    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF POTENTIAL OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF PLATFORM
         FABRICATION/ASSEMBLY YARD SITES IN WASHINGTON'S COASTAL ZONE

                     WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
                                  FEBRUARY 1984

          JOHN SPELLMAN                                   DONALD W. MOOS
          GOVERNOR                                        DIRECTOR

                                      WDOE 83-12

                                      The Cover
    The cover illustration is an artist's conception of the concrete production island being
    proposed by Exxon USA for use in the Norton Sound and Beaufort Sea in water as shallow
    as 40 feet or as deep as 180 feet. The six-sided concrete production island would provide
    a stable base for drilling in an ice environment.I

                     AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF POTENTIAL OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
                              PLATFORM FABRICATION/ASSEMBLY YARD SITES IN
                                       WASHINGTON'S COASTAL ZONE

                                         A Study Prepared By:
                                Steven J. Craig, Environmental Planner

                                      Coastal Energy Impact Program
                                      Joseph R. Williams, Manager
                              The Washington State Department of Ecology
                                           Shorelands Division
                                       Olympia, Washington 98504
                                             (206) 459-6283

                      Property of ' ,L L; brary        Li. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                                       COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                                       2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                       CHARLESTON , SC 29405-'' 3

                                            February, 1984

                John Spellman                                           Donald W. Moos
                Governor                                                Director

                            "The preparation of this report was financially
                             aided with funds obtained from the National
                             Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
                             appropriated for Section 308 of the Coastal
                             Zone Management Act of 1972."
    '~J

       "Some 150,000 people are currently employed in the design,
      construction,  and  management  of  offshore  platforms.   This

      global effort is guiding annual expenditures of more than
       $15 billion and nearly all estimates of future growth exceed
      20 percent per year." I

      "No oil-related environmental issue has received less atten-
       tion in the United States than the coastal impact of con-

       struction sites for offshore oil production platforms.-/

    Ellers, Fred S. "Advanced Offshore Oil Platforms," Scientific American.

    April 1982, Vol. 246, No. 4, p. 39.

    Baldwin, P. L. and Baldwin, M. E., Onshore Planning for Offshore Oil-

    Lessons from Scotland. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.,

    1975. p. 67.

                                    ii

            AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF POTENTIAL OCS PLATFORM
       FABRICATION/ASSEMBLY YARD SITES IN WASHINGTON'S COASTAL ZONE

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                   Page

    Table of Contents ....................                         iii
    List of Tables ...................... ix
    List of Figures .....................                          x

    CHAPTER 1: STUDY SUMMARY ................ 1-1

        Introduction .................... 1-1

        Background ..................... 1-1

        Study Scope ..................... 1-3

        Study Findings ................... 1-4

    CHAPTER 2: CALIFORNIA AND ALASKA DEMAND FOR OFFSHORE
     OIL AND GAS PLATFORPIS ................. 2-1

        Introduction .................... 2-1

       OCS 5-Year Accelerated Oil and Gas Leasing Schedule. 2-1

       Washington and Oregon OCS Development ........ 2-4

       California OCS Development ............. 2-4

         California Production Platform Demand ....... 2-6
         Timing of Platform Installation .......... 2-9
         Platform Types California ............. 2-9

           Conventional Steel Jacket ............ 2-11
           Tension-Leg Platform .............. 2-14
           Guyed Tower Platform .............. 2-14

         Summary of California Platform Demand ....... 2-16

       Alaska Offshore Development ............. 2-16

         Alaska Production Platform Demand ......... 2-18
         Alaska Exploration Platform Demand ........ 2-23
         Timing of Platform Installation .......... 2-24

           Exploration Platform .............. 2-24
           Production Platform ............... 2-24

         Platform Types - Alaska .............. 2-25

                               iii

                                                      Page

           Beaufort and Chukchi Seas - Exploration ..... 2-27
           Beaufort and Chukchi Seas - Production ..... 2-34
           Bering Sea - Exploration ............ 2-34
           Bering Sea - Production ............. 2-37
           Gulf of Alaska - Cook Inlet Exploration ..... 2-37
           Gulf of Alaska - Production ........... 2-41
           Cook Inlet Production .............. 2-43

         Summary of Alaska Platform Demand ......... 2-43

           Exploration Platforms .............. 2-43
           Production Platforms .............. 2-44

        References ..................... 2-45

    CHAPTER 3:  PLATFORM FABRICATION/ASSEMBLY FACILITIES. . .      3-1

        Introduction .................... 3-1

        Existing Platform Fabrication/Assembly Facilities.        3-1

         Domestic Facilities ................ 3-1
         Foreign Facilities ................ 3-2

        Need for Additional West Coast Facilities. . . . . .   3-3

         Facilities to Serve California Platform Demand          3-3
         Facilities to Serve Alaska Platform Demand . . . .   3-4

        Steel Jacket Production Platform Fabrication/
         Assembly/Installation ............... 3-6

        Concrete/Steel Gravity Exploration Platform
         Fabrication/Assembly/Installation ......... 3-9

        Concrete/Steel Gravity Production Platform Fabri-
         cation/Assembly/Installation ........... 3-14

        Other Designs:  Fabrication/Assembly/Installation.        3-14

         Tension Leg Platform ............... 3-14
         Guyed Tower Platform ............... 3-16

        Facility Siting Criteria .............. 3-17

        Description of a "Typical" Platform Fabrication/
         Assembly Facility ................. 3-18

        Siting Criteria for a "typical" Platform
         Fabrication/Assembly Facility ........... 3-18

                                 iv

                                             Page

        Climate ...................... 3-18
        Acreage ...................... 3-19
        Land Availability ................. 3-19
        Planning and Zoning ................ 3-19
        Slope/Soil .................... 3-20
        Channel Access to the Open Ocean ......... 3-20

          Sea Conditions ................. 3-20
          Channel Depth .................. 3-20
          Channel Width .................. 3-21

        Graving Dock ................... 3-21
        Cargo Piers .................... 3-21
        Energy Needs ................... 3-22

          Electricity ................... 3-22
          Other Fuels ................... 3-22

        Water Needs .................... 3-22
        Rail Transportation ................ 3-22
        Highway Transportation .............. 3-22
        Labor Requirements ................ 3-23

          Total Employment ................ 3-23
          Employment Categories .............. 3-23

        Absence of Overhead Structures .......... 3-23
        Wastewater .................... 3-23

          Domestic .................... 3-23
          Industrial ................... 3-24

        Fire Protection .................. 3-24

       References ..................... 3-25

    CHAPTER IV:  FACILITY PERMIT AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. .   4-1

       Introduction .................... 4-1

       Federal Permits ................... 4-1

       State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) ........ 4-6

       State Permits .................... 4-6

        Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA) ......... 4-6
        National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
          Permit (NPDES) ................. 4-7
        Sewage and Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities
          Approval ...... 4-7
        State Waste Discharge Permit ........... 4-8

                            v

                                                  Page

         Water Quality Certification and/or Short-Term
          Exception to Water Quality ........... 4-8
         Public Sewage Disposal Approval .......... 4-8
         Marine Land Lease ................. 4-9
         New Source Construction Approval (Air) ...... 4-9
         Water Rights and Approval of Public Water
          Supplies .................... 4-11
         Open Water Dredge Disposal. Approval ........ 4-11
         State Flood Control Zone Permits ......... 4-11
         Open Burning Permits ........... .... 4-12
         Crossings of Public Roads and Railroads ...... 4-12
         Noise Standards .................. 4-12

       Local Permits .................... 4-12

         Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ..... 4-12
         Shoreline Variance/Conditional Use Permits and
          Master Program Amendments ............ 4-14
         Floodplain Regulation Permits ........... 4-15
         Other Local Permits ................ 4-15

       Summary ....................... 4-15

    CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL ........              5-1

       Introduction ....................                          5-1

       Environmental Review Elements ............ 5-]

       Earth ........................ 5-1

       Air ......................... 5-3

         Sandblasting Emissions and Controls ........             5-3
         Painting Emissions and Controls ..........               5-4
         Welding ...................... 5-4
         Windblown Aggregate and Cement Dust ........             5-4
         Transportation Emissions ............. 5-4

       Water ........................ 5-5

       Plants and Animals ................. 5-6

       Noise ........................ 5-8

       Light and Glare ................... 5-8

       Land Use ...................... 5-8

       Natural Resources .................. 5-11

       Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions ...... 5-12

                               vi

                                                               Page

        Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5-12

        Housing  .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        5-13

        Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5-13

        Public Services  . .  . .  .                .....          5-14

        Energy .        ......................    5-14

        Utilities. ...................                             5-16

        Human Health . . .   ........ .5-16

        Aesthetics ............                        ...... ...    5-16

        Recreation .  . . .   .. .....                             5-17

        Archaeological/Historical .       ......                   5-17

        Competing Uses ........  5-17

        Economic . .        . .      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5-17

        References . ... .                                         5-19

    CHAPTER 6:  SITE SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS . . . . . . . . . .    6-1

         Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

        Existing Industrial Facilities where Platform
          Construction could be Potentially Accommodated .         6-4

          Anacortes - Snelson Anvil, Inc.. .  . . . . . . . .    6-4
          Tacoma - Tacoma Boat Co ..............                   6-11
          Tacoma - Concrete Technology .        . . . . . . . . . .    6-18
          Tacoma - J. A. Jones Const. Co .      . . . . . . . . . .    6-25
          General Construction Co. Yards 1 & 2 . . . . . . .    6-32

        Those Sites that could potentially be developed
          which have a substantial amoun of infrastructure .    6-39

          Everett - Weyerhaeuser Mill A  .       . . . . . . . . .    6-39
          Everett - Norton Site  . . . . . . . . . . ....          6-46
          Vancouver - Columbia Industrial Park . . . . . . .    6-53
          Longview - International Paper . . . . . . . . . .    6-61

        Those sites that could potentially be developed
          which have some infrastructure . . . . . . . . . .    6-68

                                     vii

                                                    Page

         Whatcom County - Cherry Point ........... 6-68
         Tacoma - Commencement Bay Outer Hylebos ...... 6-75
         Westport - Halfmoon Bay .............. 6-82
         Westport - Marina ................. 6-90
         Vancouver - Port Site ............... 6-97
         Kalama - Industrial Park ............. 6-104
         Kalama - Terminal Site .............. 6-111
         Longview - International Paper .......... 6-118

    CHAPTER 7: IMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES .......... 7-1

        Introduction .................... 7-1

        Siting Measures ................... 7-1

        Design and Operation Measures ............ 7-5

         Graving Dock Design and Operation ......... 7-5
         Dredging and Filling ............... 7-6
         Piers ....................... 7-6

        Mitigation Measures ................. 7-7

        Mitigation/Compensation: An Abbreviated Case Study        7-8

    APPENDICES ........................ 8-1

    A.   Summary of Oil and Gas Related Module Construction
         Activities in Washington State ..........               8-1

    B.   Far Eastern Platform Fabrication/Assembly Operators.    8-10

    C.   Department of Ecology and County SEPA Coordinators        8-12

    D.  Western Washington Air Pollution Control
         Authorities .................... 8-14

    E.   Emission Factors for Heavy Duty Diesel Powered
         and Gasoline Powered Construction Equipment. . ..   8-15

    F.   Summary of Impacts of Pollutants Contained in
         Effluents of OCS Related Facilities ........ 8-17

    GLOSSARY ......................... 9-1

                              viii

                             LIST OF TABLES

    Table                                                         Page

    2.10      Alaska and California Five-Year OCS Leasing          2-2

    2.11      Total California Offshore Petroleum Production
              Forecast ................... 2-5

    2.12      Estimated California OCS Development to Result
              from the Implementation of the Final 1982-86
              Oil and Gas Leasing Schedule ......... 2-7

    2.13      Proposed Platforms for the Pacific OCS -
              California .................. 2-10

    2.14      Alaska OCS Oil and Gas Development Estimated to
              Result from the Implementation of the Final
               1982-86 Oil and Gas Leasing Schedule ..... 2-17

    2.15      Differences in Alaska OCS Resource Estimates
              Contained in the 1982-86 Lease Schedule EIS
              and Subsequent Individual Lease Sale EISs          2-19

    2.16      Estimated Alaska OCS Platform Development to
              Result from the Implementation of the Final
               1982-87 Oil and Gas Leasing Schedule ..... 2-21

    2.17      Platform Projection Numbers from the Final EISs
              Prepared for Alaska OCS Lease Sales Held
              Between 1976 and 1983 ............ 2-22

    4.10      Typical Rig Yard Permit and Approval
              Requirements ................. 4-2

    5.10      List of Potential Environmental Impacts . . . .   5-2

    5.11      Construction Equipment, Usage Factors, and
              Sound Levels ................. 5-9

    5.12      Operational Equipment, Usage Factors, and
              Sound Levels ................. 5-10

    5.13      Materials Requirements:  Concrete Platform
              Fabrication Facility ............. 5-11

    5.14  Annual Energy Requirements ........... 5-15

    7.10  Impact Avoidance Measures ........... 7-2

                             LIST OF FIGURES

    Figure                                                        Page

    2.10      Alaska and California OCS by Planning Areas          2-3

    2.11  Conventional Steel Platform .......... 2-12

    2.12      Platform Designs:  Advantages and
              Disadvantages ................ 2-13

    2.13  Tension Leg Platform .............. 2-i5

    2.14  Guyed Tower Platform .............. 2-15

    2.15      Beaufort Shelf Development Scenario ...... 2-26

    2.16      Elevation of Arctic Exploratory Drilling
              Island ..... ............... 2-28

    2.17      Sohio's Arctic Mobile Structure (SAMS).              2-29

    2.18      Concrete Island Drilling System (CIDS) ..... 2-31

    2.19      Honeycomb Design Used in Concrete Gravity Unit. 2-31

    2.20      Portable Arctic Drilling Structure (PADS) . .        2-32

    2.21      Monopod Jackup for 15-90 Ft. Water Depths . .        2-33

    2.22   Arctic Conical Gravity Platform ........ 2-35

    2.23      Exxon Proposed Concrete Production Island . .        2-36

    2.24      Pile-Founded Steel Monopod With Cone Gravity
              Production Structure ............. 2-38

    2.25      Monotower Gravity Production Platform ..... 2-39

    2.26      Four-Legged Cook Inlet Production Platform. .        2-40

    2.27      Statfjord B Concrete Gravity-Base Platform.          2-42

    3.10      Steel Jacket Construction Flow Diagram .....         3-7

    3.11      Schematic Drawing of Roll-Up Procedure ..... 3-8

    3.12      Steel Jacket Installation Procedures ...... 3-10

    3.13      Molikpaq Steel Gravity Caisson Under
              Construction by IHI in Japan, 1983 ...... 3-13

    3.14      Concrete Gravity Platform Fabrication
              Procedure .................. 3-15

                                   x

                                                   Page

    4.10      Washington State Air Quality Areas of
             Jurisdiction ................. 4-10

                    Map and Aerial View of Sites

    6.10  Anacortes Snelson-Anvil Site .......... 6-7

    6.11  Snelson-Anvil/Aerial View ........... 6-8

    6.12  Tacoma Boat Plant No. 3 Site .......... 6-14

    6.13  Tacoma Boat/Aerial View ............ 6-15

    6.14      Tacoma Concrete Technology Corp. Site ..... 6-21

    6.15   Concrete Technology/Aerial View ........ 6-22

    6.16  Tacoma J. A. Jones Site ............ 6-28

    6.17  J.A. Jones/Aerial View ............. 6-29

    6.18      General Construction Co. Yards I and 2 ..... 6-35

    6.19   General Construction/Aerial View ........ 6-36

    6.20   Everett Weyerhaeuser Mill A Site ........ 6-42

    6.21   Weyerhaeuser Mill A/Aerial View ........ 6-43

    6.22  Everett Norton Site .............. 6-49

    6.23  Norton/Aerial View ............... 6-50

    6.24  Columbia Industrial Park Site ......... 6-57

    6.25      Columbia Industrial Park/Aerial View ...... 6-58

    6.26   Longview International Paper Site ....... 6-64

    6.27      Longview International Paper/Aerial View  ...       6-65

    6.28 Cherry Point Site ............... 6-71

    6.29  Cherry Point/Aerial View ............ 6-72

    6.30      Tacoma Commencement Bay - Outer Hylebos Site.       6-78

    6.31  Outer Hylebos/Aerial View ........... 6-79

    6.32  Westport Halfmoon Bay Site ........... 6-86

    6.33  Halfmoon Bay/Aerial View ............ 6-87

                                xi

    6.34     Westport Marina Site .  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6-93

    6.35     Westport Marina/Aerial View . . . . . . . . . .   6-94

    6.36     Vancouver Port Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6-100

    6.37     Vancouver Port/Aerial View .  . . . . . . . . .   6-101

    6.38     Port of Kalama Industrial Site .  . . . . . . .   6-107

    6.39     Kalama Industrial/Aerial View . . . . . . . . .   6-108

    6.40     Port of Kalama Terminal Site .  . . . . . . . .   6-114

    6.41     Kalama Terminal/Aerial View . . . . . . . . . .   6-115

    6.42     Barlow Point International Paper Site . . . . .   6-121

    6.43     Barlow Point/Aerial View .  . . . . . . . . . .   6-122

    7.10     Potential Impact Issues/Impact Avoidance
               Measures Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7-3

                                      xii

                                             CHAPTER I

                                           STUDJY SUMMARY

              Introduction

              This study, conducted under the auspices of the Coastal Energy Impact
              Program, was initiated to assist the Washington State Department of
              Ecology (WDOE) , local planners and industry in making informed and respon-
              sible decisions involving the siting and/or expansion in Washington State
              of industrial facilities engaged in the fabrication/assembly of offshore
              oil and gas drilling platforms necessary for California and Alaska Outer
              Continental Shelf (005) oil and gas development.  The study approach
              involved assessing: (I) market demand for offshore production platforms

    I      ~       ~~and associated modular structures likely to be required in support of
              OCS development offshore Alaska and California; (2) rig yard siting
              requirements based on projected market needs; (3) existing and potential
              sites for fabrication and/or assembly of offshore platforms; (4) environ-
              mental impacts and issues raised by this type of development; (5) poten-
              tial impact avoidance measures; and (6) summarizing federal, state, and
              local permit requirements.

              As with the "Coal Port Study" previously sponsored by WDOE, this project
              was a cooperative effort involving industry, regulatory agencies, local
              government, and port management representatives. Because of the coopera-
              tive approach taken, a common understanding of the strengths and weak-
              nesses of various platform fabrication/assembly yard sites identified
               in the study was established. It was intended, therefore, that sponsors
              and reviewers of proposals to expand existing facilities or to site new
              ones should benefit from having available the kind of preliminary plan-
               ning information contained in this study.

              Background

              Former Secretary of the Department of the Interior, James Watt, announced
              in mid-1982 the approval of a five-year leasing program designed to accel-
              erate development of oil and gas potential on the nation's OCS. Under

                                                 1-1

    provisions of this plan, nearly the entire OCS (I billion acres) would
    be offered for lease during the five-year period ending in 1987.  The
    Department of Interior estimates remaining hydrocarbon resources con-
    tained in the OCS to be 43.5 billion barrels of oil and 230.6 trillion
    cubic feet of gas.!!/ The combined Alaska and California OCS contains
    well over half the total OCS acreage and much of the estimated remaining
    oil and gas resources according to the Department of Interior.

    No lands offshore Washington have thus far been scheduled for lease sale.
    Nevertheless, the accelerated leasing activity underway offshore Alaska
    and California, combined with the recent large Santa Maria Basin discovery
    offshore California, have stimulated considerable interest in Washington's
    centrally situated coastline (between California and Alaska), as industries
    interested in supplying exploration and production platforms seek
    fabrication/assembly yard sites on the West Coast.  Another primary
    reason for the heightened interest in locating in Washington is that few
    sites on the entire West Coast meet the range of criteria considered
    important to establishing facility site feasibility.

    The heightened interest in locating on Washington's coast is evidenced
    by the fact that companies such as Kaiser (1976 and 1977), Chicago Bridge
    and Iron (1982), and most recently Peter Kiewit Son's Company initiated
    actions to secure coas'tal facility sites and others are understood to be
    currently reviewing potential sites.  Furthermore, existing in-state
    industries such as Snelson-Anvil (Anacortes), Concrete Technology Corpora-
    tion, Tacoma Boatbuilding Company, J. A. Jones Construction Company
    (Tacoma), and Wright Schuchart Harbor Co. (Seattle and Tacoma) have the
    capability and interest in fabricating and/or assembling platform struc-

    tures for use in offshore oil and gas development.  These in-state indus-I
    tries may at some point be interested in expanding and/or modifying
    their facilities to accommodate construction of various platform struc-
    tures required for California and Alaska OCS oil and gas development.

    Snelson-Anvil (Anacortes) and Wright Schuchart Harbor Co. (Seattle and
    Tacoma) have been building various modular structures for use in Alaska
    by the oil and gas industry since 1975 and 1973, respectively (see sum-
    mary of oil and gas related module construction activity in Washington

                                      1-24

    State - Appendix A).  Interest in expanding these and other related

    facilities in Washington State could result if the pace of oil and gas

    development should accelerate offshore California and Alaska.

    This study was initiated because of the apparent near-term potential for

    the establishment of a large scale facility(s) to fabricate offshore

    oil and gas platforms along Washington's coastline and because of the

    state's general policy to encourage comprehensive shoreline planning.

    It is intended that such planning, conducted in advance of actual devel-

    opment, will ensure that the need for a diversity of shoreline uses is

    met, while simultaneously providing maximum environmental protection.

    Study Scope

    Following is a summary of the methodology employed in addressing the

    major study elements of this project.

      * Platform Market Demand:  The initial approach taken in this study

         to determine future production platform demand offshore Alaska and

         California was to send a questionnaire to the various oil companies

         possessing leases in these offshore areas. This approach was under-

         taken simultaneous with a review of Department of Interior platform

         estimates. Because of a general lack of response to the mailing, a

         more direct phone survey was conducted. This approach proved to be

         successful, as companies were generally candid in addressing the

         difficult question of future platform need.  Because of the pro-

         prietary nature of the information provided by the oil companies

         involved in the survey, the individual company platform need estimates

         were aggregated to a total number.

         Need for West Coast Platform Facilities: A questionnaire addressing

         the issue of platform facilities need was sent to domestic offshore

         platform constructors.  The responses to the questionnaire were

         combined with the oil company telephone survey to assess possible

         need for additional platform fabrication facilities on the West

         Coast.

                                       1-3

        Potential Platform Fabrication Sites:  A questionnaire was sent to
        port and local planners requesting their assistance in identifying
        potential sites where platform fabrication/assembly facilities might
        potentially be located.  Provided in the questionnaire was a list
        of the siting criteria compiled, based on a review of pertinent
         literature and input received from existing platform fabricators.
        The resulting list of identified potential platform fabrication
         sites may not be all inclusive despite the effort to make the list
        as comprehensive as possible. There may be potentially developable
         sites  that  have been overlooked.   Information concerning sites
         identified subsequent to issuance of this report will be kept on
         file at the WDOE, Shorelands Division.

        Environmental Assessments:  A preliminary environmental assessment
        was undertaken for each of the sites listed. The assessment, which
        was a collaborative effort between WDOE and local planners, involved
         separating potential impact issues from minor or nonissues. Addi-
         tional comments concerning potential environmental impacts were

         solicited from the Washington Departments of Fisheries, Game, and
        Natural Resources.

         Impact Avoidance Measures:  This section addresses specific impact

         avoidance measures related to facility siting, design and operation
         and mitigation that should be considered by developers as part of
         general project planning.  These impact avoidance measures corres-
        pond to the kinds of environmental impacts which could potentially
        be associated with platform facilities development and operation.

    Study Findings

    The major findings of this study are as follows:

        Recent history and the results of this study strongly suggest that
         the platform construction industry has included Washington State
         as a possible location for offshore oil and gas platform fabrication/
         assembly. The major reason for this interest is the fact that

                                       i-4

      Washington is centrally located to potentially serve both Alaska

      and California future offshore platform needs.

      Platform construction sites in Grays Harbor and Everett received
      permits in the mid-1970s resulting in preliminary site development.
      Both of these sites were subsequently abandoned due to unfavorable
      market conditions.

    * Chicago Bridge and Iron, Inc. (CBI), proposed to develop a third
      site at Cherry Point in Whatcom County in 1977. This proposal was
      abandoned -after a lengthy land use battle which was lost by CBI
      only after direct involvement by the Washington State Legislature
      and the governor.

    * Currently, Kiewit Son's, Inc., has presented a fourth proposal to

      build a platform fabrication/assembly facility at the same Cherry
      Point site previously proposed by CBI. The Kiewit proposal, as of

      this writing, is under federal, state, and local permit review.

    * As many as 100 offshore production platforms may be required for
      combined Alaska and California offshore development by the year
      2000. This figure could be greater or considerably less depending
      on such factors as government approval of offshore exploration and
      development, resource discovery and confirmation, development econo-
      mics, and technical feasibility.

      In the near term (next 2-3 years or longer), specially designed
      exploration platforms for use in Alaskan arctic waters will likely
      be needed.  One such platform is currently under construction in
      Japan for use by Exxon in late 1984. Orders for two other similarly
      designed platforms (for use by Sohio and Amoco oil companies) have
      been held up largely due to the dry hole drilled on the Mukluk forma-
      tion in the Beaufort Sea in late 1983. An undetermined number of
      additional exploration platforms may be ordered if significant near
      term discoveries are made in the arctic offshore.

                                    1-5

    * The Alaska and Canadian platform market would likely be of greater
      interest to platform fabricators located in Washington because of
      close proximity and the fact that existing and proposed facilities
      in California and Mexico will likely be able to meet California
      platform demand.

    * An estimated 2-4 additional platform fabrication/assembly facilities
      may be required on the West Coast to meet domestic platform demand.
      This assumes that most, if not all, the platform construction is
      undertaken by domestic firms.

    * Far East facility operators may dominate both the California and
      Alaska platform markets because of 1) low labor costs; 21) low mater-
      ial costs; 3) many existing facilities being under utilized; and
      4) government support (subsidies) for facilities engaged in platform
      construction.

    * A total of ten platform fabrication facilities are currently being
      proposed on the West Coast in anticipation of accelerated California
      and Alaska offshore development. The proposed sponsors and their
      respective site locations are listed as follows:

           Sponsor                        Proposed Facility Location

        1. B. G. Offshore                 Ensanada, Mexico
        2. Kaiser                         Los Angeles, California
        3. Brown and Root/Wright
             Schuchart Harbor Co.         Eureka, California
        4. Exxon                          Eureka, California
        S. Chicago Bridge and Iron/
             Raymond International        Coos Bay, Oregon
        6. Guy F. Atkinson                Coos Bay, Oregon
        7. Morrison Knudsen Co./
             Concrete Technology          Astoria, Oregon
        8. Kiewit    So's                 Cherry Point, Washington
        9. Foundation Company Canada/    Prince Rupert, British Columbia
           Skanska of Sweden
       10. American Bridge, Div. of       Hunters Point, California
             U.S. Steel

                                    i-6

      * This study lists and evaluates 17 potential platform fabrication
         sites located in coastal Washington.  These sites were identified
         by local planners and port districts based on composite site criteria
         provided to them by WDOE in the form of a questionnaire. The evalua-
         tion information for each of the listed site locations should provide
         insight concerning a spectrum of environmental issues, which could
         conflict with site development proposals. This should not, however,
         be interpreted to mean that this preliminary site evaluation can by
         itself be used to actually predict whether or not permits would be
         issued for a particular site.

         Potential platform fabrication sites identified in this study were
         not ranked on the basis of suitability, but were grouped together
         based on the amount of infrastructure in place at the respective
         sites. Following is a comprehensive listing of the sites identified
         as potentially developable:*/

              Existing industrial facilities where platform construction
              could be potentially accommodated:

              Anacortes-Snelson-Anvil, Inc.       Tacoma-J.A. Jones Construction Co.
              Tacoma-Tacoma Boat Co.              Seattle-General Construction Co.
              Tacoma-Concrete Technology

              Those sites that potentially could be developed which have
              a substantial amount of infrastructure:

              Everett-Weyerhaeuser Mill A
              Everett-Norton Site                 Longview-International Paper
              Vancouver-Columbia Industrial Park

              Those sites that potentially could be developed, which have
              some Infrastructure:

              Whatcom County-Cherry Point         Vancouver-Port Terminal
              Tacoma-Commencement Bay,            Kalama-Industrial Park
                     Outer Hylebos                Kalama-Terminal Site
              Westport-Halfmoon Bay               Longview-International Paper
              Westport-Marina

    */While every effort was made to make this list as comprehensive as
    possible, there may be sites in Washington State that have been
     overlooked.

                                       1-7

    This study identifies specific environmental impact avoidance mea-
    sures considered applicable to the development of offshore platform
    fabrication facilities in Washington State. Discussion focuses on
    measures related to facility siting, design and operation, and impact
    mitigation. Close attention to each of these areas during the pre-
    liminary planning process could facilitate development at an appro-
    priate location without undue delay.

                             References

    Department of Interior News Release, Minerals Management Service.
    Approval of 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Announced,
    July 21, 1982.

                                  CHAPTER 2

                   CALIFORNIA AND) ALASKA DEMAND FOR OFFSHORE

                            OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS

    Introduction

    This chapter addresses the question of projected demand for offshore
    production drilling platforms and associated modular structures required
    for California and Alaska OCS oil and gas development (platforms designed
    for exploration offshore Alaska are also considered).  The emphasis is
    on developing an understanding of what the future platform market is
    likely to be, since the number of platforms required for offshore oil
    and gas development on the West Coast can be taken as an indicator of
    potential platform/module construction yard activity in Washington State.
    Projecting the number of platforms and modules that will be needed is a

    tenuous exercise at best. For example, as of early 1984 most scheduled
    OCS lease sales for lands offshore California and Alaska have not yet

    taken place.  Because exploratory drilling in these prospective lease
    areas has been limited, it is not known precisely what the production
    potential might be and, thus, what exact number of production platforms
    (and exploration platforms in the case of Alaska offshore development)
    might be required.  Further complicating the picture are the political
    and economic uncertainties related to extraction and sale of the resource.
    These uncertainties should be kept in mind in the discussion of projected

    platform needs which follows.

    OCS 5-Year Accelerated Oil and Gas Leasing Schedule

    A major factor expected to stimulate OCS exploration and development and
    thus the need for platforms and associated modules is the implementation
    of the latest five-year OCS oil and gas leasing schedule by the Depart-
    ment of Interior. As previously mentioned in the Background section of
    this report, the five-year leasing schedule, if fully implemented, would
    open virtually the entire OCS for leasing consideration -nearly I billion
    acres - compared to only about 2.5 percent made available over the last
    28 years, according to the Department of Interior.-

                                      2-1

    The latest five-year schedule, dated July 1982, contains 41 sale offerings
    proposed for the period from August 1982 to June 1987.  The schedule
    calls for 20 offerings on the West Coast including 16 offerings offshore
    Alaska and four offshore California (Table 2.10) (Figure 2.10).

    According to Department of Interior estimates, 85 percent of America's
    untapped oil potential is on publicly owned lands with two-thirds of
    that offshore and much of the new oil is expected to be found offshore
    Alaska.-/  This being the case, the need for production and exploration
    platforms and various modular structures, especially for development
    offshore Alaska could be significant in terms of resultant expansion of
    existing facilities and establishment of new ones in Washington State.
    The following sections in this chapter describe platform need estimates
    for California and Alaska offshore development based on information made
    available by the oil industry and state and federal agencies.

                                   Table 2.10

            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR FINAL FIVE-YEAR OCS LEASING
                      SCHEDULE FOR ALASKA AND CALIFORNIA
                            (August 1982-June 1987)

    Sale #         Planning Area                        Sale Date

    71             Diapir Field, AK                     August 1982
    57             Norton Basin, AK                     March 1983
    70             St. George Basin, AK                 April 1983
    73             Central and northern California    Sept. 1983
    80             Southern California                  Jan. 1984
    83             Navarin Basin, AK                    March 1984
    87             Diapir Field, AK                     June 1984
    88             Gulf of Alaska/Cook Inlet            Oct. 1984
    89             St. George Basin, AK                 Dec. 1984
    85             Barrow Arch, AK                      Feb. 1985
    92             North Aleutian Basin, AK             Feb. 1985
    91             Central & northern California        Sept. 1985
    100            Norton Basin, AK                     Oct. 1985
    95             Southern California                  Jan. 1986
    107            Navarin Basin,                       March 1986
    97             Diapir Field, AK                     June 1986
    99             Kodiak, AK                           Oct. 1986
    101            St. George Basin, AK                 Dec. 1986
    109            Barrow Arch, AK                      Feb. 1987
    86             Shumagin, AK                         June 1987

                                      2-2

                                              Figure 2.10

                              ALASKA AND CALIFORNIA OCS PLANNING AREAS

                                                 DIAPIR FIELD

                                        ARCH .
                                                      '~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,

                                                                                                      I' /D

                                                 _  BSIsi A L A S KA    a~a               AND
                                     BASI ~    ~      LAK                                 NORTHERN          San(i~,

                                                AV2 ~~,~R~~ I~CALIFORNIA                                    L C

                                                                -~ '   e                 ~~                ~~~~~~~~~~~~Santa
                   / BASIN                                                                                                 e      A\

                                                                                                          A2
                                                                                      SOUTHERNgl
                                                                                     CALIFORNIA
                        ST GEORGE

                          BASIN L
                                                                                                           MEXC

    �e9                                                                     GULF OF ALASKA
     9b �
                    ae 4..'..L                     I ~~KODIAK

                                 SHUMAGIN S;

                                Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service

    Washington and Oregon OCS Development

    There have been no state lease sales off the coast of Oregon, and in

    Washington State the only lease sale was held in 1978 for state lands

    offshore the Long Beach Peninsula. All leases from this sale expired in

    the spring of 1983.  No new state or federal lease sales are scheduled

    for either state at the present time.

    California OCS Development

    Recent oil discoveries on new OCS leases in the Santa Maria Basin off-
                                                            3/
    shore central California will likely be developed quickly.-  Three signi-

    ficant discoveries were announced in 1982 and field delineation and pro-

    duction operations for these areas are now being p).anned.  Geologists

    estimate that a minimum of 16 geologic structures hold the promise for

    significant discoveries in the offshore portion of the Santa Maria Basin

    that was opened for exploration during Sale #53 in 1981. 4/ Other basins

    offshore central and northern California are attracting considerable

    interest though final leasing of these basins has been delayed due to

    legal challenges to lease sale #73 on environmental grounds. These new

    oil. discoveries combined with the prospects of additional discoveries

    make offshore California the brightest spot in the domestic market for

    the next three or four years.-5

    A recent Dames and Moore report indicated that oil production offshore

    California increased in 1981 for the first time since 1969. 6/ According

    to Dames and Moore estimates, total offshore oil production by the end

    of' 1983 (225 mbd) will be up 64 percent from 1980 (137 mbd).  Furtheir

    increases in production are expected to accelerate as fields in the Santa

    Maria Basin are developed. Based on announced discoveries and indicated

    plans, OCS production is likely to increase from the 1982 78 mbd produc-

    tion level to a peak from between 400 and 576 mbd between 1990 and 1993.-

    Combined with projected state offshore production, the total peak would

    range between 520 and 700 mbd (Table 2.11).  Should these production

    increase figures be accurate, they would represent an increase ranging

    between 280 and 410 percent, respectively, over the 1980 level.

                                      2-4

                                              Table 2.11

                      TOTAL CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE PETROLEUM PRODUCTION FORECAST
                                             (1982-2000)
                                           (thousands b/d)

                        Federal OCS
                        1            2              3                4
              Base Case          Slow            New            State        Total Offshore
              Development    Development    Discoveries    Offshore          Base       Slow

    1982           78              78              -            109           187        187
    1983          122             122              -            103           225        225
    1985          122             122              -             93           215        215
    1986          325             250              -             88           413        338
    1988          385             300              -            115           500        415
    1990          575             395              -            125           700        520
    1993          500             400            20-50          115         635-665    535-565
    1995          430             355            50-100         105         585-635    510-560
    2000          350             280            50-100          85         485-535    415-465

    Source:  Dames & Moore, March 1983.
    1
     These are announced developments in the Santa Barbara Channel and Long Beach area and
      announced/potential development in the West Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin.
      Base Case development assumes no regulatory delays.

    2 Slow development assumes peak production occurs in 1993. Based on Southern California
      Coastal Pipeline Feasibility Study, Part C, Bechtel (December 1982).

      These are estimates to allow for possible additional discoveries offshore California.
     The industry's aggressive ongoing exploration plans and recent successes suggest a
      strong likelihood of additional discoveries.

     Assumes five percent per year general decline in production-from old oil fields through
      2000 with additional production from S. Elwood, Huntington fields, and new state leases
      in Santa Barbara Channel in 1988.

                                               2-5

    After the 1990-93 production peak, Dames and Moore projects an offshore

    production decrease to a level ranging between 415 and 535 mbd in the
    year 2000.

    California Production Platform Demand

    The number of production platforms likely to be installed offshore
    California (state and federal waters) in the next seven years (through
    1990) is estimated to be in the range of 15-19 platforms. This estimate
    is based on an informal WDOE telephone survey of oil companies (ARCO,

    Exxon, Chevron, Union, Texaco, Shell, and Phillips) holding leases off-
    shore California. The actual number of platforms installed in the 1983-90
    time frame could very well deviate higher or loover depending on a variety
    of factors ranging from government approval of development plans to
    economics.

    Looking beyond 1990, it is extremely difficult to determine what addi-
    tional number of platforms may be required for offshore production.
    Discussions with representatives of the aforementioned oil companies
    indicated that not until additional exploration and delineation work is
    completed will they know precisely how many platforms will be required.

    Realizing the inherent difficulty in estimating what the production plat-
    form requirements will likely be 10 to 15 years front now, the Depart-
    ment of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has, nevertheless,
    developed such estimates.  Each environmental impact statement  (EIS)
    prepared in conjunction with an OCS lease sale has included an estimated
    number of platforms likely to be installed subsequent to leasing and
    exploration. The BLM estimate, contained in the EIS prepared for the
    current comprehensive five-year OCS oil and gas lease sale schedule
    (1982-86), projects 56 production platforms being installed offshore
    California as a result of implementing this schedule.  Specifically,
    BLM estimates that 37 platforms will likely be installed in the southern
    California planning area between 1986 and 1998. Between 1987 and 1997
    BLM estimates that 19 platforms will be installed in the central and
    northern California plannin~g area (Table 2.12)]-7'  These estimates do

                                     2-6

                                                             Table 2.12

                                     ESTIMATED CALIFORNIA OCS DEVELOPMENT TO RESULT FROM THE
                                IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL 1982-86 OIL AND GAS LEASING SCHEDULE

                                                            Probability of       Number of                Platforms
    Planning Area        Oil/billion bbls*   Gas Tcf-         Economic Success*   Platforms         First   Most Intense   Last

    S. California             .9                1.5                 1.0                37           1986       1989-90       1998

    C & X California          .5                  .7                 .99               19           1987       1988-89       1997

    *Conditional mean estimates of resources (trillion ft3) to be recovered from adoption of the proposed
    Dept. of Interior schedule (Alternative I-1).

    Source: Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement - Proposed Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas
             Lease Sale Schedule, Jan. 1982-Dec. 1986, Vol. 1, March 1982. pg. 41-43.

    not include platforms likely to be installed on OCS lands leased prior
    to 1983 or platforms to be installed in state waters. Not included either
    are the additional platforms likely to be installed on offshore lands
    leased subsequent to expiration of the current five-year lease schedule
    (after mid-1987).

    No reliable estimates are available concerning the number of platforms
    that may be required for lease sales after mid-1987. Additional produc-
    tion platforms would likely be required. An estimated 52 additional
    platforms are projected to be installed on pre-1983 leases based on esti-
    mates contained in EISs prepared for individual lease sales #53, #48,
    and #35 (1981, 1979, and 1975, respectively)A' These additional plat-
    forms are projected to be installed between 1983 and 1998. Only four
    platforms are projected to be installed in state waters during the 1983
    to 1998 time period. 9/ A combined total of 112 platforms are, therefore,
    projected to be installed between 1983 and 1998 in California State and
    federal offshore waters.

    Estimates developed by BLM are just that and not everyone agrees with
    these OCS estimates) including the California Office of the Western Oil
    and Gas Association (WOGA). This coordinating organization represents the
    interests of the oil industry, and maintains that the BLM estimates may
                                         lo/
    be 90 to more than 100 percent high.-   WOGA's contention seems to be
    valid, particularly in light of the response to the WDOE telephone survey,
    which indicated that by the end of this decade (1990) about 20 additional
    platforms would likely be installed offshore California. If the BLM
    survey results are even approximately close to being accurate, there
    would have to be a flurry of activity to install the balance of 90 plus
    platforms projected to be required by 1998.

    There are just too many unknowns to justify the highly optimistic BLM
    platform estimate.  Negative factors such as lease sale litigation,
    slumping petroleum prices, increased platform costs (primarily resulting
    from the need to drill in deeper water) and perhaps, most importantly,
    overly optimistic resource estimates could each contribute to substan-
    tially reduced estimates of demand for production platforms.

                                      2-8

    Assuming the BLM estimates to be 90 to over 100 percent high, a more
    reasonable estimate of the number of production platforms likely to be
    installed offshore California between 1983 and 1998 might be 50-60.
    Halving the projected 112 platforms still leaves 56 which would represent
    an 80 percent increase over the 31 offshore platforms and artificial
    islands installed during the 25-year period between 1958 and 1983. This
    estimated range of 50-60 platforms coincides with the estimate developed
    independently by the Humboldt County Planning Department as part of a
    platform fabrication yard need assessment conducted by the county (Summer
    1983)."

    Timing of Platform Installation

    Platform installation timing predictions are imprecise, since a variety
    of factors can influence when a platform will be installed.  Factors
    such as government approval, platform cost and petroleum economics can
    alter or preclude installation even though a schedule may have been estab-
    lished. This should be kept in mind when reviewing the schedule of pro-
    posed OCS platforms (Table 2.13) prepared by the Department of Interior,

    Minerals Management Service. Not indicated in this schedule, for example,
    are possibly 10 additional platforms expected to be proposed by Occidental,
    Union, Chevron, and Texaco in the near future.-12 These platforms would
    likely be built before 1990.

    Only four platforms are known to be proposed for state waters offshore
    California  in the foreseeable future.  All four platforms would be
    operated by ARCO and would likely be installed simultaneously in the

    1985/86 time frame.-13

    Platform Types - California

    Exploration offshore California is expected to extend into increasingly
    deeper waters between now and the year 2000, as shallower, more easily
    accessible and, therefore, less costly oil and gas resources are exploited
    first. With the trend toward deeper water development, it is expected
    that larger more costly production platforms will be required. At least

                                      2-9

                                                            Table 2.13
                                        PROPOSED PLATFORMS FOR THE PACIFIC OCS - CALIFORNIA

                                                                                 Water           Distance
                               OC5-P        Unit/           Number of            depth           to shore        Installation
    Platform       Operator    number         (field)         well slots           (feet)          (miles)            date
    Edith          Chevron      0296       (Beta Northwest)      70                  161             8.4              1983
    Eureka          Shell       0301       (Beta)                60                  699            10.0              1984
    Gail           Chevron      0205       Santa Clara           36                  740            13.5              1986
                                          (Sockeye)

    Hermosa        Chevron      0316       New Discovery Tract  48                   605            10.0              1985
    Harvest        Texaco       0315       New Discovery Tract  n.a.                 788            12.0              1985

    Hondo "B"      Exxon1       0190       Santa Ynez (Hondo)   60                 1,200             6.0              1987

    Pescado "A"    Exxon1       0182       Santa Ynez            60                1,075             8                1988
    Pescado "B1"3               0183                             28                1,023             7.8           1992 or 1998
    Pescado "B2"                0182       (Pescado)             60                1,140             8                1988

    Sacate         Exxon1       0193       Santa Ynez (Sacate)  28                   620             5.0              ]989
    Hidalgo        Chevron      0450       Arguello              56                  435            12.0              1986

    n.a. = Information not yet available.

    1 All information regarding the development of Exxon's Santa Ynez Unit is preliminary; all numbers and dates are
      approximate.

     2 Two options are being considered for development of the Pescado field that may require either one (Pescado) A) or
      two (Pescado B1 and B2) platforms.

     3 The installation date for the Pescado Bt platform (if two Pescado platforms are determined to be necessary) depends
      on the location of oil treating facilities for future Santa Ynez Unit development. If the existing offshore storage
      and treatment vessel is expanded, then the Pescado B1 platform would be installed in 1998; however, if new oil treat-
      ing and storage facilities (and a new marine terminal) are constructed onshore, then the Pescado B1 platform would
      be installed in 1992. The difference in installation dates is due to the limited oil treating capacity of the
      expanded offshore and treatment vessel.
    Source: Collins and others, 1982; Ghylin, 1982; Lundvall, 1982.
    Prepared by the Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service.

    seven of the platforms scheduled or tentatively scheduled for installation
    by 1992 offshore California will be in waters 700 feet or deeper, and of

    these, four platforms will be in water over 1,000 feet deep (Table 2.13).
    All of these and other platforms now being considered for installation
    offshore California are of the conventional steel jacket design.

    The consensus of a number of manufacturers of production oil and gas
    platforms was that conventional piled steel jacket platforms would con-
    tinue to be built for offshore California oil and gas development until
    other alternative designs are proven to be more cost competitive and as
    reliable. Jacket fabricators generally agree that 1,500 feet is now the
    practical limit of steel platforms and that economic considerations may
    make alternative types of platforms preferable in water depths greater
    than 1,000 feet.-14

    Conventional Steel Jacket

    The jacket, or main body of a steel jacket platform, consists almost
    entirely of steel tubular members that are welded together (Figure 2.11).

    The steel jacket supports one or more decks on which drilling and/or
    production equipment is mounted. The platform is pinned to the sea floor
    by steel piles driven through the legs at its base. Such platforms are
    designed to resist the actions of wind, waves, and currents. Develop-
    ment drilling, production, and processing may all be centered on one
    large platform or they may occur on smaller, separate but interconnected
    platforms.  In deep water it is most likely for economic reasons that
    only one platform would be used. The well head equipment is located on
    the platform deck.

    The advantages and disadvantage of the piled steel jacket platform and
    seven other platform designs are summarized in Figure 2.12.  It is
    entirely possible that one or more of these alternative designs could,
    depending on needs and cost, substitute for the conventional steel jacket
    platform offshore California. However, two designs in particular, namely
    the tension leg platform and the guyed tower platform, stand out as possible

                                      2-11

                                            Figure 2.11

                          TYPICAL STEEL - TEMPLATE PLATFORM

                   Water Line              IJ~'

                                                                                     Jacket

                 Sea Floor

                                                Pilings

    Source: Draft ElIR Kaiser Steel Corporation
           Terminal Island Marine Assambly Yard, June 1983

                                                  2-12

                                                                            Figure 2.12

                               PLATFORM DESIGNS: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

                                                                                                                                          North Sea guyed tower
                                              Concrete gravity unit
      Piled steel jacket                        Advantages                               Articulated tower                                         APiled foun dation
                                               - Current technology                                                                               � Deepwater application under-
      Advantages                                  * Can take large deck loads            Advantages                                                   way
        * Current technology                      * Low maintenance                        * Piled foundation                                        � Buoyancy  can  reduce  pile
        * Has deepwater experience                � Sheltered deck loading                 * Deck weight not critical                                  stress
      Disadvantages                             Disadvantages                            Disadvantages                                             Disadvantages
         Very thick steels required              � Float-out depths limited                * No experience with large joints                        *  High   maintenance   on
        * Launching  presents great               � Sand poses foundation prob-            � Gas blowout poses hull dan-                                guywires
          stresses                                 lem                                      ger                                                      � Vessel anchoring difficult

     Steel gravity platform                   Steel tripod tower                        Tension leg platform                                      Catenary  anchored
                                                                                                                                                    floater
     Advantages                               Advantages                                Advantages
       * Can take large deck loads              * Piled foundation                         Unlimited depth deployment                            Advantage
        Sheltered deck loading          �          Small water plane area         �         Restricted vertical movement dnt
     Disadvantages                            Disadvantages                             Disadvantages                                                Unlicted depth m ove-
       * Float-out depths limited               * Very thick steels required              * Deck load sensitivity                                      estricted horizontal move-
        Bottles susceptible to damage           * Limited space for conductors           * Complexity of tensioning sys-                         Disadvantages
                                                Deck loading offshore                    terns                                                   * Deck load sensitivity
                                                                                                                                           * Large vertical movement
                                                                                                                                           * Vessel anchoring difficult

    Source: Offshore, December 1982

                                                                                   2-13

    alternatives to the steel jacket, especially in water depths exceeding
    1,000 feet.

    Tension-Leg Platform

    Tension-leg platforms (TLP) differ significantly from most other plat-
    form designs in that the platform structure supporting the modules and
    drilling rigs floats rather than sits on the seabed (Figure 2.13). The
    TLP, which is applicable to a water depth range of 500 to 2,000 or 3,000
    feet, is tethered to the sea floor by slender steel tubes or wire ropes
    attached at its four corners.

    The first production TLP is currently being built by Conoco (UK) Ltd.
    for use in the Hutton field of the North Sea (depth 480 feet). Because
    of technical problems associated with the construction of this platform,
    installation will not occur at the end of 1983, as originally planned.
    At the earliest, it is now expected that the Hutton would be installed
    in late 1984.  Problems associated with the construction of this first
    production TLP have driven the cost of the Hutton Field project up to
    nearly $1.2 billion, about 30 percent more than the original $900 million
    budgeted. 151

    Guyed-Tower Platform

    The guyed tower platform is applicable for water depths ranging between
    700 and 3,000 feet.  This unique platform design consists of a steel
    tower of lattice configuration with a constant cross-section from top to
    bottom; the width of the column is generally one tenth of the water depth
    for which the tower is designed (Figure 2.14). 16   The tower is held in
    place by a number of guylines extending radially from the top of the
    tower to clump weights on the sea floor.

    The first commercial scale guyed tower platform was installed for Exxon
    during June 1983 in the Gulf of Mexico.]17 Located in 1,000 feet of
    water, the 1,078 foot platform is expected to go on production iii 1984.

                                      2-14

          Figure 2.13                                                         Figure 2.14
    TENSION LEG PLATFORM                                               GUYED TOWER PLATFORM

                     IlLji~~~~~'

                                                                    Clump Weight

    Summary of California Platform Demand

    In summary, California market demand for offshore production platforms
    could be relatively strong between 1983 and 1998 compared to the recent
    past, based on information currently available.  An estimated 50 to 60
    platforms (more or less) may be installed in combined state and'federal
    waters during this 15-year time span as a result of leases issued since
    1975 and scheduled for sale through mid-1987. Of this number, an esti-
    mated 15-19 steel jacket platforms are likely to be installed offshore
    California by 1990. Other platform designs may be considered for water

    depths greater than 1,000 feet.

    Alaska Offshore Development

    The Alaska OCS is larger than the entire OCS along the coasts of the
    lower 48 states.  Planning areas there include about 815 million acres
    compared with 444 million acres for the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific OCS
    areas combined. Because of the hydrocarbon potential and large area of
    the Alaska OCS, more sales are currently scheduled there than in any
    other region. Much of what is known about the hydrocarbon potential of
    the Alaska OCS is through inference from seismic exploration, and a small
    amount of drilling. The limited amount of knowledge gained through these
    activities makes it difficult to judge accurately how many production
    platforms will actually be installed in the 1983-2000 time frame. Only
    after more extensive drilling is completed subsequent to each individual
    lease sale can more accurate platform needs be assessed.

    The first of 16 Alaskan OCS lease sales was held in 1982, as part of the
    current accelerated five-year OCS oil and gas leasing schedule.  The
    Diapir Field lease sale (OCS lease #71) drew bids in excess of $2 billion,
    which is indicative of the optimism concerning the belief that the Beaufort
    Sea acreage may yield another giant field like Prudhoe Bay.  The BLM
    estimated in their presale EIS covering all OCS planning areas that
    1.7 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil may be contained in
    the Diapir Field (Table 2.14). Other sources believe the resource esti-
    mate for just a single geologic structure (Mukluk) within the Diapir

                                      2-16

                                                   Table 2.14

                                      ALASKA OCS OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
                      ESTIMATED TO RESULT FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL 1982-86
                                         OIL AND GAS LEASING SCHEDULE

         Planning Area             Oil/billion bbls-,'   Gas Tcf**   Probability of Economic Success

    S. Alaska (Kodiak,
    Schumagin, Gulf of Alaska,
    Cook Inlet)                          .1                   .8                   1.00

    St. George Basin                     .4                  2.2                     .64

    Navarin Basin                        .6                  3.7                     .76

    Norton Basin                         .2                  1.6                     .57

    Barrow Arch                          .3                  1.0                     .76

    Diapir Field                        1.7                  8.9                   1.00

    N. Aleutian Basin                    .3                  1.3                     .42

    Hope Basin                           .1                    .8                   .24

    *'Conditional mean estimates of resources to be recovered from adoption of the proposed
      Department of Interior leasing schedule (Alternative I-1). This alternative most closely
      approximates the final 1982-87 five-year OCS oil and gas leasing schedule according to the
      Minerals Management Service, Los Angeles (June 1983 personal communication).

    Source: Final supplement to the Final Environmental Statement - Proposed Five-Year OCS
             Oil and Gas Lease Sale Schedule, Jan. 1982-Dec. 1986, Vol. 1, pg. 41-43.

    Field may be as high as five billion barrels.-'   This latter estimate.
    may no longer be valid based on the disappointing results of the first
    well drilled into this formation by Sohio in late 1983.

    The BLM Diapir Field hydrocarbon estimate is about three times that
    believed recoverable from the Navarin Basin planning area, which has
    the second highest hydrocarbon estimate (.6 billion barrels) of the
    scheduled lease sale areas.  The other Alaska OCS planning areas are
    estimated to contain between .1 billion barrels (S. Alaska Sale Area)
    and .4 billion barrels (St. George Basin) of oil with the overall prob-
    ability of economic success ranging between 100 percent (S. Alaska Sale

    Area and Diapir Field) and .24 percent (Hope Basin).

    Since the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for the
    1982-86 five-year OCS oil and gas lease sale schedule was released in
    March of 1982, individual EISs for the Diapir Field, Norton Sound, and
    St. George lease sales have been released with updates of estimated oil
    and gas resources. As indicated in Table 2.15, estimates for St. George

    Basin and Diapir Field were revised upward for oil, while the estimates
    for Norton Sound varied little. The gas resource estimate for the Diapir
    Field was reduced substantially from 8.9 to 1.78 trillion cubic feet
    (Tcf ). The gas resource estimate for Norton Sound also decreased somewhat
    (1.6 to 1.09 Tcf), while the gas resource estimate for St. George Basin

    increased (2.2 to 3.66 Tcf).

    The preceding discussion illustrates how resource estimates can be
    expected to fluctuate as new exploration data and information are made
    available. And, with the revisions in resource estimates it should be

    assumed that the number of estimated platforms required for development
    may vary from original estimates.

    Alaska Production Platform Demand

    If the BLM resource estimates for the respective Alaska OCS planning
    areas are close to being accurate, then a substantial number of offshore
    production platforms would likely be installed before the year 2000. As
    mentioned above, however, uncertainties related to making accurate

                                     2-18

                                                   Table 2.15

                    DIFFERENCES IN ALASKA OCS RESOURCE ESTIMATES CONTAINED IN THE 1982-86
                        LEASE SCHEDULE EIS AND SUBSEQUENT INDIVIDUAL LEASE SALE EISS

                                                                       Resource Estimates
              Planning Area/Sale No. (Area)             Oil/billion bbls                Gas/Tcf

                   Diapir Field*                             1.7                          8.9
                   71 (Diapir Field)** 9/82                  2.38                         1.78

                   Norton Sound*                               .2                         1.6
                   57 (Norton Sound)**J 3/83                  .14                         1.09

                   St. George Basin*                          .4                          2.2
                   70 (St. George Basin)*' 2/83              1.12                         3.66

    *Estimates taken from Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement - Proposed Five-Year
      OCS Oil and Gas Lease Schedule, Jan. 1982-Dec. 1986, Vol. 1, pg. 41-43 (March 1982)

    -*Estimates taken from EISs prepared for individul lease sales.

    assessments of undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources make proj-
    ecting the exact number of offshore platforms a difficult task at best.
    For example, the Cook Inlet (sale CI, 1977) and Northern Gulf of Alaska
    (sale #39, 1976) EISs projected the installation of 25 and 22 platforms,
    respectively, based on optimistic resource estimates. To date, no dis-
    coveries have been made in these-lease areas, hence no production plat-
    forms have been required.  Similar outcomes could very well take place
    in other Alaska offshore areas recently leased or yet to be leased.

    The current five-year leasing schedule (mid-1982 to mid-1987), if fully
    implemented, could result in 22 production platforms, including gravel
    islands, being installed on the Alaska OCS by 1998, according to the
    final supplement to the EIS prepared for the leasing schedule.4/  A
    breakdown of platform numbers and probable installation dates by planning
    area is shown in Table 2.16. As this table indicates, the first of the
    platform installations resulting from the current five-year lease schedule
    would not likely occur until 1986 with the highest number of installations
    peaking in the 1987-91 time frame.

    Though the projected number of Alaska OCS production platforms for all
    planning areas was made as recently as March 1982, new data suggests
    that these estimates (22 platforms) may be conservative. For example,
    based on mean resource estimates, contained in individual EISs for the
    Diapir Field (sale #71, October 1982), Norton Sound (sale #57, March
    1983) and St. George (sale #70, April 1.983) planning areas, 23 platforms
                                                                       20/
    would likely be installed on leased lands in these planning areas.--
    Add to this figure the platforms projected, based on anticipated devel-
    opment of Alaska OCS leases issued between 1979 and 1981, and an esti-
    mated total ranging between 32 and 35 platforms would be installed
    (Table 2.17). Not included in this total are the 47 platforms previously
    projected to be installed in the Northern Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet
    resulting from lease sales held in 1976 and 1977, respectively. Plat-
    form projections for these lease areas were not included, since no dis-
    coveries have yet occurred and prospects appear dim.

                                      2-20

                                   Table 2.16

         ESTIMATED ALASKA OCS PLATFORM DEVELOPMENT TO RESULT FROM THE
       IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL 1982-87 OIL AND GAS LEASING SCHEDULE

                                  Number of            Platforms
    Planning Area                  Platforms    First  Most Intense  Last
    S. Alaska (Kodiak,
    Schumagin, Gulf of
    Alaska, Cook Inlet)                1         1991        1991      1991

    St. George Basin                  3          1987      1987-91    1991

    Navarin Basin                     3          1988        1988      1995

    Norton Basin                      3          1988        1988      1993

    Barrow Arch*                      1          1990        1990      1990

    Diapir Field*                     8          1986      1989-90     1998

    N. Aleutian Basin                 2          1987        1987      1991

    Hope Basin*                        1         1990        1990      1990

     *Includes only the portion of the planning area in water depths of 0-100
      meters (328 ft).

    **Conditional mean estimates of resources to be recovered from adoption
      of the proposed Department of Interior schedule (Alternative I-i). This
      alternative most closely approximates the final 1982-87 five-year OCS
      oil and gas leasing schedule according to the Minerals Management Service,
      Los Angeles (June 1983 personal communication).

    Source: Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement - Proposed
             Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale Schedule, Jan. 1982-Dec.,
             1986, Vol. 1, pg. 41-43.

                                      2-21

                                              Table 2.17

                PLATFORM PROJECTION NUMBERS FROM FINAL EIS'S PREPARED FOR ALASKA OCS
                              LEASE SALES HELD BETWEEN 1976 AND 1983

                                                  Projected No. of
         Sale No./Area/Date                        Production Platforms

    39 (N. Gulf of Alaska) 1976a                         22b

    CI (Cook Inlet) 1977a                                25b

    BF (Beaufort) 1979                                   3-6c

    55 (E. Gulf of Alaska) 1980                          2c

    60 (Lower Cook Inlet/
        Shelikot Strait) 1981                            4c

    71 (Diapir Field) 1982                               3

    57 (Norton Sound) 1983                               9c

    70 (St. George) 1983                                11c

    a. No discoveries to date (1983).

    b. Projections based on extreme range for estimated recoverable oil and gas resources.

    c. Projections based on estimated mean range of undiscovered recoverable oil and
        gas resources.

    Source: Final EIS for the pertinent area.

    The range of 32-35 platforms is projected only for those OCS leases
    issued since 1979.  Updated platform estimates for the 13 remaining
    Alaska OCS lease sales scheduled through mid-1987 could increase the
    total. Until these estimates are available, it is probably reasonable
    to use what appear to be fairly conservative planning area estimates
    contained in the final supplement to the final EIS prepared for the
    current OCS leasing schedule  (Table 2.16).  The additional platforms
    projected in this EIS for planning areas not yet leased would increase
    the total estimated number of production platforms (including gravel
    islands) to between 39 and 42.  Since three of the 13 remaining lease
    sales are scheduled for planning areas where leases have already been
    issued, EISs prepared for upcoming lease sales in these areas should be
    expected to further refine the projected total number.

    Production platform installations resulting from the sale of state off-
    shore leases and OCS leases likely to be issued after mid-1987 should be
    expected to increase the total number of platforms likely to be in place
    before the year 2000.  No estimates of platform numbers are currently
    available for state offshore lease sales or possible OCS lease activity

    after mid-1987.

    Alaska Exploration Platform Demand

    Year-round exploration in the arctic requires the use of unconventional
    platform structures, primarily because of the severe ice conditions
    encountered there. Oil companies operating in shallow Alaskan arctic
    waters have thus far been utilizing man-made islands as a drilling base,
    but are now beginning to turn away from their use because of high
    costs and the fact that they are not reusable.*/ As an alternative to
    gravel islands, several oil companies operating in the Alaskan arctic
    are proposing to have reusable mobile steel and/or concrete gravity plat-
    forms built to withstand the harsh conditions and thus make it possible
    to conduct exploration activities on a year-round basis.

    *Gravel from defunct islands can be requarried for use elsewhere, but at
     great expense and in water depths probably not exceeding 60 feet.

                                     2-23

    The total number of arctic exploration platforms likely to be required
    in the years ahead is not yet known. However, until recently there was
    enough optimism concerning the prospect of discoveries being made in
    Alaska's arctic offshore waters that three concrete and/or steel gravity
    platform structures were tentatively to have been built by 1985 to begin
    accelerating offshore exploration there. One of these platforms is now
    under construction in Japan for scheduled use by Exxon in Alaska's western
    Beaufort Sea in November 1984. Orders for the other two similarly designed
    platforms (for use by Exxon and Amoco oil companies) have been held up
    largely due to the dry hole drilled in the previously highly touted Mukluk

    formation in the Beaufort Sea in late 1983.  This dry well, the most
    costly in history, may have tempered the optimism surrounding oil and
    gas prospects in the Alaska Beaufort Sea.

    Should Sohio, Amoco, and other oil companies holding leases in the arctic
    offshore remain optimistic about oil and gas prospects there, the Mukluk
    experience could reinforce the opinion that less costly, reusable mobile
    exploration platforms would be advantageous over gravel islands. A better
    understanding of the direction these oil companies will take in deter-
    mining their arctic offshore platform needs may be realized in a year or
    two (1984 or 1985), after the completion of near term exploratory drilling.

    Timing of Platform Installation

    Exploration Platforms

    The first mobile gravity platform to be used for Alaska OCS exploration
    (Exxon) is tentatively scheduled for delivery to the Beaufort Sea in
    mid-1984. Other similarly designed exploration platforms may be ordered
    in the near future for use in the Beaufort depending on the results of
    early drilling and the level of optimism concerning oil and gas prospects

    there.

    Production Platforms

    The first Alaska OCS production platform installation, resulting from
    leases issued under the current five-year leasing schedule, should take

                                      2-24

    place in the shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea in 1986, based on the
    EIS prepared for the schedule (Table 2.16).  The period of greatest
    installation intensity, according to the Department of Interior EIS,
    would be in the 1988 to 1990 time frame. While it may be possible that

    the estimated eight Beaufort production platforms could be installed by
    1986, with more to follow closely in other areas in succeeding years, it
    is not probable; especially since initial exploration and delineation
    drilling have yet to be completed. Not until the results of preliminary
    drilling are in, will it be known if production platforms will even be
    needed, keeping in mind that in the Beaufort Sea, for example, a
    300 million barrel (or more) field would likely be required to be commer-
    cial.-21

    Assuming that discoveries are made beginning in the 1983/84 drilling
    season, it would likely take a minimum of seven to eight years before
    production would begin in the more easily accessible areas such as the
    Beaufort and perhaps double this amount of time in more remote areas
    (Figure 2.15). 22/ Factors that will influence Alaska offshore production
    timing include economics, environmental considerations, and approval
    and installation of marine and land pipeline systems. Problems associated
    with any one of these factors could slow or even prevent produc-

    tion operations.

    Platform Types - Alaska

    Alaska, unlike California, presents a variety of harsh offshore drilling
    conditions ranging from the violent storm prone seas of the Gulf of Alaska
    to the massive ice forces (most of the year) characteristic of the Beaufort
    and Chukchi seas. Unique environmental conditions in each of the Alaska
    offshore areas where exploratory and production drilling is expected to
    occur in the months and years ahead will require special drilling system
    design considerations not necessary in more temperate climates. At least
    fifty-one concepts for drilling and production in the arctic offshore
    environment have been identified. 23 The discussion which follows
    addresses some of the various types of offshore drilling systems being
    considered for year-round operation in the Alaska offshore areas. Special

                                     2-25

                                             Figure 2.15
                 BEAUFORT SHELF (OILCASE -500,000 BARRELS PER DAY) DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

         L_~ I       I   I    1
            PL ANNING AND PERMITTING
                         I   I
                   CONSTRUCT EXPLORAT ION ISLAND

                                    _-  EXPLORATION AND DELINEATION DRILLING

                         r DISCOVERY

                              _        PRFEPARE AND SUBMIT PLANS
    LLwI                                     I    I   I    I
                                        APPROVAL OF PLANS BY USGS
    LU
    co                   CONSTRUCT ISLAND '1 AND 2
                   ,,,                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I   I
              ~~u~~~~~--_ CONSTRUCT ISLAND #3 THROUGH 7
                   0tu~~~~~~~                      .              ~~~~(2 EACH YEAR)    I
    LI-
                      I-s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~             ___  _DEVELOPMENT DRILLING
    o                                                                 lIii
                                              U     ___I ~~CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
                                        _ _ _ _ _ _               ~~~ ~~I  I  I  I
                                          PREPARE TRANSPORT PLAN AND OBTAIN APPROVAL
                                                I  I     I   ~  ~I  I  I    I    I
                                                            DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT LAND AND MARINE
                                                             PIPELINES     I
                                                          l FIRST PRODUCTION
                                                                           I   I
                                                                        � PEAK PRODUCTION

                                                                           I    I    ')i
         1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  11  12   13  14 1 15 1 16   17 J18   19  20
                                                YEARS

       Source: U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas. National Petroleum Council, December 1981

    attention is given to those drilling systems that potentially could be
    supplied by fabrication/assembly facilities located in Washington.

    Beaufort and Chukchi Seas - Exploration

    The Beaufort Sea, while possibly containing the largest petroleum reserves
    of any offshore Alaska planning area, has the most severe environmental
    conditions. Massive ice forces in winter and wave forces in summer make
    conventional exploration and production drilling impractical. Alterna-
    tive means of both exploration and production drilling, therefore, are
    required. For example, the first round of exploratory drilling (1983-84)
    in the highly prospective OCS sale 1/71 area of the Beaufort will likely
    entail the use of gravel islands in 40-60 feet of water (Figure 21) 4
    But, as drilling proceeds into deeper water, in the second round (1984-85),
    gravel islands will likely become too expensive ($1-2 million/vertical
    ft.) and could not be reused. In their place, for confirmation and delin-
    eation drilling during the second season, mobile concrete or steel gravity
    structures will likely be used.-25 In the long run, these gravity struc-
    tures will be less expensive ($85 million or more) than gravel islands
    ($40-75 million) for exploration, since they can be reused.   This con-
    tention may have been confirmed recently as Sohio's Mukluk gravel island
    costs in Alaska's Beaufort Sea will push the exploration well's cost to
    more than $100 million, making it the costliest wildcat in history. 26'

    Several mobile steel/concrete gravity structure designs have been proposed
    to endure the severe ice conditions encountered in the Beaufort Sea.
    Sohio's Arctic Mobile Structure (SAMS) is such a design. It basically
    is an octagonally shaped barge built with a reinforced, prestressed con-
    crete base which supports steel drilling modules (Figure 2.17).  The
    interior of the structure would be comprised of reinforced concrete bulk-
    heads, thus creating a honeycomb effect. The walls of the SAMS are made
    of prestressed, high density concrete to defend against ice shear.  A
    steel/concrete wall is located atop the ice wall to deflect storm waves.

    The SAMS base would have the capability of extending seven foot diameter
    high stress steel spuds (anchor pins) to penetrate up to 40 feet below

                                      2-27

                                                      Figure 2.16
                                 ELEVATION OF ARCTIC EXPLORATORY DRILLING ISLAND

                         15

                                                                3
                                      SCALE: I "= 10'

                                                     !       300'
                                                    0....

                                                   BASE DIAMETER 2400'

                                                                                            SCALE:   1"= 300'

    Source: U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas Report prepared by the National Petroleum Council, December 1981

                          Figure 2.17
              SOHIO'S ARCTIC MOBIL STRUCTURE (SAMS)

          ,_<S~_

    Source: Offshore, July 1983

                              2-29

    the sea floor preventing lateral movement. The bottom soils and struc-
    ture mat would provide vertical resistance.

    Individual wells onboard would be protected by special caissons designed
    to separate from the mat should the base slide.

    The concrete island drilling system (CIDS) is a similar structure designed
    by Global Marine Development Inc. and now under construction in Japan by
    NKK.21/ The CIDS design utilizes stacked concrete modules topped with
    a steel drilling barge (Figure 2.18). A depth range of 18-52 feet carl
    be achieved with this design by assembling modules of varying heights.

    The CIDS, as with the SAMS, utilizes a compartmental design. The con-
    crete base structure would be comprised of a network of hollow precast
    concrete cylinders (Figure 2.19)*connected by walls and enclosed top and
    bottom by concrete slabs which provide both the weight necessary for ice
    pack resistance and buoyancy (after deballasting) necessary for moving
    the structure. Ballasting and deballasting are achieved with sea water.

    The CIDS can be moved to another site by refloating the concrete module
    and towing the entire structure intact. Differences in water depth are
    expected to be accommodated by restacking the base modules to the appro-

    priate level.

    Another drilling system designed for the shallower waters (20-50 ft) of
    the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is the portable arctic drilling structure
    (PADS). This drilling system, designed by Chicago Bridge and Iron Indus-
    tries, Inc., Chicago, could be built for exploratory and/or development
               28/
    activities.-   The combination steel (80 percent)/concrete (20 percent)
    drilling system would be 400 feet in diameter and 75-80 feet high
    (Figure 2.20).  Conventional arctic land rigs could be adapted for use
    on the PADS.

    Other drilling structure designs being considered by industry for explora-
    tion of the shallower areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas include:
    (1) a variety of steel caisson configurations aimed at containing a

                                      2-30

                                   Figure 2.18                                                                    Figure 2.19
               CONCRETE ISLAND DRILLING SYSTEM (CIDS)                                  HONEYCOMB DESIGN USED IN CONCRETE GRAVITY UNIT

               STACKED GRAVITY UNIT FOR 18-55 FOOT DEPTHS

                                                                                                                               Axial forces
                                                                                                              Top slab                   -4:911
                                                                                                                                          Lateral forces
                                                                                               Precast closures Bl                         r      fc

                                                                                                                                  I1Honeycomb cells

        Steel decl                    Ag IDU integated drilling unit
        storage barges          -

     44                                           ft                                           thick concrete modules

    Source: Offshore, December 1982

                                         Figure 2.20
                      PORTABLE ARCTIC DRILLING STRUCTURE (PADS)

    Source: Oil and Gas Journal, June 13, 1983

                                              2-32

                                               Figure 2.21
                       MONOPOD JACKUP FOR 115-90 FOOT WATER DEPTHS

                                                          Drilling rig on skids

              Jacking legs (up position)

                                                                              Jacking leg (down position)

                                              Steel gravity base

    Source: Offshore, December 1982

                                                   2-33

    gravel island, (2) conversion of a very large crude carrier (tanker) to
    a steel drilling caisson, (3) a steel monopod jackup (Figure 2.21), and
    (4) several types of arctic class semisubmersibles.

    A somewhat different design approach is required for drilling systems
    located in deeper water areas of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.  The
    design difference is required due to the increased severity of ice forces
    encountered in the deeper water. Currently, a conical gravity structure
    may be the leading design contender for water depths ranging from 100 to
    250 feet deep and possibly deeper (Figure 2.22).-2   Such structures
    capable of supporting both exploration and development are being investi -
    gated.

    Beaufort and Chukchi Seas - Production

    For production in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, current opinion is that
    gravel islands will likely be utilized for water depths approaching 100
    feet unless an alternative, less expensive permanent means can be devel-
    oped. 30  It may be possible that versions of the mobile steel/concrete
    gravity platforms proposed for exploratory drilling can be utilized for
    production in shallow Beaufort Sea waters and gravity-based cone struc-
    tures in deeper waters i.e. , 150 to 250 feet.  In either case, it is

    essential that Development platforms be able to support drilling opera-

    tions year-round.

    Exxon is one of many companies considering a specialized production
    drilling system dresign for the Beaufort. 31 The concrete production

    island being proposed would be used in water 40 to 180 feet deep
    (Figure 2.23).  Once positioned on the sea floor, the six-sided island
    would be filled with sand or gravel as a means of anchoring it in place.
    The concrete production island would provide a solid drilling base,
    resistant to ice forces like the conventional dredged gravel islands.

    Bering Sea - Exploration

    The Bering Sea is a subarctic environment forming a transition between
    the stormy Gulf of Alaska and the ice covered Arctic Ocean. While the

                                      2-34

                                             Figure 2.22
                             ARCTIC CONICAL GRAVITY PLATFORM

    Source: U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas, Petroleum Council, December 1981

                                                  2-35

                                                 Figure 2.23
                                  EXXON PROPOSED PRODUCTION ISLAND

    Source: Exxon U.S.A., First Quarter, 1983

                                             Figure 2.22
                             ARCTIC CONICAL GRAVITY PLATFORM

    Source: U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas, Petroleum Council, December 1981

                                                  2-35

                                                    Figure 2.23
                                    EXXON PROPOSED PRODUCTION ISLAND

    Source: Exxon U.S.A., First Quarter, 1983

    Source: Exxon U.S.A., First Quarter, 1983

    combination of bad weather and seasonal occurrence of sea ice distin-
    guishes the Bering Sea from other 'U.S. offshore areas, each of these
    environmental elements is less severe than in the Chukchi and Beaufort
    seas to the north.

    Conventional exploratory drilling systems will likely be used in most
    areas of the Bering Sea. Jack-up units, for example, can be used in the
    Bering Sea in water depths generally under 300 feet. This would include
    Norton Sound, the North Aleutian Basin, and part of the St. George
    Basin.-32 In deeper waters, such as the Navarin Basin, semisubmersibles
    and drillships can be used during the seven month ice free season. An
    extension of the drilling season may be achieved with use of ice breakers
    and water agitating techniques.

    Bering Sea - Production

    Gravity-based cone production platforms in the northern Bering Sea (the
    Norton and St. Matthew-Hall basins) may be feasible in water depths
    between 60 and 200 feet (Figure 2.24). 33/  The concrete production
    island mentioned previously for use in the Beaufort might also be suit-
    able in these water depths.

    In the southern Bering Sea (the Bristol Bay, St. George, Aleutian, and
    Navarin basins) development may be accomplished on gravity-based struc-
    tures in water as deep as 650 feet (Figure 2.25). Pile-supported struc-
    tures may be used in the southern Bering Sea to water depths of approxi-
    mately 200 feet (Figure 2.26).  These platforms would be designed such
    that the wells would be protected from ice flows by their containment
    within the legs or a supporting caisson.

    Gulf of Alaska - Cook Inlet Exploration

    Explo ration drilling has proceeded in the Gulf of Alaska utilizing con-
    ventional mobile drilling systems in water depths generally under 700 feet.

    Jack-up rigs can be used in shallow water and drillships and semisubmer-
    sibles can be used in deeper water. For example, during the summer of

                                     2-37

                                    Figure 2.24
    PILE FOUNDED STEEL MONOPOD WITH CONE GRAVITY PRODUCTION STRUCTURE

    Source: Exxon U.S.A., First Quarter, 1983

                                         2-38

                                        Figure 2.25
                      MONOTOWER GRAVITY PRODUCTION PLATFORM

    Source: Exxon U.S.A., First Quarter, 1983

                                             2-39

                                          Figure 2.26
                  FOUR-LEGGED COOK INLET PRODUCTION STRUCTURE

                Drilling rig

                                                                               Drilling rig

                   Quarters Pipe rack

              Drilling deck        .:
               Quarters                        E     q

         Production deck   Sidings

                                   E I

            Doubler plate_
                                        ~~,__
                          _r    p   ~~~~                                         ~~~I  I  _

                        -~~~                                              -~I

                       Elev. 6.00'
                      Elev. 25.00'            _

                  Mud line

                                   fin Mi      Piling penetration       nr nn
                                  Igglot                                Ilf gj
                                      It1 ~ E               j,,lll llI
                                      iIA

    Source: U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas. National Petroleum Council, December 1981

                                               2-40

    1983, ARCO drilled a wildcat in the Gulf of Alaska about 30 miles offshore
    southeast Yakutat utilizing the Ocean Odyssey, a new arctic class semi-
    submersible built in Japan.  It appears unlikely that mobile rigs such
    as these would be built in Washington, since existing facilities else-
    where can fabricate them more economically.

    Cook Inlet exploration can and has been undertaken utilizing the same
    conventional drilling systems described above.

    Gulf of Alaska - Production

    Steel jacket platforms are considered the most likely choice for oil
    production in the Gulf of Alaska.  Concrete gravity platforms, tension
    leg platforms, or guyed tower platforms might also be considered, should
    economically exploitable petroleum discoveries be made there. L4   The
    steel jackets used in the Gulf of Alaska would likely be similar to
    those previously described for offshore California.

    Should concrete gravity platforms be considered for the Gulf of Alaska,
    they might be designed similar to those used extensively in the North
    Sea, where weather and sea conditions approximate those of the Gulf of
    Alaska. During the last 13 years, 21 such "gravity base" structures have
    been built by Norwegian, Btitish, and French contractors. The most recent

    and advanced of these was the 899,000 ton Statfjord B, built in Norway
    and installed in 1982 (Figure 2.27).

    Because of their tremendous mass, concrete gravity structures have proven
    to be especially resistant to severe wave forces.  Also, unlike other
    types of production platforms, it is possible to store large amounts of
    oil in the hollow platform base, thus making it feasible to transport
    oil by tanker rather than by pipeline when the latter is not possible.
    This could be an important factor in the Gulf of Alaska where pipeline
    installation may not be feasible.

    The Statfjord B, mentioned above, is of the Condeep design, which typic-
    ally consists of a large cellular base with a steel deck supported by

                                      2-41

                                 Figure 2.27
                STATFJORD B CONCRETE GRAVITY-BASE PLATFORM
                                   (Norway)

                             m1tw  ~Mt  ~
                                     I~ ~ .1 1i     1

    Source: Scientific American, Vol. 246, No. 4, April 1982

                                     2-42

    one, two, or three columns.  Wells may be drilled through the columns.
    This type of structure may be applicable to depths of 980 feet and may,

    as in the case of the Statfjord B, reach a total weight of nearly
    900,000 tons.

    Cook Inlet - Production

    Between 1964 and 1968, 14 production platforms were installed in the
    Upper Cook Inlet.*/ These platforms, which differ markedly from conven-
    tional steel jackets, were designed to endure severe conditions such as
    earthquakes, eight-knot tidal currents, 30 foot tides and ice conditions.
    The Cook Inlet platforms were built with one, three, or four large dia-
    meter steel legs used to support the drilling decks. The legs also serve
    as enclosures for drilling rigs. The Cook Inlet platforms, the largest
    of which is in 130 feet of water, are considered to be small compared to
    those that might be required for the Gulf of Alaska.

    Summary of Alaska Platform Demand

    Exploration Platforms

    The first arctic mobile gravity platform to be used for exploration is
    tentatively scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Beaufort OCS in mid-1984.
    Orders for two other similarly designed exploration platforms have been
    held up and may be cancelled, depending on the outcome of the initial
    round of drilling during the 1983/84 drilling season. No reliable esti-
    mate of future arctic exploration platform need, therefore, can be made
    until these and subsequent drilling season results are known.

    */Three of these platforms were built in Vancouver, Washington at the
      Columbia Industrial Park located on the shoreline of the Columbia River.
     Deck sections and quarters modules for Shell Platform "C" and deck sec-
      tions for an ARCO platform were built between 1966-68 by General Con-
      struction Co. (Marine Division of Wright Schuchart, Inc.) in their yard
     No. 2 in Seattle.

                                      2-43

    Production Platforms

    The first Alaska OCS production platfo~rm is optimistically estimated to
    be installed in 1986 in the shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea, based on
    the EIS prepared for the current five-year OCS oil and gas leasing schedule.
    Oil industry sources believe the late 1980s may be a more realistic time
    frame for installation of the first production platform. Gravel islands
    will very likely be utilized for water depths not exceeding 60 feet.
    Concrete and/or steel gravity platforms may be considered for deeper
    waters in the Beaufort. Other platform designs including steel jacket,
    conical, condeep mfonotower, and others made of concrete and/or steel are
    being considered for various areas depending on assessed needs.  The
    number of production platforms of various types including gravel islands
    likely to be installed offshore Alaska between 1986 and the year 2000
    could exceed 40 if current oil and gas estimates prove to be accurate.

    A variety of factors related to economic, environmental, regulatory, and
    resource confirmation considerations could cause this number to be con-

    siderably less or greater. The most intense period of platform installa-
    tion on leases issued between 1979 and mid-1987 is estimated to be between
    1988 and 1991, should development in fact occur. This time frame could
    be moved back, of course, depending on those influencing factors mentioned

    above.

                                      2-44

                                  REFERENCES

    1.  Department of the Interior News Release, Minerals Management Service,
        Approval of 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Announced, July 21,
         1982.

    2.   Ibid.

    3.   "Long-Term Looks Good for Marine Construction," Offshore, May 1983,

        p. 97.

    4.   "California Ripe for Active Year," Offshore, April 1983, p. 73.

    5.   Op cit. #3.

    6.   Munroe, Leslie S. and Wade, William W., "Implications of Expected
         California Offshore and Alaska Oil Supplies:  Refining and Trans-
         portation Problems of West Coast Oil Surplus," Dames and Moore,

         San Francisco, 1983.

    7.   Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement Proposed
         Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Lease Schedule,   U.S.   Department  of
         Interior, Bureau of Land Management, vol. 1, March 1982, p. 43.

    8.   Estimates of Future Offshore Production Platforms,  report prepared
         for the Energy and Mining Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
         tion Agency by Energy Resources Company (ERCO), Cambridge, Mass.,
         February 1983.

    9.   Ibid.

    10. H. Wright, California Office of the Western Oil and Gas Association,
         Personal Communication, April 1983.

    11. West Coast Platform Demand and Siting Study; Part 1 - Platform Demand,
         Humboldt County Planning Department, July 1983, p. 2-29.

                                      2-45

    12. Ibid, p. 2-30.

    13. Tom Tobin, California Coastal Commission, Sacramento, Personal Communi-
        cation, June 1983.

    14. A Deepwater Oil and Gas Technology Assessment, New England River Basins
        Commission, April 1981, p. 71.

    15.  "Conoco Details Hutton TLP Delay," Offshore, September 1983, p. 39.

    16.  Op cit. #14 p. 88.

    17. "First Commeccial Scale Guyed Tower Installed," Oil and Gas Journal,
        July 5, 1983, p. 56.

    18. "Alaska Prepares for Wildcatting Season," Offshore, June 20, 1983,

        p. 78.

    19. Final Supplemental to the Final Environmental Statement - Proposed
        Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale Schedule, U.S. Department of

         the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, March 1982, p. 41-43.

    20. Joan Hagan, Chief of Leasing, Department of the Interior, Minerals
        Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska, Personal Communication,
         June 1983.

    21. Williams, Bob, "Industrys' Probe of Arctic Waters Spawns Equipment
         Innovations," Oil and Gas Journal, December 27, 1982, p. 44.

    22. Gil Jemmont, Engineer Advisor - Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas.
         Personal Communication, May 1983.

    23. "Fifty-one New Concepts for Arctic Drilling and Production," Ocean
         Industry, August 1983.

    24. Op cit. #21 p. 44.

                                      2-46

    25. Ibid.

    26. "Exxon to use Concrete Island to Drill in Beaufort," Oil and Gas JournaL,
         September 19, 1983, p. 82-83.

    27. Op cit. #21.

    28. "Preliminary Design Finished for Arctic Offshore Drilling Unit," Oil
         and Gas Journal, June 13 1983, p. 59.

    29. Op cit. #21, p. 45.

    30. U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas, National Petroleum Council, December, 1981,
         p. 50.

    31. "Technology for Tackling Alaska's Oil," Exxon USA First Quarter 1983,

         p. 17-21.

    32.  Kelly, Paul L., "The Evolution of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units for
         Frontier Areas," Paper presented at a U.S. Department of Interior
         OCS Policy Committee Meeting, June 1982.

    33. Op cit. #30 p. 48.

    34. Planning for Offshore Oil Development - Gulf of Alaska OCS Handbook,
         Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of
         Community Planning, Juneau, Alaska, 1978, p. 158.

                                      2-47

                                  CHAPTER 3

                  PLATFORM FABRICATION/ASSEMBLY FACILITIES

    Introduction

    This chapter examines offshore platform fabrication/assembly facilities;
    where they are located, what they look like, and how many might be required
    to serve the needs of accelerated development offshore California and
    Alaska. Before proceeding, however, a distinction should be made between
    the terms "fabrication" and "assembly" as they apply to the type of
    facility considered.   Integrated fabrication yards are involved with
    both the fabrication and assembly of components such as pipe and/or

    prestressed concrete sections.  An assembly yard, on the other hand,
    receives the fabricated components and it is here that those components
    are assembled. As one might expect, the land requirements for an inte-
    grated fabrication/assemrbly facility are significantly greater than for
    an assembly yard.

    Existing Platform Fabrication/Assembly Facilities

    Domestic Facilities

    Kaiser Steel Corporation is the major platform constructor located on
    the West Coast.  Kaiser has fabrication facilities located at Napa and
    Fontana, California, and assembly yards in Oakland and Vallejo. Fabri-
    cated components are transported to the assembly yard by truck and rail,
    though Napa additionally has barge access.  The Oakland and Vallejo
    assembly yards each have one skidway for launching steel jacket platform
    structures.

    A major constraint associated with the Kaiser Assembly yards is that of
    bridge clearance for the larger platforms expected to be required for
    near-term offshore California oil and gas development. Kaiser' s Vallejo
    yard is constrained by the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, which has a
    clearance of 185 feet (MHW), while the Oakland yard is constrained by
    the Oakland Bay Bridge which has a clearance of 217 feet (MIHW). Platform

                                      3-1

    structures transported from these yards would also have to pass under

    the Golden Gate Bridge, which has a clearance of 232 feet (MHW)."' Struc-

    tures with dimensions exceeding these clearances could not be built at

    these yards.

    Between 1966 and 1968, six offshore production platforms were built by

    Brown and Root at the Columbia Industrial Park in Vancouver, Washington.

    These platform structures were designed for water depths ranging from

    just over 100 feet to approximately 200 feet offshore California and

    Alaska.-2 As with the Kaiser facilities, this yard is also constrained

    by bridges. The most limiting bridges of the four in place over the

    Columbia River between Vancouver and the Pacific Ocean are the Interstate

    and Burlington Northern (swing type) bridges at Vancouver (159 feet hori-

    zontal x 175 feet vertical and 200 feet horizontal, respectively).

    All other major domestic platform construction facilities are located

    along the Gulf of Mexico. Although platform structures built at Gulf

    Coast facilities have been installed offshore California, it would likely

    not be feasible for these facilities to build the expected larger platforms

    required offshore California. The reason for this is the 160 feet hori-

    zontal limitation of the Panama Canal. Large platform structures could

    not be transported through the canal and the cost and associated risk

    of transport around the tip of South America would preclude this alterna-

    tive.

    Foreign Facilities

    At least nine facilities located in the Far East, ranging from Singapore

    in the south to Korea in the north, could build platforms to supply both

    offshore Alaska and California (see Appendix B). These mostly large,

    modern facilities are located a considerable distance from where platforms

    will be needed offshore Alaska and California. The cost of transporta-

    tion, however, would likely be more than offset by lower labor and

    material costs.  These two factors could make the Far Eastern yards

    extremely competitive for certain types of platforms i.e. , those which

    could be transported a long distance with determined minimal risk.

                                       3-2

    Ensanada, Mexico, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, have been mentioned
    as possible locations where platform construction facilities might be
    built. B.G. Offshore Constructors, a French firm, has proposed to build
    an all-purpose platform construction facility at Ensanada, that could

    serve both California and Alaska offshore platform needs. 3

    The platform construction facility currently proposed jointly by Founda-
    tion Co. of Canada and Skanska of Sweden for Prince Rupert also could

    serve both Alaskan and Canadian offshore platform needs.-/

    Need for Additional West Coast Facilities

    Based on a WDOE telephone survey of major oil companies operating offshore
    California and Alaska, and a letter survey of domestic platform construc-
    tors, it appears that. there may be a need for additional platform
    fabrication/assembly facilities on the West Coast. Estimates range from
    2-4 additional facilities to serve both Alaska and California, assuming
    that the platforms will be built in the United States.

    Facilities to Serve California Platform Demand

    The exact number of facilities required to serve production platform
    needs offshore California, besides depending on the level of expected
    development and other factors, will depend on the number of skidways that
    could be accommodated at a facility. Currently, four sites are being
    proposed in California: one by Kaiser at Terminal Island in Los Angeles
    Harbor, one by American 'Bridge at Hunters Point in San Francisco, and
    two at Eureka by Brown and Root/Wright Schuchart Harbor Co. , and by Exxon.
    The development of these proposed sites could bring to nine the total
    number of skidways available in California.

    Until recently it was estimated that five to eight skidways would be
    required for Cal~ifornia offshore development over the next six to eight
    years. This assumes that all platforms are built in the United States,
    according to a recent West Coast demand study conducted by the Humboldt

    County Planning Department.-5  Since this report was released in August
    1983, West Coast yards failed in their bid to receive contracts to

                                       3-3

    build two platforms (water depth 605 feet and 788 feet) for Chevron and
    Texaco,  respectively,  for development offshore California.  Contracts
    instead were awarded to firms located in Japan and Korea.  This, of
    course, would reduce the number of skidways necessary for Californi~a
    offshore development by two, at least in the near term. The awarding of
    these contracts confirm the strong competitive position that the Far
    Eastern yards have, as development accelerates offshore California and

    Alaska.

    While it is certainly possible that proposals may yet surface to build
    jacket platform structures in Washington for use offshore California, it
    is probably not likely in the near term. This would seem especially to

    be the case if the proposed yard at Ensanada, Mexico, is developed along
    with the four other yards now being proposed for California.  There
    may, in fact, not even be a need for these proposed facilities if the
    highly competitive Far Eastern yards continue to outbid domestic competi-

    tion, which is a very definite possibility.

    Facilities to Serve Alaska Platform Demand

    The number of new facilities on the West Coast required to meet explora-

    tion and production platform demand for offshore Alaska is more of an
    unknown than for California. Not until more exploration and confirmation
    drilling is completed offshore Alaska will a comprehensive estimate of
    the number of exploration and production platforms required there be
    available. Projections of platform fabrication/assembly facilities need
    at this time, therefore, would have to be based solely on speculation.
    This is particularly the case, since yards located in the Far East will
    be extremely competitive with United States yards for the Alaska market.

    Currently, five new yards have been proposed for development on the United
    States and Canadian West Coast to serve Alaska and possibly Canadian plat-
    form needs.  Three of these yards would be developed in Oregon, one in
    Washington, and one in British Columbia.  Chicago Bridge and Iron and
    Guy F. Atkinson are proposing to build separate yards at Coo-, Bay, Oregon,
    while Morrison-Knudsen is proposing a similar facility at Astoria. Peter
    Kiewit Son's Company has initiated efforts to obtain permits to build a

                                       3-4

    yard at Cherry Point, Washington.-6  And, in British Columbia, Foundation
    Company Canada and Skanska of Sweden are proposing a platform construction
    facility at Prince Rupert. Each of these proposals would involve con-
    struction of a graving dock to build large concrete/steel gravity struc-
    tures expected to be required for Beaufort Sea oil and gas exploration
    and production (see Chapter 2 Market Demand).

    Because of strong competition from Far Eastern yards, it is reasonable
    to assume that not all of the platform fabrication/ assembly facilities
    currently being proposed for Oregon and Washington will be needed. Com-
    petition, in fact, could be so great that it is entirely conceivable
    that without U.S. government intervention, Far Eastern yards could totally
    dominate the Alaska platform market. A possible indication of their
    dominance is the fact that the first of the large mobile gravity plat-
    forms to be used for exploration in the arctic is now being built in
    Japan. The Molikpaq, the world's first all steel deep-caisson platform
    designed for year round drilling in arctic waters will be ready for
    delivery to the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the summer of 1984. This plat-
    form is being built by I111 of Japan. Another Japanese firm, Nippon
    Kokan KK, Tokyo, recently was awarded a contract to construct a reusable
    mobile concrete drilling system (CIDS) by Global Marine Development Inc.,
    Newport Beach, California (see Figure 2.18). 7/ This platform is being
    built for use by Exxon to explore lease holdings in the western portion
    of the Diapir area offshore Alaska's North Slope.

    Additional evidence of possible near term dominance of the Alaska plat-
    form market by Far Eastern constructors may be forthcoming as Amoco and
    Sohio oil companies each may contract for the second and third arctic
    mobile gravity exploration platforms (for use in U.S. waters), possibly
    in 1984. Before the disappointing results of the Mukluk Wildcat were
    known in late 1983, both companies were looking for a 1984 or 1985
    delivery. Such a tight time frame would likely give existing Far Eastern
    yards a competitive advantage, since domestic firms would most likely
    have to build a fabrication/assembly facility before work could begin.
    Because of the disappointing results of the Mukluk Wildcat, orders for
    these platforms may now be delayed or cancelled.

                                      3-5

    Steel Jacket Production Platform Fabrication/Assembly/Installation

    Steel jacket platforms will continue to~be in demand offshore California,
    and maybe eventually in the Gulf of Alaska and southern Bering Sea, should
    a discovery be made there. And, though it is probably not likely that
    steel jackets will be built in Washington State in the near term, it
    nevertheless is a future possibility. For this reason, it would be useful
    to establish a better understanding of the techniques used for steel
    jacket construction and installation.

    While it is not necessary that a jacket fabrication faci~lity and assembly
    yard be located at the sanie site, it is advantageous for economic reasons
    that these facilities be in reasonably close proximity. Figure 3.10 depicts
    the fabrication and assembly process from receipt of flatplate steel for
    tubular fabrication to jacket assembly and launch.

    After a platform fabrication facility receives flat steel plate from a
    foundry, it is fed into a rolling mill where it is rolled into a tubular
    of the specified diameter and then welded lengthwise. Sections may then
    be welded together, especially those requiring precision or complex work-

    manship and/or stress-relieving heat treatment in a furnace. Sandblasting
    and painting are generally undertaken at the fabrication facility prior

    to transport to the assembly yard.

    Once received by the assembly yard, tubular sections and subassemblies
    are welded together to form tubular members.  Joints requiring special
    cuts and stress-relieving heat treatment are often welded at the fabri-
    cation facility but sometimes this may be accomplished at the assembly
    yard, depending on capability.

    The tubular members are joined together on the ground to form the sides
    of the platform jacket.  After each side section is completed flat on
    the ground, it is raised to a vertical position utilizing long-boom
    crawler cranes (Figure 3.11). The side panels are then welded together
    to form a single jacket structure.

                                       3-6

                                               Figure 3.10

                          STEEL JACKET CONSTRUCTION FLOW DIAGRAM

                        BARGE

                             ___,_____                        MONOLEG CRANE

                        TRUCK                                               PIPE ROLL

                       RAIL CAR                                PIPE ROLLING MILL

               INCOMING RAW MATERIAL
                                                                                       OVERHEAD CRANE

    PRE-ASSEMBLY STORAGE OR
    PILING STORAGE FOR BARGE
    SHIPMENT         I

                                                                    YARD TRANSPORTER  WELD INTO TUBULAR MEMBERS
                                  YARD TRANSPORTER

         BARGE OR FLOAT
         FOR INSTALLATION

                                            JACKET ASSEMBLY AREA                 YARD MOBILE CRANE

                                        WELD INTO FINAL ASSEMBLY

       Source: Draft EIS, Construction and Operation of Pacific Fabricators' Steel Structure Fabrication Yard at
              Warrenton, Oregon, Prepared by U.S. Army Engineers District Portland, December 1977.

                                                    3-7

                                             Figure 3.11

                       SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF ROLL-UP PROCEDURE

             ,

                                              STEP 1

                        //7-                                                                               N

                                                              STEP 2

                                             STEP 3

    Source: Draft EIR, Kaiser Steel Corporation, Terminal Island Marine Assembly Yard, Prepared by Los Angeles
            Harbor Department, June 1983

                                                   3-8

    Depending on the design of the jacket, it could either be loaded onto
    a special launch barge(s) (possibly in sections) for transport to the
    installation site or floated and then towed to the installation site.
    Jackets that use their own structural members for flotation are consid-
    erably more expensive to build, since the diameter of the tubulars must
    be greater to achieve necessary buoyancy. Also, self-floating jackets
    must be assembled below sea level in graving docks partitioned from the
    adjacent sea by flood gates.  After the jacket is completed and water
    allowed to flood the work area, the gates are opened and the jacket
    floated out.

    Once on-site, the jacket sections are joined together if the jacket has
    been transported in more than one piece.  The jacket or sections may
    be upended by one or two derrick barges. The jacket is allowed to
    slowly sink to the bottom, or to its mating section, and is pinned to
    the sea floor by steel piping (Figure 3.12). Deck sections are con-
    structed and towed out separately. Once the jacket is in place, the
    deck sections are lifted on by derrick barges and secured to the jacket.
    Finally, the individual deck components, such as drilling equipment,
    crew's quarters., and production facilities, are mounted onto the deck.

    Jacket construction can take from one to three years, depending on the
    design.  Installation can take from 2 to 18 months, depending on such
    factors as weather, equipment availability, procedure utilized, and
    others. -/

    Facilities utilized for platform fabrication/assembly may also be used
    for manufacturing various platform deck modules.  Such being the case,
    it is necessary that enough area be provided for fabrication/assembly
    and that barge launch facilities be available.

    Concrete/Steel Gravity Exploration Platform Fabrication/Assembly

    Washington's proximity to Alaska combined with possibly several suitable
    platform fabrication/assembly sites, make the state a likely location
    for near-term construction of concrete and/or steel gravity exploration
    platforms for shallow Beaufort Sea waters. Evidence that this is the

                                      3-9

                                 Figure 3.12

              STEEL JACKET INSTALLATION PROCEDURES

              Step 1                   Step 2                   Step3

             Step 4                       Step 5                    Step 6
                       INSTALLATION OF JACKET BY LAUNCHING

                           Step 1                        Step 2

                        Step 3                          Step 4

                HORIZONTALLY CONNECTED SECTIONALIZED JACKET
                                                                       Step 5

                          Step 1
                                                        [(hHStep 2

                 Step 3                   Step 4                    Step 5
                   VERTICALLY CONNECTED SECTIONALIZED JACKET

    Source: "Construction of Offshore Platforms", Journal of the Construction Division, Proceedings
           of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 108, No. C04, December 1982

                                      3-10

    case lies in the fact that platform construction firms continue to be
    interested in developing such facilities along Washington's coast.
    Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CBI), in 1982, gave up on efforts to
    develop a platform fabrication/assembly facility at Cherry Point near
    Bellingham after failure to obtain the necessary permits. As mentioned
    previously, Peter Kiewit Son's Company has taken an option on the same
    CBI site and has begun submitting the necessary development permit appli-
    cations. Kiewit hopes to have the necessary permits to begin site devel-
    opment by mid-1984. Other companies have been rumored to be interested
    in developing platform fabrication facilities in Washington to serve the
    Alaska offshore exploration and production platform market.

    The Kiewit proposal, as did the C131 proposal, would involve building
    concrete/steel gravity platforms for Alaska offshore development. Kiewit
    has indicated that their proposed facility is in response to the devel-
    oping Alaska market for gravity platforms that could be used for offshore
    exploration and development, initially in the shallow Beaufort Sea area.
    As with CBI, Kiewit would undertake platform construction in a large
    graving dock (dry dock) situated below sea level and protected by flood
    gates against water incursion. A variety of steel and/or concrete gravity
    platform designs could be built in such a facility.

    The concrete/steel mobile drilling "island" or "caisson" platform concept,
    intended for use in arctic offshore exploration, appears to be representa-
    tive of the first generation of platforms now planned or being built
    (see Chapter 2, Figures 2.17 and 2.18).  These platform structures are
    the type that would most likely be built in the near-term on Washington's
    coastline, should a fabrication/assembly facility(s) be developed there
    and platform construction contracts be awarded to its operator.

    The construction of a concrete island-type gravity platform, such as is
    now being built in Japan for use by Exxon, would involve sophisticated
    concrete construction techniques.   Precasting of prestressed concrete
    components would necessarily be undertaken at a precast concrete facility
    located either on-site or elsewhere.  Precast components would then be
    transported to the graving dock assembly area. Large cranes would lift

                                       3-11

    the various precast beam and wall components into position over a cast-
    in-place platform base. Once these components were positioned, concrete
    pours would be made around specified joints forming the compartmentalized
    concrete platform base. Other specified concrete pours such as the lid
    over the compartmentalized base could be cast in place at the assembly
    site.

    Simultaneous with the concrete base being built, all of the deck modules
    would be fabricated and assembled either at the site or elsewhere and
    transported to the site. As soon as the concrete base of the structure
    was completed, the steel deck modules would be placed into position; most
    likely with cranes.  It is desirable that the platform be outfitted
    before it is launched though this is not a necessity. Once the platform
    is readied, the graving dock is flooded and the gates opened. The float-
    ing platform is then towed to the drilling site by large oceangoing tugs.
    Launch would most likely occur during late spring in order to coordinate
    arrival in the arctic during the ice free late summer season.

    Steel gravity platforms used in shallow waters of the Alaskan and
    Canadian arctic would likely be built in a large graving dock, as is the
    case with concrete gravity structures. The process for building these
    structures would be similar to that for building concrete platforms in
    that subassemblies would be fabricated and joined together in a step-wise
    fashion. The larger steel components would be lifted into position by
    crane and joined together (welded, bolted, riveted, as appropriate)
    utilizing techniques common in shipbuilding. Figure 3.13 shows an artist's
    drawing of the Molikpaq steel gravity caisson now under construction by
    111I (Japan) in a graving dock used to build supertankers.

    Launching techniques for the steel gravity structures would be essen-
    tially the same as for similarly designed concrete platforms.  Once
    the platform was readied for launch, the graving dock would be allowed
    to fill with water, the containment gates opened, and the platform floated
    out. As with the concrete platform structure, modules could be installed
    on the platform base in the graving dock or after launch of the base
    structure, depending on the situation.

                                      3-12

                                  Figure 3.13
    MOLI KPAO STEEL GRAVITY CAISSON UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY IHI IN JAPAN,

                                               /~~

    Concrete/Steel Gravity Production Platform Fabrication/Assembly

    An undetermined number of arctic shallow water concretefsteel gravity-
    type platforms could reasonably be expected to be built in the next five
    years at a facility in Washington State if such a facility existed and
    was competitive with Far Eastern and possibly other domestic yards.
    These shallow water arctic structures initially would be for exploration.
    If discoveries warranted, it is possible that construction of a new gen-
    eration of production platforms, possibly a hybrid of the shallow water
    structures, would follow. If this scenario should develop, it is prob-
    ably reasonable to believe that the same graving dock facilities and
    construction techniques used for building exploration platforms would be
    applicable for arctic shallow water production platforms.

    Concrete gravity structures of a much different design and requiring
    different construction techniques may be used in the remote, deeper water
    areas of the Alaskan Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. One of these designs,
    the Condeep concrete gravity platform, consists of a hollow concrete
    base on which one to four towers would be built. The base on this type

    of structure would be built in a graving dock to the stage where it could

    be floated out to deeper water (Figure 3.14). Once in deeper water (depth
    in excess of the final height of the structure) the structure would be
    lowered (ballasted) into the water as the tower(s) is built upward using
    a concrete slip-form technique. Once the tower(s) is completed and the
    deck modules installed, the platform is raised and towed to the oil field.
    At the installation site, the platform is allowed to slowly submerge to
    the bottom, where the shear weight of the structure keeps it anchored in
    position. Other conical tower concrete or steel gravity structures could
    be built using similar techniques.

    Other Designs: Fabrication/Assembly/Installation

    Tension-leg Platform

    The deck and hull of the tension-leg platform can be constructed separ-
    ately. The hull must be built in a shipyard or a yard with a graving

                                       3-14

                                                                                     Figure 3.14
                                                CONCRETE GRAVITY PLATFORM FABRICATION PROCEDURE
                                                     2. Construction of lower domes.
         1. Construction ol skirts in di y dock.                                                                                                       4. Air is released once outside clock gate.

                                           map                                                                                   L~,, ,            �   i- I   L_
                                                                                                        3. Dry dock lilled with water and                      .    ..            __
         5. Sliplorining of cell walls in         6. Filling of ballast sand and                                  dock gate removed. Platform float-
           arif liored posilion.                   Lonstruction of upper klunies.                                ing on air cushion within skirt walls . .......

                                                                                  tHl l~l  L=:i  l:=f  Li  -r ~   I. I. C.  ~ ' 7. Slipluorming the shafts.

                                                                                                                                              8. Erection of steel platfornm and
                                                                                                                                                 equipment in sheltered waters.

                                   to tugs                                to tugs

                                  to tugs

         9. Towage to field.            10. Submergence at field.           11. Penetration of skirts into seabed.   12. Platform ready for operation.

    Source: A.S. Hoyer Ellefsen

    dock. The deck can be built in a modular fashion anywhere close to a
    waterway. After launch, the hull can be floated nearshore, where the
    deck sections are joined utilizing a large crane. Four concrete anchors
    would be the first components of the TLP to be installed. Each woul~d be
    secured to the sea floor by a set of steel piles. A drilling template
    would be installed next and a specified number of wells drilled through
    it by a floating rig. The TLP would then be towed out, positioned over
    the anchors, and moored by a temporary mooring system. Four tethers,
    one at each corner would be run simultaneously and connected to their
    anchors.  Once the platform is completely secured, well drilling could
    commence.

    Guyed Tower Platform

    The first commercial guyed tower built in the United States was constructed

    utilizing construction techniques similar to those used in building con-
    ventional steel jackets.9' The 1,054 jacket was built for Exxon by Brown

    and Root Inc., at their Harbor Island facility at Aransas Pass, Texas.
    The guyed tower jacket, which took two years to construct, was built in
    one piece on a skidway nearshore at the facility. Once completed, the
    21,000 ton tower was loaded onto a specially adapted barge for delivery
    to the installation site in the Gulf of Mexico. After arrival at the
    installation site, the guyed tower was side launched, guided into posi-
    tion and was allowed to sink slowly to the bottom in an upright position.
    Four 1,800 foot guylines were in place (attached to 200 ton clump weights)
    when the tower arrived at the installation site.  They were attached to
    the tower immediately after the July 1983 launch. A total of 20, 5-inch
    diameter guylines will have been attached and 14 steel piles installed
    from 100 to 560 feet below the mudline to hold the tower in place once
    installation is complete. Decks and drilling derricks are to be installed
    by early fall 1983, with development drilling expected to follow soon
    thereafter.

                                       3-16

    Facility Siting Criteria

    A few years ago the task of describing a typical platform fabrication/
    assembly facility would have been relatively easy, as all offshore produc-
    tion platforms were of the conventional steel jacket type typically seen
    in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore California. Today, however, as the
    oil industry has moved into deeper water and begun exploration and devel-
    opment in severe offshore arctic and subarctic environments, exploration
    and production platform designs have changed; in some cases radically.
    These new platform designs are altering rig yard criteria from those
    previously associated with the fabrication of steel jacket structures.

    An example of the change in rig yard siting criteria in recent years may
    be noted at a facility located on the Columbia River in Vancouver,

    Washington. As mentioned previously, between 1966 and 1968, six offshore
    production platforms were built by Brown and Root, Inc., at the Columbia
    Industrial Park in Vancouver. These platforms, which were designed for
    water depths ranging between 100 feet and approximately 200 feet, were
    able to be built on the Columbia River and barged under the Interstate
    Bridge at Vancouver with only minimal clearance. By today's standards
    these were relatively small production platforms. Several structures
    built for offshore California during the next few years will be for
    water depths ranging over 1,000 feet deep. The base dimensions of these
    structures may preclude transport under any of the bridges on the Columbia
    River and, therefore, their construction at the Vancouver site or any
    other location upriver from Astoria.

    Platform structures built for Alaskan arctic waters present siting cri-
    teria demands of a different nature, with a graving dock and moderately
    deep water adjacent to the dock, and unobstructed access to open water
    being important needs.  Concrete versus steel as a platform building
    material and platform construction methodology are additional factors
    affecting facility siting criteria.

    Realizing the varied platform types anticipated on the West Coast, it
    seems reasonable to assume that those interested in developing rig yards

                                      3-17

    in Washington State or anywhere else on the West Coast would want to
    accommodate those varied platform types to the maximum extent practic-
    able. Therefore, the discussion which follows concerning siting require-
    ments for a "typical rig yard" is based on a composite of the siting
    criteria for the range of steel and concrete platform structures thought
    likely to be built in Washington if a facility(s) were to be developed
    here.

    Description of a "Typical" Platform Fabrication/Assembl~y Yard

    Before reviewing specific siting criteria, it would be useful to describe
    a "typical" Washington fabrication/assembly yard. Generally speaking,
    the yard would be a large waterfront facility consisting mostly of
    cleared land, warehouses, possibly a precast concrete facility, shops,
    large graving dock, jacket launchway (possibly), steel rolling mill
    (unlikely), and administrative buildings set back from the waterfront.
    Depending on the platform design, a structure would either be built in
    the graving dock, or on a shipway along the waterfront. Supporting
    infrastructure such as roads, railroads, power lines, etc. would be
    evident at the facility.

    The layout of the fabrication yard would be determined largely by the
    type, number, and complexity of the platforms being constructed.

    Siting Criteria for a "Typical" Platform Fabrication/Assembly Facility

    What follows is a summary description of criteria that would likely be
    considered by a developer interested in establishing a platform fabrication/
    assembly facility in Washington State. Certain of these criteria would
    be considered more crucial than others depending on the specific needs

    of the developer.

    Climate:       Since most fabrication work is done either outside or in

                   large open sheds, overly adverse weather conditions can
                  hamper productivity. Although rain poses a minor threat,
                   a location where a frequent combination of rain, wind,

                                      3-18

                   and high seas prevail would place that site at a competi-
                   tive disadvantage  in the site selection process.  It
                   should be noted, however, that fabricators in Scotland
                   operate year-round at a latitude which approximates that
                   of Juneau, Alaska.

    Acreage:        The size of a fabrication yard would be determined by the
                   type of platform and size and number of platforms con-
                   structed annually, as well as the number of platform com-
                   ponents fabricated at the site. Deck modules, pipe and
                   various other components are often manufactured elsewhere
                   and assembled on-site.  The minimum facility size would
                   be approximately in the 25-acre range to a probable maxi-
                   mum of several hundred acres (the proposed Kiewit facility
                   at Cherry Point is 270 acres in size).

                   Land use in the platform fabrication yard is generally
                   divided between  fabrication and storage-support.   For
                   steel jacket platforms, approximately 50 to 60 percent of
                   the land is allocated to fabrication and 45 percent to
                   storage -support.-IO For platform structures built in a
                   graving dock this breakdown might vary somewhat.

    Land
    Availability:  The availability of the land can have an important effect
                   on the siting and size of a yard initially and later if
                   expansion is considered. Many fabricators prefer short-
                   term lease options, with renewal clauses stipulating no
                   maximum lease period and stating the availability of addi-
                   tional options, should site expansion be required.

    Planning and   Land parcels should be planned for industrial uses and
    Zoning         zoned accordingly.  In addition, controls for the shore-
                   line interface and adjacent waterbody, under the Shore-
                   line Management Act and local Shoreline Master Program,
                   should provide for industry and associated activities

                                       3-19

                   (fill, dredge, piers, etc.).  While procedures exist. to
                  amend local comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and
                  shoreline master programs, such amendments often generate
                  a significant amount of controversy and lengthy administra-
                  tive processing.  Predesignation of parcels for appro-
                  priate uses can do much in achieving permit predictability
                  and timely decisions.

    Slope/Soil:    For steel jacket structures it is required that the yard
                  be flat with a slope gradient no greater than three percent.
                  The soil should be well drained with a low water table
                  and good load bearing capacity, in the range of 14,000

                  pounds per square foot.-1

    Open Ocean Access

    Sea
    Conditions:    This is an important consideration.  Minimal wave and

                  swell conditions should prevail especially in the vicinity
                  of where a platform would be launched and in the access

                  channel to the open ocean.

    Channel Depth: The minimum depth at dockside and in the channel varies

                  depending on the type of platform being constructed. For
                  steel jacket platforms, the depth requirement can range
                  between 15 and 30 feet. 12  Large concrete gravity struc-
                  tures (condeep-type), such as might be built for the Gulf
                  of Alaska, would require a harbor depth of 480 feet to
                  800 feet for construction and 128 feet for navigation
                  along the towing route.-13 This depth requirement could
                  be substantially reduced if the base were built locally
                  and then transported to a deep water harbor site in Alaska
                  for second phase completion.

                  The depth requirement for the SAMS (Sohio Arctic Mobil
                  Structure) gravity structure to be used for exploration
                  is approximately 38 feet.

                                      3-20

    Channel Width: For steel jacket platforms, a channel width of 200 feet

                  to 300 feet is preferred.-14

                  The SAMS-type gravity structure would likely require
                  approximately a 600 foot channel width. The extra width
                  would facilitate tug maneuvering of the structure to the
                  open sea.  Since there are shallow water gravity struc-
                  tures considerably larger than the SAMS now being designed,
                  it is possible that the channel width requirement could
                  be even greater, though it is probably more likely that
                  these structures would be built in sections and towed to

                  open water where they would be joined together. Should
                  this, in fact, be the case, channel width requirements

                  could be substantially reduced.

                  The harbor width requirement for construction of the
                  condeep-type concrete platform is on the order of 3,000
                  feet. Fabricators of this type of platform prefer not
                  to navigate a channel to reach their deep water construc-
                  tion site.

    Graving Dock: The SAMS-type structures will likely require a graving
                  dock for their construction.   Should the structure be
                  built in one piece, it would require a graving dock of
                  the approximate minimum size of 400 ft. x 400 ft x

                  -26ft MLLW. The width of the graving dock could be sub-
                  stantially reduced if the structure were built in sections.

                  The graving dock facility should be constructed on a site
                  having soil capable of supporting great weights, probably
                  in the vicinity of 5,000 pounds per square fo.5

    Cargo Piers:   Various platform raw materials and components fabricated
                  elsewhere would be transported by water to the assembly
                  site. It would be highly advantageous, if not essential,

                                      3-21

                   that a pier facility be available for ships and, at minimum,
                   ocean barge delivery. The water depth requirements would
                  vary between 15 and 30 feet.

    Energy Needs

    Electricity:   Requirements  would  likely  range between approximately
                   2,000 KVA (2 megawatt) and 4,500 KVA per platform, with
                   the exact needs depending on the type and number of struc-
                   tures to be built. 16'

    Other Fuels:   In addition to the electricity requirement, natural gas
                   (if available), gasoline, and diesel fuel would be utilized
                   in amounts related to the size and scope of facility
                   operations.

    Water Needs:   The site would likely require a minimum of a six-inch
                   water line. 17 A typical concrete gravity platform designed
                   for water depths approaching 500 feet requires 4,800 gal-
                   lons of water per hour for their constructions~ The
                   amount of daily water use would depeud on the ty~pe and
                   number of structures built.

    Rail Trans-
    portation:     It is highly desirable that rail transportation to the
                   site be available, since a variety of materials and compo-
                   nents used in platform construction could be provided by
                   this means. The exception to this requirement might be a
                   situation where materials could be alternatively delivered
                   by truck or barge.

    Highway Trans-
    portation:     Ready  access  to adequate roads is essential since a
                   variety of supplies and materials would be delivered by

                   truck to the site.

                                       3-22

    Labor
    Requirements:  Fabrication/assembly yards employ large numbers of skilled

                   laborers, as well as supervisory, administrative, and
                  engineering personnel. As much as 85-90 percent of the
                  work force can be hired locally, if available and properly
                  trained. 19/

    Total
    Employment:    Estimates vary.  This depen ds on a variety of factors
                   including the type and number of platforms required.
                  Employment could range from as few as 250 to as many as
                   1,600 or more.  The Kiewit proposal for Cherry Point
                   envisions employing a total of 415 staff and workers to
                  build the SAMS structure.-y

    Employment
    Categories:    The exact employment composition would vary depending on

                   the kinds of structures, but generally the major job classi-
                   fications represented include welders, metal fitters,
                   equipment operators, electrical workers, plumbers, machin-

                   ists, painters, and helpers.-21

    Absence of
    Overhead
    Structures:    It is essential that there be no overhead obstructions
                   either at the construction facility or along the transit
                   route to the platform installation site. This means that
                  bridge and power line locations, especially, must be con-
                   sidered in the planning process.

    Wastewater

    Domestic:      Domestic sewage at a platform fabrication yard would have
                   to be piped to a municipal sewage treatment plant or
                  treated on-site. No estimates were immediately available
                   concerning amounts generated.

                                      3-23

    Industrial:    Because of the metal fabrication procedures sometimes
                  employed at a yard, (e.g. rolling, shotblasting, welding,
                  and corrosion prevention), process and cooling waters
                   contain quantities of particulate matter, dissolved heavy
                  metals, and anti-fouling chemicals. Treatment facilities
                  on-site or nearby would be required to remove pollutants
                   in accordance with water quality regulations before

                  discharge.

    Fire
    Protection:    It is highly desirable that local fire protection be avail-
                  able to complement on-site equipment.

                                       3-24

                                  REFERENCES

    1.  Humboldt County Planning Department,  West Coast Platform Demand
         and Siting Study (Part I Platform Demand), August 1983, p. 1-17-18.

    2.   Articles appearing in the Vancouver Columbian between May 1966
         and February 1977.

    3.   Norgren, B., Vice President and General Manager of B. G. Offshore,
         San Francisco, CA, Personal Communication, May 1983.

    4.   Skdje, T., President, Foundation Co. of Canada, Vancouver, B.C.,
         Personal Communication, September 1983.

    5.   Op. cit. #1, p. 2-34.

    6.   Keher, Donovan, Deputy Director, Whatcom County Bureau of Buildings
         and Codes, Bellingham, WA, Personal Communication, September 1983.

    7.   "Exxon to Use Concrete Island to Drill in Beaufort," Oil and Gas
         Journal, September 19, 1983, p. 82-83.

    8.  Op cit. #1, p. 1-1.

    9.   Wright, Kenneth, Project Coordinator, Brown and Root, Inc., Aransas,
         Texas, Personal Communication, October 1983.

    10. Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development Fact-
         book, A report of the New England River Basins Commission, Boston,
         Mass., November 1976, p. 8.17.

    11. Ibid

    12. Ibid. p. 8.19.

    13. Planning for Offshore Oil Development - Gulf of Alaska OCS Handbook,
         Alaska Dept. of Community Affairs, Junea, Alaska, 1978, p. 162.

                                       3-25

    14. Op cit. #10 p. 8.19.

    15. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Cherry Point Marine Con-
         struction Facility, Chicago Bridge and Iron Co./Snelson-Anvil, Inc.,
        Whatcom County Planning Dept., Bellingham, WA, February 1981, p. 9.

    16. Ibid. p. 13.

    17.  Op cit. #15. p. 13.

    18. Op cit. #13 p. 161.

    19. Op cit. #10. p. 8.21.

    20. Bellingham Herald news article, August 19, 1983.

    21. Op cit. #15. p. 35.

                                       3-26

                                   CHAPTER 4

                  FACILITY PERM~IT AND APPROVAL REQUIRENENTS

    Introduction

    A number of federal, state, and local permits would be required for a
    typical offshore platform fabrication/assembly yard along Washington's
    coastline. This, of course, would be the case with any project of similar
    magnitude. Table 4.10 shows a list of permit requirements, agency respon-
    sibilities, and estimated processing times expected for a typical rig
    yard. Not shown in the table is the amount of preparation time required
    prior to or during permit submittal and processing. It is during this
    preparatory period that coordination between developer and agencies takes
    place. This preparation process can significantly affect the amount of
    time required to procure any particular permit or approval.

    What follows is an overview of the requirements which must be met before
    various federal, state, and local permits can be issued. It is highly
    recommended that a potential developer contact the appropriate local
    planning agency concerning permit requirements as a first step in the
    development process.

    Federal Permits

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard have jurisdiction
    over projects affecting navigable waterways, waters of the United States
    to the line of ordinary high water and adjacent wetlands. The Corps
    issues permits for works and structures under authority of Section 10 of
    the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Permits are also issued by the Corps
    for fill material in wetlands (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). The
    Coast Guard administers permits for bridges and causeways affecting navi-
    gable waterways under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Corps
    requests input from the Coast Guard on Section 10 permits to ensure the
    proposal does not adversely affect vessel safety through impacts to navi-
    gation channels or aids to navigation.

                                      4-1

                                                                                 Table 4.10

                                                            Typical Rig Yard Permit and Approval Requirements

                                                                                                                        Time Comparison (Weeks)
          PERMIT                                                AGENCY                              1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  11  12  13   14  15   16

    �SEPA:  EIS Requirement                          Washington Dept. of Ecology (WDOF)             3 to 6 months approximately  s
    State Environmental Policy Act                  state or local lead agency
    Compliance expected to be required

    'Master Application (ECPA)                       County Planning Dept./WDOE                     120 days?
    Applicant has the option to file a
    master permit application

    �Corps of Engineers (COE)                        Corps of Engineers                             60 - 90 days?
    Required for any activity in navigable
    waters (Sect. 10 of Rivers and Harbors
    Act & Sect. 404 of the Clean Water Act.)
    NEPA EIS

    'Shoreline (Substantial Development)             County or City Planning Dept.                  3 - 4 months approximately
    Required if project is located within
    shoreline jurisdiction.

    0Shoreline Variance                              County or City Planning/WDOE                   4 - 5 months approximately
     Required if project design (bulk,
    setbacks, etc.) varies from SMP re-
     quirements. Must also meet WDOE
     variance criteria of Shoreline
     Master Program (SMP).

    'Shoreline Conditional Use                       County or City Planning/WDOE                   4 - 5 months approximately
     Required for activities and uses
     specified in SMP as needing con-
     ditional use approval. Must also
     meet WDOE conditional use criteria
     of SMA.

     'National Pollutant Discharge and                WDOE                                           6 months approximately
      Elimination System (NPDES)
      Needed if pollutants will be dis-
      charged into state's surface waters.

     �New Source Construction (Air)                   WDOE Regional or Local Air Pollution           -------------------------00000000000000000+++++.++
      Approval required for new source                Control Authority
      construction and/or existing sources
      releasing contaminants to ambient air.
                                                                                                                                       LEGEND
                                                                                                                                # EIS plus Permit Preparation
     *Completion of SEPA must precede permit issuance.                                                                              0 Public Notice and Comment Period
                                                                                                                                - Review and Processing
                                                                                                                                X Inspection and Investigation
                                                                                                                                + Decision and Issuance

                                                                               Table 4.10

                                                           Typical Rig Yard Permit and Approval Requirements

                                                                                                                    Time Comparison (Weeks)
          PERMIT                                              AGENCY                              1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11  12  13  14   15  16

     *Permit to Appropriate Public Water             WDOE                                         ----0000000000000000000000.+,.++++..+++++++++++++++.
     (Water Right Permit)
     For use or diversion of surface or
     ground water or change of use

    'Flood Control Zone Permit                      County Planning Dept./WDOE ---XXX+..
     May be required if project is located
     within designated Flood Control Zone.

     'State Waste Discharge                          WDOE                           ............0000000000000000000+++
     Permit needed if pollutants will be
     discharged into state's ground waters
     or into municipal sewer systems

     'Sewage and Industrial Waste Treatment          WDOE  ---------------------
     Facilities Approval
     Approval of plans to modify existing or
     construct new industrial waste treatment
     or disposal systems

    'Public Sewage Disposal Approval                WDOE
     If in excess of 14,500 gal./day or if
     treatment is required.

    'Water Quality Certification                    WDOE                                          0000000 ----------------------
     Required by federal law for dis-
     charges to state waters
          AND/OR
     Short-term exception to water                  WDOE                                              XXX--- ++ ..+.++
     quality standards
     Required when project does not meet
     minimum water quality standards

    'Burning Permit                                 WDOE
     Required for the open burning of
     material for commercial purposes.

    'Marine Land Lease                              Dept. of Natural Resource (DNR)               ----XXXX -------------------------------
     Required lease on state owned tidelands
     designated for various marine related uses.

                                                                                                                              LEGEND
                                                                                                                       # EIS plus Permit Preparation
    *Actual processing could be as short as one month if the Corps permit                                                   0 Public Notice and Comment Period
    and Shoreline permit have been issued.                                                                                 - Review and Processing
                                                                                                                       X Inspection and Investigation
                                                                                                                       + Decision and Issuance

                                                                                   Table 4.10

                                                               Typical Rig Yard Permit and Approval Requirements

                                                                                                                          Time Comparison (Weeks)
           PERMIT                                                AGENCY                               I   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11  12   13   14   15  16

     *Open Water Dredge Disposal Permit               DNR                                             ----XXX-----+++++++
      Required for disposal of dredge materials
      at approved marine sites.

     'Burning Permit                                  DNR                                             -X+
      Required if burn pile is higher than ten
      feet and/or in excess of 100 tons.

     'Hydraulic Project Approval                      Washington Department of Fisheries              ----XXX###---++

     �Hydraulic Project Approval                      Washington Department of Game                   ----XXX###---++
      Required if structures are placed
      in the waters of the state

     'Approval of Public Water System                 Department of Social & Health Services   - ---------------++
      Required if project includes development
      of a new drinking water supply system
      or alteration of an existing system.

    Various Local Permits                              City and County Agencies
      (Building, Grading, Zoning)

    The Section 10 and 404 permits are dependent upon input from a variety
    of federal,  state, and local agencies.  Such input usually comes in
    response to a "Public Notice of Application"~ issued by the Corps.  By
    circulating public notices of application, the Corps coordinates efforts
    and actions of all agencies with jurisdiction over a proposal to ensure
    compliance with all regulations and to address interjurisdictional con-
    cerns.  Input from private individuals and groups is also solicited

    through the same mechanism.

    There are two other external sources of input to the Corps that generally
    must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the Section 10 or. 404 permits.
    One is the issuance of other permits by other agencies with jurisdiction.
    Hydraulic Project Approval, issued either by the Washington Department
    of Fisheries or the Department of Game, depending on jurisdiction, is
    such a permit that parallels Section 10 requirements.  Water Quality
    Certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination
    by the Washington Department of Ecology parallels the Section 404 cri-
    teria. These state permits will be discussed in more detail later. The
    other criterion is agreement by the appropriate agencies that the proj-
    ect's impacts to the natural environment are mitigated.

    The requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act state that filling
    activities causing unacceptable impacts to wetlands associated with waters
    of the U.S. must be denied or the impacts mitigated. Those agencies with
    responsibility for providing comments to the Corps under provisions of
    the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act are the 'U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NIIFS), and the Washing-
    ton Departments of Fisheries and Game (WDF and WDG). Applicants should

    contact these agencies to discuss impact issues and project design cri-
    teria, since permit review criteria will vary between each agency. Dur-
    ing the impact evaluation process, agencies may provide input concerning
    practical alternatives or the possibility of mitigation as a means of
    offsetting adverse impacts associated with a project proposal. A single
    mitigation/compensation plan agreed to by the responsible resource agencies
    would result as determined appropriate.

                                      4-5

    State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

    The State Environmental Policy Act, which was enacted by the Washington
    State Legislature in 1971, established many broad environmental policies.
    Of key significance is the requirement that all branches of state govern-
    ment must consider the environmental impacts in decision making.

    Under the provisions of SEPA, an EIS would be required if the responsible
    official of the SEPA lead agency determined that development of a plat-
    form fabrication yard would have a probable significant adverse eftect
    on the environment. An EIS must be prepared before any permits or other
    governmental approvals can be issued. The responsible official from the
    lead agency must consult with the public and other agencies about impacts,
    alternatives, and mitigation measures which must be discussed in an EIS.*/
    Under SEPA, the lead agency may use an EIS at the federal level to comply
    with SEPA.

    State Permits

    There are a variety of permits issued by state agencies that would prob-
    ably be required for the development of a rig yard facility regardless
    of the location.  Most are performance oriented.  That is, there are
    certain criteria established by law that must be satisfied before the
    permit will be issued. This section discusses each permit, the respon-
    sible agency, and the general requirements of the permit.

    Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)

    This "permit" is required for any project that involves dredging or the
    placement of a structure in state waters.  RCW 75.20.100 states that
    applicants must submit "full plans and specifications of the proposed
    construction work, complete plans and specifications for the protection
    of fish life in connection therewith.    " and must  receive written
    approval for the proposed project.

    */A listing of WDOE and county SEPA coordinators is contained in Appendix C.

                                      4-6

    The restrictions placed on the proposal usually limit the types of mater-
    ials used in construction of the structures, the period of construction,
    and possibly the method of construction. Dredging periods are confined
    to those times when juvenile fish of either food or game species are not
    present. Dredging operations and procedures are also specified.

    The HPA permit is issued by the Department of Fisheries or the Department
    of Game depending on jurisdiction. If wildlife habitat impact mitigation
    under the Corps' Section 404 permit and the Fish and Wildlife Coordina-
    tion Act is involved in the proposal, an HPA will not likely be issued
    until the mitigation activity issue is resolved.

    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)

    This permit is required under P.L. 92-500, the Clean Water Act, for any
    pollutant or effluent discharge into the state's surface waters.  The
    NPDES permit is issued by the Washington Department of Ecology.  The
    permit applies to discharges from sanitary wastewater treatment plants
    as well as to effluent from industrial wastewater treatment plants (federal
    facilities are permitted by EPA).

    Sewage and Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities Approval

    This approval is issued by the Department of Ecology after it has reviewed
    the design and specifications of all wastewater treatment plants. The
    purpose of this approval is to ensure that the proposed treatment facility
    provides for a reliable and effective method of waste treatment, as well
    as to avoid the duplication of service where other facilities are avail-
    able.  In this manner, the number of effluent sources is limited.  Obvi-
    ously, this approval must. work in harmony with the NPDES permit. Both
    the NPDES and sewage and waste treatment facility approval require detailed
    engineering and design efforts and are not required during the initial
    site permitting phase. However, preliminary engineering evaluations are
    generally required during this phase by the Department of Ecology to
    ensure that the entire project is designed to minimize wastewater genera-
    tion and maximize treatment capabilities.

                                      4-7

    State Waste Discharge Permit

    Any commercial or industrial facilities disposing of waste material into
    the ground waters of the state, or commercial or industrial operators
    discharging solid or liquid waste material into sewerage systems operated
    by municipalities are required to obtain this permit from the Department

    of Ecology (does not apply to domestic sewage).

    Water Quality Certification and/or Short-Term Exception to WaterQuality

    Certification is required by federal law as a prerequisite to obtaining
    a federal permit.  It is issued by the Department of Ecology to ensure
    that there is no degradation of water quality during dredging, filling
    or construction in state waters. For the various types of dredging acti-
    vities, methods of operation are specified for the dredge itself and for
    the water return. For structures, the types of materials allowed are

    specified.  Short-term exceptions are granted when some impacts cannot
    be avoided, but WDOE requires every effort be made to minimize those
    impacts to water quality. This permit is required during the initial
    permitting phase and generally must be issued prior to issuance of the

    Corps' Section 10 and/or 404 permits.

    Public Sewage Di sposal Approval

    Prior to the construction or modification of a domestic wastewater
    facility for an industrial establishment, an engineering report and plan,
    with specifications for the project are to be submitted to the Depart-
    ment of Ecology.  However, if the local government entity has received
    Department of Ecology approval of a general sewer plan and standard design
    criteria, engineering reports and plans and specifications for sewer
    line extensions, including pump stations, need not be submitted for
    approval.  In this case, the entity need only provide a description of
    the project and written assurance that the extension is in conformance

    with the general sewer plan.

                                     4-8

    Marine Land Lease

    Before development of facilities can take place in state owned aquatic
    lands, a lease or other use authorization must be issued. The power to
    lease all state owned tidelands, bedlands, shorelands, and harbor areas
    is vested in the Commissioner of Public Lands who administers the Depart-
    ment of Natural Resources. Applications for use of state owned aquatic
    lands must be accompanied by drawings and plans for the proposed improve-
    ments. This use application must be submitted to the Department of
    Natural Resources in acceptable detail prior to issuance of the Corps'
    Section 10 permit.  Sites not on state owned lands are not required to
    obtain department use authorization.

    New Source Construction Approval (Air)

    Any activated air pollution control authority may classify air contami-
    nant sources which may cause or contribute to air pollution. The appro-
    priate air pollution control authority (Figure 4.10) or the Department

    of Ecology will require notice of construction, installation, or estab-
    lishment. of any new air contaminant sources. As a condition precedent
    to construction, either agency may require the submission of plans, speci-
    fications, and other information in order to determine whether the pro-

    posal will meet the requirements of all. applicable air pollution rules

    and regulations and provide all known available and reasonable emission
    control. The applicant must show that the best available control tech-
    nology will be used and that the facility will not result in a violation
    of state and federal air quality standards. In nonattainment areas, an
    emission offset would be required. If estimated emissions levels exceed
    250 tons per year, preconstruction and operations monitoring may be
    required. If the agency determines that the proposal complies, it will
    approve the proposal with possible conditions to assure maintenance of
    compliance. This approval must be obtained during the initial permitting
    phase (see address listing of Air Pollution Control Authorities - Appen-
    dix D).

                                      4-9

                              Figure 4.10

                             AIR QUALITY

           AREAS OF JURISDICTION IN WESTERN WASHINGTON

    REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

                           ~  K%   CANADA

                     VANCUVE            NORTHWEST
      VANCOUVER                          WHATCOM
                            a~ te . \, AIR POLLUTION
             ISLAND                   - _
                                        AUTHORITY
                                           SKAGIT

            L  CLALLAM        |             Nl  0 H S   SNOHOMISH

                            I OLYMP�C  |PUGETSOUND

             JEFFERSON
     >    W  AIR POLLUTION              AIR POLLUTION

             '~  t----  I           t    ~~KING

         , AUTHORIMAS                   CONTROL
            c GR A Y S                  -- M  \S6.GENCY
           H     A RBOR    L _              .-

                          4 - 1       PIPIERCE
                          iTH U RSTO

         i | AlFI     SOUTHWEST

                       -TKU     AlIR POLLllTION

                              CONTROL AUTHORITY

                                 CLARK

                               4-10

    WaterRights and App~roval of Public Water Supplies

    Nearly any entity desiring to appropriate ground or surface water for a

    beneficial use must first apply to the Department of Ecology for an

    appropriation permit. Each application specifies the source, the nature

    and amount of proposed use, the time the water is required, the location,

    and description of the works to deliver the water and the period of con-

    struction. All applications must include maps or drawings if the depart-

    ment requires.  Water appropriations permits are necessary for with-

    drawal of water from any surface water body. Withdrawal from ground

    water sources in volumes greater than 5,000 gallons per day requires an

    appropriation permit.

    Either the local health district or the Department of Social and Health

    Services (DSHS) must approve the plans and the design of a public water

    supply works to ensure that the facility will consistently and reliabily

    provide water which meets potable standards. The agency with jurisdiction

    varies depending upon local health district capabilities and agreements

    with DSHS.

    Open Water Dredge Disposal Approval

    Application for approved use of open water disposal sit~es must be made

    to the Department of Natural Resources.  Applications for use of an

    established site must be for dredged material that meets the approval

    of federal and state agencies and for which there is no practical upland

    disposal site or beneficial use such as beach enhancement.  Disposal

    will normally be limited to previously approved disposal sites.  When

    required, new sites will be designated according to the procedure con-

    tained in WAG 332-30-166.

    State Flood Control Zone Permits

    The State Flood Control Zone Permit Program is administered by the four
    WDOE regional offices.  This state permit is required for building and

    development in the 18 state-designated flood control zones.

                                     4-11

    The counties of King, Cowlitz, Skagit, Clallam, Thurston, and Clark
    administer the flood control zone permit systems within their coirnty
    boundaries. Applications for permits in these counties should be made
    through the local building or planning department.

    Open Burning Permits

    The Department of Natural Resources and the local air pollution authority
    should be contacted if open burning is planned. Permit requirements and
    stipulations can be defined at that time.

    Crossings of Public Roads and Railroads

    The state Utilities and Transportation Commission must approve all cross-
    ings of public roads and railroads.

    Noise Standards

    Although no particular permit is required, the state Department of Ecology
    promulgates specific noise standards (WAC 173-60) for development and
    commercial activity.  Noise impacts must be addressed in the project
    EIS, where it must be shown that noise levels are either within state
    standards or are adequately mitigated.

    Local Permits

    Most permits issued by local governments deal with the appropriateness
    of a proposal as a land use. If the site proposed for a rig yard facility
    is not designated for such use, amendments to the zoning ordinance, com-
    prehensive plan, and/or local shoreline master program may be possible.
    Procedures for amendments to these types of regulations vary from juris-
    diction to jurisdiction, but the proponent of an amendment can be assured
    that a series of public hearings will be involved and that the proposed
    amendments) should be thoroughly addressed in the project's environmental
    document. Following is a brief discussion of the permit requirements at
    the local level.

                                      4-12

    ShorelineSubstantial Development Permit

    The Shoreline Management Act was enacted in 1971 to establish coordi-
    nated state and local management of the development of fragile and valu-
    able state shoreline resources.  State guidelines for shorelines of
    statewide significance, as administered through local shorelines master
    programs, give preference to uses in the following order, which:

           * recognize  and  protect  the statewide  interest over local
              interest

           * preserve the natural character of the shoreline

           * result in long-term over short-term benefit

           * protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline

           * increase public access to publicly owned areas of shorelines

           * increase  recreational  opportunities for the public in the

              shoreline

    No development may be undertaken on state shorelines covered under the
    state Shoreline Management Act except that which is consistent with the
    state policy and local master program. A shoreline substantial develop-
    ment permit must be obtained from the local agency with jurisdiction to
    ensure that the development meets the criteria of the Shorelines Act.

    Shoreline substantial development permit application and issuance proce-
    dures vary among jurisdictions depending on the language of the local
    master program. Permit related regulations that will be consistent
    though, are public notice procedures and state review periods, compli-
    ance with SEPA, and compliance with all. other local land use regulations.
    Action by the local government to approve or deny a shoreline substantial
    development permit must be reported to the Department of Ecology for
    its review of the local. action's conformance with state guidelines,

                                      4-13

    In the event a shoreline substantial development permit is denied, an
    appeal of the local action by the aggrieved party is heard by thte Shore-
    line Hearings Board (SHB). The appeal must be filed within 30 days of the
    Department of Ecology's receipt of the local action. The department or
    the attorney general must certify that the reasons for the review are
    valid before the matter goes to the SHB. Judicial review of the local
    action or the SHB's action is an alternative course of action that may

    be considered.

    Shoreline Variance/Conditional Use Permits and Master Program Amendments,

    Certain aspects of the development of a platform fabrication/assembly
    facility along a shoreline may require a conditional use permit or require
    variances depending on the language of the local shoreline Master program.
    The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility
    in the administration of the use regulations of the local master program
    in a manner consistent with the local master program and state shoreline
    guidelines. Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only
    after consideration by the local government and by meeting such perform-

    ance standards that make the use compatible with other permitted uses

    within the area.

    The purpose of variances is to grant relief to specific performance
    standards where there are unique or extraordinary circumstances relating
    to the property such that strict implementation of the regulation imposes
    practical difficulties of an unnecessary hardship on the applicant.
    Developers should consult local shoreline master programs to determine
    the need for conditional use or variance permit applications for poten-
    tial sites.  All variances and conditional uses are subject to review

    and approval of the Department of Ecology.

    Amendments to local shoreline master programs (additions, deletions, or
    modifications) may be made by local jurisdictions to reflect changing
    local circumstances,  new information, or improved data.  Changes are
    made consistent with the public review process and other provisions
    defined in the Shoreline Management Act. Any amendments or adjustments

                                      4-14

    that are made, however, do not become effective until approved by the
    Department of Ecology, as defined in the act.

    Floodplain Regulation Permits

    Most local governments are now administering flood regulation permit
    programs which are based on ordinances that comply with requirements of
    the National Flood Insurance Program.

    Other Local Permits

    At the local level, all construction requires a building permit. Also,
    approval is usually required for the creation of new intersections between
    project roads and existing thoroughfares. Depending on local procedures,

    other permits or approvals may be necessary.

    Summary

    Numerous permits and approvals are necessary for almost all aspects of
    the development of a platform fabrication/assembly facility. Working
    in concert with the likely mandatory EIS, these permits require the
    proponent to fully investigate and evaluate alternative designs and
    methods of development that will limit the adverse impacts to all seg-
    ments of the environment. Through this process, the public interest is
    protected and maintained.

    The permitting system is designed to be comprehensive in scope and coordi-
    nated among the various levels of jurisdiction. Those agencies with the
    closest and most specific jurisdiction must approve the proposal and
    issue the appropriate permit before the next level will act.  In this
    manner, local permits must be issued prior to the state agencies issuing
    their permits.  The federal permits are generally issued after all of
    the state and local permits are approved. This procedure is designed to
    avoid the possibility of conflict or contradiction among the various
    authorities,

                                      4-15

                                  CHAPTER 5

                       ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL

    Introduction

    Previous chapters provided a description of platform fabrication facili-
    ties including their general layout and operation. With that as a back-
    ground, this chapter provides a generic listing of potential environ-
    mental impacts, which can be used in identifying impact issues in the
    site review process. It is anticipated that a potential developer of a
    platform fabrication/assembly facility would be able to utilize this
    listing of potential environmental impacts in screening particular sites,
    as a means of determining permit feasibility. The listing, besides pos-
    sibly assisting in determining preliminary permii- feasibility, may be

    helpful to local planners and the public in evaluating whether or not a

    platform construction facility would be an asset or liability to the

    community.

    Environmental Review Elements

    The elements listed in Table 5.10 address potential impacts on the physi-
    cal, biological, and socioeconomic environment that could result from
    the development and operation of a platform construction facility. This
    listing of potential environmental impacts generally parallels the list
    of elements of the environment contained in the State Environmental
    Policy Act (SEPA).  Each of these elements would be expected to be
    addressed in detail, as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    preparation process.  The discussion which follows addresses each of
    these elements as they relate to potential impacts resulting from facility
    development and operation.

    Ea rth

    Platform fabrication/assembly yards typically are graded flat and covered
    with gravel which is then compacted to withstand heavy loads.  If a
    graving dock is required, a substantial amount of dredging or onshore

                                      5-1

                                   TABLE 5.10

                    LIST OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

    Earth

    o    Changes to local topography
    o    Surface compaction
    o    Alteration of longshore transport

    Air

    o    Elevated dust emissions
    o    Emissions from ships, trains and other vehicles

    Water

    o    Modification of hydrologic regimes
    o    Elevated levels of runoff
    o    Degradation of adjacent surface waters by windblown dust
    o    Increased turbidity due to dredging and dredge disposal

    Flora and Fauna

    o    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat
    o    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat
    o    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat
    o    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory pathways
    o    Rare or endangered species impacts

    Other

    o    Noise pollution
    o    Light and glare generation
    o    Alteration of land use designations
    o    Potential for on-site accidents
    o    Potential for ship accidents
    o    Traffic congestion at grade crossings
    o    Increased demand for public services
    o    Increased demand for utilities
    o    Aesthetic impact
    o    Disruption of recreational/commercial fishing
    o    Disruption of general recreational activities
    o    Archaeological/historical resource impacts
    o    Competing uses for land and shoreline

                                       5-2

    excavation would be required.  This work can substantially alter local
    topography, affect soil permeability, and alter local hydrologic regimes
    and runoff patterns.  Longshore current patterns could also be affected
    by shoreline dredging and/or excavation.  Similar impacts on longshore
    current patterns can result from the installation of pier structures.

    Air

    Emissions can result from various operations associated with the fabri-
    cation of both steel and concrete platforms. Air pollution sources include

    the following:

    o    pipe and metal cleaning by sandblasting;

    o    paint emissions;

    o    welding;

    o    windblown aggregate and cement dust; and

    o    transportation emissions from

         a)   cranes and other machinery used to move steel and/or concrete

              components in the fabrication and assembly process

         b)   trains,  trucks, tugs and barges used to deliver and remove

              materials; and

         c)   automobile traffic

    Sandblasting Emissions and Controls.   Sandblasting of metal  surfaces
    for painting generates particulate matter, principally sand and metal
    dust.  These emissions can be controlled through use of filters, wet-
    scrubbers, or electrostatic precipitators depending on the size, density,
    shape, and surface characteristics of the particles and whether the work
    is done inside or outside.

                                       5-3

    Painting Emissions and Controls, The process of painting can gellerate
    high levels of emissions during both application and drying. The volume
    of these losses is determined by the amount of volatile matter in the
    paint--averaging about 50 percent of the total. Major ingredients include
    aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones, esters, alkyl
    and aryl hydrocarbon solvents and mineral spirits.1/

    Welding. Welding involving certain metals can generate toxic emissions
    which could cause serious health problems if the welding was conducted in

    a poorly ventilated area.  Gases such as CO, C02, 03 and NO2 are typically
    given off in the welding process.  Processes associated with welding
    such as acid baths used in metal cleaning could also be potentially
    hazardous.

    Windblown Aggregate and Cement Dust.  In those yards where cement plat-
    forms will be constructed, additional air emissions potentially can occur
    from windblown aggregate and cement dust.

    The overall impact of these air emissions would depend on the size and
    output of the facility, the existing air quality at the site and in
    adjacent areas, endemic biota, prevailing winds and local meteorological
    conditions, and the degree to which available control technology is
    applied.

    Transportation Emissions. A variety of raw materials and supplies for the
    platform fabrication yard would be delivered by railcars, trucks, supply
    boats, and barges. On-site, heavy duty trucks, cranes, and other machinery
    would be used for a range of activities. This machinery uses either diesel
    fuel or gasoline and releases emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,
    hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Automobile emissions associated with
    the work force at the facility represents an additional source of air
    pollutants (emissions from various types of heavy machinery are presented

    in Appendix E).

                                       5-4

    Water

    Runoff from a site may be contaminated by particulate matter, heavy
    metals, petroleum products, and process chemicals. The kinds and amounts
    of contaminants would be determined by the complexity and control prac-

    tices of the facility. The effect of these contaminants would be influ-
    enced by both the original quality of the receiving waters and the sensi-
    tivity of the existing aquatic population. Both hydrocarbons and heavy
    metals are toxic to some aquatic organisms; other organisms may exhibit
    sublethal physiological responses, such as reduced growth rates. Small
    amounts of some heavy metals can accumulate in the tissue of certain
    fish, especially filter-feeding shellfish, thus rendering them unfit for
    consumption.   (A summary of pollutants  contained in effluent of OCS
    related facilities is contained in Appendix F).

    Increased runoff and siltation may also alter circulation patterns,
    flushing rates and the salinity gradient locally. Most estuarine and
    marine biota are able to withstand slight alterations in temperature and
    salinity. Larval forms are often less tolerant and the local area may,
    as a result, be less suitable for migration, feeding, or spawning purposes.

    Dredging required to maintain an adjacent channel at a depth sufficient
    for service boats, tugs, and barges used to transport and install com-

    pleted platforms may cause significant environmental impacts.  In pre-
    viously undisturbed portions of an estuary or harbor these impacts could
    include:

    o    alteration of water circulation patterns and salinity gradients as
         a result of alteration of shoreline and bottom topography;

    o    alteration or destruction of intertidal and benthic habitats; and

    o    addition of nutrients and particulates to the water column.

    These changes in the aquatic and seabed environment may result in a par-
    tial or total change in the species composition of the local waters.

                                       5-5

    Dredging in an existing industrial area would likely cause minimal
    environmental impact compared to an undeveloped area, since productivity
    and diversity of indigenous species may be low in a developed harbor.
    This is due to the continual turbidity resulting from maintenance dredg-
    ing, and the constant influx of toxic substances, such as oil dischdrges
    from boats and heavy metals from industrial discharges. Since only species
    adapted to these conditions are generally present in the area, further
    dredging would likely not elicit significant environmental degradation.

    The most significant impact of dredging in an industrial area would result
    from disposal of the dredge spoils, which may contain high concentrations
    of petroleum products and heavy metals.  Sofme of these compounds, such
    as aromatic hydrocarbons, are extremely toxic to marine life.  Others
    such as lead, may be concentrated in the tissues of lower organisms,
    such as filter feeders, and passed up the food chain with lethal effects
    at higher levels.

    Plants and Animals

    The destruction and/or alteration of plant and animal communities, both
    aquatic and terrestrial due to facility site development and operation,
    is a very real concern.  Site clearing and preparation, dredging, and

    filling could each involve the destruction or radical alteration of plant
    and animal habitat. The degree of impact can be measured in terms of the
    amount and type of plant and animal diversity in existence at the site
    prior to development. If, for example, there is limited diversity of
    both plant and animal life, then development impact would likely be
    minimal, assuming the absence of rare or endangered species. The oppo-
    site would be true if there is a high degree of plant and animal diversity.

    If site preparation alters only a small part of a species' habitat and
    the surrounding area is not at its peak carrying capacity, the displaced
    species may relocate nearby. However, if the disturbed area is large in
    relation to the total available habitat, or if a species' habitat require-

    ments are specific for the area destroyed, the species may be eliminated

    from the area.

                                       5-6

    Impacts on undeveloped wetlands are of particular concern, since this
    habitat type has been vanishing at an alarming rate in recent years due
    to development activities. The siting of a platform fabrication facility
    at a wetland location would have a pronounced impact, especially if a
    substantial amount of filling is involved.  Filling can cause severe

    impacts such as 1) changing aquatic habitats to terrestrial; 2) lowering
    biological productivity in the area; and 3) changing water retention and
    detritus production properties of the filled area.

    When a wetland is filled, previously aquatic habitats that may serve as
    potential waterfowl breeding grounds and spawning grounds of fish popu-
    lations will also be destroyed. If alternate wetland habitats suitable
    for reproduction are not available, entire species may have to relocate

    from the area.

    Wetlands are highly productive areas which act as organic sinks, provid-
    ing large volumes of nutrients to coastal organisms and filtering con-
    taminants from surface runoff. When wetlands are filled, fewer organic
    compounds enter coastal waters, and primary productivity in the area
    decreases. This may ultimately reduce productivity in adjacent coastal
    waters.

    Wetlands also act as natural dams to prevent fresh water from moving
    into marine waters, and salt water from moving inland. Because wetlands
    are saturated, fresh water is retained underground in natural reservoirs.
    When a wetland is filled, it can no longer act as a barrier. As a result,
    fresh water may move into the ocean, effectively lowering the water table,
    and salt water may intrude into the coastal water table.

    Other potential detrimental effects to flora and fauna associated with
    platform fabrication facility development and operation relate to impacts
    on 1) agricultural lands; 2) rare or endangered plant and animal species;
    3) unique or critical habitat areas; and 4) creation of barriers to
    natural migration corridors for fish and other animals.

                                       5-7

    Noise

    Heavy machinery used during site construction and operation would raise
    noise levels around the site.  Table 5.11 lists, as an example, the
    sound levels expected from grading, pile-driving, and dredging during
    construction of the proposed Kaiser platform assembly yard at Terminal
    Island in Los Angeles.

    The impact of construction and operation noise on the surrounding com-
    munity would  largely be determined by existing noise levels.  The
    effects would be much greater in a rural area, with an average level of
    40 decibels, than in a metropolitan area, which has an average level of
    70 decibels. Furthermore, any source generating less than 70 decibels
    will have little impact on an urban area, whereas in a rural area, any
    source generating more than 40 decibels will increase ambient levels
    (Table 5.12 indicates expected noise levels during operation of the pro-
    posed Kaiser yard at Terminal Island in Los Angeles).-

    Light and Glare

    A platform fabrication facility would likely be equipped with lights for
    nighttime operation.  Over-water installations, such as a pier, would
    require Coast Guard approved navigational hazard lights.

    A site located near residential or other nonindustrial areas will need to
    address the potential problem of disruption of adjacent communities by
    light and glare emanating from the site during nighttime operation.
    Isolated sites run the potential risk of adversely affecting wildlife
    usage of adjacent areas due to nighttime light and glare.  Of concern
    also, is the potential for light and glare distracting passing motorists
    on adjacent roads and highways at night.

    Land Use

    Site selection for a prospective platform fabric;tion/assembly faci lily
    should generally seek to comply with local. comprehensive ]and use plans,
    zoning and shoreline management master programs.  If this is not entir'ely

                                       5-8

                                           TABLE 5.11

                   CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, USAGE FACTORS, AND SOUND LEVELS

    Construction                        Sound level                Number of      Usage c
      Activity        Equipment      15 m (50 ft) - dBa            Units          Factor

    Grading           Scraper                 88                      3               .14
                      Compactor              82                      1               .10
                      Backhoe                85                      2               .16
                      Water truck            86                      1               .05
                      Grader                 85                      1               .05
                      Roller                 80                      1               .10
                      Dump truck             86                      2               .02

              Equivalent Sound Level, Leq , total at 15 m (50 ft) = 86 dB

    Pile-Driving      Pi]le-driver           101                      1               .04

              Equivalent Sound Level, Leq , total at 15 m (50 ft)'= 87 dB

    Dredging           Clamshell dredge       82                      1               .07
                      Work boat              83                      1              1.00

              Equivalent Sound Level, Leq , total at 15 m (50 ft) = 83 dB

      Source:  U.S. Army, 1977; EPA, 1975; and Dames & Moore's files.

     b The same numbers and types of equipment would be employed during construction
      of Phase I and Phase II. Dredging would occur after other construction was
      complete.

      Usage factors represent the fraction of total operating time that the equipment
      is operating in its noisiest mode; Source: U.S. Army, 1977; EPA, 1975; and Dames
      & Moore's files.

    Source: Draft EIR - Kaiser Steel Corporation Terminal Island Marine Assembly
             Yard, Los Angeles Harbor Department, June, 1983.

                                                  5-9

                                                                   TABLE 5.12

                                            OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT, USAGE FACTORS, AND SOUND LEVELS
                                            (Proposed Kaiser Yard at Terminal Island, Los Angeles)

                            Sound Level                    Phase I Operation                           Phase II Operation
       Equipment          15 m (50 fta per         Number        Load b        Usagec           Number        Loadb        Usagec
          Item               Item - dB             of Units      Factor        Factor           of Units    Factor         Factor

       Crane, 1380-hpd           88                   2          1.0           0.22               2           0.64         0.57
       Crane, 700-hp             85                   2          1.0           0.22               2           0.64         0.57
       Crane, 520-hp             85                   2          1.0           0.22               4           0.64         0.57
       Crane, 430-hp             85                   1          1.0           0.22                1          0.64         0.57
       Crane, 330-hp             84                   2          1.0           0.22               5           1.0          0.45
       Crane, 250-hp             84                   2          1.0           0.11               2           0.64         0.57
                                                                                                 2          1.0          0.36
       Crane, 150-hp             83                   2          1.0           0.11               2           0.64         0.57
       Tugboat, 2500-hp          93                    1         0.01          1.0                 1          0.034        1.0
       Railroad Switch           91                    1         0.005         1.0                 2          0.004        1.0
         Engine
       Trucks                     86                   2          0.5           0.02               4           0.054        0.02
    CD
                                                 L  (9) total at 15 m (50 feet) =              L  (11) total at 15 m (50 feet) =
                                                 98qdB                                         9� dB

        bSource:  EPA, 1975; EPA, 1977; Swing and Pies, 1973; and Dames & Moore's files.
          Load factors represent the fraction of total working hours when the equipment would be operating.  Load factors
          for Phase I are based on a 9-hour per day equipment operations schedule. Load factors for Phase II are based
          on a 16-hour per day schedule, with the equipment operating during only 11 of the 16 hours.
        c
          The usage factor represents the fraction of operating time for a particular equipment item when that item is
          operating in its noisiest mode.  Source:  EPA, 1975; Swing and Pies, 1973; Port of Los Angeles, 12-10-82,
         d Table A2; and Dames & Moore's files.
          Total horsepower for three engines.
        Source: Draft EIR - Kaiser Steel Corporation Terminal Island Marine Assembly Yard, Los Angeles Harbor Department,
                 June 1983.

    possible, variances to existing land use designations may be required.
    These variances could have a variety of impacts depending upon adjacent
    land uses, agency concern, and public receptiveness.

    Natural Resources

    Fuel requirements for vehicles and equipment will result in consumption
    of nonrenewable fossil fuels  (gasoline, diesel and natural gas).  An
    approximate 3 megawatt electricity supply would be required which, during
    a time of surplus, would likely not be a problem as long as inexpensive
    hydropower is available.  If a surplus was not available, new facility
    electricity requirements could increase dependence on coal and uranium
    fuels.

    Platform fabrication facilities engaged in the construction of concrete
    gravity platforms would additionally require large amounts of aggregate,
    sand, cement and water.  Table 5.13 lists the materials required for a
    single concrete gravity platform designed for a water depth of 480 feet.
    Material amounts would, of course, be expected to vary depending on the
    design and size of the platform. Extraction of these resources would
    be expected to have measurable environmental impacts.

                                   TABLE 5.13

                   MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS: CONCRETE PLATFORM
                             FABRICATION FACILITY

    Material            Amount                         Explanation

    Sand                100,000 tons                   Ballast to lower platform

    Aggregates          200,000 tons                   Raw material for concrete

    Cement               50,000 tons                   Raw material for concrete

    Water               20 tons (4,800 gal./hr.)        Industrial use only

    Source: Planning for Offshore Oil Development - Gulf of Alaska OCS
             Handbook, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,
             1978, p. 161.

    Also of significance would be the loss of upland and shoreline resources
    due to facility development.

    Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions

    Some risk of accidental fuel spills and explosion would be present both
    during the receiving of incoming fuel supplies and during vehicle and
    equipment refueling.

    Various permitting and regulatory authorities would require environmental
    protection plans to minimize spills or other potential harmful discharges
    into a river or shoreline. The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
    (SPCC) plan, required by EPA for this kind of facility would place several
    requirements on facility design and operational procedures, as well as
    placement of certain emergency equipment.

    Population

    Population impacts resulting from the construction and operation of a
    platform fabrication/assembly facility would be expected to vary depend-
    ing on the work force levels involved and the population of the community
    where the facility is located.  For example, in areas where there is a
    substantial labor pool, as much as 85 to 90 percent of the work force
    could be hired locally.2/  This being the case, the local population
    level would not increase appreciably.  However, if a facility was to
    locate in an area where the labor pool was quite small, and it was neces-
    sary to bring a substantial number of workers in from outside the area,
    the resulting population related impacts could be significant.

    The current Kiewit proposal to build a platform construction facility
    at Cherry Point in Whatcom County, would employ an estimated 410 people.
    This compares with 1,000 employees estimated to be required for the
    Chicago Bridge and Iron facility previously proposed for the same Cherry
    Point site. The Kiewit estimated work force level probably reflects the
    lower end of the range in terms of the number of people initially to be
    employed at a platform construction facility.  Depending on the magnitude

                                       5-12

    of platform construction at a particular facility, as many as 1,600
    individuals or more could be employed.

    Because platform construction is generally a "boom or bust" business,
    the number of people employed at any given time can vary dramatically.
    This "boom-bust" phenomenon could have a substantial impact on the popula-
    tion size of a small community both during the hiring and layoff phases
    of the work cycle.

    Housingis_

    Impacts associated with housing supply and demand would depend on the
    size of the work force and whether it was indigenous, and on the avail-
    ability of housing in the local area. A work force assembled from the
    local labor pool would likely have minimal impact on housing demand. On
    the other hand, if the work force is imported into the area, the impact
    on housing could be substantial, especially if the local community is
    small in size.

    Transport~ation

    Vehicular transportation impacts associated with facility development
    and operation could range from slight to substantial depending on the
    size of the work force and the capability of the local highway system to
    accommodate large traffic loads.

    Waterborne transportation, involving tug and barge deliveries to and
    from the facility, could pose problems if the area was already a congested
    port facility.  Conflicting uses of the adjacent waterway could, for
    example, cause scheduling conflicts to arise. Tug and barge activities
    could also impact local fish harvesting, depending on operations schedul-
    ing.

    Rail transportation to and from a platform construction facility would
    likely cause minimal impact, assuming the rail line was already in place.
    If, however, a lengthy spur line was required to be built to the facility,

                                       5-13

    there could potentially be significant impacts associated with its con-

    struction and possibly its operation.

    Public Services

    Potential impacts on local services such as fire and police protection,
    schools, recreational facilities, sewage, water, and hospitals could
    range from no impact or slight impact to substantial impact. This depends
    on the size of the work force, and whether it was, for the most part,
    indigenous, or not, and the existing capability of the local community to
    accommodate additional demand for services. The greatest impacts would
    be expected to occur in smaller communities where public service facili-
    ties may be marginally adequate or nonexistent.

    Energy

    Electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel fuel are typically used
    at platform construction facilities in varying amounts. Table 5.14 shows

    the annual energy consumption estimates for the proposed Kaiser platform
    construction facility in Los Angeles.

    Under normal circumstances, energy impacts associated with meeting
    facility requirements would be considered minimal. However, because of

    recently recognized uncertainties associated with the supply of electri-
    city and petroleum in particular, there is always a possibility that
    regional supplies could be diminished with little or no advanced warning.
    This is particularly the case with petroleum. Any new demand for these
    energy forms, therefore, represents a potential competing use require-
    ment, that should be considered as part of local energy contingency
    planning.

    Also of potential significance in considering additional demand for
    electricity, is the fact that future demand will likely have to be met

    with increasingly expensive thermally-produced power, vis-a-vis nuclear
    and coal fired power plants.  Increased dependence on expensively pro-
    duced power will undoubtedly result in increased consumer rates - a factor
    that should be considered in the planning process.

                                       5-14

                                        Table 5.14

                                ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTSa
                                   Electricity    Natugal gas    Gasoline    Diesel Fuel
    Project Activity                  (kW-hr)        (10  ft )       (gal)          (gal)
    CONSTRUCTION
      Commuter Vehicles
         Phase I                        --              --           4,800           --
         Phase II                       --              --           4,800           --
      Construction Equipment
         Phase I                                --                     --         40,500
         Phase II                       --              --             --         42,100

           TOTALb - Phase I             --              --           4,800       40,500
           TOTAL  - Phase II      .                                 4,800        42,100
    OPERATION
      Commuter Vehicles
         Phase I                        --              --          99,500          --
         Phase II                       --              --         193,600          --
      Tugboats
         Phase I                        --              --             --          4,800
         Phase II                       --              --             --          9,600
      Supply Trucks
         Phase I                        --                                        5,700
         Phase II                       --              --             --          7,600
      In-plant Vehicles
         Phase I                        --              --             --          7,800
         Phase II                       --              --             --         15,600
      Cranes
         Phase I                        -                                       209,500
         Phase II                       --              --             --       617,700
      Railroad Switch Engine
         Phase I                        --       . .                 .               300
         Phase II                       --              --             --            600
      Space Heat
         Phase I                        --              0.3            --           --
         Phase II                       --              0.3      .      ..
      Electric Power Generation
         Phase I                   9,360,000            --      .    .
         Phase II                 27,040,000            --             --            --
           TOTAL - Phase I         9,360,000            0.3        99,500       228,100
           TOTAL - Phase II       27,040,000            0.3        193,600      651,100

    a Values are rounded to the nearest 100 gal, 100 kW-yr, or 100,000 ft3.
     b Based on the construction schedule shown on Figure 1.6-1.  Phase II amounts
      reflect incremental construction activities on the 52-acre expansion area.
      Overall total would be the sum of the Phase I and Phase II totals.
      Phase II totals reflect all activities on the entire 100-acre site and, there-
      fore, represents the overall total. The Phase I and Phase II totals are not
      additive.
    Source: Draft EIR - Kaiser Steel Corporation Terminal Island Marine Assembly
             Yard, Los Angeles Harbor Department, June 1983.
                                             5-15

    Uti lities

    Water, sewage, and solid waste disposal requirements could be substantial,
    particularly if facilities to provide these services are inadequate or
    nonexistent. Construction of new water and/or sewage systems and expan-
    sion of existing systems could be an added burden to local taxpayers.
    Environmental impacts associated with the need for increased capacity for
    sewage and solid waste disposal are additional. considerations.

    Impacts associated with increased electricity demand are discussed above
    in the Energy section.

    Human Health

    No major or unusual human health impacts would be anticipated for people

    living near a platform construction facility. Neither would there likely
    be any significant health impacts on those employed during construction
    and operation of the facility. The only apparent exception might be
    potential impacts on welders of toxic welding emissions. This potential
    health problem would be expected to occur only under conditions of inade-
    quate ventilation.

    Aesthetics

    A platform fabrication/assembly facility would be expected to have an
    aesthetic impact on the- area. The degree of impact would depend on factors
    such as whether or not the facility was located in an existing industrial
    area, and on the general level of facility exposure to the public. Perhaps
    even greater than the aesthetic impact of the facility would be the tempo-
    rary aesthetic impact of the platform structures built at the facility.
    Depending on the design, a platform could be several hundred feet in length
    and 100 to 300 feet in height. The larger structures unless hidden by
    local topographic features, would likely be visible for a di-stance of
    several miles.

                                       5-16

    Recreation

    Water associated components of a platform construction facility could
    potentially impact recreational and commercial fishing and other water
    uses in some areas, particularly where extensive pier or piling structures
    are required.  Insurance carriers for a facility may require that the
    public be kept away from these structures, thus excluding these areas
    from recreational use.

    Archaeological/Historical

    As with any major project, any suspected archeological or historical
    resources in the development area must be surveyed and inventoried. An
    assessment of this kind of impact must be made an a case-by-case basis
    and coordinated through the state Office of Archaeology and Historic

    Preservation. A state approved, professional archaeologist may have to
    be called to a site to conduct survey work prior to development.

    Competing Use,

    Competing potential uses for a specific site area may require a separation
    of facility components. For example, unloading and storage operations
    which are not water dependent, may have to be located inland from speci-
    fically water dependent facility operations to allow for other competing
    facilities to utilize limited shoreline land resources.

    Economic

    The economic impact to a community of a platform construction facility
    would be to generally broaden the local tax base and increase local
    revenues.  However, because of the "boom-bust" nature of the platform
    construction business, the generally rapid expansions and contractions
    of construction operations could have profound impacts on the economy of
    a local community.  For example, a community might make a substantial
    investment in support services and infrastructure with the expectation
    that platform construction would proceed at a high pace only to find

                                      5-17

    subsequently that due to market conditions, construction was substan-
    tially reduced or curtailed.  Such a situation could obviously adversely
    affect the economy of a local community, especially a small community

    lacking a diversified economic base.

    The many market uncertainties that exist relating to future offshore
    Alaska and California platform demand, combined with expected intense
    domestic and foreign competition for whatever market does develop, should
    be cause for local decision makers to conduct a very careful cost_ benefit
    analysis of economic impact on the local community.  As mentioned in the
    introductory chapter of this report, permits were issued and preliminary
    site development undertaken at platform construction sites in Grays Harbor
    and Everett during the mid-1970s, with the result that the projects were
    subsequently abandoned due to unfavorable market conditions. This could
    occur again as most, if not all, the proposals to build platform fabri-
    cation facilities on the West Coast are currently being made based on
    speculation, without assurance of actual contracts being awarded.

                                       5-18

                                 References

    1.   "Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal
         Combustion Engines," Wyle Laboratories for the EPA, 1971, p. 63.

    2.   Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development
        Fastbook, prepared by the New England River Basins Commission,
        November 1976, p. 8.21.

                                       5-19

                                   CHAPTER 6

                          SITE SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS

    Introduction

    This chapter provides a first order environmental assessment of potential
    offshore platform construction sites in Washington. A summary profile
    matching site characteristics with factors generally considered important
    in the platform fabrication yard siting process is also included. The
    site specific evaluations were made of those sites nominated by local
    planners and port districts based on composite site criteria provided to
    them by WDJOE in the form of a questionnaire.

    The siting criteria used in the evaluation were established based on a
    review of pertinent literature and discussions with individuals in the
    platform fabrication business. As indicated in the chapter dealing with
    typical fabrication/assembly yard site requirements, a variety of criteria
    are involved in the site evaluation process and the importance of a parti-
    cular criterion could be expected to vary from site to site depending
    on a developer's needs.

    Perhaps as important as specific siting criteria are factors pertaining
    to availability of the site and prospects for receiving permits to develop
    the site.  It is concerning this latter point, especially, that this
    chapter would hope to provide some limited degree of predictability.
    Specifically, the information contained herein is intended to provide
    some insight concerning environmentally related issues which could inter-
    fere with an applicant receiving all of the necessary development permits
    for the sites listed. This should not, however, be interpreted to mean
    that this site evaluation can by itself be used to actually predict
    whether or not permits would be issued for a particular site. This is
    not possible because of the very preliminary nature of the site review
    and because a project and associated impacts can only be hypothesized
    until an actual proj'ect is proposed.

                                      6-1

    It is not the intention or purpose of this report to rank the sites listed
    below on the basis of suitability, though it is readily apparent that
    some sites are superior to others. Rather, it is intended that those
    sites be identified where platform construction could potentially occur
    and that potential environmental issues be recognized early in the proj-

    ect planning process.  It is hoped that by identifying these potential
    environmental issues at an early date and subsequently investigating
    them in detail concerning their possible resolution, actual development

    could proceed at an appropriate location without undue delay.

    As a means of facilitating the review process, the sites listed below
    have been divided into three categories as follows:

         Existing industrial facilities where platform construction could
         potentially be accommodated.

           Anacortes - Snelson-Anvil, Inc.      Tacoma - J. A. Jones Const. Co.
           Tacoma - Tacoma Boat Co.              Seattle - General Const. Co.

           Tacoma - Concrete Technology

         Those sites that could potentially be developed which have a substan-
         tial amount of infrastructure:

           Everett - Weyerhaeuser Mill A         Longview - International Paper
           Everett - Norton Site
           Vancouver-Columbia Industrial Park

        Those sites that could potentially be developed, which have some

         infrastructure:

           Whatcom County - Cherry Point         Vancouver - Port terminal site
           Tacoma - Commencement Bay             Kalama - Industrial Park

             Outer 1{ylebos
           Westport - Ilalfmoon Bay              Kalama - Terminal site
           Westport - Marina                     Longview - Internatioita.I Paper

                                       6-2

    Other sites were reviewed but determined not to be particularly well
    suited for OCS platform construction.  They have not been evaluated in
    this study. These sites include the following:

           Clallam County - Sekiu site          Woodland - Port of Woodland site
           Port Gamble - Pope and Talbot site Ilwaco - Port of Ilwaco site
          Neah Bay - Makah site                Port Townsend - Glen Cove site

                                      6-3

                 Existing Industrial Facilities Where Platform
                Construction Could Potentially be Accommodated

                         Anacortes Snelson-Anvil Site

    Location:                 Anacortes, west side of Fidalgo Bay.

    Ownership:                Snelson-Anvil, wholly owned subsidiary of Kiewit

                             Industrial Corporation.

    Acreage:                  60 acres developed (additional acreage is

                             available)

    Water Frontage:           2,400 feet frontage.

    Water Depth:              Varies from -5 MLLW to -25 MLLW in front of

                             the site.

    Channel Width:            -18 feet MLLW x 150 feet x 5180 feet dredged

                             in 1976.

    Deep Water Proximity:    Tow out draft of approximately 100 foot depth is
                             available an estimated six miles from the site.
                             Water depth from this point to the Pacific Ocean
                             is in excess of 200 feet. Water depths in excess
                             of 40 feet lie approximately 1 mile from the site.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern (site currently has four rail

                             spurs).

    Highway Transportation:  Interstate 5 connected to site by State High-

                             way 20, most of which is a divided four lane
                             roadway (approximately 18 miles).

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  Port of Anacortes can berth a ship up to 700 feet

                             long. The dock is approximately one mile from
                             the site.

                                       6-4

                     Anacortes Snelson-Anvil Site (cont'd)

    Gravin~g Dock Site:       Site is on consolidated glacial till.  Very high
                             load bearing is possible, Soils studies indicate
                             favorable graving dock capabilities.

    Overhead Obstructions:   None.  There are no overhead or horizontal fea-

                             tures which could restrict water access.

    Water Availability:       City-supplied high pressure mains (6 inches+)
                             serve the site.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min):          This much power is currently serving the site;

                             more is available (Puget Sound Power and Light Co.).

    Skilled Labor:            Site has drawn up to 1,500 craftsmen in the

                             past. Area has drawn up to 6,000 for plant

                             construction.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment.

    Compatible With Local
    Zoning:                   Heavy industrial.

    On-Site Warehousing:      Approximately 50,000 square feet is located
                             on-site excluding shop areas. Additional space
                             is available within one mile.

    Fire Protection:          Site served by fire mains plus full time muni-
                             cipal fire department.

    Sewer Service:            Large capacity sewerage system serves the site.

                                       6-5

                     Anacortes Snelson-Anvil Site (cont'd)

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    Have been handling loads this large for eight
                             years with no difficulties.

    Constraints:

    o    Additional dredging would be required to accommodate certain types
         of structures. Although dredging has been allowed as necessary to
         support facility operation at this site, extensive additional dredg-
         ing could impact herring spawning and crab habitat.

    o    Additional land would likely be required to make this a viable site.

    Opportunities:

    o    Snelson-Anvil has successfully operated its industrial modulariza-
         tion business at this site for eight years. Offshore structures
         require similar shoreline and upland site characteristics and, there-
         fore, could likely be accommodated with some site alteration.

    o    Close proximity to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the open ocean
         as well as the inland passage to Alaska.

    o    Highly skilled and available labor pool.

    o    Of approximately 70 additional acres that may be available, 15 acres
         owned by the city of Anacortes is definitely available (urban renewal

         site adjacent to Snelson Anvil).

    o    Urban shoreline designation and Industrial zoning classification
         are favorable for site development.

                                       6-6

                                                    ANACORTg

                     CHANN            ~~~INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

    GU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~SCALE 1:24,000

                                           FIDALGO

    ANACORtTES
                                             aA Y

                     Figure 6.10
            ANACORTES SNELSON-ANVIL SITE.

             Figure 6.11
    ANACORTES SN ELSON-ANVI L

                 6-8

                                SNELSON-ANVIL - ANACORTES
                                EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
            Categories      __                      Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                X

    Surface compaction                                                         X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                          X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                    X

    Emissions from welding activities                                          X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                           X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                         X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                  X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                 X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                 X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat               X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                            X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                         X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                            X

    Light and glare generation                                                 X

                                            6-9

                            SNELSON-ANVIL - ANACORTES (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                        X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                            X

    Potential for ship accidents                                               X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                                      X

    Increased demand for public services                                       X

    Increased demand for utilities                                             X

    Aesthetic impact                                                           X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                                                  X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                               X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                 X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                      X

                                             6-10

                           Tacoma Boat Plant #3 Site

    Location:                 Outer Hylebos and Blair waterways, Alexander

                             Ave., Tacoma.

    Ownership:                Tacoma Boatbuilding Company.

    Acreage:                  50 acres (platform for construction); Plant #1
                             site consists of 20 acres which could be util-
                             ized for module and support ship construction.

    Water Frontage:           600 ft. side-launch extends to depths of -35 ft.
                             MLLW. Side-launch expandable to 1,000 ft.

    Water Depth:              Natural deep harbor - average depth 180 ft.

    Channel Width:            Passage to open ocean unrestricted with depths
                             well in excess of 100 ft.

    Deep Water Proximity:    Anchorage within bay with depths to 400 ft.

    Rail Transportation:      Rail service connection to all lines serving the

                             Pacific Northwest.

    Highway Transportation:  Three miles from Interstate 5.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  2,000 ft. of pier frontage (avg. depth 35 ft.).
                             Also adjacent to Port of Tacoma terminal piers
                             with depths in excess of 40 ft.

    Graving Dock Site:        Side-launch area could be dredged to construct a
                             graving dock if necessary. Present side-launch
                             installation will support 10,000 lbs/ft2.

    Overhead Obstructions:   No overhead restrictions from construction area
                             to launch area and beyond.

                                       6-11

                      Tacoma Boat Plant #3 Site (cont'd)

    Water Availability:       Site served with an 8-inch water main.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Site presently served by 2-4,000 KVA service
                             centers and 1-1,000 KVA center. Additional
                             power is available.

    Skilled Labor:            Present labor force at 2,240 production personnel.
                             Additional labor available in immediate area.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:             Heavy industry

    On-Site Warehousing:      Presently operating five major warehouses with
                             300,000 ft.2 capacity (floor loading to 4,000
                             lbs/ft.2 acceptable).

    Fire Protection:          City fire department and fire boats; fire main
                             to site with service valves located throughout
                             the site.

    Sewer Service:            City sewage services the site.

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    Ship modules up to 500 tons have been wheeled
                             to and from the construction site.

    Constraints:

    o    None apparent

                                       6-12

                      Tacoma Boat Plant #3 Site (cont'd)

    Opportunities:

    o    Immediate proximity to deep water,

    o    Substantial in-place infrastructure.

    o    Shoreline permits have previously been issued without delay at
         this site for construction of the shipyard and side-launch.

    o    Site is located in port area designated for heavy industry, ship-
         building, and terminal use.

                                       6-13

                                                        TACOMA

                                              INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

    COMMENCEMENT

                                            DRIVE

        WBAY A
                                                      SCALE 1:24,000

                 X ~PORT OF TACOMA'

                              Figure 6.12

                       TACOMA BOAT PLANT NO. 3 SITE.
                                 R-14

      Figure 6.13
    TACOMA BOAT

                                 PLANT #3 TACOMA BOAT SITE
                                EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                X

    Surface compaction                                                         X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                          X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                               X

    Emissions from welding activities                                          X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                           X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                         X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                  X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                 X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                 X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat               X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                            X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                         X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                            X

    Light and glare generation                                                 X

                                             6-16

                            PLANT #3 TACOMA BOAT SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                        X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                            X

    Potential for ship accidents                                               X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                                      X

    Increased demand for public services                                       X

    Increased demand for utilities                                             X

    Aesthetic impact                                      X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                                                  X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                               X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                 X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                      X

                                             6-17

                        Concrete Technology Corporation

    Location:                 Blair Waterway, Tacoma

    Ownership:                Concrete Technology

    Acreage:                  36 level well drained acres, including 100,000
                             square feet of precast concrete production buildings.

    Water Frontage:           750 feet of water frontage.

    Water Depth:              40 ft. deep channel to Commencement Bay.

    Channel Width:            Limited to the 150 ft. Blair Bridge width.

    Deep Water Proximity:    Water depths of 300-500 ft. in adjacent Commence-

                             ment Bay. Minimum depth to the Pacific Ocean

                             is 220 feet.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern and Union Pacific connect

                             from the plant site via the City of Tacoma belt
                             line.

    Highway Transportation:  Interstate-5 is two miles away via a five-lane
                             (including a center turn lane) arterial.

    Deep Water Cargo Pier:   Port of Tacoma major cargo terminals within k mile
                             of site. An unloading pier available at CTC
                             plant for 400 foot ocean-going barges.

    Graving Dock Site:        Existing 150' x 500' x -I' (MLLW) graving dock

                             with adequate load capacity.

    Overhead Structures:      Transmission power lines cross Blair Waterway

                             with 173 feet of vertical clearance.

                                      6-18

                   Concrete Technology Corporation (cont'd)

    Water Availability:       Adequate city water to the site.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Main power line (Tacoma City Light) extends to
                             the site. Adequate supply available.

    Skilled Labor
    Availability:             Excellent pool of skilled construction labor
                             available.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:             Heavy industry

    On-Site Warehousing:      10,000 square feet of warehousing . . . open
                             storage areas available.

    Fire Protection:          Two fire stations are within k mile of facility.
                             City fire boat can provide a 5-minute response.

    Sewer Service:            Currently adequate - the main sewer line lies
                             adjacent to the facility if additional capacity
                             is required.

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    No problem according to Concrete Technology
                             officials.

    Site Constraints:

    o    Currently horizontal clearance at the Blair Bridge is limited to
         150 feet. Structures wider than this require segmented construction.
         Concrete Tech notes that they have considerable experience with

                                      6-19

                   Concrete Technology Corporation (cont'd)

        joining procedures that have proven to be satisfactory for structures
        built there in the past.

    Site Opportunities:

    o    Existing facility is well developed and operational for constructing

         floating concrete structures.

    o    Graving dock available (150 ft. x 500 ft. x -1 ft. (MLLW)).

    o    Plans are underway by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to widen and
         deepen Blair Waterway to 42 feet deep with a 300 foot bridge open-
         ing. This could be completed within three years.

    o    Urban shoreline designation and industrial zoning classification
         are favorable for site development.

                                      6-20

                                                                                  ACOMA

                                                                 INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

    COMMENCEMENT                                                         N

                                              trimRVE
                                                    0

                                   PORT OF TACOMA

                                            Figure 6.14

                      TACOMA CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION SITE.
                                                 A a

          Figure 6.15
    CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY

              6-22

                                     CONCRETE TECH SITE
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                  X

    Surface compaction                                                           X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                 X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                             X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                           X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                   X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                   x

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                                                   X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                              X

    Light and glare generation                                                   X

                                             6-23

                                CONCRETE TECH SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                 Potential            Minor or
            Categories                             Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                       X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                           X

    Potential for ship accidents                                              X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                 X

    Increased demand for public services                                      X

    Increased demand for utilities                                            X

    Aesthetic impact                                      X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                                                 X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                              X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                     X

                                            6-24

                            J. A. Jones Tacoma Site

    Location:                 Blair Waterway, Port of Tacoma.

    Ownership:                Port of Tacoma; leased by J. A. Jones through
                             1986.

    Acreage:                  27 acres with additional acreage available
                             across the street (about 30 acres level and
                             cleared).

    Water Frontage:           2,400 ft. frontage.

    Water Depth:              40 ft. deep channel to Commencement Bay.

    Channel Width:            Limited to the 150 ft. Blair Bridge width.

    Deep Water Proximity:    Water depths of 300-500 ft. in adjacent (1 mile)
                             Commencement Bay. Minimum depth to the Pacific
                             Ocean is 220 ft.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern to the site.

    Highway Transportation:  Approximately one mile from Interstate 5 via
                             county/city streets.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  Pierce County terminal owned by the Port of
                             Tacoma (water depth -40 feet MLLW).

    Graving Dock Site:        A graving dock 575 ft. x 575 ft. x -4 MLLW is
                             available on-site. The existing sheet pile
                             opening to the dock is approximately 40 ft.
                             wide. Permits have been received to deepen the
                             graving dock (-12 ft. MLLW) and to widen the
                             gate (70 ft. wide).

                                      6-25

                       J. A. Jones Tacoma Site (cont'd)

    Overhead Obstructions:   Two overhead power lines cross the Blair Waterway

                             between the site and Commencement Bay (173 ft.
                             and 170 ft. of vertical clearance).

    Water Availability:       Site served with six-inch plus water line.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Tacoma City Light (adequate supply to the site).

    Skilled Labor:            Excellent pool of skilled construction labor

                             available.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:            Heavy industry

    On-Site Warehousing:      None on-site - Port of Tacoma warehousing avail-
                             able within 1V miles (25,000 ft.2).  Private

                             warehousing available across the street.

    Fire Protection:          � mile from port fire department.

    Sewer Service:            Sewer line extends along site boundary.

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    Should be adequate.

    Site Constraints:

    o    This site would likely not be large enough for large platform struc-

         tures without access to additional land.

                                       6-26

                       J. A. Jones Tacoma Site (cont'd)

    o    Currently horizontal clearance at the Blair Bridge is limited to
         150 ft. Structures wider than this require segmented construction.

        J. A. Jones notes that they have experience with joining procedures
         (note: Hood Canal Floating Bridge) that proved satisfactory for
         structures built there in the past.

    Site Opportunities:

    o    Existing facility was developed for construction of floating concrete
         structures.

    o    Graving dock available (575 ft. x 575 ft.).

    o    Plans are underway by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to widen and

         deepen Blair Waterway to 42 ft. deep with a 300 ft. bridge opening.
         This could be completed within three years.

    o    Urban shoreline designation and industrial zoning classification are
         favorable for site development.

                                      6-27

                                                                          TACOMA

                                                            INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

    COMMENCEMENT                                                              N

          BAY
                                                                       SCALE 1:24,000

                                 PORT OF TACOMA

                                     Figure 6.16
                              TACOMA J.A. JONES SITE.
                                        6-28

    Figure 6.17
    J.A. JONES

        6.29

                                      J. A. JONES SITE
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                  X

    Surface compaction                                                          X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                           X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                   X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                  X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                  X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                                                  X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                              X

    Light and glare generation                                                   X

                                            6-30

                                  J. A. JONES SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential            Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                         X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                             X

    Potential for ship accidents                                                X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                  X

    Increased demand for public services                                        X

    Increased demand for utilities                                              X

    Aesthetic impact                                       X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                                                   X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                                X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                  X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                       X

                                            6-31

                     General Construction Co. Yards 1 & 2

    Location:                 Duwamish Waterway, City of Seattle

    Ownership:                Wright Schuchart, Inc. (parent corporation)

    Acreage:                  15 acres with additional adjacent acreage avail-
                             able (about 25 acres have been utilized for
                             previous module fabrication projects).

    Water Frontage:           825 ft. frontage.

    Water Depth:              30 ft. deep channel to Elliott Bay maintained
                             by Corps of Engineers.

    Channel Width:            Limited to 150 ft. Spokane Street and railroad
                             bridge widths.

    Deep Water Proximity:    Water depths of 250-400 ft. in adjacent (1 mile)

                             Elliott Bay.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern to the site.

    Highway Transportation:  Approximately two miles from Interstate 5,

                             via four-lane city streets.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  Port of Seattle (water depth -40 feet MLLW).

    Graving Dock:             A graving dock 414 ft. x. 140 ft. and 14 ft.
                             maximum draft x -4 MLLW is available on-site.
                             The opening to the waterway is 103 ft. wide.

    Overhead Obstructions:   New West Seattle bridge 140'.

    Water Availability:       Site served with six-inch plus water line.

                                      6-32

                       General Construction Co. (cont'd)

    ElectricitySuppl~y
    (2,000 KVA Min.):         Seattle City Light (adequate supply to the site).

    Skilled Labor:            Excellent pool of skilled construction labor
                             available.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban development.

    Local Zoning:             Heavy industry.

    On-Site Warehousing:      10,000 S.F. on-site - ample nearby.

    Fire Protection:          Hydrants on-site and Seattle Fire Department,

                             both shore and water.

    Sewer Service:            Sewer line extends along site boundary.

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    Proven on module project loadouts.

    Site Constraints:

    o    This site would likely not be large enough for large platform struc-
         tures without access to additional land.

    o    Currently, horizontal clearance at the Spokane Street Bridge is
         limited to 150 ft. Structures wider than this require segmented
         construction. General Construction Co. notes that they have experi-
         ence with joining procedures in the past and most recently, the
         900 ft. long Hood Canal Floating Bridge drawspan section. Segments
        were cast in the graving dock and assembled in Elliott Bay.

                                       6-33

                       General Construction Co. (cont'd)

    o    The Duwamish River has a serious sediment contamination problem which
         could preclude dredging.

    o    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat (Duwamish River) by source
         contaminants associated with operation of a rig yard at this site
         could aggravate an existing sediment contamination problem.

    Site Opportunities:

    o    Existing facility was developed for construction of floating concrete
         structures. More than half the state's floating bridge pontoons were
        built in this facility. Additional work of this type is expected

         in the future.

    o    Plans are underway by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to widen and
         deepen the Duwamish Waterway to 39 ft. deep with a 250 ft. channel
        width.

    o    Plans are underway to widen the opening of the graving dock from

         103 ft. to 140 ft.

    o    Two gantry cranes service the site and graving dock, one at 50 T.

         and one at 20 T.

                                       6-34

                                                                        EATTLE

                                                       INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTOi

      ~ '~<~ Har bor      /
          - *-~%'k,  Island    /              J
                              SPOKANE      ISTREET

    YARD 1

                YARD 2

                               Figure 6.18
               GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. YARDS 1 & 2.
                                   6-35

           Figure 6.19
    GENERAL CONSTRUCTION

              6-36

                           GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. YARDS 1 & 2
                                EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                X

    Surface compaction                                                         X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                          X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                               X

    Emissions from welding activities                                          X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                           X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                         X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                  X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                 X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                 X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                            X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                         X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                        X

    Light and glare generation                                                 X

                                              6-37

                             GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential            Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                         X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                             X

    Potential for ship accidents                                                X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                                       X

    Increased demand for public services                                       X

    Increased demand for utilities                                              X

    Aesthetic impact                                                            X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                               X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                  X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                       X

                                             6-38

                   Sites That Could Potentially Be Developed
               Which Have a Substantial Amount of Infrastructure

                       Everett Weyerhaeuser Hill A Site

    Location:                 Everett waterfront

    Ownership:                Port of Everett

    Acreage:                  54 acres - site of a Weyerhaeuser pulp mill
                             now in the latter stages of demolition.

    Water Frontage:           Approximately 4,000 ft.

    Water Depth:              Immediately adjacent to water 40 feet deep that

                             becomes progressively deeper.

    Deep Water Proximity:    Water depths of approximately 300 feet less than
                             I mile distance from the site.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern rail extends to the site.

    Highway Transportation:  Truck route to Interstate 5 (approximately
                             5 minj.)

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  1,600 foot cargo pier available on-site.

    Graving Dock Site:        Potential graving dock site at north end of
                             property. Soils and other siting characteristics
                             are unknown.

    Overhead Obstructions:   High voltage power lines enter site from the
                             north end and parallel the access road to the
                             halfway point of the site.  Could be moved if
                             a problem.

    Water Availability:       Six-inch water line to the site.

                                      6-39

                   Everett Weyerhaeuser Mill A Site (cont'd)

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Adequate supply available (Snohomish PUD).

    Skilled Labor
    Availability:             Excellent.  Snohomish County had a 1982 estimated
                             population of 365,400. The population of Everett
                             was estimated to be 56,700.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:            Heavy industry

    On-Site Warehousing:      70,000 ft2 on-site.

    Availability of Local
    Fire Protection:          City fire department with on-site hydrants.

    Availability of Sewer
    Service:                  City sewer system

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    Because this is the former site of a pulp mill
                             it is assumed that certain areas would likely
                             bear heavy loads. The capability of other areas
                             at the site to bear heavy loads is unknown.

    Site Constraints:

    o    Demolition of the pulp mill is not expected to be complete until
         December, 1983.

    o    Site preparation would be required after demolition including some

         filling.

                                      6-40

                   Everett Weyerhaeuser Mill A Site (cont'd)

    Site Opportunities:

    o    Deep water access, an existing cargo pier, large labor pool, poten-
         tial graving dock site and transportation access make this an attrac-
         tive site.

    o    Urban shoreline designation and industrial zoning classifications
         are favorable for site development.

                                       6-41

                                                                  BERETT

      0~~~~~~~~~~
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cd

                                   -.~~1T NEXMPWSTRERWAHGTO

                 w~~~~~~~c

                                0               0

    0~~~~~~~~~~ w

                 EVERETT WEYERHAEUSER MILL A SITE.

           Figure 6.21
    WEYERHAEUSER MILL A

              6-43

                            EVERETT WEYERHAEUSER MILL A SITE
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                 X

    Surface compaction                                                           X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                      X

    Emissions from welding activities
                                                                                X
    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                           X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                  X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                  X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                                                   X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                         X

    Light and glare generation                              X

                                             6-44

                         EVERETT WEYERHAEUSER MILL A SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                          X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                              X

    Potential for ship accidents                                                 X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                  X

    Increased demand for public services                                         X

    Increased demand for utilities                                              X

    Aesthetic impact                                        X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                                                   X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                                X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                   X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                        X

                                             6-45

                              Everett Norton Site

    Location: Port of Everett Norton Site

    Ownership:                Port of Everett

    Acreage:                  70+ acres

    Water Frontage:           1,100 ft. frontage

    Water Depth:              -35 ft. (MLLW)

    Channel Width:            250 ft. wide for a distance of � mile to open
                             water (500 ft. maneuvering basin in front of
                             site).

    Deep Water Proximity:    100 ft.+ depth from channel mouth outbound.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern (sidings on-site).

    Highway Transportation:  Truck route direct to Interstate 5 (approximately
                             5-minute travel time).

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  Norton site has a 700 ft. wharf with a 400 ft.
                            extension under construction.

    Graving Dock Site:        2 (110' x 393') graving docks on-site - currently
                             under 30-month lease to 6/85 (area not included
                             in acreage total). An additional large graving
                             dock could be built at the site.

    Overhead Obstruction:    None

    Water Availability:       12-inch water line serves the area.

                                       6-46

                         Everett Norton Site (cont'd)

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Adequate supply available (Snohomish PUD).

    Skilled Labor:            Availability proven through 18 months of module
                             construction (1/82-6/83).

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:             Heavy industry

    On-Site Warehousing:      36,000 square ft. on-site - another 100,000+
                             within five-mile radius of the site.

    Fire Protection:          City fire department serves the site.

    Sewer Service:            City sewer to the site.

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    Not certain, but should be able to withstand
                             these loads based on past usage.

    Site Constraints:

    o    Channel width at the site is 600' but channel exit width is 250'
         which could be a limiting factor in building large platform struc-
         tures.

    Opportunities:

    o    An existing industrial site.

    o    Substantial infrastructure currently in place.

                                      6-47

                        Everett Norton Site (cont'd)

    o    Water depths of approximately 300 feet less than I mile distance
         from the site.

    o    Large labor pool available.

    o    Urban shoreline designation and industrial zoning classification
         are favorable for site development.

                                      6-48

                                                                VERETT

                                              INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

    w                          ,

                           --

                           -J0                          SCALE 1:24,000

                                      19TH          STREET

                                                  EVERETT

                                     HEWETT           AVE.

                    Figure 6.22

               EVERETT NORTON SITE.

     Figure 6.23
    NORTON SITE

         6-50

                                    EVERETT NORTON SITE
                                EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                  Potential            Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                 X

    Surface compaction                                                          X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                           X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                     X

    Emissions from welding activities                                           X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                          X

    Elevated levels of runoff          -                                        X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                  X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                  X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                     X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                                     X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                 X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                                                  X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                          X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                             X

    Light and glare generation                             X

                                            6-51

                               EVERETT NORTON SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                 Potential            Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues         Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                       X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                           X

    Potential for ship accidents                                              X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                                     X

    Increased demand for public services                                      X

    Increased demand for utilities                                            X

    Aesthetic impact                                      X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                                                 X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                              X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                     X

                                           6-52

                           Columbia Industrial Park

    Location:                Vancouver - approximately I mil~e above the

                             Oregon/Washington Interstate Bridge.

    Ownership:                Privately owned by Hayden Corporation - Portland,
                             Oregon.

    Acreage:                  Site consists of 248 total acres; approximately
                             100 acres are available.

    Water Frontage:           3/4 mile frontage on the Columbia River.

    Water Depth:              Immediately offshore the water depth is approxi-

                             mately 30 ft. The main navigation channel lies
                             approximately I mile west of site (down river)
                             and is maintained at a 40 foot depth.

    Channel Width:            The main navigation channel is a minimum of
                             600 ft wide.

    Deep Water Proximity:    The Pacific Ocean is approximately 108 river miles

                             downstream.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern access to all areas of the

                             industrial park.

    Highway Transportation:  Highway 14 passes in front of the park.  Inter-
                             state 5 is I mile away and Interstate 205 is
                             5 miles away.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  Port of Vancouver - 1� miles down river.

    Graving Dock Site:       Undeveloped site capable of 2,000 pounds per square

                             foot. Could be upgraded. Depending on the type
                             of structure built, dredging may be required.

                                      6-53

                       Columbia Industrial Park (cont'd)

    Overhead Obstructions:   None at the site.  Four bridges downstream:
                             1) Vancouver Interstate Bridge (River Mile 106.5)
                            vertical lift bridge with a 263 ft. horizontal
                             clearance and between a 159 ft. and 175 ft.
                            vertical clearance depending on water height;
                             2) Vancouver Burlington Northern Bridge (River
                            Mile 105.6) swing bridge with a horizontal
                             clearance of 200 ft. and vertical unlimited;
                             3) Lewis and Clark Bridge at Longview (River
                            Mile 66) horizontal clearance 1,085 ft., verti-
                             cal center (440 ft.) clearance ranges between
                             185 ft. and 196 ft. depending on water height;
                             4) Columbia River Bridge at Astoria (River
                            Mile 13.5) horizontal clearance 1,070 ft. with
                            vertical clearance ranging between 186 ft. and
                             193 ft. depending on water height. Power line
                            river crossings maintain a minimum 210 ft.
                            vertical clearance above the river.

    Water Availability:      A new water system recently installed with 6-inch,

                             8-inch, and 10-inch mains.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Available on-site . . . adequate supply available
                             (Clark County PUD).

    Skilled Labor:           Vancouver/Portland area provide a large skilled
                             labor pool.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:             Urban environment

    Local Zoning:            Heavy industry

                                     6-54

                       Columbia Industrial Park (cont'd)

    On-Site Warehousing:      1,350,000 ft.2 of leasable building area in the
                             park. Currently have over 150,000 ft.2 of ware-
                             house space that could be made available.

    Fire Protection:          City of Vancouver Fire Department

    Sewer Service:            City sewer to the park.

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                   Roadways on-site would need to be upgraded to
                             handle these loads.

    Constraints:

    o    Bridges would preclude transport of large steel jackets and other
         platform structures exceeding a total height of approximately 175 ft.
         The horizontal clearance limit is 200 ft.

    o    Navigation channel width of 600 ft. could limit construction of very
         large structures.

    o    Some river dredging may be required depending on type of structure
         built.

    o    Completed platform structures would have to be transported across
         the Columbia River bar, approximately 108 miles from the site.

    Opportunities:

    o    An existing waterfront industrial site (existing infrastructure).

    o    Large skilled labor pool.

                                      6-55

                      Columbia Industrial Park (cont'd)

    o    Six offshore platform structures were built at this site between
         1966 and 1968 by Brown and Root.

    o    World War II shipways are in place and could be used for jacket
         loading.

    o    Urban shoreline designation and industrial zoning classification
        are favorable for site development.

                                      6-56

                                                       VANCUE

                                                  INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

                                           BLVD

                   VANCOUVER                    >SCALE 1:24,000

                                                    0

                                    ~~~~~ENRAILROA D

                                 BURLINGTON       OTENRIRA

    ISORLANDDRV

                      Fiur 6.24                                   VE

                      COLUMBI  INUSTIAL PR

                             6A-57

                                           '               :4

                         �'
                        KJ

                ;j:

              2'

              rv

                  ...
                                       ..'

                    .4' "

        A

                            4 .

                '4                   '-'

    '>' >'
        1

                      <2

                                                                     , 'i;',

                                                                               ''

                               '' 'A

                                     Figure 6.25

                            COLUMBIA INDUSTRIAL PARK

                                         6-58

                                  COLUMBIA INDUSTRIAL PARK
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                  X

    Surface compaction                                     X

    Alteration of longshore transport                       X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                      X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                             X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                           X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                   X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                             X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                              X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                              X

    Light and glare generation                                                   X

                                             6-59

                             COLUMBIA INDUSTRIAL PARK (cont'd)

              Impact                                 Potential            Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues         Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                       X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                           X

    Potential for ship accidents                                              X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                 X

    Increased demand for public services                                      X

    Increased demand for utilities                                            X

    Aesthetic impact                                                          X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                             X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                          X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                 X

                                           6-60

                       Longview International Paper Site

    Location:                 Longview, Washington (Columbia River Mile 67).

    Ownership:                International Paper Company.

    Acreage:                  100 acres of flat, well drained land adjacent
                             to the Columbia River.

    Water Frontage:           2,000 feet of frontage.

    Water Depth:              40 foot navigation channel adjacent to the site.
                             Ship turning basin also in front of site.

    Channel Width:            600 ft. navigation channel to the Pacific Ocean.

    Deep Water Proximity:    Pacific Ocean approximately 67 miles down river.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern spur to the site.

    Highway Transportation:  City street to the site; Interstate 5 is approxi-
                             mately 3.5 miles away.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  Port of Longview pier adjacent to the site

                              (7 berths) ; International Paper pier (I berth)
                             located on-site is 1,300 ft. in length.

    Graving Dock Site:        It is questionable as to whether a graving dock
                             could be constructed on-site.  Soil capacity
                             according to International Paper is 1,000 pounds
                             per square foot. An alteration in the existing
                             river front dike would be required, the feasi-
                             bility of which is unknown (dike ground eleva-
                             tion +12.0 ft. - top of dike +30.0 ft.).

                                       6-61

                  Longview International Paper Site (cont'd)

    Overhead Obstructions:   None at the site.  Two bridges downstream:
                             1) Lewis and Clark Bridge at Longview (River
                             Mile 66) horizontal clearance 1,085 ft., verti-
                             cal center (440 ft.) clearance ranges between
                             185 ft. and 196 ft. depending on water height;
                             2) Columbia River Bridge at Astoria (River Mile
                             13.5) horizontal clearance 1,070 ft. with verti-
                             cal clearance ranging between 186 ft. and 193 ft.
                             depending on water height. Power lines cross-
                             ing the river maintain a 210 ft. clearance
                             above the river.

    Water Availability:       A 12-inch nonpotable water line serves the site
                             along with a 2.5-inch potable line.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):         Adequate power supply available to the site.

    Skilled Labor:            Skilled labor pool available.  Combined Longview/
                             Kelso population 42,000 (1982). Cowlitz County
                             population 79,500 (1982).

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment.

    Local Zoning:             Heavy industry.

    On-Site Warehousing:      Six sheds 78 ft. x 1,200 ft. x 30 ft. high with
                             bays, clear span and blacktop floor.

    Fire Protection:          City fire department. One company owned fire
                             truck now available on-site.

    Sewer Services:           12-inch sewer line serves the site.

                                      6-62

                   Longview International Paper Site (cont'd)

    100 Tons/Axle:
    Wheel-Loads:              According to a spokesman for International
                             Paper, the site could withstand these loads.

    Constraints:

    o    Any modification of the existing dike structure at the site would
         necessarily have to be approved by the Corps of Engineers.

    o    Bridges and power lines down river would preclude construction of
         structures exceeding approximately 185 ft. high.

    o    A navigation channel width of 600 ft. could limit construction of
         very large structures.

    o    A long distance to the open ocean (67 miles) would involve crossing
         the Columbia River bar at its mouth.

    o    Continued deposition of Mount St. Helens ash and mud could require
         frequent maintenance dredging and associated disposal of dredge
         spoils.

    Opportunities:

    o    An existing industrial site with substantial infrastructure in
         place.

    o    Site located in an area currently zoned for industrial development
         and compatible with the local shoreline plan.

    o    Adequate labor pool.

                                        6-63

                                                           LONGVIEW

                                               INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

                      LONG VIEW

                         WAY                          SCALE 1:24,000

    LONGVIEWITENTOAPAESTE

           0~~~~~~66

               Figure 6.27
    LONGVIEW INTERNATIONAL PAPER

                   6-65

                             LONGVIEW INTERNATIONAL PAPER SITE
                                EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                  Potential            Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                 X

    Surface compaction                                                          X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                           X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                     X

    Emissions from welding activities                                           X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                          X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                   X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                  X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                             X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                     X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                                     X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                 X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                             X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                          X

    Other

    Noise poll.Iutionl                                     X

    Light and glare generation                                                  X

                                            6-66

                        LONGVIEW INTERNATIONAL PAPER SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                        X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                            X

    Potential for ship accidents                                               X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                 X

    Increased demand for public services                                       X

    Increased demand for utilities                                             X

    Aesthetic impact                                                           X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                                                  X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                               X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                 X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                      X

                         � /~-:  ~  :~.~6-67

                   Sites That Could Potentially Be Developed
                        Which Have Some Infrastructure

                               Cherry Point Site

    Location:                 Approximately 1.2 miles southeast of Cherry

                             Point and seven miles west of the City of
                             Ferndale.

    Ownership:                Currently under option from Point Industrial

                             Corporation by Peter Kiewit Son's Company.

    Acreage:                  270 acres.  With the exception of 100 foot bluffs
                             adjacent to the shoreline extending from the
                             middle of the site southeasterly, the slope
                             ranges from 3 percent to 12.5 percent. Several
                             natural drainage courses are located on the

                             site.

    Water Frontage:           2,100-2,200 feet at MLLW; the 20 foot MLLW contour

                             extends for 1,170 feet within the site boundaries.

    Water Depth:              The site is situated on open water.  The -20 foot

                             MLLW contour is approximately 400 to 600 feet
                             from the 0 foot MLLW.

    Channel Width:            Site is situated on open water; no severely
                             restricted navigation channels.

    Deep Water Proximity:    The 100 foot water depth is located about

                             1.9 miles from the site.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern lies adjacent to the site.

    Highway Transportation:  Approximately 8 miles to Interstate 5 via local

                             access road.

                                      6-68

                          Cherry Point Site (cont'd)

    Deep Water Cargo Piers: Three piers are located within .1.8 miles of the
                             site but are proprietary.

    Graving Dock Site:        A graving dock could be developed at the low
                             back end of the property assuming soil condi-
                             tions are suitable. Specific engineering designs
                             could likely resolve any soils problems accord-
                             ing to the EIS previously prepared by Chicago
                             Bridge and Iron.

    Overhead Obstructions:   None

    Water Availability:       Two, 24-inch, PUD water lines are located approxi-
                             mately I mile from the site (nonpotable water).

    Electricity Supply:       (Puget Sound Power and Light Company) adequate
                             supply of power available.

    Skilled Labor:            Adequate labor supply in surrounding area
                             (Whatcom County population 111,000 as of 1982).

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              "Conservancy" landward of the ordinary high
                             water mark and "Aquatic" offshore of the ordinary

                             high water mark. The site is within the "Heavy
                             Impact Industrial District" zone.

    Local Zoning:             Local industrial zoning allows for the construc-
                             tion of offshore oil drilling structures.

    On-Site Warehousing:      None currently, although site (soils) could
                             accommodate on-site warehousing.

    Fire Protection:          The site is located within the boundaries of Fire
                             Protection District No. 7, which staffs a full

                          Cherry Point Site (cont'd)

                             time chief and about 70 volunteers. Major indus-
                             tries in the area provide their own basic fire
                             protection and use local fire districts for back-up.

    Sewer Service:            None

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    Could possibly be engineered for such heavy

                             wheel loads.

    Constraints:

    o    Dredging and filling of the shoreline are generally inconsistent
         with the current Whatcom County Shoreline Master Plan. Proposed
         revisions to the state Shoreline Management Act that would have
         allowed shoreline development (dredge and fill) at this site by
         Chicago Bridge and Iron were rejected by the governor in 1982.

    o    Fisheries related impact issues could preclude site development.

    o    A large bluff rises above the shoreline from approximately 25 feet
         on the north side of the beach front to approximately 100 feet on
         the south side.

    o    Local jurisdictions may require that the beach and adjacent shore-
         line shall remain open to the public for recreation purposes.

    Opportunities:

    o    Access to adjacent deep water makes this site particularly attractive.

    o    Zoning and shoreline master plan allow industrial development of
         the uplands and a piling based pier (conditional use) oft the beach.

    o    Relatively large amount of land available with some infrastructure.

                                       6-70

                                                                 CHERRY PO

                                                  INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHIIN-1TON

            LONSETH                ROAD

               0z                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SCALEi1:24,000

                                                                    LakeTerI
                  HENRY ~JOHNSON                    ROAD ____

    CHERRY POINT0

                                                               C       ~~z
                                                                        w

                                                               0~~~~

                    CHERRY POINT SITE.

      Figure 6.29
    CHERRY POINT

          6-72

                                      CHERRY POINT SITE
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                            X

    Surface compaction                                     X

    Alteration of longshore transport                       X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                      X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                             X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                     X

    Elevated levels of runoff                               X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                   X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                             X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                             X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                              X

    Light and glare generation                                                   X

                                             6-73

                                CHERRY POINT SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                 Potential            Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues         Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                       X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                           X

    Potential for ship accidents                                              X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                 X

    Increased demand for public services                  X

    Increased demand for utilities                        X

    Aesthetic impact                                      X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                             X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                          X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts            X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                     X

                                            6-74

                     Commencement Bay, Outer Hylebos Site

    Location:                 Tacoma, Commencement Bay, southeast of Browns
                             Point at the opening of the Hylebos Waterway.

    Acreage:                  Estimated 30 acres of tidelands.

    Ownership:                Port of Tacoma

    Water Frontage:           Approximately 1,125 ft. of water frontage
                             abutting Highway 509 (Marine View Drive).

    Water Depth:              Outside the boundary of the site water depth

                             increases rapidly from 40+ feet to over 400 ft.
                             in the middle of Commencement Bay.

    Channel Width:            Site is situated on Commencement Bay; open water
                             all the way to the Pacific Ocean.

    Deep Water Proximity:    300 ft. of water lies about I mile from the site.
                             Water depths in deep areas of the bay range

                              from 400 to over 500 ft.

    Rail Transportation:      Access within 2 miles of the site.  It is highly

                             doubtful that rail could be extended to the site.

    Highway Transportation:  Highway 509 is adjacent to the site.  Inter-
                              state 5 is approximately 3 miles away.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  None at the site.  Port owned pier is located
                              across the waterway from the site.

    Graving Dock Site:        Adequate space exists for a graving dock and
                             preliminary soil surveys indicate adequacy of
                              soils.

                                      6-75

                 Commencement Bay, Outer Hylebos Site (cont'd)

    Overhead Obstructions:   None

    Water Availability:       12-inch water main passes in front of the property

                             along Marine View Drive.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):         (Tacoma P.U.D.) adequate supply available.

    Skilled Labor:            More than adequate with the combined labor pool

                             of the Seattle/Tacoma area.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:             "S-12" Marine View Drive North Shoreline Dis-

                             trict . . . permits development of water-related
                             and water-dependent commercial uses. A plat-
                             form construction facility would need to be
                             processed as an unlisted Shoreline Management
                             Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit.

    On-Site Warehousing:      None

    Fire Protection:          Tacoma Fire Department (includes fireboat support).

    Sewer Service:            City sewer line passes in front of the site
                             (18-inch line).

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Loads:                    Site would require substantial fill over a sand
                             base . . . likely could be designed to withstand
                             heavy wheel loads.

                                        6-76

                 Commencement Bay, Outer Hylebos Site (cont'd)

    Constra its:

    o    Potential sensitive abutting land use issues i.e., noise, light
         and glare, and view blockage.

    o    Site would require substantial fill (approx. 30 acres).

    o    Potential impact on fisheries and recreational/commercial boating.

    o    Highway access would likely be constrained.

    Opportunities:

    o    Close proximity to deep water (no overhead obstructions).

    o    Urban shoreline designation and industrial zoning classification are
         favorable for site development.

                                       6-77

                                                                                       TACOMA

                                                                      INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

    COMMENCEMENT                        '                                      N

           BAY
                                                                                    SCALE 1:24.000

                                             Figure 6.30

                                                  -I7Q

       Figure 6.31
    OUTER HYLEBOS

           6-79

                                     OUTER HYLEBOS SITE
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                 X

    Surface compaction                                                          X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                           X

    Elevated levels of runoff                              X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                  X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                  X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat            X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                             X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                         X

    Light and glare generation                              X

                                             6-80

                                OUTER HYLEBOS SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
           Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                        X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                            X

    Potential for ship accidents                                               X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                 X

    Increased demand for public services                                       X

    Increased demand for utilities                                             X

    Aesthetic impact                                       X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                             X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                               X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                 X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                 X

                                            6-81

                          Westport Half Moon Bay Site

    Location:                 Washington's outer coast at Half Moon Bay in
                             the city of Westport.

    Ownership:                Port of Grays Harbor.

    Acreage:                  83+'acres (level, well drained, low bank).

    Water Frontage:           1,200 feet on Half Moon Bay.

    Water Depth:              -34 feet MLLW in the navigation channel (approxi-
                             mately 1,500 feet from the beach). Water depth
                             increases gradually to the navigation channel
                             from 6 to 18 feet MLLW.

    Channel Width:            The Grays Harbor deep draft navigation channel
                             lies approximately 1,500 feet offshore. This
                             channel is 1,000+ feet wide and can accommodate
                             drafts of 34 feet. It extends westward approxi-
                             mately two miles where it connects with the
                             outer bar channel which is 600 feet wide and
                             can accommodate drafts of 34 feet deep.

    Deep Water Proximity:    No deep water exists (other than the navigation
                             channel) as Grays Harbor is a shallow water
                             estuary.

    Rail Transportation:      The closest rail is Burlington Northern which
                             extends to Markham, 12 miles away.

    Highway Transportation:  Less than � mile from state highway 105 and

                             served by a heavy duty access road.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers: None (a shallow water barge terminal exists
                             at Westport and would be available).

                                         6-82

                     Westport Half Moon Bay Site (cont'd)

    Graving Dock Site:        None

    Overhead Obstructions:   None

    Water Availability:       Six-inch water line within 500 feet.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA min.):        Adequate supply available to the site.  (Grays
                             Harbor PUD)

    Skilled Labor
    Availability:             Yes.  The population of Grays Harbor County
                             was estimated to be 66,100 in 1982.  Of this
                             number, 28,040 lived in Aberdeen and Hoquiam,
                             25 miles away. The Satsop Nuclear Power Plant
                             project 30 miles east of the site drew 4,000+
                             skilled workers from S.W. Washington.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment.

    Local Zoning:             Residential tourist service designation would
                             require rezoning for industrial use. The pro-
                             posed Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan desig-
                             nates this Westport location for uses and acti-
                             vities associated with commercial and sport
                             fishing.

    On-Site Warehousing:      None

    Availability of Local
    Fire Protection:          Yes

    Availability of Sewer
    Service:                  Yes

                                      6-83

                      Westport Halfmoon Bay Site (cont'd)

    100 Tons/Axle
    Wheel Loads:              Yes

    Site Constraints:

    o    There would be a need to dredge an access channel (about 1,500 feet)
         to the main Grays Harbor navigation channel. Dredging by clamshell
         dredge rather than suction type dredge to limit impact on crab would
         probably be required if this site was developed.

    o    No direct rail service.

    o    No potential for a graving dock.

    o    Location next to a state park could become an issue.

    o    Winter storms and heavy seas could limit marine commerce activities.

    o    Skilled labor pool is limited in the immediate area.

    o    The proposed Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan designates this
         Westport location for uses and activities associated with commercial
         and sport fishing.

    Site Opportunities:

    o    Proximity to open ocean (2-3 miles).

    o    Because of heavy, dense, marine sands, the site could withstand
         very heavy loads.

    o    Site has access to a 600-foot barge terminal for receiving materials.
         A heavy duty haul road connects the terminal with the site (k mile
         distance).

                                       6-84

                     Westport Halfmoon Bay Site (cont'd)

    o-  Additional port acreage available.

    o    Abundance of motels, restaurants, and trailer parks available in
         the immediate area for servicing a temporary labor pool.

                                      6-85

                                        WESTPORT

                                 INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

    GRA YS                      HARBOR&

      Pt. Chehalis

                           WESTPORT

            OCEAN       AVE.

              Figure 6.32
    WESTPORT HALF MOON BAY SITE.

      Figure 6.33
    HALFMOON BAY

          6-87

                                   HALF MOON BAY, WESTPORT
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                  Potential            Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                 X

    Surface compaction                                                          X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                           X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                     X

    Emissions from welding activities                                           X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                     X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                   X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                  X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                  X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                     X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                 X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                                                  X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                          X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                             X

    Light and glare generation                             X

                                             6-88

                              HALF MOON BAY, WESTPORT (cont'd)

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                     X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                              X

    Potential for ship accidents                                                 X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                                        X

    Increased demand for public services                                         X

    Increased demand for utilities                                               X

    Aesthetic impact                                        X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                               X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                            X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                   X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                        X

                                             6-89

                             Westport Marina Site

    Location:                 Washington's outer coast at Westport - adjacent

                             to the Westport marina.

    Ownership:                Port of Grays Harbor

    Acreage:                  50+ (level, well drained, low bank).

    Water Frontage:           1,200 ft.

    Water Depth:              Estimated -20 ft. (MLLW) nearshore, -25' (MLLW)
                             within 400 ft. of shore . . . at high tide have
                             another 10 ft. of water.

    Channel Width:            Estimated 2,000 ft. distance to the Grays Harbor

                             deep draft navigation channel (1,000+ ft. wide,

                             can accommodate drafts of 34 feet).  Approxi-
                             mately 3 miles to open ocean.

    Deep Water Proximity:    No deep water exists as Grays Harbor is a shallow

                             water estuary.

    Rail Transportation:      The closest rail is Burlington Northern which
                             extends to Markham, 12 miles away.

    Highway Transportation:  Less than 2 mile from state highway 105 and
                             served by a heavy duty access road.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  None (a shallow water barge terminal exists
                             adjacent to the site and would be available)

    Graving Dock Site:        Site situated on heavy, dense marine sand capable
                             of supporting extremely heavy loads without
                              support piling.

                                       6-90

                         Westport Marina Site (cont'd)

    Overhead Obstructions:   None

    Water Availability:      Six-inch water line within 1,500 ft.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Adequate supply available to the site (Grays
                             Harbor PUD).

    Skilled Labor
    Availability:            Yes, the population of Grays Harbor County
                             was estimated to be 66,100 in 1982. Of this
                             number, 28,040 lived in Aberdeen and Hoquiam,
                             25 miles away. The Satsop Nuclear Power Plant
                             project 30 miles east of the site drew 4,000+
                             workers from S.W. Washington.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:             Urban environment

    Local Zoning:             Commercial designation would require special use
                             permit. The proposed Grays Harbor Estuary Man-
                             agement Plan designates this Westport location
                             for uses and activities associated with commercial
                             and sport fishing.

    On-Site Warehousing:     None

    Fire Protection:          Yes, City of Westport.

    Availability of Sewer
    Service:                 Yes

    100 Tons/Axle
    Wheel Loads:              Yes

                                       6-91

                         Westport Marina Site (cont'd)

    Site Constraints:

    o    Dredging to widen and deepen an existing access channel would likely
        be required for the I mile distance to the Grays Harbor navigation

         channel. Dredging by clamshell dredge rather than suction type dredge
         to limit impact on crab would probably be required if this site was
         developed.

    o    No direct rail service.

    o    Winter storms and heavy seas could limit marine commerce activities.

    o    Skilled labor pool is limited in the immediate area.

    o    The proposed Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan designates this
         Westport location for uses and activities associated with commercial

         and sport fishing.

    Site Opportunities:

    o    Proximity to open ocean (2-3 miles).

    o    May be a good site for a graving dock since heavy, dense marine
         sands at the site could withstand very heavy loads.

    o    A 600 ft. rock fill barge terminal exists at the site that could be
         used for unloading materials.

    o    Abundance of motels, restaurants and trailer parks available in the
         immediate area to service a temporary labor pool.

    o    Additional port acreage available.

                                       6-92

                                    WESTPORT MARINA SITE
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                            X

    Surface compaction                                                           X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                      X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                      X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                   X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                   X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                              X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                              X

    Light and glare generation                              X

                                            6-95

                               WESTPORT MARINA SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues         Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                   X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                            X

    Potential for ship accidents                                               X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                                      X

    Increased demand for public services                                       X

    Increased demand for utilities                                             X

    Aesthetic impact                                      X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                             X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                          X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                 X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                      X

                                            6-96

                              Vancouver Port Site

    Location:                 Vancouver . . . Columbia River Mile 104.

    Ownership:                Port of Vancouver has an option on 80-200 acres
                             of river front land currently owned by Alcoa

                             Aluminum.

    Acreage:                  80-200 acres about 25 acres of which are covered
                             by Columbia River dredge materials.

    Water Frontage:           1,000 ft. to 2,500 ft. depending on the amount
                             of acreage purchased by the port.

    Water Depth               40 ft. Columbia River navigation channel lies
                              immediately offshore.

    Channel Width:            The Columbia River navigation channel is a
                             minimum of 600 ft. wide.

    Deep Water Proximity:    The Pacific Ocean is 104 river miles downstream.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern currently lies adjacent to
                              the site.

    Highway Transportation:  Two miles to Interstate 5; Fourth Plane Road
                             passes in front of the site providing direct
                              access to 1-5.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  An existing 600 ft. port owned pier is located
                              approximiately 2,000 ft. from the site.

    Graving Dock Site:        Enough room exists to build a graving dock.
                              The acceptability of soils and other factors
                              determining site suitability are unknown.

                                       6-97

                         Vancouver Port Site (cont'd)

    Overhead Obstructionsl:  None at the site though transmission lines
                             cross  the  river adjacent to the site.  Two
                             bridges downstream: 1) Lewis and Clark Bridge
                             at Longview (River Mile 66) horizontal clearance
                             1,085 ft., vertical center (440 ft.) clearance
                             ranges between 185 ft. and 196 ft. depending on
                             water height; 2) Columbia River Bridge at Astoria
                             (River Mile 13.5) horizontal clearance 1,070 ft.
                             with vertical clearance ranging between 186 ft.
                             and 193 ft. depending on water height. Power
                             lines crossing the Columbia River maintain a
                             minimum 210 ft. clearance above the river.

    Water Availability:       8-inch water main located 1,200-1,500 feet from
                             the site.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Adequate supplies available (Clark County PUD).

    Skilled Labor:           The Vancouver/Portland area provides a large
                             skilled labor pool.

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:             Heavy manufacturing

    On-Site Warehousing:      None, although 500,000 ft.2 of warehouse space
                             exists on the nearby port premises.

    Fire Protection:          Vancouver fire department, Portland fireboat.

    Sewer Services:           City sewer 1,200 ft. away.

                                      6-98

                          Vancouver Port Site (conttd)

    100 Tons/Axle
    Wheel Loads:              Unknown

    Constraints:

    o    General lack of existing infrastructure.

    o    Navigation channel width of 600 ft. could limit construction of
         very large structures.

    o    Bridge and power line obstructions preclude large platform structures
         from being built here.

    o    Completed platform structures would have to be transported across
         the Columbia River bar ...approximately 104 miles from the site.

    Opportunities:

    o    Large labor pool.

    o    Site located in an area currently zoned for industrial development
         and compatible with local shoreline plan.

                                      6-99

                                       VANCOUVER

                                 INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

                                  0        SCALE 1:24,000
                                  -J

                                     -J
                                      iii

                                    U.  U~iiI1W W26TH STREET

                                                VANCOUVER

            Figure 6.36

    VANCOUVER TERMINAL SITE.

          Figure 6.37
    VANCOUVER PORT SITE

              6-101

                                     PORT OF VANCOUVER
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                  X

    Surface compaction                                      X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                      X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                       X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                           X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                   X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                                                  X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                             X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                                              X

    Light and glare generation                                                   X

                                           6-102

                                 PORT OF VANCOUVER (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential            Minor or
         _   Categories                             Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                         X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                             X

    Potential for ship accidents                           X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                  X

    Increased demand for public services                                        X

    Increased demand for utilities                                              X

    Aesthetic impact                                       X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing.                                                                  X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                                X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                  X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                       X

                                                           6:

                                           6-103

                        Port of Kalama Industrial Park

    Location:                 Immediately south of the confluence of the

                             Kalama and Columbia rivers.

    Ownership:                Port of Kalama.

    Acreage:                  Approximately 100 acres diked and riprapped.

    Water Frontage:           Approximately 1,000 ft. of frontage.

    Water Depth:              40 ft. navigation channel 500 ft. to 1,000 ft.
                             offshore.

    Channel Width:            600 ft. minimum navigation channel to the ocean

                              (maintained by the Corps of Engineers).

    Deep Water Proximity:    Pacific Ocean 73.5 miles downstream.

    Rail Transportation:      Adjacent to Burlington Northern/Union Pacific
                             mainlines.

    Highway Transportation:  Interstate 5 one mile from on/off access.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  Adjacent to Peavey Company grain export facility
                              (pier unavailable).

    Graving Dock Site:        Soils are adequate to support loads up to 5,000
                             pounds per square foot. The existing river dike
                             would have to be modified to accommodate a grav-
                             ing dock. Feasibility unknown.

    Overhead Obstructions:   None at the site.  Two bridges downstream:
                              1) Lewis and Clark Bridge at Longview (River
                             Mile 66) horizontal clearance 1,085 ft., vertical
                             center (440 ft.). Clearance ranges between

                                      6-104

                    Port of Kalama Industrial Park (cont'd)

                             185 ft. and 196 ft. depending on water height;
                             and 2) Columbia River Bridge at Astoria (River
                             Mile 13.5) horizontal clearance 1,070 ft. with
                             vertical clearance ranging between 186 ft. and
                             193 ft. depending on water height. Power lines
                             crossing the Columbia River maintain a minimum
                             210 ft. vertical clearance above the river.

    Water Availability:       12-inch main on-site.  Purveyor is city of
                             Kalama.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Adequate supply available on-site (Cowlitz County
                             P.U.D.).

    Skilled Labor:           Available from the Longview/Kelso area to the
                             north and Portland/Vancouver to the south (con-
                             sidered more than adequate).

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:             Not zoned

    On-Site Warehousing:     None

    Fire Protection:          Cowlitz County Fire District #5 and City of
                             Kalama Volunteer Fire Department.

    Sewer Service:            City sewer 1� miles to the south; possible
                             septic system.

    100 Tons/Axle
    Wheel Loads:              Unknown

                                     6-105

                    Port of Kalama Industrial Park (cont'd)

    Constraints:

    o    Site would require substantial fill for use as a rig fabrication
         facility.

    o    Dredging along river front could impact anadromous fisheries on the
         Columbia and Kalama rivers.

    o    Navigation channel width of 600 ft. could limit construction of
         very large structures.

    o    Downstream bridge and power line clearances would limit the size of

         platform structures built.

    o    Completed platform structures would have to be towed across the

         Columbia River bar, approximately 74 miles down river from the
         site.

    o    The close proximity of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant across the
         river from this site may be a factor that could affect site devel-

         opment.

    Opportunities:

    o    Some infrastructure exists at the site.

    o    Site is a designated industrial park.

    o    Urban shoreline designation and industrial comprehensive plan classi-
         fication are favorable for site development.

                                     6-106

        N     C~ottonwood
                  Island

                                                                        INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

                                                                                 SCALE 1:24,000

    I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sa

                                             Figure 6.38
                               PORT OF KALAMA INDUSTRIAL SITE.

         Figure 6.39
    KALAMA INDUSTRIAL SITE

            6-108

                               PORT OF KALAMA INDUSTRIAL PARK
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                  X

    Surface compaction                                                           X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                      X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                             X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                      X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                   X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                             X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                             X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                         X

    Light and glare generation                              X

                                            6-109

                          PORT OF KALAMA INDUSTRIAL PARK (cont'd)

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                         X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                             X

    Potential for ship accidents                           X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                                        X

    Increased demand for public services                                        X

    Increased demand for utilities                                              X

    Aesthetic impact                                                             X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                              X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                                X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                   X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                       X

                                            6-110

                         Port of Kalama Terminal Site

    Location:                 Cowlitz County . . . Columbia River Mile 72.1.

    Ownership:                Port of Kalama

    Acreage:                  246 acres of diked river bottom with approxi-
                             mately 80 acres filled with dredged river sand
                             to the 32 foot elevation (base elevation is 8 ft).

    Water Frontage:           Approximately 3,500 ft.

    Water Depth:              Columbia River navigation channel maintained at
                             a 40 ft. depth (the edge of the main channel
                             varies between 500 ft. and 700 ft. offshore).

    Channel Width:            600 ft. minimum navigation channel to the ocean

                              (maintained by the Corps of Engineers).

    Deep Water Proximity:    72. 1 river miles to the Pacific Ocean.

    Rail Transportation:      Adjacent to Burlington Northern and Union Pacific

                             mainlines.

    Highway Transportation:  Industrial access road to Interstate 5 on-site.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  None at the site (Port of Longview pier approxi-
                             mately 5 Columbia River miles downstream).

    Graving Dock Site:        A graving dock would have to be diked.  There
                             is enough frontage for a large graving dock but
                             soil suitability is unknown as are other deter-
                             mining factors.

                                      6-111

                     Port of Kalama Terminal Site (cont'd)

    Overhead Obstructions:   None on-site.  Two bridges downstream:  1) Lewis

                             and Clark Bridge at Longview (River Mile 66)
                             horizontal clearance 1,085 ft., vertical center
                             (440 ft.) clearance ranges between 185 ft. and
                             196 ft. depending on water height; and 2) Columbia
                             River Bridge at Astoria (River Mile 13.5) hori-
                             zontal clearance 1,070 ft. with vertical clearance
                             ranging between 186 ft. and 193 ft. depending on
                             water height. Power line river crossings main-
                             tain a minimum 210 ft. vertical clearance above
                             the river.

    Water Availability:       12-inch water main approximately 1,800 ft. from
                             S.E. corner of property.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Adequate supply available (Cowlitz County PUD).

    Skilled Labor:            Available from the Longview/Kelso area to the
                             north and Portland/Vancouver to the south (con-
                             sidered more than adequate).

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment

    Local Zoning:             Areas unzoned though the county's Comprehensive
                             Land Use Plan designates the site area as
                             "Industrial."

    On-Site Warehousing:      None currently

    Fire Protection:          Cowlitz County Fire District #5 and City of
                             Kalama Volunteer Fire Department.

                                      6-112

                     Port of Kalama Terminal Site (cont'd)

    Sewer Service:            City of Kalama sewer approximately 2 miles away.

    100 Tons/Axle Wheel
    Load Capability:          Unknown.

    Constraints:

    o    Downstream bridge and power line clearances would limit the size
        of the platform structures built.

    o    The close proximity of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant across the
         river from this site may be a factor that could affect site devel-
         opment.

    o    Navigation channel width of 600 ft. could limit construction of very
         large structures.

    o    Dredging impact on fisheries could be an issue.

    o    Completed platform structures would have to be towed across the
         Columbia River bar, approximately 72 miles down river from the
         site.

    Opportunities:

    o    No infrastructure exists on-site.

    o    An identified industrial site.

    o    2 million cubic yards of dredge spoils are stockpiled on the
         river front portion of the site.

    o    Urban shoreline designation and industrial zoning classification
         are favorable for site development.

                                     6-113

                                   list~~~~~~~~~
    Cottonwood

       Island

                                                          INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

                                                                   SCALE 1: 24,000

                                 Figure 6.40
                    PORT OF KALAMA TERMINAL SITE.

          Figure 6.41
    KALAMA TERMINAL SITE

              6.115

                                PORT OF KALAMA TERMINAL SITE
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                                                 X

    Surface compaction                                                          X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                      X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                                           X

    Elevated levels of runoff                                                    X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                  X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                             X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                                      X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat                                  X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                             X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                         X

    Light and glare generation                             X

                                            6-116

                           PORT OF KALAMA TERMINAL SITE (cont'd)

              Impact                                  Potential           Minor or
            Categories                              Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                        X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                            X

    Potential for ship accidents                          X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                                      X

    Increased demand for public services                  X

    Increased demand for utilities                        X

    Aesthetic impact                                                           X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                             X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                               X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                 X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                                      X

    Note:

    There is an existing mitigation agreement in place for use of this site as a
    coal transshipment site. Wetland mitigation and shoreland alteration to prevent
    ship wash stranding of juvenile salmonids are included in the existing agreement.

                                            6-117

                     Barlow Point International Paper Site

    Location:                 Columbia River Mile 61.8, Cowlitz County,
                             Barlow Point (SWk Section 26, T 8 N, R 3 W, W.M)

    Ownership:                International Paper Company.

    Acreage:                  Approximately 100 acres of undeveloped pasture
                             land.

    Water Frontage:           Approximately 3,000 ft.

    Water Depth:              40 foot navigation channel located approximately
                              1,000 ft. offshore.

    Channel Width:            The Columbia River navigation channel is a
                             minimum of 600 ft. wide.

    Deep Water Proximity:    The site is approximately 62 river miles from
                              the Pacific Ocean.

    Rail Transportation:      Burlington Northern spur approximately 2 miles
                              from the site.

    Highway Transportation:  Paved county and city road to site.  Interstate 5
                              approximately 6.5 miles from site.

    Deep Water Cargo Piers:  None.  Nearest is Port of Longview, approximately
                              6 miles upriver.

    Graving Dock Site:        Feasibility unknown.

    Overhead Obstructions:   None at the site.  The Columbia River Bridge at
                              Astoria (River Mile 13.5) horizontal clearance
                              1,070 ft. with vertical clearance ranging between
                              186 ft. and 193 ft. depending on water height.

                                      6-118

                Barlow Point International Paper Site (cont'd)

    Water Availability:       Six-inch water line extends past the site.

    Electricity Supply
    (2,000 KVA Min.):        Adequate supplies available (Cowlitz County PUD).

    Skilled Labor:            Skilled labor pool available.  Combined Longview/
                             Kelso population 42,000 (1982). Cowlitz County
                             population 79,500 (1982).

    Shoreline Management
    Designation:              Urban environment.

    Local Zoning:             Heavy industry.

    On-Site Warehousing:      None.  Soil suitability unknown.

    Fire Protection:          Rural Fire District No. 2.

    Sewer Services:           None.

    100 Tons/Axle
    Wheel Loads:              Site would require substantial fill in order to
                             achieve necessary load capacity.

    Constraints:

    o    General lack of existing infrastructure.

    o    Bridge and power line obstructions down river would preclude con-
         struction of structures exceeding approximately 185 ft. high.

    o    A navigation channel width of 600 ft. could limit construction of
         very large structures.

                                      6-119

                Barlow Point International Paper Site (cont'd)

    o    Long distance to the open ocean (62 miles) would involve crossing
         the Columbia River bar at its mouth.

    o    Site would require a substantial amount of fill.

    o    Continued deposition of Mount St. Helens ash and mud could require
         frequent maintenance dredging and associated disposal of dredge
         spoils.

    Opportunities:

    o    Site located in an area currently zoned for industrial development
         and compatible with the local shoreline plan.

    o    Adequate labor pool.

                                     6-120

             Bakers Corner

                                                                   LONG VIEW

                                                        INDEX MAP WESTERN WASHINGTON

                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N

                                                                SCALE 1:24,000
                                             MT. SOLO

    ~Berlow Point/::;:!?:,,,"'''"?"'''--

                     ., _,,.,,.,,,.:  ~                               LONGVIEW

                                FiguIre 6.42
                  BARLOW POINT INTERNATOONAL PAPER SITE.
                                   6-121

        Figure 6.43
    BARLOW POINT SITE

           -6-122

                           BARLOW POINT INTERNATIONAL PAPER SITE
                                 EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Earth

    Changes to local topography                            X

    Surface compaction                                                          X

    Alteration of longshore transport                                            X

    Air

    Elevated dust emissions                                                      X

    Emissions from welding activities                                            X

    Emissions from ships, trains and
      other vehicles                                                            X

    Water

    Modification of hydrologic regimes                     X

    Elevated levels of runoff                              X

    Degradation of adjacent surface
      waters by windblown dust                                                  X

    Increased turbidity due to dredging/
      disposal                                             X

    Flora and Fauna

    Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat                 X

    Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat                X

    Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat            X

    Disruption of corridors and fish migratory
      pathways                                             X

    Rare or endangered species impacts                                           X

    Other

    Noise pollution                                        X

    Light and glare generation                             X

                                           6-123

                                 I. P. BARLOW POINT (cont'd)

              Impact                                   Potential            Minor or
            Categories                               Impact Issues          Nonissues

    Alteration of land use designations                                         X

    Potential for on-site accidents                                             X

    Potential for ship accidents                           X

    Traffic congestion at grade crossings                  X

    Increased demand for public services                   X

    Increased demand for utilities                         X

    Aesthetic impact                                       X

    Disruption of recreational/commercial
      fishing                                              X

    Disruption of general recreational
      activities                                                                X

    Archaeological/historical resource impacts                                   X

    Competing uses for land and shoreline                  X

                                           6-124

                                   CHAPTER 7

                           IMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES

    Introduction

    Impact avoidance includes all activities and measures which, when incor-
    porated into project design, have the effect of eliminat ing or reducing
    environmental impacts or if this is not possible, providing compensation
    to offset unavoidable impacts. Impact avoidance measures can be subdivided
    into three basic areas of consideration:

           * Siting measures

           * Design and operation measures

           * Mitigation measures

    Impact avoidance measures considered applicable to the development of
    offshore platform fabrication facilities are listed in Table 7.10. flow
    these avoidance measures apply to specific potential impacts is depicted
    in the matrix shown in Figure 7. 10. This matrix identifies specific impact
    avoidance measures potentially applicable to the impacts identified for
    each of the sites profiled in the previous chapter. A discussion of
    these measures follows.

    Siting Measures

    Properly siting a platform fabrication facility is perhaps the most
    important action that can be taken in alleviating many environmental and
    regulatory concerns which can negate or stall a project.

    Two of the more frequent problems are siting on or near wetlands and
    along shorelines identified as prime fisheries and shellfish habitat.
    There has been much concern, both governmental and public, in recent

                                       7-1

                                   Table 7.10

                        I iMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES

    Siting Measures

    o    Site in industrialized areas
    o    Avoid areas which would impact wetlands or other critical habitats
    o    Restrict shoreline siting to water-dependent facility components
    o    Site in areas previously disturbed or with low habitat quality
    o    Avoid noise-sensitive populations
    o    Avoid floodways

    Design and Operation Measures

    o    Pier on piling design
    o    Graving dock equipped with fish screens and/or' nets
    o    Scheduled use of graving dock
    o    Avoid extensive shoreline filling
    o    Pave roads and vegetate open areas
    o    Appropriately sized retention basins
    o    Avoid extensive dredging
    o    Minimize component placement along shorelines and in shallow water
    o    Configuration avoidance of important habitat areas
    o    Perimeter berm/vegetative buffers
    o    Daytime scheduling of noisy operations
    o    Directed lighting to minimize glare
    o    Use of glass refractorless luminaires
    o    Allowance of public access to site property shoreline
    o    On-site safety measures
    o    Installation of aids to navigation
    o    Road or track rerouting
    o    On-site firefighting equipment
    o    On-site potable water supply
    o    On-site sewage treatment
    o    Allow fishing near piers where possible
    o    Allow recreational rights of way where possible
    o    Site survey by state approved professional archaeologist/historian

    Mitigation Measures

    o    On-site habitat enhancement
    o    Off-site land purchase (habitat, recreation, etc.)
    o    Funding of wildlife management

    Environmental damage can be greatly minimized by locating platform fabri-
    cation facilities in areas previously disturbed and of low habitat quality
    such as in areas that are already industrialized.

                                       7-2

                                                                                                                     Figure 7.10

                                                                     POTENTIAL IMPACT ISSUES / IMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES MATRIX

                                                                                                    6~~~~&                                                            *                           crt rt

                                                                          CHANGES TO L    T                                       t

                                                                                 t,~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L (9ps i'    I   '.od"~ NC   DJi0Wspos\O                                                                                    al,~ys5'9    ~\A~�~~

                          ~ ~,SURFACE COMPACTION                           '

      ALTERATION OF LONOSHORE TRANSPORT                                      !                  ,:

      AIR
                           ~~~~�*                                                                     I\ELEVATED DUST EMISSIONSi i

      EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS. TRAINS AND onhER VEHICLES
                                                                                            ON

    POENIA IMATERS

      MODIFICATION OF HYDROLOGIC REGIMES            |4  F                    F
      ELEVATED LEVELS OF RUNOFF                                              ;                                       A
       DEGRADAIN OF ADJACENT SURFACE IWATERS BY

      WLNDELOWN DUST                                                    _-SIi
      INCREASED TURBIDITY DUE TO DREDGINGIDISPOSAL                            lk ,

      FLORA AND FAUNA                                                    i   l
      DEGRADATION OF ADJACENT ATLANTC HABTAT                     '           -
      EMISSIONS FROFM SHIPS TRAINS AUND OTHER VEHICES                    i
    W WMATER

      DEGRADATION OF ADJACENT TERRESTRIAL HASTAT                                                                        ..
      WINDBLOWYN DUST

      INCREPATHWAYS   RBIDIT DUE TO  REDGI POSL                                                 I

      FLRARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPACTS UNA

       OTHER                                                                  I
      ALTERADATION OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS   A                         AL

      POTENTIAL FOR oNsiTE ACCIDENTS                                                                                              'FA
       POTENTIAL FOR SHIP ACCIDENTS                                           l                                                                                        l
      DEGRADAFFIC CONGESTION AT GRADE COUATIC HABITATNGS

       AESTHETIC IMPACT                                  k                I   i                               A_ _t -                       -
       DEGRADAUPTION OF  ADJACENT TERRESTNALCOMMERIAL HABITAT
       DISRUPTION OF CORGENE     RAL RECREAT IONAL ACTIVITIES    -                                           4   4
      PATHWAYS                                                                                               �             r�                                                                                      ��

      ARCHE       OR ENDANGERED SPECIICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS

       COMPETING USES FOR LAND AND SHORELINEHER
      NOISE POLLUTION                                                                                  AN
       LIGHT AND GLARE GENERATION                       "I�                                                                                            ��
      ALTERATION OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS                               r                                                         1
      POTENTIAL FOR ONSITE ACCIDENTS                                         Ii
      POTENTIAL FOR SHIP ACCIDENTS                                                                                       Ar
      TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT GRADE CROSSINGS
      INCREASED DEMAND FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
      INCREASED DEMAND FOR UTILITIES                   i                                                                                                                           ��
       ArSTHETMIMIPACT                       I���r
       DISRUPTION OF RECREATIONALMCOMMERIAL FISHING                   I         L                    AL1         ~     �   ����
       DISRUPTION OF GENERAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ---     -        -       t.    ,.                                      ..
       ARCHAEOLOGICAI.J141TORICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS �
       COMPETING USES FOR LAND AND SHORELINE                             A

    years about the rate at which wetlands are disappearing within the con-
    tinental U.S. and about the impact of shoreline development on fisheries
    and shellfish habitat.

    The importance of wetlands to the ecology of a region is well documented.
    Wetlands provide buffers from Storms and flooding by absorbing excess
    water into the organic matrix which serves as substrate.  Wetlands serve
    as hydrological reserves, where they slowly release stored water to ground
    and surface water reservoirs, which is important during times of drought.
    Wetlands can also filter out pollutants, such as suspended solid material,
    as water flows through the vegetation and organic matrix.  Wetlands supply
    nutrients to marine and other aquatic habitats, enhancing productivity
    and serving as habitat, nursery grounds, and food sources for a large
    variety of plants and animals.

    The Corps of Engineers has been given the mandate to protect wetlands
    and regulate certain construction activities within wetlands by virtue
    of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This would require a Section' 404
    (b)(l) analysis of alternatives before permitting work in a wetland.

    Shoreline areas identified as prime fisheries and shellfish habitat
    should also be avoided, especially if considerable dredging and/or fill-
    ing are possibilities.  Areas of special concern are those habitats deter-
    mined to be important for reproduction and juvenile rearing and feeding.
    Established salmon migratory routes should also be considered sensitive
    areas.  Project sponsors, by working with the appropriate state and
    federal resource agencies to identify these sensitive environmental areas
    during the early stages of the siting process, would likely be able to
    minimize permit delay and rejection.  In this regard, a project proponent
    would likely find it advantageous to maximize siting flexibility by con-
    sidering more than one site, if possible.  Of course, the alternative to
    this is to conduct a thorough site review before settling on a specific
    site.

    Generally speaking, siting a facility in an established industrial area
    or in an area previously disturbed or of low habitat quality will greatly
    minimize problems related to permit issuance. A quick review of zoning

                                       7-4

    and local shoreline management designation status would provide a preli-
    minary indication of the appropriateness of a particular site.

    Because of increased residential, recreational, and commercial develop-
    ment pressure on shorelines, it is preferable that only water dependent
    components of a facility be placed on a shoreline.  Other nonwater
    dependent components of the facility could then be placed, preferably,
    at an upland location.

    Improper siting on a floodplain can also present problems. Concerns here
    focus on the potential impact of a facility in raising flood waters above
    predevelopment levels. It is preferable, therefore, as with shorelines,
    that facilities locate on uplands or in areas where the potential for
    flooding is minimal.

    Other potential environmental impacts that should be considered in the
    siting process include noise, light glare, and dust. Again, each of these
    potential impacts could be minimized or eliminated altogether by devel-
    oping a comprehensive  siting review process.  For example,  it would
    obviously not be desirable to locate a facility near a residential area
    where noise, lights, and dust would become issues of concern, yet this
    frequently does occur.

    Design and Operation Measures

    Combined with proper siting, various design and operation measures can
    further reduce potential environmental impacts associated with platform
    fabrication yard design and operation.

    Graving Dock Design and Operation

    Graving dock facilities, which would likely to required for various plat-
    form structures being considered for Alaska, should be designed and
    operated such that fish and other marine organisms are not injured,
    entrapped, or killed. This could possibly be achieved through the use
    of a screen or net system that could be activated when filling or empty-
    ing the graving dock.  Any flooding and evacuation of the graving dock

                                       7-5

    should be scheduled such that possible impacts on critical reproductive
    and associated migratory cycles are minimized.  Appropriate state and
    federal resource agencies can be helpful in providing information con-
    cerning critical time periods for the various species involved.

    Dredging and Filling

    Facility designs requiring minimal filling and dredging (none preferably)
    are environmentally preferable. This is an obvious preference considering
    the fact that state and federal agencies place a great deal of importance
    on minimizing disturbances to natural habitats, especially those consid-
    ered important to species propagation and enhancement.

    Piers

    Pier on piling designs are preferable and along some state shorelines
    are a required alternative to piers built by filling. Again, the reason
    for this is to minimize disturbance to the natural shoreline and to
    minimize interference with longshore sediment transport and other natural
    beach processes.

    The design and operation measures discussed above are considered import-
    ant. These measures, combined with those listed in Table 7.10 are meant
    to mitigate the following identified impacts.

             Disruption of fisheries, shellfish, and other critical habitat
              areas.

              Light and glare generation.

              Alteration of land use designations.

              Potential for on-site accidents.

              Potential for ship accidents.

                                       7-6

              Traffic congestion at grade crossings.

              Increased demand for public services.

              Increased demand for utilities.

              Aesthetic impact.

              Disruption of recreational/commercial fishing.

              Disruption of general recreational activities.

              Archaeological/historical resource impacts.

              Competing uses for land and shoreline.

    The relationship between these impacts and specific avoidance measures
    is illustrated in the matrix shown in Figure 7.10.

    Mitigation Measures

    Mitigation is a principle for reducing or compensating for unavoidable
    disruption to natural habitat. However, it may not be possible in certain
    instances to mitigate a particular impact if it is determined that that
    impact could not be effectively reduced or offset in any manner. When
    mitigation is considered, it involves a process of negotiation between
    federal,  state,  and local government entities and the developer.  It
    can take a variety of forms, but generally includes one or more of the
    following considerations:

              On-site habitat enhancement or creation such as revegetation,
              restoration of filled and diked areas, and wetland formation.
              Another effective measure is redeposition of suitable sediments
              on riprap to allow rapid recolonization of food organisms
              utilized by juvenile salmonids.

                                       7-7

             Off-site land purchase and dedication as wildlife habitat for
             a certain period of time or in perpetuity.

             Recreational land purchases.

             Establishing a fund for wildlife habitat management either in
              combination with off-site land purchase or on lands already
              utilized for wildlife habitat. This frequently takes the form
              of raising game birds, stocking fish, revegetating and restoring
              an area, or constructing fences.

    Mitigation/Compensation: An Abbreviated Case Study

    The following case study is presented as an example of the kind of miti-
    gation considered for a platform fabrication facility currently being
    proposed. It should be emphasized that this is only an example and that
    mitigation must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    Brown and Root and Wright-Schuchart-Harbor in the fall of 1983 received
    the necessary permits to develop a platform construction facility at
    Eureka, California. Impact mitigation was a condition for permit issu-
    ance at this 45-acre site on Humboldt Bay, where steel platform jackets
    will likely be built to help supply anticipated oil and gas production
    platform needs for offshore California.

    Mitigation at this site will involve the following:

    1.   Providing habitat protection for two low-lying areas on the property
         that are subject to flooding. These areas encompass slightly less
         than two acres.  They will be fenced off and not utilized in any
         manner by the developers.  Further, the developers have agreed to
         provide protective plantings and to screen these areas with plants.

         and. .

                                       7-8

    2.   Minimizing potential impacts on intertidal and subtidal habitat areas
        at the site. The developers have agreed to scale down their initial
         dredging plan from 9.25 acres to 2.85 acres.  This measure will

         reduce the amount of critical intertidal area being affected from
         3.25 to .85 acres.  This reduction in the amount of acreage being
        dredged will be accomplished by construction of piled piers (over
         the intertidal zone) for use in unloading barges and loading completed
        platforms. In the original plan, the barges would have been brought
         directly to shore via the dredged channel.

        Additionally, the developers have agreed to compensate for loss of
         intertidal eelgrass and decreased subtidal productivity by planting
         two acres of eelgrass on nearby public tidelands that were previously
         denuded as a result of mechanical oyster harvesting.

                                       7-9

                                 APPENDIX A

              SUMMARY OF OIL AND GAS RELATED MODULE CONSTRUCTION

                       ACTIVITIES IN WASHINGTON STATE

    An estimated 40-50 percent of all of the modular structures shipped to
    Alaska for use in oil and gas development have been built in Washington
    State.*/ Between 1975 and 1983 the state's largest oil and gas related
    module contractors, Snelson-Anvil (Anacortes) and Wright Schuchart Harbor

    Co. (Tacoma) shipped to Alaska 596 modular structures of various types
    weighing approximately 230,000 tons. Other smaller facilities, including
    Haskell Corporation (Port of Bellingham), Hoffman Construction (Columbia
    Industrial Park in Vancouver), and General Construction Co. and Wright
    Schuchart Harbor Co. (Seattle) together built 200 modules during this
    time period weighing in excess of 60,000 tons.  Numerous other small
    companies in Western Washington such as Weldit Corporation in Bellingham

    have provided various components necessary for module construction.
    Following is a brief description of identified facilities building modules
    for use in oil and gas development and a summary of their construction
    activities, as well as a listing of other Washington firms contributing

    to module construction.

    *Larry Levorsen, President, Anvil Corporation, Bellingham, WA, June,

     1983. Personal Communication.

                                                ANACORTES, WASHINGTON

    Location: West side of Fidalgo Bay
    Site Owner: Snelson-Anvil, Inc.

    Acreage: 60 acres developed, additional available
    General Contractor: Snelson-Anvil Corp.
    Employment: 1,500 peak 1976, average 400-450

                                             Modular Construction Record

    Year      Number of Modules           Module Types                    Destination                Total Tonnage

    1975/76          20                  Oil and gas processing/          Prudhoe Bay, AK                  13,000
                                        operations center

    1976/77         103                  Ammonia Urea Plant               Kenai, AK                       50,000

    1978/79           9                  Chevron Platform Grace           California, OCS                   2,600
                                        top-side deck modules, i.e.,
                                         living quarters, drilling,
                                        power generation, fresh-
                                        water processing, etc.

    1980             27                  Oil and gas processing/          Kuparuk Field, AK                 4,800
                                        operations center

    1981             26                  Oil and:gas processing/          Kuparuk Field, AK                11,000
                                        central production facility

    1982             24                  Oil and gas processing/          Kuparuk field, AK                 4,200
                                        generators/compressors

    1983             24                  Oil and gas processing           Kuparuk Field, AK                5,200

         TOTAL     234                                                               TOTAL                90,800

                                                TACOMA, WASHINGTON

    Location: Blair Waterway
    Site Owner: Port of Tacoma

    Acreage: 111 acres
    General Contractor: Wright Schuchart Harbor Co.
    Employment: 3,600 peak (1975-76), 400 average*

                                            Modular Construction Record

    Year      Number of Modules          Module Types                   Destination                Total Tonnage

    1975           78                   Oil and Gas Processing          Prudhoe Bay, AK                 26,165

    1976           94          "              "    "         "             "                            22,000

    1977            6                                          "            "    "    "                  2,950

    1978           58                         "   "     "                                               24,000

    1979            4                                           "         " " "  ' ...'3,800

    1980           11                                          "          " " "            "  "          2,400

    1981           24          "              "   "                  "                                  13,400

    1982           56                    "    "                 "                      "                17,650

    1983           31          "            "     "  "            "                                     22,600

        TOTAL    362                                                                        TOTAL    134,965

    (*) Port of Tacoma (Personal Communication)

                                              BELLINGHAMI, WASHINGTON

    Location: Port of Bellingham
    Site Owner: Haskell Corporation

    Acreage: 10.3 acres
    General Contractor: Haskell Corporation
    Employment: 600 peak (1975), 100 average

                                            Modular Construction Record

    Year      Number of Modules          Module Types                    Destination               Total Tonnage

    1974            4                   Central power station            Prudhoe Bay, AK                 1,400

    1975           44                   Pipeline gathering center        Prudhoe Bay, AK                11,250
                                        No. 1 & 2; flow-:stations
                                        No. 1-& 2, base camp and
                                        recreation center

                     2                   Steam plant condensers          Valdez, AK                         420

    1976            6                   Pipeline gathering               Prudhoe Bay, AK                 1,850
                                        center-No. 3

                     4                   Pump stations 1, 3, 4 & 8       TAPS, AK                             1
                                        metering skid

    1982           12                   Refinery crude unit-skids       Fairbanks, AK                        12

                     1                  Gas lift station                 Prudhoe Bay, AK                      1

    1983            2                   .:Pump stations 2:& 7 booster   TAPS, AK                             2
                                        pump :modules

         TOTAL     76                                                                        TOTAL      15,795

                                              VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

    Location: Columbia Industrial Park
    Site Owner: Hayden Corporation, Portland, Oregon

    Acreage: 20 acres - more available
    General Contractor: Hoffman Construction
    Employment: 250 peak, 150 average

                                           Modular Construction Record

    Year      Number of Modules        Module Types                   Destination               Total Tonnage

    1976/77        21                  Processing modules             Prudhoe Bay, AK                7,350*-

    *Estimated

                                                SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
                                                     SHIP CANAL

    Location: Ewing Street
    Site Owner: Wright Schuchart, Inc.

    Acreage: 14 acres
    General Contractor: Wright Schuchart Harbor Co.
    Employment: 450 peak, 150 average

                                            Modular Construction Record

    Year      Number of Modules          Module Types                   Destination                Total Tonnage

    1974             5                   Oil processing                 Prudhoe Bay, AK                 2,500

    1975             11                 Oil processing                  Prudhoe Bay, AK                 2,600

    1976             6                   Oil processing                 Prudhoe Bay, AK                 2,600

    1977*

         TOTAL      22                                                                       TOTAL      7,700

    *Moved operation after 1976

                                                             SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
                                                              DUWAMISH WATERWAY

                 Location: West Marginal Way
                 Site Owner: Wright Schuchart, Inc.

                 Acreage: 15 acres, max expansion 25 acres
                 General Contractor: General Construction Co. or
                                       Wright Schuchart Harbor Co.
                 Employment: 650 peak, 150 average

                                                         Modular Construction Record

                 Year      Number of Modules         Module Types                    Destination                Total Tonnage

                 1967-69         20                  Offshore decks and              Cook Inlet, AK                  8,000
                                                     modules

                 1973            12                  Housing and drill support       Prudhoe Bay, AK                 3,900
    ICo
                 1974-75         28                  Oil processing                  Prudhoe Bay, AK                12,100

                 1979             4                  OCS California                  Santa Barbara                   1,800
                                                     generation and control          Channel, CA

                 1983             2                  Transformer modules             Prudhoe Bay, AK                   400

                      TOTAL      66                                                                       TOTAL    26,200

                                               EVERETT, WASHINGTON
                                                 PORT OF EVERETT

    Location: Norton Terminal
    Site Owner: Port of Everett

    Acreage: 29 used for modules, 70+ available
    General Contractor: Wright Schuchart Harbor Co.
    Employment: 250 peak, 100 average

                                           Modular Construction Record

    Year      Number of Modules         Module Types                    Destination               Total Tonnage

    1983           18                   Drill site expansion           Prudhoe Bay, AK                 2,780

             WASHINGTON FIRMS CONTRIBUTING TO MODULE CONSTRUCTION

    Acme Iron Works                           Streich Brothers
    2520 S. College                           1650 Marine View Drive
    Seattle                                   Tacoma

    Ace Tank & Equipment Co.                  Welk Bros. Metal Products
    1124 Elliot W.                            Airways Industrial Park
    Seattle                                   Spokane

    Leckenby Co.                              National Blower Sheet Metal
    2745 11th S.W.                            1129 St. Paul
                                             Tacoma

    Union Tank Works                          Thompson Metal Fab
    12065 - 44th P1. S.                       2000 Columbia Way
                                             Vancouver

    Maltby Tank and Barge                     Holaday-Parks
    5500 S. First                             401 S. Webster
    Everett                                   Seattle

    Washington Iron Works                     Western Sheet Metal
    1500 Sixth S.                             325 N. Washington
    Seattle                                   Olympia

    P.S.F. Industries                         Alaskan Copper Works
    65 S. Horton                              3600 E. Marginal Way S.
    Seattle                                   Seattle

    J. & E. Steel Fabricators                 Weldit Corporation
    4612 - 148th N.E.                         201 Harris
    Redmond                                   Bellingham

    Transco Northwest
    1149 Andover Park W.
    Seattle

    Flohr Metal Fabricators
    3920 - 6th N.W.
    Seattle

    Reliable Steel Fabricators
    1218 W. Bay Drive
    Olympia

    American Boiler Works
    1332 Norton
    Everett

    Olympic Machine & Welding Works
    2420 Port of Tacoma Rd.
    Tacoma

                                      8-9

                                 APPENDIX B

            FAR EASTERN PLATFORM FABRICATION/ASSEMBLY OPERATORS

    Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building Company
    711 West 6th St. Suite 2190
    Los Angeles, CA 90017
    Contact: Mr. Maeshima, Senior Vice President
              (213) 628-5330

    Hyundai Corp USA
    1660 Geary Blvd.
    San Francisco, CA 94115
    Contact: Mr. Kang I. Lee, Mgr.
              (415) 921-8969

    IHI Incorp.
    111 Pine St., Suite 700
    San Francisco, CA 94111
    Attn: Mr. Kominami, Gen. Mgr.
    (415) 986-2262

    Kawasaki Steel Corp.
    c/o C. Itoh & Company
    One Maritime Plaza
    San Francisco, CA 94111
    Attn: T. Kohiyama
           (415) 391-2510

    NKK America Inc.
    444 S. Flower St. Suite 2430
    Los Angeles, CA 90017
    Attn: T. Yamamoto, Exec. VP & Gen. Mgr
    No phone number
    Contact: Div. Mitsuibishi Intl.
              50 California St. Suite 3000
              San Francisco, CA 94111
             Mr. Ted Sakai

    Mitsuibishi Heavy Industries, Inc.
    Two Houston Center, Suite 3800
    Houston, TX 77010
    Attn: Mr. Sasago
    (713) 654-4474

    Hitachi Ship Building Corp.
    c/o Nissho-Iwai American Corporation
    Broadway Plaza, 700 Flower Street, Suite 1900
    Los Angeles, CA 90017
    Attn: Mr. Max Maeda, Steel Dept.
    No phone number

                                      8-10

    Nippon Steel Corp.
    Civin Engineering and Marine Construction Div.
    6-3 Otemachi 2-Chome-Chiyoda KU
    Tokyo, 100 Japan
    Attn: Mr. Hisashi Nakazawa, Mgr. Intl. Projects Office
    Contact:   (American)  Mitsui & Company USA Inc.
                          One California St. Suite 3000
                          San Francisco, CA 94111
                          Steve Johnson
                          (415) 765-1179

    Daewoo Shipbuilding & Heavy Machinery Ltd.
    201 California Street Suite 590
    San Francisco, CA 94111
    Attn: Mr. C. H. Kim
           (415) 788-5555

                                  APPENDIX C

              DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND COUNTY SEPA COORDINATORS

                   (Names, Addresses, and Telephone Numbers)

    INFORMATION SOURCES

    Any one of the nearest Department of Ecology or county offices listed
    below can provide you with information on permit applications.

    Department of Ecology

    Northwest Regional Office
    4350 150th Avenue N.E.
    Redmond, WA 98052
    (206) 885-1900

    Southwest Regional Office
    7272 Cleanwater Lane
    Mail Stop LU-l11
    Tumwater, WA 98504
    (206) 753-2970

    DOE Headquarters
    Environmental Review Section
    Mail Stop PV-11
    Olympia, WA 98504
    (206) 459-6237

    County

    Clallam County                       Mason County
    Clallam Co. Planning Dept.           Mason Regional Planning Council
    223 East Fourth Street               P.O. Box 186
    Port Angeles, WA  98362              Shelton, WA  98584
    (206) 452-7831                       (206) 426-5593

    Clark County                         Pacific County
    Regional Planning Council            P.O. Box 66
      of Clark County                    South Bend, WA  98586
    1408 Franklin                        (206) 875-6541
    P.O. Box 5000
    Vancouver, WA  98663                 Pierce County
    (206) 699-2361                       Pierce County Planning Dept.
                                        County-City Building
    Cowlitz County                       Room 732
    Cowlitz Co. Dept. of                 Tacoma, WA  98402
      Community Development              (206) 593-4426
    207 Fourth Ave. N.
    Kelso, WA 98626
    (206) 577-3052

                                      8-12

    Grays Harbor County San Juan County
    Planning Department                 San Juan Co. Planning Department
    P.O. Box 390                        P.O. Box 947
    Courthouse Annex Bldg.              Friday Harbor, WA  98250
    Montesano, WA  98563                (206) 378-2354
    (206) 249-5579
                                       Skagit County
    Island County                       Skagit Co. Planning Dept.
    Island Co. Planning Dept.           New County Admin. Bldg.
    P.O. Box 698                        120 W. Kincaid St.
    Coupeville, WA  98239               Mt. Vernon, WA  98273
    (206) 678-5111                      (206) 336-9333

    Jefferson County                    Snohomish County
    Planning Department                 Snohomish County Planning Dept.
    Courthouse                          County Admin. Bldg.
    Port Townsend, WA  98368            Everett, WA  98201
    (206) 385-1427                      (206) 259-9311

    King County                         Thurston County
    Building & Land Dev. Div.           Thurston County Regional
    450 King County Admin. Bldg.          Planning Council
    Seattle, WA  98104                  Olympia, WA  98502
    (206) 344-7900
                                       Wahkiakum County
    Kitsap County                       Wahkiakum County Permit Coordinator
    Community Development               Courthouse
    614 Division Street                 Cathlamet, WA  98612
    Port Orchard, WA  98366             (206) 795-3543
    (206) 876-7152
                                       Whatcom County
                                       Bureau of Building &
                                         Code Administration
                                       410 Grand Avenue
                                       Bellingham, WA 98225
                                       (206) 676-6907

                                      8-13

                                  APPENDIX D

             WESTERN WASHINGTON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITIES

    AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITIES

    The map on page 4-10 shows the jurisdictional areas of the below listed
    air pollution control authorities.

    Northwest Air Pollution Authority
    207 Pioneer Bldg. Second & Pine
    Mount Vernon, WA 98273
    (206) 336-5705

    Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
    410 West Harrison Street
    Seattle, WA 98119
    (206) 344-7330

    Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority
    120 East State Street
    Olympia, WA 98501
    (206) 352-4881

    Southwest Air Pollution Control Authority
    Northeast Hazeldell Avenue
    Suite 7601 H
    Vancouver, WA 98665
    (206) 696-2508

                                     8-14

                                                                 APPENDIX E

                                                       EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY
                                                    DIESEL-POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

                        Carbon monoxide   Exhaust hydrocarbons    Nitrogen oxides        Aldehydes        Sulfur oxides    Particulates

                        lb/hr   lb/1000      lb/hr   lb/1000        lb/hr   lb/1000   lb/hr  lb/1000   lb/hr  lb/1000   lb/hr  lb/1000
       Equipment                 gallons              gallons                gallons            gallons           gallons           gallons

       Tracklaying      0.386      87.5      0.110      25.1         1.47      332.0    0.027    6.22    0.137    31.1    0.112    25.3
         tractor

       Wheeled          2.15      161.0      0.148      50.9         0.994    342.0    0.030   10.3       0.090    31.1    0.136    46.5
         tractor

       Wheeled          0.739      65.9      0.234      20.7         5.05      450.0    0.065    5.76    0.348    31.2    0.165    14.8
         dozer

    l  Scraper           1.46      98.3       0.626     42.2         6.22      419.0    0.143    9.69    0.463    31.2    0.406    27.3
    Ln*
       Motor grader     0.215      78.0      0.054      17.4         1.05      374.0    0.012    4.31    0.086    31.1    0.061    22.2

       Wheeled          0.553      95.4      0.187      32.3         2.40     408.0    0.041    7.17    0.182    31.2    0.172    29.3
         loader

       Tracklaying      0.160      65.9      0.032      13.2         0.584    240.0    0.009    3.66    0.076    31.2    0.058    24.0
         loader

       Off-highway       1.34      92.2       0.437     30.0         7.63      524.0    0.112    7.74    0.454    31.2    0.256    17.7
         truck

       Roller           0.184    114.0        0.054     24.3         1.04      488.0    0.016    6.10    0.067    31.1    0.050    24.2

       Miscellaneous    0.414      94.2      0.157      34.7         2.27     494.0    0.031    6.78    0.143    31.1    0.139    30.1

       Source:  "Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment" in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd ed., U.S. EPA,
                 1976, pp. 3.2.7-2 and 3.2.7-3.

                                                   EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY
                                               GASOLINE-POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

                                                   Evapo- Crank-
                   Carbon             Exhaust        rative  case       Nitrogen
                  monoxide         hydrocarbons       hydrocarbons       oxides          Aldehydes        Sulfur oxides    Particulates
                lb/hr  lb/1000   lb/hr  lb/1000   lb/hr  lb/hr   lb/hr  lb/1000   lb/hr  lb/1000   lb/hr  lb/1000   lb/hr lb/1000
    Equipment           gallons            gallons                           gallons            gallons           gallons           gallons

    Wheeled       9.52  3250.0    0.362   122.0   0.0681  0.0719  0.430   146.0   0.0176   5.82    0.0155    5.20   0.024    8.27
      tractor

    Motor        12.1   3910.0    0.410   132.0   0.0661  0.0818  0.320   102.0   0.0194   6.02    0.0167    5.31   0.0207   6.86
      grader

    Wheeled      15.6   3630.0    0.531   124.0   0.0655  0.106   0.518   121.0   0.0213   4.95    0.0234    5.31   0.0298  -7.0
      loader

    Roller       13.4   3840.0    0.611   176.0   0.0622  0.122   0.362   100.0   0.0167   4.86    0.0185    5.28   0.026    7.47

    Misc.        17.0   3960.0    0.560   130.0   0.0560  0.112   0.412    95.8   0.0198   4.44    0.0234    5.28   0.0258   6.06

    Source:  "Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment" in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd edition, U.S. EPA, 1976,
              pp. 3.2.7-4 and 3.2.7-5.

                                 APPENDIX F

                      SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF POLLUTANTS
                        CONTAINED IN EFFLUENTS OF OCS
                             RELATED FACILITIES

    HYDROCARBONS (in crude oils and petroleum products)

           * Human illness after ingestion of contaminated seafood
           * Toxicity to many forms of marine fauna (particularly free-
              floating juvenile forms)
           * Illness after ingestion, and interference with feather function
              in birds
           * Adverse effects on photosynthesis and growth in marine plants
           * Reduced flowering and seed germination in marine plants
           - Selective inhibition of species in marine plants

    HEAVY METALS

           * May be essential or nonharmful in minute concentrations, but
              are lethal to humans, animals, and plants in excessive doses.
           * May build up to toxic levels in animal and human tissues

    AMMONIA

           * Alters pH of receiving water
           * Toxic to pH-sensitive organisms
           * Increases plant growth

    SUSPENDED SOLIDS

           * Reduction in photosynthesis due to increase in turbidity
           * Blanketing of stream bottom, lethal to eggs and young of fish
           * Increase in substrates on bottom for bacterial decay

    ANTI-FOULING ADDITIVES

           * Affect organisms in receiving water in manner of prescribed
              usage (e.g., algicide, bactericide, fungicide)

    THERMAL DISCHARGES

           * Increases metabolic rate
           * Increases bacterial growth rates
           * Alters animal behavior, including feeding, spawning, migration,
              and predator-prey relationships
           * Decreases solubility of gases in water
           * Increases solubility of metallic compounds
           * Increases rates of chemical reactions
           * Increases chemical toxicity

                                       8-17

                                   GLOSSARY

    Assembly Facility - A facility where prefabricated components are assembled
    to form a final platform structure. Typically, an assembly yard is much
    smaller in size than a fabrication yard, ranging between 20 and 100 acres.

    Caisson Platform - A variety of caisson designs are being considered by
    industry for exploration and production in the Arctic environment.
    Several designs would arrange a series of on-bottom steel or concrete

    caissons ringing infilled gravel.

    Concrete Production Island - A type of concrete caisson gravity structure
    being considered for production in water depths ranging between 40 and
    180 feet in Alaska's Norton Sound and Beaufort Sea.

    Drilling Rig - Equipment used for drilling an oil or gas well.

    Drill Ship -A self-propelled,  self contained vessel equipped with a
    derrick amidships for drilling wells in deep water.

    Exploration Rigs - Semisubmersibles, jack-ups, and drill ships are used
    for exploratory drilling in offshore waters.

    Fabrication Facility -A facility where platform components are constructed
    for subsequent final assembly either at the same location or elsewhere.

    Gravel Island - A man-made gravel island built for shallow water explora-
    tion and production in the Alaskan Arctic. Cost would likely limit water
    depth to between 40 feet and 60 feet.

        GaigDock - A work facility, the floor of which lies below sea level.
    A graving dock is generally required to build gravity platform structures
    self-floating steel jackets, and semisubmersibles.

    Gravity Platform - A steel or concrete drilling platform used for produc-
    tion or exploration that is held in place by its own weight.

                                       9-1

    Guyed Tower - A production platform consisting of a relatively slender
    column with a constant cross-section from top to bottom. The tower is
    held in place by a number of guylines extending radially from the top

    of the tower to clump weights run along the sea floor to anchors.

    Jack-up - A bargelike, floating platform with legs at each corner that
    can be lowered to the sea bottom to raise the platform above the water
    (used for oil and gas exploration).

    Marine Launchways - Also called a skidway or marine ways .  . refers to
    the supporting structure upon which a completed steel jacket is skidded
    onto a waiting barge.

    Mineral Management Service - A branch of the U.S. Department of Interior
    responsible for all functions carried out previously by the former
    Conservation Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Also respon-
    sible for Outer Continental Shelf program support activities, including
    functions of the Office of OCS Program Coordination; all functions related
    to the management of offshore energy and minerals administered by the
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM); all functions that support the OCS pro-
    gram in the Geologic Division and resource programs of the USGS; oil
    spill trajectory analysis functions of the Office of Earth Science Appli-
    cations, USGS; all functions of the Office of Policy Analysis relating to
    scheduling the sale of leases of OCS lands; and all functions relating
    to the OCS program transferred from the Department of Energy.

    Module - An assembly that is functional as a unit and can be joined with
    other units for increasing or enlarging the function; for example, drill-
    ing and compressor modules on the deck of an offshore production platform.

    Monopod - Exxon has proposed a pile-founded steel inonopod with cone produc-
    ton platform. This structure would consist of a cylindrical steel tower
    with a cone attached at the water line to deflect ice. The square base,
    also consisting of large steel cylinders would be nailed to the sea floor.

                                       9-2

    Monotower - A concrete gravity production platform proven in North Sea
    operations. This platform type consists of a concrete base (capable of
    oil storage) and a large concrete tower that extends upward from the sea
    floor. The platform operations modules are attached to the top of the
    tower.

    OCS Planning Area - A planning area is a broad, geographic designation
    used by the Mineral Management Service in the early stages of the OCS
    leasing process. There are currently seven planning areas off the conti-
    guous United States and 15 off Alaska. These planning areas are drawn
    roughly according to geologic boundaries.

    Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) - All submerged lands that compromise the
    continental margin adjacent to the United States and seaward of state
    offshore lands. The OCS has been subject to federal jurisdiction and
    control since enactment of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C.
    1301 and 1302).

    Production Platform - A steel or concrete structure from which offshore
    wells are drilled and oil and gas extracted.

    Rig Yard - A term sometimes used to describe a facility engaged in the
    fabrication and/or assembly of offshore platforms.

    Rolling Mill - A facility where plate steel is rolled into tubular compo-
    nents for use in constructing steel jacket platform structures.

    Semisubmersible - A twin hulled, self-propelled, floating drilling
    structure used for oil and gas exploration. This structure provides a
    relatively stable drilling platform that can function under severe sea
    and weather conditions. The semisubmersible is capable of drilling in
    water depths of 2,000 feet.

       Sli  Fom -A technique used in building concrete gravity platforms wherein
    concrete walls are built by moving the forms upward incrementally after
    a pour has hardened.

                                       9-3

    Steel Jacket - A supporting structure for an offshore platform consisting
    of large-diameter pipe welded together with pipe braces to form a multi-
    legged stool-like structure. The jacket is secured to the ocean floor
    by pilings driven through the legs. The multilegged platform is then
    fitted onto the jacket and secured.

    TAPS - Trans Alaska Pipeline System - Oil pipeline which extends from
    Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, Alaska.

    Tension Leg Platform - A large semisubmersible-like production platform
    with a mooring system consisting of wire rope or steel tube tethers extend-
    ing from the corners of the platform to pile or gravity anchors on the
    sea floor.

                                       9-4