The oil released from natural seeps off Coal Oil Point typically contaminate up to one square mile of surface water in the SBC. currents and winds usually cause these slicks to drift in a westerly direction. and can of ten be observed extending 15 to 20 miles (24 to 3? km}.

Tne main water quality problem in the SBC is caused by municipal and industrial discharqee. Most disposal outfalls are located close to shoi::e. and thus or&ly minimal dilution and dispersion is achieved. The communities of Goleta. Santa Barbara. Mendocito. Summe~land. and carpinte.cia all discharge secondary-treated sewage to the SBC. The toti?l volume discharqee is appi:oximately 20 million qallons (76 m~llion li,ters) pet day. These effluents contain about 30 milligrams per liter suspended solids and 60 milligrams per liter of chemis,al oxygen

-32-

. ' I '

•

demand (COD). as well as some nitrogen compounds-. phosphates. apd trace m0'.t:~1s (SLC. 1980). All these municipal outfalls ar .in the central to aastern port:.ion of t~e channel at a ~ eiderable distance from the project area.

Offshore oil production sites in the SBC between Point Conception and Carpinteria account for most of the offshore induserial discharqe3. These dischatq~s consist mainly of oil field :brine· and tanker ballast wate?:. Tot.31 discharqe of these liquids is, estimated at two million gallons (7.& million liters} per -day. The effluents contain. approximately !Hf mi)lliqrams per liter -sus:9ended solids.~ µp to ~5 milliqrams per liter of oil. and about 2.000 milligram~ per liter of COD (SLC, 1980).

G. CUL'l'lJRAL RESOURCES

f),atform Herman Project Area

At least 15 prehistoric sites are kngwn to exist in the over seven-mile (ll.5 km) portion of the coast covered by the Sacate Quadrangle (USGS 7.5 Minute Map Series). This high density of onshore coastai sites attests to the potential for nearby prehistoric underwater sites as well. A cultural resources evaluat~on of this area ,perfor:·med for Texaco by scientific Resources, surveys ('t:RS, 1981) listed four si.tes as being relevant to the Platform Herma~ area, although the- sites are located well away from "'1:he platform~ ~o other sites are locat~d abput one mile (l.6 km) offshore to the west of the project area. and were invento~ied for the Bureau of Land Management (Stickel et al •• 1978; Hudson, 1978); each consisted of a stone mortar artifact found by sport divers. . SRS also mentioned that some "12 ethnoqraphic sites are located on the coastline betwt?en Point Conception and El Capitan11

• with the Chumash village of "Tahmaw 11 indicated as immediately relevant to this area (SRS, 1981).

-

In terms of oEfshore cultural resour-cea from the histo.ric period (i.e~ shipwrecks). SRS (1981) listed some 14 relravant shipwrecks.

Platform Helen Project Area

SRS (1981) reported tha.t the 12 ethnographic sites between Point Conception and £1 Capitan (see ·above} were of relevance to activities in this area. The report listod

·:

-3-3-

-· 1-24-/5--4 s-1

-----L

... .. •·

two shipwrecks as possibly relevant to this area. based -mainly on data compiled for BLM (Stickel~ et al.. 1978). A However. Dr. seickel's (project archaeologist for the 1992 .. SL~ EIR entitled Resumptjon ot Exploratory -Drilling Oper&tions by Texaco, Inc •• SCH ftSlOJ;-1316) inspection of project geophysical data i:evealed no shipwrecks or \'.>ther historic data of significance tg th~s· area.

H. ~.?ID USES

Generally_, land use 4ensity and diversity increases from west to east alonq the SBC coastline. The weste~ly portion is devoted to primarily agricul tural/i:ancl?.inq and low-density residential uses. The ~eat.cal portion supports a mix of recreational and residential uses: the cities of Santa. Barbara and Cftrpinter;~ and adjaceni 11nincorpo~ated towns (Goleta. Montecito and summerland) are located along this stretch of coastline. The sout~~asterly portion of the coastline includes the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme and associated military. harbor. and industrial uses.

Existing onshore oil and gc:ls processinq facilities along the Santa Barbara/Ventura County coastline in the vicinity of the lease areas include (from west to east): Gavio,ta Interim Marine TerRinal operated by Gaviota Terminal Company: Shell of California's Mol-ino gas plant at Canada de la Huerta: Phillip's ~ajiguas qas plant at Tajiguas; POPCO' s gas plant and Exxon's ·proposed processing fa·cility -at Las Flores canyon: ARCO's and Phillips• ,Eliwood facilities at Tecolote canyon: Chevron's processing facility at Carpinteria: Mobil's Rincon pr.oceesinq facility: and Union• s Mamlalay processing facility. Additicnally. a processing facility has been approved at Gaviota.

The platforms are situated in waters betweel Point Conception and Gaviota. The nearshore areas are characterized as generally rural. with some area beaches. "l'his is a low-density land use area. ,~upporting a few pi:ivate reslslences (s!;1qle family dwellings). Any activi. ties in the area m..tst confo·rm to t~e polic:iea of the Santa Barbara County Loca~ coastal Plan (LCP). th~ coastal Act and LCP Land Use Plan zoning. ·

-34-

I. SOCIOECONOMICS6

J.

Between 1970 and 1980 Santa Bar~ara county population qrew at an annual compound rate of growth of l.2 percent, and in 1985 ·the county• s popul3tion was approximately 322. 700. Population qi::owth is siqnif icantly cons~z:ained by limited watec availability, restrictions on. land develQpment. and xestrictions en construction of ne~ houainq.

The number of vacant avai~~ble housing units in Santa Bai:bara county has been de~lining foe several years. In l.980, only sef peu:cent of the -S, 405 vacant li:"'.i ts in the county were available foi: purchase or rent. In l.985, an estimated l.,543 units were vacant and available frJm Goleta to Carpinteria. Because of construction constraints, vacancy rates are exl?ected to decline throughout this decade.

There are two distinct economic centers in the ·county. ln the North county (i.e. Lompoc, Santa Maria: Santa Ynez, Gua&alupee and cuyama planning area).. agricultural and government e:nployment associated with Vand'enberg Air Force Base programs provide the principal emplo¥Jllent. In the south coast Region (i.e. Golata V~~ley. Santa Barbara, Montecito, and Carpinter~a planninq areas). major employment is provided by to1:1rism, an increasing light manufacturi'nq sector, the University of California. and county governmental offices.

RECREATION

Regional overview A wide i::anqe of active and passive ocean-oriented recreational activities are available in southern Santa Barbara county and· Northern Ventura c~unty. Popular beach and ocean activities incl~de swimming, sunbathinq. fishing. cam~ ~g. biking, passive ocean viewinq, surfinq, divinq and boatinq. ~ Principal parks and beaches along the coastline from west to east include Gaviota State Park, Refuqio State Beach, El Capitan State Beach, lsla Vista Beach, Goleta Beach qounty Pai::k. Hobson county Park,· Fari~ county Park. Emtna Wood state Beach. San Buenaventura State Beacn, McGra<ch State Beac~. and Mand~l~Y Beach Park.

-35-

CA~O~RPA;E r-(MINUTE PAGE.

'!he only extensive area of coastline ~.n which public coastal access is restricted is located adjacent to Bixby .. and Hollister Ranches. ..

Present use levels at Santa Barbara county· beac;h areas retlecc ~eekend and holiday use at virtually 100 percent of capacity durinq the· months of Api:il throuqh October (Bgrwick an~ Tho~pson, 1984)·: usaqe of relatively isol~1;ed county coastal recreation areas. however. does not approach c~owded conditions found closer to the ~ajor metropolitan areas.

The prima.ry policy document which addresses recreational rasources al~ng the Santa Barbara County ccastline is the Santa· Barbara Local Coastal Program (SB-LCP,, 1982). The Coastal Access and Recreat.ion 'Element of the SB-LCP was prepared according to Sections 3021~ through 30223 of tbe Califo.r;nia coa~tal Act (l976)a which add~ess ·the public's right of access to beach ar~as be..low the ordinary high water mar?t. Access is to 'be provided consistent with public safety neerjs. the need to protect public rights. and rights of private property owners ~nd natural areas from overuse. · .

Recreational and coastal access planninq issues in Santa Barbara County are related to capacity use of existing facilities: provision of a wide ·va.riety of recreational a opportunities for residents and visitors (from .., undeveloped/natural areas to highly developed areas which provide .the. full z:anqe of visitot services); protection of -environmentally sensitive habitat areas: restoration and ~nhancement of coa·stal recreational areas: resolution o~ conflicts 'between incompatible recreationa·l us:Os:· and provisions of adequate auto and non-auto-depelldent access to coastal areas.

Local Conditions

Leases PRC 2206 a~d 2725 are located adjacent to the Hollister Ranch coastline in the Northern SBC. Tt;.is portion of coastline is restricted from onshore access to private property owners in the vicinity. Offshore access for surfing. swimming. diving and sportfishing is available~ however. in the vicinity of the leases. and partyboat fishing is available from Goleta (one boat) and Santa Barbara Sarbor (three boats). Although most ~f the partyboats from Santa Barbara fish the aJ:eas south and east of Santa Barbara Harbor. whitefish and halibut are fished nea~ Cojo Bay (Berwick and· Thompson. 19.~-4~.

-36-... ------------

-12'+-'-'4/~84---s -I -----J

. .. .. .

K. COMMERCIAL FISHING

The commercial harvest of marine resources in the Santa Barbara reqion is well established and of recognized gconomic importance. While recent advances in fishing technoloqy have been applied to commercial fisheries in other regions of the state. the.industry iri Santa Barbara is characteriz~d by a combination of omall vessels designed for nearshore tishinq.

Santa Barbara represents the principal port of the "SBC with 200 commercial slips in the ·harbor, all of which are presently taken. In addition, about lBO ·commercial \"'esseis visited the harbor for at least one night during the first six months of 1983 CThompsdri, 1984). Of the 200 local boats, approximately 3'0 fish for abalone and about 50 are engaged in the sea urchin har'vest. ~;ttilough technolcgically and socia:lly apart t:rom traditi'onal commercial fishing, diying for sea u~chins has become the leading fis~ery in the SBC in terms of l~nded. value. Thirteen trawlers currently d.cag for bottomfish, shrimp .. and sea cucumbers. An estimated 30 vease~s_ operate set. gill ~~ts. About 20 to 30 fish drift gear fo~ shark and swordfish: many of the drift. net f isherm2n al~o enqaqe in the h4rpoon fishery.

Approximately 6 salmon/albacore boats m~ke Santa Barbara their home, seasonally fishing the entire west coast. Finally. there are currently ~bou~ l~ ~ribber& and 6 hdok and line boats ~ithin the Santa ~arbara fleet. The -remaind~.c of thi9 fleet is composed of nonfishing commercial vesse·ls such as tugs. transport boats, and research vessels. Fis.hermen out of Santa Bar·bara. as well as from- Ventura and oxnar.d/Port of Hueneme·, primarily use local waters within the SBC :nd. · around the Channel Islands. Some fishing also is dona n6rth of Point ConceptiQn and south of the islands. ·

Most of the vessels in the fleet at Santa Barbara are owned by the fishermen operating them. Some fishermen employ one or two crewmen.

The average financial performance .of - vartous. commercial fishing vessels was projected in a receA~ly co~ducted economics analysis (ERG Pacific 1985). ~he California Department of' Fish and Game reportea that for 1985. landinqs in Santa Barbara .region (which includes Ventura, Oxnard and PO'.Ct Hueneme) were 49,832,.482 pounds valued at $20,541~046.

-37-

r.,. - -- . . .. ~ t"•" • ' \CE I"·' ............. .

t·· ''IU" - ., ··" ~n• •• .... _~

149

( ·~· ' :' ·~ '·>"~ ::: '" :·;t<'f~~ ·~:···~fq;,ij~~~.'~.;;·':'~f:.;t··~t"~'\ ... : c; ,, : · "" r · " "; •''l• <l·,,~,t-~· -";,~\> ·~

.. · . :~_"<:~~,~~~~~·~~J/· _: i: .. ~t~~l.;;c-;~ .... """""~"""""--.-........ -

Preliminary data. through June of 1986 shows the catch to be 23,215.530 pounds. During the same time period -·i1anuary through June 1985 the catch was 17,832.491. The base fishing is between l. 8 and 2. S milli()n pounds per month. but the highly significant seasonal ~isheries ~aises the average monthly landinqs. These seasonal fisheries include macKeral. halibut, lobsters. crabs. and sea urchins and provide a siqnif icant amount of the total fishing value.

A number of requlations and polici~s rel:atinq to offshore oil and gas deve-lopment affect coaunercial fishermen. The Coast ·Guard has established safety zones· around Platforms Hondo A and Grace (CFR Title 33. Section l47.os~11.02 throuqh ll.08} and has indicated its intent to establish similar :!!ones around ai-1 pl:cn~oaed platfocms A The boundaries of these zones are sod-= {l.620 feet) from the outer projections of the plat~orma. All vessels are excluded from these zones except: (1) vese2ls lesa.- than 100 fee~ (30 m} in length: (2)' vessels attending the platforms; and (3) vessels authorized by the Coast Guard. Since vessels in the reqio13al fishing fleet are less than 1.00 feet {30 m) in length. they would' not be excluded. from the areas.

The MMS issues Pacific ocs orders. stipulations and regulations on ocs leases which are- designed to mit,iqate a impacts to fishing from ocs oil and gas activities. ~ Specifically. Lease Sale 53 stipulations 7a and b entitled nwells and Pipelinej" require that pipelines. unless

-buried. have smooth-surface design or be protected such that trawl gear can pass over the line without snaqgi:ng. which vould damage the structure or the fishihq gear. The Fisheries Training Program stipulation (L£ase Sale 53Q No. 8) requires that personnel involved ii. offshore oil and gas operations be trained in the value of fishing and methods used in the commercial fish industry. and potential conflicts which may artse ·between the two ind~stries. Pacific ocs Order No. 1 al~o r~quires ~~rking ot equipment {of such size and nature that it C:ould be expected to interfere with fishing g~ar if dropped overboard') so t-hat proper ownersh;p can be determined.

Federal laws which can be invoked to mitigate impacts to fishermen include the Fishermen• s Contingency F-an,d. the Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, ari'd the Fishing -'Voss~l -and Gea.c Damaqe Coinpensa tion Fund. · The fishermen• s Contingency Fund was est~bli~heci by_ the ocs Lands Act ta compensate fishermen for damages caused ~by oil and gas ocs

-38-

.\.~IHUl'! r/1GE

4-SO I 2~5G .,

activities when no responsible party can be found. The NMFS administers these funds. Fishermen have indicated that the avai:abl~ mechanisms are no~ ~ully !:.esp~ns'ive to all the types of situations tb...ey ancounter. ·

The Califotnia Coasta1 Commission. throuqh its consistenc~ review for offshore and marine -lacilities and' permitting process for those facilities within state wateca. may impose conditions desiqned to minimiz~ impacts. ~o the commercial fishing industty. Califocnia Coas·tal Act section 3023i p,l:c:;tect:s marine organisms used for commercial 'purposes· and section 30234 prote~ts commercial fi.shety facilities fi:om competim;; int.r:Ysions.

i4835

-39-

III. ENVIRONMENTAL ~ETTING - PROPOSED REEF SI'l'E {ALTERNATIVE fi'l)

(See paqe 23)

The preferred alternative entails transporting the flatform materials by barge to Santa M~~ica Bay. a~d. plac nq the materials around an existing artif i~ial rse~ (t~e Liberty vessel "Palawan 11 ).

-

The reef site is lo~ated approximately l 1/2 miles 9ffshore at Redondo Beach at 33 degrees. so minutes. 15 seconds north. and 118 degrees. 24 minutes. so seconds west. in approximately 120 feet of water.

The "Palawan 11 operated in World War II. It is ~41 feet lonq$ 57 feet wide and :approximately 30 feet high at its highest point. It was pla'!ed in this location as an ai:titicial reef iri 1976. and lies on ·a sandy ocean bottom.

The DFG requlations have desiqnated this area, as closed to comahitrcial fishing. Thero is a small. commercial recreational ·concession operating in the' waters above ~he existing ceef which s~rvices tec~eational fishermen.

-40-

IV. lHPACTS/MI!I'IGATIQN - UM2VMt -SITJS.

A. •• MARINE GEOLOGY

Impacts

Platform and pipeline removal oper,ations are expected to have no significant direct effect on th~ geoloqic envirO'ilident. · Nona ot the qeologic features or proc~s-ses in 'the area. is considered likely to , nffect ab~ndonment procedures oi: cause adve·rse impacts during the .ptoE.>osed operation. ·

ffitigation

No('\e tequired.

B. AIR 001\LITY

Imoacts7

It ie anticipated that abandonment of the two platforms and pipelines will require a five-stage .process (see Proj~ct Description) involving approximately 44 days. The major pollutant type would be nitrogen oxides from, support ves~el activities: (see Equipment List in Pr.oj~ct Description). Other pollutants include carbon monoxide. -sulfur oxide and particulate emi§sions. ?rojeeted emissions could -reach significant levels but ar-e expected to be relatively low and· of s~ort duration.

Mitigation

Minimize usaqe of vessels and equipment. avoidinq unnecessary enqine r~nning times: ensure th~t appropriate emission contrq.i __ equipment is utilized: vehicles and eq~ipment will be inspected ·to ensure that emission control systems are oparatinq properly.

C. MARINE BIOLOGY

Impacts

Potential impacts on resident ·marine biota would i"ikely result ~rom cuttinq and rlismantling the platforQ structures. pipeline removal and transportation of personnel and materials.

-41.-

r-~·--·-.,--..,.--.,,....,.-.----.

j t·:.1.:::mA'": r ACE

.V.INUl E P/,G:;

The intertidal communities would be disrupted by the removal t'f t!ie pipefines at Aleq,cia and St~-Auqustine Cit beaches •. Trenchinq. removal. backfill. and the. use of heavt: constructi~n eqµipment. on the beach will cause orq~nisms inhabitinq the impacteCi,._ ar§as to be crusbeei· or displaced. These acti"vi!;ies are e~pected to. result in low. short-term. localized· impacts on sandy beac!l_ and int~rt~dal communities~

Ben;hic CClilll;l,U;nities would also be disruptad by support vessel anchoraqe and other. ramoval activities. Orqanisms inhabitinq the a~eaa in which the acttyities will occur will be crushed· or displaced. In addlticn. me'char.ical impacts will temporarily increase ~urbtdity in a localized area. potentially qeneratinq adverse impacts on benthic orqanisms· (e.g. cloqged gills). These activities are expected to result in low. short-term. localized impacts on shallow sedimentary ~~ttoms. · I~pact~ 6n hardbottom could be mo~e serious. but the temporary localized nature of the turbidity minimizes thes~ impacts.

Pl~nktonic eommuniti9s would be effected by the qeneration of 'turbidity, whtch could r~duce photosynthe.S:is and zooplankton feedinq in :lo.calized a~eas.

Romoval operation noise may cause tish to avoid the area. Eenthic species destroyed as a result of . construction could also reduce the a-vailability of prey organisms to fish. '.Any fish displacement is. likely t,o be localized ,and tew.pocacy. with fish returning when

-operations are completed.

Marine birds may be minimally imp•cted bf project-associated noise which co.uld dtsrupt n~stinq. breeding. migration or feedinq aetlvities. Turbidity can affect feeding activities of_ 41iving birds suc;:h as the Califocnia Brown Pelican. However. piscivorous bii::ds tend tb feed ove-.c a large area. and localiz~d short-term turbidity ahould not cause a siqniticant i~~act. ·

Noise and turbidity may Noise ·ta/ald intetfe?:e with and ccp.Jld disturb pinniped have limited effects on sight-aided predators but localized and short-term.

also affect marine mammals. acoustic signals of ceta~eans populations. TUrbidity could foraging activity of soae

is likely to be low impact •.

The platforms· have alecome .arti"ficial sub-tidal reefs which have attrara:ted f-i'sh t() _ .foraqe un a~sociated resi~l~nF orqanism1f. Remova·l of the platfo·rms would create a hiqhly locaii'zed and unmitigable impact;- ,~

-42-

•u_,..,.,·...-... --_-1-~-4---. cmNDA:t FAGE - :a!

2'i 54 MINUTE PACiE

Mitigation

Utilize removal methods which minimize turbidity and bottom distur~ance: avoid dist~rbing ,bird breeding and nesting areas durinq breec!inq seasons: avoid disturbing pinniped haulout areas and rookeries. an~i testore habitats damaged by project activities. -

D. l~RRESTRIAL BIOLOGY

Impacts

Altt1ougb. the Gaviota coastline supporto a diversity of v~qetation types. the imme~iate atea from which t~e ,pipelines will be removed consists of sandy beach.~ a~d cla'y with spacse ~eeds and qrasses at Aleqria B'each (Platform Helen); St. 1\.uqu5tine Be.l!cb (Platform Herman) ia clay-shale with a bluff supporting, coastal sage sczub.

Pipeline removal will have only minor impacts on beach and coastal saqe scrub habitats due to t~e relative abundance of s~~ilar habitats in the project area and the relatively rapid r~covery of these habitats following pipeline .cemoval. Any w1ldlif6 ·p-cesent would 'be affected by disturbance ot habitat. and the noise and huma.n activlty associated with the project.

Mitigation

~ach site will be restored as nearly as reason~bly poasible to pre-project co~di~ions, _ tnc~uding reveqetation if necessary: removal methods will minimize habitat disturbance; erosion-control llethodi'' will be employed for pipeline renroval at the S-t Aug~.uu':ine Beach bluff. ,

E. OCEANOGRAPHY

The impact of the removal. opetation on currents and= tides in the project area would be lim~tecJ to a neqliqible increase in local turbulence: no ~i_9Jttt'I cant imt>~ct on project operati9ns ia expect~d from bb~renta and tidesd

-43-

The removal opera~ion would not impact w&ve activity in the ar-ea. however, high waves and winds associated with a severe local storms could hamper -~perations. .such W conditio~ns cpuld cause boat transport and platform and pipeline removal to be curtailed.

The temperature. salinity and density of ambient sea w~ter is not expected to be significantly impacted by removal.

Mitigation

The effects of waves on project activities Aucinq storms will be ~i t.iqated by removal during t.h~· su.mme~ season,, and by monito!:inq the earine w~~t~er. durinq the project. 'rhe work schedule will be ad3usted -to acco~odate intervals of inclement weather~ ·

F. WATER QUALl'.t'I

Impacts

Impacts to water quality may zesult from the pnysical removal and disposal of the platforms and · ·~ipelines, minor accidental spillage~. and minor ~el~ases from vessels involved in the

1re

1moval operation-. If cut~inq a.

and removal of platform p 1 nqs occurs below th~ mudlLne, "11' some disturbance and resuspension of botr.om sedim~nts would result. These impacts are expeg;ed tG be minor. temporary and localized. · ·

Any debris and bilqe pollution causea by w~rk and support vesseis is also expected to be aino~~ t~mpora~y aµd localized.

Mitigation

Any accidental impacts can beat be mitiqated by strong prevantive measutes. includinq properly mairita1ned equipment~ crew tr~inin~ and conscientious viqilence~

Any oil, grease. residue. etc ••. cleaned or drained from re~oved mater.ials. and ~ny water.. solvent~ or other cleaninq agents. wi·ll bs disposed· in accore:ace with existinq regulitions~ ' ·

-44-f'" -· I c.m:NDA:t fAGE

. MINUTE PAG::

·rsG

.. ' . G. CULTURAL ·RESOURCES

As indicated in the Environmenta·l settinq section. the ·nearest known prehistoric or ethnohistoric sites to the existinq platform~ are located well away from the project areas. The.re are no shipwi:ecks or other known historic articles in the project arEia that would be· affected by removal opei:ations (SRS, 1981.). Ho\ole~er. in or!lei: to avoid any loss of potentially significiant archa·eoloqical .Cesources. ali activities should avoid. any unidentified anumalies.

H. I.Mm USE

Impacts

Omshoce vehicles will include a diesel \~owered backhoe, diesel tractor. two 60-foot flatbed ~ruckh~ ehrae ~o four pi.ckup trucks and a diesel" cementi1:1,q-= un'i.t. Aeeess at Allegria Beach is via Hollister Ranch Road and the Alleqria Beach access road: ~~cess to st. Augustine Beach is qaineq via Hollister Ranch Road and the ·St. August.ine Beach access road.

Offshore vessels will include a 30-foot divinCJ support boat. an underwater inspection vehicle, a 180-foot work bo~t. a 250/300-foot de~reck barqe. a carqo bacqe, a 115-foot tiarqe -tuq, and a ioo-foot survey boat. ,

·offshore activities will not significantly affect land use patterns in the project vicinity. onshore pipeline removal activities .should take a ~otal of five days. Impacts associated with pipelin~ r.emoval would not be significant due to the temporary nature of the disruption and the largely undeveloped nature of surrounding lands.

The proposed activitiea are qenerally consistent with the policies of the Santa Barbara county Local , Coastal Plan (LC!?) and th~ coastal Act, as well as LCP L-and Use Plan zoning~ in that these activities involve no 'new onsttoi:e structure~. easements. riqhts-of-wa.y, production. marine terminals, processinq plants, or pipelines.

~itigation

Normal remQval operations would not create a~y siqnificant conflicts or impacts on existing eoastal land uses. nor on future land use designations. Local Coa~tal Plan oz Coastal Act policies. Consequently. _ no mitiqation measures are necessary.

-45-

.\11NUi"E P/1GE. -2 ',' 5 7 (

.. f

..

Although recre.ational beach use durinq t.he removal process will be teiaporarily dis·rupted and area ·boaters A must exercise increased caution to avoid· collision with· V crew and supply boat activities 11 such impacts -~ill be temporary and localized$ When the proposed- aetivlty is completed. potential navigational and iecrgational boating impediments (t:he platforms them8elves) will have been temoved.

I. SOCIOECONO~IQP

The short-term. localized natur~ of the propo~ed project will preclude siqnificant impacts in the areas of public services and utilities, qrowth inducement. and fiscal issues {property values and tour~sm .revenues). Since production from these platforms ceased years aqb. removal of the platfo.cms will affect any activities related to socioecong_!!iic impacts. ·

J. JlJCREATtQN

Impacts

Removal operations are not expected to siqnif icantly impact recreational activities in the project vicinity. Beach developments and other recreational areas should remain larqely undisturbed. The proposed activ~ty may, also result in a beneficial aesth~tic impact since an -unobstructed view of the ocean horizon from onshore will remain after the present structures are removed. Removal activities will also elimicate possible impediments and hazards to recreational boaters and windsurfers.

Movement and/or anchoraqe of woi:k and support v&saels offshore would temporar~ly pi:eclude use of a localized area tor boating and diving~ Crew and euppJ.y boat activities would be expected t9 cause boatinq- enthusiasts ~~ _exercise greater caution in naviqation. to avoid coi-:~=::s i;on !

Mitigation

None required.

-46-..:.:.~ --- . ···--1 5 8 ]

C.\l::~lt'A:t r'ACE -------

Ml~IUT[ P!~Gi: ·2 "/ 5 8 .

• M .... •

K.

l483S

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Impacts

Fisheries potentially affec~ed are set gillnet. trap. and divinq. Rempval operations may imp~ct fisheries due to a preclusion zone crea;_f:!~ by su_pport vessels. barqes and ancillary vessels. All Clf the affected fisheries are small boat operations: impacts will be localized and short-termed. The use of fixed qillnets will be restricted' due to. the increased level of boat traffic and the hiqh risk of .net loss. ·

Any unrecovered petroleum-related equipment or mate.rials on the ocean bottom may cause potential -damaqe to nets and trawls. -

Although fish are ati;racted to -.the platfO.rmeo (as artificial reefs), platfoz:a remova~. ,is not expected- t.o have a noticeable or long-term effect on commercial fish#nq operations.

Mi tiqai:'ii>n

Local fishermen will be alerted to potential hazards posed by ~emoval operations: the use of barges at anchor will be minimized to reduce anchor scar impacts, and anchors will be set and retrieved vertically: any moorinq buoys will be promptly removed upon project compl,etion: al-1 equipment. matez:ials and debris which may prosent a ~~~ar~: ~-o: _ ~~~!!_!nq qear will b$ cleared ca post-~emoval survey will as-sux:G---.retrioval o:f objects)-.

-47-

C:\trnDA:> f'ACE

;\-W•llfif P/1G~

" . ,, .

V, IMPACTS/MITIGATION - PROPOSED REEF SITE . .C~R?JATIVE {+l.)

~-- -o Tranaportinq platform materials from Gaviota ·t:O Redondo

Beach increases waterborne traffic and-. risk of accident. This increase and ri.sk. however. are ne']ligible. All

· .-.pplicable safety and navigational precautions· will be ~\tilized in preparinq for - and during - transport.

o AL· aii: quality impact may arise as emissions from barqe a1i'l/oc wackboat activity will occur.. such impacts w~ll be short-term and minimal. All appropria~e emission con.~rol ,equipment will be utilized: vehicles and equ~pment. will be inspected to ensure that such syst.ems are .operating efficiently. Unnecessary engine running ~ime~' will be avoideq. ·

o Resid~nt marine biota may be disturbed. Such distutJ)ance. however .. will be very localized. short-term, and he~~~ to a reasonable minimum.

0

0

. l483S

Any wa;~er quality impac~s caused by ~he physical placemer:it of the platform mat-arials on the ocean bottom will aiso be localized and short.;.term. Minar releases and/or acci~entai gpillaqes from vessels involved in the operation may occur. Conscient.ious preventive· measures· Wil'l be ap~lied to prevent SU!:h occurrences. . .

There will be no impa~-t on commercial fishinq as this e1rea l.u closed by DFG requlations to all comme.ccial fishing ..

During reef placement there wili be a lc~alizeq impact ~~ recreational bqating .and fishinq. The commercial concession operating in the area would also be temporarily effected. All sfforts will be made ~o expedite the 'placement proc0~s and to alert alL .boat traffic in the area to avoid the location of the projec.t. Once placement is accomplished. howevet.. there is expected to be further fish aqg;eqation in this area. resU.l tinq. in· a beneficial effect on ~ec.ce.~tio!l.ai f ishinq activity •

-48-to-- .

160 curnr.wi i'AGE

•• ~!NUTE p,~GE 2/_60 .

... . ,,. .

The .. matecial incocporat.ed in. thi.s document as cited below is taken from a D~aft Enviconmental Impact Repoct entitled • . Resumption of Exeloratory Dc·illinq Ope.cations by Texaco, Inc .• (1.~82. State Lands Commission. EiR 303.~ State Cl~acinqhouse No. 81013.316).

l..

2.

3.

4.

s.

6.

7.

l48:SS

Pp. 3-32 to 3-37

Pp. 3-43 to 3-58 for a detailed discussion ~f air quality standacds.

Pp. 3-78 to 3-93 foc a site-specific description of the various marine bioloqical communities and habitats. unique marine environments. and rare and endangered species.

Pp. 3-94 to 3-97

Pp. 3-119 to 3-127 fur a discussion of zoning ordinances. recceation and aesthetics

Pp. 3-97 to 3-108 foe further information on population, housing. employment, and commercial and sport fishing ln tho pcoject area.

P. 4~5 (Table, 4-1) ·fot emission factors for equipment. associated wifh the project.

-49-

.... '· ·., . REFERENCES

Allan Hancock Foundation (AHF). 1965. An Oceanographic and Bioloqic~l survey of the southern :California Mainland Shelf. Seate Water Quality control Board Publication 27~

California Coastal Act~ Chapter 3.

California State Lands Commission (SLC). Article 3~2. Regulations for ·Oil and Gas Development.

California State Lands commission (SLC). 1977. California Offshore Gas. Oil and Tar Seeps.

California State Lands commission (SLC). 1980. Draft EIR. ARCO Offshore Exploration. State Leades PNC 308 and 309.

California State Lands Commission (SLC). 1982. Draft EIR. Resumption of Exploratory Drilling Operations by Texaco. Inc ••

County of Santa Barbara. 1986. Prooosed General Plan Amendments. Consolidation of onshore Facilities for Processing Of~shore Oil and Gas Along the County's Sout~ Coast.

County of ~anta Barbara. 1984. Draft EIR/EIS. Point Arguello Field and Gaviota Processing Facility Area Study

-and Chevron/Texaco Development Plans.

County of Santa Barbara. Local Coastal Proqram. Section 3.6.

Southern California Water Research Project (SCCWRP). 1973. The Ecology of the ·southern Catifornia Bight:

14835

Implications ~or Water Quality ~.ana~ement. SCCWRP. Tal04.

-SO- !_;;; ____ _ C..\lf~!:'·\:'? FACE

MINUTE PAGE ' '

o.

f§deral Aqenciae •

U. s. Environmental Protection Aqe,µcy· Bill Pierce Pat Cotter

u.s. Army. co~ps of Engineers Riehard <:'tat~

Minerals MRnagement ·service Lester Dauterize Dr. nobatt Avent

California State Agencies

Depar~~ent of Fish an~ Game John Scholl John.Grant Her.b· Fi:ye Ken Hilson

'State ·Lands commission .J>wiqht, ~anders Dan '.·Cohe!k Randall Moory Alex Gonzalez

Univ~rsitt of Califor.nia, Santa. B~;b~ra

John Richards

Bill Peters

12535

-51-:-

1--=-=--=­jc.u:::1.:o::-n=Acc I

r.n.;~'TE p,\CE