~ MINUTE ITEM This ~alendar Item No. !.1... was approved as Minute Item No • ../;.J.__ by the State Lands commlaalon by a vote of :..2... to o at its ,.i/J z!_g 7

meeting~

•

CALENDAR ITEM

02/17/87 A 11

s 7 W 23680 PRC 7048 Lane

APPLICANT:

CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR/EIS AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL LEASE - RIGHT-OF-WAY USE

San Joaquin Valley Pipeline Company

P. O. Box 2648 Houston, Texas 77252

AREA, TYPE LAND AND LOCATION: A 0.116-acre parcel of tide and submerged land, located in Pacheco Creek at Martinez,

LAND USE:

Contr~ Costa County.

Construction and maintenance of a buried crude oil pipeline.

TERMS OF PROPOSED LEASE: 25 years beginning March 1, 1987.

Initial period:

Surety bond: $5,000.

Public liability insurance: Combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000.

CONSIDERATION: $209 per annum; with the State reserving the right to fix a different rental on each fifth anniversary of the lease.

BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION: Pursuant to 2 Cal. Adm. Code 2003.

APPLICANT STATUS~ Applicant is permittee of upland.

-1-

70 (Added 2/13/87)

CALENDAR PACE

MINUTE PACE 329

•

-CALENDAR ITEM NO. -· ·.) (CONT r D)

PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS, FEES AND EXPENSES: filing fee has been received.

STATUTORY AND OTHER REFERENCES:

Ail 884:

A. P.R.C.: Div. 6, Parts 1 and 2; Div. 13.

B. Cal. Rdm. Code: Title 2. Div. 3; Title 14, Div, 6.

04/02/87 (Including 90-Day Extension).

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:

(ADDED 2/13/87)

1. The applicant proposes to construct a 258-mile heated crude oil pipeline in the San Joaquin Valley from Kerriridge Oil Field to Martinez which will cross Pacheco Creek in Contra Costa County. The overall purpose of the proposed project is to transport 120.000 ·barrels per day of crude oil produced in the oil fields to Shell Oil Company Martinez oil ~efinery. Construction is slated to begin in late 1987, after all other approvals and permits are obtained. Therefore, fhe applicant requests a two-year construction period with a completion date of March 1, 1989.

Terms of the lease require the applicant to conduct spring botanical surveys precedi~g commencement of construction. The proposed survey work and those persons conducting the survey, as well as the results, must be approved by the State Lands Commission Executive Officer in consultation with United States fish and Wildlife Service and the Calif~rnia Department of Fish a~d Game. Following construction completion, "as-built plans" are required to be submitted and approved.

The lease iHlso requires the lessee to install a remote control shut-off value and a pressure-sensitive check-value at Pacheco Creek. These mechanisms are oil-spill safety measures required by fIR/EIS mitigation No. 7, as discussed in Exhibit "D" (CEQA findings).

-2-

"/ 0.1 CAUNOAR PACE

MSN~EPAGE 330

(ADDED 2/13/87)

CALENDAR ITEM N&:· ... CCONT'Dl

2. Pursuant to the Commission's delegation oF authority and the State CEQ~ Guidelines (14 Cal. Adm. Code 15'025). the staff has caused' to be prepared an EIR identified as EIR No. 405, State Clearinghouse

3.

N6. 85122307. Such ~IR was pr~pared and ci~culated for public review pursuant. _to the provisions of the CEQA.

The following significant enuironmerital effects were identified in the EIR. These Qre discussed in detail in Exhibit "D" -CEQA Findings, which include proposed changes. alterations, or permit conditions which should be requ~ea in or inco~porated into the proposed project:

Geologic Hazards: The Concord Fault could rupture the pipeline st Pacheco Creek causing a significant oil spill. In addition. the proposed storage tank at mid-station could be damaged by intense ground shaking or liquifaction ..

Soils: A~celerated or recurrent erosion in areas of steep. slope could hinder site rehabi1itation following trenching activities. Disturl::<am:e of" saline or alkali soils may prove diffteult to rehabilitate.

Surface Water: Risk of oil spills in surFace waters, including stream alteration or scour causing the pipeline to become ~xposed and damaged.

Noise: Short-term construction impacts on sensitive receptors.

Land Use and Recreation: 'cf'fects on recreation experience in Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and Bethany ReservQir State Park due to ~onstruction activities. Also, conflicts in land use relative to proposed Future uses and adopted plans.

-3-

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE JrACE

70 .. 2

(ADDED 2/13/87)

:;.. CALENDAR ITEM Net-; 1 ~ (CONT'D)

Visual Resources: Visual contrast of right-of-way and booster s0tations and microwave towers.

Paleontology: Loss or disturbance of significant fossil resources.

Cultural Resources: Loss or disturbance of sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology: Potential construction and operation impacts on species or communities, including special status species.

System Safety: Accidents related to systems failure or fires at booster stations.

Oil Spill Potential: Due to design or construction flaws; hazards or accidents; pressure or leaks; lack of security; or

. lack of organization.

History of Document Preearation

The required Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated January 16, 1986, was sent; ~s specified ir. the CEQA Guidelines to responsi_ble ager1cies and other intel"ested Federal, State and local agsncies and jurisdictjons.

On February 3rd and 4th two public hearings were conducted in Taf ~ and Martinez respectiuely. These meetings were used to identify major issues and concerns. Comments received in response to the NOP and at the publ~.c "scoping" hearings were addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS.

\

-4-

CWNDAR PACE l Q, 3 MINUTE PACE _3 3 °2

CALENDAR ITEM NO. • ~~ (CONT I D)

Copies of the Draft EIR/EIS were submit~ed to the State Clearinghouse (OPR) on September 17, 1986 Approximately 250 copies of the document were mailed to responsible agencies. other local. State and FederfJ_ agenc~~s and interested parties. The d9cument was circulated for a 60-day review period.

The comment period ended on November 24. 1986. On November 6th and 17th two public hearings were held in Bakersfield and Martinez. No one appeared to present comments on the document at either of these hearings.

Twenty-three letters were received during the public comment period. The Final EIR/EIS addresses all comments received in these letters.

The Fina+ EIR/EI~ was distributed on January 30, 1987. Once again approximat&ly 250 copies of the document were distributed.

5,, This activity involves lande which have NOT been identif~ed as possessing significant environmental values pursuant to P.R.C. 63?0, et seq. However, the Comm~ssion has declared that all tide and submerged lands are "significant" by nature of their public ownership (as opposed to "environmental significant"). Since such declaration of significance is not based upon the requirements and criteria of P.R.C. 6370, et seq .• use classifications for such lands have not been de•ignated. ThereFor~~ the finding of the project's consistency with the use classiFication as required by 2 Cal. Adm. Code 2954 is not applicable.

FURTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: .Ca·lif ornia Air Quality, USFWS, USA COE, County of Contra Costa. California Department of Fish and Game.

-5-

70.4 (ADDED 2/13/87) CAUHDAR PAGI

MINUTf PACf 33.3

:.•. CAt:ENDA R ITEM !JO':"" 1 O (CONT 1 D l,

EXHIBITS: A. Land Description. B. l~~,ation Map. C. Exet;'ttiue ~ummary. D. CEQA- Findings. . E. Statement of Ouerriding Cons~derations.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION:

1. CERTIFY tHAT AN EIR NO. 405, ST~TE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 85122307, WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PR03ECT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CEQ~ ANO THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE !~FORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN.

2. ADOPT THE FINDINGS HERETO ATTACHED lfS EXHIBIT 11

011

IN CONNECTION WITH THE PR03ECT IN CQMPL!ANCE WITH THE CEQA (P.R.C, SECTION 21000 ET. SEQ.) ANO THE STATE fIR GUIDELINES;

3. ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF OVEltRIDING CONSIDERAT~O'~S ,HERttO ATl~ACHED AS EXHIBIT "f"; -

4. FIND TH~T THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIROM~ENTAL VALUES ORIGINALLY IDENTir·IED PUR~UANT TO P. R.C. 6370, ET SEQ., ARE NOT W_ITHIN • THE PR(llJ'ECT SITE AND WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJf'c·r.

5. AV.~~ORIZE THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER to EXAMINE, REVIEW, AND ~PPROUE, ON BEHALF OF THE COl!llISSION, IN CONSULTATION WITH lHE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ANO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE BOTANICAL SURVEY, SUCH APPROVAL TO OCCUR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE PIPELINE WITH A CONSTRUCTION LlMIT!NG DATE FOR COMPLETION OF SUCH PIPELINE TO BE NO LATER THAN MARCH l, 1989

6. AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE TO SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PIPELINE COMPANY OF A 25-YEAR GENERAL LEASE - RIGHT-OF-WAY USE BEGINNING MARCH l, 1987; IN CONSIDERATION Of ANNUAL RfNT IN THE AMOUNT OF $209, WIT~ THE STATE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO FIX A DIFFERE~T RENTAL ON EACH FI~TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LEASE; PROUis:.-N OF A $5.~ooo SURETY BONO; PROVISION' OF PUBLIC LIABILIT-V INSURANCE FOR COMBINED SINGL~ LIMIT COVERAGE OF $1,000,000; FOR CONSTRUCTION ANO MAINT~NANC~ OF A BUR~EO CRUDE OIL PIPELINE ON THE LAND DESCRIBE:O ON ~XHIBtT "A" ATTACHED AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PAR.T t~REOF~

-~-

CADDED 2/13/87)

CUINDAa PM;:~

MINU1f PAGE

7·0 r. ·? ~ 33§

0

e

e

•

EXHIBIT •&•

LA1m J>BSCRIPTION If 23680

A strip of tide and subaerged land 22 feet wide i~ the State-owned bed of Pacheco cr~ek. contra Costa county. C3litornia. the centerline of said atrip being described as tol;lowa: ·

COlllmlicillG at Point •P-3• as described in the .Public Agency ~erait to the Contr~ ~osta County Plo~d control and Water conservaticn District recorded in ~~~ 5918. page 494. Official Records o~ contra Costa C'6unty: thence froa aaid point .. P-3• s 9054•41a E. ioo.oo feet: thence s azc23•30• w. iis.09 feet to tiia POift OF BBGIDillG: thence H e2oz3 • 30• B. 230.11 feet to the end of th• herein described line.

BXCBPTlllG 'ft!ZIBl'llOll any pnrtion lying landward of the ordinary high water aark of Pacheco creek.

mm ca DSSCRIP'fIQJ

PUPJ\UD JANUARY 27. 1987 BY BOtnU>l\RY saav1css utfIT ~ H. L. SHAl"Do SUf !llVISOR.

0330b

. CAUNOARPAGi zn. 6 Ml>JIJ1'E PMit 3 3 5

. .

...

•

W2~680 EXHIBIT "C"

ElR/EIS EXECUTIVE SllftARY

1.1 INTRODUCTIOH

The San Joa"-'in Valley Pipeline Environmental l11P1ct Report/Envi­ro111ental llllJ>act Statement (EIR/EIS) is issued jointly by the Cali­forniA State Lands eo..ission (SLC) and the U.S~ Dep1r~ent Of the Interior's Bureau of Land i'!ari1~ement (BLM). The intent of the docu­ment is to fulfi11 the require11ents of ,both the Ca11fornii Enviro111111-tal Quality Act (CEQA) (under .ttich SLC is the lt!ld agency for this; project) ana the ~at1ona1 Enviro111tentil Policy Act (HEPA) (under which BUt is the lead agency). ·

The proposed project includes the construction of a heated, buried crude oil pipeline and associated facflitie~, to transpo~ 120,000 barrels per day (120-MBD) frOll existing oil fields fn karn County, California, to exf ~ting refining facilities in Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. The project sponsor, 9.r ~pplicant, the San Joaquin Valley Pipe line COllpany (SJVPLC), is ;n affiliate cf the Shell Oil COf!.Qlny. SJVPLC proposes to build this pipeline thn>ugh the western San Joaquin Valley in order to transport the 120 ~O in a reliable. cost-effective manner. Shell curr•~ly transports 12CH~BD fra11 its KErn County oil fields ta f.iartinez through exchange 1gre\'­ments involvigy a privately ownea pipeline. The proposed action, therefore, will not in itself increase the prOCluction or refining oi Calif~rni~ crude oil.

Once a right-of-way across state and feaeral ),ands has been gr.ante-a ~nd the required penaits and authorf zati~r3 have been obt•io~ for the project, tbe pipeUne wn 1 be built in, four segaents, with pipe diameters ranging froa 10.15 to 24 inches. for 4 total length of about 258 miles. In a generally norttr..est direction frc11a Kern· County, each se~nt will be buHt using a larger diameter p1~ than the pre­vious segaff!nt, to accept and transport the ctaul ative ·inputs frOllt prouucfr.9 fields in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Fr• its origin It Weir station fn kern County, the proJ.ect will par111e1 Interst!te Hisi*ay 5(1·5) through Kings, Fresno, Merced, Stanisllus; and Sin Jo1q1in counties. lhe pipeline will then procetct

....

1-1 CAl!NlMl PMil 7 Q • 8 MINUTI PAGI _3 3 7

-~ -('\

-LEGEND-

D Soo.tw/lnJectlon Sunlons to be Modified

o--==20--==A03iiii-==--~=90--=='~oo--=='~20 PAI LES 0111---==--=:11-•"°cM+mK::::l..::3;)00-c::ii+e..:::::11.&'!!0 ic'I LO~ETERS

PROPOSED PIPELINe: SYSTEM AND PRQJECTe;iNIS (SEE DETAIL.ED PROJECT MAPS IN APPEND! ~-

3 /H·9 -1

2-4 a;;.!_;;INV1'E;,;;,;:;_;:.:.;'Mil=~-====::::=1_

through the northeast corner of Alameda Cobnty and eastern Contra Costa County, before turning west along Suisun Bay, into the existing Hartinez refinery.

The pipeline, planned for constructi9n between mi~-1987 and aia-1988, will follow existing pipeline ~nd utility corridors for about SSS of its length, or 228 111iles. Other project components include the construction of two new booster (pumping ana heating) st1t·Jons, the -~onstruction of 13 new microwave connunication towers,, and the modification of four of siY. existing booster an<1 ·oil injection stations.

In addition to the proposed project, this Eiff/El~_evaluates two ainor alignment alternatives, an alternative booster station configu­ration, two alternative booster stati~n power sou~e configurations, an overhead aqueduct crossing alternativ~. and the nQ~project alterna­tive. The Combination Route diverges from the proposed pipeline north of lost Hillsp California, and extends for about 44 miles. Major parts of this route alternative follow the proposed route; and at no point does it diverge more than 2 miles from the ~reposed route. This route is considered because, as a whcle,_it follGtJs 1-5 More closely than the corresponding portion Qf the proposed route and, thus, intrt1des less upon undisturbed land~ The Contra L011a Route diverges from the proposed route for a 3.5-~ile stretch near the City of Pittsburg in Contra Costa Count~. It avoids areas of potential landsliding in this pa~ of the county.

The three new b~oster station alternati¥e (as compared to two new booster stations in the propose~ action) is analyzed becaus~ i~ could allow greater operational fle~ibility over Segment 4 of the ~-pi~eline (Fresno County to hartinez); with this alternative, oil coulc be pumped ana heated more efficiently. and a 20-inch or 24-inch pipe could be used over Segment 4. (Segment 4 of the proposed action is limited to the use of a 24-inch pipe).

The alternative power source configurations consist cf elec­tricity, rather than ~atural gas, to power the pumps, ana either cruae oil or natural gas, rather than th~ use of waste heat with natural gas backup. to heat the oil. These alternate configurations are .proposed for analysis because they might be more economicil than the proposed action.

The overhead aqueduct crossing alternative would substitute aerial crossings at six different portions of California Water Pr~ject arid Bureau of Reclamation canals for the underground crossings pr"­posed in the project for these points. This alternattve would allay concerns that the California Department of Water Resources has expressed about underground crossings of its aqueducts.

Other alternatives to the various components of the proposed action were a~aly!ed and eli~in~ted from detailed analysis. Such alternatives included about a dozen routing variations, six of which w~re within Contra Costa County. In a~dition, two Major route alter­natives were' analyzed at a conceptual level, one route al~ng the

1-2 CAllNOM PACI

MINUTIPA"

..

east err. eage of the San Joaquin va·n ey, and another ttl1t crossed the Coast Ranges and ~ppro;che<S-Martinez thro~gh the San~a Clara Valley. Other alternatives that w~re ultimately re.;ieeted included fiber-opti~ cables as a line conrnunications medium, pipeline insulation, and alter~ative transportation 11eans for 'the crud~ oil, fo"olving a can­bination of truck, rail. and tanker transport.

SJVPLC has applied for right-of-way perl'l'iits from BLH to crpss feaer~I lana, anCI from SLC to cross lanci owne<i by the State of Cali­fornia. Because of its l~ngth ana the resources it could potentially affect, the pipeline will require n!Jiierous other feaeral~ state, and local permits before construction can begin. A li$t of required permits is contained in Table 1-1 of the Draft EIR/ElS, minor amendments to which are containea in T~ble 3-1 of this volume.

1.2 .AREAS OF COMTROVERSY

Based on pub 1 ic input. scopi ="9 meetings, and ag2ncy ~esp~mses to the -~otice-of Preparation circulatea by SLC, several areas of contro­versy as_cociated with the proposed action h~ve been identifiea. The first is ~he jii;te~tia1 for an oil spill at some point a19ng the 258-mH e pipe 1 i ne over the 1 if e' of the project , and the ett.ieds whtch ~­spi 11 could ~ave on water resources, terrestrial and aquatic biolog­ical resources, and adjacl!nt land uses. The other area- of ~.o.ntrover!;y is the potential for im~acting such rare, thre:atenf!d, -or e~ingerec: species as ttle San Joaquin kit fox, the ~lunt-nosecs l~ard lizard, and others, as ~ell a~ the potential fpr reducing these s9ecies' critical habitats.

The qiesti~n of oil spiJ1 potential is p~rticularly controversial because of crude oil pipeline spill$ that have occurred over the past several years between Los Angeles ana Martinez ano because of the fre­quent seismic activity in the region. Statistics show that pipelin~ spills a~e rare, especially spills fr~ new pipelines, ~nd t~ey ar~ not ofte~ due to natural causes. 8aseci on statistical probabilities, it is estimated that over the life· of the project there woula be three sptiis over 50 barrels, and six spills,of between 5 and 50 barrels. How~ver, despite the elaborate system saf~ty and reliability ..easures associated with the proposed act.ion, oil spills could occur ~ver the life of th~ project aue to impact damag~ or defective or cor!"Oded pipe •• A wide variety oi impacts could occur depending upon the location, vollll1e, ana timing of an oil spill. The concerns are surface water and grc;u:mCIWater pollutfon, damage to nearby biOlogic,1 r~sources, habitat aestructicn, temporary ioss of agricultural/' rangeland prOductivity, an<f degradation of scenic vi~tas~ However, the w.ost significant impact would be reali~ed if a majQr spill reached, reser-voi~s or aqueaucts and contaminated these wate~ supplies for Los Angeles and for irrigated agriculture.

Along the pipeline route, areas of controversy include pipeline construction through sensitive biological areas such as critical ~abi­tat for the blunt-nosed. leopard lizard. ·sa1t marsh harvest WPOuse, giant kangaroo rat. and S~n Joaquin kit fox, and the fkJ~ver'$ wo~ly star and Cong<ion's eatoneUa. Because ,the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service' !USFWS) considers these aniruals end~ngerea and is likely to designate these two plant species as threatened or ef'tdangerecs. and the

1-3 CAllNDM PAGlE

MINUTfPAGf

70 11 34Q: -

California Dept. of Fish and Game''- ftDFG) s·~milar concerns i out th~se species" intensive field surveys of the:se species were corn:tuctea as a condition of project approval. The resv;1 ts of these surve.vs haYe been integrated into this, document. '

1.3 MAJOR IMPACT CONCLUSIONS

The proposed route is generally alignea for much of its length within existing utility ana transportation corridors. As a result. the project has no impacts which cannot b~ reduced by mitigation. ana only a few impacts which remain significan't after mitigation. Con­struction, operation, oil spill, ana abanaorment impacts of the pro­posed project are aescribed in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR/EIS. kitigation measures are aescribea in Chapter 6 of the Ora~ EIR/EIS, with some mOdifications and additions contained in Section 3.3 of this volume. Table 1··1 of this volume identifies the potentially siynificant impacts, their corresponding mitigation measures, and the resia~al impact~ that would. result from the mitigated action. The mitigation measures listed ;n the table are referenced by the ~ame n111bers used in Chapter 6 of the Dra~ EIR/EIS. Residual impacts remaining after mitigation are classified as either significant or not SiQnificant. The sign~ficant residual imp-acts include the follcwfog: £Qr Construction:

o The total lana requirJ21nent of almost l,000 acres of permanent right-of-way and anctllary facilities; ana

o Localized r.evegetation problems or failure on slopes ~teeper than 18S (about 80 slopes).

For Operat!!m.:

o The conse~ences of an exceptionally strong seismic event (greater than l91I VIII), which could result in a major spill and spill•relatect impacts to enviror.mental resources. (Note: the probability of such an event is considered small.)'

For Accidents:

o Any spill greater than 5 barrels, or any spill to water. (From statistical probabilities, it is estimated that about six spills of greater than 5 barrels nay occur over-the lite of the project.)

1.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

The FEIR/FEIS evaluates four project ~lternative~, any of which may be impJementeci ipdepenc:lently of the others. This discussjon briefly SLlfl~arizes tfte ac!v~ntages and disaavantages of each alterna­tive cunpari~ to the aspect or por-tion of the proposed actipn that it would replalte.

Other than the no-action alternative, the proposed route does not have an alternative that would cunstitute a distinctive and completely different alternate to the proposal., The reason 'is tf'll'l~~~·-f-ac:-a,-_µcs~-;:;~~~

C.AiiNOAa PAGE = 7 Q • !3 MINUTI •ACE 3 41 ·--...;...;..;;---=====::J

1-4

route has been aligned to avoid the rugged terrain of the Coastal Ranges as much as pr~cticable while also avoiding highly produc~ive agricultura.1 land and irrigation systems in the Sa~ Joaquin Valley. For this reason, the proposed route crosses a multitude of toe slopes on the border between valley and foothills. Any route further west would encounter more difficult topographic constraints. Moreover, the proposed route follows existing transmission and transportation corridors to a large extent.

The route alternatives, or aeviat1ons, consist of the Combination Route and the Contra Loma Route. The Combination Route would follow -existing rig~ts-of-way slightly more closely than the cotre~ponding portion of the proposed action, ~ven though the separation between the twu routes is very small {less than 2 miles). Because the Combination Route would add about o.5 miles ~o the length of the pipeline, it would have slightly higher ~onstruction and operation costs. lhe C9ntra Loma Route would avoid landslid~ areas in a small portion of CCititra Costa Coµnty, but it would pass through existing residential areas, unlike the segment it would replace, ana therefore could create more difficult right-of-way and permit conditions.

-The three new booster station alternative ~ould achieve project

objectives more econ'" .:1·1cal ly because it would al lari more efficient sizing and operation of pumps and heaters. It.would also allow a 20-inch pipe to be installed over Segment 4, reducing the maximum potential on spill over this segment. cThis alternative has similar environmental impacts as'the, proposed configuration.

The alternative power source configurations could also result in more economical operation of the pipeline, depending on the prir,es of natural gas, crude oil, and electri~ity. These alternative power configurations would use more energy than the pr~po~ed methQd. and in addition. will cause significantly higher air m:iissions if crude oil were to be burned as a source of heat.

Overhead aqueauct crossings woul~ be a preferable methOd of crossing California Water Project canals compared to the proposed underground techniques. according to the California Department of Water Resources (see c~n~ letter 17). They would also be less exp;:nsive. The disadvantages of these overheag crossings are that they would expose the pipeline to e~ternal damage, possibly causing spUls into the aqueducts, and they are visually in.trusive compared to underground cr.ossings.

1.5 AGENCY-PRE~ERRED ALTERNATIVE

Under HEPA, ~~~ Federal lead agency must identify its preferred altern~t-ive for p~ojects for which an EIS is prepared. The preferred alt~rnative stated -below is not a final agen~y decision, but it is an indication of the ft..1eral agenc;-y's preliminary preference. The alternative identifieo below is preferred by BLM, the federal lead agency.

The Federal agency's preferred alternative is the pr.opos~d action as mitigated and described ~n this document.

1-5

CAUN~PACE

MINUTE ~Af.;P:

7.U 13

3J.2

flble 1-1 FINAL (REV!SED)

'f,dltMY IF SIGNIFICANT nt'ACTS FOR Tf£ · SAN JOMIUlN YM.t:EY PiPEUNE PROPOSAL

--------------------------------------4--------------------------------,~---------------~---------------

------~~--=--------__.--------------------~-----------------------------------a.--------·------..-------

Op!ntlon

1. tttlque r,;jeologlcal featu~

2. ec-l'Cial ro~

3. Meontologlcal t'SlllCIUrcea

4. Topotr~lcal llOd1ficatlDrl9J nquin.nt to cut atHp aicipM, penlc:ulwly 1n Contra Cotlt• eounty

5. p,qu1nmnt for occ:eeleMl bl•tlno of· twtci rack

Hotw ldlntifled

ft.NM 1dlntlf19d

'· Pot.n~ ptpelw l'UPt«• at PAICMco Ctnk

~ ! i. 7. NHd for ~lal enol,..dng iii dnlgn· .tw1 .. nqulrid to

Mt

x

x

x

S.. Pal.ontology below

SM Solla bttlaw

21'

1, ·'· . .,.., 7

Mt

Mt

~ - ,,

~.

- '

-

x(Z)

x

x ,,

x

-v -

0 -

I enh&ilce •fety ofs

g_.__---------------~--------~--------

~ ~· r~ •

._,

~

0

e.

MNiMl' 51gn1f icenee of Potential Huard s~i•ct.

or ~ Mitl~lon

~Ana llplct Area s MIMU?e Eff'Ktl\'8MH .!!Ill

~

,, GEOU!GlCM. WiJMl)5 (r.cint.) a) The pipe at Conco;d'Failt x '·. llduced f!:lltfttlal for .__.. l· -

.. to, .... .-.-1.1 ~ "'· f1: end r..it .~t. {ilP to nt 1abnlly).

b) ~Ui!{.or atQH!p,Unk x s ..._.. ~ttal f• ~---to - l

et Mid' tlon dutt to enciilary f .cltltloa ·

Int.,_ r."""" ahtildng or llqw .ction

•• "'°YMCY SMS pipe tneUbllit.y x ' ihe.Jlpe will i. ~~- ,,. - x

In ..ur-aaturat.lld zcM fl Ing end/or .mtciftlJ lta wt

(broUh •nh depOOit•)

to the .. ,.. . .. <; ;)

... • son.s ...... Conat.ruetion '· Pipeline eittd on 111\delide

x ' Pipeline etlbllltY h ..... -.di x -

pMIW aHM 1'1• er ....- i. .. rat.ml - ,

~

10~ Ho Hhlbllit..Uon end nvtJ!lle• tetS.on wlthln on1 Y!Otdng ...-eon u to~ fol wing fee-ton• a) Acceler.ted ft~ion ad x •i 't 10, ,,,

1'MM ....... will 11 .. tdct tha I -li i

1 iepoaltlcn due to a1U9'>1fli 1 t s, ,,, blpeCt to ...,_ altM hWint met

a1d ateeply eloping ter. "· 67 .-n i111tt•"""' -<11~•· t alr

! z rain, ~rticulull in

>1• end aMIJCietecl'dfUM!]ltll

I! Contra Coet• CoUn Y

b) a, n, 15, 1'

\...

.. ii Sal~lty or alkalinity x - Sal1M .oils tdll be Jthlb111• x

tated end rewgetat.c; with ed9pted plant ipecl•i ¢

Tlble 1-1 (Cont.)

1if .)

Siontrtew"ICe or IJe141111 0-Potential ffazud

s~3=. ~ lll!PllCt Hlti§C!on RMource Ana ~'Ana S PIS HIMUl'e [ffecti_....

SOILS (C(!nt.) _., -- ·' 11. WICed produc:tlvlt'J u to x a, 1', 11 Orlf!nel pmb:t1¥1~ tdll ... - x horizon llixtng and to11p11e-

ne nd on U.. ri"' -of.._, tion, C:ng or 11grtcul-

" tural

10, 14, 15 Right-or•-, -.1..,...,.. "' x ,?: 9-ratlan 12. PotentJ.111 ncurnnt eroeion x

prGbl• °" ... $lopn !nclud!ng ercalan contnl, 0 8KI •llOClattld ck'dnegee "'-nt~wn1e. SUtfo-:~ WATEI hipl~ed 1n perpetuity

~ t:'.:;i".:i t 'cl:!on 1J. ~adetlon or-W!:~r ~lit'! - ---beriilricial u• criteria,

...... to tny or ,ti: following reetonu ....

:!o •> Exenaivo db•ttn.i>ence x 18, 23, 21 Silt lOllde are nd&lad x ift-9tnti1 Md or the adJe-ctnt bllnka Md land ewe-r.T eroalon and ~ t ion

b) Relean of fr/droatatic x ,,, 20, 24 ff)'droautic teet •tw n:a.._ x te.t water flltd/or 'trench Will be .!lCll'abolled to avCld dewatering -=Our and •ttt Cl,ll91lty . detHdetlan

:! c) Sp_U:~ and fuel l•lb -X 22 Nii oil ~111 ftllC:h MrffiCt! tMbr - x reeourc. 14. Stl'tNll Md alteratlano end x 11, 2h A ~le ur. !'ill only be ·~ x ecourJ.ng, end ~ to

eclbJact to •rt•t•111 err.tctea eQUatic hlblt11t theM' Will be no lrifP!lficlNtt dleng. in the KN9 llecl9

Al_. 8l'ld Contee f!Ollta countlee.

•

: . _:_·: . · .. )·-"':~-·. \:~ -~ .. : : .. ·.: : • 0 '\ • ~ ..

. . ' .. . ~ ~

• 7~ ... ~ . '

-Tlble 1-1 (Cont.)

~fJ.cmlCC of .. , ..... entlal Huard

~!sfri;,• . or l!pmfi Hitlgetlon Raeaurco Are& i.p.ct Ana s HNaqre Eff&fltl'Wtln981 -

~ACE tMTER (Cont.)

1s. tanetnctlon of atructures x 21 Pipellne-·etlblllty ii1.....,... x

in 100-y.er nood ~ in the ca1e or .,. unuc...i fiood

16. ReductlOM in 8Ul'flilee .Ur Mt Mt Mt -¥01 .... r,

Pee ration 17. A.a for (14) ebove x 61," Scour ldll be pPyentcd ~~ rllllc x ()

of ..,.._. of the PlltUnt ~l bo ndueM" .

11. OU epllle - 70, 102 H9Mur9 will reduce etre of x<2> -GlltOON*AMt

-..111 Std eplll t.peeti•

... C«.abu:tlon None idlntlfiod • 10

!Pratisln "· A-aeMurotble reductlon in x 100 If • .,.111 oceure, it ~fill-not x qqr quaUty 1n ., =far, ~ aquifers due to •~Ill due to •Jor eplll WI la IMpOMa canhl~ arid cleened 1ip

20. le:lstrlctiona or nduction in HAt evatllble grGl.#ICMilter

HAt Mt Mt

All QUM.ITY

.I! s true ti an 21. Violation of natlon.J. and x is, 2,, ·'/.7 ~tNCtlClft •IHton •lll be x -z atete Ubi:wlt air qudlty n11gllglb1' i. i atendllrde '-'-to ~tfUC.»

tioo· •luicna

I ~ "' ~ 22. Alt ·for {21) above duo to x ZS, 71 Ntgliglble pollutian frca x

booetar ataUon ..tealOM natunl. ps bum!ftg etendarda due to-conatiuc-tlon ..i .. iot•

Table 1-1 (Cont.)

Mltigatlan Hl.un ,.

----------------------~------------------------~....._ __ ,,_, ________________________________________ ..,.. _____ ¢

.... • .... 0

AIR QlMl.!1Y (Cent.)

SOCIOECOtOUCS IMJ TIWiSP.ORTATlOH

ConstructiGn

I g c z' :1·~ ! ~

"'

%3. Innuence ~ area alnedy in attnn.nt end MMlt1ve nc.pton

24. Signlflcent daaend f~r tuporary houaing, for inf rsatructure

25. Water dMend

26. loea in toul'lat value

ri. l.oa ln revenue foe grazing 8Ut t.nd . .

28. INcceptlbla gdlllc rilk

2'. Ti:afflc congeatl~, d9laya accident., plbllc incofwenlam:e

)0. Negetlve-c:hange ln local t• baN

x ...

x za, n

x ... x ... x 36

x 2'

?l 28

NAt NAt

Potential ~· Z4 ··~ 25 .. not a f..tUC. of tho pio.kct, •inly due to lilllbcl l*v rarc. ... Ill

· Loa will ~ •!nor, if ..,.. tnd llhoct ... ta1111 int.et.•~ with gHZiftg pnctlcn ..Ul be negUg~i.

Rilk auoclllt~ with 11pen tnnc:h .nct hMv ~ 1--... tdll ·M . m.n111uJ ...,._ ...

'Pl8nned CHM~ fit loedt'ft ..tnt.nanca of Enrtte1 new

::'W:. ~,~.::· J'u.. .... project and, lllt -t; lMlgnlfloflnt

x

q

Mt.

T--------:--------------~-------------------------------~------..-.----------,j:_ ~

'9- "' • ·-' ~

Tlbb 1-1- (Cont,)

Sle!ficm,cr .. lduel Po tial Hazard lipeet Ol'~ HJ.tigatian-

Effectiv..-e Sl15!fianoe

RMoiace Arn ~~Ana s . HsQeuro • --St:£IOEtOIOtICS NO TRl.NSPORTATION (Cont.)

31. ~ ~ property valUM -- NAt Mt PotenUel Sllpcte 34 -' 11t· U. ~llglble

Mt

l.?. a.enge In •ter dlMnd x ... ApproxfJNtely ._ • prec..t • "· Q\enge in population - x NH N8gllgible Iner .... , if M}' x

"'· fkracceptllble ptbUc riek x • NH llie!c le .cceptlble .. lndJ.-ld l by exieting plpolinee

v

)5. Lo.. 1n -tourist vlllw Mt NAt Mt Mt

NOISE ... • Construction "· tntruction ~t mc1 x '°• l1 People edll •perlence llMM,.._ x -... 11etlv1ti .. exceed CCM!hty enc.a (? -- '° '9(A)) ("1,y guldel.t.,.. ' for • eouple or IJb)'ll et' ~elf.lo r:_lnt•, only on -~ cra,..G~~int ~' •Y tt.,,...a Mt on 'Aijillc-

.. in ncnation ....... •lee.t:are

'6eo SGr.Ultte nct1ptora art.ctcd:by x 31 Netta elhl.Mtellt an ••I•_.;, x ,, -9110rt-ter. construction -noi• but lhort-tena nol•• Mill ·•till affect the -..ltiW!I ~>re ')

lieted 1n T•le ._,,oft ·•att '·

II EIR/EIS durinj ....., CDM':nrotlon.

iz ratl!XI 'J7. "- 41bave, due to no1.ie or x 72 Nole• will be atteftuetN Mdl ?C

ii bocater etation1 l~teta w111 .,. -..dibl• only at .r.11 ~ inconeletency with ate or the •ltes no noleo ew1t1w ea11rornta land ute criteria locatlona .Ul be affect ... - Will exceec1·55 dB(A) ever "· x 72 Only within ~ 250 feet. f Na x the lcag-te?e the t1eilit1M ~

-I -N

~ z i z e

~ ~ lrt

-

...

~ z 43. \lolw.e or -.w relatin ! to 1811df'Al ~tty

I .. ~ ,...., • N 0

Significwlce or Potential Hazt'ird

-

-11r l!pa!:t. 'Hltiga!ion s 115 Ha~·

(J) x ,.,

X D

x 32

x :JS

- .,~ ..

Etrectlv .... a

route1 l'!O peJ:Mnftnt t:WWtlHlon or pr.Im egrituu"!91 · l•ld

~ Wl'-9 Qt> -.11

.. ,,

-

-' ,)

e

>

(J) x

x

x

Tlble 1-1 (Cont.)

.. s1r_:ncance of .. lMl Po .... u.i Huard ~'

or 1.-ct HltigeUon !!sf'"• ~Ana &ip.ct Area ~ "5 Mliaure EtrectlvefiMi

0

v;» tst "" 8££..~TION (Cont .. ) ..

0,,.ratlrln 44. Ao 1.,~ (U), two ,.w ~•r x 3% Pr~ egrl~tural l9ftd na~ x uattone and alcrotM\'lt to.re atreet9d will prti.pt edetlng bnd u-., on !..a th.n .0 -11eroe

45. New .:ceea to proviouoly x 7J, 74 CetN w!ll lMt Installed~ x in.cc...1bl• trn9 harrare with 90torhtc!

~ to ... ltbii ....... lf In'/ are ldlntlfied .. •1tc 11inda

YISUM. RESOlllttS - r.on.truetian Uo v1...i oontr.t or tM x e, 11, 15, No· atrong vla:wl. contnlt trlll l • r191t-or .. •r 31, .a, 41 develop -w

47. ~!llUal cantnat ct liooabr x. 38, " n.a.mtlgetl- t«Qi tw]S• to x -- -atetlone and llla ... ve towr•s ~ the Vlau8l ~Cf' confllcbt with ~al poJ.- u... tattunel but u. reei!dual icl• tor -*'llc hlgw..y and 1tlf;*t le etU •19'lf leent. V..tlay a.at Stop P&rk

S-ration 41. v1 .. 1 contnst upon x 7S Slbe will tie natcnd tG thdl' -~oe:i.clt origin&l '*1d1t.1.Gn

• E f ilONT(llOOY z a i ,..._. ... IJ'J. loaa or di~ of e1g.- x ~p 43, "· With theH.~ilglltlon .....,r.. x :: a ~-

nlf lcent J19l8Gntological 45 adwne ~·• will lae nd.ad ... reeource• to lnelgnlflc!ilN* II!'

()

. . I . • . ! •·.

i • • ~ I• •

I .. ' : \ .· , .

, (I' . 4 ~-

"'JIJ M - ~~~_;...-::- M

~ , o,-

4t J . tt J • J)tl$j ... ; .. J i~ t!.1.I a: .. 1.!i~ --

ti: !J ill ft t's ··1·r13 !: .. •ti ... .· I 1ijl• ·i s-=

!~Ii ijj_· :l ti; 11 .. 11j .. s ~ !t•h11 .. -s J.!!d) I !

HI !IJ.:i ' J :!.S i~-~li iB ... .. il ... c .11 . Iii. :1

!~ • .. li 1: ~

• \

... ! ;e ~ ~ ~f;\ :!:: z • • • ... ~ is ~ ~~

"""2, t' ;1~ )C :IJC

i..: ...... M ii .. : -0

cne..

... ... * lj ~

0 0 p,,1

Ii 11~1l l !

.. t~ I I"' l.!l ! )" ! ...... i c .!I •. s ! • 5 ;-:: ! 1

o-4~ "'" Bt~) .. s """,;.I' .... •...i..:"10 .. 0 ai :jJ.l ~ i ~. !fil! ·= 1· ul~ ... a ;si ... ~ ..

j 11 i~i c! .1~ I !i-• • • • ~ ~ N ~ .i\

-• ,... I § I ~ Vll •

ii ~ J .. c ..,

.... ~ ! ~ ! ~ ~

... lu ~ e I i i ... J i s • ... ! i "f•lli '

CAUHDAI PACI ....... Z.Q a 22 M~NUTI PACE· .1~1 , -

1-14

,,

,, .-~ I• '- " ·> ....__

i • ;, .# ~ac M

l ' r v • '• <..J ' ' .~ .

-1-- / ,... .... "e .I ' ",J // I .. ' H ' \ .... ..... .... )C M

' "' ' 1 'a

i

I . il i! t' li~l'l !:-

iflljt] ., ·-w .... , ' . .,. ;,

J •"Ji ~Iii lci.e Ji· i~ : !J fil

111 I ~3-111 ...

1~ ..: ~ ~d~ IJ1 ·= "l 11l fi' . .~i ... ~ .. I ... ·t'I! .. :14 w

1~n . ~; pJm Ii· i JJt!ii1" •ti! ti i1.t-li l.i 11'1 1-; ... I ~l.,.aJ

IJ ...... "' .... .;

11\11\ "° ...... .. ~ ~&\i r: ;; z .. .. .. • ..

~:Rtt:fl ~ ~ ~ i .. ? OJ_, ;._, ........

M " ·1 .. .... 0 s ~;!

- ! • :I

t :! .Pl

J ·:! ~ 1! 'W J '! l .... {~ J ... .! • s~ i ... It 8 3;

I J ! ... 11 & 2

t~t ·1·1 •• t i • J!..

11 .!1 ii Ji' • • • • ~ II\ ~ t:\ II\ ,...

• t 4' » ,..

J i • J ~1 ....

J ;u is ~ e .. "" Ii !§ ~

! -~i -

CAUNOAM !'AGI 70.~3 ' .352 1·15 MfNU'J'l~E -,\

.... • -~

I i § i I ,. ... ~ ...

~~ I t~

-

Tlble 1-1 (Coflt.)

~ll SPlU. P01ENTIAL

x

- . - •.•... • x •

-x "

x

,,, 100

·«"'-~' ., I

........ , ..... tlUl\ -

=~~---'-1 - ........ \.., ~ ............... ... :-· - wllltp!) ... ............. =-:u.ttr et • •u u ...... , ... ,....Ultr :l9 •-- ~r ....... ...... 111t)'' ia ril•• ... " -----· ~llity la na:ed ~· !nlpic:tloft pncU#I

su. er 8Plll ia ~ 111 . r.t neponeeJ ~ 19 itlt!glt9d by CleMUP

Q

<> 0

0 <> ~ ~

(Z-) 0

,•

I -, •)

(Z) x -) .

,., - 3l

(I) ~ ·' -

(1-) x

(l) x

~<Z) x 0 <:_, ) -

(ij-x

Mt- a Not tpplicabl• to the pcojeet. xC2) : Sl!JllfieMce or noldu•l 111ptiet9 cannot be deter11inedJ it la a· function of Ml\Y facton iwcludfog the aize of the apll.l. ti• of year,

.. naltivity or tha reeource•, re9P0n99 actlon,etc. r

-r:.'3) .~~n:y~(" future lafld UH confllcta riual ha- reaolved thr he local land use planning, p~ao. e

(J

0«

!'~ ,.,

' Q

(,;

c

0 '

E~.P,lanatory Note~:

EXHIBIT D

CEQA FINDINGS

These findings are 19de by the State Lands Commission pul:""suant. tu S6ction 15091-, Tit.le 14, Calif'.ornia Administratiue " Code, on the proposed San Jo11quin Ua1ley Pipeline Proj'ect EIR/EIS. All significant i~pacts of the project identified in-the EIR/EIS are listed for both the proposed project and ••ch­major alternatiue analyzed:

~ontr~ Lo.. Route collbination ~oute Three Booster Stations Alternatiue P~r Sources Alternat~u• Pipe Size Aqueduct ~rossing No Project

The impacts are organized according t~ the resource -,ffected (geology, visual. etc.). and the discussion states >het.her the impact is -due to pipeline construction, nor11al

operation' -upset condition or abandonment.

For ~ach significant impact, findings haue be3n made as appropriate~ For some ~f the impacts all thres findings haue been made:

1) Changes or alterations haue been required in, or incorS'orated ~nto, th_e project which avoid or substantially lessen the si~nificant enuironmental effect ~s identified in the final EIR.

2) such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not_ the agency making the finding. Such changes ha~e been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other ~gency.

3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigat'f.on measures or project alterna~iues identiried in the Final £IR.

Finding No. 1 is used extensively in this exhibit-because the applicant. i'n a letter dated February 9, 1987, amended their application to incorporate all but two of the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR/EIS. The remaining two

CMiNDAI PAGI

MINurtrAGf 354

-2-

measures haue been recommended for inclusion as conditio~s of project approu&l. The ref ore. the proj act has been mi ti'gat1.ad ·to the full extent recommended in the f~IR/EIS. Where 1"eiidual impacts remain significant. it is as a result of potential unforeseen euents (accidents) the risk of which cannot feasibl~ be further reduced.

Although the State Lands Commission is the CEQA Lead Agenc~. it has jurisdiction only ouer a small part of the route and. thus. has limited power to require mitigation. Hhenauer finding No. 2 occurs, agencies with jurisdiction over t~e location and/or operation of the pipeline haue been specified. It is these agencies. within their respectiue sp,heres ~t influence. w~ich would haue the ultimate responsi~~litie:' to adopt, implement and enforce the mitigation discussed. fill!ding No. 3 appears wheneuer an unavoidable significant imp\.,ct: has been identified and residual impact remains after appli~1at:;l.on of fil recommended mitigation. Du~ to the linear nature o'f the project, many such impacts haue been identified along the length of the pipeline.

This impact is always specifi~ally identified in the supporting discussions. The Stat.ement of Ouerriding Considerations, Appendix E, applies to all such unauoidable impacts. as requi~ed by Sections 15092 and 1509~, Title 14, California Administratiue Code.

The appropriate findings al"e followed by a narra·tic,e of facts supporting them. Whan possible, reference is made to & specifi.c (numbEired) mitigation measure pr~uented in the FEIR/EIS.

FINDING:

-3-

GEOJ.OGI~ ~~ARD

Rupture of the pipeline· during operati_on caused by seismic activity on the Concord Fault.

1)

3)

Changes or alterations haue been required in, or incorporated i·nto, the project which auoid er substantially lessen the =ignificant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

Specific economic, social, o~ other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterm;tiues identif·ied in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

The pipeline crosses a trace of the Concord Fault beneath the channel of Pacheco Creek. Although the unconsolidated material in Pacheco Creek presents less danger of rupture than bedr>ock biould> the estimated max'imum potential earthqyake (Ri·~hter 7, Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) IX or X) still represents a significant risk. Mitigation measures 4 &nd 64 require special geologic and engineering study and design of this portion of the pipeline to assure it is cons.trtu:t{id to meet the level of hazard present on the site. In addition. mit~gation 4 requires storage of spill containment equipment at the Marttnez Refinery. This measure will help. due to the proximity of the refinery to Pacheco Creek. to assure that any spill is responded to expeditiously. Specifically, the FEIR/EIS s·tates:

[4) As identified by geotechnical studies of the route, the major concern with respect to seismic haz&rds is with, the crossing of the Concord Fault under the Pacheco Creek. Because this actiue fault is so cl.ose to the refinery at Martinez, the proposed terminus of the pipelin3, it is essentially unavoidable by any alternate route. A geologi~ wiil examine the pipeline tr.en ch for ev~~9nce of faulting during the centerline survey and duri~ construction in this vicinity.

To mitigate potential damage to the pipeline and to minimize impacts in the event of a break or spill, th& ~es~gn of the pipeline will provide for later~l displ~cement of up to 30 feet, the maximu~ expected alon~ this fault. Various angineerin9 approaches Will be evaluated; ror example, an overhead crossing; or a ~ide,

70. 27 356 -

.•1 •n

-4-

shallow, loosely backfilled trench; or a tube-in-tube bored undercrossing. Each of these approaches requir~s the use of fle~ible. high-tensile-strength steel pipe. Depending upoh th~ angle at which the fault is crossed. prouisions -For- exten!lion or compression of the pipeline will be made. O~l spill containment equipment identified in the Qil Spill Contingency Plan will be ~tored near the fault at the refinery. See also measure ~64]. o Eff ectiueness: These engineering mea.'Sures will

reduce the probability of rupture in the euent of a ~remor or earth mouem~nt.

[64] on the billsis of the data on the maximum probable Modified Hercalli ~nt~nsities (~I) for the proposed pi~eline route, the ~ipeline will be designed to toxerate an r4MI of IX or X during its lifetime without rupturing.

o Effectiueness: This measure· will preuent -damage to the system from surficial seismic euents.

In combination, these measures substantially lessen the risk and consequences of a spill in this potentially hazardous and enuironmentally sensitive area. The applicant submitted a A, letter to the State Lands Commission cm February 9, 1987. which '9' amends their praject to include these mitigation measures.

The fEIR/EIS als9 recommends the inclusion of mitigation measure 7, (as explained in response 8~7. Finalizing Addendum). ~-t:iich would, require the in~tal~ation of a remotely-operated value upstream and a pressure sensitive check ualue on ~he d'Ownstrsam side of the creek in lic;lU of the proposed manually operated block ualues. Specifically. the fEIR/EIS states:

'" [7] The manually operated bl.'~ck ual~es at Pacheco Creek, which ouerlies a trace of , th~ concord Fault, will be automated to reduce shutoff tim~.

o Effectiueness-: This measure will reduce the size of a spill by the amount that LtJOuld spill between the time of detection and manual shutoff of the block ualues at this en1Jironment11ll-1 sensitiue location. A spill would still be significant.

This measure will reduce the ;iz<. of a spill by the -amount that would spill between the time of detection and, manual shutoff of the bloek ualues at this envil"o~mentally sensitive location. The state Lands Commission, therefore.

-5-

makes this measure a condition (sea lease condition No. 2, Oil Spi·11 Protection) of project approual. becatlse it ~ill substantially lessen the consequences of a spill.

The combination o'f mitigation ·measures out:ldned ab~1ve constitute prudent and reasonable eff'orts to reduce the ·rT'/ik and consequences of .an oil spill at Pacheco Creek. Thay 1&1:;fl:,l not, hcweuer, guarantee that such a spill will neuer fiapperi~ If' a spill does occur here, its ef'f'ects would be significant~: There are no alternatiue actions auail~ble which ~uad· eliminate these eff'ects, except ttie no action (no project) alternative (see Discussion of Alternatiues at the end of thi~ , exhibit). Therefore, the r.ommission also adopts the finding of overriding considerations in Exhibit E.. -

C.UfNDAR PACE

MINUllPACI I U.29

IMPACT:

FINDING:

-6-

GEOL{>GIC HAZARD

-1~ntense groundshaking during operation of the ~tg,.·age tank could cause i.nstability.

l) Changes or alterations haue beer:: U"equired in, or incorporated into, the proj·ect which auoid or substanti~lly lessen the significant

.enuironmental effect as identified in th~ final EI-R.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDtNG:

An 80,000 bar~el oil storage tank is p~~po~ed at mid-station in Kern Coun~y. The specific site for this storage taok is in an area which is potentially subject to intense groundshaking and has a high groundwater table which could lead to liquefaction. Such geologic hazards could create sA:abili'ty problems with the tank. To reduce the risk of su~h hazards Mitigation 5 would require a site specific soil mechanics study and special foundation and/or tank design. Specifically, the FEIR/EIS states:

[5] The 80,000-barrel storage tank at Mid station could be subject to intense ground shaking and t:he high t.i:ater table could lead to liquefaction during an earthquake. The tank will be built, foll~ing a soil mechanics study of the site, on a specially designed Foundation, if necessary, and/or the tank will be ~omp~rtmentalized to auoid sloshing of the contents, which damaged tanks during the Coalinga earthquake. The tank must ·be built to withs~and an earthquake of at least MMI VIII.

o Effectiueness: Proper design, of this particular storage tank will signif'icantl-y diminish the risk of a major oil spill due to a major seismic euent (MMI UI~I).

The applicant has, in a letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, amendeQ their application to incorpQrate i:his mi tigatiori measure. Therefore, tfle project, as ~nended, will substantially lessen the risk of damage to the tank ~.e to geologic hazards. The FEIR/EIS concludes that any residual impacts after such mitigation would be insigniFicant.

•

IMPACT:

FINDING:

-7-

SO!LS

Failure of rehabilitation and re~egetation due to ~vv!cvrated soil erosion or slumping in areas of steep terrain.

:l)

3)

Changes o~ alterations haue been required i'l1. or incorpo~ated into. the project which ac-oid or substantially lessen the significant enuironmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

Specific economic. social. or othor considarations m..'ke infeasible the mitigation measures or -proje~t alternatiues identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Construction of the pipeline ~ould cause significant impacts on soils if rehabilitation or reuegetation of di~turbed areas is preu~nte.c;l .£qr_ longer than one growing season. ~euegetat1on 'fforts ma1y f'ai~ due to soil ~rorion or slumping.

'i'he potential for accelersted eoil ewosion. which could occ,ur as sheet wash. r:!,lls. and gul.lies. exi~ts in all counties where pipeline co_nstruction disturbs the soi\ls and uege.tatiue couer on steep an~ moderately steep slopes. The impact is p~tentially significant when the ~oils ~re thin and reuegetation efforts may be only partially succ,~$.sful. ar where rapid runoff, ~dnd erosion. und evaporation compound the problem by remooing soil materia1s and creating'< unfauorable seedbed condi tidns . The pipeline will be 11.1arm~ and high permeability and euaporation will reduce soil moist11re in the trench area, especially on sloping sites. These conditions are unfauorable for pl'ant groiAJth. Horizon mixil'lg l'nay also exacerbate reuegetation problems.

Though the erodibility of' soils may uary somewh;..\t. in genera~. those areas along the proposed route where slope~ are mode~ately steep to uery steep (15~ slopes and greater) will be especi~lly susceptible to erosion problems. Also. slomping is a potential hazard on slopes greater than 15% where clay soils predominate. this impact potential ex1sts in Alameda and Contra Cost& counties. where the slopes are particularly steep (30% to 01,;er 5~) and significant slum.ping and erosion hazard' oe.CUi"S for seuet"'al llliles. Slumping soils and slope instability constitute a hazard to the c9nstruction work force. anti after

\ \

CAUNOAIPAGE

MINUTEMGI 7Q.~\J

360 '~

-8-

installation. 'to the pipeline.. especially on cut-and-f',\11 or benched sections of the right-of-way.

~s initially proposed, the Sar\1 Joaquin Vmlley Pipeline included spocific prouisions for soil conseruation plans. The FEIR/EIS recommended additional mitiga~ion measures (9, 10- 11, 12, 14, 15., 16, 65.; 66 and 67) to supp~ement: the soil cons&r~ation plans. These measures deal 1Uith: construction techn:tquca in landslide areas: trench fill material on ~lopes; runof'f control; seed mixtures; perman-ant drainage and ero~ion control; moni ~oring reuegetated sites; top soil segregation; long-term maint.enanc~; a.-.d, oil spills. Specifically, the FEIR.t,~IS states:

Projec.~ description measures are appropriate. giuen the commitment made to site-spflcific soil conseruation and

~ reuegetation criteria. Certain additional ~easures which need to be included are described· below. None of the measures w:ill be eff ectiue in and of themselues, but r-equire implementation on an as-needed b•sis •~cording to a site-specific conservation plan. Even under natur~l conditions, the groun~ uegetation couer (p~rcent couer&ge) will be incomplete and the erosion hazard high where bare soil is exposed.

[9] Construction of s~gments of the pipeline throu~h landslide-prone areas as identified on Table 4-2 Will be accomplished when the soils are dry to minimize the likelihood of triggering renewed sliding. The pipeline will be placed at a depth greater than the maximum depth of geologically recent sliding at all locations where su~h sliding is obserued during the centerline suruey.

·o Effectiue~: These measures will preuent ir.1pacts from landslides and ensure burial of the pipeline b~1ow any unstable ouerburde~.

[10] On steep slqpes the trench LtJill not be filled with unconsolidiated material that will dessicate due to heat and extrr.eme permeability, will resist reuegetation, and will llJ&sh out selectiuely, thus degrading the right-of-way and the surrounding en\:irors~ent at a fast r~~e. The soil conseruation plan wil~ require that reu~getatinn is s~tcessfully reestablished. PGrmanent mea$Ur'e~ may also ~ta required (see measure [14-] below). Froro arr.ong the $i tes identified in Table 4.-3 in Section 4.2.3 as dif'ficult to reuegetate, it is as-:Sumed that a residu&l impact with remain significa.it on all slo~es of 18% or more (see Table 6-1).

CAUNDMPAGE 7 Q • 32 MINUTE PAGI 3 61

0 Ef"fecti"eness: reduce impacts,, on steep slop9s.

-9-

Although this ~ill substantially the impact will remain significant

[11] Temporary svii erosion controiG will be implemented until reuegstation measures are ~pp.~ 1,i-ed during f;he proper seasonal period.

The potential f'or wat.er erosi,on is greatest fl"'om Nouember though April. Although disturbed areas or- tne route will haue li ttl~ potential f'or 0rosion f'roin late ·sp~"'ing to mid-Fall, ~dequate measures for control of runoff' should be in- place before the t-Jinter rains begin an·d prit.'r to beginning reuegetation. tn rfany areas, successful reuasetation will be contingent 4pon the adequacy af the erosion control measures implemented and these will be ccntinued until success is ~ss~red.

The SCS has de~elopecl standards and specifications for t.em?orary and permanent erosion/sedimentation control, sper.ifi~ally for tn"se regions of' California crossed by the pipei111e. 1·emporary soil erosion control structures are designed to temporarily control runoff until disturbed arefts haue become stabilized. Various temporary si:ru.~,tures, such as diversion dike$, irlterceptor dikes,,. per~.meter dikes, straw bai'l. dikes, interceptor swa~n. stone outlet structures, sediment b&sins, and sediment traps, a~e pruuen effectiue measures whon correctly implemented and madntai,ned. The,y will be in>plementect where and when necessary '~ indicated in the soil cons·eruat.i,on plan.

~~eding of rangeland areas can only be successT-ul in late ,fall to early Winter; October and November are th0 optimal montti.s.

o ~f'f'ectiuen~s.!.~ Reuegctation success is enhanced by seeding during October and Nouember, and by implementing soil oro~ion contrQls (tempora~y or permanent) ir1 advance of winter rains ant;t prior to reuegetation.

[ 12J Specialized recommendations for seed mix.tures &nd seed~ed preparation, which haue been d•u~loped and tested by the SCS, will be incorporated in the right-of'-way reuegeta~ion procedures. trasses ana seed mix applications recommended for rangeland reueget&tion in Kern. Kings, aod Fresno counties are listed in Table 6-2. Seeding recommendations for Merced,

70'.3l_ 362 -·

-10-

.Stanislaus. San Joaquin. Alameda. and Ct.· itra Costa ·counties are giuen in Tabla 6-3. Generally. it is recommended that 2.000 pounds of straw mulch be applied per acre to newly seeded r~ngeland/gr~ssland areas. A~cnium sulf'&te fertilizer $.hould also be applied. ili; 500 pounds per ~ere. Nati~e gr~ss mixtures which do nbt impact e>cis~ing communi ti·es lA\ill be ~pecifiad when required and where necessary to a'1oid impacts.

o Effectiueness: Site-specific reco~~ndations for right-of-UJay reuegetation will haue the highest qogree of success. The re~idual impact will be negligible when the right-of-way is returned to its original conditio" and pr~erly reuegetated.

[14] Seuerely destabilized areas will require long-term protectio~. Permanent drainage and erosion control structurea will be instaliled if' necessary; ex3mples are water bars, diuersions, protected drain out·l~ts. leual spreaders, or riprap. The stl'bilization ef'f'ort will be continuous until it is effectiue.

o f.ff'ectiueness: Measures will mitigate erosion-induced soil losses or extremely sensitiue, unstable sit~s by soil cons~ruation engineering practices. Residual long-term imp1;ct. t&Jill be insignif'icant.

[15] The soil conseruation plan will identify how and when monitoring of disturbed areas will be conducted and will identify nmnitoring criteria.

0 Ef'f'ectiueness: monito'ring of -difficult.

The measure will ensure eff ectiue areas where reuegetation will be

[16] Topsoil segregation from underlying soii materials and ret.!Jrn of the t..Q.esoil to the surface of the trench ~rea wi~l be practicea during construction of the entire route. Exceptions based on specific, unusual, or ~ohibitiue conditions will be identified in the soil conuersation plan. The to hallow la~er of topsoil. whic'h may be 10 inches or less f'or certain soils, and the presence of saline subsoils which can contaminate the topsoil require that the depth of topspiling be sp,cified in the soil c.::>nsaruation pl.rn. ihe plan will def':i.n~· the depth of topsoil to be ~onserued, taking into account the desireability of' preseruing root stock in areas couered by natiue ueg~tation.

-11-

o Ef'fectiueness: This measu~~ will reduce or eliminate reuegetation problems caused by changes in soil chemistry or characteristics by preventing mixing of soil mater;a1s. Topsoil conservation could reduce the requirement f'or purchasing seed or natiue planting material. No residual impact. ·

[65] Right-of-way maintenance will include erosion control and reuegetation as described in Section 6.1.2 (measures [9] to r 12]), where the uegetatiue couer is insufficient and erosion is euident.

o Ef'fectiueness: This measure will reduce significant scjil impacts to in~significant during operations.

{.66] The right-of-way will be maintained in per-petuity~ and m1tigation measures [65] Ll.ti.11 be applied as necessary.

o Eff'ecti~eness: This measure will avoid soil impacts auring abandonment when the pi~eline remains in the ground.

[67] Impacts on soils from an o±1 spill can be significan~ly reduced if, f'ollowing remoual of oil and highly contaminated soils, these soils are aerated by disc plollJing ,and/or harrctiJi.-ig to ensure that microbial actiuity arid oxidation de9rc:.de residual oils from the soils. Following thqrough and standard cleanup procedures, the soils will ile stabilized and reuegetated as previously described for post-construction.

0 Erfectiueness: These measures recouery ~ the soils, promote reduce the impact from a spill.

will acc~lerate new growth, and

The applicant has, in a letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, amended their application to incorpor-flte these mi.t:igation measures. Therefore, the project, ~s amended, will substantially lessen the significant ~duerse impacts to $Oils identified in the FE~R!EIS.

Howeuer, the VEIR/ElS does conclude that residual impacts will still be signif'icant euen with monitoring and continuous rehabilitation ~fforts. These areas will represent a long-term impac+' ir r"•regetation is not successful in the f'irst growing season, The residual impact will, howeuer, be limited. to the steepest slopes. Becav.se the Co"tra Loma alternatiue route trauerses less steep terrain, residual impacts there could be expected to be less, although still signific&nt (for a full

CAUNOAR PAGI

MINU11 PA<if

-12-

discussion of the Contra Loma Route, see Alternatives at tho end of this exhibit.). Th"s, the only alte ..:.iue that would elimin&te this impact is the no project ~lter1,atiu&. Because all routes LIJOUld haue significant residual impacts, the Commi~sion also ad.Dpts the finding oF overriding considerntion in Exhibit £.

_ fo!J 365 ..

0

\f .

IMPACT~

FINDING:

-13-

~~

Failure of rehabilitation and revegetation in areas of high soil salinity or alkalinity. ,

1) Changes or alterations haue been required in. or inc1)rpc;>rat~d into. the projeci; which auoid or s_t~~t~nlially lessen tfta sdgl'lifi~f}nt e:nuirunmental ~ect as identified in the, final £.IR.

F~c·~ SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Reuogetat.ic:m after corrstruction and during operation is diff'ictJlt in soilt> h~uing high s,~linity or alkalinity . .Standar-..i ~~ed/uegetation mixtures url.11 not establi'sh therrlselues­i:'\ sut"h S!>ils. Successff..•i 'reuegetation requires the us,e of' tolerLtnt plant species. If' re~egetation is unsucces,sf'ul, ~igniFitant soil ~rosion could result. As init~ally proposed. the Sa-n Joalquin Ualley Pipeline included proulsions r'Or soil cons~r~ation pl.ans. The FEIR/EIS recommended addition~l mit-igation measures (13. i-s and 16) 1:0 supplement the 'Soil comi~ervation p'hms. These meas1Jres deal 11.1i th: saline/alkali i:-olaPant $eed mixturas and vegetation; monitoring; and. top s-,11 sGi9re~lation. Specif'ic~lly. the FEIR/.EIS states:

[.1;3] $llli!le rangelicnd. and pasture soils encountered by the rout~ in arel!s of high wate?_r ti.ble will be r~ue,~.t<i\te{'{· with an· adapted species, such as salt grass (~,_,gJ:ic~~ se~). Dry saline-alk,ali soils can be se~tfed with any, '!.i~ the grasses listed in Tables 6-2 3.nd 6-3. with red brnms being the mo~t sa1t-tolerant.

The $oil conS'ervation plan will specify that Atriplex wi:il be res~ed~d wherauer it 1s remove!:!. Desert saltbush {~pl.ex polycare&> and California buckwheat (E.!::i9onum f'as~.!£!!~~) ara commercially ~yailable for restoring shrub areas and are deemed tQ be <>f ualue i.llS wildlife hai!d .. t,a,.t. Th~se plants ha'4te been, found by the SC'S to be hardy amt very suit:able spe..,ies ror reS\toring disturbed shrub areas.

SaJine soil materials will be r(!turned to ·the trench first and couered with topsail t\l. supply an ~ppr-opriate sub$trate for the planting mater~al.

o £-f+'ectiuaness Si.Jline soils will be dif"f,icult to r~uege~ate~ ·but can be s_i,un:es~ :=-ul'.J_y restored by

7 O' .. ~7 'f a&iHOAei'MOI MtNUTEPAG!, 366_ • F' ' .......

-14-

:onseruing top soil and by \.!egetation. Tho residual significant.

using impact

adapted na.t~ue ¢11 not be

[15] The so;il conseruaticm plan will identify how and when Aonitoring of disturbed are~.s will be conducted anq ~dli identify monitori~g criterie.

0 Ef'f' ec t:i.uenes s,: moni'toring of difficult.

The measure wil~ ensure erf ectiue areaz where reuegetation will be

[1.6] Topsoil segregation from undet-1ying ~oil matl!ri-als and return of' the topsoil to the surface of' the tre·nch area will be practiced during c'onstruction of the entire route. w..xceptions based en specific, unusual, or prohibi·tiue condi tiono will be identified in the soil conseruation plar,. The sh~llow layer of topsoil, which 11:1ay be 10 inches or less for certain soils. and the presence af sal1'1e subsoils which can contaminete the topsuil require that the d~pth, of topsoiling be speciried in the soil cohseruation plan. The plan ~ill defi~e the depth of to!)soi?.ing to be cot1serued. taking into account the desir-eabilit~ Qf preser~ir.g root stock in areas couered by r.atiue uegetati~n.

o Ef£ectiueness: This measure ~ill ·raduce or e·limin~te reuegetati,nn (Jroblem·s caused by changes in $Oil chemistry or characteristics by preuen~ing mixing of soil materials. Topsoil conseruation could reduc& the requirement for purchasin~ seed or

1natiue planting ,materi~l. No residual impact.

The MPlicant has.. in a letter dated February 9, 1987. amended their application to in.corporate these measures. Therefore~ the project, as amended, will avo::fp.,d or substantially lessen the- sign'if'icant aduerse impacts to saline/alkali ~oils 1de.1t±f1.ed in the FEIR/E-IS. The FEUUEIR concludes that: the residual impacts. after such mi tigc,1tion. 11.tould bo· insignifi~ant.

rifliOING:

-15-

SURFACE WATER

Leaks and spills from construction equipment cnt9 sur-face waters.

1) C'1anges or alterations tiaue ·been re(fuired in, or intorp9rated into, the proj ef.:t w;iich avoid or s~bst~ntially lessen1 the signif~cant enuironm~ntal effect as . ideirrtified in the fi'nal EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Leaks and spills of lubricating ol.1 or .equipmer-t fuel during construc~ion h!ould be small, bu'C ~ould be ~l.·gfi~cant if the,':f rC!ached surface waters, es;:>ecially flowing streams. The fEI\.VEIS contaiSls mit~gation measure i2 to eliminate th~~ impact. Specifically, the FEIRLEIG states:

[22] Fueling and lubrication of construction eqt.dpment will ocr.ur a~y f'rom aquatic ~-1abi tats. at least one-e.i·gth mile from ?ache co Creek, other flowing streams. c~nals, aqueducts. and riparian habitats. Any spil:ls will 'be .:leaned up.

0 Ef'f'ectiueness: This measure construct~Qn-related spill$ from resourcEis. No residual impac:-C.

will prevent impacting water

The applicant. in their initial application incorpo~ted this mitigation measure. Thererore. the project, as propoJed, t.idll a~oid &ny s1gniTicant aduerse effects to surf ace L&HWter due to constru~tion equipment refueling B$ identified in the FEIR/EIS. The FEIR/EIS tonclude$ that the residual i11pac.ts, after such mitigation. tiiould be insignificant.

CAUNDMPACE

MtNUTHAGE

IMPACT:

-Hi-

SURFACE WATER ·.

Accidents may cause oil spills which could reaich surface waters.

'l) Changes or alterRtions haue beeri required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant enuironmental effect as identified in the final CIR.

2) Such changes pr alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of ~nother public agency and not the agency ma~,iflg the finding. Such changes haue bean adfiPted by such other agency or can and should b~ edopt.d by such other agency (Department of Water Re~~urces and Bureau of Reclamation).

3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in t!ie firfal EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTI~~_:Jf.£ FINDING:

The maximum potential oil ~:ill data i1'.dicate a wide range of spill .;olumes. Ur.'<Jer th~- worst-case cc- 'lditions. small drainages and water cours~~ would be ouerwhelmed by these quantities of oil, and lar~er perennial streams and aqueducts would carry the oil many ~iles downstream. The most sensit::...Je of the larger watercourses are the aqueducts which transport water to locations hundrals of miles away. Water from the California Aquedu~t is treated prior to use for drinking water in ~hi- Central Valley. f\n oil spill reaching the aqueduct w~uld adversely affect water t~eatment equipment, resulting in a signiFicant adverse impact due to reduced drinking water supplios.

• Water quality will be degradp.~ by the more volatile

fractions of the oil going into solution. Depending, on. the flow characteristics at the time of the spills, oil coul1d be tf ncorporated into the sediment of the stream bottom so thp.t 1some oil would continue to be released after tre surface spili -~as initially cleaned up. Duration cf the water quality '~mpacts would probably be only a few weeks after the oil was cleaned up. particularly for larger streams ~ith a large enough flow tq dilute any oil remaining. This would depend on the time of the year >ind the uolume of 'flow in the inte~lllediite drainages.

·-

-17-

The only s~diment settling basin associated with the California ~~ueduct t:hat could be affected by the project, is Arroyo Passajaro. If an oil spill were to reach the basin, it might be contained on the surface long enough to be cleaned up. If not it could pass into ·the aqueduct and cause significant water quality degradation downstream. The likelihood of an oil spill occurring during a flood or sust:&ined storm of sufficient magnitude to transport oil from the pipel:Lne to the basin. a distance of 10 miles. is very small.

A catastrophic flood or release of ~ater. s'uc,,h a·s could occur if the spilll!Jays on the O'Neill ·f'oreliay and San Luis Reseruoir gaue way. coul~ nncouer and wash out sections of pipeline, and thus cause an oil spill. This impact is significant but improbable.

The rEIR/EIS recommends measures 7, 70 and 102 to mi ti-gate potential impacts to s~rfGce watero.. Mitigation measure 7 was preuiously discussed (see geologic hazards) and recommended for inclusion as a cond.ition i>f approual of" the State Lands Cornm:Usion lease. The inclusion of this measure could red,uce the amount of oil spilled into Pacheco Creek by more t_t,fin a factor of 3. Therefore, inclusion of this mitigat1.on will $Ubstantially, lessan the identified impact of such a spill on these surface waters (see Finding No. 1 aboue).

Similarly. the FEIR/EIS recomnnnds measure 70 to rrritigate impacts ·of a spill on the California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota Canal. This me~sure requires placement of ~emotely bpe~ated block values upstre&~ and pressure se~sitiue check ualues downstream at these locations (see W.!!sponse 8-7 in the Finalizing Addendum). This would minimize ghutoff time,, thus $Ubstcmtially lessening the adue~se impacts of such a spill. Specifical-~. the FEIR/EIS states:

[70] Atd:omatic block ualues will be inst~lled at the aboue-grwnd crossings of the 1::al,ifornia Aqueduct at Milepost 160 and the Delta Mendota Canal ~t 164. Th~ Oil Spill Contingency, Plan will be updated to prouide for containment equipment and personnel at s(trategic locations downstream. T~e equipment will include containment booms and sor~ent materials.

o Effe!:tiueness_: This measure will reduce oil spill impacts by minimizing shutoff anct containment 1:ime, thus ~educing impacts on wildlif.e and recreation at O'Neill Forebcy and on downstream water supplies.

~lo -U J

-18-

Mitigation measure 70 is not within the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission. The letter submitted by the Department of Water Resources, dated November 19, 1986., indicates their intention to require shutoff values at the aqueduct. They can and should require remotely operated values as recommended in mitigation 70. The Delta-Mendota Canal is within the jur~did:ion of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In their letter· of comment an the DEIR/EIS dated November 17, 1986, they made no comment about the Delta Mendota canal crossing. However·. in communication with Burea~ of Lan~ Management, staFf of the Bureau of Reclamation has indicated an intention to recommend such mitigation as a condition of approval. Si-rtce the San J'oaquin Valley Pipeline will involve the Bureau of Reclamation• s right-of-way and will require a permit,. the Bureau can and shculd impose mitigation measure 70 as a condition •oF approval. Therefo~e. the State Lands Commission finds that these agencies have jurisdiction and can and should require mitigation 70 as a part of their approua~ of the project (see Fi~ding #2 above).

Finally, the FEIR/EIS reconmends that measure 102 be implemented. This would m.&.tig_&~e1 the eff'ects of a spill by requ1r1ng an update of the :oi} Spi11 Contingency Plan to inclucte specific procedures &nd /equipment to protect critic al waterways, Specificai1y. the FEtR/EI~ $tates:

f J92J The Oil Spill Contingency Plan will be up~~ted to includ~ SR~cific proct...i'<:fures and equipment to be µsed to prevent o~i From entering the California Aqueduct or the San J'oaquin River in the event qf a major ob). spill. Specifically. additions to the ~~ntinqency plan wti1 include methods for preventing oil from enter~ng the Ca}ifornia Aqueduct bet~een Kettiemen City ~hd th~ O

1

Neill Foreb~y. a segme1;1t not pro,tec.ted by culverts or ouerchutes. ~h addition, the Oil Spill Contin~~ncy Plan .will in,~lude 'Jite-specif"ic detail of the cleantJp. methods and et..•~ipment; resources a1t risk; not.ificatiott procedures; and personnel res:;:>onse i terns for each crossing of th~ Cal~fornia Aqueduct and for the crossings of the following stre&ms:

Stream

Los Gatos Creek~ Salt Creek Panoche Creek Little Panoche Creek Ortigalita Creek

,Milepost

79·. 3 99.6

1.22.2 135.2

4 crossing! - 146. 9 - 148', 3

CAUNDAa PACit

MINUTE PACE

ZQ.42 371

Stream

Salt Creek Garzas Creek Orestiraba Creek Salado Creek Del Puerto Crleek Corral Hollow Creek ·Patterson Riln

-19-

Milepost

lSl.2 174. 7 119.4 187.4 192.S 210. 3 217.0

o Efifo,ctiueness: This measure, combined 1.oJi th miti~ation measure 79, will ensure that t ~ Oil Spill Contingency Plan is as thorough as reascmably poiSsible in limiting damage to sensi tiue resources f,rom a maj~r oil spill.

Th~ applicant, in a ietter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 198,?, amended their application to incorporate this mitigation measure. Th~:·efore, the project, as amended, will substantial~y lessen thi~ significant adverse impact to surface waters as identi.fied· ~n the FEIR/EIS (see Finding #1 aboue).

The combination of mitigation measures outlined above constitute prudent and reasonable effort'\\ to reduce the risk and consl!!quences of an oil spill in s.;.rfa~·;e waters. The~· will not, howeuer, guarantee that such a 1spili!. will never happen. If a spill does oceur, its effects would ~e significant. The 20 11 diameter pipe alternati.ue would reduce spill size, but not to a leuel of jns.i"::§nif:i:cance. There are no al ternatiues which would eliminate these effects, except the no project

'alternative. Therefore, fhe Commission also makes the finding of overriding considerations (#3 aboue and Exhibit 11 E11

f'ollowing) .

..

: 10:19 "372 -

IMPACT:

FINDING:

-20-

GROUNDWATER

Withdrawal of' hydrostatic test water 'from an ouerdraf'ted groundwater basin.

1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which an1o~d or substantially lessen the significant enuironmental ef'f'ect as identif'ied in the Final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

During construction, 63 acre-f'eet qf water will be used to )~!(dr.aulic;ally test the integrity of' the pipeline. This water will- be provided by water districts; whether it will be supplied 'from surf'ace or groundwater s~urces is presently unknown. It will be used repeatedly to test sectione of the pipe until all of' the line has ~een tested and the water is discharged. For comparison purposes, Kern County uses ouer 1 million acre-f'eet of' water- per year. Even in the west;ern portion of' Kern County along the proposed route, withdrawals of groundwater are 20, 000 acre-feet per year. Thus, the pl.anned 63 acre-Feet withdrawal does not represent a signif'icant impact on available groundwater su;>plies. However, the Kern County sub-basin is suoject to overdraft. If the hydrostatic test water is withdrawn 'from this sub-basin. a significant impact would result if the basin is not rechargeq.

The appl~cant, in a letter to ~he State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, amended their application such that they commit to using no groundwater 'from an ouerdraf'ted sub-basin unle·;s they are able to satisfy the affected water agency that no net oater loss will result. This commits the applicant to finping water elsewhere, or a~ranging a satisf'actory program of' basin recha~ge. Therefore, a~ amended, the project will avoid the potential signif'icant impact to an ouerdrafted groundwater identified in the FEIR/EIS ana there ~ill be no significant residual ef'fects.

. :.AUNIMIMQ

:t1UNUT1 PACI I .44

J..MPACl:

FINDING:

-21-

NOISE

Noise impacts construction.

on sensitive recept()rs during

1)

3)

Changes or alterations haue been req1:1ired in, or incorporated into·, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the ~ignificant environmental effect as identiFied in the Final EIR.

Sp9ci·fic economic. social. or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the 'final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Most of the pipeline is located in sparsely populated areas where the noise From construction equipment will not have a significant impact. Areas of six countie~. however, do contain sensitive receptors (homes, schools and recreation areas) which will experience significant noi.se imp~cts during the construction period· (see Table 4-13. FEIR/EIS). Although this is a tempora~y impact, the FEIR/EIS recommends that it be mitigated with measure #31. This measure would prohibit weekend construction, the time when the most people ~re at home or using recreation facilities. Specifically, the FEIR/EIS states:

(31) There will be no weekend construction in sensitive residential and recreation areas.

0 Ef"f'ectiveness: impacts when recreational Section 4.2.8, project.

This measure avoids/mitigates most people are at home or usirg

facilities. Table 4-13, in lists noise-sensitive areas for the

The applicant, in a letter to the State lands Commission dated February 9, 1987. amended their appli·cation to incorporate this mitigation measure. Therefore. the project, as amended, will subst~mtially lessen any significant aduerse effects from noise as i~~ntified in the FEIR/EIS.

The FEIR/EIS con~luded that the short-term. temporary residual noise impacts, aft~r mitigation, will st~ll oe significant. There are no altern~tives t~at will elimin~te

~HOM PAGE

MINUTINGE

70.45 374.

-22-

these impacts except the no project alternative {see discussion of Alternatives at the end of this exhibit). Therefore, the commission also adopts the finding of ouerriding considerations

in Exhibit E:.

CAUNOAIJAGI

MINUTl•AGI

70.46 375

\ I -23-)

( I

LAND USE AND RECREA.!!Qrf

IMPACT; Conflicts with adopted land use plans or future land use proposals.

FINDING: 1) Changes or- alterations have been required in. or incorp.orated into. the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant enuironmer.ta·l ef'fect as ident'i-fied in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPURTING THE FINDittJ.:;:

The proposed pipeline is generally ccmsistent with" the planning objectives in the eight county areas. The fact that 228 miles (88%) oF the proposed pipeline i,s aligned parallel and adjacent to existing rights-of-ways.. as well as. the Fact that it tri1uerses largely rl!ral land uses makes the project compatible 11.t.1ith mo~t adjacent land uses, Conf'licts tend to occur with adjacent recreational facilities and with urban land uses where growth has resulted in development.

The DEIR/EIS identified potential land use conflicts in Contra Costa County with the proposed Stoneman Park reservoir and the Kirker Pass and central landfill proposals ~s significant impacts. Since publication of' the draft EIR/EIS. minor realignments have been proposed by the applicant which resGlt•e those conf'licts (see responses #21-3 and #21-5 in the finalizing Adder.dum). In addition. the fEIR/EIS identifies numerous propc-sed residential developments north of' the alignment and proposed improuements to Highway 4 as other ~ources of conflict. The FEIR/EIS recommends miti~ation measure 37 which inuolues coordination of construction schedules and minor adjustments of' the final alignment during the locai planning and permitting process. Spec"ff'ically, the FEIR/EIS states:

[37] Potent:i.al land use conflicts. identif'ied in Tables 4-15 and 4-16:. will be resolved by fine-tuning of the final alignme•itt in coordination with local planning agencies and re9ional au .. horities and State and Federal agencies. ;:>articularly in rqlat:i.on to BLM l'ands. Bureau of Reclamatfbn lands. a"~ Contra Costa County's Black Diamond ~egione-1 Preserve. landfill· pr:!op1osills. and residential development proposals (see Table 4-15 for complete listing;).

o Ef'fectiveness; Signif'icant land use impacts will be au'oided by cciordinated planning and Fine-fa.ming of'

I

CAUNOAR PAGI

MINUTIMGE 376

-·24-

the final route alignment in these areas. The local land use planning process will resolve conflicts before issuing i:>ermi ts; hence, no residual impacts will remain ~hen the permits are issu~d.

Potential land ,use conf'licts with the proposed Coalinga Air Cargo Port in Fresno County were identif1ed in the FEIR/E!S-. The pipeline alignment does not cross this property, but borders 1t. If at some future date, exi:>ansion of this proposed facility were to be considered, the pipeline may present an impediment. As with Contra Costa County {above}, the FEIR/EIS recommends measure 37 to mitigate this impact. In addition, in a letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, the applicant amended their application to incorporate this mitigation measure. The ref ore, as amended, the proj'ect will avoid or substantially lessen "the adverse imp~cts from conflicting land uses as id2ntiried in the FEIR/iEl:S,. The FEIR/EIS conclud~s that there will be no significant residual impacts after such mitigation. -

e CALENDAR PACI

MlNU'.fl PACE LQ.48 -

377

•

IMPACT:

FINDING:

-2S-

LAND USE AND RECREATIQN.

Conflicts with existing recreation areas.

Changes or a:l,. terations have bee'n required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantia~ly lessen the signtficant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING: -The proposed pipeline will cross the western edge of the

Bethany Reservoir State Recreation Area. Pipeline construction will require approximately 2 acres of land now used exclusively for recreation. Similarly, the proposed route traverses the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve for less than, hal:f-a-mile. This preserve is a 3, 400 acre park with a well developed system of hiking trails. Construction cf the pipeline will require approximately 3.6 acres of land. The FEIR/EIS found these impacts to be significant and recommended measure ~7 to mitigate them. This measure (as fully described in the prior impact discussion) would invoive coordination of construction schedules and m~nor adjustments the alignment du:ing the local planning and permitting process. The appli.cant, in a letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, amended their application to i.ncorporate this me~sure. Therefore, as amended, the project will '~ubstantiallY lessen the adverse impacts from conflicting land uses adjacent to recreational areas as identified in the FEIR/EIS. The FEI-R/EIS concludes that there will be no significant residual impacts after such mitigation.

70.49 CAWtDAI PAGE

MINUTf PACI J78

IMPACTS:

FINDING:

-26-

UISUAL

Uisual contrast of right-of-way following construction-:·

1) Changes or alterations have 'been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substanti~lly lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

,The pipeline right-of-11Jay mostly traverses r~ngelands, and the potential for. significant i1npact exists for the short-term period during and shortly after construction. Pipeline constructia.n involues considerable disruption of the vegetation cover and so~l over an 80-foot-wide strip aJong the entire length, of the right-of-way. The exposure of the bare soil, including temporary stockpiling of soil and equipment storage, createc a strong contrast 11.1i th the existing visual landscape along most of the rcute. Less visual contrast occurs 11Jhere soil disturbance already' exists because of agricultural activities, existing roads and power line corridors., oil fields,. 9. and oth3r activities. The construction of' the pipeline 11Jill have the most visual contrast during and shortly after constructio~ when soil and vegetation disturbances are greatest. These i~pacts are potentially significant oniy along parts of Segment 4 of the proposed alignment.

The fEIR/EIS recommends a number of measures 'to mitigate these impacts. These measures ( 11, 15. 40 and 41) involve: erosion control after site restoration; long-term mor.itoring of revegetation to assure success; use cf grasses that are visually similar to adjacent ground cover; and.. avoidance of large trees to the extent feasible. Specifically, the FEIR/EIS states:

[Ll] Temporary soil erosion controls will be implemented until reuegetation measures are applied during the proper ~~asonal period.

The poten~ial for water erosion is greatest from November through April. Although disturbed areas of the route will have little pot'ential for erosion from late Spring to mid-Fall, adequa~~ measures for control of runoff should be in place betbre the Winter rains begin and p~ior to beginning reveg~tation. In many ~reas.

70.so \':l\UNDAl PACtl

MINtn~~AGI 379

--.

-27'-

s~c_;;assful r~\•egetation wil'l be contingen~ upon the a¢equacy of tfie eros1on control ~~asures implemente~ and the!?-e will be continued until success is assured.

'!:h"'I SCS has developed standards and specifi.cations for temporary and perm~nent erosion/sedimentation control, specifically f:or t:hose reg-ions of California ·crossed by the pipel~ne. Tempor&ry soil erosion control structures are designed to temporarily control _ unoff until ~isturbed a~eas haue become stab~lized. Various

,temporary structures, ~uch as diversion dikes, interceptor dikes, perimet~!!' dikes, straw __ b~il dikes, interceptor swale$ 1 stone outlet structures, sediment basins, and sediment traps, a·re proven ef'f ecti~e meo;isures when correctly implemented and 1naintained. They will be implemented where and when necessary as i;;,iicated in the soil conservation p!an.

Seeding of rangeland areas can ~nly be successful in late fall to early Winter; October and November ar.e the optimal months.

Effectiveness: Reuegetation success is enhanced by seeding ~ during oc·tober and N<>uember, and by implementing soil erosion controls (~emporary or permanent) in advance of'. Winter rains anti prior to revegetation·.

[lSJ The soil conservation pla~ l.\)ijl identif!.' how and when monitoring of- disturbe~ areas .will be conduct'!_d and' will identify monitoring criteria.

o Effectiuen~:~: ihe measure will ensure effective monitoring of areas where reuegetation ~ill be diff'icult.

[40] All cleared areas of the pipeline right-of-way and building or microwave tower areas will be reuegetated immedia'.tely after completion of construction ac~ording to a soil conservation plan (see mitigation measure [9]). Grasses that are similar to the adjacent vegeta.tion cover will be used where possible to ensure that the created uisual pathway will blend as much as possible into ·the surrounding landscape.

o Effectiveness: The residual impact of the visual intrusion will be insignificant for the right-of-way.

[41] Oaks, cottonwoods, and other lar_ge- trees will not be removed if this can be avoided by ·minor re~lignment.

70.51 CAUNDAI PAGI

MINUTEPMiE 380

-28-

If trees must be remoued, similar tr£.a types will be planted in place, except on the 30-foot right-of-way, which will remain clear of woody growth for the life of' the project. Minor deuiations of" the right-of-way will auoid large 1.ds_ually important ·trees, such as oaks. and tree clusters. The soil within the root zone of these trees will not be disturbed.

o Effectiuenet~s: Replanting with native oaks has not been very eff"ectiue in the past in California. T-hus. avoiclance of oak trees is the most effectiue means of m:fltigation.

Implementat:ion c.1f these measures will help to minimize the length of time th~ visual impacts persist. The success"of s.uch efforts are evident where existing pipelir1e rights-or-way are well-reuegetated and fully integrated visually into the surrounding. landscape. The applicant, in a, letter to the State Lands Commission da~ed February 9, 1987, amended their application to incorpoll'~te th~se measures. Therefore, the

•

project as amended, Wi:•U auoid or substantially lessen ~-he aduerse uisu&l impacts ~If pipeline construction as identifie.~ in the FEIR/EIS,. The fE';tR/EIS concludes that there will be no significant !"esidual impac1ts a'fter such· mitigation. e

CAUlllCMI PAGi

MIN~PACif

7q.s2 361

IMPACT:

FINDING:

-29-

VISUAL

Visual contrast of ancillary ~acilities such as booster stations and microwaue towers.

1)

2)

3)

Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EtR. ,

Such changes or alteratiQns are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and sho~ld be a~opted by such other agency. (Counties of: Fresno, Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin).

Specific econnrnic, social, or other con5iderations make infeasible the mitigation measuras or project alternatives identified in the final -EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

The construction of new towers, new boo~~!lr stations, access roads, and power lines will result in v~sual contrasts. These ancillar>y facilities will have long-term impacts on the visual landscape. The impact d~pends ·on the type of feature and the nature of the surrounding visual landscape. These impacts are identified in Table 4-22 of the FEIR/EIS. Measure 39 is recommended as a supplement to the mitigations initially proposed by the applicant. This measure requires: 1) consideration of minor relocations of booster stations SJV-2b and SJV-3b; 2) use of the three station (SJV 2, 3 and 4) alternative since it would have somewhat less of a visual impact; or, 3) if those are infeasible, preparation of landscaping plans to screen SJU-2b and 3b. Specifically,, the FEIR/EIS states:

[39] Siting requirements and visual impacts fpr booster station SJV-2b and microwave tower No. 8, and for booster station SJU-3b and microwave tower No. 1 i, ,will be carefully reviewed in reiation to SJV-4, which has a better location in regard to visual resource~,. SJV-2b would be better sited near Little Panoche Road to place the station ~rid microwave tower No. 8 in the background. SJU-3b and microwave tower No. 11 are located near the

CAUNDARf'Mll

MINUTI PACil

70.53 382

-30-

Westley Rest Stop Parle. which is the most widely used res·i: stop in the regicm; :consideration will be given to relocating SJU-3b and its microwave tower. S3V-~ has only a moderately significant impact. If relocation is not feasible, a site-speciric landscaping plan will be prepared for SJV-2b and SJV-3b to provide screening and/or blend the stations with their surrounding.

CJ Ef"fectivenes: The residual impact will be reduced but will remain significant.

The applicant. in letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987. amended their application to incorporate measure 39. Therefore, the project. as amended, will substantially lesse,n the visual impacts of the ancillary facilities as iden~~fied in the FEIR/EIS.

The FEIR/EIS concludes that. "construction and operation of booster stations SJV-2, SJV-3 and SJV-4 and associated microwave towers will have less impact on visual resources than booster station SJU-3b, which is part o.f the proposed action ... " As noted above. consideration of the 3 station alternative is built into mitigation 39. The ·three station alternatiua is outside of th.a jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission. Thus, al though the three station al.ternatiue is judged to be better than the proposed action it still results in significant impacts and either action (proposed or alternative) would result iu significant residual impacts after mitigation. nesponsible a~encies: Fresno County (SJV-zb) and St:tnislaus County (SJV-3b); and Fresno· County (SJU-2) 1 Merced County (SJV-3) and San J\Jaquin County (SJV-4) should take these factoi....,, into consider~tion during their" permitting prc;cesses (see f~nding No. 2 above).

In any event. since significant r~sidual impacts will result from any combination of alternatives (see discussio~ of Alternatives f't the end of this exhibit) and -mitigation~- ,except the no project altern&tiue, the Commiss~n also adopf~ the finding of overriding considerations in Ex hi.bit E.

CAl.ENDAR PACI

MINUTE PAGE

JLJ.~4

383

-31-

f_ALEONTOLOGV IMPACT:

FINDING; Loss or disturban<:.e or signif'icant paieontological resources.

1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid ar substantially lessen the signif'icant environmental ef'f'ect as identif'ied in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

In <1reas of' known paleontological resources within the right-of'--way and on sites designated for ancillary Facilities, trenching or grading during construction may result in direct deetruction of' most fossils within the excavated portion and may result in the loss of' geologic conte:<t, which is used to aetermin& the a·ge and signif'icance of' the resource. U$hicle traf'f'ic may have similar ef'f'ecto on near-surf'ace resources. Construction of' buildings, pavfng, and backf'illing may prevent Future access and scientif'ic inuestigation. Indiract impacts of' unauthorized collecting of' vertebrate fossils could occur or be increased by drawing attention to the presence and location of Yertsbrate ·Fossils.

The p~oposed route crosses or cofues uery close to approdmately 10 recorded fossU-producin9 localities. N1>arly 100 uertebrate localities are recorded within 1 mile of' the proposed route. Project impacts on known localities vary from signif'icant to inconsequential. In most cases-, impacts are expected to be insignif':!cant. For the remaining cases • the FEIR/EIS recommended measures 44 and 45 to supplement those proposed by the apPlicant in the initial application. These measures would mitigate impacts by requiring: monitoring of' sensitive locations during trenching; and, requiring resource locations be kept conf'idential to preuent unauthorized collection. Specif'ically, the FcIR/E!S states:

[44] Direct construction impacts to paleontological resources will be mitigated by the f'ollo~ing procedures;

a) Monitoring of' ditching within areas assessed to have high or uery high paleontologic impac't significance aS shown on Tabl9 4--23 Will be done by an approued v~~tebrat~ paleontQlogist.

b) Any uertebrate fossil• discouered during Project construction, by persom!el involved in cori~t~uction

. C4lfNOAR PACE

AUNUlf'AGE - 7 0. 55 3'84 -

or other project actiu~ties, within areas, will be repor-ted immediately to paleontologist for assessment of recommended mitigation.

unmonitored the approued

value and

c) The approved paleontologist will be empower to halt temporarily or redirect project construction in the euent that (1) unforeseen concer.-t.rat.:ions of vertebrate fossils assessed to have unusually high importance (as judged by the criteria in Appendix F) are revealed; and (2) such interruption wirl auoid further damage t.:o the specimens. sufficient time will be allowed for consultation with the authorizing agencies regarding mitigation.

o Effectiueness: These measures will minimize loss of the •cientific value of paleontological resources and improue knowledge of their distribution.

[45] Indirect impacts due to unauthorized colleetion will be minimized by imposing confidentiality regarding the existence or location of fossil localities.

0 Effectiueness: This measure will reduce the potential for irretrievable losses in case significant paleontological resources are identified.

The applicant. in a letter to the State L~nds Commission dated February 9. 1987, amended their arplication to incorporate these measures. Therefore, the project, as amended, will avoid or substec.ntially lessen the impacts t9 paleontological resources idantified in ~he FEIR/EIS. The FEIR/EIS concludes that there will be no significant residual impacts after such mitigation.

<:mNO.UPAGI ~ MINUTE PAGE 3 8 5 -_,

IMPACT:

FINOING:

-33-

CULTURAL RESOURCES

loss or ~~sturbance of ~ites elig4bls for the National Re~ister of Historic Places (NRHP).

1) Changes or alterations have, ber:m required in. or incorporated into. the project whit:h avoid ot substantially lessen the significant environmental eff sct as identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Cultural resources that could be impac·ted by the proposed project include archaeological and historic sites tha~ are located in areas which would be directly (pipeline right-of-LI.lay) or indirectly affected by project constructiol"T and facilities operation.

A fie.ld survey was conducted to identify any potential cult~ral resource sites. Initial results indicate little potential for disturbance of significant ,cultural resources (maximum of 3 sites). Ho1:1euer. the results of th1s effo..-t ha1,;e not been fully aualuated by appropriate agencies. Pending the ~onclusions of that review and possitile unexpected discovery of resources tho FEIR/EIS recor11mended mitigation measut ... es 48 and 49. These measures will assur~, that construct1on activities proceed in full consideration ~f potential impacts to cultural re~ource~ by assuring compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and ma~ing prov~sions for unexpected discoveries. Specifically, the FEIR/EIS states:

[48] Suffi~ient information was obtained at the time of survey ,to determine whether sites are potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Criteria for determining NRHP eliligibility are found in 36 CFR 60.4. Limite,d testing of subsurface deposits may be needed for the singl~ site identified during the field identification program. The report documenting results of the field identif'ication proqram and evaluating significance has not been reviewed and accepted by the appr=~priate agencies. For 'this reason, it is premature to identify specific mitigatio~ measures that will be applied to the identified· cultural resources. However. the Memorandui:n· of Agreement requires adequate treatment of sites ~valuated to be significant (i.e., eligible for listing on the NRHP). and provides a process ·to accomplish this.

CAlENDAI PACE

MINUTIPAGE

70.57

-34-

o Effecti·veness: These actions, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, wiJ.l ensure that the effects "f pipeline construction and operation on cultural resources are fully considered, as required by law.

[49) If uncouered competent site.

previously undiscovered cultural resour~es are during construction, work will stop and a

archaeologist will be called in to eualuate the

o Effectiveness: This measure will reduce tmp~cts in areas of low $ensitiuity (such as agricultural fields) which will not be surueyed in detail.

The applicant. in a letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, amended their application to incorporate these measures. Therefore, the protect, as amended will avoid or substantially ~essen impacts to cultural re~ources as identified in the FEIR/EIS. The FEIR/EIS concludes that there will be no significant residual impacts after such mitigation.

CAL!NOAR PAGE

MINUff PACE

/Q.sa 387.

IMPACT:

FINDING:

-35-

TERRF.STRIAL AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY

Loss or disturbance of biological communities of concern due to construction.

l) Cha11,ges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the sjgnificant environment~l effect as identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Clearing and grading of the right-of-1A1ay will cause short-term and long-term loss and disturbance to existing natural communit~es. The FEIR/EIS found construction could result in s·igni'ficant adverse impacts to Four biological communities of concern: uernal pools; riparian corridors; wetlands; and, oak savannah. In addition, significant impacts were also found in areas of alk~~i sink and saltbush scrub due to the slow process of revegetation by woody species caused by climatic ~nd soil conditions. In general, direct impacts tn i.uildlif'e were f'ound to be insignific..ant because many animal species would be expected to quickly repop~late the construction corridor following restoration. To fac:llitate the recouery process the FEIR/EIS recommends measures 56, 57 and 5& to supplement those initially proposed by the applicant. These­measur~.~ would mitigate impacts related to: uehicular use of the right-of-way,; unauthorized collection oF plants and animals; avoiding raptor nests; and special ~euegetation/construction techniques For areas of native vegetation. Specifically, the FE~R/EIS states:

[56] Unauthorized vehicle operation on the right-of-way will be prohibited by appropriate signs and gates. Authorized use ~ill be subject to a low speed limit ( 15 mph). Illega\l plant and animal collections I/Jill not be permitted as e .. 11forcE-d by current laws and appropriate signs.

o Eff"ectiveness: These- measures will reduce the chance of signir~cant impacts (incide-ntal mortality) on rare or relatively rar~ species.

(57] No construction will occur within one-half mile or an actiue raptor nest during nesting se~sons~and no nests W;i.11 'be disturbed. Construction may proceed near i"actiue nests (see [52 f] above).

CAUNDU PAGE

MIN&.ITE PACE

70.sg 388

-36-

o Ef'f'ec-t.iveness: This measure, will ensure that nesting,i bir.ds of prey and/or H1eir nesting sites are not disiturbed. The r~sfdual impact on raptors is not sigr\\ificant.

[58] The stte-specific soil conservation plan (see mitigation measure [9]) will specify special revegetation measures For areas covered by native vegetation (see Table 3-30), such a~ alkali sink and saltbush scrub, using such techniques as preserving root stock and prop~gation with native plaut materials. Rangel&nds wi~ll be. reuegetated with approu:ild grass f!1i>e~ures. The plan will identif'y the depth of topsoil to be segre~~te~ and "'Placed during trenchin~ in order to · 0nhance revegetation success in thesib areas, particularl·g in the area ouer ~he pipeline.

During construction in alkali scrub areas, right-of-wa)f clearing will be limited to trimming and Grushing whenever possible. The right•;.of-way will ·be 19cated adjacent to existing ~isturbed ~reas {e.g., roads) where possible. These measures wilU redtice the amount of vegetation remt>ved· as well as ·reduce erosion p9t~r1t:ial, and will enhance re couer~ by ""t disturbing root sysl:l1ms • • j)

o Ef~ectiveness: This measure will reduce i~~acts associated with the tempo~a~ loss of habitat to an insignificant leuel in grassland area$. Al~ali scrub will resprout after corstruction and expedite habitat · recouery on the right-of'-w~y, thus reducing temporary loss of habitat to an insignificant level. Where oak trees are remouec:l·, rer.ieget?&t~on Wi·ll not fully restore habitat to prec:onstruct~'bn condi~ions. This represents a significant imp•t.:t. Cattle would ne.ad to be excluded From grazing 'the seedlings. Avoidance o~ the trees is the ,ftwst appropriate mitigation measure. ·

The applicant, in a letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, amended their application to incorporate the.se measures. There'fore, the project, as amended will a~oid or substantially lessen the impacts on general communi'ties and wildlife as identi'fied in the FEIR/EIS. T~e FEIR/EIS concludes that there would be no significant residual impacts tp biological communities of concern after such miti~ation,

e CAUNDAIPAGC - 7 Q • 60 ., MINUTI MGI 3 8 S

IMPACT:

FINDING:

-37-

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY

Disturbance of special status plant and animal species caused by construction.

1) Changes or alterations haue been required in, or incorporated into, the project which auoid or substantially lessen the ~ignificant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Construction actiuities could cause direct or (·ndirect mortality or a loss of habitat for a uariet~ of plant and animal species consi~ered to be rare, threatened, ~ndangered or otherwise requiring extremely careful treatment .due to their sensitiu:ity and/or cri'tically small populations. The pipeline and the ancillary facility sites were extensively surveyed to determine the presence or potential prescmce of such special status plants or animals. {Note: the field survey for plants will be suppl~mented with a spring survey to comprehensively ~~certain impacts to some plants.) Pipeline construction could r~sult in significant impacts or potentially significant impacts to special status species including th~: 9iant fiddleneck, Crampton's tuctoria, the delta co~ota thistle, furcate fiddleneck; California jewel flower; Congdon's eatonella; ~ern mallow; «oouer's wooly star; beard~d allocar~a; caper-fruited tropiocarpum; San 3oaquin kit fox; blunt-nosed leopard lizard; San Joaquin antelope squirrel; salt marsh harvest mouse; Tipton' s kangaroo rat; and, t:he Giant kangaroo rat.

The FEIR/EIS recommended measures SS, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 to supplement those initially proposed by the applicant (see prior impact discussion for a detailed description of 56, 57 and 58). These measures, in combination with those identified in the U.S. Fisl1 and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Biological Opinions would: mitigate for long-term loss of habitat; restrict vehicul'ar use in the right-of-way; pr,ohibit unauthorized plant or animal collection; require sp~cial reuegetation measures; avoid kit fox den sites; provide special restoration measures at Pacheco Creek; and, avoid wetlands and vernal pools. Specifically, the FEIR/EIS state~:

[SS] Mitigation fo~ the l~~~-term loss of hQbitat {due to facility siting and right-of-way maintenance) will consist either of the im~rovement of marginal habitat o~

70.61 CAUNOAaMGI

MINtn'IPAGI 390

-38-

areas adjacent to the pipeline or the purchase of conservation easements along the corridor in areas that may be under the threat of" agricultural conuersion and which are currently occupied .by listed or candidate species. Exact areas and acreages will be determined in consultation with USFWS. CDFG. SLC and the applicant.

o Ef"f"ectiueness: This measure compensates effectiuely for any long-term· habitat impacts on special status species. It does not mitigate the impact of the loss of trees~ if any, unless special prouisions were to include this element in the agreements.

[59] Because the Tipton kangaroo rat inhabits alkali sink habitat, it will be reuegetated with characteristic natiue plants. Specific details, including a schedule for monitoring to assure revegetation success, will be developed in the soil conservation plan.

o Effectiueness: This measure will reduce impacts on this sensitive species. (See effectiveness of measures 57 and 58 abouo.

[60] The pipeline alignment will be fine-tuned to avoid potential San Joaquin kit fox dens in the Tollowing locations:

Milapost

18.2 58.3

. 67 .9 84.9 87.8 89.6

120.0 135.8-136.0 142.2 178.3

Proposed Realignment

70 feet to east 26 feet to w~st 60 feet to east 50 feet to eas-.t 70 feet to west 50 feet to west 10 feet to wes·t 70 feat to west 20 feet to west

130 feet to west

The construction right-of-way will be reduced to SO feet in these areas. If these potential den sites cannot be avoided, identified den sites will be monitored immediately prior to construction to determine if they are active. If they are, construction wi~l be delayeq ~n that location until foxes reloc,P1te·.

· CAUNOAIPAGI 7 Q • 62 MINUTE PAGE 3 91

0

•

-39-

E'f,'f'ectiuenes_s: This measure will reduce direct RU>\1ttality impacts on this special status species to in;;ignificant:.

[61] The soil conseruation ·plan will prouide for restoring ~he preuai~ling hydrology and topography at the Pacheco Creek crossing and ror reuegetation with pickleweed arid other salt-tolerant plants characteristic of this habitat.

o Effectiueness: This material will reduce impacts on brackish marsh and specif"ically on the salt marsh harvest mouse, a special status species.

[62] Realignment of the pipeline at mileposts 40. 5 to 40.9 about 800 f'eet to the west to auoid a high quality wetland, and at milepo~t 227 to auoid a vernal pool.

o Effectiveness: This measure will eliminate signi;icant impacts on this important habitat.

Also, through lease condition No. l, State lands Commission assures that the necessary botanical surueys will be completed to the satisf"action of USFWS and CDFG·

The applicant, in a letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, amended their application to incorporate these measures. Therefore, this project, as amended will avoid or substantial~y lessen the impacts to special status species identified in the FEIR/EIS. Tho FEIR/EIS concludes that there would be no significant residual impacts to special status spacies after mitigations contained' in this document and the ~io-opinions (U,SFHS and CO'FG) were implemented.

CAUNDARPA~E

MINU1'1P~

70.63

IMPACT:

FINDING:

•

-40-

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY

Oil spill im~a~t on habitat of special status species.

1)

3)

Changes or alterations haue been required, in, or incorporated into~ the project which auoid or substantially Iessen thG significant enuironmental effect ~s identified in the final f.IR.

Specifi~ economic, soci~l. or other consider. ~tions make infeasible the 111itigation measures' or project al ternatiues identified in the fin!'".. -EIR .•

FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING:

Although the probability of a major oil spill is u~ry small, "t-T it were to occur, it would sicjnificantly affe~t: terrestrial and aquatic resources on a short-term basis and <:ould also cause significant impacts in the long-ter-m. Vegetation will be destroyed. Animal mortality wili occur, and animal life will be d;splaced or lost at least in the short-te1"m. Any loss of special st.atus plants and animal'S or their critical habitat would be significant. The extent and magnitude of the impact is dependent\ on t~ uolume and location of the spill and the response time and cleanup techniques employed.

Special status uegetation and the uegetation of sp_ecial areas are stationary and cannot auoid the impact of a spill. The special status wildlife species inclurte uarious burrowing animals. Oil will fill the burrows and tr~p these animals and their young, ·allowing no room for escape (San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin anb1lope squirrel, and candidate speci,es like the Tipton 5 s kangaroo ·rat and San Joaquin pocket mouse). The impact would be significant, especially wh~re a spill is sufficiently large to impact seueral special status species al'1~/or special habitats. such as brackish marsh and riparian communities. A major spill at or near stream crossings could cause signiricant impacts whether or not a str,,am were fl.owing at the time.

In order to reduce the risk or spills uarious mitigations .a1ere incorporattid into the initial application and are discussed in the set:tions of the FEIR/EIS dealing with S?Jstelt Safe'ty and Reliability and Oil Spills. In addition, to cl~al with the specific consequ9nces of a spill affecting the special

-41-

status species and their habitat, the fEll/ElS r~cOlllMtnd•d measures 78 and 79. These entail: notification of, •nd consultation with USF~S and CDFG in th• event of a spill; and, updating the Oil Spill Contingency 'l•n to at!ur• ~uick response to spills in areas of critical habitat. Spte~fically, the FEIR/EIS states:

[78] In the euent of extensive Mintenanc• ~ rep•ir work or a spill in or near special 1tatu1 tpe~t•s habitat shown on Table 4-26, thJ USFWS- and COFG will b• notified so that they can identif1 any special re~uire .. r.tt.

o E~fecti~eness: This .. atura will atsist in t~e development of app~opri•t• •it19atioft to reduce possible spill i•pacts to sp•ti•l status tp•ci•I but does not eliminate th• potential for incidental mortality in ad~ance of ex~ensiv• pipelin• right-of-way maint•nance.

[79j The Oil Spill Contingency Plan will be updated to include specific measures to pro.,,id• for quick response to spills in or near special status species habitat. The goal will be response and initial containment within 4 hours of identification of a spill by the Anaheim spill center. The Oil Spill Contingency Plan will require that the USFWS .and CDFG be notified in11tediately of spiils in or near endangered species habitats to afford· the opportunity for consultation.

o Eff'ectiunesss: Although this measure will minimize signif'icant Jmpacts on sensi tiue habitats. the impact of an oil spill will remain signifi~ant.

The applicant, in a letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9 19e7, amended their application to incorporate these measures. Therefore. the project as amended. will sub$tantially lessen the impacts of a spill on special status species as identified in the FEIR/EIS.

The combination of mitigation measures outlined aboue constitute· prudent anJ reasonable efforts to reduce the impacts of a ~pill on special status species. These measures will not, howeuer. guarantee that such a spill will neuer happen.. If a spill does occur and dQes affect special status species~ the impacts would be significant. There are no alternatiues auailable which would eliminate these effects except the no project alternatiue (see discussion of Alternative$ at the end, 9f this exhibit). Therefore. the Connission ~lso adopts the finding of ouerriding considerations in Exhibit E.

IM';>ACT:

FINDING:

-42-

SYSTEM SAFETY AND RELIABILITY

Fires a~ booster stations.

1)

3)

Changes or alterations haue been required in, or incorporated into, the project which auoic:f or substantially lessen the significant enuironmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeas~ble the mitigation measures or project alternatiues identified in the fin&l EIR.

FACTS SUPPOR~ING THE FINDING:

The FEIB/EIS concluded that with the exception of fire control, the project, as proposed, has incorporated adequate system safety measures. Fire presents the only hazard for which new mitigation measures were proposed. The FEIR/EIS recommends measures 85, 86 and 87 to deal with this hazard. These measures would: require fire breaks at station sites; prouide fire specific fighting equipment at station sites; and, require natural gas leak detection deuices in all turbine en~losures. Specifically, the FEIR/EIS states:

[85] A fire break of at lea$t 25 feet will be kept free of uegetation on the periphery of the station.

o Efrectiueness: The risk of a weed fire setting fire to the station ~ill b~ reduced.

[86] In order to prouide effectiue fire protection at the ~ooster/injection stations in the ~uent of a brush or weed fire. firef"i..ghting equipment will be stored at each station, inclu~ing portable fire extinguishers for outdoor use, and shouels. Wa·cer will be auailable at each of the sites, and a 4-inch gravel bed will be installed in and around turbines and pumps f"or additional fire protection.

o Ef"fectiueness: The additional equipment will provide effectiue fire protection against brush or weed fires near the booster stations. thereby minimizing potential damage to the station or pump~. No significant residual effect.

•

-43-

[S?J Natural gas leak detection deuices will .be installed at all pump stations in the turbine enclosures.

o Effectiueness: This measure will reduce the potential for explosi~n du~ to natural gas leaks to an insignificont leuel.

The applicant, in a letter to thl9 ·state Lands Commission dated February 9, 1987, amended their apploication t;o incorporate these measures. Therefore, as amended, the project will substantjally lessen ti1e impacts due to system safety and reliability identified in the FEIR/EIS.

The combination of mitigation measures outlined above constitute prudent and reasonable ef,forts to reduce the risk and consequences of fires at the booster station sites. They ~~11 not, howe\ler, guarantee that fires wil}L neuer happen. If a fire does occur its effects may be siqnif~cant. •here are no alternatiu& actions auai-lable which would eliminate ·· these effects, except the no proje,ct alternative (see discussion of Alternatives at the end of this exhibit). Therefore, the Comm~ssion also adopts the finding of overriding conside~ations in Exhibit E.

CAUNDAIPAGI

MINUUPAGI

7Q.67

IMPACT:

f!Qll:

·-44-

OIL SPILL POTENTIAL

Oil spills during operation.

The FEIR/EIS contains a separa'te section on Oil Spill Potential. Significant adverse impacts were identifie~· in this section. Various mitigations were incorporated into the initial application to deal with these impacts. In additign, the FEIR/EIS recommended supplementary measures. These haue been discussed in the respectiue sections which described the_ specific hazard or resource inuolued. See: Geologic Hazards; surface Waters; and, Terrestr±al and Aquatic Riology.

IMP#\CT:

FINDING:

-45-

.@.b!.ERNAT.tUES

-the uarious t lternatiues would eliminate some impacts identified in the FEIR/EIS but create others.

1)

2)

3}

Ch~nges or alterations haue be~n required in1 or incorporat~d into.- th0· project whic'1 auoid Of" ttµbs.t;.•ntia·lly lessen the s1.gnif'icant enuirorimental effect as identified in the final EIR~

Such ch~nge~ or altera\\ions are Within the responsibility and jur1~sd.i.ction of another public agency and not J:he agem:y mcking the: finding. Such 1changes 'haue bee~· adopted by such othe~ agenc~ or can and ~hould be adopted by S'C.lch other agq 1nc·y.

SpBcific econQQf:\ic, s~cial, or o~her ccinsideration~ m~ke infeasible the mitigafion measures or projet.·t alternatives identified in the f'ina:L EIR.

FACTS SUPPbRTING THE -FINDING:

The FEIR/EIS compared the uarious al-ternatiues in terms of significant adverse impacts. It concluded that the differences betl.\leen the proposed ~ystem and the ·altern.atiue$ 111

••• ar• generally minor. 11 In s111nrrtr1ry, with the exception of the oil f'irod heaters an~ thel:r impacts on air quality, there is.no clear choice between the -alternatives. Specif'i_cally~ the FEIR/EIS found:

Coabin•tion Route

The Combinatid» ~oute has the sa~e impact as the pro~osed ro~te since it ~~auerses similar features. A minor point is that the alte\"nati-ve rout~ Follows I-S more ~~ose.ly than the propos~d route for al~ost 7 mile~. and this is ~referre~ ~~m a lantj use u~~wpoint.

The prof'l~srd route would be fully restored ar.d reuegetated 1n this flat area and would be farmed. as the . Combinatton Route woui,d prc'i>aj:)ly be, al so. Along I-5. ther~ ii; less likelH~ood that the pipelin~ would be impac,. 3c;• by agricultura,1 activ.i ties or other equ1p~ent No stror19 case can be ,. Ade f9r the selection of either route over the other, since the· distance inuolved is /) small. No resid•Jal signifieant ad'1erse i11pact is associated with one but no·:t the other.

-46-

Contra le.. Route

The Contra Loma Route crosses lower topogr~phy and f~wer steep slopes than the proposed route and is preferred in terms of soils stability. Howe~er. the Contra Loma Route auoids only a small number of the steep slo?es crossed by, the proposed route, since it is so short. The ·cuntra Loma Route would cross an estimated fiue slopes steeper than 16S and 11 steeper than 12%, whereas the proposed route would trauerse 10 slopes steeper than 18% and 12 steeper than 12%. The difference is small, considering that the proposed ro~te trauerses more than 50 slopes steeper than 18%, regardless of wh*ch route is selected. Howeuer, 5ome of the Gteepest slopes (i. e·., in excess of 35%) are auoided along the Contr~ Loma alternatiue.

Both routes cross the Concord Fault at Pachsco Creek; theref 4re, the risk of seismic hazards 1s th' same.

The aduantage that the Black Diamond. off set by seueral ,ro1J.te, including:

the Contra Loma Route has in avoiding Mines Regional Park (1.4 aGres) is land use conflicts unique to this

o Proximity to subdiuisions in the City of Antioch;

o Trauersing Contra Loma Regional Park; and,

o 'Proximity (500 feet) to the contra Loma Reserver.tr.

The Contra Loma Rout:e would. like the proposed route, affect competing land uses for residential, landfjll, and H:f.ghway 4 improuements. Neither route is free o·f significant impacts.

Three Nraw Booster Stmtion Alternatiue

The booster stat~o.n al ternatiue. which would integrate three new booster stations (SJU-2. 3 and 4) instead of the two proposed stations (SJU-2b and 3b), ~~ pot haue significantly different en~ironmental impa~ts from the proposed ·project. This ~ssumes landscaping at SJU-3~ (mitigation measure [39]) to auoi~ an impact on the Westley Rest Stop Park. The most substantial difference between the alternative and the proposed project is the raq';!'lremant for additional land (less than 2·5 acreis).

CAUMDAIMGI

MINUTIMGE

- , ;

•

-47-

Alternatiue PO&&Jer Source ConFigur~ti~

The alternatiue which proposes t~ .use electricity to power the pumps and crude oil for the heaters has a significantly higher impact on ·air quality than either the proposed system (natural gas and cogeneration of heat) or the other altern~tiue, which would rely on electricity and natural gas. The oi~-burning alt9rnatiue would result in S02 exceedi.ng ambient standards by a factor of seuen at SJU-3b.

Ouerhead A9J!!lduct Crossings

The enuironmental impacts of this alternative, which proposes to use suspension bridges to cross the canals and aqueducts, di ff er from those of the proposed action in regard to visual resources and potential sp~ll impacts.

Visual resources (URM Class 2 and 3) would be im~acted in Kern, Kings, and Fresno counties. Any spill due to a break at the points of suspension intQ a canal or aqueduct, although unlik<'ly, would directly impact substantial uolumes of water until the system could be closed down. Bec~u~e these aqueduct crossings would leaue tha pipelin~ exposed in six areas that would not be exposed in the pr~p9sed action, this alternatiue would create the possibility of aboue-ground damage causing spili~ into the aqueducts.

No Action Alternatiue

The no-action alternatiue is rrot without environmental impacts, if' i.t would mean the use of other modes of' oil transportation than a pipeline to conuey the crude to Martinez. ~tf' it would not mean the use of other modes of transportation, no-action would haue none of the environmental impacts described in this report.

The FEIR/EIS also analyzed an alternative set of pipeline diameters. In this analysis, the 20 11 diameter pipeline was found to haue small~r "worst-case" oil spills. Such spills, if they occurred would still be s~gnificant. With the implementation of mitigation measures 1 amf 70, the impacts from spills would be reduced. These measures IAl<>Uld cause the maximum s-pills in critical areas j:o be much more ccnnparable whether the 2on or 2411 line is used. Also, mitig~ion measure 102 would improve the response to such a spill and theref'ore reduce its i~pact. ~

ZQ~~ 400 4

-48-

Many of the impacts caused by the alternatives would be avoided or substantially lessened (Finding No. 1) by the measures the applicant amended into their application (see letter to the State Lands Commission dated February 9. 1987). All of these alternatives. howeuer. are outside of the jurisdiction of the State Lands C9mmission. Therefore.- . ·i:h., decision about which should or should not be.implemented is th~ responsibility of other agencies (Finding No. 2). (In the letters of comment on the DEIR/EIS. several agencies expressed concerrrs with Of" opinions about one or more o'f the alternatives. These included: Contra Loma Route - City of Antioch opposed. Contra Costa County concerned; Overhead Aqueduct Crossings - Department of Water Resources favored over ths proposed action; and, Booster Station 2 and Microwave 8 -County of Fresno appears to favor. Please see letters 4. 21. 17 and 20. respectively in the finalizing Addendum.) They can and should consider the relative imp~cts of thes~ alternatives. Finally. because there will be signiricant residual impacts caused by either the prop9sed action or any, of the alternatives, with the possible exception of the no project alternative,, the St&te Lands Commission adopts the finding of ouerriding consideration in Exhibit E.

. . . " .... , . . ... ..,.

0

CALIN.:ARP.iGI

MINUTE PACE

,,

·e -49-

EXHIBIT E

~$,f!ENT OF OUERRIOING CONSIDERATION ..

The San Joaquin Valley Pipeline proj ec.t has potential!y signific~nt ~ons~ruction and operation impacts on th~ enui~onment. Construction impacts would result primarily from ~he clearing, trenching, and backfilling along the right-of-way. Operation impacts would result primarily from potential oil spills and leaks. Potential impacts iM ~~ch of these areas haue been· analyzed ±n detail in the EIR/EIS. ,

Many mitigation measures, can and will (by virtue of the applicant amending mos): of these! into the project) be implemented to reduce the significant aduerce effects of the project. (Se~ CEQA findings, Exhibit D) These me~sures, when implemented, would substanti-~lly les!}en the enuir.onmental imracts which may result from the ~roj•et. How~uer, for some significant impacts identifi~d' in the EIR/EIS there are no feasible mitigation measures which would totally .reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.

The FEIR/EIS prguide:d the fullowing information about the purpose arid needs for thi's project: ~-

The San 7oaquin Valley Pipeline project is proposed as a means of assuring a reliable supp1~Y of crude oil for deliuery at a competitiue price from Kern County oil fields to Shell's refinery in Martinez. Under an exchan~e agreement with Texaco, S~ell currently transports 120 MBD of oil through Texaco's heated pipeline, which extends f'r9m the Caliola tank farm in Fr•esno County to refineries in Contra Costa County. This exchange agreement ex~ires in 1988 after which the T.exaco pipeline will be auailable to Texaco and indepen~ent producers and refiners hauing protected rights to use the pipeline under the Texa.co/federal Trade Commission Consent Decree (related to Texaco• s acquisition of the Getty Oil Company). ·once this decree becomes eff~- ::;;itfe,. it could' reduce the tr~psmission capaci·ty available to Shell in the Texaco pipeline. In addition, Texaco's own transportation requirements could reduce or preempt the pipeline capacity a~ailable to Shell. ·

Economic factors also support a proposal to build a pipeline to the Martinez reflnery. The Texaco pipeline. with a io-inch diameter, is currently transporting, ~er 200 MBD, including Shell's ccmp~ngnt of about l~O MBD. This 200-MBD total uolume is at or near the pip•line 1 s

•

-50-

capacity. and becaus-e this flow rate exceeds optimum operating costs on a per-barrel basis~ it is not­cost-effectiue for Shell to ~ontinue to transport oil through the Texaco pipeline. even if Shell could obtain a long-term guarantee f~n· its 120-MBP share of the total capacity. Additionally. because the Texaco line is privately owned and operated. Shell must pay for th~ right to use this pipeline, a cost it would avoid i£ ~an Joaquin Valley Pipe Line Company impl·emented the project. The costs of building the San J'oaquin· Valley· Pipeline are currently estimcited at $110 million, ..tnd it is uncertain if' cost sauings alone are sufficient to' justify the pr~ject. However, the proje'Ct:'s mail' objective~ are reliable and cost-competitive Qfi transportation. and these would be achieved by building a new pipeline.

This proj e1~t will provide a transportation link between areas long established in oil producticn-t and refining. Shell Oil first became1 involved in oil production in the San Joaquin Valley in the 1900's. Prior to 1920, the first pipeline between Coalinga and the Marinez Refin~ry. .was established. This connection was expanded (looped) in the '30' s. With the A. advent of steam inj action, Getty laid the line c~rrentl~ owned 19' and operated by Texaco in the late 1960' s . She 11 .-substantially increased its holdings in the San J'oaquin Valley with the purchase of the Belridge Field in 1980. Their refinery in Martinez was ·beir.~ upgraded at about ?::his same 'time.

Transportation of oil by pipeline will result in land dis~i~bance and impacts on terrestrial biology. By comparison, however, other forms of transportation would have greate~ potential for significant aduerse impacts. In the discussio»n of alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed ~nalysis, the fEIR/EIS states:

Other mean.s of transporting oil from Weir to· Martinez were considered, but rejected because of greater environmental impacts. logistical diff'ic•tl ties. and higher cost compared to pipeline transport. _ Altern~tive transportation means initially considered included trucks. railrcad. and tankers. About 600 trucks ~ould be required to travel betwef\,n Weir and Martinez each day, or, alternatiuely, three sets of trains containing 72 carz each woul~ be required. in order to deliver I~O MBD to Martinez. Compared to pipeline transport, either of these ;ransportation methods would cost more 1 would increase highway or rail traffic, and would greatly increa~e the risk of oil spills resulting from accid~nts

CAUNOAiPACI

MlNurEPAGl

7 o .. 7!t., 403

e

0

-51-

or oil trancfers. Marine tran.;poi-t was rejected. becilUSt!I of its impracticality; the oil-production areas associ~ted with the project are landlocked, and this alter6atiue We>uld therefore . require that oil- be tr~nsported to the coa~t. either by true~, rail, or pipeline, before it could be loaded onto tankers. Any route to the coast would h~ue to cross the rugged c~~~~~ Ranges.

Only the "no project" alternative would completely eliminate all significant impacts (assuming. o·f eo1:1rse that ~ other modes of transport described above were nqt employed). Howeuer, the Commission has examined this alternative and finds it unacceptable. The State has, for many years, endorsed the use of pipelines over other forms of transportation. This policy has been supported by uarious studies whi~h endorse pipeline transportation ouer other forms.

The proposed project is consistent with the national economic and energy policy goals of ajsuring n~tional seturity and reducing dependence on foreign sources of foreign crude.

The State Lands Commission has considered the benefits anc. the nature and extent of the impacts of the project as des1vribed in the EIR/EIS for the Proposed San Joaquin Va:tley Pipeline Project and as discussed in Appendix D of the Calen~ar Item. From this reuiew, the Commission finds that~ in balancing the project 1 s benefits against its unauoidable enuironmental risks~ the benefits outweigh the leuel of enuironmental risks which would remain after the application of mitigatiQn measures discussed, in the EIR/EIS &nd in Exh~bit o.

1219S

v '

CAUHCMIPAGI

MINl.n'E PACI 4{f4 : -