Loading...
SR-103007-13E1- .October 30, 2007 Council Meeting: Santa Monica, California CITY CLERK'S OFFICE -MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Councilmember McKeown Date: October 30, 2007 13-E: Request of Councilmember McKeown that the City Council oppose the OceanWay LNG Terminal proposed for construction off Santa Monica Bay, and convey Santa Monica's opposition to appropriate au#horities. Company floats offshore LNG proposal Daily Breeze -Torrance, Calif. Da#e: Sep 27, 2007 Start Page: n/a Section: News Text Word Count: 849 ®ocument Text SOUTH BAY: Plan is met with vocal criticism from local elected officials. By Kristin S. Agostoni STAFF WRITER A Santa Monica company planning a liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of Las Angeles International Airport rolled out its proposal Wednesday to a group of supporters and skeptics, previewing the start of a long and likely controversial approval process. The open house at the Los Angeles Airport Marriott marks the beginning of a multiagency environmental analysis for the OceanWay Secure Energy project, which is being reviewed by the city of Los Angeles and the U.S. Coast Guard and Maritime Administration. Woodside Natural Gas, an affiliate of an Australian energy company, wants to plant a pair of buoys in 3,000-foot-deep waters beyond the Santa Monica Bay. The terminal would sit roughly 21 miles from Point Dume, 23 miles from the Palos Verdes Peninsula and 27 miles from Dockweiler State Beach. Tankers carrying LNG would link up to specially equipped Woodside ships at least 35 miles from shore, where the liquid would be vaporized using an air regassification system. The company ships would then connect to the buoys, and the gas would be funneled to the coast via underwater pipelines. The company would run a pair of 24inch-diameter pipes along the ocean floor, eventually crossing the northern end of Dockweiler. Buried onshore pipelines would then snake through a section of vacant airport sand dunes and link up to a transfer facility at 5651 96th St. before tying into existing Southern California Gas lines. When construction is complete, LNG President Steve Larson said, the operation will be virtually nonexistent. "Once built, it's gone," he said. "It's an invisible infrastructure project at that point." Woodside touts LNG as aclean-burning fuel and the terminal as a project that can help the state meet growing energy demands. Natural gas production in Califomia satisfies only 13 percent of statewide demand, with the remaining 87 percerrt of supplies coming from other states and Canada via interstate pipelines, according to a 2005 Califomia Energy Commission report cited in the application. Because of growing demand, competition is expected #o drive prices higher. Although several LNG terminals have been pitched along the Southern California coastline -including proposals at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and, most recently, Malibu -none has been approved, and each has generated a good bit of opposition. But Woodside officials say their project is different. Unlike other plans to use land or build structures at sea, the buoys will serve as the OceanWay port and shouldn't be visible from shore. The ships, they say, will use aforced-air vaporization system to convert the liquid to gas with minimal emissions. Wednesday's meeting of about 125 people drew mixed reactions. "As most of us know, since 2001, the price of natural gas has doubled," said Mike Arias, president of the Neighborhood Council of Westchester- Playa del Rey and one of several local leaders supporting the plan. "I know that's something we're all really concerned about." Added community activist Denny Schneider: 'They chose a path along the ocean floor that is as safe as possible. They're coming onshore underground." But others questioned the need to invest in LNG rather than sources of renewable energy such as wind and solar power, as well as the project's effects on marine life. And Malibu Mayor Andy Stern blasted officials for holding the meeting near LAX when the terminal would sit closer to Point Dume. "Why aren't we in a local Malibu place?" he asked. "We got zero notice. Nothing." South Bay Rep. Jane Harman has also expressed opposition, arguing the ships carrying LNG to the offshore buoys could be vulnerable to terrorism attacks. In an August Daily Breeze opinion piece, Harman wrote that "although LNG is likely an important part of California's energy future, unlike the other proposed projects, this is the only one that would place a new natural gas supply adjacent to a major terrorist target." Placing the terminal next to LAX, when alternate si#es exist, "brings to mind the David Bowie lyric putting out fire with gasoline,"'she said. In February, the Government Accountability Office released a report analyzing whether LNG carriers could become targets, causing the cargo to spill and catch fire. The study found that a fire from a tanker could ignite so fiercely it would burn people's skin a mile away, although it said the effects would vary depending on the amount of gas released and the winds. It urged the Energy Department to perform more research. L.A. City Councilman Bill Rosendahl also opposes the plan. In a statement, he said the terminal "poses serious environmental, health and safety risks for the community at large and is an unfair imposition on nearby residents." The application indicates the pipelines would have to be buried near Vista del- Mar and run east about 4 miles, crossing LAX property and Pershing Drive and following Westchester Parkway toward the receiving center on 96th Street. Traffic in those areas would be impaired during construction, the application states. Woodside expects to have detailed design plans by 2009. kristi n. agostoni@dai lybreeze.com Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. COMMrREE GN HOMELAND SECURITY 9uecDMNrt,EE ax IxTU.I+GFfKE.lraoaggirop, gxAipx6. AND TGIPDwsn, teSR A9S£SSRgxi CHAIR SGI<CpMMHiEE ON 90RDER. MARrtnvR, aNo GweAi rAUNtERiERRgitgn BLUE DOG COALITION NAiI'N10.1 $ECUgfrY WOR9N6 GROyp CO~CHgrp CONGRESSIONAL SPACE POWER CAUCUS co-cHAw The Honorable Eric Garcetp President, Los Angeles City Council 200 North Spring Street, Room 470 Los Angeles, California 900]2 Bear Council ,a cztti; ~! ~, May 31, 2007 ENEROYANDCEpN~MERCE 3UBCpMMR,Ee Ok TEIFCIXAWNMJHI0.N9 ANe IxE INTERNET SuamMMmenE~O~~x EE~aGi ANe AiR YVA~{T/ NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION I am writing because I have signi$cant concerns regarding the Ocean Way Secwe Energy liquefied natural gas (LNG) deepwater port proposal that Woodside Natwal Gas is planning to construct, own and operate approximately 27 miles offshore from Los Angeles International Airport {LAX). The OceanWay project would enable specially-built transport ships to dock at a floating buoy anchored beneath the swface of the water, and utilize asea-to-land pipeline to transport re-gasified LNG to the rirairrland's natural gas network. The unmanned submersible buoys would be approximately 27 miles offshore from LAX {where the ocean depth is 3,000 feet) and transport the gas through a pipeline to a landfall site in my Congressional District located just west of Pershing Drive and Westchester Parkway in the airport buffer area between LAX and the ocean. Because the gas pipelines would reach land on City property, the City of Los Angeles has primary jwisdiction for the onshore project. As Chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence & Terrorism Risk assessment, it is my job to understand and minimize potential threats to ow citizens and critical infrastructure. In my view, Locating a complex network of natural gas pipelines under parts of LAX would be tantamount to adding lighter fluid to a harbeque - ai what experts believe is the top terrorist target in California. I encourage the City of Lets Angeles to take a very close look at this project, not only from an environrrrentat and health perspective, but from a security perspective as weal. ~ Mer er of Congress ec: Mayor Antonio;7iilaraigosa Members of the Los Anger City Council RESPOND TO; f:4 NDO: WASNrtEGrgN.OC: j] 2321 ROSEMANS AvENUe WlramxcTDN; SUrrE 3270 ^ T400 RAVauON FbU$E OFwcE BUQOKUG ~ 544 NORTH AVALON BWLEVAAD Ei $EGNNDD, CA 30245 WA9NINOTdY, DC 20575 Sulre 367 PMDNE: t370) R43-3035 PHDNE: {2 021 22 5-82 2tt Fax (2027228-7190 Wa.MINGTON, CA 90744 Fax: C11D}643-6945 PHDNE: {3701 ~<9-6292 FAx i3f01549-6250 Website: mvw.hovse.govlFlarmaR COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY Sb9COMMITTEE ON 1 INiEWGENLE.INFdtMAT10N SHAgING. ANO TEpflOPL4M RISK AggESSMEN{ CHAIR SUSCOMMRTEE bN. p-, ~ A BOgbEP~MANTIM E, ANp 9 oATVREJK7`Ar® GLbflM1L rAUNiERTENPORISNI V ~j VV E YY VV j}'j(-Z~ J~NF u.a In l`~A.*T BLUE DOG COALITION 36T$ I31STI2ICT, CALIFORNIA -]lv. NATONAL $ECURIttwORNING GROUP CpCHAIfl CONGRESSIONAL May 22, 2007 SPACE POWER CAUCUS CO-CHAIR The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor of California State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814-3325 Dear Governor Schwarzenegger: COMMITTEE ON ENERGYAND COMMERCE SUeCOMMRiEE ON TELECUMMUNICATONS AND THE INiEgNET SVBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGYAyp AIp QUA„T. NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION I applaud yourefforts to steer our State in a greener direction. Whethee the issue is carbon emissions, clean water, or ecosystem preservation; California is leading the way: We are showing the world that promoting a healthy environment and robust economy is noYa zero-sum game; that the two can go hand-in-hand. Key to maintaining ourcompetitive edge is ensuring that California's current and future energy needs are metwithout degrading the air webreathe, the water we drink, and the qualitybf our coastline. Of particular concern to my constituents and me is the issue of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). As you are well aware, a number of LNG projects have been proposed offthe California coast, including one by Woodside Natural Gas- a subsidiary of Woodside Petroleum,. Australia's lazgestpublicly traded oil and gas exploration and production company. The Woodside project would usespecially built transport ships to dock. at a floating buoy anchored below the water's surface and transfer LNG via pipeline to an onshore natural gas network which runs beneath. Los Angeles international Airport (LAX). While Woodside claims its marine facility would tieenvironmentally sensitive, it has4hus far refused o discussthe impactof piping LNG underwater to LAX -one of the busiest airports in the world. As Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence & Terrorism Risk Assessment, it is my jab to understand and minimize potential threatsto our citizens. and critical infrastructure. Tn my view, locating a complex network of LNG pipelines under parts of LAX would be tantamountto adding lighter fluid. to a bazbeque - at what experts agree is the top terrorist target in California. I applaud your decision lasCweek to halt the Cabrilto Port LNGprojectand agree wholeheartedly that. any LNGproject must conform to California's strict environmental standards in order to be approved. But in addition to the environmental issues associated with Woodside's project, there are also enormous security risks. EsSECUNRO: 2327 $OSECRANS AVENUE SurtE 3276 Et SEGUNOO, CA 90245. PHowe. (370) 643-3fi36 FAx:(310)643-6446 WASHINGTON ~('; 2490 RAYBGRN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC29516 PHONE:.(202) 225220 Fax: (202F 226-7290 We6site: www.house:govPoalman PRINTEOON P.ECYCLEO PMER WILMINGTON: 544 NORTH AVALONBDULEVARO Surzk397 wItMINGTON, CA.90744 PHONE:1310}549-8282 FAx: 1370}549-8250 Statement of Congresswoman Jane Harman Presented to the September 26, 200, ScopingMeeting regarding YiTOOdside Natural Gas Inc. OceanWay Secure Energy LNG DWP I am very disappointed that I am not able to testify in person regarding the Woodside Natural Gas Inc. OceanWay Secure Energy Deepwater port project because it will impose significant burdens on those whom I represent in California's 36a' Congressional district. My district Includes communities on all sides of the airport and this project is designed to come ashore hi my district on the beach side of LAX. While I am a strong proponent of clean fuels, including natural gas, I do not believe this project is either wise or beneficial to the people of my district, or all of Southern California. Despite the project being called OceanWay Secure Energy, I have significant concerns about the security of the project, particularly with regard to its proximity to LAX-the top terrorist target on the West Coast. During the past 33 years LAX has been the target of two bombings, two attempted bombings (including the Millennium Bomber} and a fatal handgun attack. I believe siting this facility near LAX with dual high pressure pipelines transporting natural gas from the facility to a site near the runways could make LAX an even more attractive target to terrorists. Several months ago, I expressed my concerns in fetters to the Governor of California and the President of the Los Angeles City Council. Then, on August 1, I authored an opituon piece in the Daily Breeze explaining in detail why I believe that this project would "make the bull's eye on LAX's hack even bigger." I appreciate the complexity of the environmental review process and urge you to examine these, and the other issues presented here today, so that we all understand just what this project will do, and how it will affect those who live along the Los Angeles coast. Besides this statement, I will submit for the record the two letters and op-ed I referenced, as well as further information prepared by my staff regarding the potential impact of the project on security, noise, LAX operations, and our region's air quality. Thank you. Attachments/4 - Supplemental Information (3 pages} - Copy of May 22, 200'7 Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger - Copy of May 31, 2007 Letter to LA City Council Pres. Eric Garcetti - Copy of August 1, 2007 Daily Breeze op-ed "Let's not invite terrorists to LAX." Su olemental Information Submitted by Ren Jane Harman Making A Top Terrorist Tar¢et More Attractive Although LAX officials have implemented some important security measures since 9111, such as creating an on-site bomb squad and screening all baggage, the airport is still considered the top terrorist target in California. Unfortunately, the Woodside Natural Gas OceanWay Secure Energy proposal would place a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG} terminal in Santa Monica Bay just off the coast of LAX. Natural gas would be transported from a submersible terminal through pipelines along the ocean floor to landfall along the airport's edge. While several LNG projects have been proposed along the West Coast, this is the only one that would place a new natural gas supply adjacent to a major terrorist target. In the view of Rep. Harman, approving this site would make this already attractive target even more attractive, since such an attack could not only cause loss of life but also cripple air traffic nationally, intemtpt fuel supplies for California and disrupt the regional economy. Itt June, four men were indicted in New York on suspicion of planning to blow up a system of jet fuel tanks that supply JFK airport through a network of pipelines. There is evidence that the suspects conducted extensive surveillance of the airport and attempted to reach out to other al Qaeda-inspired terrorists. Thankfully, the plot was foiled. But if their attack had succeeded, you can be sure that the focus of law enforcement would now be on the security of fuel supplies and pipelines in and around airports across America. We must be vigilant about the threat of a similar plot at the lazgest airport on our coast. As Rep. Harman wrote in her August 1, 2007 op-ed, it makes no sense to make the bull's-eye on LAX's back even bigger. The Threat of an attack on an LNG Shin Under Woodside's proposal there will be long-distance ships known as LNG Carriers (LNGCs} transporting the fuel across the ocean and meeting up approximately forty to 120 miles offshore with specially-designed regasiftcation ships known as Regasification LNG Carriers (RLNGCs). At that point, aship-to-ship transfer of the LNG occurs and the LNG is then converted to natural gas. As many here will recall, in October 2000, the USS Cole, a guided missile destroyer with a crew of 350 sailors and one of the world's most advanced warships, was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen to refuel. A small craft carrying high explosives came alongside the ship and detonated, ripping a massive hole in the wazship and killing 17 sailors. One shudders to think of a similar attack on LNG vessels off our coast. Supplemental Inforu~ation to the Statement of Rep. Jane Hannan OceanWay LNG DWP -Docket Number USCG-2007-26844 Page 1 While the Woodside Application states that a Security Vulnerability Assessment of the Woodside Project has been conducted, it is neither clear which scenarios were identified, nor the study's results. If it has not already been examined, the threat of a USS Cole type of attack should be considered as well as a potential airplane attack on an LNG ship and a possible hijacking of an LNG carrier. Each of these scenarios tames with them the threat of significant property and economic damage, and loss of life. Remember too that an explosion on a shig filled with LNG may not necessarily be caused by terrorism, Therefore there must be a review of all types of threats, including terror attacks, natural disasters and possible ship accidents or leaks. Reducing Onr Nation's Reliance on Forei Sources of Enersv A key component of any national energy policy must be reducing America's reliance on foreign sources of energy. Importing LNG means increasing U.S. dependence on foreign countries for electrical power, heating-and cooking fuels. At this point, it is not clear whether Woodside intends to export natural gas from Australia or from other nations with large natural gas reserves. Nafions exporting LNG are the same ones exporting oil; Russia, Qatar and Iran hold almost 54% of global gas reserves. Others incltade Algeria, Indonesia, Lihya, Nigeria, Egypt and Oman. These nations are among the top exporters of natural gas today, while several others nations are looking to exporting LNG as a way of monetizing their natural gas resources. These nations include Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Peru. Given the issues regarding energy security and the need to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy (particularly from unstable or hostile nations), is it really wise to approve a project that could actually increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy? Imnact on LAX Operations From its application, it is clear that Woodside imends to use LAX's secured fence line for its own benefit as part of the construction of the natural gas pipelines. Several issues must be examined. For instance, the pipelines delivering natural gas to just inside LAX are bigger and under much higher pressure than other gas pipelines under LAX. What kind of security will be necessary for these pipelines? Will there be the need for permanent shore-based natural gas receiving pipelines and equipment, adding another layer of security complexity to LAX operations? 24/7 Drilling Noise in Piava del Rev Drilling noise will also be a factor when Woodside installs the offshore pipeline, According to Exhibit A, Project Description Section 7.6.4.1, "Offshore pipeline construction wilt be a 24 hour/7 days per week operation for the duration of the installation." Now, just because this is called "offshore" does not mean this section ofthe pipeline is all underwater. The offshore pipeline crosses "the beach and nearshore area." The potential noise impact on Playa del Rey residents is enormous - -particularly if the several months of drilling is conducted primarily from the land side. Air Quality in the Sonth Bav Supplemental hif`ormation to the Statement of Rep. Jane Haimau Oceanway LNG DWP -Docket Number USCG-2007-26844 Pane Residents of coastal Los Angeles County enjoy a beautiful coastline, but the pleasant environment is o8en deceptive. The air quality can be horrible. And much of it is the result of diesel-powered vessels traveling to and from the Ports of LA and Long Beach to ports in Asia. Mr. Chung Liu, the Deputy Executive Officer for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, who is also the District's chief scientist, said in a recent testimony before the State Lands Commission that the non-desert areas of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties shoulder the burden of 52 percent ofthe entire nation's particulate matter exposure. He said particulate matter is linked to more than 5,400 premature deaths each year in the South Coast Air Quality Basin alone. In addition, a children's health study conducted by the California Air Resources Board and U.S. EPA indicated there is a seven to nine percent reduction in lung capacity in kids growing up in Southern California in addition to other health impacts. Mr. Liu referred to this as a "public health crisis." As an original cosponsor of HR 2548, The Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of2007, Rep. Harman understands the need to reduce the level of pollutants from marine vessels which create a significant portion of the poor air quality in the South Coast basin. But the Woodside project proposes to use ships to bring in 15% of Califonua's LNG supplies which previously arrived via pipelines. These LNGCs will be meeting regasification carriers offshore, and idling while they do ship-to-ship transfers of LNG - -spewing pollution towards us while sitting just off the coast. This is a critical environmental issue that needs to be explored to examine the type and amount of pollutants that will be added to our environment reducing the air quality along the coast. Supplemental Information to the Statement of Rep. Jane Barman OceanWay LNG D WP -Docket Number USCG-2007-26844 t~A4P U.S. Department of Homeland SeGUri/ Commandant UnRed States Coast Guard 27~ second Street, S.W. United States vuaamr~ton. x zos93.o~t Coast Guard Staffsy"'soccG~PSO-s PFwne: (202) 372-1451 Fax: (202) 372-1926 Email: Roddy.CSacryman~uscg.mii 16613 Dear Interested Party: September 12, 2007 The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) and City of Los Angeles (Ciiy) announce their intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statemettt (EIS)/ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assist in the evaluation of an application for a license for Ure ProP~ed Woodside Natural Gras Inc. OceanWay Secure Energy liquefied natural gas (LNG) deepwater port (DWP}. The EIS/EIR will be prepared with the City of Los Angeles (City} as a cooperating agency with the Coast Guard and Maritime Administration to meet both National Environmental policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The OceanWay Secure Energy port would be located in Federal waters of the Santa Monica Basin, 21 miles from the nearest point on the mainland of Southern Califamia,l8 miles from the western end of Santa Catalina Island, and approximately 27 miles southwest of Los Angeles Intemationat Airport, in a water depth of approximately 3,000 feet. Woodside Natural Gas proposes to own ,construct, and operate the DWP with associated ship-to-ship transfer (STS) locations and single point mooring (SPM) buoys for receiving regasificatlon liquefied natural gas carriers (RLNGCs) offshore. LNG would be vaporized using an ambient air regasification system and natural gas would be delivered onshore via pipelines, with a shore crossing at the north end of LAX at Dockweiler Beach. A buried onshore pipeline would take the gas to a receiving and custody transfer facility at 5651 96s' Street via Westchester Pazkway/Arbor Vitae Street, Bellanca Avenue, and then tie into the Southern California Gas infrastructure. Additional onshore pipeline stages, depending on demand, are also proposed within the cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, and South Gate. Initial annualized delivery rate would be 0.4 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) and peak of 1.1 bcfd. Congress first authorized DWPs in 1974. Federal law (33 United Stales Code [U.S.C.] 1501 et seq.) defines a DWP as arty fixed or floating manmade structure other than a vessel, or any group of such structures, that is located beyond State seawazd boundaries, and that is used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, or further handling of oil or natural gas for transportation to any state. All DWPs require a license granted by the Maritime Administrator based on an application process administered by the Coast Cruazd, in coordination with the Maritime Administration.. Part ofthat process involves assessment of impacts to the natural and human environmental from the port, incompliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S,C. 4332). The Maritime Administration and Coast Guard aze the lead Federal agencies for NEPA compliance, The Coast Guard, in cooperation with the Maritime Administration, determines the scope and completes the environmental review of the proposed project This includes consultation with States that are adjacent to the proposed port. For the purposes of the OceanWay deepwater port application, California is an adjacent coastal state. The Coast Guard and Maritime Administration have determined that compliance with the NEPA requires preparation of an EIS. Subj: OCEANWAY SECURE ENERGY DIP LETTER 16613 September 12, 2007 The City has deternuned that the proposed port would require a City licenselfranclrise for subsea pipelines through City waters to deliver the natural gas to shore, and a new franchise and other approvals for the onshore pipeline and receiving and custody transfer station (ROTS) to deliver the natural gas. into the existing pipeline system, and that compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires preparation of an EIR Because of the many similarities between an EIS and an EIR, the Coast Guard, Maritime Administration and the City have agreed to cooperate in preparing a single document that satisfies both NEPA and CEQA. The EIS/EIR will be consistent with the Deepwater Port Act (DWPA} of 1974, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.); theNEPA (Section 102[2][c]), as implemented by Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federat Regulations 1500 to 1508); and the CEQA {California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.} as implemented by the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.). The environmental review and analysis will be completed according to the timeline prescribed by the DWPA, which requires a decision within 356 days. The period to complete all NEPA/CEQA documents is approximately 240 days. This timeline will govern the activitiesaelated to the processing of the license application and the completion of all NEPA and CEQA related achions needed to support the decision regarding whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the proposed license/lease/franchise. Amore detailed description of the proposed project and regulatory background is presented in the enclosures. The application may be viewed at the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Docket Management System web page at: httn:/ldms.dot.eov (Docket Number USCG-2007- 26844). The Notice of intent, initiating the sooping process, will publish in the Federal Register on or about September 14, 2047. hrformafion that will appeaz in that notice is enclosed for your information. Public Notices for the open house/public meeting are being published in local newspapers. The USCG, MARAD and City aze now in the sooping period that precedes prepazation of the EIS/EIR, and invite public comment relating to concerns on the proposal ar to the scope of the environmental document, As part of the soaping process, the USCG, MARAD and City will hold an informational open house and public meeting. The events aze open to the public and all interested parties are encouraged to attend. Written and oral comments will be accepted at both the open house and the public meeting. We encourage you to submit comments and related materials regazding this project throughout the cooping process which ends October 12, 2007. Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 Location: Los Angeles Airport Marriott, 5855 West Century Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045; {310) 641-5700. Times: Open House: 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM Public Meeting: 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM (or later, depending on number of speakers) Pazking: Hotel parking will be validated. Attendees are requested to bring their garage pazking ticket inside the hotel for parking validation. in addition, comments may be submitted to the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Docket Management Facility Docket Number USCG-2007-26844. Subj: OCEANWAY SECURE ENERGY DIP LETTER 16613 September 12, 2007 Comments or related material must teach the Docket Management Facility on or before October 12, 2007. For further information on how to submit comments refer to the Notice of Intent, Enclosure (1). in this cooperative effort with the City of Las Angeles, the City will also be accepting comments submitted to the DOT docket. To make sure your comments and related material are not entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of the following means: Mail: Docket Management Facility, US Department of Trans 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, West Building, Room W 12_lp4p lion Washington, DC 20590-0001 Note: please consider processing delays associated with delivery of mail to federal facilities Hand deliver: Room W 12-140 on the Cround level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington, DC 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M., Monday -Friday, except Federal holidays Fax: Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251 Electronically: Docket Management System at http://dms.dot.eov. The application is available now and continents, material received from the public and agencies, as well as the EIS/EtR, will become part of this docket and available on the website. The information will also be available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. Information may also be reviewed at public libraries near the pipeline mute. A List of such libraries and information on the City's processes regarding this application will also be posted on the City's website at Attn://ena.tacitv.ore/techdocs/emQfEnvironmental Review_DocumenL4,htm under "OceanWay." If you have questions about the proposed Woodside Natural Gas Inc, OceartWay Secure Energy Deepwater Port License Application, you may contact Mr. Roddy Bachman, U.S. Coast Guard at (202) 372-1451 or by a-mail at Roddy C Bachman[~uscg_mil. If you have questions about the NEPA process or about this EISJBIR, please contact Ms. Joan Lang at (202) 372-1452 or by e- mail at Joan.M.Lang c use ni . The contact for the Maritime Administration is Mr. Christopher Hanan at 202-366-1900, e-mail Christopher.Hanan~u)dot env, The contact for the City of Los Angeles is Ms. Linda Moore, at (213) 485-5751, a-mail: Linda.Moote~laci~org. ~Q M. A. PRESGOTT Chief, Deepwater Ports Standards Division U.S. Coast Guard By direction Sincerely, HfKEPt'H L~F„S K Director, Office of Deepwater Ports and Offshore Activities U.S. Maritime Administration Copy: Ms. Linda Moore, City of Los Angeles Enclosures: (1) Information that will appear in Federal Register Notice of Intent (2) Project Area Maps WOODSIDE NATURAL GAS INC. OCEANWAY SECURING ENERGY DEEPWATER LNG PORT EIS/EIR SLOPING INFORMATION PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFDRMATION WIL~AR IN A FEDERe[ ura•tc~rER NOTICE OF INTENT THAT W[LL PUBLISH ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 14.2007. THIS INFORMATION IS BEING PROVIDED Tfl YOU NOW AS EARLY NOTiFK:ATION OF THE UPCOMING SLOPING PROCESS, DOCKET NUMBER: USCG-2007-26844 PROPOSED PROJECT; Woodside Natural Gas, Inc OceanWay Secure Energy Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port License Application; Prepamtion'oF Environmental Impact Statement 1 Environmental impact Report AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT; U.S. Coast Guard. DHS. ACTION: Notice of intent ttotice of public meeting; request for comments, SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration end the U.S. Coast Guard announce [he intent to prepare an environmental impact statetnenU environmental impact report (E1S/EIR). The application describes a project located in the Federal waters of the Santa Monica Basin, trpproximetely 27 miles southwest of Los Angeles international Airport. The EIS/EIR will be prepared with the City of Los Angeles (City) as a cooperating ageray in the environmental review with the Coast GuaN since the applicant has also filed as application for lease/franchise of offshore submerged City lands and an onshore pipeline franchise for the subsea pipelines through City waters and a pipeline through the City. The EIS/EIR will meet the requirements of both the National Environmental policy Act {NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Publication of the Federal Registor ~Hce begins a 30 day scoping process that will assist in the identification artd determination of the environmental issues to be addressed in the EiS/EtR. This notice requests public participation in the scoping process and provides information regarding participate in fire process, Ii annount:es a public meeting to be held in connection with the EISIEIR; requests public comment on the swpe of the E!S/E1R; and also serves as a notice of intent (NOl) aml notice of preparation (NOP) for the purposes of California law. DATES: The Coast Guard, Maritime Adminisration, and the City will conduct an informational open house, followed by a public scoping meetittg Wednesday, September 26> 2007 to receive oral or written comments. The informational open house will run from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.. followed by a public meeting from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The time may be extended deperming on number of speakers, Comments ar related material must be received by October l2, 2007. ADDRESSES: The open house and public meeting will be held at the Los Attgeies Airport Marriott, 5855 West Century Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 40045; (310) 641-5700. PLEASE NOTE: All attendees are requested to bring their howl parking tickets inside the hotel for parking validation The public docket for USCG-2007-26844 is maintained by the Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 5E., West Building, Ground Floor, Raom W I2-I40, Washington, DC 20590- 0001. Docket contents are available for public inspection and copying at this address between 9 a.m and 5 p.m., Mottday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Facility's telephone number is 202-366-9329, the fax number is 202- 493-2251, artd the web site for electronic submissions or for electronic access to docket contents is Igro:::'dnts.dot.¢ov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the proposed Pmjeq, the license application proce.YS, or the E[S/ E!R proceac tray be directed to Roddy Bachman, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone: t 202) 367-1451, a-maiL• (Roddv.C Bachma_~~r~taccg min, or Litala Moore, City of Los Angeles, telephone: (213) 485-5751, a-mail: (Linda.Maorefu;lacity om).Questions regarding viewing or submitting materials to the docket may be directed to, Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operetiorw, (202-493-0402). Subj; Woodside Ocean Scoping Information Sept 12, 2007 Che DOT Docket Management System also chronologically contains the application and related correspondence; public meeting traaccripts; wilt contain the Draft and the Final EIS/EIR; and wip contain ail comments submitted whetber at public meetings or submitted directly. This can be accessed at htta:l/dms dot Gov, and search for docket number 26844. Information pertaining to the proposed Ocean Way Deepwater Port Project is also available online with the Ciry of Lac Angeles at: [i :,fen , achy ore/techdocweme/>= '•onmenml Review Do~uments,htm The public notice may be requested from the City of Los Angeles in an alternative Format such ae Spanish translation, audiotape, large print, or Braille. Contact the City of tos Angles at the City project website listed above. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Pnbltc Meetin¢ and Ooen House The Coast Guard, Maritime Administration, a~ City plan to condtret an informatioaa! open house and public meeting related to preparation of an EIS/EIR for the proposed Project. The open house will be an infomtal opportunity to ask questiom and receive information regarding the project. The public scopirtg meetittg will be stroctured to provide the public with an opporhnity to present comments r~ardmg the approach and conduct of the environments! anatysie. Comments will help us identify and refine the scope of the enviromoerttal issues ro be addressed in fhe E(SlEIR. Speaker regictratior~ will be available at the door Speakers at the public xoping ttteeting will be recognized in the following order. elected officials, public agencies, individuals or groups in the sign-up order, and anyone else who wishes to speak. Speakers maY be asked to limit their Drat Comments to three (3} minutes in order ro afford everyone an opportunity to speak and the meeting time maybe extended. Speakers must identify themselves and any orgaoiTation represented, byname. Remarks wilt be recorded or transcribed for inclusion in the public docket. Public docket materials will be made available to the public on the Docket Management Facility's Docket Managentant System (DMS). Sce "Request for Comments" for information about tbe DMS ami your rights under the Privacy Act. Written comments wilt also be accepted You may submit written material at the public meeting, eitber is place of or in addition to speaking. Written material must include your name and address, and will be included in the public docket. Please notify Roddy Bachman, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone: (202) 367-145 t, a-mail: (Rtxtdy.C Bachrnanrii~uscg mil} as soon as poasibk, but at least three (3) business days before the scheduled meeting, if translation of written materials is neyuired. A court reporter wilt also be available during the open house to take Drat comments if you do sot wish to speak at the meeting. All public seoping meeting spaces will be wheelchair-accessible. individuals may request epeeist accommodations for the public scoping meetings, such as real-time translation. Contact the Coast Guard or City of I.os Angeles {see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) if special accommodationu are required, Requests should be made ea soon as possible but at least three (3) bucirteec days before the scheduled meeting, Include the name and tekpbene tmmber of tbe coatant person, the timelines for requesting accommodations, and a TDD number that can be used by individuals with hearing impairtnenta Request for Comments The Coast Guard, MARAD, and the City request submittal of comments and related material regarding this notice using one of the methods described below, The Coact Guard, MARAD, and the City most particularly seek comments that identify potentially significant impacts, eltematives, or mitigation measures that should be taken into account in determining the scope of the EISlE1R. We request public comments or other relevant information on environmental iasttes related to the proposed deepwater port. The public meeting is not the only opportunity to comment. in addition to or in place of attending tbe meeting, comments may be submitted ro the Docket Management Facility or City of Los Angeles during the public comment period (see DATES). Subj: Woodside Ocean Swping Information Sept 12, 2007 The Coast Guard, Maritime Administration and City will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. It is not necessary to present commenut more than once. Comments road not be submitted to multiple agencies; all comments received will be shared amongst agencies. Submissions to the DOT Docket Management System should include: • Docket number USCG-2007-26R44. • Your name and addre;zs. • Your reawons for makittg each comment or for bringing information to our attention. Submit comments or material using only one of the folbwing methods: • Electronic submission to DMS, htto:l,'dms.dot.eov_ • Fax, mail, or hand delivery to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES). Faxed or hand delivered wbmissions must be unbound, no larger than 8%: by l l inches, and suitable forcopying and electronic scanning. if you mail your submission and want to know when it reaches the Facility, include ff stamped, self- addresied postcard or envelope. Regardless of the method used For submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the DMS website (httoa~dms.dot.eovt, and will include any persona] information provided. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available on the DMS website, or the Department of Transportation Privacy Act Statement that appeared in the Federal Register on April l 1, 2000 (65 FR 19477). You may view docket submissions at the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES), or electronically on the DMS website. Background A notice of application for the proposed Ocean Way DWP was published in the Federal Register (FR) on Friday, September 7, 2007 (51488). Consult that notice for additional information regarding the proposed DWP, theship-to- ship transfer locations, the offshore and onshore pipelines and the receiving and custody transfer facility. The "Summary of the ApplicationJPropased Action" from that publication is reprinted bekw for your convenience. Congress first authorized DWPs (n 1974. Federal law {33 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1501 et seq.) defines a DW P as any fixed orfloating-manmade structure other than a vessel, or any group of such stmcturea, that is located beyond State seaward boundaries, and that is used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, or further handling of oil or natural gas for transpvrtation to any state. All DWPs require a license granted by the Maritime Administrator based on an application process administered by the Coast Guard, in coordination with the Maritime Admirristmtion Part of that process involves assessment of the nature! and human environmental impacts from the port, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Maritime Administration and Coast Guard etc the lead Federal agencies for NEPA compliance, Tate Coast Guard, is cooperation with the Maritime Administration, deterrrtirres the scope and completes the environmental review of the proposed project This ittcludes consultation with States that are adjacent to the proposed port. For the purposes of the OceanWay deepwater port application, Ca&fornia is an adjacent coastal state. The Coast Guard and Mannme Administration have determined that cotttpliance with the NEPA requires preparation of an EIS. The City has determined that the proposed port would require a City licenselfranchise for subsea pipelines through City waters to deliver the natural gas to shore, and a new fmrtchise and other approvals for the onshore pipeline and receiving and custody naasfer station (RCTS) to deliver the natural gas into the existing pipeline system, and that compliance with the California Environmental QuaBty Act (CEQA) requires preparation of an EIR. Because of the many similarities between an EIS and an EIR, the Coast Guard, Maritime Administration and the City have agreed to cooperate in preJ~ring a single document that satisfies both NEPA and CEQA. The EISlEIR will be consistent with the Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) of 1974, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1501 et .req.); the NEPA (Section 102[2][c]), as implemented by Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations t 500 to 1508); and the CEQA (Califomia Public Resources Code §~ 21000 et say. J as implemented by the State CEQA Guidelittes (14 Califomia Code of Regulations §ai 15000 er seyJ. The em~ironmental review and analysis will be completed according to tbe timeline prescribed by the DWPA, which requires a decision within 356 days. Subj: Woodside Ocean Sopping information Sept 12,20D7 The period to complete all NEPAICEQA documents is approximately 240 days. This timeline will govern the activiNea related to the processing of the license application and the completion of all NEPA and CEQA related nctions needed to support the decision regarding whether to approve, approve with wnditions, or disapprove the P~~d IicetrteJlease/franchise. The notice of intent provides compliance with the requirements of the NEPA regulations and also serves as the notice of prepamtion as rcquired by CEQA. It briefly describes the proposed action and possible alternatives and our proposed scoping process. Address any questlons about the proposed action the scoping process, or the E1S/EIR to the Coast Guard or Ciry of Los Angeles (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Proaosed Action and Alternatives The proposed action requiring environmental review is the Federal lieensitrg of the proposed deepwatcr port described in "Summary of the Application/Propoaed Action/Project" below. The alternatives to licensing the proposed port are: (1) licensing with conditions (including corbitiotrs desigrted to mitigate environnretrtal impcet), and (2}denying the application, which for purposes of environmental review is the "no-action" alternative. The proposed action requiring environmental review by the City Of Los Angeles is the granting of a pipeline franchise and appurtenant approvals for the same project. The City may also (1) approve the project. (2) approve the project with conditiana, or (3) deny the project Scooine Process Public scoping is an early end open process for identifying and determining the stxtpe of issues addressed in the E1SfEIR. Scoping begins with this notice, continues through the public comment period and ends when the Coast Guard, Maritime Administradon std the City have: • Invited the participation of Fedeml, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribes, the applicant, std other interested persorut; • Determined the actions, alternatives, end impacts described in 40 CFR 1508.25; • Identified and eliminated from dotailed study those issues that are not significant or that have been covered elsewhere; • Allocated resporafbility for preparing E1S/EIR componettts; • Indicated any related environmental assessments or environmental impact statements that are not pan of the EIS: • Identified other relevant environmental review and consultation requirements; • indicated the relatiot>ship between timing of the environmental review and other aspects of the application process: and •, At the Federal agencies discretion, exercised the options provided in 40 CFA 1501.7 (b). Once the scoping process is complete, the Coast Guard and City of Los Angeles will prepare a draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/DEIR), and publish a Federal Resister notice annotmchtg its public availability. To receive that notice. plea contact thane identified in (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION). An opportunity to review and comment on the draft EISlEIR will be provided. The Coast Guard, Maritimm Administration and Ciry will consider those comments in the preparation of the final EiS/EtR (FEISlFEtR). As with the draft EIS, we will announce the availability of the FEIS/FEIR and ottce again allow an oppommiry for review and comment AvailabDirv of EIS/EIR A notice of availability (NOR) will be published in the Faleral Regiat~ when the DEISIDEIR is available. and the City will file a notice of completion with the California State Clearinghouse and the [.os Angeles County Clerk and wil I pubhsh a notice of availability in [ha "City of Los Angeles Environmental Notices" nation of the Los Angeles Times. The DEIS/DEIR in hardcopy or electronic format will be distributed to agerxies, local public libraries and inrerested parties thathave requested copies. Anyone who wishes to comment on the draft report will be provided with an opportunity to review the DEIS/DEIR and to offer comments on the environmental effects of the proposed project. Comments receive{ during the DE1S/DEIR review period wiU he availabk in the public docket and responded to in the FEIS{FEIR. An NOA of the FEISIFEIR wilt also be published in the Federal Re¢ister, and the City will issue notices of availability and completion Additional public meetings will be held after the draft orb final documents are published. Subj: Woodside Ocean Scoping Infomtation Sept 12, 2007 Summary of the AnnlieatioNProoosed Action/Proiect Woodside Natural Gas proposes t conshuct, own, and operate a deepwater port with associatedship-to-ship transfer (STS) location(s) and single point mooring (SPM) buoys for the receiving of regasification liquefied natural gas carriers (RLNGCs), offshore and onshore natural gas pipelirtet and a receiving and custody transfer facility f RCTS} to deliver natural gas with an annualized rate of 0.4 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) and a peak of 1.1 bcf/d into the Southern Califomia market on inirial devetpmem and an annualized rate of t.0 betYd and a peak of up to 1,6 billion cubic feet per day {bcf/d) at full project development. The deepwater port would be located in the Federal waters of the Santa Monica Basin, 21 miles from the nearest point on the mainlatd of Southern Califomia, and 18 miles from the western end of Santa Catalina island, sppmximstely 27 miles southwest of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), in a water depth of approximately 3.000 feet. it would consist of two single point mooring (SPM) buoys that serve as cargo discharge system connections for the regasification liquefied natural gas carriers (RLNGCs). a mooring/anshorirtg array, four flexible risers that connect the SPMs to four seafloor riser end manifolds, two pipeline end manifolds (PLEMs) and two paralle124-inch pipelines beginning on the seafloor at the PLEMs beneath the SPM buoys and comirtuing to shore. The SPMs would be located approximately 5 nautical miles (5.75 mites) outside established shipping lanes (SPM NE: Latitude: 33°41'S2"N, Longitude; 11R°48'33"W and SPM SW: Latitude: 33°39'58"N, Longitude: 118°49' IS"W). Woodside has proposed three sltip-to-strip haasfer locations ranging from a~oximataly 35 to 9D naatical miles {40 to I04 mites) from shore and 55 to i (1 nautical miles (63 to 128 miles) from the port where each RLNGC is expected to receive LNG cargo at sea from conventional LNG carriers. STSI Santa Rose (Latitude 33°39'N, Longitude I l9°56'30"tV), STS2 Inshore San Clemente 33°OS'N, Longitude 118°10'W} and STS3 Skaugen Offshore (Latitude 32° 15'N, Longitude f 20°0' W). Only one transfer location would be used at a time, The RLNGCs, with storage capacity of 224,000 m3 of LNG would be capable of receiving LNGCs with storage capacities of up to 216,000 m' of LNG. As proposed, LNG would be delivered from overseas by conventional LNG carrier (LNGG~ and transferted to a Woodside RLNGC at orn of the three STS locations. The RLNGC would tlkrt be sailed and moored to an SPM, where the LNG would be regasifted into natural gas and delivered to shore via two new paratle124- inch pipelines. The RLNGC would then return to an STS location. The RLNGCs would use a turret system with the SPMs to altw the RLNGC to weathervane (rotate) around the buoy. Onboard utilities std systems associated with RLNCG operations would htclude electric power generation and distnbution, instrumentation and wntrols, and fire and safety systems. The RLNGC would include all marine systernw communications, navigation aids and equipment necessary to safely conduct RLNGC carrier operatior, receive and vaporize product. The RLNGCs would use a fon~ed draft ambiem air LNG vaporization system emptying a wmbination of intermediate fluid and direct ambient air with heat provided by ambient air called the Woodside Hybrid Air Vaporimtion (WHAV) concept Natural gas would be delivered onshore via two 24-inch parallel pipelines, approximately 35 miles in length. These pipetitxs would come onshore on the north etd of LAX at Dockweikr Beach. It is proposed that horizontal directional drilling be used to install the pipelines beneath land and seabed in offshore City waters and underneath the beach and adjacent dunes from a point about 1000 feet inland from the high tide mark just east of Vista del Mar on LAX property. Woodside would lease/franchise from the City a 300 foot wide corridor on submerged City lames out to the 3 nautical mile (3.45 mile) offshore limit of the City boundary. tht-shore pipelines would be constmcted on Ciry- owned land from the high tide Grp to Pershing [hive, passing under the beach and rho EI Segundo t3uttes, and underground through City streets. The route would include Westchester ParkwaylArbor Vitae Street, then mouth on Bellanca Avenue ro the receiving and custody transfer station (RCTS} and adjacent Inert Gas Injection Facility 1 TGIF) located at 5651 96ih Street Los Angeles, about 4 miles inland. A single 3&iceh pipeline would ran approximately a quarter of a mile back norib on Bellanca Avenue to Arbor Vitae, then to the existing Southern Califomia Gas natural gas pipeline infrastrvcttue with Tie-in #1 at the intersection of Aviation 13outevard and Arbor Vitae Street. Subj: Woodside Ocean Scoping Information Sept 12, 2007 A second stage, with development depending on demand, may include additional pipelines and tie-ins that are an approximate I 1-mik sittgk 24-in line from Tie-In Ml akng Arbor Vitae, Prairk, M~chester, Firestone, and Califomia to Tie-In #3 at Santa Ana Street and Otia Avenue in South Gate and approximate 1 mile single 24-inch line from Manchester Street to Centel Ave to Tie-In tl2 at the in[erseCtion of S. Central Avenue and E. Cemury Boulevard. These pipeline routes include areas within the cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, and South Gate. At full development, Southern Califomia Gas would own and operate the system downstream of the RCTS. The application also includes an alternative DWP location in the Gulf of Santa Catalina approximately 30 miles from Huntington Beach at latitude t 17°56'2853° west, longitude 33° 13'24.8$"north with a 30 mik pipeline running north to a shore crosxing at the AES power plant in Huntington Beach. It would cross through the cities of Huntington Beech, Fountain Valley, We[aminter, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Orange. It would be trenched through city streets traveling north along Newland Street towards Bolse Avenue; turn east at Bolsa Ave. (1"Street); rum north at the OCTA Metrolink Right of Way arui join Lincoln Ave; east on Fairhaven Ave.; north at Cambridge Street and finally weal on Palm Ave., where it would cottnect to the SCG tie-in in Orange. CnrrnnNv identlfkd Environtrtental lasses The NEPA and CEQA processes require agencies to consider enviromnental impacts that may result from a proposed action, to inform the public of potential imp~ts and alteroatives, and to facilitate public involvement k the assessment process. Additionally, CEQA requires measures to avoid or lessen the significant impacts of a project when granting an approval, unless it finds certain benefits of the project outweigh thox significant effects. The EIS/EIR for the OceanWay DWP will describe the nature and extent of environmental impacts of the proposed action and each alternative, and will dirouss appropriate mitigation measures for any adverse impacts. The £LSlEIR will include, among other matters, disct[ssion of the pttrpose and need for the proposed action, a description of altert[atives, a description of the affected envirorunent, an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and explanations of proposed mitigation. Tt[e EIS/E1R will assess the impacts of the alternatives on the natural and human environment, including the no-action/no project alternative, which for this Project would mean that the Maritime Administration would not approve the application or the City would not approve the application for the lease/fianchise of the offstwre pipelines in City orators, the RCTS, and oastrore pipelines. Regardless of geographic or other jurisdictional boundaries, the Coast Guard, Maritime Administration and the City wilt consider the entire proposed Project. Environmental issues that will retittire detailed analysis include, but are not necessarily limited to: Aesther/cs: Alteration of the view shed by constmakn and operations. Air Quality: Impacts on regional air quality, including visibility and other resources in sensitive Federal Class I areas (e.g., Channel Islands National Park). Gnnlogicnl Resources and Soils: Impacts on facilities from seismic hazards; Impacts on onshore facilities from liquefaction; and erosion and dust Hazardous/Tuxic Materials and wastes: Impacts from HAZMAT spills including petroleum, LNG, other hydrocarbon, fuels, lubricant, urea, paints, solvents, and sanitary or other hazardousltoxic materials or waste. Mmine Transportation: Disruption in marine tranportation affecting existing ship traffic to and from the ports of Gos Anger and Long Beach or other ports; Potontial aavigational hazards to marina traffic; increase is tanker travel to and from the single point mooring locations that could impact existing marine traffic. Marine Biolagv: Vessels potentially striking sea turtles and marine mammals; Crushing and displacement of benthic communities during construction; Effects of "cold water" resulting from LNG release to marine mammals; and Effects of increases in turbidity and changes in water quality, lights, arld noise. Terrestrial and Freshwater Biology: Impacts from contmetion or operation on wetlaruls and other habitats, and sensitive species, within the proposed pipeline kr[ding and corridor areas. Subj: Woodside fh;ean Scoping Information Sept 12, 2(X17 Recreation: Impacts on boating and commereiai and recreational fishing opportunities; Recreational areas potentially impacted by noise or duet generated during construction Access to the beach or ocean; and Permanent and temporary areas of restricted access around the RGLNC. Ha: urxtr and RisklSa(ery: LNG releasca resuhing in potential impacts on third parties from foe, radiant energy, or ignitable gas clouds (mainly to passengers of small craft operating near the RGLNC); Effects of pipeline failurex on human., progeny, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems. The EIStE1R will include an independently prepared, site- specific risk avsessment. Naisc+: Potential increases in noi~ levels due to project cor~truction and operation; and Effects of rain on local residents, recreational visitors, passengers and crews on marine vessels, and marine mammals. 6tirter Qrtalily: Impacts from LNG or spills, increases in turbidity, or tmearthing ofcontaminated sediments: Increases in shoreline erosion during construction and operation. F.urtironmenta/Justice: Potential disproport(onate effects on minority and low-income populations within the Project area. The EIS/EIR will identify any relevant populations that might be disproportionately affected by the proposed Project. Cuttur ~d Resources: Potential effects on known and as yet unidentified cuitttral resouroes, offshore and onshore. Euergv and Mineral Resources: Restriction of futtue availability of exploitable oil and gas resources due to infrastmcture development and restricted access. Land U.re mrd TrajJic: Impacts to existing land uses, espociatly in coastal areas designated for recreational purposes; Impacts on marine resources off the coast of Los Angeles, including Catalina Island, the Channel Islands National Marini Sanctuary and Channel islands National Park; acrd D(sroptions to traffic use and pattemv. Pnpulutiaa and Housing: Impacts on the existing community character and development, population, housing, infrattnrcture and social services, tmployment, and the regional economic bane. Cumulufire /mpucts: The EIS/EIR will evaluate the cumulative effects of the project within each reaouree area examined. These include the incremental effects of past projects, other current end gropoaed projects, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Na-AclfanlNo ProjectAlternatite: The EISBIR will examine the impacts ofnot egrrovimg the DWP license/lease/franchise application. AUernartr~e O•((shore Locations: The E[S/EIR will consider an ahemative location in the vicinity of fhe proposed Project and other locations adjacent to the California coast. Loud-Based Alternatives: The California Legislature mandated the evaluation of kmd-based LNG sites. Land-based alternatives previously considered by California agencies will be considered. Alternative Technologies: Aitemative Project technologies, including apes rnck vaporizers and a hybrid vaporization system and alternative facility designs will also be evaluated. Alterrratite Pipeline Routes: The EIS/EIR will also evaluate art aher>etive submarira pipeline route arM an alternative onshore pipeline route. Federal, State, cud City permiA apprmml, sad consultation: The major federal and city permit, approval, and consultation requirements for OceanWay include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Federal • DOT/Maritime Administration-DWPIicense • DHSJU.S. Coast Guard-DWP design and operational requirements • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency {EPA) Title V Federal air operating permit; Clean Water Act (CWA) storm water end wastewater discharge permits • U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (USAGE}--Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section IOpermits • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation Subj: Woodside Ocean Scoping Information Sept 12. ?007 • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Section 7, ESA consultation requirements • NOAA Fisheries-Magnuson-Stbvettt Fisheries Management and Cot>setvation Act concuhation • NOAAFisharies-Marine Mamma! Protection Act consultation Califomia • California Coastal Commission Compliance with Califomia Coastal Act and consistency with Califomia Coastal Management Program • Califomia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHFO), National Histic Preservation Act Section 106 and Califomia historic preservation requirements, consultation and eompliance City of Los Angeles • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boatd (RWQCB}--CWA Section 40i certification • Lac Angeles RWQCB-Hydra¢tatic test water discharge permit • Pipeline fronchice and lease or easement approvals • Locai coastal development permit incompliance with the Califomia Coastal Act Makbu - tta.45'eW ~~* na•waw 1ia~tsww Santa Monica 3a•0'p-N Los Anyeles - Lony Beach K5anta Ana Terminus SnCel4as 3p•p~p•H r. 4., • ~' h,, Tie IU5 Ga1G's Lme aaaa & 30P3 0 ~~l __ ._ ........ • / > •• Q See. tnwc htap~ ...... Q ©. .~°. O~ r eaP ~ Tre-In Sut]IGas Llne ~~ ~ ,. / 3403&;066 $ r~~O ~~v'Y6 • ~y~~ ~. Yanhetren 8dach D`rhbDti $epa a nary, ~ ~` ' . oa ~ i~D' °20,~ _ C s ~ rre~k if PaIOS V8N00 Long beach ~DnD ft. ~~ . G ,._a). . 33•dBY)^N f r f - San Paaic ~f r'_ 6av ' ~ __i""~ W'99'fWN ))~ r' y 33'~8'4"N pg.~ BdWI ~ 9mrr a. l ~<,~,~'., T.m,,,,dl r~„~ ,,, ~.~~p.,N T ~ 0 N 1 Ja r rz, dd ~ 5i ~ ~ d Q Dane PoinF S ~ ~ ;~ San ' ~, ;, 1 ~ = Cbmenta L'~ b..l ~ O. . ~~ 1 ~ ~.~. ~,, ~ r. W.. ~ ., _ '~---~ ret 33.13'VN /ta°daw 1t7'36'O" " 11 d•a50°w i1e300YI 11aM5'a"W locm Mqd 33'a6~0fl aapan _„L.-,_m~n LBgBnd QApemakve Raumf pu]Eadad SnanedeaUng Location of Proposed I .,, r OceanVlaY Proposes RoumaSCO Syatand BaMy~rtry (Oeplhm Fael) a Akaenatlw Radb 1. a La]Ollahdn Akamakda ROUm ~ Project&Altematives navaoe aO1 UplpaAO Roums Q Akematlva RwY 3 Q AES Onahnre Akemetlue ROUN CounH ROUnevma OAn.matlw ROnma ,. Q AES ORaIdore Akematlve ROWe. ' oCOanWay $Bwre.En0rgy P/0J00I cmuemre / 3.NauMal Mlla Lina ©akamatlveROUm al amnl , FigclB: 12-1 ,:. wlmre ~. o ¢ 9aYb<P iM1 a? Cahfmdid< JIO[ldnpexry~p $YY.m, Ndl I uMWrtal Jazd ~mtor 0 S a. e e m r;Min ' Aamc'en (•.yr,. - .. L 5 p ry A Make Your Voice Heard on the Woodside Proposal for a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal off the Coast of LAX **PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS OCTOBER 31, 2007** I he City of Los Angeles is currentty considering approval of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) deepwater port proposal that Woodside Natural Gas is planning to construct, own and operate in Santa Monica Bay, 21 miles offshore from Malibu and 27 miles offshore from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). With your help. we can stop it in its tracks. ~~~ ~a~ ~~..,,~~~a~ ~ cane Harman Has questioned the safety and security of our area if this project is approved as it °could make LAX an even more attractive target to terrorists.° Councilman Bill Rosendahl has stated that this project °poses serious environmental, health, and safety risks for the community at large, and is an unfair imposition on nearby residents.° It is now incumbent ott residents, groups, and other elected officials from the area to make their voices heard as well. Now is the time to get on record. i ne rouowmg pages list key reasons why this project is of concern to our community. Using this information, or any other information you may have, please submit a comment with your concerns, questions or comments on the Woodside proposal. Members of the public may submit comments or related materials during the official scoping comment period. Comments will not be accepted after the commerrt period ends on October 31, 2007. All comments should include: (1) Docket number USCG-2007-26844, (2) Your name and address, and (3) Your reasons for making each comment or for bringing information to their attention. Note thatregardless oithe method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be pasted, without change, to the DMS Web site (htlp;//dms.dotgov), and will include any personal information provided. Therefore, anything you submit will become public. Submit comments or material using only one of the following methods. Note that faxed or hand delivered submissions must be unbound, no larger than 8U2 by 11 inches, and suitable for copying and electronic scanning. Mail: Docket Management Facility, US Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, West Building, Room W 12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 (Note: please consider processing delays associated with delivery of mail to federal facilities) Hand deliver: Room W 12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington, DC 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M., Monday -Friday Fax: Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251 Electronicalty: Federal Docket Management System at www regulations cov and enter docket number 26844. Click on the comment icon (a yellow cartoon text balloon) to enter your comments. What is LNG? Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas that has been °super cooled° to around -260°F and condensed into its liquid form for trans-ceeanic shipping. After transport, LNG must be warmed up and vaporized, or 're-gasified,' before it can be distributed via pipeline for use by consumers. By definition, natural gas is a volatile substance which enters a particularly dangerous state when it is heated from its liquid form bade to a gas for transport via pipeline. Who is Woodstde? Woodside Natural Gas, a subsidiary of Woodside Petroleum, is Australia's largest publicly traded oil and gas exploration and production company. Woodside is proposing to construct, own, and operate a deepwater port for the delivery of natural gas into Southern California Gas Company's natural gas distribution system. What is the proposal? The proposal, called OceanWay Secure Energy, would enable specially-built transport dips to dock to a floating buoy anchored below the surface of the water and utilize asea-to-land pipeline to transport liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the mainland's natural gas nerivdrk. The unmanned submersible buoys would be approximately 27 miles offshore from LAX and would transport the gas through a pipeline to a landfall site near Pershing Drive and Westchester Parkway. An above-ground conversion fadlity will be located just beyond the airport. The pipelines would tie-in to the Southern Califomia Gas lines at the intersections of Aviation Blvd and Arbor Vitae Street, Century Bivd and GenUal Avenue, and CaI'rfomia Ave and Hope St. The receiving station for the gas would be near the airport at an undetermined location near Westchester. Woodside claims their marine facility (the submersible buoys) will have no permanent surface facilities, minimal visual impact and be environmentally sensitive. However, they have not discussed the impact of piping the gas underwater to t.AX and running pipelines under LAX and Westchester to South Los Angeles. Where is this project in the approval process? Woodside's OceanWay proposal is in the beginning stages of the review and permitting process, Woodside submitted its proposal to the City of LA and the US Coast Guard (USCG} in August 2006 for review. Since the project would be in the ocean (governed by USCG) and touch ground on City property, USCG and the City of Los Angeles are the lead agencies for the project. The project would also need approval or permits from eight federal agencies (such as EPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers), five state agences (such as the Califomia Coastal Commission and the California Dept of Fish and Game) and four local entities (the City of LA, the County of LA, the South Coast AQMD and IAWA), Aren't there other LNG proposals off the coast also being considered? Yes. This is just one of several projects in GaIrfornia either in the construction or planning stages which proposes to increase the supply of natural gas on the West Coast. Two projects have not succeeded. ConocoPhilips and Mitsubishi's joint venture LNG terminal at the Port of Long Beach was pulled after significant public opposition. In addition, the State Lands Commission rejected a permit for the Cabrillo Port LNG facility off the coast of Ventura proposed by Australian mining firm BHP-Billiton. The Governor then vetoed this project Three facilities are still in the initial stages. Woodside's OceanWay facility, Esperanza Energy's Port Esperanza, a floating terminal 15 miles off the coast of Long Beach, and NorthernStar Natural Gas' proposed platform 12 miles off the coast of Oxnard known as Clearwater Port. How tong wilt the review process take? All of these proposals need environmental review which take from several months to several years. BHP Billiton went through four years of study, hearings and controversy before the plan was vetoed. We are now at the start of the environmental review process for this project which is known as the sceping period. Comments from the public are accepted at this point. If you wish to submit a comment, you must do so by October 31, 2007. (See Page 1 for submitting comments). uv~ 15 NOT AS "CLEAN" AS MANY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE LNG is misleadingly described as a °clean fueL° LNG, like oil, is a finite fossil fuel. Burning it emits COZ and harmful air pollutants, aggravating global warming and causing human health problems. LNG causes air and water pollution, and harms wildlife and the environment, from the places where the gas is extracted and liquefied, to the coastal communities where it is delivered, processed and sold. Global warming impacts from LNG include significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions over domestic gas or re-gasification of supplies prior to consumption. THIS PROJECT WILL NOT REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ENERGY SOURCES Importing LNG means increasing U.S. dependence on foreign countries for our electricity, heating and cooking fuels. At this point it is not dear whether Woodside intends to export natural gas from Australia or from other nations with large natural gas reserves. The Woodside proposal states, in fact that °OceanWay will be supplied by gas sourced primarily tram Woodside projects in Australia.° (emphasis added). But nations exporting LNG are the same ones exporting oil. Russia, Qatar and Iran hold almost 60% of global gas reserves. Others include Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Egypt and Oman. These nations are among the top exporters of natural gas today, while several others nations are looking to exporting LNG as a way of monet¢ing their natural gas resources. These nations include Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Peru. Given the issues regarding energy security and our goal of reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy (particularly from unstable or hostile nations) is it really wise to approve a project that could actually increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy? IT IS NOT CLEAR WE EVEN NEED NEW NATURAL GAS TERMINALS Many people are asking whether increasing LNG supplies in California is actually necessary, and if so, what process should be used to approve projects. Some believe existing U.S. gas supplies are more than. plentiful to meet California's needs, since U.S.-natural gas reserves recently hit a 20-year high. There are three LNG projects proposed for California which have yet to be reviewed. Each proposal differs significantly in terms of technological design, location, impact on public health, safety, the environment, military training and operations, and vulnerability to terrorist attack. However, there is no comprehensive statewide approach to assessing LNG projects. The state needs to create a rational process for consideration and approval of LNG projects instead of the current ad hoc process of individual application filings. California State Senator Joe Simifian's Senate Bill 412 establishes a review and approval process for pending LNG proposals along the California coast and requires a needs assessment of the state's energy market The assessment will focus on projected demand while analyzing conservation, dimate change impacts and efficiency potential, as well as the ability of the state to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy supplies over time. Only once it is absolutely clear that an LNG project is needed should the process proceed. LNG UNDERMINES THE MOVE TO RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY Expanding our use of climate-safe renewable energy sources {such as wind, solar, bio-fuels) to levels already mandated by California state law would provide more than enough energy to meet our state's projected demand. This would also provide newjobs in energy research and development. Using renewables would increase our energy independence instead of increasing our reliance on foreign suppliers. Energy conservation and efficiency could provide California with more than twice the energy supplied by one LNG terminal without increasing our dependence on another imported fossil fuel or aggravating global warming. Some argue that an increase in the use of natural gas is directly proportional to the decline in renewables. THE TERMINAL IS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO MARINE WILDLIFE The LNG terminal would be located near major shipping lanes, impacting navigation by cemmerdal, recreational, and naval vessels. An acddent at the terminal or on a tanker could threaten ships, boats and mariners and marine wildlife with asphyxiation and burns from a natural gas fire or explosion. The offshore pipeline risks water pollution and marine wildlife endangerment Construction of gas pipelines could cause harmful spills of drilling fluids and even contaminated sediments into the near shore marine environment Vessel traffic also increases the likelihood of hazardous diesel, oil, or sewage spills. THE PROJECT CREATES A POTENTIAL SECURITY THREAT NEAR AN EXISTING TERRORIST TARGET An onshore pipeline located next to LAX will add an unnecessary risk to the world's fifth largest airport, which is considered one of the West Coast's top terrorist targets. The placement of a natural gas terminal will make this already attractive target even more attracflve since an attack could not only cause loss of life, but also cripple air traffic nafidnalty, interrupt fuel supplies for Calfornia, and disrupt the region's aeronomy, Furthermore, if natural gas is released by accident or deliberate terrorist attack, it may explode or bum at extremely high temperatures. LNG accidents have caused serious loss of life and property in the U.S. and around the world. Worst- case calculations of the potential loss of life, economic impact, and physical destruction caused by a terrorist attack must be assessed before the project moves forward. THE PROJECT POSES A POTENTIAL SAFETY THREAT A "vapor cloud" flash fire from an LNG leak could result in a fire extending miles from the site, engulfing shipping lanes and any humans or vessels caught in range: In addition,. according to the US Geological Survey, the LNG terminal and the proposed gas pipelines would overlay a number of seismic fault lines prone to major earthquakes. The Woodside proposal even acknowledges that "the OceanWay Project will be subjected to strong ground shaking from earthquakes and possibly other secondary effects caused by earthquakes,° such as liquefaction and fault ruptures. Unfortunately, there is no codified standard for seismic design requirements for an LNG import terminal. In edition, the ships that Woodside intends to use to transfer the LNG ftalTway around the world are conceptual. The specially designed regasificafion ships are conceived of regasifying 220,000 cubic meters of LNG onboard the ship while docked in the Santa Monica Bay. This way it can be transported to land in gaseous form. However this type of ship has never been built before. Why should we have to be the guinea pigs for this untested technology? THE PROJECT IS NOT SENSITIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS The onshore portions of the project could disproportionately impact tow-income and culturally diverse communities since the pipelines and transfer facilities will be located in lower income areas. The 11 miles of pipelines would run from LAX through Inglewood, South Los Angeles, South Gate and Huntington Park until they tie into the existing Southern California Gas lines at three existing locations. This puts the lines directly through some of the lowest-income areas in the region. In addition, the ships carrying the LNG from Australia will not run on clean fuel. This will bring even more pollution into one of the most polluted regions in the nation. Woodside proposes delivering 15°~ of California's LNG supplies, which previously arrived via pipelines, by ship. These LNG carriers will. be idling in the Bay while they transfer their LNG to regasificaflon ships offshore - -spewing pollution towards us while sitting just off the coast. There is huge irony that they will be polluting our coast to provide Cal'rfomians wish "cleaner" fuel. THE CONTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WILL CREATE A NOISE PROBLEM IN PLAYA DEL REY Woodside's plan is to drill the pipeline to reach shore. Acx;ording to Woodside's proposal, "offshore pipeline construction will be a 24 hour(? days per week operation for the duration of the installafion.° Stopping and starting the process .could undermine the integrity of the hole being drilled. This loud round- the-clock drilling is expected to take six months along the shore near Playa del Rey. OTHER POSSIBLE PROJECTS ARE AMERICAN•OWNED Woodside's project is one of three projects being considered off the coast of Caifomia. The other two projects still in the planning phases are NorthemStar Natural Gas' proposed platform 12 miles off the coast of Oxnard known as Clearwater Port, and Esperanza Energy's Port Esperanza, a floating terminal 15 miles off the coast of Long Beach. NorthemStar Natural Gas Inc. is a U.S: owned and -managed company, and Esperanza Energy LLC is a newly formed subsidiary of Tidelands Oil and Gas Corp., based in San Antonio, TX. While Australia is an alty, shouldn't an American company be preferred when it comes to ensuring the security of our energy terminals and pipelines?