Council Votes 7-2 To Approve (Advance To Other Regulatory Bodies) Company Offer To Remove Eyesore Surface Oil Drilling And Restore Los Cerritos Wetlands (North of 2nd St.) Over Period Of Years (Full Restoration Potentially Decades), Implement Slant Oil Drilling (Up to 120 Wells) From Two Nearby Off-Site Sites is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Jan. 17, 2018) -- The City Council voted 7-2 (Gonzalez, Pearce dissenting) on Jan. 16 on motions to approve a City Hall consultant prepared Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and let Beach Oil Minerals Partners (BOMP), an entity that includes Synergy Oil which operates the large/former Bixby oil field north of 2nd St. between PCH and Studebaker Rd., remove its surface oil rigs and piping from the site and continue oil drilling using new slant-drilled wells (120 at full build out) from two nearby off-sites (Pumpkin Patch on PCH and NE corner of Studebaker/2nd St.) flanking the east and west sides of the Newport-Inglewood fault that bisects the oil field/wetlands.

BOMP has proposed to fund the wetlands restoration without tapping taxpayer funds by establishing a "mitigation bank," a financing technique that generates a revenue stream by selling "credits" to operators of polluting projects elsewhere offset their projects' impacts by paying to fund environmentally beneficial projects, in this case, the wetlands restoration.

Under the transaction, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA), a government body, would swap a 5 acre parcel at the NE corner of Studebaker/2nd St. (that BOMP will use for slant oil drilling) in exchange for the City acquiring 154 acres of the wetlands north of 2nd St. between Studebaker Rd. and PCH for ultimate conveyance to LCWA. The project would reduce operating oil wells on the site by 50% within 20 years of the "New Occupancy Date" and by 100% within 40 years from the New Occupancy.

A series of motions to approve were made by 3rd dist. Councilwoman Suzie Price, seconded by 7th dist. Councilman Roberto Uranga, both of whom are voting members of of LCWA's governing board and Councilman Uranga is also a voting member of the Coastal Commission that will separately review the proposed transaction for consistency with the CA Coastal Act.

[Scroll down for further.]

City of LB draft EIR graphic

Photo above shows current conditions

Second photo shows "Steamshovel Slough," not easily visible from offsite, that wetlands supporters call one of the most pristine salt marshes in all of Southern California.

Opponents supported wetlands restoration but variously said the proposal amounted to an oil-drilling plan that perpetuates reliance on fossil fuels and leaves the City with a too-lengthy timeline (up to 44 years) for full restoration and some risk for the City that the restoration might not be fully accomplished as promised. Supporters called the BOMP proposal game-changer, not made by prior oil field operators and previously inconceivable, a once in a lifetime opportunity that shouldn't be missed, and said rejecting the proposal would effectively let current oil drilling (with older, riskier equipment) continue with no wetlands restoration.

The action capped a roughly four and a half hour hearing in which Mayor Garcia, with City Attorney approval, let city staff open, followed by presentation by Gabrielino native Americans (invited by city staff) to support, followed by former LB Mayor Bob Foster speaking in support (citing his pre-Mayoral role as SCE president when the utility gave up a 5 acre parcel at the NE quadrant of Studebaker/2nd St, as a result of litigation with the now-disbanded environmental group CA Earth Corps.) [Some opponents have questioned LCWA can swap the 5 acre parcel for oil drilling purposes based terms of the property's conveyance in the Earth Corps environmental litigation.]



Following roughly an hour of supportive presentations, Mayor Garcia said appellants Ann Cantrell (CARP) and Anna Christensen/Dr. Charles Moore (representing Protect the Long Beach/Los Cerritos Wetlands) would be allowed 15 minutes each for their presentations. Ms. Cantrell requested two extra minutes, which Mayor Garcia and Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais declined to grant. (Mayor Garcia ultimately allowed Ms. Cantrell roughly a minute extra to wrap up her testimony.) A BOMP representative was then allowed to rebut the appellants for several minutes, followed by public speakers (roughly 2/3 opposed) for roughly two hours. Speakers in support included the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (which announced its support a day before the hearing.) Others in support included the LB Area Chamber of Commerce.

Opponents raised issues focusing on reliance on fossil fuels, the risks of oil spills and related seismic issues (as the Newport-Inglewood earthquake fault bisects the wetlands site.) Supporters noted that current oil drilling on the site crosses the fault line at 12 points using old equipment with fewer safety and code standards, while allowing the new slant drilling wells involve crossing the fault at one location with greater safety and code standards. Project supporters also said the type of oil extracted has lower pollutant content than other types of CA oil.

Other opponents included representatives of local Tongva native Americans, who said city outreach was inadequate, while representatives of Gabrielino native Americans said the city's outreach had reached them and they had responded positively. Some Gabrielino reps heatedly disputed Tongva reps' asserted historical links to the wetlands area, and vice versa.


BOMP said it had engaged in an unprecedented level of public outreach and sought to find common ground with wetlands and environmental groups. It noted that over the weekend of October 20-22, it had offered the public walking tours of the usually-inaccessible oil field that it offers to restore to 154 acres of natural wetlands. ( went on the walking tour on Sunday morning Oct. 22 and provided etended VIDEO and photo coverage below of what we saw and heard.

On Monday Jan. 15, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust, a non-profit entity that has worked for years to protect and restore the wetlands, hadn't taken a public position in the project until the day before the hearing, when it issued the statement below. In a mass emailing, LCWLT Executive Director Elizabeth Lambe wrote:

We admit it. It took us awhile. But after a great deal of research, discussion and with some additional protections put into place, the Board of Directors of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust has voted to support the mitigation bank and land swap proposed by Beach Oil Mineral Partners (BOM). We know the project has been the subject of great controversy and of strong opinion both for and against. We were, frankly, torn, in that we supported the idea of restoring Los Cerritos Wetlands but concerned it be done right, not take too long, and have the right balance of wetlands access and protection.

In the end, we support this project because it includes comprehensive wetlands and habitat restoration, provides unique public access opportunities, consolidates oil operations offsite, and will transfer ownership of a substantial portion of Los Cerritos Wetlands into the public domain. These are all things for which the Land Trust has long advocated.

Our review process-of both the proposed oil consolidation and the restoration aspect of the project--was diligent and thoughtful. We formed a dedicated committee of Board members who did a great deal of their own research and reviewed all relevant information regarding the proposed project. We had numerous meetings with the BOM principals and their experts and consultants in order to ensure our many questions were answered and addressed.

We have always understood that the potential for wetlands restoration is the cornerstone of the project. However, the project area is known to be contaminated. We were concerned that site contamination could spread once outside water was introduced to the area. This could harm sensitive habitats and the species that depend on them. We were concerned that the restoration would not live up to its potential. To alleviate this concern, with BOM's agreement, we brought our own soil and water expert into the process in order to ensure we had a clear understanding of the details regarding contamination on the site and how best to remediate it.

BOM has been a transparent and integral partner in our review process, responding promptly to our many detailed questions and providing our committee with the answers they needed to understand the project. In addition, as this project is implemented, BOM has committed to involving the Land Trust in order to ensure we are fully updated and involved as the project moves through the regulatory review process.

The project offers tangible conservation benefits. It will reduce the footprint of oil operations to approximately 10 acres from approximately 187 acres, accelerating and funding a transformation of this highly degraded landscape to a restored functioning wetlands and uplands.

The project maintains environmental integrity. As a result of our conversations with the BOM team and advice from our soil and water consultant, BOM has committed to a thorough and transparent process regarding the assessment and removal of onsite hazards and contamination. This will ensure there will be no site contamination of Los Cerritos Wetlands as the land transitions from oil operations to conservation.

The project could offer conservation benefits sooner. Through conversations with BOM, we know they are committed to accelerating the transition to conservation if at all feasible.

Our watchdog role is integral and ongoing. BOM has agreed to full communication with us, including production numbers, to track BOM's adherence to its well abandonment schedule. The Land Trust's experts will play a significant oversight role, including helping to scope an ecological risk assessment prior to restoration work, receiving and reviewing any and all reports about site conditions, testing, and clean-up protocols. We will be on-site when excavation or other key activities occur.

We appreciate the time and effort BOM put into reaching out to us, the many meetings they had with us, and their fast response to our concerns. We consider BOM a partner and look forward to an enduring relationship with them. We hope this will serve as a model for other projects that will impact Los Cerritos Wetlands.

For all of these reasons, our Board has voted to support BOM's wetlands consolidation and restoration project and we look forward to a continuing partnership with them, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority, and other conservation groups in order to see through this joint commitment to transition from oil to conservation.

We know there are those who want conservation and restoration without the need for ongoing oil operations or a mitigation bank. But that was not on the table. We know there are differences of opinion on this matter and perhaps there always will be. However, it is my sincere hope that our community of environmental activists, who are working so hard to bring this damaged piece of wetlands back to life, will always operate from a place of respect for each other's views and understand that while others may have a different path towards protecting our fragile blue planet, our goals are shared.

We have deepest appreciation for all who have taken time out of their lives to advocate with us for the protection and restoration of Los Cerritos Wetlands. We have made great strides; and with your partnership and community support, I am sure we will continue to do so.

In Council colloquy, Councilwoman Price asked whether the City had a legal right to prevent Synergy from continuing its current oil drilling on the wetlands site. City staff replied (consistent with Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais' previously stated opinion) that the City couldn't stop current drilling...meaning if the Council rejected the proposed transaction, current oil drilling, with its current risks, could continue without the offered wetlands restoration.

Councilwoman Price asked staff questions framed to address (and counter) issues raised by appellants/opponents. Price asked about the risk of induced seismicity (concern over possibly triggering a quake on the Newport/Inglewood fault.) A city staffer said the EIR had addressed the issue (text below) and said earthquakes in Oklahoma attributed to water injection didn't result from injecting water to fill voids from extracted oil, while in contrast waste water that will injected into wetlands is from extracting oil and re-filling voids left by the extraction, restoring the status quo. Price also noted that current drilling on the site uses old equipment (and crosses the fault line at twelve locations) without up to date oil spill protections and seismic code requirements while allowing new slant drilling would cross the fault at only one location with increased oil spill protections and meet more stringent seismic code requirements.

Responding to several speakers (including Ms. Cantrell) who cited a lengthy letter in the EIR proceeding by a Coastal Commission staffer, city Advance Planning Officer Christopher Koontz saying the issues raised in the letter weren't formal opposition, but left issues that the City would address as the project progressed to its next regulatory steps (including at the Coastal Commission [with Councilman Uranga as a voting member.]

In response to testimony by Melinda Cotton and Corliss Lee (who recommended the the City obtain additional protections if, for some reason(s), the oil firm couldn't complete its up to 40 years of wetlands restorations), Councilmembers Price and Uranga said the transaction is structured so the City will retain the northerly currently pristine Steamshovel Slough wetlands area regardless of whether the promised level of restorations are completed.

Price, Uranga and several Councilmembers said their support was influenced by the support of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (statement issued a day before the hearing, text below.)

Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez (recently effectively re-elected without ballot opposition) announced her dissent on grounds too many questions remained unanswered. Councilwoan Jeannine Pearce (not part of the scheduled 2018 election cycle but facing a formal recall) indicated she has long favored eliminating dependence on oil.

In its responses to EIR comments, the draft EIR's "Statement of Overriding Considerations" (listing grounds to approve the EIR despite some air quality impacts during construction) also states: "The City will receive an increase in tax dollars from the new oil production activities. Long Beach imposes a tax on oil production which is currently estimated at 40 cents/barrel of oil produced. As a result of this project, the incremental increase in annual tax proceeds from new oil production could, at maximum operating capacity, provide approximately $4 million in tax revenues to the City."

The oil operator has indicated it doesn't plan to conduct "fracking" (hydraulic fracturing of rocks to free up oil) but does plan to re-inject water (removed as a byproduct of the oil drilling process) to fill voids created by the oil removal and prevent ground subsidence. That raised concerns by some regarding possible induced seismicity (concerns that the process might trigger an earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood fault that bisects the wetlands site.) The draft EIR's written materials (which the Planning Commission recommended that the Council certify) says the following about the risk of induced seismicity.

[Heading] Induced Fault Rupture, Seismic Event, and/or Seismic-Related Ground Failure [end heading]

...[The] older wells on the Synergy Oil Field, City Property, and Pumpkin Patch sites would be replaced with newer wells installed on the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA [Studebaker/2nd St.) sites over time. The newer wells would be installed using directional drilling techniques that would target oil production zones. Some of the zones could be close to or bordered by the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The removal of oil and produced water from the subsurface would reduce the volume of fluids in the production zone and, if not replaced, could result in a vacancy or voids that could cause subsidence that in turn could trigger a fault rupture, seismic event, and/or seismic-related ground failure. Discussions of researched cases where subsidence and seismic activity has been attributed to oil production are discussed in the white papers on Induced Seismicity (BOMP 2017b) and Water Injection (BOMP 2017c).

To prevent this, the oil industry has long used the practice of injecting the produced water that has been separated from the oil back into the production zone in order to avoid potential subsidence that could result if the vacancy or voids created by extraction of oil and water from the oil production zone is not refilled. The injection of water back into the production zone would prevent subsidence and reduce the potential to trigger fault rupture, seismic events, and seismic-related ground failure. If additional water is needed, water source wells would be used to extract groundwater from zones not susceptible to subsidence to augment the water that is pumped back into the oil production zones. Consistent with DOGGR regulations (see Section 3.5.3, DOGGR regulations), all injection wells would be equipped with an accurate, operating pressure gauge or pressure recording device and underground reservoir pressures would be closely monitored. As discussed in the above-reference white papers, the injection would be specifically and only back into the same oil production zone and not into underlying units; some induced seismic activity has been attributed to this practice. With the refilling of the oil production zone vacancies, the potential to induce seismic activity would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Source: EIR Geology section, p. 3.5-30



Immediately prior to a series of votes approving the transaction (motions by Price, seconded by Uranga), Mayor Garcia voiced support for the project. The series of motions (four voted actions) carried 7-2 (Gonzalez, Pearce dissenting). In making her motion for a fifth item approving the site plan review, Councilwoman Price added provisions for planting native trees along parts of Studebaker Rd. and 2nd St. with some sidewalk added along part of 2nd St. east of Studebaker Rd. It carried 9-0.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend to your Facebook friends:

Follow with:




Return To Front Page

Contact us:

Adoptable pet of the week:

Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050

Copyright © 2017, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here