[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 115 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14501]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 16, 1994]


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

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