california state lands commission...• . minute 11'.cmi • ii'# thi•-calendar...

• . MINUTE 11'.CMi • II'#

Thi•-calendar 1tentNc1. :t::.1... was •P.~pved as NJ!n~~e Item No • .!J.i by the SltatEt Lands Commission by a \tote~ -to o at Its .t.=J~:.. meeting. .. ·

CALENDAR ITEM

A 3S

s 18

01/21/88 WP 497'7 PRC 7162 louie P~C 7163 Smail

CONSIDtRAJION OF A GENERAL LEASE - 1NDUST~IAL USE A\~D ·A GENERAL LEASE - RIGHT-OF~WAV USE-

APPLICANT: ~~~on Corporation P.0,. Box 5025, 22S ·~J. Hill-crest Thousand Oaks, California ~1359

AREA, YYPE LANP ONO LOC~TION: A 268-acne and a 304-acre ~arcel of tide and subm~rged' land in the Pacific Oce~n at Las Flores Canyon near El Captian State Beach, Santa Barba~a Co,unty. Acreage includes tempora~y construction areas.

• LAND USE: Installation an.~ operation of a single point mooring facility and pipelines for the transport of oil from onshore ~torage facilities (marine terminal lease) -and a crude 6i1/water emulsi~n .pipeline, threa power cables and a produced watet:O outfall (pipeline right-of-way le~se) ~~tending from shore out to Applicant's OCS Santa Ynez Unit leases.

TERMS OF PROPOSED MARINE TERMINAL LEASE: Initial period: 34 year\s beginning

Februar~ 11 1988.

Surety bond: $1, ooo, oob, ..

Public liab!lity insurance: ~ombined single limit couera~~ of $10,000,000 or Les.~~a 1tnllY \e·1ect to be self-~nsured., '

-1-

ICAlUiJM~P.1CE -

~INllfEPA~E

L

-.

~CALENDAR ITEM NO. A 7 CONT I O.l • RENTAL CONSIDl;,RAT1~0N1:

$190,000 per annum prior to construction; '$400,0QO per annum upon the sooner of 1February 1, 1991 or the calendar year in. which construction commences; $77S,OOO per annum upon the sooner of February 1, 1992 or the calendar year in which operation commences; thereafter, on eac~ subsequent anniversary date the permanent-annual ·rental shall be the greater of a base annual rent in the amount of $77S,OOO or said base rent as modified by the Gross :National Pro~ucf I~plicit Price Oeflator. Should the · ,cite develop an accepted .appraisal methodology within the first four years of the lease., then the base annual rental shal~ be modified at Lessee's request according to that methodology effective on the next anniversary date of the lease, and shall not be retroactive. The State re.serues the right to fix a different rental on each ·fifth anniversary· ·of the lease .. - ·

.. ...

TERMS Of PROPOSED: PIPELINE RIGHT ~Of·-WAV LEASE:

fr..

Ifrdtdal period..:

S!µraty bond·:

P~blic liability

34 years ceginning .febru~ry 1, 1988.

$1,000,000.

insurance: Combined single limit covtrage of-$2,000,000 or Lessee may'elect to be self-insured.

-2-

CALENDAR PACE

MINUTE PAGE

.. . . . 252.· 338

.. . . . . ' " ' . . . . . , . . . '. :· . ' ,·

. . : 1· ' . . . , • p . ' . . . . . - : . ) _.: . . . . . . . . . . ;

RtNTAL CONS!CJERATION: ~~b.doo per annum prior to construction; 415,000 per annum upon th~ sooner of F~bruary 1, 1991 or thr cal§~dar ye~r in which construction con~enc~s; $100,600 per annum upon the sopner of Febru~ry 1, 1992 or th9 calendar y~ar in which operation comm~nces; thereafter, on each subsequent anniversary date of the lease, annual rent s~all be the greater of a ~ase annual rent of $100,000 or said base rent as modified by the Gros•·National Product Implicit Price Def1~~6r. ihe: State reserves the right tq ftx a different rental on each fifth ah~i)ersar.!I .of the lease,

BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION:. Pursuant to 2 Ca~. Adm. Code' 2003,

APPLICANT STATUS: APRlicant is ·owner 9f upland.

PRE8f:~UISITE CONDITIONS, fEES A.NP EXPENSES: Filing fee ha~ ~een recei~ed.

STATUTQRY AND OTHER REfERENCES:

AB 884:

A. P.R.·C.: ·oiu. 6, Parts 1 and 2; Oiu. 13.

B. Cal. .Adm. Cooe: Title 2, piu 3; Titl9 14~ Diu, 6.

03/12/80.

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:

.EXXON SANTA YNEZ l.INIT DEUElOPMENT PgOjECT

Exxon has several contiguous fede~al oil and igas lease$ located in the Santa Barbara Channel which are being develo9eQ as the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU). To complete ~ts development of the SYU, Exxon wants from the State a right-or-way f"or a 20 to 26-inch wet oil emul$ion line, a 12-inch produced-w~ter outfall line, three power c~bles, arid an offshore marine terminal consisting of a single anchor leg mooring with a 48-inch crude oil line, two 18-inch v~por r~covery lines, and hyclr~ulic and electric contro1 line~. .Exxon has filed an applic~tion for a lease for these facilities,

·-

-3-

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE

2 s 2 .2_ 339

JCAL.ENDAR ITEM NO. 4 7 CONT 1 pl

pACKGROUNO - OCS DEVELOPMENT

Exxon currently has one platform (Hopdo) producing from· this unit. The oil production is processed and stored ih ~n offshore ~~orage and treatment vessel (OS&T) lo:ated just outside the three-mile limit irr federal waters. The OS&T was ~onstructsd after E8xon was unable to reach an agreement with the county of .Santa: B~rbar~ and the 'Coastal Commission for onshore oil proce3sing and t~ansportation fa·cilities.

Gas production is transported to shore ~ia an.existing pipsline con~tru~tod by eacific Offshore Pipeline c~mpany (POPCO) which is a co-lessee with Exxon un~~r State Lease PRC 4977. Lease PRC 4977, which began Ja·11uary l, 1975, also authorized the construction of an Qff Ghore marine terminal approximately s,ooo fae~ from shore. That terminal was never constructed and the construction completion date of December si, 1902, ~pacified in ~~e leasE:J, has passed. The State ·Lands commission, on September 23, 1982, authorized a letter to Exxon which provided that the State would take no action to terminate Exxon 1 s right$ under PRC 4977 before December· 31, 1984'. Exxon and POPCO have continued to pay annual rental in the amount of $?S,OOO under PRd 4977. Und~r the terms of the new leases, Exxon will quitclaim its interest in Lease PRC 4977.

Exxon has been attempting for seuer~l years to expdnd its offshore development. The proposed OCS developmant is expected to amoup..t.: to 300 to 400 million barr~ls of crude oil ·and 600 to ·100 bil'lion standard- cubic fee.~ of natural gas. Recovery ·would take place over a period ,of 25 to 35 years. Proposed platforms H~rmony and' Heritage will be installed in 1989 and· Pliltform Heather will be installed after 1994.

The federal oil and gas leases to Exxon/POPCO in the unit predate the 1976 amendments t~ the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act a~d thus are not su~Ject to the sharing provisions of Section 8(9) of the-~ct, Thut., the St~te receives no direct reve~ue from the SYU development.

-4-

CAU:NDAt~ PAGE

MINUTE PAGE _J!tQ

•

• (CALENDAR ITEM NO..: 4 7 CONT'D)

D!SPUTE WITH THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Negotiations between the County and Exxon have been going on for sevornl years regarding an onshore processing facilit~ and marine terminal. The primary difference of opinion between the County and Exxon has been whether OP not the County had authority to ;mpose ~ir emiss±on offset requireme~~s for a~r emissions generated on th~ facilitieg located in federal·w~ters. Exxon's position was that the County, acting as the ~ir Pollution Control District, had no authority over ocs air emissions. Exxon, the~efore, sued the County in Federal Court.

A se~xlement agreement with the County to resolve the issue was ,reached in November 1985, and supp1emented in Feb~~ary 1'86. However, the County B6~rd of Supervisors~ in Saptember 1986, &cted to require Exxon to provide offsets and, in Exxon's opiniori, breached the settlement agreement.

SETTLEMENT WITH TH~ COUNTY

Exxon has settled its differences with the County of Santa Barbara. On September 15, 1~87, the County approved the final Development Plan for Exxon's Sant~ Ynez Unit Project. The Development Plan includes the following project elements:

Off shore Components

o Th~ee new drilling and product~on platforms on the Hondo, Pescado, and Sacate oil and gas fields on ocs ~ar.ds: -

o Offshore pipelines for gas, oil/water emulsiori1 and a produced-water outfall:

o Electrification of the platforms and the use of offshore power distribution cables:

o A Single Anchor Leg Mooring (SALM) and agsociated vap~r balance pipelin~s and service bundle for tanker loading.

-5-

L52.4 CALENDAR PAGE

f11INUTE PAGE 341 -

(CALENDAR ITEM NO. 47 CONT'D)_

Onshore Components

o A new stripping gas treating facility capable of processing a peak of 21 million standard cubic feet per day (MSCFD) of sour gas:

o A new Natural Gas Liquids/Liquid Petroleum Gas (NGL/LPG), storage and loading facility on a ;,ew consolidated site in Corral/Las Flores canyons;

o A ne~ oil treating: facility in Corral/Las Flores Canyons with 140 thousand ba~rels per day (kBD) capacity;

o A new transportation terminal facility whi£h will be phased to initially accommod~te pipeline transport of the dry oil, and then at a later date, if needed, the facility will be expanded to. include the marine transport facilities~

o 54Q thousand barrels {kB) ~ry oil storage facilities;

o A 49 megawatt (MW) cogeneration power plant;

o Utility systems including a produced-w~ter treating facil~t.y;

o Site development for an All American Pipeline pump st~ti~n and new electric substation 'both facilities' p~mitted by others);

o Onshore pipelines and power cables.

Proposed facilities ~~~ designed for an estimated• peak SYU' produ~tion. rate of 140 kBD of 9il and 7S MSCFD of natural gas (60 MSCFD through the existing POPCO gas plant and lS MSCFD of offsh~re gas processed.through the Stripping Gas Treating Plant) as well as an additional six (6) MSCfD of sour gas produced by the onshore oil treating facility.

Project modifications m~de by ·Exxon which satisfy the county include the following c~\nges.

o Full electrification of the- three proposed, OCS platforms;

-6-

CALENDA!: PAGE

MINUTE PA(if

(CALENDAR ITEM NO. 47,CONT''D)

o A 49 megawatt ~ogeneration plant in LJas Flores Canyon (rather than a 25 me~awatt plant);

o Deferral of the third ~ew platform (Platform Heather) until after peal< air emissions from installation of the first two platform~ have passed;

Fewer supply and crew boat trips and ~se. of cleaner boats~

o Redu~tion of Platform Hondo emissions and its associated boat emissions, as well as the elimination of the OS&T, as an existing emissions sourco;

o Exxon's sponsorship of a ter.hnology-aduancing study aimed at reducing nitrogen oxide emissions associated with construction activities; and,

o Relocation of the produced-water outfall from ne~~chor~ (6,000 ft. offshore) to Platform Harmony (33,500 ft. offshore).

PROPOSED PROjECT ON STATE LAND

Exxon has submitted an application for the construction of a proposed 20 to 26-inch diameter wet oil emulsion line, a 12-inch diameter produced water outfall,. and three (3) power cables, which will extend from Exxon~s ocs leases to shore. The SYU pipelin~s ·wi~l cross UNOCAL's State oil and gas Lease PRC 2991, Phillips' Oil and Gas Lease PRC 2955 and Lease PRC 2198 which has been quitclaimed back to the State.

Exxon also proposes to install a singl& anchor leg mooring· (SALM) and a 48-inch crude loading line~approximately 11,250 feet from shora, along with two 18-inch vapor recouery lines and hydraulit and electric control lines. The SALM w~11 be located on UNOCAL's State oil and gas lease PRC _991.

-7-

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE

2!::>2 . • 6 343

(CALENDAR ITEM NO. 47 CONT'D)

PROPOSED MARINE TERMINAL LEASE AND PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Exxon's application is requesting a lease for marine terminal facilities and an oil emulsion pipeline, produced water outfall ano electric cables ser-ving its offshore platforms in federal waters. For administrative convenience, staff is recommending a lease for the marine terminal and its associated ~ipelines and a separat~ pipeline lease for the oil emulsion lin~. ~roduced w?ter outfall and electric cables serving the Applicant's c:s platforms.

Hvweuer, the mutual covenants and consideration ,provided in the marine termi"al lease are part of the consideration for the pipeline lease, and similarly, the mu.tual couenants and consideration of the pipeline lease are part of the consideration for the ma~ine terminal lease.

Spoctal terms and conditions in the marine terminal lease and the pipeline lease will include the follo~ing:

1. Open and nondiscriminatory access will be provided to excess storage and throughput capacity of the marine terminal, including upland ~torage tanks and shipping facilities. If excess capacity does not exist for ~ qualified user and such potential user has been un5uccessful in obtaining other onshore storage facilities, Applicant will prorate all oil using the facility, including tne prospective user 1s, to accommodate the pr~spective u~er.

-8-

C',LENDA!': PAGE

::~!NUTE (',\GE

•

2.

3.

4.


Open ~nd nondiscriminatory access will be provideq to ~x~ess capacity of the emulsion pipeline and the produced water outfall. If excess capacity does not exist in the emulsion line for a q4~lified user and such potential user has been unsucc~s~ful in constructing a pipeline in a CJUnty designated onsho~e corridor. Applicant will prorate all.emulsion in the pipeline to ·accommodate the prospective user. Applicant will provide a tie-in facility on the emulsion pipeline and develop a tie-in pol:f-cy to be approved by the State. If excess capacity i~ riot available in the produce~ water outfall, access will be provided to increas~ handling capacity. Applicant will ~lso proviqe open and nondiscriminatory access to excess capacity of any oil pipelines serving oil-processing facilities at Lompoc, if such lines are built.

Applicant must demonstr~te through~ut the term of the marine terminal lease that a continued need ~xists for the full use of the marine terminal.

Should marine termin~l operations physically interfere or pose unacceptable safety r~sks with dovelopment of certain State oil and gas leases or be a subs~antial basis for government action whlch prev~nts certain State oil and gas lessees from e~9loration and development on State lands. then the marine terminal lease may be terminated if a resolution of the interference problem is not reached,

5. Consistent with similar obligations agreed to by UNOCAL for the Pt. Pedernales pipelina, the Point Arguello Pipeline Company, and the Gaviota Terminal Company, Applicant agrees to part~cipat~~~n an environmental mitigation program by providing funds for an ocean current and weathering monitoriny system. Applicant's cont~ibution will not exceed $468,000 for the marine terminql lease and $570,000 for the pipeline lease, provided an implem~ntation pl~n for the area wide o~ean current and weather monitoring system is adopted by tho Commission by December 31, 1995.

.-9-

25 2.a C;\lENDi\R PAGE

345 MINUTE Pl.GE

(CALENDAR ITEM NO •. ~17 CONT 1 D)

6. The mutual couenants and consideration provided in the marine terminal lease are part of the consideration of the pipeline lease and similarly, the mutual covenant& and consideration provided in the pipeline lease are part of the consideration of th~ marino terminal lease. Should a significan~ provision of either lease be deliberately breached, the State may terminate both leases.

7. The marine terminal lease and ~he pipeline lease require the submission 6f as-b~ilt reports including the results of a low-energy geophysical suruoy to locate the exact position of the authorized improvements. External inspections of the pipelines will be required annually using side scan sonar 9r other technique acceptable to the State.

In addition, Applicant must conduct marine biological survey(s) of the construction corridors prior tc and following construction. These surveys will be coi'~ucted by divers and diving equipment. ·

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An EIR, two (2) supplemental EIR 1 s, and two (2) EIR Addendums were prepared and adopted for this project by the county of Santa Barbara. The State Lands commission was a member of a joint review panel for the original EIR/EIS which was headed by the County of Santa Barbara as the CEQA Lead Agency. In addition, pursuant to a sottlamant agreem~nt between the St~te Lands Commission and the County of Santa Barbara, the Staf~e Lands C'ommission has prepared an addition~l supplemental EIR to examine cumulative impacts associated with the propofed Exxon Santa Ynez r1it (SYU) offshore oil and gas development, onshore processing facilities, offshore marine terminal, and other facilities which might be developed on State lease PRC 2991. The supplemental EIR also covers recent changes made by Exxon in the project, specifically t~e produced water ,outfall which has been extended to one of the offshore platforms. Issuas discussed in the supplemental EIR include the following:

-10-

2 CAlE:.IDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE 346

•

•

• .9

(CALENDAR ITEM NO. 47 CONT 1 Ql

1. The cumulative inert air quality impacts caused by a consolidated oil and gas processing facility in Las Flores c~nyon and appurtenant facilities capable of processing 220,000 bpd of oil and 2so,ooo,ooo mcf of gas, the Exxq_n Las Flores Canyon mar·ine terminal and oil sto~age ~acility, and a hypothetical pr~ducing oil and gas platform with partial offshore oil dehydration located on State Oil and Gas Lease PRC 2991;

2. A marine traffic analysis on the cumulative interactions between marine terminal traffic, a hypothetical platform located on State lease PRC 2991, and marine traffic associated with such developments: and

3. The marine biological analysis of the impacts of the seaward extension of the p~oduced-water outfall pipeline.

The State Lands Commission staff has reviewed the county's EIR's and the supplemental EIR prepared for the State Lands Commission and han identified, in Exhibit 11 D11

, significant environmental effects which the Commission will be considering.

This activity involves lands identified as possessing signific~nt environmental values pursuant to PRC 6370, at seq. Based upon the staff's consultation with the persons nominating such lands a~d through the CEQA review process, it is the staff's opinion that the project, as proposed, is consistent with the use classification.

Pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 6818, the staff submitted t~ the Director of Parks and Recreation an~ the Attorney General a summary letter identi~ying the Applicant's proposed installation of parmanent structure~. The potential impacts and interference on the re~reational use had been analyzed in the environmental documents prepared for the project.

APPROVALS OBTAINED: County of Santa Barbara.

FURTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: California Co~~tal Commission, united States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Coast Guard.

-11-CA!.t:N!lA:l PAGE _ 2 5 -2, 1 Q

MINtr(E rAGE J 4 7 -

EXHIBITS:


~. Land Descripr.ion - Marine Terminal Lease. b. Land Description - Pipeline Lease. C. General Location Map.

1. Project Site Map. D. CEQA Findings. E. Mitigation Measu~es Reqeired by the

Commission. F. Land Description ror Quitclaim of Lease

PRC 4977.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION:

l. ~IND THAT THE FINAL EIR/S, SUBSEQUENT SUPPLEMENTALS AND ADDENDUMS PREPARED AND ADOPTEO- FOR THIS PROJECT BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA AS CEQA LEAD AGENCY HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION.

2. CERTIFY THAT A SUPPLEMENTAL ~1R, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 83030805, WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE PRDVISIONS OF THE CEQA AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN.

3. ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVEft':IUDING CONSIDERATION REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ~NVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ITS GUIDELINES WHICH ARE fiEREIN ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 11 D11 •

4. FIND THAT THE PROJECT, AS PROPOSED, WILL HAU£ A SIGNlFICfiNT EfFECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT, T~AT SIGNIF~CANl ~MPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT A'RE REDUCED TO THE MAX~MUM EXTENT FEASIBJ..E, AND THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT OUTWEIGHT ITS REMA!NlNG SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

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

6, AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE TO EXXON CORPORATION OF A 34-YEAR GENERAL LEASE ~ INDUSTRIAL USE BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 1988, SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION AND INCLUDING THE MITIGATION MEASURES SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT 11 E11 ; IN CONSIDERRTION OF THE MUTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE PIPELINE LEASE AS RECOMMENDED IN PARAGRAPH 7 BELOW; AND IN CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL RENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $190~000 PER ANNUM PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION; $400,000 PER ANNUM UPON THE

-12-

;--~------~~.~,~~---~-/-:-t.LENDAR PAGE '- • .11

~'olUTE PAGE 3 4 8

0

7.


SOONER OF FEBRUARY l, 1~91 OR THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES; $775,000 PER ANNUM UPON ·rHE SOONEfi OF FEBRUARY 1, 1992 OR THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH OPERATION COMMENCES; THEREAFTER, ON EACH SUBSEQUENT ANNIVERSARY DATE OF THE LEASE, ANNUAL RENTAL SHALL BE THE GREATER OF A BASE ANNUAL RENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $775,000 OR SAID BASE RENT AS MODIFIEI) BY THE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT IMPLICIT PRICE DEFLATOR. SHOULD THE STATE DEVELOP AN ACCEPTED APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY L-.IITiHN THE FIRST FOUR YEARS OF THE LEASE, THEN THE BASE ANNUAL RENTAL SHALL BE MODIFIED AT LESSEE'S REQUEST ACCORDING TO THAT METHODOLOGY EFFECTIVE ON THE NEXT ANNIVERSARY DATE Of THE LEASE. THE STATE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FIX A DIFFERENT RENTAL ON E~CH FIFTH ·ttNNIVERSARY Of THE LEASE; PROVISION OF A $1,000,000 SURETY BOND: PROVISION OF PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT COVERAGE OF $10,000,000 OR PROOF OF SELF-INSURANCE ACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE: FOR INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF AN OFFSHORE MARINE TERMINAL AND APPURTENANT PLPELINES AND HYDRAULIC AND ELECTRICAL CON.:t-ROL LINES ON THE.lAND DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.

AU~HORIZE TO EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A, OF A 34-YEAR G~NERAL LEASE - RIGHT-OF-WAY USE BEGINNING FEBRUARY l, 1988, SUBSTANTIAL!:.~" IN THE FORM ON FTLE IN THE OFFfCE OF THE STATE l~NDS COMMISSION AND INCLUDING THE MITIGATION MEASURES SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT 11 E11

; IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE MARINE TERMINAL LEASE AS RECOMMENDED IN PARAGRAPH 6 ABOUE AND IN CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL RENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $SO,OOO PER ANNUM PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION; $75,000 PER ANNUM UPON THE SOONER OF FEBRUARY 1, 1991 OR THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES; $100,000 PER ANNUM UPON THE SOO~ER OF FEBRUARY 1, 1992 OR THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH OPERATION COMMENCE~; THEREAFTER, ON EACH SUBSEQUENT ANNIVERSARY DATE OF THE LEASE THE ANNUAL RENTAL SHALL BE THE GREATER OF A BASE ANNUAL RENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 OR SAID BASE RENT AS MODIFIED BY THE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT IMPLICIT PRICE DEFLATOR WITH THE STATE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO FIX A DIFFERENT RENTAL ON EACH FIFTH ANN!VERSARY OF THE LEASE; PROVISION Of A $1,000,000 SURETY BOND; PROVISION OF PUBLIC LIA3ILITY INSURANCE FOR COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT COVERAGE OF $2,000,000 OR PROOF OF SELF-INSURANCE ACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE; FOR I~STALLATION AND OPERATION OF AN OIL EMULSION PIPELINE, A-PRODUCED WATER OUTFALL AND THREE ELECTRICAL CABLES ON THE LAND DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT 11 8 11 ATTACHED ANO BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.

-13- l~,1c11:-:ii·•~\CE -i •J1.- ... ~ •!Jt •• r1

! .... tt;·:i r,\GE

') - 2 LO 12 349~

~ALENDAR ITEM NO. 47 CONT'D)

8. FIND THAT THE PROJECT, AS PROPOSED BY TUE APPLICANT, ALONG WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES AGREED TO BY APPLICANT WITH THE COMMISSION AND OTHER PE\MITTING AGENCIES HAVE AVOIDED, OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED, ANY INTEFERENCE TO RECREATIONAL USES AND NEARBY STATE PARKS.

9. AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF A LEASE QUITCLAIM DEED EffECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1988, COVERING EXXON'S INTEREST IN LEASE PRC 4977.1, ON THE LAND DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT 11 F11

ATTACHED~AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.

10. AUTHORIZE COMMISSION STAFF TO APPROVE ALL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AS REQUIRED IN THE MARINE TERMINAL AND PIPELINE LEASES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES.

-14-

,,----~-----

!! C/,!E:l:l;\\; rAGE

:.:ii-I UTE {',\GE

EXHIBIT 11A11

LAS FLORES CANYON CONSOLIDATED MARINE TERMINAL

LA.~D DES~RIPTION WP 4977

Two parcels of land lying in the bed of the Santa Barbara Channel, in the vicinity of El Capitan, County of Santa Batbara, State of ca 1 ifornia, being more particular:ly des er ibed as follows:

PARCEL l:

A parcel of tide and submerged land being described as ~ollows:

BEGINNING at Station 81 of tbe mean high tide line ot the Pacific ocean per the survey th~reof filed at the request of the State Lands Commission in Book 41 of Miscellaneous Maps at Pages 12 to so, inclusive; rc~ords of said county (California coordinate ~ystem of 1927, Zope 5 Coordinatda: X = l,384,252 and Y = 356,700}, from which a California Highway Monument at 11 42+83.48 E.C. 11 as shown on s2.iid survey·· -bears N 68034•21 11 E, 1,220.46 feet (California cootainate System of 1927 Zone 5 coordinat~s of said monument: X = 1,385,388.ll and Y = 357,145.83) and from which another State Highway Monument bears N 45032 1 41" w. 376.58 feet: thence the following 10 courses:

l. N 00034•19" E, 44.ll feet along said mean high tide line;

2. s 23046'33" E, leaving said mean high tide line, 2,288.27 feet:-

3. N 66013•21 11 E, 125.00 feet: 4. s 23046 1 33" E. 12,147.93 feet; 5. s 66013 1 21 11 w. 200.00 feet to a point (California

coordinate system of 1927, Zone s Coordinates x ~ 1,390,046.96 and Y = 343,465.99} designated as the center of the moori~q facility:

6. s 66013•21 11 W, 200.00 feet: 7. N 23046 1 33" w. 12,147.93 feet; a. N 66013'27" E, 125.00 feet; 9. N 23046 1 33 11 W, 2,301.BS feet to a point in ~aid mean

high tide line: 10. N 61039•11~ E, 107.30 feet along said mean hiqh tide

line to the point of beginning.

CAU:N!lA~ PACE

MINUTE PAGE

~ti 2.14

351

EXHIBIT "A" (con 1 t) WP 4977

PARCEL 2:

A circular parcel of submecqed land havinq ~ radius of i.soo.oo feet, the center of which has California Coocdinate syetem of 1927 zone 5 ~oocdinates x a l.390.046.96 and y a 343.~65.99. as described in Parcel l above.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion lyinq within Parcel l.

EXCEPTING FROM above desctibed E~rcels l and 2 any portion lyinq landward of the ordinary hiqh water mark.

All bearinqs and distances in this document conform with the California cootdinate system of 1927, zone 5, the corresponding geodetic distance is obtained by multiplyinq the qrid distance of l. 0000652.

END OF DESCRIPTION

REVIEWED JANUARY 13, 1988 BY BIU l.

0682b

CAtENDAR PACE

:.~!NUTE PAGE

,,- 2 '-!) .1S 352

EXHIBIT 11 B11

PIPELINE RIGHT OF WAY FOR SANTA YNEZ UNIT PRQDUCTION PLATFORMS

LAND D~SCRIPTION WP 4977

A parcel of tid~ and submerged land lying in the bed of the Santa Barbara Channel, in the vicinity of El Capitan, county of Santa Barbara. St~te of California, being more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCING at Station 81 of the mean high tide line of the Pacific ocean per the survey thereof filed at the request of the State Lands commission in Book 41 of Miscellaneous Maps at Pages 12 to so, inclusive, records of said county (California Coordinate system of 1927 Zone 5 Coor.dinates: X = 1,384,252 and Y = 356,700). from which a California Highway Mor.~ment at 11 42.83.48 E.C." as shown on said surveys bears N 68034'27" E~ 1,220.46 feet (California coc~dinate System of 197.7 Zone 5 Coordinates of said monument~ X = 1.,385,388.ll and Y = 357,145.83) and from which another State Highway Monument bdars N 45032 1 41 11 w, 376.58 feet: thence s 67038'17" w, along said mean high tide line 1~.30 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence the following 15 cours~s:

]. . s 67038'17" w, along saitl mean high tide line. lSS.43

feet:

2. s Q3034 I 59:r JO" .... leaving said mean hig~ tide line,

2.014.so feet:

3. s 86025'02 11 w, l.75.00 feet:

4. s 03034 1 58 11 E. 544.79 feet:

s. s 45052•32 11 w. 16,'761.05 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the ~ight:

6. thence ai~.1~ said curve. having a radius of 8,750.00 feet and a del~a of i1os2 1 54", l,~14.52 feet ~o the end of said curve:

7. thence tangent to said curve s 57045•2& 11 W, 5,429.97 feet, more or less. to a point on the offshore boundary of the State o! California as determined acco~ding to the decree entered by the united States supreme court in United States v California, Original No-. 5, on January 31, 1966, 382 us 448:

a. thence along a nontangent cu.:ve to the left and said boundary, the radial center of which b_ears N, 15037' 16" E, having a radius of 18,228.31 feet, and a del·t-a of 1017'05 11 , 408.73 feet;

")- 2 '·~- ,15 353

EXHIBIT "B WP 4977

9. N 57045•26 11 E. 5.694.98 feet;

10. S 45052 1 32 11• w. 4.789.31 feet. moce or less to point

on said boundary of the State of Califo~nia:

11. thence along a nonta~gent curve to the left and said boundary. the radial cente.r of which bears N 09054'08" E. having a radius of 18.228.31 feet. and a delta of 1010 1 26 11

• 373.47 feet.

12. N 45052 1 32 11 E. 22.875.25 f@et;

13. N 3034'58" w. 798.53 feet:

14. s 86025 1 02 11 w. 175.00 feet;

15. N 03034'58" W, 2.125.50 feet to a point on said mean high tide lin3 and the point of beginning;

EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion lying landwar~ of the ordinary high water mark.

All bearings and distances in this document conform with the California Coordinate System of 1927. Zone 5. the corresponding geodetic distance is obtained by multiplying the grid distance by 1. 0000652.

END OF DESCRIPTION

REVIEWED JANUARY 13 0 1988, BY BIU 1.

0688b

r-·~~~----~':'-l.,.._ __ __._ ; .:;!..:!l3.'\:~ rr.Ct 2 5 • 1 7 I . HI'""" ...... c 3 5 4 i • ''Jt ' ""· -..--·---...

EXHIBIT "C"

WP 4977

\ \

' '\ 9.

! i I

I I

I

·. _/1\ .!'

.. r"

\ .•

/ /'" .; . I · I I

\ } \

. }

( '

. /'

\ . '\ \ \

'\' \ \_.\ .

STATE LEASE PRC 2198

CLAIM 9/12 /66

PARCEL 6

CHEVRON US A. INC

a SHELL OIL CO

[ S;~-iBOUNDARY (3 GEOGRAPHIC MILES)

EXHIBI'.r "C-1" WP 4977

STATE LEASE PRC 2955

LOPMENT

CAPITAN OIL FIELD

EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 2 -148.539 A.

LEASE 2991

l..',!.ctl.!>A:: PACE

I «-':r ... ·!'!.r.

'- L. 19 356

EXHIBIT D

D.l CEQA Findings

D.2 Str ~ent of overridin~ Considerations

D.2 CEQA Findings Adopted by Co\lnty~, of Santa Barbara and· Incorporated H~rein By Ref eren~e ,

CAll:lll!>A~ PAGE

,'.JNlJl'S:: 11,\~t

i 'J £ • 20

357

"'

FINDING

IMPACT: SALM and offshore pipelines cause temporary and permanent loss of access to ,set ge~r fishing grounds for commercial fishing interests.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required inp or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the sig.~~,ficant · env;ronmental effect identif~ed in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

construction and operation of the SALM would cause temporary and permanent loss of set gear fishing grounds. set gear fishing would be excluded from a 2 mile wide area during construction of the. SALM and pipelines for about 1 year. This area would be reduced during operation. Economic loss to fisherman woulu occur because urchins, abalone, crab, lobster, halibut, and shark could not be harvested in the excluded area. ·

-This impact can be mitigated to insignificance with the following:

l) E>.."Xon will be required to contribute to a Fisheries .A Enhancement Fund. This fund is used to provide .., artificial reefs, other fishing opportunities, and other fishery enhan~ement programs. It's intent is to provide other opportunities te commercial fisherman who are displaced by oil and gas ~evelopment.

2) Exxon will be required tC' contribute to the local Fishermen's Contingency Fund, for the purpose of compensating fishermen for lost gear and other supplies as a result of the Exxon activities.

3) Construction of the SALM and pipelines could be restricted to the period from mid July to mid September. However, this restriction would cpnflict with other mitigation measures for air quality, recreation; and lobster fisheries described herein. As such this measure is not adopted.

l

----·

FINDING

IMPACT: Commercial drift gill net fishing grounds reduced by construction activities. .,

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environ11ental effect identified in the final EIR.


Construction activities were identified in the final EIR as restricting drift gill net fishing. This impact will be substantially reduced by Exxon contributin~' to a< Fisheries Enhancement Fund.

2

Cf.!.EN!:M::FACiE . 2 5 2. 20b

:l.!i'IUTE i',\'Gl: 3 5 9

IMPACT:

FIND IN~

Commercial fishing dragging grounds reduced during construction of pipelines.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterati~ns h~ye been required in, or incorporated into, th~ project which avoid or substantially lessen the signif icarit environmental effect identified in the final EIR.


Construction of pipelines is predicted in the f in~l EIR to cause a short-term exclusion of drag fishing activities. Commercial fishing interests are expected to suffer an economic loss because of loss of catch of spot prawn, rockfish, anq halibut. Impacts are expected during the per.iod of pipeline construction.

These impacts are mitigable to insignificanc~ ~y the ;allowing:

1) Exxon contributing to a Fisheries Enhancement Fund

2)

3)

4)

Exxon will prepare and submi~ a construction management plan to the Commission which minimizes the period of · A time for construction. ~

All construction equip~ent, anchors, and ~~?ring buoys will be removed from the construction ar~a within 3 months of the completion of construction.

The exact location and configuration of all sea floor modifications resulting from construction will be publ~.~~·ed in a notice to commercial fis~erman from t):le commercial fishermen liaison's office. This will allow commercial fishermen to avoid the obstructions.

' . '

3

I C:.!.:::•l!)A,r; FAGE

1 :1.1rim·i: r,\c:: 25 2.20c 360-

FINDING

IMPACT: Loss of commercial and recreational fishing time tn the event of an accidental oil spille

FINDIMG: (1) Changes or alt~rations have been required i~, or incorporated into, the projsct which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the final EIR.

(3) Specific economic, social, or Qther considerations make inf~asible the mitigation measures or proj~ct alternatives identified in the final EIR.


Moderate to large oil spills from tne project could effect commercial and re9reational fishing .!nterests as a result of the exclusion of fishing 9rvunds, closure of ports, fouling of fishing gear, and perma~~nt loss of fis~ing areas. -No mitigation measures are avail~ble which will entirely elimina.te or substantially reduce the impacts of an oil spill. However, the following mitigation me1asurea are required which will substantially requce the impact:

1) Exxon will have an oil spill containment plan a_nd critical operations and curtailment plan which will be approved by the State Lands Commission. These plans will: a) specify the equipment Exxon will provide for oil spill contain~ent and clea~up, 2) direct the operation for clean up, and 3) specify operational conditions which will be avoided er when activities will be , terminated. Separate plans will be ·prepared for the oil and gas production facilities and marine transportation facility.

2) Exxon will contribute to the local Contingency Fund for the p~rpose of commercial fishing interests for lo~s of and los~ of gear.

Fishermen's comp1~nsating fishi:ng time

3') Exxon will contribute to a Fisheries Enh~ncement Fund.

4

L ........ "'f "·ce J -...; ............. "',. ',.

F.INDING

IMPACT.; cumulative interference with kelp harvesting due to the presence of piers and vessel traffic through the kelp beds.

FINDING: (l) Changes or alterati~ns have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially !essen the significant environmental effect identifiea in the final EIR.


Kelp harvesting could b$ adversely impacted by the Getty, Shell, a:id other projects .which have structures connecting· to shore, offshore facilities, and vessel traffic through the kelp beds.

Mitigation measures which wi~l reduce the level of this impact to insignificance are:

l) consolidation of oil and gas operation support facilities where possible.

2) Establishment of vessel traffic lanes tqrouqh the kelp ~· beds which restrict vessels to a 150 foot corridor. ~

3) Contributions by all oil operators to a program to restore and/or establish kelp in other areas~

4) Maintenance of a supply base at Port· -Hueneme versus sites with kelp ~anopy.

5) Use of helicopter transportation for crews, where feasible.

Exxon ;is required to do l, 2, and 5 of the above to mitigate their project. Exxon is also required to restor kelp bed disturbance resulting from their project.

·5

1-~."""' •. ,.., --:---~~....,,..--; ;~;!..:. ·~.V;i,.\CE - J6~~. 2oe"1' !,'"'.:.; ;.~·i'/.·:~ ' '--·-----------·-...:.·.....::.::J ..

•

FINDING

IMPACT: cumulative loss of commercial drag fishing grounds due to oil and gas development, oil and gas e~loration, and offshore construction.

FIHDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the prgj~ct which avoid or substantially lessen the significan~ 0nvi;qnm~r.ta1 ef£ect identified in the fina]. EIR •.


Commercial drag fishing grounds are cumulatively affected by activities in the offshore area. The Exxon projec~ proposes the aqriition of 3 new platforms, pipelines, and a marine terminal in the offshore area. In addition there are 34 existing, proposed, or postulated platforms in the offshore Santa Barbara Channel and soutl:lern Santa Maria basin along with numerous other offshore facilities. T~ese facilities along with t2mporary obstructions such. as offshore oil and gas exploration and offshore construction have a significant environmental impact due to exclusion of commercial drag fishing grounds •

Mitigation me:;asures which substantially eliminate this impact are:

1) contributions to a. Fisheries Enhancement Fund by operators whose activities exclude commercial fishing.

2) Limitations on the amount of time required for temporary activities in the offshore .area.

3) Minimization of seafloor mouif ications and disturbance through the use · of the best available ~onstruction techniques, consolidation and collocation of facilities where possible, and facilities site planning.

4) Establishment and enforcement of designated support vessel corridors.

Exxot is required to incorporati:: these measures to the maximum extent feasible into their project.

6

• · ~·.:.::··~.~:. a·ACI: . .. :: -;.;:tr .... ~~

IMPACT:

FINDING

cumulative loss of set-gear fishing grounds due to exploration, oil and gas development and offshore constructio11.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in~ or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the final EIR.


The final EIR identifies the cumulative loss of commercial set gear fis~ing areas due to permanent. and temporary obstructions as -~ a significant impact. This effect is felt from Point Sal to Port Hueneme. Mitigation addressed in the previous finding for setgear project specific impacts are required of Exxon and will reduce this impact to insignificance.

7 ---·--· ___ __..,~..,..) !""5..,.2'""' • .,..20"""'g \..:.!. ... ~:l,\:: ,:,\GE ------i

: . .-.id·r.::.·:.~;: -1.Q. ~==--I

•

FIND!~tlG:

FINDIN~

cumulative loss of kelp and interference with h~rvesting; loss on nearshore set- gear fishing grounds due i:t::;, .support vessel traffic; and, interference witl). drift fishlng·du~ to ~upport vessel and tanker traffic.

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the final BIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FI~DING:

Increased support vessel and tanker signif;cant impacts on commercial fishing, and drift fisheries depending upon w~ether established for all vessels.

traffic could have particularly set-gear traffic corridors are

Increased support vessel traffic could have significant impacts on the kelp industry unless common designated corridors are establish~d for all vessels~

Mitigation measures which reduce this impact to insignificance are:

1) Establish and enforce usage of common designated vessel traffic routes from support bases .out to the 30 fathom contour and throughout the Santa Barbara Channel for all projects to minimize interference with kelp hC!-rvesting and commercial fishing. Exxon is required to participate in such a program.

2) Exxon is required to consolidate support bases and marine terminal facilities.

3} Exxon is required to maintai~ the marine terminal as a consolidated common carrier faciJ:-ity for use by all transporters of oil produced in the Santa Barbara area and along the Central California Coast from Port San Luis to the Los Angeles~ventura County line.

4) Schedule tanker traffic directly ~~om the VTqS to the consolidated m~rine terminal for daytime only during drift gill net season. This measure is in~easible since drif.t gill netting occurs year round.

5) Exxon is ~ r~quired: to part;.icipate in or implement a support vessel operators ·training . program to infO.rJ.!l

8

.. ~.: ''°''~. ·G-: ~ ~) 2. 20hl I~·-""-····''" t.: -,

:_ .. ·._·. ;_r._::: ~·_:.·:._ . .: __ J __ q ~:-.:·-I

vessel operatQrs r.~.t commercial :fishing activities and, • how to recognize .and avoid comm~rcial :fishing ' operations.

. ..

• ·----~-------~o::!"':~---. 25 2,201

•• I •' n• ,. • ~ .. -. ~ ...... , ·•I! 366-'

----~ ... - ...

FINDING

IMPACT: cumulative impacts to air quality due to: l) the construction and operation ot a platf o:rm and pipelines c, lease 2991 and 2) tne operation of the Exxon aarine terminal and consolidated onshore processing facility.

FINDING: (1) Changes o~ alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen ~he signiticant environaental ef f~ct identified in ·the f,inal EIR.

(3) Specific economic, social, or o~her considerations make infeasible the mitigatiqn measure~ or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

'FACTS SUPPOR..rING THE FINDING:

Exceedances of federal and state air quality requi1.9ements are expected from construction and operation of an oil and gas platform on lease 2991 in combi~ation with the facilities onshOZ'e and in state waters associated with the Ex~on SYU project. These include exceedances of the 24 hqur No2 ~SD increment, ths 24 hour S02 PSD increment, the 1 hour PSD increment for TSP, the.24 hour PM-10 standard, the 24 hour PSD increment for TSP, and exceedance of the annual California standard for PM~lO emissions.

The 502 impact can be reduced to insigniticance it the construction activities for the platform and other facilities occur at different times rather than concurrently. Ho other mi tiqation are available to reduce other air quality impacts to insignificance.

The no project alternative eliminates this impact. If the platform is proposed on lease 2991, the Commission should also consider· electrification of the platform, moving of the platform to a drfferent location, and onshore processing of oil and gas onshore as alternatives. The use of one Ol" more of these alternatives to the platform on lease 2991 could lessen the effects iden~if~eq ~n the final EIR.

~10

···~:· .--:-... ·--'-rs-5 ...... >s-. 2-0-.j.f ··- - • .i.~ .... : -..,··s~-7l.-·;

"I • 1 • ..: ~·, .:.: .;, ' -----------=--- .... ---..... ,

IMPACT:

FINDING

Irreversible use of nonrenewabi~ resources due to projec~, energy use.

FINDING: (l) Changes o~ alterations have been ~equired in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid ar substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identi~ie~ iri thf'\ final EIR-.

(3) Specific economic., social, or other considera~ions make infeasible the mitigation measur~s or project , alternatives. identified in the final EIR.


The proposed project will require the consumption of considerable energy resources during the construction of ~he project and operatton of the facilities. These impacts are mitigated by use of "":nergy conservation and proper facility design. Also, consolidation of facilities and use of Wa$te heat !or electrical generation reduces energy consumption. Howeve~, these measures are insufficient to reduce the impact to insignificance.

The only alternative which will eliminate this impact is, the no project alternativ~.

11 • : • ·: •• :.. !~.-.. :.-r-.~C-E----.,.2r-.5....,.2'"··-. -2-0-kf , ~-6·-·ts·-1 .• -':! i·I._ :·.~'.:i! ..:> 0 r --·----al

8 IMPACT:

FINDING:

FINDING

cumulative oil and gas developments causing increased cons~mption of nonre~ewabl~ ono;gy supplie~ and consuming energy themselves.

(l) Changes or alterations have been-required in, or ing9rporated into, the project which avoid or substanti~lly lessen the significant environmental effect identifie~ in the final EIR.

(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EI~.


!;>reposed oil and gas developments in the Santa B£1,rbara Channel and Santa Maria Bast•P could substantially deplete the recoverabl~ oil and gas r~serves in these. 3reas in about so years. This is0 a commitment of a significant nonrenewable resource for present consumption. The ,projects to develop these resources will also consume vast quantities of energy over their lifetimes. This impact is thus significant and longterm.

Mitigation,.,. measures which reduce this impact to the maximunt extent possible are discussed in the previous finding addressing energy consumption. While these measures do not reduce the impact to insignificance, ~he impact is substantially reduced.

The no project alternative eliminates Exxon's contribution to tQis impact.

12

.·-·----_-t:_..~ ___ 2_._201 { ~ -..:~: •. ·-.: ... :: l .!CC ... ::> __

.:,.:;.1.r.:::·:.~.: 3 6 9 ! ---~-----.

FINDING

X~PACT: Loss of tourism because of a major oil spill along the south Coas~ and Channel Islands.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have 'Qeen required in, or incorporated into, the project· which avoid or substantially lessen the significant env~ronmental effect identff ied in the final EIR.

(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project altei"?latives i~entified i~ th~ final EIR. ·

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:'

A major oil spill could occur from many components of the project in the offshore ar~a. Oil platform~ in the federal waters, oil pipelines to shore, the niarine" termi:nal, and tankers are all potential sources for a major oil spill. Any significant accident at these facilities could result in oil being spilled into the 'marine environment. This occurrence would immediate!y effect tourism in the South coast, resulting in: a significant environmental impact. "

Several mitigation measures are available which-can substantially reduce the risk and consequence of a major oil: spilL .Most of these involve planning a11µ preve11tative measures. Spill containment is also available, .but can be largely ineffective. ~ ince tp.ese measures ar~ not. .. · completely effective, the impact cannot ·be reduced to insign;tficance. Only the no proj~ct alternative will entirely eliminate the impact.

Mitigation measures which ~re required of Exxon are:

1) Exxon will prepare a ·marine terminal operations manual for review and approval of the' state Lands Commission. This plan will describe operat~ng condit~ons and procedures for the marine terminol, procedures and conditions governing the approach to the m3rine terminal, and similar information for departing the marine terminal. This plan .shall also desc;ibe critical operations and curtailment procedures. such procedures shall require that vessels ·~hall not approach or leav~ the marine te~inal when visibil~~y is one mile or less and will specify other weather cond'itions and sea states in which the terminal operations will be curtailed.

13 • 25,2 .20~

~--··7· ·_-0·-,... __ ·1 •.• •:. ·- ... " .. ... .;I ' ~ ••• • .... " • ... a: -·--~---~~~-~-----

2)

•

Exxon shall prepare a oil spiJ.il contiiigency plan for review and acceptance by the ~tate Lands commission. Such plan shall be prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the Commission.

Exxon shall nave qil spill containment equipment stationed near the mari~e terminal and o~her production facilities for the purposes of cpntaining spilled oil and minimi:dng environmental damage. Also, complete. containment ~perations must be able to respond to an 9il spill witq;J.n one hour or be deployed w.ithin a time sufficient tc;> keep oil from strik_;ng the Pborelin~, whichever is sh~rter •

14

. '•~2·-~ ' ~.· ..... ·. ·.: '··'· .'.'.G~ '- ._, • ·~n · - - - -3:rr ··-· -·: 1_. _.; :~,:: ·'·' ~-: --~ -~.: - ·---_:j

FIN PING

iMPACT:~ cumulative effects of oil spills resulting in loss of tourism along the South Coast and Channel Islands.

FIND.':NG: (l) Changes or alterations have been requirs.d in, or incorporated into, the project which avoi~ or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identifi~d in the final EIR.

(3) Specific economic,' social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitiqation measur~s or project alternativ~s identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUP~~RTING 'l'HE FINDING:

'l'he pr~vi~iµs discussion about oil spill impac~s to tourism is, applicab1e ·to this impact,

•

•

FINDING

IMPACT: Cumulative impacts to the viaual appearance ot tlie off she:> re area due to a prol1feration of oil and gas developments along the south Coast and Santa Maria Basin.

FINDING: (3)' Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project a1ternatives identified in the final EIR.


Within th.~ Santa Barbara Channel 1

and along the coast between Po.int Arquello to the San Luis Obispo County line, there are nearly 34 propoqed or postulated platforms and, existing platforms. In addition, numerous marine terminal and oth~r offshore facilities exist. The Exxon project would add an additional 3 platforms to this group plus one ~dditional mArine terminal. The Exxon project would remove one OS&T from the offshore area.

Th.is development of offshore facilities repreaents a deterioration to offshore visual aeRthetics. No mittgat~ this impact are available. Only the altern~~ive will eliminate the impact •

16

•• •·r••r•, ..... . ' ......... .. .,.:

significant metl'to'1~1 to no project

~5 Z.2o;f --.-.----, _3_z_3 ._:_.1

IMPACT:

FINDING

Annoy~nce and $leep interference to touris~s or campers at El Capitan State Beach due to short-term exce~dances of noise standards at the property line during construction and abandonment of the nearsho~e portions of the pipeline.

FINDING: (l) Changes or alteration's have been required in, or incorporated into, tne project which ·avoid or substantially lessen the si~nificant envi~onmental effect ~dentif ied in the fina~ EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE ~INDING:

During construction of the nearshore portions of the pipeline, noise levels from the construction activities and equipment could exceed the 3 dBA Ldn increment standar4 imposed by the County of Santa Barbara. This noise level could have an impact on tb.e ~Y.periences of users of El Capitan state Beach and campers using the facility at night. This effect is a significant environmental effect. ,

Mitigation measures which will reduce this impact to -~he maximum extent feasible have been imposed, on Exxon by the County of Santa Barbara. These conditions reqtlire the installation of noise monitors and recorders at key points, design of facilities for maximum sound reduction, restrictions .:o~ helicopter usage and vessel corridors, and restriction o! noise generating· project activities to between the hours of 7:00 ~.m. and 10:00 p.m. Leaving the offshore portion of the pipelines in place after their use will eliminate the abandonment impacts. These mitigation fully reduce the impact to insignificance.

17 •

ISSUE; MARINE BIOLOGY

IMPACT: I~jury or death tq marine, organisms from trench blasting through nea:rphore and intertidal hard-bottom ar~as.

FINDINGS: (1) Change~, or alterations have been· .required in or i~corporated into· the - projec;~ -wliich avoid or substantially lessen' the signifigant env~roJU1ental effect as identified in the ~imp: EIR.

(3) Specific economic; social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measµres or project alternatives identified in the tinal EIR•

FA~'TS SUPPORTING THE FINDING;

-Blasting during construction will have the pDtential to k>lll ttany intertidal and near tidal Qrganisms. :Recovery o~ the popu~~tion may take many years· for some species and is -considered a significant impact. This impact will be mitigated to the ·.!!Eciaum extent feasible by minimi_zing of bl~sting in these -areas as well as the monitoring of a'll blasting, ope_rations to avoid· blasting when rare or endangere~ species ~re in'the area. 'These measure~, however, will not re9uce this impact t6 insignificance.

The No Project Altern~tive will entirely elisinate this impact.

18

-·--.. ------,....,, ~ , .. ,.~ , ... , ... ,....-: '- o £.. 2or

• .._. ___ """• .:,, ..... 1;, -··-- ·---·

'.. • r •·• • • • 3 7 5 ! :· ... t•.1·•~ •• ...... : ---- -·l ""- ' -~~-----·

ISSUE:

:IMPACT:

MARINE BIOLOGY

Potential alteration of California Gray Whale migration route as a result of communication ~isrupt:i:pn among--animals due to .cumulative noise dist~rbance. .

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been -required in, or incorporated· into, ~he project which avoid or substantially lessen the· significant enviromnental effect identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDIUGS:

The effect of noise and disturbance on marine mammals is not a serious concern in itself, but the offshore activity from Exxon's project will add to existing and future activities and may ·reach a threshold that would cause Gray Whales to abandon current migration routes. Surveys of Cetaceans in the Southern California Bight (Dohl et al., 1980) indicate that more whales are following offshore migration routes than in the pci.~t. The investigators hypothesized that this trend toward ~ff shore movement might be related to increased human activity (as well as pop~lation pressure by the increased number of whales). Geraci and st. Aubin (1980) cite a Japanese study in which increased ship traf fie was. thought to have disturbed migration routes_ ot Minke and Baird's beaked ,whales. Although it is not known what .. effect abandonment of coastal migration route would hava on the ~ California Gray Whale popul~tion, the ley~l of impact is considered significant pending result~ of ac~iv~ investigations funded by MMS oand NOAA. . .

-These impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent possibl.e by mol)i toring wharle .icti vj;ties and curtailing construction activities when whales are present. 'Exxon is required to prepare a plan which incorporates such planning. The results of the ongoing research could require project modifications if research shows aignificant impacts. Phasi~g development to avoid overlapping construction in periods of whale migration coul~ also reduce imp~cts.

The No Project Alternative eliminates this impact.

19'

•

ISSUE:

IMPACT:

FINDING:

MARINE BIOLOGY

Accidental, major o~l spills can cause: lethal and sublethal effects on intertidal and bent~fic organisms, some marine ma~~ais, and sea birda, including rare and endangered -!:pecies. Sens:f/ci ve habitats such as re9fs, marine malhmal haul-out areas, seabi~d colonies, Channel Islands, -estuarine areas could a~so be degraded. Spill cleanup could also result in ~ignificant impacts.

(1) Changes or alterat:i.ons have been required in, or incorporated into, tha project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant envirolll!lenta~ effect identified in the final EIR.

(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation 'measures or :proj'ect alternatlves identified in the final EIR.

FAC'~S SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Crude oil, and the specific compounds it contains, ca~ affect the t1'arine ~l1Vironment through habitat alteration and physical or chemical (~~Ute and sublethal toxicity) effects 'On organisms. Habitat alteration can result from substrate .(sand or rock) coating, filling of crevices, changed in sediment characteristics, and changes in the spectral quality of light ente,ring the water. Spilled .~:>il can mechanically affect. ,organisms through smothering, inter.ference with motion, coating 'ext:ernal surfaces with a black layer that increases .solar heat gain, and fouling of insulating body .coverings. .

M~ny of the compounds in crude oil are toxic to marine organisms. Sublethal respons~s include narcosis, interference with c~emical reception (e.g. , in feeding or spawning} , changes in behavior, reduced photosynthetic rate, .+Pwered reproductive ef~ort or success, increaseq susceptibirity to disease or parasites, reduced feeding and growth, an_d interference with larval development. Toxic effects can result from direct contact with crude cil, which allow absorption of toxic compounds through the integument or ingestion of oil drop_~. Dissolution of soluble components from the oil slick introduces toxic: substances into the after column where they can affect organisms that have· not come in direct contact with oil. Furthermore, biological oxidation of petroleum hydrocarbQns absorbed or ingested by animals can result in degradation products that are more toxic than the original compounds.

Mitigation measures which reduce thes.e impacts to the ~~ximum extent possible1 l:'eqnire Exxon to have an approved oil spill contingency plan, marine terminal ope~ations manual, and critical

~,O

. ~~-=:.:-. -c.-~ --2,._.;'Y,..~'2: 2oti -·--.. - .. · •.••. 1_;;_.::3:: _)_t7 ·--i ____ , _______ _

operations curtailment plan.

The No Prcject Alternative eliminates this impact.

21

•

• '------~~----·-----. 2 52 .2ou! -3···7· ·a~·-··-··~ ::·. ;~ •• c;:

.·., .. ~;;;:.,-: ..:::: l '--------::=:..::_:_ __ ·-::.::.

ISSUE: MARINE BIOLOGY

IMPACT: Accidental major oil spills can cause lethal and sublethal effects on intertidal and benthic organisms, some marine mammals, and seabirds, including rare and endangered species. sensitive habitats such as reefs, marine mammal haui-out areas, se~bir~ colonies, Channel Islands estu~ine areas could also be degraded~ Spill cleanup could also result 1n signi~icant impacts.

FINDING: {l) Changes or .alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which -avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the final EI~.

(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make .infea9ible the mitiga~ion measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.


Intertidal com.~unities are very vulnerable because most accidents. resulting in oil releases occu;- in coastal areas,, and habitat alteration is an important aspect of oil poi1ution in the intertidal zone. The end results are habitat loss,· alteration to less suitable habitat, and substrate instability (i.e., the oil coating can slough off, th~raby rem9ving organisms that have colonized it). - - -

Mortality of intertid~l organisms can occur from both mechanical and chemical effects of oil. Smothering has been shown to be a major cause of death for such species as barn~cles and limpets. Oil globs adhering to the fronds of intertidal algae can increase weight and fricticmal drag forces such that the ·plants become detached during flood ti~e. Acute to''icity is also possible, particularly in the high intertidal zone whe~e organisms may be expoged to oil for longe~ -periods of tjme thari in the intertidal. Since oil spills from the SYU development would be offshore, considerable weathe=ing would occur before the oil reached= the intertidal. consequently, acute toxic effects, other than from smothering, would not be likely for most species. Leaching of toxic compounds from oil stranded in isolated tidepools or buried in sand, however, might result in locally acute toxic concentrations. ,

Benthic organisms can be exposed to petroleum through physical contact with the oil residue, ingestion_, or contact with the water soluble fraction (WSF) fr6iit the ·residu8.t Un~ess larg~ quantities of oil are depop.~ted on tfle bottom, forming a thick layer, mechanical effects on benthic organisms are expe9ted to be negligible. Ingestion of sett1;ng o~ sett~ed particles, however could lead to lethal or sublethal effects particularly on the

22

. . . • 0 I • _.

.... - . " . . .. • I -

many filter and deposit feeders inhabiting th·e boEtom. The data available for the Santa Barbara Channel and other areas indicate ~ that acute toxicity is unlikely, except poss~1hly in the irumediate • vicin~t¥ of the subsea spill.

Th~ effeRts of oil on subtidal benthic comr~unities are difficult to predic;~t because (1) the available data; are insufficient for such pred.icti"ns, ( 2) the interactio~s bet~ween planktonic larval settlement and substrate qua~ity are yery complex, and (3) population dynamics of species with complex life cycles are not well understood. Effects on planktonic 11arvae would .be di ff icul t to assess because larvae in one area mayl settle and metamorphose a considerable distance awey. Furthermore, ·changes in populati9n as a result of an oil spill would be di:'fficult if not impcssible to distinguish from nat,ural fluctuati{.ms in these populations. another unknown facto~ is natural mor;ality rate and how additional mortality affec.ts survival i:;,f the remaining larvae. Chronic oil pollution e~fects are even more difficult to document and predict. Obser"lations of bepthic invertebrate com.mun! ties around productlon plat'forms in the Gulf of Mexico have shown altered community structure and spe.cies abundance which may be related to produced water discharges (Rose 1981). In the Santa Barbara channel, however, observat~:;,ns at several platforms have shown no adverse effects (Menzie 1902).

Pinnipeds are particularly vuln~rable to oil spill effects because they come out on land <'for breeding and resting and .because they are covered with fl.'1r that may become fouled with oil • In fur seals and sea ott~rs, oi-1 may adhere to the body surface or obstruct body opening~, and/or the hydrocarbon vapors may be inhaled. Oil reduces the insulating .quality of the fur and bgoyancy (Siniff et al. 1982 '; USDI 1981) • 'Energy ~xpqnditure would need to increase to· off set these effect~ -and may led to stress, hypothermia, and eve~ death. In addition, their populations in the area are etther _a large proportion of those present in southern California (California Sea Lion, Northern Elephant Seal, and Harbor Seal)' or consist of small groups at the edge of the species range (Stellar Sea Lion, Guadalupe Fur seal, and Northern Fur Seal). Oil spills can alter pinniped habitat primarily through fouling of l"ookery and haulout locations. In a worst-case situation, the animals cold abandon traditional use areas and search for uncont~~inated areas, thus causing streGs. If breeding or pupping were in progressed during an oil spill, reproductive success cou+d be severely rsduced through interruption of mating \'.>r abandoni'nent of p:1ps. Reproduction could also be reduced through mortality of adult~.

For pinnipeds, whc probably cannot d~tect oil slicks, the primary concern would be oil slicks reaching San Miquel Island and interfering with reproduc~iion. If an oil sp'lll contacts the shoreline, cleanup activ.!:1:.ies could have a greater impact on, r~side11t pinnipeds than t~ie oil spill itself. , Pinnipeds would

23 ---~::~.:~-:.-.i-•. -G~~~--.~~,~5~2~.-2-0-w~·,

. ~-··a-~o· --~-d-· ... :. •; ,.· "'·· -~ J ~ - -.... _.__,______ ----

e

•

flee from haul ou~. and rookery areas at the approach of an oil spill cleanup crew, and their only avenue of escape would l?~ right through the oil that had come onshore. The presence of humans, boats and cleanup equipment o~ desolate, ;solated Channel Isl.and beaches w~1uld cause at least tempqracy abandonment of traditional haulo1.it or rookary areas. Because oil. spills are more likely to hit the mainlanq than the offshore islands, Harbor Seals that haul o\1t along the mainland coast woul~, be moat likely to be arfected by oil spill cleanup activity.

Adult birds heav~:ly contaminated with pil suffer both mechan~cal and physiologic~~ (systemic) effects. +.ass of buoyancy and insul~tion incre:ases metabol.ic expenditures and reduces th&ability to capt~r~ prey and avoid predators because of reduced flying ability. The combination of reduced f~e~ing ability and increased metabolic e?t.penditure results .~n acute metabolic stress, weakening, and eventual starvation! Preening results in ingestion of oi~~, even in only partially coated birds, often in sufficient quantities to be physiologically damaging.

Oil contaminati9n can affect eggs and hati..::hlings through mechanical tran1sfer of oil from fculed adult breast feathers and feetc Sufficiept coating of eggs can cause embryonic suffocatiop or toxic effect:s such as reduced hatch rates. Sublethal leve.ls of oil ingested by Cassin's auklets reduced both hatchability and the rate of eg~j production (Ainley 1976); an effect also seen in mallards {Sz~iro l.977). Other s~blethal effects include interference with electrolyte balance, .impairment of weight gain, liver hypertropfly, and spleen a trophy. The result of tne;:;e is reduced nestli·fig viability and survivability. Another potential indirect effeq.t of oil spills on marine birc;ls is alteration of the foo\i supply, either by reduction or by col'l;tamination. To what extent t}1.;!.s could aqtually occur, however is unknown.

The effect of oil spills on seabird colo~ies ~ay be long lasting, particularly ~or birds such as alcids which are long-lived, tend not to breed until three years old, do not all ~reed annually, and have very low :~nnual recruitment 'to the adult population, often on the .order o'f o. 2 individual per breeding pair. Even for more fecund ~;pecies with far hig~er recruitment 'rates, recovery times can be slow. l'.JP ... ~., ·regard to rescue efforts, mortalities of cleaned bir~~ tend to b~'high, so this tec~nique is not likely to b~ of signif;icance in reducing mort~1ity (Clark 1968, Holmes and Cronshaw 197T/) • Several species of seabirds and other oceanassociated s·pecies breed 9r \'{inter in the Santa ,Barbara Channel are. Most breeding occurs on the Channel Islands; large overwinteril'l;g flocks of other species can. be f oun~ thr.oµgho~t the area. The loons, grebes, Brown Pelican, Common Murre, P1ge9n Guillemot, >tantus" Mur.relet, and Cassin's Auklet are all likely to be in la1~ge numbers when present and ther~tore susceptible to high mortalj~t:y rates if affected by an oil spill.

24 ,, · · · - -----,~2,..,.5_.,..z...,,,2,..,o_x...,,.I

Ja 1·--·1 -· ---~-··---_.;----___ _:_:__~_ . .::.::!

Oil spill cleanup procedures i:·~present a particular threat to ~ seabirds. rti.spersants that are ~esigned to break up oil apills .,,,. also dissolve the protective oil 9oating on bird ·feathers. The resulting 101ss of insulation and bu~yancy can lead to hypothermia and death. Bird colonies, especia'iJ,ly during nesting ac"tivity, are vulnerab~e to disruption by clea~up equipment and personnel. The magnitug1a of the itnpact would depend on the timing of the oil spill and on t~e particular colony aff~9ted.

Several mari:ne animals that inhabit or periodically frequent t~e Santa Barha~~a Channel are federally lis~ed as threatened or e:nda.ngered; however, only a few would be vulnerable to oil pollution. Tho Calif.ornia Least Tern is px·~seni! in the Channel from April ~o 13eptemher, breeding on coastal' sand dune areas of Vandenberg 1':FB and near the mouth of the S~nta Clara ~iver. These .terns ~~or.age in coast~l nearshore waters Clnd estuaries. An oil spill t~at reached the coast during springi or summer cr;mld affect the 1;.ern$ while they are foraging or ne11ting. Loss of individuals or reductiQn in reproductive succe~s wouid have significant ~.rnp,1cts on the local segment of this sp~ciea,

The arowil P~,li~~an, which breads op Anacapa Island' :~nd forages throughout tqe ~:hannel, could be affected by an oil sp~ll tnrough fouling of J.ts feathers, ingestion of oil contamina~ed food, transfer of •~il to incubating eggs or chickp, and loss of foe~ sources (prilllarl!y- ~nchovies). Because pelicans feeq by diving in.to the wate:r and remain within 20 to 30 miles of land, they are A particularly vulnerable to an oil spi~l. The impact of a large .., oil spill on th4~ Santa Barbara Channel Brown Pelican population would be sigr4if$~cant. The Guadalupe Fur Seal, which ii:; statelisted as ra:r·e, can occ;:asionally, be found at San Miguel Island (USDI 1981), It is extremely vulnerable to oil contamination of the fur, whic;:h provides insulation and buoyancy. Beca'-'se this specie5 is or-ly a rare visitor to san Miguel Island and the probability ot· a major oil spill is s1nall, impacts to the species are expected 1;0 ;be negligible. If an oil spill do~s· contact the breeding rounds of a :ra:re of endangered species, special care must be taken: during oil spill clean-up operations to avoid further disturloance.

If a major o.i~l spill contacts arJ Area of Special Biological Sensitivity, stgn~ficant impacts will result due to the damage to the resource.

l'fi tigation mea;~ures discQssed previously for oil spills red\lce this impact to ·the maximum extent feasible.

The ~o Prbject i~ltai:native '[llC-:.Ild, ,eliminate thits i1t1pact.

25

· :.~:~~.c:: 2"5"?'. 2ov ·; --··· .. -- ........ ,,,. .. . . .. ,)8 2 ' , ··~ - : - "l I -- --·-·· - .... ..::~ -·--- -:-=:.

• ISSUE:

IMPACT:

FINDING;

MARINE BIO•LOGiY

Disturban1:::e of offshore hard bottom habitat cumulative. pi~eline and platform installation sedimentation.

by and

(l) Chang'es or alterl1tions have .been required in, or incorporated into, the pr6ject which ~v~id or substantia,Lly lessen the significant enviroflW!ntal ef feet iderltified in the final EIR.

PACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Oietul::'bance to the h~lrd bottom will occur during inst.allation of platforms and pipelines. Total disturbance to hard bottom in the project area from the hypothetical platform and from pipelines would be 268. 77 acren1 ot· ll percent. of the oftshore ·hard bottom in the projoct area.

Offshore hard bottom is a relatively rare and a significant habitat. As such, a.ny disturbance of an area greater: ~ 10 percent of the habit.at which requires a recovery perio~ from disturbance longer than f.tve years is significant·~

Offshore impacts could1bG mitigated by the relocation of the hypothetical platform. Exxon's pipeline route and lay barge anchor locations will also be located ·to avoid large axpoEed .l:ocky features or plac~1d to minimize disturbance.

26

..,.5·2--n:i ""' •.. , •• ~- '- ~ • 20z; .. ..... . •.• l • .:

I ~·a3· ·--·i I~ •• M,.~.... . .. . .J ,···· ~,, ...... •.: __ ... I --=--------=--=:..:. ..

ISSUE:

IMPA~ .•

FIND.LNG:

~~~IE :eIOLCGY

cumulative disturbance to and loss of important nearshore hard bottom habitat.

(1) Changes or alterat1.0~1s have been required in. or incorporated into, the prcject which avoid or su~stantially lessen the significant environmental effect 1dentif ieg- in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDUNG:

I-ip~li1.1e burial thr-ou9h th9 ·nearshore zone would disturb nearshore hard bottom at the corral/Las Blo~es and A~royo Hondo landfalls. Pipeline construction at Al:royo Hondo wou.i.d disturb appro~ina-t.E_!ly 1. 4 acres of nearshore hard bottom. At corral/Las FJ.ores th£' disturbance would be 17. 2 acrei;J. TotaJ. disturbance to nce1rshore hard bottom from pipeline construction would thus be 18. 6 acres or appl'oximately l. 7 percent of the nearshore hard bottom in the proj set area. Eec$!lUSe of the importance of this habitat and the fact that recovery is ezj>ected to take longer th~n five years, this impact is significant.

Hc~rshore hardbottom impact will Jo:>e mitigated t9 tl's maximum extent ~easibie by routing pipeline to avoid se.~~itive nearshore hard bottom features.

27

•

•

-·--·-· --.,-s-2·-.;, • • • · .. c:: -'-3·a · · ·-2.~~~ . . . . . 4 .

.. ...... ~ -- _ .. ~ ·-·-' ----·-- - .. -~ .... -' - ---l


IMPACT: Disturbance of surf Grass in nearshore hard boticom and intertidal areas.

FINDING: (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SPPPORTING THE FINDING;

The intertidal zone will be dire~tly disturhed by pipelin~ burial, sediment displacement, and by the movement of equipment on the beach. It is estimated that the major impact of trenching would directly affect a 1,75-foot wide region around the trench; Move~ent of heavy construction equipment around the beach would be liltely to affect most of the cove area at yhe Corral/Las Flores beach front. The to"r~al area of direct dhJturbance from pipeline installation in the intertidal would then be an approximately 500-foot (152-m) swath of beac~. This direct disturbance would amount to approximately one percent of the intertidal habitat in the project area.

One cause of concern is impacts to the surf Grass in the lower ir.tertidal zone. This long-lived floweri~g plant cr~ates a unique environmen~ for marine organisms in the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal. surf Gr~ss serves as an important nursery for juvenile fishes and young spiny lobster. Furthermore, studies of the ability of intertidal organisms to recover from disturbances have indicated thflt sur,.f Grass is slow to recolonize disturbed areas (SAI 1978). impacts to surf Grass in the lower rocky intertidal of coral/Las Flores are thus judged to be significant.

Avoidance of the surf grass bed is the only mitigation measure which will eliminate this impact. However constraints on the onshore location of the pipelines makes complete avoidance infeasible. Exxon will, however, reduce intrusion into the surf grass to the maximum extent feasible. Any intrusion will require Exxon to attempt reestablishment of the disturbed bed and disturbed areas still existing 2 years after the conclusion of pipeline construction will have to be compensated for ~y contribution to the Santa Barbara county Fisheries Enhancement Fund.

The No Project alternative eliminates tnis ini~act.

28

ISSUE:

IMPACT:

MARINE BIOLOGY

cumulative disturbance of surf Grass in nearshore hard bottom and intertidal areas.

FINDING: (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.


The inter~idal zone will be directly disturbed by pipeline burial, sediment displacement, and by the movement of equipment on the beach~ It is estimated that the major impact of trenching would directly affect a 175-foot wide region around the trench. Movement of heavy construction equipment around the beach would be likely to affect most of the cove area at the corral/Las Flores beach front. The total area of direct di.sturbance from pipeline installation in the intertidal would then be an approximately 500-foot (152-m) swath of beach. This direct disturbance would amount to approximately one percent ,o~ the intertidal habitat in the project area.

One cause of concern is impacts to the Surf Grass in the lower intertidc-.1 zone. This long-lived flowering plant creates a unique environment for marine organisms in the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal. surf Grass serves as an important nursery A for juvenile fishes and young spiny lobster. Furthermor~, • studies of the ability of intertidal organisms to recover from disturbances have indicated that suLf Grass is slow to recolonize disturbed areas (SAI 1978).

There is the potential for significant cumulative impact to surf grass.' from projects in the region. There is a potential for placement ,of two pipeline landfalls along the Santa Barbara south Coast. There are at Arroyo Hondo and Las Flores/Corral Canyons. There is, as such, the potential that surf grass will be disturbed along five hundred feet of surfline at both locations resulting in the cumulative loss of 1000 feet of ,sur':f grass.

Avoidance of the surf grass bed is the only mitigation measure which wil1 eliminate this impact. However, constraints on the onshore location of the Exx~n· pipelines makes complete avo~dapce infeasible. The mitigation adopted' for t,:he project sppcific i~pacts will be applied to Exxon howev~~·

The No Project alternative eliminates th~~ impact.

29

. -· -----,,-...-2···-1 .. .. ·~_. ~ ~ • 20cc ·

-"'386 ... -----·--···--·-- ..


lMPACT: Long-term cumulative disturbance of soft ocean l>ottom will occur from structure and pipeline emplacement.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant enviromnental effect identified in th~ final EIR.

(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation meas~res or project alternatives identified in the fin~l EIR.


Disturbance to the soft bottom will result from placement of three subse~ gas w~lls, SALM installation, and the placement of eleven offshore pipelines. Total cumulative disturbance to soft bottom in the project area would be 2,714.6 acres or 24.1 percent of the soft bottom in the project area. Therefor~·: cumulative im~a~ts to soft bottom habitat in the project area are considered significant. Most of this disturbance is expected tc;:> be .c;hort term and most .of the area would be expected to return to predisturbance conditions within five years. It should be verified, how~~er, that data on recovery rates for soft bottom communities deeper than 100 ft is unavailable and the elements of the community such as Sea Pens could well take longer than fiva years. Therefore, total long term disturbance could affect some elements of the community over a great;er area than just the anchpr scars and spud can holes.

Total long term dii~.turbance from anchor scars, wellheads, and spud can holes would total 32. 80 acres or O. 3 .percent of the soft bottom.

Mi tiga ti on .neasures which reduce this impac;:t to the maximum extent feasible are to:

1. Consolidate offshore facilities and pipelines to the maximum ex:tent possible; and

2. Bundle pipelines to the maximum extent possible.

Exxon is required to implament these miti9ation measures.

The No Project Alterative will elim~nate tnis impact.

30

. --- --:--·2-5 2-:-20Jd .. ~J87

~--·---· .. -· ---~- .... - --..

ISSUE:

IMPACT:

HA.RINE BIOLOGY

Shock wave impacts to marine mammais due to blastir1g and underwater explosions.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or ~,1.ibstantially lessen the signific~nt environmental ~£feet identified in the final EIR.


~xplosion effects on marine mammals will no~ have an impact r.t the populati~n level. However, because marine mammals are prot~cted, an !mpact to even one individual would be significant.

Marine mammals in the nearahore area where blasting might occur could be killet.t or injured by underwater shock waves. The shock wave of unde,n:ater explosions would travel a relatively short distance and would affect spenies that predominantly u~e nearshore wate~s. Information on the depth of a marine mammal, and the depth and size o~ the explosive charge has been used to calculate a minimum safe distance for animals in the water (~elverton et al. 1971). Calculations are affected -by reflectivity of the substrate, water depth, and size of animals subj~ct to the shock (Geraci and st. Aubin 1980). Hill (~ited in Geraci and st. Aubin 1980) calculated the minimum safe distance ~ of a Ringed Seal at 25 m (82 ft) depth to be 339 m (l,178 ft) 9 from a 5 kg depth exploded at 5 m (is· ft) underwater. Hill speculated that marine mammals would be less sensitive to underwater shock waves than terrestrial animals of comparable nizc due to pressure adaptations, thick body walls, and large size. However, no experiments testing the effects of explosions on marine mammals have been conducted, and there are few incidental observations from which to draw conclusions. Fitch and Young {1948) reported that California Sea Lions were killed by seismic explosions whil~ Gray Whales in the area survived. Underwater xplosions have the potential for uignif icant impact to marine mammals. As a general approximation of minimum se:fe distance~ for marin~ mammals from underwater explosions, a clear zone of at least l/4 mile (0.4 km) should be maintained around the construction area whenever explosives are detonated.

Mitigati,~l) measures which reduce this impact to insignificance are: J.) minimize blasting, 2) restrict blasting near marine mammal habitats to autumn months, and 3) have a marine mammal biologist available to make sure no· mammals are in the blast area. These measures ?re required of Exxon.

31

• ISSUE:

IMPAcT:

MARINE BIOLOGY

Fish populations in the :project area could suffer cumulative impacts from the i'oas of kelp.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signif ic~nt environmental effect identified in the final EIR.

(3} Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible tha mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.


The mqst significant -cumulative impact on fishes would' be the loss of kelp bed habitat. Kelp is ·very important to a number of demersal fish species. Because most of the kelp in the project area grows on soft bottom, reef and kelp as~ociated fishes would suffer considerable loss Qf habitat. Without the kelp the substrate would revert to mono"Contiua so:t bottom habitat which does not support the diversity of species found around kelp and rock. Moreover, ltelp is very important to the recruitment of many fish species. cumulative loss· of kelp habitat is thus a signifJ.cal"-t impact on local fish populations.

The impacts could be mitigated to insignificance by prohibiting anchors in kelp, confining vesael traffic to a narrow corridor and reducing turbidity. Kelp transoiants or creation of an artificial reef might mitigate impacts, but the success of :sue~ projects is still uncertain.

Exxon's anchoring plan does however require some anchQri~q of the dredg~ barge in the fringe of the kelp bed. This anchoring is unavoidable becausa of the naed ·to trench the pipelines into the substrate in the shallow water ·areaa. E:xxon 'will not anchor their lay or pull barge in the kelp bed.

In order to reduce this intrusion to the maximum extent feasible, certain mitigation measures will be applied. When anchoring in the kelp beds the anchors will placed rather than just dropped. Additionally 1 disturbed areas of kelp will be reestablished if possible and if not possible, contributions to the Fisheries Enhancem~nt Fund will be required to compensate for the {_ntrusion.

The No project. alternative entirely eliminates this impact.

32

-~----- ---........:.~ '> r: 2 . .. . ;: -3 § 9. 20(£

~.

- .......

:ISSUE:

IMPACT:

MARINE BIOLOGY

Kelp beds in the Arroyo Hondo and Corral/Las Flores pipeline corridor wi~l be impacted by proj'ec::t specific and cumulative pipeline installation and ,associated vessel traffic and turbidity.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alter~tions have been required in, or incorpora~ed into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environm~ntal effect identified in the final EIR.

(3) Specific economic, s~cial, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.


Direct inpacts to the kelp at Arroyo Hondo would affect 27. 16 ac:C'es of bed. At Corral/Las Flores, pipeline il'istallation would impact 63.8 acres of bed. cumulative impacts on kelp beds in the proj'flct area would then be 91. 4 acres or a total o,~ 6. 8 percent of the kelp habitat. Because of tha importance of kelp beds in the ecology of the Santa Barbara Channel and because it is uncertain whether recovery would cccur in less than five years, impacts to kelp are considered significant.

Impacts could be mitigated to insignificance by: a) prohiblting all anchoring in kelp beds; 2) red,u·:::ing turbidity; 3) confining vessel traffic to the narrowest possio1e corridor; and, 4) kelp transplanting. However, transplan~ation of kelp is a developing technology and may not be successful.

As stated in the previous finding discussion, prohibition of anchoring in the kelp bed for the dredge barge is infeasible. As such, impacts to kelp bed cannot be eliminated but are reduced substantially by the mitigation ~easures discussed in the previous finqing.

The No project alternative eliminates this impact.

33

... - . -----r,· . -· . . . ::: '- 5 2 .. 20gg

-3"90 ' .,

·~-

• ISSUE:

IMPACT:

MARINE BIOLOGY

Mortality of Brown Pelicans or Least Terns during peak summer as a result of blasting and underwater explosions.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the final EIR.


If used during installation, blasting could kill Brown Pelicans or Least Terns in the immediate vicinity. Mortality could be exacex-bated during extended periods of blasting if birds are attracted to feed on ,fish killed by previous charges (CGI 1982); pelicans responded to baiting with anchovie& during expe~iments by Nero and Assoc. (1982). During the serlson of pea}~ pelican abundance (July through September) high mort,ality could result in locally significant impacts. Because ~~own Pelicans are a protectec;'I. species, death of even one indiv':idual would constitute a s~gnificant impact.

This impact is mitigated by having a marine biologist on site to make sure no blasts are detonate~ while Brown Pelicans or Least Terns are in the area.

34

-- --0- . . ·-·-. ·: _'-52.20hh

391

ISSUE:

IMPACT:

MARINE BIOLOGY

Obstruction of Gray Whale movements along coastline due to large ~arge anchor cables.

~INDING: (1) Changes or alterations ~ave been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen th~ significant environmental effect identified in the final EIR.


Anchor cable used by a pull barge or a platform may obstruct -movement through the area by Cetaceans. In previous analyses of platform and pipeline projects (e.g. URS 1985, technical appendix for the San Miguel Project EIS/EIR), anchor cables were considered a source of potential impact to migrating Gray Whales.

Gray Whales are freq11ently found in very turbid nearshore waters, ctnd ambient sound probably plays; a role in their o-rientation. Some observations suggest that Gray Whales may avoid sources of industrial noise such as that produced by a production platform or a lay barge. . Echo locating capabilities of dolphins and porpoises within the project area are believed to be adequate to allow these animals to avoid the large anchors cables without the addition of sonar A r~flectors (T. D. Dehl, uses, personal communication) • However, W the rol.e of echo location in navigation orientation of Gray Whales is not known; therefore, both acoustic npingers" and sonar reflectors are recommended to minimize the potential for impact.

Mitigat~on measures which reduce this impact are: ,

1) Placement of acoustic "pingers" and/or sonar reflectors in and around the construction ~quipment. No data are available on the effectiveness of such devices for alerting Gray Whales to the presence of underwater obstructions; however Exxon is required to implement this measure.

2) Schedule construct1on activities between September and November when pinniped populations are low and Gray Whales are not in the area. If construction does take place during whale, migration season, a marine mammal observer should be used to monitor whale activity, and construction should be suspended when whales are near the construction area. Since scheduling construction between Septembe~ and November substantially interferes with other mitigat":t.~n auch as air quality an~ recreaticn, Exxon is required to implement the observer program.

3) During the construction period, a marina mamm~l observer

35 .. --.. --.--.. -.-:::-~--2·5 2~2oij7

-3·92

should survey the coast daily between Point Conception and Coal Oil Point. In the event marine man~als are observed in the area construction activities should be suspended when marine mammals are within two miles C>f the construction. Exxon is required to implement this m€!af~ure.

36 ---'··---- .. -, ... --.. ---1',- - -·.,,

• . .• L. 5 2 2CJ'J . • . -- . • J ~93

ISSUE:

IMPACT:

MARINE BIOLOGY

Tankers and oil-industry support vessel collisions with rare/endangered marine mal!IIl'als (whales, sea otters} could cause at least locally significant mortalit:ies when overall population status i~ unfavorable.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project Yhich avoid or substantially lessen the sig~ificant environmental effect identified in the final EIR.

(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or proiect alternatives identified in the final EIR.


The proposed vessel traffic would increas~ the chances that a boat or tanker in the area might strike a ~arine mammal. The probability of such an event is juC:igc:d to be low, but because whales are protected by federal law, a collision killing a whale is judged to be a significant impact.

Mitigation measures which substantially iessen this impact are:

1) Establish vessel corridors a.way fro'tt known areas of .. , species use (sea otters); ,_.

2} Reduce tankerin9 by use of onshore pipelines; 3) Reduce crew· vessel traffic by use of helicopters for

transporting crews; and, 4) Establishing a whale observation program a~ described

in 'the previous discussions regarding impacts to whales.

Exxon is required to implement those measur~s to the maxiitl\im extent feasible as described in Exh~bit "E" of this Item.

The No Project alternative eliminates th~s impact.

37 •

•

ISSUE:

IMPACT:

I>IARINE WATER QUALITY

Accidental oil spill results in surface slick~, tar balls, localized ~olubilization of potentially toxic organics, temporary reduction in light transmitt~nce and decreased dissolved oxygen.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or :i,ncorporated i.nto the project w~ich· avoid or substantial~y lessen ~he significant environmental affect a& iden~ified in the final EIR.

(3) Spe9ific economic, social or other consider~tions make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final ,EIR.


Oil spills from pipelines and the marine terminal will have the potential to signifi'- .. ntly degrac:le .the waters within the project area resulting in lethal effects to >marine organisms.

Impacts from oil spills can be mit;,gated partially by providing oil spill containmen'i:. Equipment o'.--mld be deployed before th~ oil could strike the shoreline. An oil spill contingency plan, critical operations and containment plan, and marine terminal operations :manual could help reduce the risk of an oil spill. These measur1ss reduce the risk and consequence of an oil, spill but not to tnsigrdf icance. Exxon is required to implement these measures as stated before.

The No Proje9t Alternative eliminates the impact •

38

,..._ .. _____ ··--- ,._ ... ~ .. -. -.....

ISSUE:

:IMPAffih

MARINE WATER QUALITY

-Ctt'!!lulative dagradation of marine water qualj~ty due to re~ease of tanker bqllast water from unca.ean cargo tanks.

FINDING: (1j Changes or alterations hdve been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid ·~r substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the ~~nal EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FIND~NG:

Tankers taking on loads at the marine terminal could c;l.ischarge oily ballast within the nearshore waters of the state of California. These discharges are an important component of oil found in the marine environ~ent and may now be the most important s~urce of oil pollution in coastal waters (personal communication between Captain Arthur McKenzie, Tanker Advisory Group and Suzanne Rogal in, California Coastal commission) ~ This ballast water could be contaminated by petroleum products resulting in significa~~ marine w~ter quality impacts to tha marine environments. While federal law prohibits discharge of ballasts within 50 miles of the U.S. coastline, tankers calling upon the Exxon marine terminal p~obably will never travel this far out at sea. As such illegal discharge may occur.

Mitigation measures which -e.q.minate this impact are to require all tankers using the term~nal to have segregated ba1last tanks or for the marine terminal to provide deballasting facilities which transfer all ballast water to shore for treatment before discharge. However, the state of California is unable to control vessel equipment and ~xxon's project does not contain water treatment for tanker ballast. As such, the Complission will require a notification and inspection procedure be developed which will allow the Com~ission to ascertain whether or not vessels using the terminal comply with Federal requirements. This, however, does not reduce thi~ impact to insignificance.

The No Projec~ Alternat~y~ entirely eliminates this impact.

39

ISSUE: VESSEL TRAFFI~

IMPACT: Significant impacts could occur in a collision involving non-oil-related vessel traffic, as members of the public could be injured or killed.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporatGd into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the &ignif icant envi~onmental effect identified in ~he fina+ EIR.

(3) Specific economic, social, or ~ther ,considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING'THE FINDING:

Pleasure boats and fishing boats do transit the area regularly, although their frequency and distribution cannot be documented. Lacking such data, the annual probability of impact estimated for encounters between tankers and crew and supply boats is used here to estimate the probability of a collision ~etween a tanker and a non-oil-related ve9sel. Based on the Ship Encounter Model, estimates for all approach and departure routes, the probabilU:y of collision is "Rare." The cc;msequence, however is severe since members of the public could b~ injured or killed in such a collision.

Mitigation measures which reduce this impact to ths maximum extent feasible are: 1) notice to ·mariners, 2/, posting of information about tanker traffic at local marinas and Harbor Master Offices I ~) locating the SAL~ on marine charts, and 4) officially designating traffic lanes. These me~sures could reduce the 1i:'kelihood qf col:lisions, but not the consequence. These mitigation measures substantially reduce the effects described and are required of Exxon.

Unfortunately, collisions between pleasure boats and tankers do occasionally occur and lives have been lost. As such, this impact can not be mitigated to insignificant levels.

Adoption of the No- Project Alternative for thi~ and future projects would eliminate future crew and supply boat traffic and keep the potential probability of irupac~ at current levels.

40

"Tl:'2' --=; t..!J .20nn ..... l9 i -.... ~ ...... -· ..... _ ,,,._,,

~ ~--~-- _. ---- - --- - __ _..

ISSUE: VESSEL TRAFFIC

IMPACT: Impacts can be expected from a pipeline rupture ~aused by impact with an anchor towed by a diaabled tanker or release of oil as a result of a col.l.ision between a tanker and platform.

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been requ:ir~t\ int er incorporated into, the, p~uject which avoid o~ substantially lessen the sig~ificant environmental effect identified in the flna1. !::.IR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FIHDtNG:

There are other pipelines that will or may be present ~hich must be considereq for the cumulative analysis. There are the pipelines betwce:1 _ the SALM and shore, the pipelines in the corridor between ~l~tform F.ondo and the shore, possible pipelines from the Sh~ll Herdµles project, and possible pipelines from the proposed ARCO Coal Oil Point Project. There is a high probability that a ai~~bled tanker could cross one of these pipeline corridors. In fact, if the tanke,L became disabled wi~hin one mile of the SALM, there is a 52 percent probabil;i,.ty that it would cross one of the pipeline corridors. If it is assumed the accident could occur anywhere along the approach or ~ departure route, the probability ;is 2,9 percent. .,.

A rupture of some of the pipelines can result in releases of oil classified as "SEVERE" and releases of gas conta,ining H2s that could reach shore.

The probability that a tanker which becomes disabled collides with the platform is presented below:

Eastern Approach: .017 Western Approach between Platform and SALM: ,,. 015 Western Approach around Platform: .017 Departure: .012

Using the same probability of a tanker becoming disabled (4.1 x 10-7 per m~le), the probability of impact for the various cases is presented below:

Annual Probability of Platform Iw~act

Route

Eas~ern Approach

Western ~ppro~ch_between Platform and SALM

175 Tankers/Year

1.1 x 10-5 2.2 x 10-5

9.7 x 10-5 .\.9 x 10-5

41

Western Apprqach around Platform

Departure

1.1 x 10-5

7.7 x 10-6

These are all classified as "RARE."

2.t- x 10-!?

1.5 x 10-5

A tanker/platform col!ision can res~lt in the release of oil from one of the tanker's cargo tanks, a maximum of around io,ooo bbls, resulting in a "SEVERE" impact. This could only occur during the tanker's outbound loaded trip. A platform is a relatively rigid object and hence there is a relatively higher probability that an impact could result in release of oil.

A support boat with sufficient horsepower (at least l,200 hp) to prevent a tanker from drifting into a platform or other dangerous situation would ~itigate the identified significant impacts. Exxon is required to have such a vessel when a tanker approaches and departs the terminal.

42

ISSUE:

IMPACT:

TERRESTRIAL AND FRESHWATER BIOLOGY.

Oil from an offshore spill ent~rs coastal sart marsh, resulting in lethal and sublethal effects on vegetation, wildlife and aquatic species; long-term habitat degradation from oil and/or cleanup operations

FINDING: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significan~ environmental effect identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE F~DING:

Several important coastal salt marshes occur along the south Coast from the Goleta area (Devereux ~lough, Goleta Slough) eastward. The effects of spilled oil entering such ecoaystetts are severe, and, once oil enters a marsh habitat, spills cannot be cleaned up under normal circumstances without severe ecological effects.

Mitigation measures which are required of Exxon are:

1) Exxon will prepare a marine terminal operations manual

2)

for review and approval of the state Lands commission. This plan will describe operating conditions and procedures for, the marine terminal, proced~res and ... conditions governing the approach to the marine .._, terminal, and -simila;t: informat:i on for departing the marine terminal. Tnis plan shall also describe critical operations and curtailment procedures. such procedures shall require that vessels shall not approach or leave the marine terminal when visibility is one mile or less and will specify other weather conditions and ~aa states in which the terminal operations will be curtailed.

Exxon shall prepare .a oil spill contingency plan ic?:" rev~_ew and a._9c§Dtaftce by the State Lands Commission. S».cti plan snali be prepared pursuant to the guidelines ~f the Commission.

Exxon shall have oil spiLl containment equipment stationed near the marine terminal and other production facilities for the purposes of containing spi'lled oil and minimizing environmental damage. Also, complete contci.inment operations must be able to respond to an Qil spill within one hour or be deployed within a time su.fficient to keep oi! from striking the shoreline, which~ver is shorter.

43 -------"r. ~- -·1

L52.2oqq -·~oo

ISSUE: CULTURAL RESOURCES

IMPACT: Potential disturbance of one anomaly with possible cultural significance from pipeline construction and abandonment from SALM to shore.

FINDING~ (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the final EIR.


one anomaly, interpreted as a potential cultura~ resource located .is within the zone of impact from anchoring {s.even times water depth) • This anomaly is subject to a, local long-term impact. One target about 40 feet by 1-3 feet is on the SALM pipeline route. No acoustic shadow indicating height above the seafloor o~ m~gnetic anomaly is associated wi~h this feature. This target is situated within the zone of disturbance associated with pipeline construc~ion. only one sonar target having an associated magnetic anomaly is interp~eted as a cultural resource by the Pelagos survey. This sonar target is described as 10 to 20 feet squar~ with assoc.i,ated numerous small targets (debri_:.J within a 250-feet diameter. Although not situated at the precise location, this feature is located within the one-mi:le radius given for the accuracy of the location of the M/V Brant, a sunken diesel vessel built in 19~6. The Pelagos survey does not discuss the possible relationship between this seafloor feature and the M/V ilra~t.

Mitigatio>:& ::;£ tl'°&:i.s impact is possible by avoidance of the anomaly by adjusting the pipeline route, and restricting any anchoring or other bottom disturbance to a distance 300 feet or gre~ter from the anom~ly. If Exxon needs to infringe upon this 300 foot buffer, Exxon will obtain the se:i;vice of a qualified marine archeologist and determine wheth~r or not the anomaly is a significan~ cultural resource. If it is significant, Exxon will adjust their pipeline route to entirely avoid the site and buffer area.

44 I"'\._ .. -- -~,·, -. ~ 2 ' ___ .:...) .20rr

.. 401 .

STATEMEHT OF OVERRIDING CQNSIDERATION

Hg,Proiect Alternative

The adoption of the No Project Alternative would eliminate those impacts on State Ticlel:ands associated with the project which qannot be mitigated to, insignificance. No new marine termina? and no pipelines from the Santa ¥nez ·unit (SYU) oil developrn~nt would be built. Selection of this alternative would also eliminate the onshore facilities proposed for pr9cessing oil and gas f,~om the SYU development.

The development of the SYU woulcl still continue whether or not the commission permitted the facilities on state tidelands. Exxon, the operator Of the SYU I has received a,11 n~cessary f3deral permits to put i~ the aclclitional 3 platforms and expand the Offshore Storage and Treatment Facility. As such, the impacts from oil development would proceed whether oi: not the Commission permitted the pipelines and marine terminal.

The 'proj_ect is also cQnsi~tent with the goals ~nd objectives

--

of the Coupty of Santa Barbara, which has already approved the Exxon project. The state Lands Commission finds that ..in comparing the impacts of the p~op9sed p~oject as being considered by the state Lands Commis~ion to ~hose of the No Project ~~ternative, the benefits of the project to the state and county ~ of Santa Barbara are gr~ater on balance th~n the level of .., environment~! risks associate~ with the project.

The proposed Exxon project also offers greater environmental e~ feg,uar<,'ls than th.e No Project Alternative. The Commission retains greater authority over the project as pr._,posed and is able to mitigate illlpacts t:o the maximum extent feasible. If the No Project Alternative i~ adopted, the Commission will have no control over the development as it will commence in the federal ocs. such development will have greater impacts to marine i·ifE'I, air quality, recreation anc:t tourii:;m, commercial fishing, and oth~r re~ources, than the1 project proposed to the Commission and mitigated as specified he~ein.

45 - ~· . - -----f')""'2-·~-:l

."· · . • ~:::: --~-~-,. ~O~s -.. ::1:-:; ;·:.::~ --- .4. 0 2 . -! -----------

.,

D.3

Findings adopted by the County of Santa Barbara for the

Exxon SYU Development Project ~re on file~in the Office

of the State Lands Commission, 18Q7 - 13th Street,

Sacramento, California 95814 and are incorporated herein by reference.

•

; ·~·- ----·--;;-····· ·--:1 ·---t:::·:t::.~·=:: ---~5.2.20J:t ;:.;::·;;-; ;· .;;:; ··~ 4 0 3 -~· -·-~--........... ,,

EXHIBIT E

Exhibit B to the Marine Terminal and pipeline

leases which imposes environmental mitigations

on the project applicant.

..- -· - ... _ .. --.. ..... ....._-... --.........:1 - • • ,'O: 2 s 2 21 ; -- · -~~-- =~~o·~f ·~--~~,

---·--·· ,,. - .... ..._ ..

• 1)

2)

3)

•

EXHIBIT •a• MARINE TERM:tNAL LEASE

ENVIROMMENT~ ltlITIGATION

Exxon shail contribute $6, 000/year to the State of California Fisheries Development Corporation· or any other state approved fund for fisheries enha~cemant as determined by the Commission. This contribution is mit~9ation for impacts to· pqmmervial fishing caused be the ooeration of the Elcxon: marine terminal facilities, and such contribution shall be used to address fishing concerns in the Santa Barbara Channel.

Exxon shall contribute to the Santa· Barbara County's Fishermen's Contingency Fund, for the purpose of compensating fisherman for gear and other su~plies actually lost as a result cf E~xon activities.

Exxon shall prepare and submit a construc'tion impact reduct: ion plan. Such p~an must be approved by the Cqm.~ission p;rior to comn:encing construction. Exxon may ~ubmit the plan prepared pursuant to Santa Barbara Condition XIV-7, to the extent that the plan prepared pursuarit to this condition addresses the requirements discussed in the remainder pf this condition.

a. Exxon shall conduct a marine biological survey of the entire marine terminal construction area and pipeline construction corridor no earlier ::han 6 months p-::-ior to actual construction. such survey spall be prepared by a qualified marine biologist and approved by the Commission. At the conclusion of the study a report shall be prepared ano· submit~ed to the Conu~ission for review. Within 6 months. of the-conclusion of construction another survey· shall be cond~cted. In the event of a significant environmental disturbance and deterioration of the marine environment not related to Exxon's activities, the Commission will evaluate the circumstances and determine whether the post construction survey will be required.

As required by the Commiss,ion, a separate kelp bed and surf grass survey sµall be performed 2 years following completion of construt;:tion by ~ "Aarine biologist approved

l

by the commission. This survey sha11 establish the amount cf kelp bed and sµrf ft grass which h~e ~ot re-established ~r recovered fron: the impacts from cons...~ruction activitiee.

The exact sgope ot these surveys shall be addresseg- in the const;uct_ion impact re.ductiori plan which will be reviewed and apprgved by the Commission.

b. The plan shall descri!:ie and implement methods which minimize thQ time p~riod for construction on $tate tidelands.

c. Exxon's plan sha,ll address methods which min~mize seafloor m6dificatio~s and dist~r~ance during construction. The plan shall a,1eo address post construct-ion remedial techniques. Exxon shall al~o bundle pipelin~s where pob~ible.

d. ~!l construction equipment, anchors, and mooring· buoys shall be removed from Staj:;e waters within J months of the completion of all construction.

Ex~on shall establish vessel corridors through the kelp beds which restrict vessels crossing the kelp beds to two·, l5C foot; wide corridors.

f. Exxon shall describe how all intrqsion into the kelp beds and surf grass :areas shall be miniJT!iZed.

Wh~~ ~elp or surf grass is damaged qr remove!;\ -~y Exxon's activities, Exxon sha~'l re-establish such kelp and surf grass bedsafter completion c.f construction. Exxo1• shall des9ribe in the plan, the procedures ~hich will be used to reestablish the kelp and sure grass beds. In the :event tha~ the beds are not reestabl~shed wi~hin 2 years of completion of construction, Exxon shall contribute to the Santa ~arba~a _County Fish~ries Enhancement Fund, $15,ooo.oo; per -~9re of >kelp and surf qras$ dj.sturbance still in a dist'.!4.bed condition. The forilnila for determining the acreage lost sh~ll be -~peci~ fied i~ the construction impact;. re·auctiolf plan.

2: •

•

such con~ribution shall be used for kelp and s~rf grass bed restoration projects in the Santa Barbara Channel.

g. Exxon shall conduct nearshore construction actitvities only during November 1 to March 31. s~ch scheduling wi11 minimize impacts to lobster populat.ions, air quality and recre.;.. ation at the State Beaches nea~by. Exxpn shall address in their impact reduction plan, st'3ps whicn w~ll be taken to reduce impacts which might be caueed by an¥ ~xtension ot the time period for construction~

h. Exxon shall design and construct their pipeline corridors to avoi~ the i¢lentified· cultural anomaly on the SALM pipeline route. If B>Peon i~ unable to avoid this anomaly t Exxq;l shall investigate this anomaly to determine it~ significance as a cultural resom:ce. A plan for investigation ~nd' preservation of any ~ul tural resource shal~ be includeq in the construction impa~t reduction plan!

i. Exxon shall minimize blasting in the nearshore area. Exxon's construction impqct reduction pla~ sha~l detail how blasting s~all be minimizeq~ Exxon's plan sha~l also specify how potential e:ff ects of such blasting on Threatened and .Endangered Species and Marine ~am~al~ shal~ be ~inim;zed. :,:njury or death of T}freate:rt:!d or Endangered Species and Na+in~ ~ammals shall be avoiqed.

j . Exxon shall include in their construction i~pact reduction plan, msthpds ~o reduce impact~ to Cetaceans (Whales, Dolphins, etc.) during th~ c~tacean migration period~ Decemb~r th~~ugh March. Exxon shall provide for ~ qualified marine m?mmal observer approved by the Commission. Weather permi tt;ing, the obs~rver .ahall make a· daily aerial survey of the coastline from Point Conce;.tion to Coal Oil Point to determine whecher or not cetaceans a.ce in the area. For ?erioqs of inclement'weatner, Exxon snaii describe in th:a p;Lan how it will b~ 4etermined if cetacean~ are near t~e constrticti9n ~one. The pi an ~h~ll alsQ requ.tre tnat: if cetaceans are pres~nt, the qbserver shall

3

·-:_~~-····· < 2 5 2. 2,i'~ ·...;.: ·-- :-.. ; . .

.... ~- .... . 407 ..

continue to monitor thei:J:" actiyitie~. 'l'l;e A plan shall specify how and when construction ...,. activities will be reduced or cea~~d if the Cetaceans approach the copstruction zone. The distance trom the construction zone snail be., the detemining factol.•. .For example, tile plan sh~ll specify that when Cetaceans are within 2 miles 9! the constrµction z~ne, Exxon sha~l sqspend blasting until the animals have l~ft thi~ zone.

The plan shall also desc~ibe how t~e Cetaceans will ~e waz-ned of obstructions in th~ wateX' during- the perioc1 of in'\P·~ivity. Exxon shall have deploy~d acousticaL -:pingers" or sonar reflactqra when Cetacean~ ~re within 2 miles. Exxon's plan ·shall .,,._ describe th~ d~ployment of these acoustical devices.

~~l survey methoas shall be ~pp~cve~ by the Commissior and all daily rapo?;ts nt numbers and cetacean activity shall pe submitted to the State Lanqs commission at the conclusion of construction.

k. Exxon's· construction impact reduction plan • shall specify ho~ barge anchQ~s will be set. Where possible,. lay barge anchors shall be set to avoid large rocky· f~aturt:"S .in the offshore area, The plan shall also specify how disturbance to nearshore rocky features shall be minimized. E~xon ~hall notify ,~he statf of the Commission if and when construction operations will be 6ccurrin~ in these habitats.

l. Exxon shall specify in their c::>nstruction impact reduction ,!>lan how they inten~ - to minimize turbidity, Best availa~le conotruction techniqµes shall be used.

m. Exxon's const.ruction impact reduction plan shall provide for annual co~pensatiQn, for a maximum period of 5 years, to the ·state ,of California Fisheries Development Corporation or any state approved fund f~r fisheries enhancement as determin~~ by th~ Co~i••i~n. such compensation is ~iti9ation ~or the disturban~e of. the ~ar.ine benthic environment which results in lost comm~raial tishing opportunities .and ahall J)e used tor e

4 -~· ---- - ........ ~ .......... - ~~~ .... -1 ')5 2 . ' 'A••••.. • ·~ I..· 21d

• •,o~••M • '• • r4oa· O

" . ........ ..... . ------·---.,_...._ -

•• mitigation of tishing t':oncerns in the Santa Barbara Channel area. The calculation tor c0,"'\puting the annual col\ipensation shall use the pre- and post construction marine biologic: survey(s) (Condition 3 (a) of this attachment) of the seafloor results for det~rmining disturbed acreage totals and incorporat~the following formula •

.EQBHYLj\: C=AREA(P+P(O'+I) j, where c is the contribution in dollars, Area is the affected area in acres, P ia the average market value in dollars. per ~c:ce of the fishery lost by the commercial fishing acst!vity, o is· the output multip~ier, and I is the income multiplier.

The following table shall ba used to determine the coefficients P, I, and O:

f ISHERX Trawling Diving Trapping Set Gill Net

E 0.23 76.0 8 .6'0 S.36

.I • 9969 .9969 .9969 .9969

.2 2.105 . 2.105 2.1.os 2.1()5

4) The eY.act location and cqnf iguration of ali sea floor modifications resulting from construction shall be published in a ne>tice to COllU!lercia~ fishermen issued froru t}!:e commercial fishermen .liaison's of£ice. 'l'his will allow commercial fishermen to avoid such obstruc·l:ions. such notice shall be supplied tc the Commiss:lon once published.

5) Exxon shall consolidate to the :maximum extent £easi->le all oil and gas operation and support facili~ies.

6) Tanker traffic shall direct~y approach the ~arine termina3. from the VTSS along an approach normal to the shorelfr1e.

7) Exxon shall participate in or 'implement a support vessel i!tnd tanker operators training program to inform vessel operators of commercial fiµhing activities and how to recognize and avoid commercial f ishinq operatic•ns. A plan for such program· ~hall be prepared by Exxon and submitted t~ the commission for approval prior tc1 operation of the facilities.

8) Exxon s~all design their project to conserve energr to the maximum extent £easible.

5

~. • .. • I'

----··· -,,5· 2···· .-.·, • , ~: _ ':. • 21 e ·

··~409 .... ··- . ,,, .. ; . .: _______ ... ___ _

9) Exxon shall post a notice to mariners advising them o~ tanker vessel traffic at and near the SALM. such notice shall be posted in a' form .~pproved by the u~s. Co~st Guard prior to operation of the terminal.

..

6

- ---~")-'· ·2-,-·~ . •-: ,5 .2lf . - ' -_. 41 a _.. .;;_ .... _ .. __ ..__ -.

•

•

•

EXHIBIT •B• M.'f\RINE PIPELJ:NJl LEASE

ENVIRONMENTAL ~:':'1IGA'I']:O~S

1) Exxon shall contributs to the Santa Barbara county's Fishermen's Contingency Fund, for the pµrpose of compensating fisherman for gear and other supplies actually lost as a result of Exxon act~vities.

2) Exxon shall prepare and submit a construction impact:. reduction plan. such plan must be approved by the Commission prior to commencing construction. Exxon may submit the plan prepared pursuant to Santa Barbara C1:mdi tion XIV-7, to the extent that th~ plan prepared p11rs~ant to this condition addresses the requirements discussed in the remainde~ of this condition.

a. Exxon shall conduct a marine biological survey qf the entire marine terminal construction area and pipeline construction corridor no earlier than 6 ·ino11ths prior to actual construction. Sq<;b.. survey shall be prepared by a gu~~i~i~a marine biologist and approv~d0 -by t;h~ Col,Tlmission. At t1~e Cone) t.lSion Of 1;;he study a report shall 'be prepared al'\n submitted to the Commission for review. Within \S months of the conclusion of 9onstruction ~nother survey shall be conducted. In \\;he event of a significant environmental dHltu:t"hance and deterioration of the marine ~.pvironment not related to Exxon's activit.l~es, the Commission will evaluate the circumstances and determi~e whether the post constJ;"~9tion survey will be required.

As required by the Commission, a separate kelp bef and surf grass survey shall be performed 2 years f oll~wing completion, of construction by a marine bio'logist approved by the Commission. ~his survey shall establish the amount of kelp bed an~ surf grass which has not ~e-est~blished or recover~d from the impacts ~rom construction activities.

The exact scope of these surveys sh~ll be addressed in the construction impact

l

reduction plan which will be reviewed and '""'·· approved by the Commission. ~WI'

b. The plan shall describe and implement methods which minimize the time period for construction on State tidelands.

c. Exxofi 4·s plan s:Qall address methods wbich. mi~imize - sea~;t,oor modificatioJ!s 'i~nd disturbance during· eonst~ct:ion. l'He plan shall also address post construction remedial techniques. Exxon shall also bundle pipelines where possible.

d. All con~truction equipment, anchors, and mooring buoys shall be removed from state waters within 3 months of tQe completion of all construction.

e. Exxon shall establish vessel corridors through the kelp beds which restrict vessels crossing the kelp beds to two, 150 foot wide corridors.

f. Exxon shall describe how all intrusion into the kelp beds and surf grass areas shall be & minimized,. W

g.

Where kelp or sur·f grass is damaged or removed by Exxon's activities, E.iy.xon shall re-establish suc:;:h kelp and surf -grass beds after completion of constructio~. Exxon shall descril;?e .i,n the plan, the procedures wqich will be used to reestablisii. the kelp and surf grass beds. In the event that the beds ar~ not reestdblished within 2 years of completion of construction, Exxo~ shall contribute to the Santa Barbara County Fisheries Enhancement Fund, $1s,ooo.oo per acre of kelp and surf grass di,€11:,urbange sti11 in a disturbed condition. 'l'lie foz:-;aula· 'for, determining the acreage lost shall be specified in the construction impact -reduction plan.

such contribution shall be used for kelp and surf grass beq restoration · projects in the Santa Barbara Channel. y

Exxon ·shall conduct nearshore construction activities only during November 1- to M{lrch 3~. such scheduling will minimize impacts to

2 .. . ' ,. "1 ~· .... ' ... - ,--= ' ·-·~· . •' ·--I\ •• ._, r ........ · r•i: L..:.:.:... : • ~· ..

•

•

i.

•

. .. ' ' . • . J . ., ' . • . - .·-_ • . . : .

< . ., ,-;~- ... , • .• \•.... ., . ' . - ' . . ·. . ~ . . . .

• . .; . \- ·, I • • . - • . - .

lobster populations, air quality and recreation at the state Beaches nearby. Exxon shall address in their impact reduction plan, steps which will be taken t9 reduce impacts which might be caused by any e~tension of fhe ~ime period for constructi~n.

Exxqa shall minimize blasting in the nearshdre area. Exxon's construction impact reduction plan shall detail how blasting shall be minimized. Exxon's plan shall also specify how potential effects of such bleating- on Threatened and Endangered Species and Marine Mammals shall be minimized. Death or Injury to Threatened or Endangered Species and Marine Mammals shall be avoided.

Exxon· shall include in thei-r construction impact reduction plan, methods to reduce impacts to cetaceans (Whales, Dolphins, etc.) during the cetacean migration period, December through March. Exxon shall provide for a qualified marine mammal observer approved ~y the C9mmisBion. Weather permitting, the ob~erver shall mak~ a daily aerial suri1ey of ·the qcastline from Point con~eption to Coal Oil Poi~t to determine whether or not Cetaceans . are in the·· cn;aa-• FQc periods of inclement we~ther, Exxon shall ~ascribe in the plan how it will be determined if Cetaceans are near the construction zone. The plan shall also require that if cetaceans are present, the obser\rer shall continue to monitor their activities. The plan shall specify how and when construction activities will b-e reducl:!d or ceased if the cetaceans approach the constr\~P~ion zone. The distance from the construction zone shall he the determining factor. For ~xample, the plan shall specify that when Cetaceans are within 2 miles of the constr~ction zone, Exxon shall suspend blasting until the animals have left this zone.

The plan shall also describe how the Cetaceans will be warned of obstructions in the water during tha period of inactivity. Exxon shall have deployed acoustical "pingers* or sonar reflectors when cetaceans are within 2 milee. Exxon's plan shall describe the deployment of these acoustical devices •

3 ·---'" -w--.,,-5,......,2----·, -:.·.l.:. :~ • .. : .• :.::: '- • 2 li '

4·r3-··-~ -- -···---! ... ------~

: .. ;.:.,,:·.: .' ::~

All survey methods shall be approved by the • commission and all daily reports of nUllbers and Cetacean activity shall be submitted to

j.

the state Lands Commission at the conclusion of construction~

Exxon's construction impact reduction plan, shall specify how barge anchors will be se~. Where possible, lay barge anchors 6hall, be aet to avoid large rocky 'features ir~ the off shore area. The plan shall also specff:'-( how disturbance to nearshor~ rocky feature~\ shall be mini~ized. Exxon shall notify th& stulf of the Commission if and when construction operations will be occurring in these habitats .•

k. Exxon shall specify in t.neir construction impact reduction plan how they intend to minimize turoidity. Best avaifable constructi9n techniques shall be used.

l. ~xxon' s construction iIT.pact reduction plan shall provide for annual compensat~on, for a maximum period of 5 years, to the state of California Fisheries Development corporation A or any state approved fund for fisheries ..., enhance~ent as determined by the commission. such oompansation is mitigation for the disturbance of the mariue benthic environment which results in lost c~mmercial fishing opportunities and shall be used for mitigation of fishing concerns in the Santa Barbara Channel area. The calculation for computing the annual compen~ation shall use the pre- and post co~struction marine biologic survey(s) [Condi~ion 3 (a) of this attachm~~tJ of the seafloor results for determining disturbed acreage totals and incorporate the following formula •

.E.ORMQLA: C=AREA[P+P(O+I)], where c is the contribution in dollars, Area is the affected area in acres, P is the average market value in dollars per acre of the fishery lost by the commercial fishing activity, o is the output. multiplier, and I is the income multiplier.

The following table shall ,b_e used to dotarrnine- the coefficients P, I,, and o:

4 1 • __ ~zsz . 21) - •. ··4.: -4 1--4---·.

" •• ' .. __._. •• •-". ""'! ----------·-.. "·- . - -·

·'·

e

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

E. l. .Q 0.23 .9969 2,,.105 76.0 .9969 2.105 8.60 .9969 2.105

Net 8.36 .9969 2.105

The exact location and configuration of all seafloor modifications resulting from construction shall ~~ published in a notj.ce to commercial fishermen issued from the com.~ercial fishermen liaison's office. '!'his will allow comme~cial fishermen to avoid such obstructions. such notice shall be given to ·the commission when issued.

Exxon shall consolidate to the maximum extent feasible all oil and gas operation and support facilities.

Exxon shall prepare a plan for gpverning the transportation of crews to and from t:Ifo plat.Perm. such plan shall specify how boat traffic to and from the platform shall be minimized and xestricted to designated corridors agreed upon between the oil industry and the fishing industry.

Exxon shall participate in or implement a support vessel and tanker operators training program to in£orm vessel operators of coinmercial fishing activities and how to recognize and avoid commercial fishing operations. A plan for such program shall be prepared by Exxon and submitted to the commission for approval prior to operation of the faqilities.

Exxon shall design the~r project to conserve energy to the maximum extent feas$ble.

5

EXHIBIT 11 F11 ,PRC 4977.1

Those parcels of land lying in the bed t. ' the Santa Barbara Channel.., in th~ vicinity of Capitan.,. f!ounty Qf Santa Barbara, !!:tate of California, being more par<ticularly described as ~oilows:

PARCEJ', l ---A pare~~ of tide and submergea land 200 feet wid~ the centerline being described lt!l fol1ows:

COMMENCING at State Hignway Monument No. 41-36A, as sho~ on State Highway Right of Way ~ap V-SB-2-F, SB-101-PM, ,;4.1;5 to '•'•.56, (California Coordinate System Zone 5 Coordinnteae, X = l,:;83,9811- nnd Y = 356,~5;>); thence S 2? 44• 3811 E"434 feet to the TRUE POillT OF BEG!NlJING, (California Coordinate System Zone 5 Coordinates: X = 1,384, 185 and Y = 356,581); thence S 07° 09' 3811 E 2600 feet to a point herein referred to as Point A (California Coordinate System Zone 5,coordinates: X = 1,384,509 and Y = 354,001), and the end of the herein described centerline.

EXCEPFil!G f ttEREFROM that portion lying landward of the ordinary high water mark.

PARCEL 2

A parcel of submerged land 200 feet wid~ the centerli~e being.more particularly described as follows:

m.nnnmm at Po:u,t A as deacribed in Parcel 1 (California Coordinate System Zone 5 Coorginatea: X = 1,384,509 and Y = 354,COl); thence S 45 57' 1311 W 23,142 feet, more or leas, to the boundary of the State of Ca!ifornia, as described in the u.s. SupreMe Court Case 382 u.s. 448, ?lo. 5 original, dated 1966, being the- end of the herein described centerline.

EXCEPTnili THEREFROM any portion lying within Par·.:el l.

PARCEL 3

A parcel of sub~rged land 200 feet wide the centerline being more particularly dcsc~ibed as follows:

BEXlINNING at Point A afi described in Parcel l (California

-2-

Coordinate Syst~m Zone 5 Coorginates: X = 1,~84,509 and Y = 354,00l); thence S 38 00' 0011 E 1200 feet to ~ !~int being herein refe~red to as P9int B (Califorliia Goordinate System Zone 5 Coordinates: X = 1,385,247 and Y = 353,055), being the end of the herein described centerline.

EXCEPrING THEREFROM any portion lying within Parcels l & 2.

PARCEL 4

A circular parcel of submerged land having a radiua of 800.00 feet, the center or which being Point B, as described in Parcel 3 (California Coordinate System Zone 5 Coordinates: X = 1,385,247 and Y = 353,055); EXCE:i'TIUG THEREFROM any portion lying within Parcel 3.

ErID OF DFSORIP.rIOH

j /1 , ~=:..L4-~~.\"i~~---------C.hGcked~.,...._-t-_...~_~~-·~1~------~

:..__,~~;+.-~~~~__;Date 9)A'/.J

~ U.!.E'll).\7! FACE

1..,-~1 ··-.: !1.,.., .,. ,, ~·- • ~.J~

2'52 :, --··r.2.L 41{ __

california state lands commission...• . minute 11'.cmi • ii'# thi•-calendar...

Documents