Angeles National Forest; Proposed Pacific Pipeline Project EIS/ SEIR; Notice of Intent

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Angeles National Forest; Proposed Pacific Pipeline Project EIS/

SEIR; Notice of Intent

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the

United States Forest Service, Angeles National Forest (ANF) will direct

the preparation of a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) referred to as an EIS/

SEIR for the Pacific Pipeline Project proposed by Pacific Pipeline

System, Inc. (PPSI). Aspen Environmental Group, a third-party

contractor, under the direction of the CPUC, as the lead California

State agency, and the USFS/ANF, as the lead Federal agency will prepare

a draft and final EIS/SEIR to comply with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

On October 10, 1991, PPSI filed an Application with the CPUC for

authorization to issue capital stock and other indebtedness to fund

development of a proposed pipeline to transport offshore Santa Barbara

crude oil to Los Angeles area refineries. At the same time, PPSI

submitted a Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA) pursuant to the

provisions of CEQA. The CPUC conducted comprehensive scoping meetings

and solicited public and agency comments on the scope of the EIR. The

CPUC selected a third party contractor (Aspen Environmental Group) to

independently prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to

their responsibility as a lead agency under CEQA.

The project, as proposed at that time, was a 171-mile long, 20-inch

insulated pipeline with a capacity to transport 130,000 barrels per day

(bpd) of crude oil. This originally proposed pipeline would have

extended from Gaviota Marine Terminal in Santa Barbara County to oil

refinery destinations in the Los Angeles Basin. The pipeline would have

traversed across Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, and enter Los

Angeles County near Santa Clarita. For much of its length, the proposed

pipeline would have been buried in the Southern Pacific Transportation

Company railroad right-of-way (ROW). In Los Angeles County the pipeline

would have continued southeasterly, mostly parallel to Interstate 5(I-

5) to near Glendale and then south to Watts. At the Watts Junction the

pipeline would have split into two pipelines, each leading to a

refinery destination. One pipeline would continue to the Chevron

Refinery in El Segundo, and the other would continue south to both

Texaco's Wilmington refinery and the GATX oil distribution facility.

This originally proposed project also included five pump/pressure

reduction stations along its route.

A comprehensive EIR was prepared for this originally proposed

project. Five workshops and five public hearings were conducted and

significant public comments were received on the Draft EIR and

incorporated into the Final document. In addition to the comprehensive

EIR, an Executive Summary was prepared and made available to the public

in both English and Spanish language versions. The Final EIR (FEIR) was

Certified by the CPUC in 1993, indicating that in their view, the EIR

had adequately identified the potential impacts of the Proposed Project

and contained the information required for making their final decision

on the project, which would be reached after conducting evidentiary

hearings and upon the receipt of staff recommendations. However, due to

project changes announced by PPSI after certification, evidentiary

hearings were not held, nor was a decision made on the Proposed Project

by the CPUC.

In December of 1993, PPSI filed an Amended Application with the

CPUC. Later, in early 1994, PPSI also filed this Amended Application

with the ANF. This Amendment was based on an Agreement reached by major

potential users of the Proposed Pipeline (Santa Barbara offshore

producers) and the All American Pipeline Company (AAPL). The producers

agreed that the only means of transporting their oil out of Santa

Barbara County by pipeline will be through use of the existing AAPL,

which can transport all produced oil in this area to Kern County, and

ultimately, to Texas, if requested by producers. However, producers

have informed agencies and the public that the preferred destination

for the majority of their heavy offshore production is the Los Angeles

area refineries. Currently there are no existing pipelines with

adequate capacity to transfer crude oil from the Southern Kern County

to the Los Angeles area.

Thus, PPSI proposed to modify their project to comply with recent

agreements and respond to this demand.

The Amendment filed with the ANF differs from the original proposal

in the following manner:

The origination point of the pipeline would be at an existing

Texaco oil facility in Emidio, Kern County, an area adjacent to the All

American Pipeline, which would enable the transfer of Santa Barbara

offshore crude oil from the AAPL to the Pacific Pipeline.

From this origination point a proposed 20-inch pipeline

segment will continue for 62 miles to Castaic Junction, at which point,

it would join the originally proposed project as applied for by PPSI.

The 62-mile pipeline ROW would be generally parallel to I-5, and will

traverse through the National Forest System land administered by the

ANF. This newly proposed 62 miles from Emidio to Castaic Junction would

replace the 104 miles of previously proposed pipeline from the Gaviota

Marine Terminal to the Castaic Junction.

The replacement of the previously proposed Gaviota to Castaic

Junction pipeline with the new 62-mile pipeline would result in the

following changes in ancillary facilities:

--five of the pump/pressure reduction stations required previously in

Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angles Counties would be replaced by

three new pump/pressure reduction stations in Kern and Los Angeles

Counties

--the proposed Control Center for the pipeline would be located in

Taylor Yard (Los Angeles) instead of Ventura County, as originally

proposed.

The Amendment also requires consideration of three additional

refinery/terminal destinations in Los Angeles County (retaining the

previous three destinations). These three destinations are:

--Unocal Refinery in Carson

--Chemoil Terminal in Carson

--Ultramar Refinery in Wilmington.

These newly proposed destinations would require installations of an

additional 3.3 miles of 16-inch pipeline that was not considered in the

FEIR. Considering these additional connecting lines, the total length

of the proposed pipeline would be approximately 132 miles (versus 171

miles for the originally Proposed Project).

The Amended Application also refers to a future scenario in which

Mobil would obtain a permit and would produce up to 40,000 bpd of oil

at their Santa Barbara Clearview Project. The Applicant suggests that

the previously proposed pipeline between Ellwood to Castaic Junction

might be reconsidered for this potential scenario.

The cumulative impacts associated with this uncertain scenario were

identified in the original FEIR. The EIS/SEIR will consider this

potential scenario and alternatives to it in the alternatives analysis

section of the document.

Project Alternatives

Possible alternatives to the project would include:

No action or not constructing the pipeline.

Any reasonable project that can achieve the objectives of the

Proposed Action, with lower overall impacts to the environment.

Route alternatives identified as a result of project scoping.

Supplementary Information

A number of documents providing general information about the ANF

have already been issued. These documents include the ANF Land and

Resources Management Plan, FEIS and Record of Decision. These documents

allow, under certain conditions, the issuance of special use permits

for pipelines.

Because of the magnitude of the changes made to the project and its

potential significant impacts on the environment, an initial study was

not prepared. The originally submitted and newly amended PEAs provided

by PPSI in its Application, as well as the Pacific Pipeline FEIR and

Executive Summary were used to determine the need for the EIS. These

documents are available for review at the following locations:

California Public Utilities Commission (L.A. Office), 107 South

Broadway, Los Angeles, CA, Contact: Public Advisor, (213) 897-3544

U.S. Forest Service, Angeles National Forest, 701 N. Santa Anita

Ave., Arcadia, CA, Contact: Rich Borden, (818) 574-5255

Carson Regional Library, 151 East Carson Street, Carson, CA,

Contact: Gilbert Acuna, (310) 830-0901

Ray D. Prueter Library, 510 Park Avenue, Port Hueneme, CA, Contact:

Lori Karns, (805) 486-5460

Santa Barbara City Library, 40 East Anapamu, Santa Barbara, CA,

Contact: Evelyn Rickey, (805) 962-7653

Valencia Library, 23743 Valencia Blvd., Valencia, CA, Contact: Rita

Lance, (805) 259-8332

If necessary, responsible Federal agencies may request a copy of

PPSI's application and/or PEA by contacting Tom Rooney at: Pacific

Pipeline System, Inc., 101 South First Street, Burbank, CA 91502, (818)

556-2744

The EIS/SEIR Process

As indicated in the project description, the newly proposed segment

of the pipeline traverses the National Forest System land administered

by the ANF. Thus, the Applicant will require right-of-way authorization

and special use permits from the ANF. In order to consider issuance of

these permits, and based on potential impacts identified in the

Applicant's PEA, ANF will prepare an EIS pursuant to NEPA requirements.

The Draft EIS (DEIS) is expected to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and should be available for public review by

November of 1994. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of

availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on

the DEIS will be 60 days from the date the EPA's notice appears in the

Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important

to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public

participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of

the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review

of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that

could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised

until after completion of the Final EIS (FEIS), Wisconsin Heritages,

Inc. v. Harris 490 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these

court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this

proposed action participate by the close of the comment period so that

the substantive comments and objectives are made available to the

Forest Service. This is to ensure that substantive comments and

objections are made available when the USFS can meaningfully respond to

them in the FEIS. Comments on the DEIS should be specific and should

address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives

discussed (see The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA at 40 CFR 1503.3). It is

also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the

DEIS.

After the end of the DEIS comment period, comments will be analyzed

and considered by the USFS in preparing the FEIS. The FEIS is scheduled

to be completed by April of 1995. In the FEIS the Forest Service is

required to respond to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The

responsible official (Mike Rogers, Forest Supervisor, ANF, Arcadia, CA)

will consider the comments, responses, environmental consequences

discussed in the EIS, and applicable laws, regulations and policies in

making a decision regarding this proposal. The responsible official

will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record

of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part

215.

Proposed Scope of the EIS/SEIR

The EIS/SEIR will present the analysis of the environmental impacts

of the proposed Pacific Pipeline Project and comparative environmental

effects of the alternatives, and will identify mitigation measures for

potentially significant impacts. The EIS will address the Project from

Emidio to the Ultramar refinery in Wilmington. However, for the segment

from Castaic to Texaco's Wilmington refinery the EIS will, primarily,

rely on the existing FEIR. The joint document will contain a separate

section in which the conclusions stated in the FEIR will be summarized.

The potential for construction and operation of the segment of the

project which was previously proposed between Santa Barbara and Castaic

Junction will be considered in the alternatives analysis section of the

document.

The EIS/SEIR will address all issue areas for which potential

significant impacts are anticipated. These issue areas include:

Air Quality. Construction and operation emissions and

effects.

Biological Resources. Effects on native habitats that support

rare, threatened, or endangered species; impacts on sensitive habitats

or species downslope from the ROW as a result of sedimentation or

erosion; damage to native plant habitats due to construction; loss of

habitat due to vegetation removal; and effects of noise disturbance on

nesting and foraging of wildlife species.

Cultural Resources. Construction effects on prehistoric

sites, structures, regional districts or other physical evidence

associated with human activity; disturbance during erosion control

program excavation, illicit artifact collection by pipeline workers and

construction equipment and oil spill containment encroachment in

sensitive areas; Impacts on Native American values.

Environmental Contamination. Effects of disturbance from

trench excavation to contaminated sites along the ROW on pipeline

workers; migration of contaminants via surface ground water runoff; and

pipeline passage through oil fields with abandoned wells.

Geology. Slope stability and seismic impacts associated with

fault rupture and liquefaction/lateral spreading; and damage to above

ground structures from earthquake-induced ground shaking.

Hydrology. Flood-related impacts due to diversion of stream

flows during construction; erosion and scour impacts due to pipeline

rupture and oil contamination of streams;

Land Use and Public Recreation. Construction effects on

agricultural and recreational uses; disruptions to public services and

access roads in residential areas; and potential for long-term safety

risks to existing or planned uses in project vicinity.

Noise. Construction effects on sensitive receptors.

Paleonotology. Project impacts on the fossil evidence of

inorganic plant and animal remains over 11,000 years old.

Public Services. Effects of project construction and

population growth.

Public Utilities and Energy. Construction disruption to

utilities due to collocation accident.

Socioeconomics. Construction disruption to commercial sites;

construction and operation effects on employment and population growth;

and oil spill effects on local business, temporary housing and tourism.

Soils. Effects of soil corrosivity on project design; effects

of expansive soils on foundations of above-ground structures; and

fugitive dust emissions.

System Safety. Oil spill impacts from land-based oil spills,

risk of oil spill ignition, and exposure to resulting fire. Impacts to

creeks, riverbeds and native habitat; and effects of oil spills on

sensitive receptors.

Transportation and Traffic. Construction effects on project

study area's transportation system, traffic congestion, pedestrian

circulation and emergency access.

Visual Resources. Construction and operation effects on

visual resources resulting from presence of equipment, materials,

workers, and above-ground facilities.

Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts.

Project Scoping Process

The EIS/SEIR on the Proposed Pacific Pipeline Project will focus on

significant environmental effects. The process of determining the focus

and content of the EIS/SEIR is known as scoping (40 CFR 1501.7).

Scoping helps to identify the range of actions, alternatives,

environmental effects, and mitigation measures to be analyzed in depth,

and eliminates from detailed study those issues that are not pertinent

to the final decision on the Proposed Project. The USFS will be seeking

information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local

agencies, the proponent and other individuals or organizations who may

be interested in, or affected by the proposed action. Significant

issues may be identified through public and agency comments.

Scoping, however, is not conducted to resolve differences

concerning the merits of the project or to anticipate the ultimate

decision on the proposal. Rather, the purpose of scoping is to help

ensure that a comprehensive and focused EIS/SEIR will be prepared that

provides a firm basis for the decision-making process. The scoping

process includes:

Identifying potential issues.

Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.

Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been

covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.

Exploring additional alternatives.

Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed

action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects

and connected actions).

Determining potential cooperating agencies and task

assignments.

Public and agency scoping sessions will be held in the following

areas:

Vista Del Lago Visitor Center, Vista Del Lago Exit (ten miles north of

Castaic Junction), Interstate 5, June 27, 1994, 7 p.m.

Aragon Elementary School, 1118 Aragon Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90065,

June 28, 1994, 7 p.m.

Wilmington Boys and Girls Club, Multi-Purpose Room, 1444 West ``Q''

Street, Wilmington, CA 90744, June 29, 1994, 7 p.m.

City of San Fernando, Council Chambers, 117 McNeil Street, San

Fernando, CA 91340, June 30, 1994, 7 p.m.

Agency Comments

Notice has been sent to responsible Federal Agencies, the State,

and the Federal Register. Also State responsible and trustee agencies

and the State Clearinghouse have been notified. We need to know the

views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental

information which reflects your agency's statutory responsibilities in

connection with the proposed project. Once again, responses should

identify the issues to be considered in the Draft EIS/SEIR, including

significant environmental issues, alternatives, mitigation measures,

and whether the responding agency will be responsible State of Federal

agency or a state trustee agency.

Due to the time limits mandated by State and Federal Laws, your

response must be sent at the earliest possible date but no later than

30 days after publication of this notice. Please send your response to:

Richard Borden (ANF), c/o Aspen Environmental Group, 30423 Canwood

Street, suite 218, Agoura Hills, CA 91301.

For further information write to: Richard Borden, ANF, 701 North

Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006-2799, (818) 574-5255.

Dated: June 8, 1994.

Mike Wickman,

District Ranger, Saugus Ranger District, Angeles National Forest.

[FR Doc. 94-14501 Filed 6-15-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M