Previously, “Neighbors Resume Chase of PXP to Learn Their Drilling Plans for This Year,” and “A Timely Warning on Oil-Drilling Strategy for Baldwin Hills Area Residents”
Leon Freeman
Zoning Enforcement, Section I
County of Los Angeles
Department of Regional Planning
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California, 90012
Re: PXP's 2009 Drilling Plan
Our File No. 9065.2
Dear Mr. Freeman:
This comment letter is submitted on behalf of the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance (“GBHA”), the Culver Crest Neighborhood Association (“CCNA”), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”).
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the 2009 Drilling, Redrilling, Well Abandonment, and Well Pad Restoration Plan Inglewood Oil Field (“2009 Drilling Plan”) dated January 2009, prepared by Arup and prepared for Plains Exploration & Production Company (“PXP”).
SUMMARY
We hereby request that you consider these comments before the County acts on the 2009 Drilling Plan. More specifically, we recommend that:
• The County reject the 2009 Drilling Plan as submitted on the grounds that the number of wells identified in the Plan (i.e., 40 proposed wells) exceed the maximum number of wells allowed to be drilled in the Inglewood Oil Field and PXP has therefore failed to identify a maximum of 24 wells it proposes to drill in 2009.
• The County reject the 2009 Drilling Plan as submitted on the further grounds that the Plan fails to provide a schedule of drilling activities as required by the CSD.
• The approval of a drilling plan is a discretionary act triggering the requirement to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to inform the decision-maker prior to taking action.
• The 2009 Drilling Plan cannot be adequately reviewed by the County before the Implementation Plan(s) have been prepared and are in place.
More detailed analysis and supplemental recommendations are supplied below.
The 2009 Drilling Plan was submitted pursuant to the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (“CSD”) adopted on October 28, 2008, as Ordinance No. 2008-0057.
The CSD is codified in the County Code at Section 22.44.142. More specifically, the Annual Drilling Plan provisions are contained in Section 22.44.142.E.26.c, which provides in full:
“Annual Drilling, Redrilling, Well Abandonment, and Well Pad Restoration Plan. Before the end of each calendar year, the operator shall develop and deliver to the director an annual drilling, redrilling, well abandonment, and well pad restoration plan, which shall describe all drilling, redrilling, well abandonment, and well pad restoration activities that may be conducted during the upcoming calendar year. Drilling and redrilling shall be scheduled to avoid over concentration of such activities in that year in any one area if located near a developed area. The operator may at any time submit to the director proposed amendments to the then current annual plan. No drilling, redrilling, or abandonment activity may be commenced unless it is described in a current annual plan (or an amendment thereto) which has been approved by the director. The annual plan (and any amendments) shall be provided to the CAP for review and comment. All comments on the annual plan from the CAP shall be submitted to the director in writing, and, if timely submitted, will be considered as part of the director's review and approval. The director shall complete the review of the annual plan (and any amendments) within 45 days of receipt, and shall either approve the annual plan or provide the operator with a list of deficiencies. The annual plan shall comply with the provisions of this subsection, and shall include the following:
“i. The maximum number of wells proposed to be drilled or redrilled;
“ii. Approximate location of all wells proposed to be drilled or redrilled;
“iii. Approximate location of all proposed new well pads, including their size and dimensions;
“iv. Estimated target depth of all proposed wells and their estimated bottom hole locations;
“v. A discussion of the steps that have been taken to maximize use of existing well pads,
maximize use of redrilled wells, and maximize the consolidation of wells;
“vi. Location of all proposed well abandonments, if known, in accordance with DOGGR integrity testing program of idle wells;
“vii. Location of all well pads proposed to be abandoned and restored; “viii. A proposed schedule and phasing of the drilling, redrilling, well abandonment, well pad abandonment, and restoration activities;
“ix. A discussion of the latest equipment and techniques that are proposed for use as part of the drilling and redrilling program to reduce environmental impacts; and
“x. A topographic vertical profile showing proposed location of new wells that reflects local terrain conditions and that addresses the potential visibility of existing and proposed wells and other production facilities from residential and recreation areas.”
Furthermore, Section 22.44.142.H.1 provides that a maximum of 24 wells may be drilled in 2009:
“New drilling and redrilling approved through a director's review procedure shall be limited to no more than 53 wells per years, with the maximum number of newly drilling wells of that total, limited to 45 per year, except that during the first year following the effective date of the ordinance establishing this section, new drilling and redrilling shall be limited to no more than 24 wells.”
In addition, the CSD also provides for the formation of a Community Advisory Panel (“CAP”).
(22.44.142.J.1.) And Section 22.44.142.J.1.c requires that all plans must be promptly submitted to the CAP:
“A notice of availability of all monitoring and compliance reports and results, all plans, audits and studies, and any other available documents that are required by this [CSD] shall be submitted to the CAP promptly after they are prepared or otherwise available. Copies of these reports, documents, and other items shall be provided to CAP members upon request except to the extent information therein may not be legally disclosed.”
We are informed that the 2009 Drilling Plan was filed on February 3, 2009. The selection of the CAP appointments by the Director was made on March 12, 2009. The CAP did not meet until the evening of March 26, 2009. It was not until this meeting that the CAP was notified of the 2009 Drilling Plan. At that time, the CAP was told that public comments on the 2009 Drilling Plan must be submitted no later than Monday, April 6, 2009.
Moreover, despite the indication during the CAP meeting that the 2009 Drilling Plan was available on the following website: http://www.baldwinhillscsd.com/recentfilingslinks.htm, the truth is that 29 of the 30 attachments were not available on the website until Friday afternoon, April 3rd, and due to codes imbedded in the electronic file, the document was not printable and the charts were not accessible.
IMPORTANCE OF COUNTY'S IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
We continue to be concerned about the fact that the County's preparation of a critically important Implementation Plan to implement the CSD and the EIR is lagging behind. In this regard, Section 22.44.142.L of the CSD provides:
“The subsection identifies the various implementation plans and other requirements for initial compliance with the CSD and the time frames therefore. Except as identified below, the provision of this section shall be complied with on the effective date of the ordinance establishing this CSD. As used in this subsection, 'effective date' shall mean 30 days after the board of supervisors adopts the ordinance establishing this CSD. As soon as possible after the effective date, the department of regional planning shall develop an overall implementation plan specifying the required contents or measures for each of the plans set forth below, including the inclusion of those appropriate mitigation measures indicated as necessary by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District to reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels in cases where impacts can be so reduced.” (Emphasis added.)
This includes an emergency response plan, odor minimization plan, air monitoring plan, fugitive dust control plan, erosion control plan, ground movement monitoring plan, drilling quiet mode plan, special status species and habitat protection plan, emergency response plan, construction treatment plan, landscaping plan, recycling plan, water management plan, groundwater quality monitoring program, unused or abandoned equipment removal plan, hazardous material business plan, and program for detecting and dealing with tank bottom leaks.
The CSD Implementation Plan is not yet prepared.
In an email sent January 9, 2009, Principal Deputy County Counsel Elaine Lemke recognized the importance of the CAP's review of the annual drilling plan:
“Critically, the County's view is that any new drilling at the site can only occur in accordance with the CSD. For example, no new drilling will take place until there is an approved annual drilling, redrilling, well abandonment and well pad restoration plan, which must be reviewed by the CAP, and an Environmental Quality Assurance Plan in place.”
A copy of Ms. Lemke's email to this effect is enclosed.
Without the Implementation Plan, the County is not in a position to review the necessary plans from the oil field operation nor grant any permits.
PROCEDURAL CONCERNS
Pursuant to Section 22.44.142.J.1.c, the County should have notified the CAP of the availability of the 2009 Drilling Plan promptly after its filing on February 3, 2009. The County failed to do so. Indeed, the County did not solicit nominations to the CAP until after January 22, 2009, did not confirm the CAP appointments until March 12, did not notify the CAP of the 2009 Drilling Plan until the evening of Thursday, March 26, and did not ensure that the documents were available on the required website until the afternoon of Friday, April 3. And furthermore, the Drilling Plan Site Map attached to the 2009 Drilling Plan is of such low resolution and covers such a large area that it is of little value and needs to be either replaced or supplemented.
As a result, there is inadequate time to review and consider the 2009 Drilling Plan by Monday, April 6, 2009. Accordingly, we hereby reserve the right to supplement these comments.
This sequence of events violates both the spirit and the substance of the CSD.
CEQA CONCERNS
CEQA applies to discretionary projects. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(a) (“Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary project proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies”).) Satisfaction with CEQA is not required for projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(5).)
CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(1). See also State CEQA Guidelines § 15268.) In determining whether a project application is discretionary or ministerial, “[T]he touchstone is whether the approval process involved allows the government to shape the project in any way which could respond to any of the concerns which might be identified in an environmental impact report.” Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal. App. 3d 259, 267, 235 Cal. Rptr. 788 (1987). And “the fact a [public agency] lacks the discretion to deny a [project] permit outright in the event environmental problems are identified does not make issuance of the permit 'ministerial.' It is enough the [public agency] retains discretion to require substantial changes in [project] design.” Id. at 269. A private project application is ministerial “[o]nly when a private party can legally compel approval without any changes in the design of its project which might alleviate adverse environmental consequences. Id. at 267 (emphasis in orig.).
Here, the annual drilling plan must be “scheduled to avoid over concentration of such activities in that year in any one area if located near a developed area.” (Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.) Moreover, “[t]he annual plan (and any amendments) shall be provided to the CAP for review and comment.” (Id.) Furthermore, “[a]ll comments on the annual plan from the CAP . . . if timely submitted, will be considered as part of the [Planning] director's review and approval.” (Id.) In reviewing the annual drilling plan, the Planning Director “shall either approve the annual plan or provide the operator with a list of deficiencies.”
Among other criteria, the annual plan is required to include “[a] discussion of the steps that have been taken to maximize use of existing well pads, maximize use of redrilled wells, and maximize the consolidation of wells.” (Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.v.) Moreover, the annual drilling plan is also required to include “[a] proposed schedule and phasing of the drilling, redrilling, well abandonment, well pad abandonment, and restoration activities.” (Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.viii.) The annual drilling plan is also required to include “[a] discussion of the latest equipment and techniques that are proposed for use as part of the drilling and redrilling program to reduce environmental impacts.” (22.44.142.E.26.c.ix (emphasis added).)
The director's review of the annual drilling plan is unarguably discretionary, and therefore triggers CEQA.
The County certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (SCH #2007061133) when it adopted the CSD. The EIR studied the development standards for the Community Standards District, not a particular development. (FEIR at p. ES-1.) As the EIR expressly noted, “PXP has not applied for any of this future development, and it is unknown at this time what portion of this development might occur.” (Id.) See also FEIR at p. 1-4.)
No specific development plans by PXP were studied in the EIR. More specifically, the 2009 Annual Drilling Plan was not studied in the EIR. The 2009 Drilling Plan's locations, scheduling, depths, and drilling technology were all unknown at the time of the EIR.
This is a classic case for a “tiering” procedure under CEQA:
” 'Tiering' refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions form the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.” State CEQA Guidelines § 15152(a).
Indeed, CEQA encourages this practice: “Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects.” State CEQA Guidelines § 15152(b). See also State CEQA Guidelines § 15152(c):
“Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.”
At this time, more focused environmental analysis of the Annual Drilling Plan is called for:
“Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which:
“(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR: or
“(2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” State CEQA Guidelines § 15152(d). Appropriate CEQA analysis of the Annual Drilling Plan must be prepared and circulated for public review and comment.
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS
The 2009 Drilling Plan must satisfy ten review criteria as specified in Section 22.44.142.E.26.c. The Plan as submitted falls short of complying with these criteria.
i. Maximum Number Of Wells.
The annual plan may not exceed the maximum number of wells allowed. Section 22.44.142.H.1 provides that a maximum of 24 wells may be drilled in 2009:
“[D]uring the first year following the effective date of the ordinance establishing this section, new drilling and redrilling shall be limited to no more than 24 wells.”
Contrary to this restriction, PXP's 2009 Drilling Plan identifies 40 proposed wells. The County is prohibited from approving 40 wells in year 2009. PXP must choose a maximum of 24 wells and must identify those wells on its annual drilling plan. The County can then review those proposed locations. But it is not sufficient for PXP to say that it will choose up to 24 wells later.
PXP has had two and a half years to think about which wells it wants to drill. PXP asserts, “It is impossible to select optimum well locations one year in advance.” (2009 Drilling Plan, p. 4.) PXP did not raise this concern during the CSD process.
The CSD requires PXP to prepare an annual plan specifying the proposed wells. PXP has failed to do so. The 2009 Drilling Plan should be denied on this basis.
PXP is the operator of this field. The field has been operating since 1924. PXP has prepared sonar studies of the field's reserves. PXP has records of which wells are producing oil and gas. PXP needs to select up to 24 wells — not 40 wells — for approval. This is not a difficult concept.
Furthermore, if, during the course of the year, PXP determines that it wishes to amend an approved drilling plan, the CSD expressly contemplates that amendments can be sought. Section 22.44.142.E.26.c provides:
“The operator may at any time submit to the director proposed amendments to the then current annual plan.”
The 2009 Drilling Plan must be rejected because it exceeds the maximum number of wells permitted for calendar year 2009.
ii. Approximate Location.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.ii of the CSD requires PXP to specify the approximate location of all wells proposed to be drilled or redrilled. Section 22.44.142.E.2.n specifies that wells must be set back at least 400 feet from developed areas and 20 feet from public roadways:
“The following setbacks shall apply within the oil field for drilling or redrilling:
“i. At least 400 feet from developed areas.
“ii. At least 20 feet from any public road way.”
Furthermore, Section 22.44.142.C defines the term “developed area” as follows:
“a. Any lot or parcel of land containing any residential, commercial, industrial, or office structure, or used for residential, commercial, industrial, or office purposes (provided that no lot or parcel of land on the oil field shall be considered to be developed area solely because of the presence thereon of the Cone Trust House or of a structure used by any operator for administrative functions associated with the oil field);
“b. Any lot or parcel of land containing any public park, house of worship, cemetery, school, parking lot, or any recreation area which has been developed and opened for public use.”
Compliance with these restrictions cannot be made from the low resolution map depicting the entire oil field. Individual maps showing the radius around each (of up to 24) proposed drilling sites must be supplied by PXP to demonstrate full compliance with these restrictions.
PXP has failed to demonstrate compliance with this restriction in its 2009 Drilling Plan.
iii. Information Concerning New Well Pads.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.iii of the CSD requires PXP to provide:
“[The] [a]pproximate location of all proposed new well pads, including their size and dimensions.” But rather than provide the size and dimension of each proposed new well pad, the Drill Plan simply describes the size of a “typical” well pad and then goes on to state generally that one proposed new drilling pad “will be larger than the typical size pad since it will accommodate three wells.”
These statements are not adequate. The Drilling Plan must state the dimensions of the proposed new well pads. The 2009 Drilling Plan fails to do so.
iv. Estimated Depths Of Proposed Wells.
No comment.
v. Efforts To Minimize Impacts.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.v is the most discretionary aspect of the annual drill plan review. It requires the plan to include a discussion of the steps that have been taken to:
• maximize use of existing well pads,
• maximize use of redrilled wells, and
• maximize the consolidation of wells.
PXP purports to address these concerns in four short generic paragraphs on page 9 of the 2009 Drilling Plan. PXP provides no data to substantiate its assertions, no professional statement of qualifications, and no analysis of its obligations. PXP needs to “show your work.”
Furthermore, it is not possible to evaluate this criteria without a map that overlays the existing, abandoned and idle wells with the proposed wells.
This analysis should also include an identification and quantification of the “good producers” and the “poor producers.”
Furthermore, PXP's analysis appears to assume that consolidation is achieved solely through reuse of redrills or use of existing pads. However, another component of consolidation is the removal of wells from more problematic locations, location of new well and well pads within less problematic areas of the field, the versatility of some drilling sites over others, and the location of adjacent uses in relation to the proposed wells. This analysis should also show the potential ability or impediments to accessing the targeted reserves from the least problematic areas of the field.
None of these issues is discussed in the current draft of the 2009 Drilling Plan. The analysis should be much more sophisticated than has been presented in the first draft of the 2009 Drilling Plan.
vi. Well Abandonments.
PXP has identified five locations for well abandonments. The EIR projected that 15 wells would have been abandoned in year 2008 and another 15 in year 2009.
PXP should be required to explain the reasons for this discrepancy.
vii. Pad Abandonments.
No comment.
viii. Schedule.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.viii of the CSD requires PXP to provide:
“A proposed schedule and phasing of the drilling, redrilling, well abandonment, well pad abandonment, and restoration activities.”
The 2009 Drilling Plan fails to do so. PXP makes no attempt to provide such a schedule. Furthermore, Section 22.44.142.E.26.c requires:
“Drilling and redrilling shall be scheduled to avoid over concentration of such activities in that year in any one area if located near a developed area.”
The 2009 Drilling Plan simply makes the unsubstantiated statement, “PXP will also schedule drilling and redrilling activities to avoid over concentration of such activities in any one area if located near a developed area.” (2009 Drilling Plan at p. 12.) This statement is nothing but words on paper; it does not prove anything.
The 2009 Drilling Plan must be rejected for failing to satisfy requirement 22.44.142.E.26.c.viii as to scheduling and phasing.
ix. Technological Advances.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.ix of the CSD requires PXP to provide:
“A discussion of the latest equipment and techniques that are proposed for use as part of the drilling program to reduce environmental impacts.”
We are pleased that PXP is committed to using a gas buster and portable flare with approval of the SCAQMD. What is the status of those required AQMD applications? We also reiterate the importance of using the certified tier II or better diesel engines. And we would welcome a discussion of the feasibility of using electrical or hybrid drilling engines and the technological prospects for using such engines at some point in the not-too-distant future.
This discussion should include recognition of the important noise restrictions contained in Section 22.44.142.E.5. They are very important to the neighbors and are required by the EIR. The operator should be required to describe what specific measures will be implemented during drilling operations to ensure compliance with these noise restrictions.
x. Topographical Vertical Profile Drawings.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.ix of the CSD requires PXP to provide:
“A topographic vertical profile showing proposed location of new wells that reflects local terrain conditions and that addresses the potential visibility of existing and proposed wells and other production facilities from residential and recreation areas.
PXP has not provided vertical profile drawings of the targeted wells. PXP has instead provided a horizontal topographical view. (2009 Drilling Plan)
PXP should be required to provide vertical profiles of each proposed well site.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the County should reject the 2009 Drilling Plan as submitted and pursuant to 22.44.142.E.26.c, the County should “provide the operator with a list of deficiencies” as described above. Furthermore, the County should immediately provide each member of the CAP and any interested member of the general public with full access to the 2009 Drilling Plan, including all accompanying materials in a user-friendly format.
Finally, the County should prepare a focused EIR on the 2009 Drilling Plan when it is resubmitted. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss any of the concerns set forth above.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:snk
cc: Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas
Elaine Lemke
Jon Sanabria
Pat Hachiya
Russell Fricano
Susana Franco-Rogan
Karly Katona
Cynthia Dunne Traxler
Regional Planning Commission
