environmental review of potential outer continental shelf platform fabrication/assembly yard sites in Washington's coastal zone a study

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~ENRAILROA D

BURLINGTON OTENRIRA

ISORLANDDRV

Fiur 6.24 VE

COLUMBI INUSTIAL PR

6A-57

' :4

�'
KJ

;j:

...
..'

.4' "

4 .

'4 '-'

'>' >'
1

, '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

6-103

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