Skip to main content

Full text of "Environmental impact report/environmental impact statement for the proposed San Joaquin Valley Pipeline Project : draft"

See other formats


BLM   LIBRARY 


88009754 


/Fin 

jonouin 

VRLL£V 

pipaine 


DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  REPORT/ 

ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT 

SEPTEMBER  1986 


&  i^oV^< 


p>  TW 


California  State  Lands  Commission 

and 

Bureau  of  Land  Management,  Department  of  the  Interior 


w 


Draft 

Environmental  Impact  Report/ 
Environmental  Impact  Statement 
for  the  proposed 
San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  Project 


Prepared  by: 
Ecology  and  Environment,  Inc. 
Prepared  For: 
State  Lands  Commission  and  Bureau  of  Land  Management 

September,  1986 

State  Clearinghouse  No.  85122307 

Contract  No.  C-8575 

State  Lands  Commission  No.  405 

Interior  DES  86-3e 


Claire  Bednctr  txecutiVpOtTicer; 


ands 


Commission 


+ 


Ldward  Hastey,  uaiitornva  btate  Director 
Bureau  of  Land  Management 


<& 


op   ^o^ 


? 


O 


■A  ' 


September  1986 


NOTICE  OF  PUBLICATION/PUBLIC  HEARING 
ON  A  DRAFT  JOINT  ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  REPORT/ 
ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT 


Pursuant  to  Section  15085(d),  Title  14,  California  Administrative 
Code,  the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act,  and  40  CFR  1500,  this  is 
to  advise  that  a  Draft  EIR/EIS  has  been  prepared  for  the  State  Lands 
Commission  and  the  Bureau  of  Land  Management  for  the  proposed  project 
described  below: 


Project  Title: 


San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline 


Project  Location:     Weir  Station,  Kern  County,  to  Shell  refinery  at 

Martinez,  Contra  Costa  County. 


Project  Description: 


The  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company  pro- 
poses to  construct  a  258-mile  buried  pipeline 
and  ancillary  facilities  to  transmit  heated 
crude  oil  from  the  oil  fields  in  the  southern 
part  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  in  Kern  County  to 
the  existing  Shell  refinery  at  Martinez  in 
Contra  Costa  County,  at  a  rate  of  120,000 
barrels  per  day. 


Contact  Person: 


John  B.  Lien 
Ed  Lynch 


Telephone: 
Telephone: 


!916) 

:so5) 


322-7805 
861-4191 


The  document  is  identified  as  SLC  EIR  405,  State  Clearinghouse 
Number  85122307.  A  copy  of  the  document  may  be  obtained  from: 


John  B.  Lien 
State  Lands  Commission 
1807  -  13th  Street 
Sacramento,  California  95814 


Ed  Lynch 

Bureau  of  Land  Management 
800  Truxtun  Ave.,  Rm.  302 
Bakersfield,  California  93301 


Written  comments  should  be  received  by  John  B.  Lien  at  the  State 
Lands  Commission  office  no  later  than  close  of  business  on  November 
24,  1986. 


i 


PUBLIC  HEARINGS 


Public  hearings  on  the  draft  document  will  be  held  at  the  follow- 
ing times  and  locations: 


Date  Location 

November  6,  1986  Kern  County  Library 

Southwest  Branch 
8301  Ming  Ave. 
Bakersfield,  CA  93311 

(two  hearings:  2  p.m.  -  4:30  p.m.  and 
7  p.m.  -  conclusion) 


November  17,  1986  Board  of  Supervisors  Hearing  Room 

Contra  Costa  County  Administration  Bldg , 
651  Pine  Street 
Martinez,  CA 

(two  hearings:  2  p.m.  -  4:30  p.m.  and 
7  p.m.  -  conclusion) 


Anyone  interested  in  this  matter  is  invited  to  comment  on  the 
document  by  written  response  or  by  personal  appearance  at  any  of  the 
hearings. 


COVER       SHEET 
SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEY   PIPELINE   PROJECT 

(X)    DRAFT  ()    FINAL 

Joint  Review  Panel  California  State  Lands  Commission 

Sacramento,  CA  (CEQA  Lead) 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 
Bureau  of  Land  Management  (NEPA  Lead) 


Comments  on  this  EIR/EIS  should  be  directed  to: 

John  B.  Lien 
State  Lands  Commission 
1807  -  13th  Street 
Sacramento,  California.  95814 
(916)  322-7805 


Date  by  Which  Comments  Must  be  Received:    November  24,  1986 


ABSTRACT 


The  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company  proposes  to  construct  a 
258-mile  pipeline  that  will  transport  120,000  barrels  per  day  of  local 
crude  oils  from  the  southern  San  Joaquin  Valley  to  the  Shell  Oil 
refinery  in  Martinez,  Contra  Costa  County.  The  pipeline  would  extend 
along  the  western  region  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  from  the  Weir 
station  in  Kern  County  through  Kings,  Fresno,  Merced,  Stanislaus,  San 
Joaquin,  and  Alameda  counties  to  Contra  Costa  County.  The  pipeline 
diameters  will  increase  over  the  length  of  the  route  from  10.75  inches 
to  18  inches  to  24  inches,  and  the  pipeline  will  be  buried  at  a  depth 
of  about  5  feet.  Existing  booster  and  injection  station  facilities  at 
McKittrick  station,  Kernriage  station,  Mid  station,  Kettleman  station, 
and  Caliola  station  will  be  used  and  modified  where  necessary,  and  an 
additional  booster  station  will  be  built  in  Fresno  County  and  in 
Stanislaus  County,  along  with  a  communication  system  of  microwave 
relay  facilities  and  an  80,000-barrel  storage  tank  at  Mid  station.   If 
approved,  construction  is  scheduled  for  1987  and  1988. 

■ft**1,  „<iAs    A©*   ri     „•">&» 


The  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  Project  Draft  Environmental 
Impact  Report/Environmental  Impact  Statement  (EIR/EIS)  addresses  the 
applications  to  construct  the  pipeline,  booster  stations,  and  ancil- 
lary facilities  from  the  Weir  station  in  Kern  County  to  Martinez  in 
Contra  Costa  County. 

The  EIR/EIS  analyzes  the  environmental  effects  of  the  proposed 
pipeline;  two  new  booster  stations;  and  microwave  and  ancillary 
facilities  including  the  80,000-barrel  storage  tank  for  the  various 
phases  of  the  project,  i.e.,  construction,  operation,  accidents,  and 
abandonment.  This  report  also  analyzes  the  impacts  of  two  routing 
alternatives,  an  alternative  booster  station  configuration,  two 
alternative  power  configurations,  and  alternative  overhead  aqueduct 
crossings. 

The  routing  alternatives  include  two  sections  which  are  near  the 
proposed  route.  One  of  these  follows  Interstate  Highway  5  (1-5)  in 
Fresno  County  more  closely  than  the  proposed  route,  while  the  other 
avoids  to  a  greater  extent  an  area  with  topographical  and  soils 
constraints  in  Contra  Costa  County  that  is  crossed  by  the  proposed 
route.  The  alternative  booster  station  configuration  is  based  on 
three  new  booster  stations  (one  more  than  the  proposed  system)  in 
Fresno,  Merced,  and  San  Joaquin  counties,  which  could  be  implemented 
with  an  alternative  20-inch  pipeline  as  well  as  the  proposed  24-inch 
pipeline,  and  which  will  have  greater  throughput  efficiency. 
Alternative  power  configurations  include  electric  motors  instead  of 
the  proposed  gas  turbines  to  drive  the  pumps  and  either  crude  oil  or 
natural  gas-fired  heaters  to  heat  the  oil.  The  proposed  project 
includes,  in  addition  to  six  underground  crossings,  two  overhead 
crossings  on  existing  suspension  bridges  across  the  California 
Aqueduct  and  Delta  Mendota  Canal,  whereas  the  alternative  would  make 
all  eight  crossings  of  the  aqueduct  system  on  suspension  bridges. 

The  EIR/EIS  has  been  prepared  according  to  the  requirements  of 
the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  of  1969  (NEPA);  the  Council  of 
Environmental  Quality's  regulations  for  implementing  NEPA,  effective 
July  30,  1979;  and  the  California  Environmental  Quality  Act  (CEQA)  as 
amended.  Based  on  the  issues  and  concerns  identified  during  the  scop- 
ing process,  the  EIR/EIS  focuses  on  the  impacts  to  river  crossings, 
access,  hydrology,  restoration,  employment,  and  oil  spills. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Section  Page 

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY ........................  S-l 

1  INTRODUCTION  1-1 

1.1  PROJECT  BACKGROUND 1-1 

1.2  GENERAL  PROJECT  LOCATION 1-1 

1 .3  AUTHORIZING  ACTIONS 1-2 

1.4  ENVIRONMENTAL  REVIEW  PROCESS  1-10 

1.5  PURPOSE  OF  AND  NEED  FOR  THE  PROJECT 1-10 

1.6  AGENCY  PREFERRED  ALTERNATIVE 1-11 

1.7  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EIR/EIS  1-12 

2  PROJECT  DESCRIPTION  2-1 

2.1  PROPOSED  PROJECT  2-1 

2.1.1  Description  of  the  Proposed  System 

and  Project  Components  2-3 

2.1.1.1  Pipeline  System  2-3 

2.1.1.2  Project  Components  2-10 

2.1.2  Typical  Pipeine  Construction 

Procedures  2-19 

2.1.3  Special  Construction  Techniques  2-28 

2.1.4  Proposed  Station  Construction/ 

Modification  2-29 

2.1.5  Operation  and  Maintenance  2-32 

2.1.6  Abandonment  2-35 

2.2  PROPOSED  ALTERNATIVES  2-36 

2.2.1  Alternative  Pipeline  Routes  2-36 

2.2.2  Three  New  Booster  Station 

Alternative  2-38 


Table  of  Contents  (Cont.) 

Section  Page 


2.2.3  Alternative  Power  Source 

Configurations  ........................ 2-40 

2.2.4  Alternative  Aqueduct  Crossing 

Technique 2-42 

2.3  NO-ACTION  ALTERNATIVE  2-42 

2.4  ALTERNATIVES  CONSIDERED  BUT  ELIMINATED 

FROM  DETAILED  ANALYS IS 2-42 

2.4.1  Alternative  Routes 2-42 

2.4.2  Alternative  Transportation  Methods 2-45 

2.4.3  Fiber-Optic  Cables  for  Communication  ......  2-45 

2.4.4  Pipeline  Insulation  .......................  2-45 

2.5  INTERRELATIONSHIPS  WITH  OTHER  PLANNED  OR 

PROPOSED  PROJECTS 2-45 

2.6  SIGNIFICANT  IMPACT  SUMMARY 2-50 

2.7  COMPARISON  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS  2-50 

2.7.1  Alternative  Routes 2-50 

2.7.2  Three  New  Booster  Station 

Alternative  2-55 

2.7.3  Alternative  Power  Source  Configurations  ...  2-55 

2.7.4  Overhead  Aqueduct  Crossings  ...............  2-55 

2.7.5  No-Action  Alternative  , 2-56 

2.8  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY/ENERGY  CONSERVATION 

ANALYSIS  2-56 

AFFECTED  ENVIRONMENT  3-1 

3.1  INTRODUCTION  3-1 

3.2  PROPOSED  ROUTE  3-2 

3.2.1  Geology  and  Topography 3-2 

3.2.2  Geological  Hazards 3-5 

3.2.3  Soils 3-13 

3.2.4  Surface  Water  3-14 

3.2.5  Groundwater 3-28 

3.2.6  Air  Quality 3-33 

3.2.7  Socioeconomics 3-35 


Table  of  Contents  (Cont.) 

Section  Page 

3.2.8  Noise  3-44 

3.2.9  Land  Use  and  Recreation 3-48 

3.2.10  Visual  Resources  3-54 

3.2.11  Paleontology  3-62 

3.2.12  Cultural  Resources  3-66 

3.2.13  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology  3-72 

3.3  ALTERNATIVE  ROUTES  3-100 

3.3.1  Combination  Route  3-110 

3.3.2  Contra  Loma  Route  3-111 

3'.4  THREE  NEW  BOOSTER  STATION  ALTERNATIVE      3-112 

3.5  ALTERNATIVE  POWER  SOURCE  CONFIGURATIONS  3-116 

3.6  OVERHEAD  AQUEDUCT  CROSSINGS 3-116 

4     ENVIRONMENTAL  CONSEQUENCES  4-1 

4.1  INTRODUCTION  4-1 

4.2  PROPOSED  ROUTE  4-1 

4.2.1  Geology  ana  Topography  4-1 

4.2.2  Geological  Hazards  4-3 

4.2.3  Soils  4-8 

4.2.4  Surface  Water  4-13 

4.2.5  Groundwater  4-18 

4.2.6  Air  Quality  4-22 

4.2.7  Socioeconomics  and  Transportation  4-29 

4.2.8  Noise  4-41 

4.2.9  Land  Use  and  Recreation  4-47 

4.2.10  Visual  Resources  4-59 

4.2.11  Paleontology  4-74 

4.2.12  Cultural  Resources  4-78 

4.2.13  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology  4-81 

4.2.14  System  Safety  and  Reliability  4-96 

4.2.15  Oil  Spill  Potential  and  Effects  4-102 


Table  of   Contents  (Cont.) 

Section  Page 

4.3  ALTERNATIVE  ROUTES 4-119 

4.3.1  Combination  Route 4-122 

4.3.2  Contra  Loma  Route .  4-128 

4.4  THREE  NEW  BOOSTER  STATION  ALTERNATIVE 4-136 

4.4.1  Geology  and  Topography 4-136 

4.4.2  Geological  Hazards 4-136 

4.4.3  Soils 4-136 

4.4.4  Surface  Water 4-137 

4.4.5  Groundwater 4-137 

4.4.6  Air  Quality  ............................  ...  4-137 

4.4.7  Socioeconomics  and  Transportation  .........  4-137 

4.4.8  Noise . .................  4-137 

4.4.9  Land  Use  and  Recreation 4-138 

4.4.10  Visual  Resources 4-138 

4.4.11  Paleontology 4-140 

4.4.12  Cultural  Resources 4-140 

4.4.13  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Resources  4-140 

4.4.14  Systems  Safety  and  Reliability  4-140 

4.4.15  Oil  Spill  Potential  and  Effects 4-141 

4.5  ALTERNATIVE  POWER  SOURCE  CONFIGURATIONS 4-141 

4.5.1  Electric  Motor  and  Natural 

Gas  heater  4-142 

4.5.2  Electric  Motor  and  Oil- 

Fired  Heater  4-142 

4.6  OVERHEAD  AQUEDUCT  CROSSINGS 4-143 

4.7  NO  ACTION  ALTERNATIVE  4-143 

5     CUMULATIVE  IMPACTS 5-1 

5.1  GEOLOGY  AND  GEOLOGICAL  HAZARDS 5-2 

5.2  SOILS.. 5-2 

5.3  SURFACE  WATER . 5-2 

5.4  GROUNDWATER 5-3 


Table  of  Contents  (Cont.) 

Section  Page 

5.5  AIR  QUALITY  5-3 

5.6  SOCIOECONOMICS  5-4 

5.7  NOISE  5-5 

5.8  LAND  USE  AND  RECREATION  5-5 

5.9  VISUAL  RESOURCES  5-6 

5.10  PALEUNTOLOGICAL  AND  CULTURAL  RESOURCES 5-6 

5.11  TERRESTRIAL  AND  AQUATIC  BIOLOGY 5-7 

5.12  SAFETY  AND  OIL  SPILL  CONSIDERATIONS 5-7 

6     MITIGATION  MEASURES 6-1 

6.1  MITIGATION  OF  CONSTRUCTION  IMPACTS  6-1 

6.1.1  Geology  and  Geological  Hazards  6-1 

6.1.2  Soils 6-3 

6.1.3  Surface  Water 6-10 

6.1.4  Groundwater 6-13 

6.1.5  Air  Quality  6-13 

6.1.6  Socioeconomics  and  Transportation  b-13 

6.1.7  Noise  6-14 

6.1.8  Land  Use  and  Recreation  6-15 

6.1.9  Visual  Resources 6-16 

6.1.10  Paleontology  6-18 

6.1.11  Cultural  Resources 6-19 

6.1.12  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology  6-21 

6.2  MITIGATION  OF  OPERATION,  ACCIDENT,  AND 

ABANDONMENT  IMPACTS 6-25 

6.2.1  Geology  and  Geological  Hazards  6-25 

6.2.2  Soils  6-25 

6.2.3  Surface  Water  6-26 

6.2.4  Groundwater  6-26 

6.2.5  Air  Quality  6-27 

6.2.6  Socioeconomics  and  Transportation  6-27 

6.2.7  Noise  6-27. 


Table  of  Contents  (Cont.) 

Section  Page 

6.2.8  Land  Use  and  Recreation  6-27 

6.2.9  Visual  Resources 6-28 

6.2.10  Paleontology 6-28 

6.2.11  Cultural  Resources 6-28 

6.2.12  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic 6-29 

6.2.13  System  Safety  and  Reliability  .............  6-29 

6.2.14  Oil  Spill  Potential 6-32 

7     UNAVOIDABLE  ADVERSE  IMPACTS 7-1 


8     RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  LOCAL  SHORT-TERM  USES  OF  MAN'S 
ENVIRONMENT  AND  THE  MAINTENANCE/ENHANCEMENT  OF  LONG- 
TERM  PRODUCTIVITY 8-1 


9     IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE  COMMITMENT 

OF  RESOURCES 9-1 


10  GROWTH-INDUCING  IMPACTS  OF  THE  PROJECT  10-1 

11  BIBLIOGRAPHY 11-1 

12  CONSULTATION  AND  COORDINATION 12-1 

12.1  LIST  OF  PREPARERS 12-2 

12.2  MAILING  LIST 12-9 

12.3  DRAFT  EIR/EIS  AVAILABILITY  .... .... .......  12-13 

LIST  OF  ACRONYMS  AND  ABBREVIATIONS 

Appendix  Page 

A     DETAILED  PROJECT  MAPS A-l 

B     OIL  SPILL  CONTINGENCY  PLAN  ... 8-1 


Table  of  Contents  (Cont.) 

Appendix  Page 

C  COUNTY-SPECIFIC  DESCRIPTIONS C-l 

D  CLIMATE  AND  METEOROLOGY D-l 

E  VISUAL  RESOURCES E-l 

F  PALEUNTOLOGICAL  SENSITIVITY  CRITERIA F-l 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


Figure 
2-1 
2-2 
2-3 
2-4 
2-5 
2-6 
2-7 
2-8 
2-9 
3-1 

3-2 

3-3 
3-4 


3-5 

to 

3-13 


Page 

Proposed  Pipeline  System  and  Project  Components  ....  2-4 

Layout  of  Typical  Booster  Station  2-15 

Typical  Microwave  Tower  Repeater  Station 2-16 

Typical  Pipeline  Construction  Spread  2-22 

Typical  Cross  Section  of  Construction  Right-of-Way  .  2-23 

Typical  Above-ground  Aqueduct  Crossing  2-31 

Alternative  Route  Locations 2-37 

Alternative  Booster  Station  Configurations  2-39 

Alternative  Overhead  Aqueduct  Crossing  Locations  ...  2-43 

Epicenters  of  Major  Earthquakes  and  Principal 
Faults  Along  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  Route: 

Mileposts  0-125  3-9 

Epicenters  of  Major  Earthquakes  and  Principal 
Faults  Along  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  Route: 

Mileposts  125-258  ,  3-10 

Groundwater  Basins  and  Sub-Basins  Crossed 

by  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline 3-31 

Outdoor  Day-Night  Average  Sound  Levels  at 

Various  Locations  3-47 

Habitat  by  Milespost,  wildlife  Sightings, 

Managed  Natural  Areas  3-101 


List  of  Illustrations  (Cont.) 

Figure  Page 


4-1    Noise  Levels  from  Suburban  Pipeline 

Construction  Scenario 4-44 

4-2    Exisiting  View  of  Proposed  Pipeline  Right-of-Way  ...  4-70 

4-3    Simulated  View  of  Pipeline  Right-of-Way  Immediately 

Following  Construction 4-71 

4-4    Existing  View  from  1-5  near  the  Westley  Rest  Stop  ..  4-72 

4-5    Simulated  View  of  SJV-3b  Booster  Station  From  1-5 

Near  the  Westley  Rest  Stop 4-73 

4-6    Simplified  Failure  Tree  for  the  Heated  Oil 

Pipeline  System 4-100 

4-7    Mean  Spill  Size  and  Line  Pipe  Diameter  for  Line 
Pipe  Accidents  Reported  to  0SPO  (1971-1975),  with 
Comparative  Data  from  Shell 4-110 


LIST  UF  TABLES 


Table  Page 

S-l   Summary  of  Significant  Impacts  for  the  San  Joaquin 

Pipeline  Proposal  S-6 

1-1   Federal,  State,  and  County  Permits  and  Approvals 

Which  May  be  Needed  for  Project  Implementation  1-3 

2-1   Planned  Deliveries  2-2 

2-2   Summary  of  Pipeline  Facilities  2-5 

2-3  Ownership  of  Land  Affected  by  the  Proposed  Project  ..  2-6 

2-4   EIR/EIS  Mileposts  for  the  Proposed  Project  2-8 

2-5   Design  Specifications  for  Each  Pipeline  Segment  2-12 

2-6   Total  Additional  Land  Requirements  for 

Construction  and  Operation  of  the  Project  2-13 

2-7   Booster/Injection  Station  Locations,  Status,  and 
Designed  Energy  Requirements  for  the  Proposed 
Project  2-14 

2-8   Proposed  Locations  of  Microwave  Tower  Repeater 

Stations 2-17 

2-y   Total  kight-of-Way  Requirements  for  New  Ancillary 

Facilities  2-20 

2-10  Major  Waterways  Crossed  by  the  Proposed  Pipeline  ....  2-30 

2-11  Comparison  of  horsepower  and  Heater  Requirements 

for  Different  Pipeline  Diameters  Using  tne  Tnree  New 
Booster  Station  Alternative  2-41 

2-12  Projects  Potentially  Interrelated  with  the 

San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  2-47 

2-13  Principal  Environmental  Features  and  Signficant 

Impacts/Hazards  for  the  Proposed  Action  2-51 


List  of  Tables  (Cont.) 

Table  Page 

2-14    Comparison  of  Energy  Consumption  of  Proposed 

and  Alternate  Power  Source  Configurations 2-58 

3-1     Geological  Features  Along  the  Proposed 

San  Joaquin  Pipeline,  by  County  .....................  3-3 

3-2    Locations  of  Potentially  Hard  Layers  of  Bedrock 

Along  the  Proposed  Route 3-6 

3-3    Surface  Geology  of  Sites  Proposed  for  New  Ancillary 

Facilities  by  County 3-7 

3-4    Major  Soils  Units  Encountered  by  the  Proposed  Route 

in  Kern  County  3-15 

3-5    Major  Soils  Units  Encountered  by  the  Proposed  Route 

in  Kings  County  ....................................  3-16 

3-6    Major  Soils  Units  Encountered  by  the  Proposed  Route 

in  Fresno  County 3-17 

3-7    Major  Soils  Units  Encountered  by  the  Proposed  Route 

in  Merced  County  3-18 

3-8    Major  Soils  Units  Encountered  by  the  Proposed  Route 

in  Stanislaus  County 3-19 

3-9    Major  Soils  Units  Encountered  by  the  Proposed  Route 

in  San  Joaquin  County  3-20 

3-10    Major  Soils  Units  Encountered  by  the  Proposed  Route 

in  Alameda  County 3-21 

3-11    Major  Soils  Units  Encountered  by  the  Proposed  Route 

in  Contra  Costa  County 3-22 

3-12    Soil  Associations  at  Booster  Stations  and 

Microwave  Facilities,  by  County  3-23 

3-13    Streams  and  Canals  Crossed  by  the  Proposed 

Pipeline  3-26 

3-14    Available  Gauge  Records  for  Streams  Crossed 

by  the  Proposed  Route 3-29 

3-15    Reservoirs  Within  Approximately  Two  Miles 

of  the  Proposed  Route 3-30 

3-16    Air  Quality  Designations  for  Counties  Traversed 
by  the  Proposed  Pipeline  Based  on  National 
Ambient  Air  Quality  Standards 3-36 


List  of  Tables  (Cont. ) 

Table  Page 

3-17    Maximum  Pollutant  Concentrations  in  Project  Area  ...  3-37 

3-18    Ozone:   Days/Hours  Above  State  and  Federal 

1-Hour  Standards  3-38 

3-19    Hourly  CO  Concentrations  >20  ppm,  8-Hour  Mean 
CO  Concentrations  >9.1  ppm,  8-Hour  Mean  CO 
Concentrations  >10  mg/nP  3-39 

3-20  Total  Suspended  Particulates:  Occurrences  of 
24-Hour  Average  Concentrations  >100  g/m3  and 
>150  ug/m3 3-40 

3-21    Summary  Economic  Information  3-42 

3-22    Population's  (1986)  of  the  Principal  Communities 

Within  50  Miles  of  the  Proposed  Route,  by  County  ...  3-43 

3-23    Major  Highways  Near  and/or  Crossea  by  the 

Proposed  Route,  by  County  3-45 

3-24    Distribution  of  Land  Use  Types  Along  the 

Proposed  Route 3-49 

3-25    Sensitive  Land  Uses  Along  the  Proposed  Route  3-50 

3-26    Recreational  Facilities:  Visitors  Information  .....  3-52 

3-27    Existing  Landfills  Near  the  Proposed  Route  3-53 

3-28    Matrix  of  Visual  Resource  Areas  Along  the 

Proposed  Route  3-56 

3-29    Matrix  of  Visual  Resource  Areas  at  the  Ancillary 

Facilities  Sites  3-59 

3-30    Habitat  Types  Along  the  Project  Route  3-78 

3-31    Important  Stream  Crossings 3-81 

3-32    Unique  and  Managed  Areas  3-86 

3-33    Federal  and  State  Listed  Plant  Species 

Potentially  Occurring  Within  the  Project  Vicinity...  3-88 

3-34    Federal  and  State  Candidate  Plant  Species 

Potentially  Occurring  Within  the  Project  Vicinity  ..  3-89 


List  of  Tables  (Cont.) 


Table  Page 

Federal  and  State  Listed  Wildlife  Species 

Potentially  Occurring  Within  the  Project  Vicinity  ...  3-92 

Federal  and  State  Candidate  Wildlife  Species 

Potentially  Occurring  Within  the  Project  Vicinity  ...  3-93 

Potential  Occurrence  of  Listed  Species  (CDFG/USFWS) 

by  Habitat 3-95 

Soil  Associations  and  Alternative  Booster  Stations 

and  Microwave  Tower  Sites,  by  County  3-114 

Visual  Resource  Classification  for  Alternative 

Booster  Station  Sites 3-117 

Summary  of  Geologic  Hazards  Along  the  Proposed 

Route  4-4 

Summary  of  Potential  Construction  Impacts,  by 

County 4-9 

Steep  Sloping  Sites  Along  the  Proposed  Route,  by 

County 4-11 

Areas  Sensitive  to  Surface  Water-Related  Impacts 

During  Construction,  by  County 4-15 

Areas  Sensitive  to  Surface  Water-Related  Impacts 

During  Operations,  by  County 4-17 

Calculated  Maximum  Crude  Oil  Spill  Potential  ........  4-21 

Sensitive  Receptors  in  the  Caliola  Impact  Area  ......  4-24 

Significance  Levels  for  Concentrations  in  Excess  of 
Standard,  Not  Including  New  Project  Emissions  4-25 

Modeled  Construction  Impacts 4-27 

Analysis  of  Violations  of  Air  Quality  Standards  Basea 

on  Total  Emissions  (Existing  and  New  Emissions)  4-28 

Summary  of  Socioeconomic  Data  for  Construction  of 

the  Proposed  Project 4-33 

Summary  of  Estimated  Project  Impacts  on  Property  Tax 
Revenues 4-37 


3- 

■35 

3- 

•36 

3- 

■37 

3- 

■38 

3- 

•39 

4- 

•1 

4- 

•2 

4- 

■3 

4- 

-4 

4 

-5 

4- 

-6 

4 

-7 

4 

-8 

4 

-9 

4 

-10 

4 

-11 

4 

-12 

List  of  Tables  (Cont.) 

Table  Page 

4-13    Noise-Sensitive  Areas  Significantly  Impacted  by 

Construction  4-45 

4-14    Pump/Heater  Station  Noise  Impact  Modeling  Results  ..   4-46 

4-15    Summary  of  Detailed  Project  Effects  and  Impact 

Significance,  by  County  4-49 

4-16    Land  Uses  Traversed  Dy  the  Proposed  Route  4-52 

4-17    Land  Requirements  by  Land  Use  Categories  for  the 

Proposed  Project 4-55 

4-18    Impacts  of  Solid  Waste  Disposal  on  Landfill 

Capacity  4-58 

4-19    Matrix  of  General  Visual  Impact  Significance  4-61 

4-20    Matrix  of  Visual  Impacts  of  the  Proposed  Pipeline  ..   4-63 

4-21    Long-term  Impact  Assessment  Based  on  Probable 
Contrast  of  Right-of-Way  Due  to  Potentially 
Poor  Revegetation,  by  County  4-65 

4-22    Matrix  of  Visual  Impact  of  Ancillary  Facilities  ....   4-66 

4-23    Summary  of  Paleontological  Impact  Significance 

Assessments  for  the  Proposed  Project  4-76 

4-24    Habitat  Loss  in  Acres,  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline 

and  Ancillary  Facilities  4-34 

4-25    Potential  Habitat  Loss  (Acres)  for  Listed  Wildlife 

Species 4-87 

4-26    Biological  Resources  Sensitive  to  Oil  Spills, 

by  Milepost  4-y2 

4-27    Proximity  of  Booster  Stations  to  Public  Highways 

and  Off-Site  Buildings 4-101 

4-28    Causes  of  Pipeline  Oil  Spills  Based  on  Historical 

U.S.  Statistics  4-109 

4-29    Land  Pipeline  Spill  Size  Distributions  4-112 


List  of  Tables  (Cont. 


Table  Page 

4-30    Estimated  ProbaDi 1 ities  for  the  Proposed  'P i pel ine 

Oil  Spills  in  Two  Size  Ranges 4-113 

4-31    Volume  Distribution  of  Oil  Spills  from  Onshore 

Storage  Tanks 4-115 

4-32    Current  and  Future  Probabilities  of  Oil  Storage 

Tank  Spills  in  Several  Size  Ranges 4-116 

4-33    Maximum  Potential  Oil  Spill  Size  for  Each  Major 

Pipeline  Segment 4-118 

4-34    Estimates  of  Maximum  Potential  Oil  Spill  Volumes 

at  Waterway  Crossings 4-120 

4-35    Summary  of  Potentially  Significant  Oil  Spill 

Impacts  on  Specific  Environmental  Resources  ........   4-121 

4-36  Land  Uses  Traversed  by  the  Combination  Route  .......  4-125 

4-37  Visual  Impact  Matrix  for  the  Combination  Routes  ....  4-126 

4-38  Land  Uses  Traversed  by  the  Contra  Loma  Route  .......  4-131 

4-39  Visual  Impact  Matrix  for  the  Contra  Loma  Route  .....  4-133 

4-40    Summary  of  Paleontologic  Impact  Significance 

Assessments  for  the  Contra  Loma  Route 4-134 

4-41    Land  Requirements  for  Alternative  Booster  Stations  ,   4-139 

b-1    Steep  Sloping  Sites  Along  the  Proposed  Route,  by 

County 6-6 

6-2    Grass  Seeding  Requirements  for  Rangeland  in  Kern, 

Kings,  and  Fresno  Counties  », 6-8 

6-3     Grass  Seeding  Requirements  for  Rangeland  in, Merced, 
Stanislaus,  San  Joaquin,  Alameda,  and  Contra  Costa 
Counties b-9 

9-1     Irreversible  and  Irretrievable  Commitments 

of  kesources 9-2 


EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 


Introduction 

The  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  Environmental  Impact  Report/Envi- 
ronmental Impact  Statement  (EIR/EIS)  is  issued  jointly  by  the  Cali- 
fornia State  Lands  Commission  (SLC)  and  the  U.S.  Department  of  the 
Interior's  Bureau  of  Land  Management  (BLM).  The  intent  of  the  docu- 
ment is  to  fulfill  the  requirements  of  both  the  California  Environmen- 
tal Quality  Act  (CEQA)  (under  which  SLC  is  the  lead  agency  for  this 
project)  and  the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  (NEPA)  (under  which 
BLM  is  the  lead  agency) . 

The  proposed  project  includes  the  construction  of  a  heated, 
buried  crude  oil  pipeline  and  associated  facilities,  to  transport 
120,000  barrels  per  day  (120  MBD)  from  existing  oil  fields  in  Kern 
County,  California,  to  existing  refining  facilities  in  Martinez, 
Contra  Costa  County,  California.  The  project  sponsor,  or  applicant, 
the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company  (SJVPLC),  is  an  affiliate  of 
the  Shell  Oil  Company.  SJVPLC  proposes  to  build  this  pipeline  through 
the  western  San  Joaquin  Valley  in  order  to  transport  the  120  MBD  in  a 
reliable,  cost-effective  manner.  Shell  currently  transports  120  MBD 
from  its  Kern  County  oil  fields  to  Martinez  through  exchange  agree- 
ments involving  a  privately  owned  pipeline.  The  proposed  action, 
therefore,  will  not  in  itself  increase  the  production  or  refining  of 
Cal ifornia  crude  oi 1 . 

Once  a  right-of-way  across  state  and  federal  lands  has  been 
granted  and  the  required  permits  and  authorizations  have  been  obtained 
for  the  project,  the  pipeline  will  be  built  in  four  segments,  with 
pipe  diameters  ranging  from  10.75  to  24  inches,  for  a  total  length  of 
about  258  miles.   In  a  generally  northwest  direction  from  Kern  County, 
each  segment  will  be  built  using  a  larger  diameter  pipe  than  the  pre- 
vious segment,  to  accept  and  transport  the  cumulative  inputs  from 
producing  fields  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 
From  its  origin  at  Weir  station  in  Kern  County,  the  project  will 
parallel  Interstate  Highway  5  (1-5)  through  Kings,  Fresno,  Merced, 
Stanislaus,  and  San  Joaquin  counties.  The  pipeline  will  then  proceed 


S-l 


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

The  pipeline,  planned  for  construction  between  mid-1987  and 
mid-1988,  will  follow  existing  pipeline  and  utility  corridors  for 
about  88%  of  its  length,  or  228  miles.  Other  project  components 
include  the  construction  of  two  new  booster  (pumping  and  heating) 
stations,  the  construction  of  13  new  microwave  communication  towers, 
and  the  modification  of  four  of  six  existing  booster  and.  oil  injection 
stations. 

In  addition  to  the  proposed  project,  this  EIR/EIS  evaluates  two 
minor  alignment  alternatives,  an  alternative  booster  station  configu- 
ration, two  alternative  booster  station  power  source  configurations, 
an  overhead  aqueduct  crossing  alternative,  and  the  no-project  alterna- 
tive. The  Combination  Route  diverges  from  the  proposed  pipeline  north 
of  Lost  Hills,  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  proposed  route.  This 
route  is  considered  because,  as  a  whole,  it  follows  1-5  more  closely 
than  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  proposed  route  and,  thus, 
intrudes  slightly  less  upon  undisturbed  land.  The  Contra  Loma  Route 
diverges  from  the  proposed  route  for  a  3.5-mile  stretch  near  the  City 
of  Pittsburg  in  Contra  Costa  County.  It  avoids  areas  of  potential 
landsliding  in  this  part  of  the  county. 

The  three  new  booster  station  alternative  (as  compared  to  two 
new  booster  stations  in  the  proposed  action)  is  analyzed  because  it 
could  allow  greater  operational  flexibility  over  Segment  4  of  the 
pipeline  (Fresno  County  to  Martinez);  with  this  alternative,  oil  could 
be  pumped  and  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  of  elec- 
tricity, rather  than  natural  gas,  to  power  the  pumps,  and  either  crude 
oil  or  natural  gas,  rather  than  the  use  of  waste  heat  with  natural  gas 
backup,  to  heat  the  oil.  These  alternate  configurations  are  proposed 
for  analysis  because  they  might  be  more  economical  than  the  proposed 
action. 

The  overhead  aqueduct  crossing  alternative  would  substitute 
aerial  crossings  at  six  different  portions  of  California  Water  Project 
and  Bureau  of  Reclamation  canals  for  the  underground  crossings  pro- 
posed in  the  project  for  these  points.  This  alternative  would  allay 
concerns  that  the  California  Department  of  Water  Resources  has  expres- 
sed about  underground  crossings  of  its  aqueducts. 

Other  alternatives  to  the  various  components  of  the  proposed 
action  were  analyzed  and  eliminated  from  detailed  analysis.   Such 
alternatives  included  about  a  dozen  routing  variations,  six  of  which 
were  within  Contra  Costa  County.   In  addition,  two  major  route  alter- 
natives were  analyzed  at  a  conceptual  level,  one  route  along  the 


S-2 


eastern  edge  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  and  another  that  crossed  the 
Coastal  Ranges  and  approached  Martinez  through  the  Santa  Clara  Valley. 
Other  alternatives  that  were  ultimately  rejected  included  fiber-optic 
cables  as  a  line  communications  medium,  pipeline  insulation,  and 
alternative  transportation  means  for  the  crude  oil,  involving  a  com- 
bination of  truck,  rail,  and  tanker  transport. 

SJVPLC  has  applied  for  right-of-way  permits  from  BLM  to  cross 
federal  land,  and  from  SLC  to  cross  land  owned  by  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia. Because  of  its  length  and  the  resources  it  could  potentially 
affect,  the  pipeline  will  require  numerous  other  federal,  state,  and 
local  permits  before  construction  can  begin. 

Areas  of  Controversy 

Based  on  public  input,  scoping  meetings,  and  agency  responses  to 
the  Notice  of  Preparation  circulated  by  SLC,  several  areas  of  contro- 
versy associated  with  the  proposed  action  have  been  identified.  The 
first  is  the  potential  for  an  oil  spill  at  some  point  along  the  258- 
mile  pipeline  over  the  life  of  the  project,  and  the  effects  which  a 
spill  could  have  on  water  resources,  terrestrial  and  aquatic  biolog- 
ical resources,  and  adjacent  land  uses.  The  other-  area  of  controversy 
is  the  potential  for  impacting  such  rare,  threatened,  or  endangered 
species  as  the  San  Joaquin  kit  fox,  the  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard, 
and  others,  as  well  as  the  potential  for  reducing  these  species' 
critical  habitats. 

The  question  of  oil  spill  potential  is  particularly  controversial 
because  of  crude  oil  pipeline  spills  that  have  occurred  over  the  past 
several  years  between  Los  Angeles  and  Martinez  and  because  of  the  fre- 
quent seismic  activity  in  the  region.  Statistics  show  that  pipeline 
spills  are  rare,  especially  spills  from  new  pipelines,  and  they  are 
not  often  due  to  natural  causes.  Based  on  statistical  probabilities, 
it  is  estimated  that  over  the  life  of  the  project  there  would  be  three 
spills  over  50  barrels,  and  six  spills  of  between  5  and  50  barrels. 
However,  despite  the  elaborate  system  safety  and  reliability  measures 
associated  with  the  proposed  action,  oil  spills  could  occur  over  the 
life  of  the  project  due  to  impact  damage  or  defective  or  corroded 
pipe.  A  wide  variety  of  impacts  could  occur  depending  upon  the 
location,  volume,  and  timing  of  an  oil  spill.  The  concerns  are 
surface  water  and  groundwater  pollution,  damage  to  nearby  biological 
resources,  habitat  destruction,  temporary  loss  of  agricultural/ 
rangeland  productivity,  and  degradation  of  scenic  vistas.  However, 
the  most  significant  impact  would  be  realized  if  a  major  spill  reached 
reservoirs  or  aqueducts  and  contaminated  these  water  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  habi- 
tat for  the  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard,  salt  marsh  harvest  mouse, 
giant  kangaroo  rat,  and  San  Joaquin  kit  fox,  and  the  Hoover's  wooly 
star  and  Congdon's  eatonella.  Because  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife 
Service  (USFWS)  considers  these  animals  endangered  and  is  likely  to 
designate  these  two  plant  species  as  threatened  or  endangered, _ inten- 
sive field  surveys  of  these  species  were  conducted  as  a  condition  of 
project  approval.  The  results  of  these  surveys  have  been  integrated 
into  this  document. 

S-3 


Major  Impact  Conclusions 

The  proposed  route  is  generally  aligned  for  much  of  its  length 
within  existing  utility  and  transportation  corridors.  As  a  result, 
the  project  has  no  impacts  which  cannot  be  reduced  by  mitigation,  and 
only  a  few  impacts  which  remain  significant  after  mitigation.  Con- 
struction, operation,  accident  and  abandonment  impacts  of  the  proposed 
project  dre   described  in  Chapter  4.  Mitigation  measures  are  described 
in  Chapter  6.  Table  S-l  (at  the  end  of  this  summary)  identifies  the 
potentially  significant  impacts,  their  corresponding  mitigation 
measures,  and  the  residual  impacts  that  would  result  from  the  miti- 
gated action.  The  mitigation  measures  listed  in  the  table  are  ref- 
erenced by  the  same  numbers  used  in  Chapter  6.  Residual  impacts 
remaining  after  mitigation  are  classified  as  either  significant  or  not 
significant.  The  significant  residual  impacts  include  the  following: 

For  Construction: 

•  The  total  land  requirement  of  almost  1,000  acres  for  permanent 
right-of  way  and  ancillary  facilities;  and 

•  Localized  revegetation  problems  or  failure  on  slopes  steeper 
than  18%  (about  80  sites). 

For  Operation: 

i  The  small  probability  of  consequences  from  an  exceptionally 
strong  seismic  event  (greater  than  MMI  VIII),  which  could 
result  in  a  major  spill  and  spill-related  impacts  to  environ- 
ment resources. 

For  Accidents: 

•  Any  spill  greater  than  5  barrels,  or  any  spill  to  water. 
Comparison  of  Alternatives 

This  document  evaluates  four  project  alternatives,  any  of  which 
may  be  implemented  independently  of  the  others.  This  discussion 
briefly  summarizes  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  each  alterna- 
tive compared  to  the  aspect  or  portion  of  the  proposed  action  that  it 
would  replace. 

Other  than  the  no-action  alternative,  the  proposed  route  does  not 
have  an  alternative  that  would  constitute  a  distinctive  and  completely 
different  alternate  to  the  proposal.  The  reason  is  that  the  proposed 
route  has  been  aligned  to  avoid  the  rugged  terrain  of  the  Coastal 
Ranges  as  much  as  practicable  while  also  avoiding  highly  productive 
agricultural  land  and  irrigation  systems  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 
For  this  reason,  the  proposed  route  crosses  a  multitude  of  toe  slopes 
on  the  border  between  valley  and  foothills.  While  this  is  not 
environmentally  desirable,  any  route  farther  west  of  the  valley  would 
encounter  more  difficult  topographic  constraints.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  proposed  route  does  follow  existing  transmission  and  transporta- 
tion corridors  to  a  large  extent. 


S-4 


The  route  alternatives,  or  deviations,  consist  of  the  Combination 
Route  and  the  Contra  Loma  Route.  The  Combination  Route  would  follow 
existing  rights-of-way  slightly  more  closely  than  the  corresponding 
portion  of  the  proposed  action,  even  though  the  separation  between  the 
two  routes  is  very   small  (less  than  2  mi-les).  Because  the  Combination 
Route  would  add  about  0.5  miles  to  the  length  of  the  pipeline,  it 
would  have  slightly  higher  construction  and  operation  costs.  The 
Contra  Loma  Route  would  avoid  landslide  areas  in  a  small  portion  of 
Contra  Costa  County,  but  it  would  pass  through  existing  residential 
areas,  unlike  the  segment  it  would  replace,  and  therefore  could  create 
more  difficult  right-of-way  and  permit  conditions. 

The  three  new  booster  station  alternative  would  achieve  project 
objectives  more  economically  because  it  would  allow  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  oil  spill  over  this  segment.  This  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  prices  of 
natural  gas,  crude  oil,  and  electricity.  These  alternative  power 
configurations  would  use  more  energy  than  the  proposed  method,  and  in 
addition,  will  cause  significantly  higher  air  emissions  if  crude  oil 
were  to  be  burned  as  a  source  of  heat. 

Overhead  aqueduct  crossings  would  be  a  preferable  method  of 
crossing  California  Water  Project  canals  compared  to  the  proposed 
underground  techniques,  according  to  the  California  Department  of 
Water  Resources.  They  would  also  be  less  expensive.  The  disadvan- 
tages of  these  overhead  crossings  are  that  they  would  expose  the  pipe- 
line to  external  damage,  possibly  causing  spills  into  the  aqueducts, 
and  they  are  visually  intrusive  compared  to  underground  crossings. 

Agency  Preferred  Alternative 

Under  NEPA,  the  federal  lead  agency  must  identify  its  preferred 
alternative  for  projects  for  which  an  EIS  is  prepared.  The  preferred 
alternative  stated  below  is  not  a  final  agency  decision,  but  it  is  an 
indication  of  the  federal  agency's  preliminary  preference.  The 
alternative  identified  below  is  preferred  by  BLM,  the  federal  lead 
agency. 

The  federal  agency's  preferred  alternative  is  the  proposed  action 
as  described  in  this  document.  There  is  no  corresponding  requirement 
under  CEQA  that  the  CEQA  lead  agency  identify  its  preferred  alterna- 
tive at  the  Draft  EIR  stage. 


S-5 


Table  S-1 

SUMMARY  OF  SIGNIFICANT  IMPACTS  FOR  THE 
SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEY  PIPELINE  PROPOSAL 


Resource  Area 


GEOLOGY   AND   TOPOGRAPHY 
Construct  ion 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 
Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact 
— 5 ^E 


Mitigation 
Measure 


Effect  iveness 


Operat  ion 


1.  Unique  geological  features 

2.  Commercial  resources 

3.  Paleontological  resources 


4.  Topographical  modifications; 
requirement  to  cut  steep 
slopes,  particularly  in  Contra 
Costa  County 

5 .  Requirement  for  occasional 
blasting  of  hard  rock 


None  identified 


NAt 

X 


See  Paleontology 
below 

See  Soils  below 


2,  6 


NAt 


NAt 


Original  contours  and  slopes 
will  be  restored  as  much  as 
possible 


Noise. from  blasting  or  risks 
to  nearby  construction  crews 
will  be  minimized 


Residual 
Impact 
Significance 
S      NS 


GEOLOGICAL  HAZARDS 
Const  ruct  ion 
Operat ion 


None  identified 

Potential  pipeline  rupture 
at  Pacheco  Creek 


Need  for  special  engineering 
design  studies  required  to 
enhance  safety  of: 


4,  65,  7 


Response  action  to  a  spill  if 
one  occurs  at  the  Concord  Fault 
will  be  accelerated 


Table    b-1    (Cont.) 


Resource   Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 

Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 
5      R5       Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 
Impact 
Significance 
S      NS 


GEOLOGICAL  HAZARDS  (Cont.) 


a)   The  pipe  at  Concord  Fault 


b)  Stability  of  storage  tank 
at  Mid  station  due  to 
intense  ground  shaking 
or  liquefaction 

Buoyancy  and  pipe  instability 
in  water-saturated  zone 
(brackish  marsh  deposits) 


1,  4 


X    3 


Reduced  potential  for  rupture 
due  to  maximum  potential  earth- 
quake and  fault  movement  (up  to 
3  feet  laterally) 

Reduced  potential  for  damage  to 
ancillary  facilities 


The  pipe  will  be  prevented  from 
floating  and/or  working  its  way 
to  the  surface 


SOILS 

Construct  ion 


9.   Pipeline  sited  on  landslide 
prone  areas 

10.   No  rehabilitation  and  revege- 
tation  within  one  growing  sea- 
son due  to  the  following  fac- 
tors : 

a)  Accelerated  erosion  and 
deposition  due  to  sloping 
and  steeply  sloping  ter- 
rain, particularly  in 
Contra  Costa  County 

b)  Salinity  or  alkalinity 


X    9 


B,  9,  10,  11, 
12,  15,  16, 
66,  67 


8,  13,  15,  16 


Pipeline  stability  is  enhanced; 
risk  of  exposure  is  minimal 


These  measures  will  restrict  the 
impact  to  the  sites  having  most 
severe  limitations  (e.g.,  slopes 
>  1  SSi  and  associated  drainages) 


Saline  soils  will  be  rehabili- 
tated and  revegetated  with 
adapted  plant  species 


lable  S-1  (Cont  . ) 


Resource  Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 

Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 
Si      N"5       Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 

Impact 

Significance 

s — m 


SOILS  (Cont .) 


Operation 

SUKFALl  WAILR 
Const  ruct  ion 


i 

00 


11.  Reduced  productivity  due  to 
horizon  mixing  and  compac- 
tion, ponding  of  agricul- 
tural land 

12.  Potential  recurrent  erosion 
problem  on  steep  slopes 
and  associated  drainages 


13.   Degradation  of  water  quality 
below  beneficial  use  criteria, 
due  to  any  of  the  following 
factors: 

a)  Excessive  disturbance 
in-stream  and  of  the  adja- 
cent banks  and  land  caus- 
ing erosion  and  sedimen- 
tation 

b)  Release  of  hydrostatic 
test  water  and/or  trench 
dewat ering 


c)   Spill  and  fuel  leaks 


14.   Stream  bed  alterations  and 
scouring,  and  damage  to 
aquatic  habitat 


X    8,  16,  17 


10,  14,  15 


18,  23,  21 

19,  20,  24 

22 

18,  21,  68 


Original  productivity  will  be 
restored  on  the  right-of-way 


Right-of-way  maintenance 
including  erosion  control, 
where  necessary  will  be 
implemented  in  perpetuity 


Silt  loads  are  reduced 


Hydrostatic  test  water  releases 
will  be  controlled  to  avoid 
scour  and  water  quality 
degradat  ion 

No  oil  will  reach  surface  water 
resources 

Aquatic  life  will  only  be 
subject  to  short-term  effects; 
there  will  be  no  significant 
change  in  the  stream  beds 


*In  Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  counties. 


Table   5-1    (Conl .) 


Resource   Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 

Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 
5      R5       Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 

Impact 

Significance 

5 R5 


SUWACt   WAILR    (Cont.) 


i 


Ope  rat  ion 


GliOUNUWATLK 
Const  ruct  i  on 


15.   Construction  of  structures 
in  100-year  flood  zones 


16.  Reductions  in  surface  water 
vo lume 

17.  As  for  (14)  above 


1o.   Oil  spills 


None  identified 


x    21 


NAt   NAt 


68,  69 


70 


Pipeline  stability  is  ensured 
in  the  case  of  an  unusual 
flood 

NAt 


Scour  will  be  prevented  and  risk 
of  exposure  of  the  pipeline  will 
be  reduced 

Measure  will  reduce  size  of 
spill  and  spill  impacts 


NAt 


,(2) 


Ope  rat  ioii 


AIR  ljUAl  I1Y 
Const  ruct  ion 


19.  A  measureable  reduction  in 
water  quality  in  an  aquifer, 
due  to  major  spill  which  is 
contained  and  cleaned  up 

20.  Restrictions  or  reduction  in 
available  groundwater 


21,   Violation  of  national  and 
state  ambient  air  quality 
standards  due  to  const ruc- 
t  ion  emiss ions 


X    100 


NAt   NAt 


X    25,  26,  27 


If  a  spill  occurs,  it  will  not 
reach  aquifers  due  to  spill 
response 

NAt 


Construction  emission  wi 
negl  ig  ible 


1  be 


NAt 


Opera!  ion 


22.      As  for  (21)  above  due  to 
booster  station  emissions 
standards  due  to  const ruc- 
t  ion  em  i  ssions 


X    25,  71 


Negligible  pollution  from 
natural  gas  burning 


Table  5-1  (Coat  .) 


Resource  Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 

Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 
5      N"5       Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 

Impact 

Significance 

S RTS 


AIR  QUALITY  (Cont .) 


23.   Influence  on  areas  already 
in  attainment  and  sensitive 
receptors 


X    NN 


NN 


SUCIULCUNUM1CS  AND 
TRANSPORTATION 

Const  ruct  ion 


24.  Significant  demand  for 
temporary  housing,  for 
infrastructure 


2">.   Water  demand 

'26.   Loss  in  tourist  value 

27.   Loss  in  revenue  for  grazing 
BLM  land 


28.   Unacceptable  public  risk 


28,  33 


X 

NN 

X 

NN 

X 

36 

X    29 


Potential  impacts  24  and  23  are 
not  a  feature  of  the  project, 
mainly  due  to  limited  labor 
force 

NN 

NN 

Loss  will    be   minor,    if   any, 
and    short-term;    interference 
with   grazing   practices  will    be 
negligible 

Risk    associated   with    open    trench 
and   heavy    equipment    will    be 
minimized 


Uperat  ions 


29.   Traffic  congestion,  delays 

accidents,  public  inconvenience 

5(J.   Negative  change  in  local  tax 
base 


X    28 


NAt   NAt 


Planned  crossings  of  roads  and 
maintenance  of  traffic  flow 

Potential  impacts  3U,  31,  34, 
and  35  are  not  a  feature  of  the 
project  and,  at  most,  insignificant 


NAt 


Table  S-1  (Cont.) 


Resource  Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 
Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 


US- 


Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 

Impact 

Significance 

s    — m 


SOCIOECONOMICS  AND 
THANSPUIil  AT  ION    (Cont.) 


GO 

i 


NOISE 

Construct  ion 


Uperat ions 


31.  Change  in  property  values 

32.  Change  in  water  demand 

33.  Change  in  population 

34.  Unacceptable  public  risk 

3t>.  Loss  in  tourist  value 


36.   Construction  equipment  and 
activities  exceed  county 
guidelines 


37.  As  above,  due  to  noise  of 
booster  station;  long-term 
inconsistency  with  State  of 
California  land  use  criteria 

38.  Will  exceed  55  dfl(A)  over 
the  long-term 


NAt  NAt 

X  NN 

X  NN 

X  NN 

NAt  NAt 

X  30,  31 


72 


72 


Potential  impacts  34  and  35  are 
negligible 

Approximately  same  as  present 

Negligible  increase,  if  any 

Risk  is  acceptable  as  indicated 
by  existing  pipelines 

NAt 


People  will -experience  exceed- 
ences  (to  about  60  dB(A))  only 
for  a  couple  of  days  at  specific 
points,  only  on  work  days  during 
the  day  time,  and  not  on  week- 
ends in  recreation  areas  and 
elsewhere 

Noise  will  be  attenuated  and 
will  be  audible  only  at  and  near 
the  site;  no  noise-sensitive 
locations  will  be  affected 

Only  within  about  250  feet  from 
the  facilities 


NAt 

X 
X 
X 

NAt 


Table  S-l  (Cont.) 


Resource  Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 

Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 
5      R5        Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 
Impact 
Significance 
S      N5 


LAND  USL  AND 
KLCRCATION 

Const  ruct ion 


i 


39.  Inconsistent  with  adopted  land 
use  plans.   Relative  to  future 
land  uses  in  Contra  Costa,  con- 
flict:  Stoneman  Park  and  Reser- 
voir; Kirker  Pass  and  central 
landfill  proposals  and  proposed 
residential  development;  pro- 
posed highway  improvements;  and 
Coalinga  Air  Cargo  Port  and 
bike  trails  in  Fresno  County 

40.  Quality  of  recreation  in 
Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional 
Preserve  (Contra  Costa  County) 
and  Bethany  Reservoir  State 
Park 


37 


37 


Further  consultation  with  local 
planning  authorities  is  required 


Planning  the  siting  and  timing 
of  the  construction  will  reduce 
the  impacts  and/or  avoid  them 


41.   Increase  in  recreational 
demand 


X    33 


Not  only  will  the  project  have 
an  insignificant  impact  on 
recreational  demand,  the  labor 
farce  will  not  use  public 
facilities  except  for  recreation 


42. 


Changes    necessary    in    land 
use   classification 


32 


After  construction,  most  of  the 
approximately  2,500  acres  are 
returned  to  their  original  land 
use;  existing  utility  corridors 
are  used  for  about  BOX  of  the 
route;  no  permanent  conversion 
of  prime  agricultural  land 


43.   Volumes  of  waste  relative 
to  landfill  capacity 


35 


Waste  volumes  are  small 


lable  S-1  (ConL.) 


Resource  Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 

Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 
5      N5       Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 

Impact 

Significance 

s     — m 


LAND  USL  AND 
RLCRLAIIUN  (ConL .) 

Operat  ion 


44.   As  for  (42),  two  new  booster 
staLions  and  microwave  towers 
will  preempt  existing  land 
use  on  less  than  40  acres 


45. 


New  access  to  previously 
inaccessible  areas 


32 


73,  74 


Prime  agricultural  land  not 
affected 


Gates  will  be  installed  to 
interfere  with  motorized 
access  to  sensitive  areas  if  any 
are  identified  as  public  lands 


VISUAL  RL  SOURCES 
Cons L rue t ion 


Opera I  ton 


46.  Visual  contrast  of  the 
right-of-way 

47.  Visual  contrast  of  booster 
stations  and  microwave  towers; 
conflicts  with  special  pol- 
icies for  scenic  highway  and 
Westley  Rest  SLop  Park 

40.   Visual  contrast  upon 
abandonment 


B,  11,  15, 
38,  40,  41 

38,  39 


75 


No  strong  visual  contrast  will 
develop 

Ihe  sites  will  be  well  sited 
environmentally  in  relation  to 
travelers  on  1-5  and  existing 
struct  ures 


Sites  will  be  restored  to  their 
original  condit  ion 


PALEONIULOLiY 
Const  ruct  ion 


49.   Loss  or  disturbance  of  sig- 
nificant paleontolog ical 
resources 


42,  43,  44,        With  these  mitigation  measures, 
45  adverse  impacts  will  be  reduced 

to  insignificance 


Table  S-l  (Cont.) 


Resource  Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 

Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 
5      FI5       Measure 


LFfectiveness 


Residual 
Impact 
Significance 
S      PIS 


PAl.tUNlUl.UuY  (font.) 
Operut  ion 


50.   Sensitive  resource  areas 
becoming  publicly  known 
and  accessible  and 
unauthorized  collection 


73,  76 


Unauthorized  collection  will  be 
limited;  area  is  presently 
accessible 


CULTURAL  RLSOURCES 

Const  met  ion 


51 .      The   loss  or  disturbance  of 
sites    eligible    for   the 
NRHP 


-co 
i 


46,  47,  48,        With  these  mitigation  measures, 
49  which  include  implementation 

of  a  cultural  resources  manage- 
ment plan,  adverse  impacts  will 
be  reduced  to  insignificance 


Qperat lun 


52.   Conflicts  with  features  of 
ethnographic  importance 
and  the  cultural  heritage 
of  Native  American  groups 

None  identified 


50,  51 


Native  American  groups  will  be 
included  in  planning  and 
mitigation  measures  to  ensure 
minimal  conflict 


TlHRtSTKlAL  AND 
AQUATIC  RLSUUKCES 

Const  rucl ion 


53.   Impacts  on  species  and  com- 
munities, including  raptors 


52,  53,  54,        Hight-of-way  habitats  will  be 
56,  57  restored,  raptor  nesting  sites 

will  be  avoided,  and  a  range  of 
other  measures  will  ensure  no 
significant  impacts  occur  to 
aquatic  and  terrestrial  plant 
and  animal  species 


Table  S-1  (Cont.) 


Resource  Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 

Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 
5      FB       Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 
Impact 
Significance 
S      H5 


TERRESTRIAL  AND 

AQUATIC  RESOURCES  (Cont.) 


Impacts  on  special  status 
species 


52,  53,  55,        With  these  mitigation  measures 
56,  57,  58,       and  others  that  may  be  required 
59,  60,  61,       by  the  Biological  Opinion, 
62  adverse  impacts  will  be  reduced 

to  insignificance 


i 


Operation 


54.  Unauthorized  collections 


55.  Contamination  by  herbicides; 
weed  control 


56.   Spill  impact  on  special 
status  species  habitat 


56 


X    77 


78,  79 


Potential  impact  is  already 
possible  due  to  general 
accessibility  of  the  region; 
status  quo  will  be  maintained 

Mechanical  weed  control  and 
removal  have  less  impact 


Measure  ensures  full-scale 
action;  residual  impact 
significance  depends  on  many 
factors 


(2) 


SYSTEM  SAFETY   AND 
RELIABILITY 


Operation 


57.   Impacts  due  to  system  failures 
and/or  failure  to  follow 
procedures 


80,  81,  83        Measures  ensure  applicable 

design  codes  and  regulations 
apply  to  project  trained 
operators,  access  to  informa- 
tion and  communications,  oil 
movement  control  and  instan- 
taneous shut-off,  if  necessary 


(2) 


Table  S-1  (Cont.) 


Resource  Area 


Impact  Area 


Significance  of 
Potential  Hazard 

or  Impact      Mitigation 

5 


"N5~ 


Measure 


Effectiveness 


Residual 
Impact 
Significance 
S     NS 


SYSTEM  SAFETY  AND 
RELIABILITY  (Cont.) 


58.  Maintenance-related  system 
failures 


59.  Fires  at  booster  stations 


82 


84,  85,  86, 
87 


Maintenance  checks  will  ensure 
safety  features  are  operational 
and  the  identification  of 
hazards  to  the  pipeline 


When  fires  occur,  they  will  be 
controlled 


(2) 


(2) 


i 


OIL  SPILL  POTENTIAL 


Construction 


60.   Pump  spills  at  booster 
stations 


61.  Spill  impacts  due  to  design 
or  construction  flaws 


62.   Spill  impact  due  to  geologic 
hazard  or  accidents 


63.   Spill  impacts  due  to  damage 
from  pressure  or  leaks 


64.   Spill  impacts  due  to  lack 
of  security 


88 


89,  91,  92, 
93,  95,  101 


90 


93.  94,  97 


95,  98 


Leak  detection 


Probability  of  a  spill  or 
leak  is  reduced 


Probability  is  reduced  by 
design 


Probability  is  reduced  by 
systems  design 


Probability  is  reduced  by 
inspection  practices 


(2) 


(2) 


(2) 


(2) 


65.   Spill  impacts  due  to  lack 
of  organization 


99,  100 


Size  of  spill  is  reduced  by 
fast  response;  impact 
is  mitigated  by  cleanup 


(2) 


NA+  -  Not  applicable  to  the  project. 

X^2)  -   Significance  of  residual  impacts  cannot  be  determined;  it  is  a  function  of  many  factors  including  the  size  of  the  spill,  time  of  year, 
sensitivity  of  the  resources,  response  action,etc. 

X^  =  Significance  of  future  land  use  conflicts  must  be  resolved  through  the  local  land  use  planning  process. 

NN   =  Not  necessary. 


1.   INTRODUCTION 


1.1  PROJECT  BACKGROUND 

The  California  State  Lands  Commission  (SLC)  and  the  Bureau  of 
Land  Management  (BLM)  of  the  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior  are  pre- 
paring a  combined  environmental  impact  report/environmental  impact 
statement  (EIR/EIS)  on  the  proposed  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline.  The 
San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company  (SJVPLC),  a  wholly-owned 
subsidiary  of  Shell  Pipe  Line  Corporation,  proposes  to  build  a  heated 
underground  pipeline  in  California  to  transport  crude  oil  from  oil 
fields  in  the  southern  San  Joaquin  Valley  to  Martinez  in  the  San 
Francisco  Bay  Area.  The  project  requires  the  preparation  of  an  EIR 
under  the  California  Environmental  Quality  Act  (CEQA),  and  because  the 
project  also  involves  federal  land,  it  requires  the  preparation  of  an 
EIS  under  the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  (NEPA).  The  project 
will  require  federal  and  state  permits,  including  a  "Grant  of  Right- 
of-Way"  from  BLM  and  a  Land  Use  Lease  from  the  SLC.  A  Joint  Review 
Panel  (JRP)  consisting  of  BLM  and  the  SLC  was  formed  to  direct  the 
preparation  of  a  single  document,  this  EIR/EIS,  to  fulfill  the  re- 
quirements of  both  CEQA  and  NEPA.  An  application  for  the  project  was 
filed  with  BLM  and  SLC,  which  initiated  the  environmental  review 
process . 

The  pipeline  would  transport  about  120,000  barrels  per  day  (120 
MBD)  of  three  types  of  crude  oil  to  the  existing  Shell  refinery  facil- 
ities in  Martinez.  The  new  pipeline  would  tie  into  an  existing  pipe- 
line originating  in  Bakersfield.  The  project  includes  an  estimated 
258  miles  of  new  pipeline  and  all  associated  support  facilities,  such 
as  booster  stations,  communication  towers,  and  utility  lines.  Con- 
struction of  the  pipeline  and  its  support  facilities  will  begin  in 
mid-1987,  and  the  pipeline  will  be  operational  about  a  year  later. 

1.2  GENERAL  PROJECT  LOCATION 

The  proposed  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  will  extend  from  exist- 
ing oil  fields  in  Kern  County  in  a  northwest  direction  through  central 


1-1 


California  to  Martinez  in  Contra-Costa  County.  The  route  will  follow 
the  western  edge  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley;  the  other  counties  it  will 
pass  through  include  Kings,  Fresno,  Merced,  Stanislaus,  San  Joaquin, 
and  Alameda.  The  regional  setting  of  the  proposed  project  is  pre- 
sented in  Section  2,  Project  Description.  Detailed  maps  of  the  pro- 
posed pipeline  are  presented  in  Appendix  A. 

1.3  AUTHORIZING  ACTIONS 

The  project  requires  a  variety  of  federal,  state,  and  local  per- 
mits. These  permits,  or  authorizing  actions,  are  listed  in  Table  1-1. 
Whereas  this  EIR/EIS  is  intended  as  an  information  and  planning  docu- 
ment for  jurisdictional  agencies  and  the  public  on  the  potential  envi- 
ronmental impacts  of  the  project,  the  permits  will  be  action-  or  site- 
specific  to  ensure  that  the  details  of  pipeline  design,  construction, 
and  operation,  which  are  mostly  beyond  the  scope  of  this  document, 
conform  to  safety  and  other  requirements  specified  by  federal,  state, 
and  local  regulations.  Since  project  construction  cannot  begin  until 
project  specifications  conform  to  all  permit  requirements,  the  impact 
analysis  in  Chapter  4  assumes  that  all  of  these  requirements  will  be 
met. 

All  responsible  state  and  local  agencies  are  expected  to  use  this 
EIR/EIS  as  a  basis  for  evaluating  the  permit  applications  for  the 
project.  California  state  and  local  agencies  must  decide  on  permits 
within  180  days  of  SLC's  notice  of  completion  (SLC  being  the  lead 
agency  under  CEQA),  or  within  180  days  after  receipt  of  the  completed 
permit  applications,  whichever  is  later. 

Pursuant  to  the  Mineral  Leasing  Act  of  1920  (30  USC  185),  and  in 

accordance  with  43  CFR  2880  (Oil  and  Gas  Pipelines),  the  proposed 

project  requires  a  Grant  of  Right-of-Way  from  the  Bureau  of  Land 
Management  (BLM)  to  construct,  operate,  or  abandon  facilities  on 

federal  lands  under  BLM's  jurisdiction.  Federal  lands  under  BLM's 

jurisdiction  are  traversed  near  milepost  2.5  and  8  in  Kern  County  and 
at  milepost  70  in  Kings  County. 

A  Grant  of  Right-of-Way  can  only  be  obtained  from  BLM  in 
compliance  with  the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  of  1969  (NEPA) 
and  consistent  with  the  environmental  opinions  of  several  federal 
cooperating  agencies,  including  the  U.S.  Army  Corps  of  Engineers 
(COE),  Bureau  of  Reclamation,  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  (USFWS), 
and  the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA). 

BLM's  decision  to  grant  a  right-of-way  would  require  approval  by 
Congress,  since  a  portion  of  the  pipeline  (Segment  4)  has  a  diameter 
of  24  inches  for  173  miles. 

The  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation  (DOT)  regulates  the  trans- 
portation of  hazardous  liquids  (CFR  149,  Part  195).  CFR  49  includes 
many  industrial  standards  (ANSI,  ASTM,  API,  and  others),  as  well  as 
design  requirements  and  construction,  operation,  and  maintenance 
specifications  which  are  commonly  applied  by  the  pipeline  industry  as 
good  engineering  practices. 


1-2 


Table    1-1 

FEDERAL.    STATE,    AND  COUNTY    PERMITS   AND  APPROVALS 
WHICH  MAY  BE    NEEDED  FOR    PROJECT    IMPLEMENTATION 


Agency 


Nature  oF  Action 


Project   Feature 


FEDERAL 

Department    of    the    Interior 
Bureau   of  Land  Management 


3ureau   of  Reel amation 


Issues    federal    right-of-way  grant 


Issues   temporary  use  permits 


Issues   non-competitive   mineral    materials 
sales  contract 

Issues   special    land    use    license   or  easement 


Issues   special    land  use  permit 

Issues   antiquities   permits  and   permits  to 
excavate   or   remove   archaeological    resources 
on  publ ic    lands 

Note:      Bureau   of   Reclamation  easement    for 
crossing   the  Contra  Costa  canal    is  granted 
based   on  Contra  Costa  Water  Department 
approval 

Fish   and  Wildlife   Service/  Issues   Biological    Opinions   on   threatened 

National    Marine  Fisheries  Service        fish/marine   mammals,    and  wildlife   or    plants 

as    part    of  Section   7  of  Endangered   Species 
Act,    for    federal    actions. 

Note:      These    two   agencies   perform  complemen- 
tary   rules    in    implementing    the   Endangered 
Species    Act. 


Pipeline,    access  road,    power   transmission 
lines,    pump  stations 

Temporary  construction   activities;    staging 
areas 

Aggregate    for   booster   station  construction, 
access  road  construction 

Pipeline   and   access  roads  crossing   Delta 
Mendota  Canal  ,    Los  Banos  Reservoir    per 
California  DWR   approval,    and    for   Contra 
Costa  Canal,    per  the  Contra  Costa  Water 
Department 

Pipeline,    access  roads,    etc. 

All    project    features    (federal    lands  only) 


Al  I    project    features 


Table    1-1    (Cont.) 


Agency 


Nature   of  Action 


Project    Feature 


Department    of  Defense 
Army    Corps   of   Engineers 


U.S.    Navy 


Federal    Communications  Commission 
Department    of  Transportation 

Federal    Highway   Administration 
Environmental    Protection  Agency 


STATE 

Cal  it  urnia 

State   Lands  Commission 
Department    of    Transportation 


Issues  nationwide   and   individual    permit(s) 
(Section    404)    for    placement   of    dredged  or 
fill    material    in   waters   of    the   U.S.    or   their 
adjacent   wetlands 

Issues  permit(s)    (Section   10)   for  structures 
or  work   in  or   affecting  navigable  waters  of 
the   U.S. 

Note:      No   navigable   waters   are  crossed 

Issues   easements    to   cross  Department    lands: 
individual    base   commanders   have    final    aproval 

Issues    license    for   construction; 

Issues    easement    (license    and    easement    issued 

from  San  Bruno,    CA,    facility) 

License   to   operate   industrial    radio   service 


River   or    stream  crossing    for    pipel  ine   and 
access  roads;    pipeline  construction 


Water    diversion    facilities,    and   construction 
resulting    in    alterations    to  streams 


Pipeline    across   Concord   Naval    Weapons 
Station 


Project   communications 


Issues   permit(s)    to   cross    federal -aid  highways      Pipeline,    access  roads 


Issues   permit(s)    to  construct   and  operate 
surge   tanks,    storage    tanks,    transfer   piping, 
and   pumping    eguipment 

Issues  NPDES  permits(s)    or   wastewater 
discharges   (CA  and   TX  have   primacy) 

Reviews    404  permits 


Issues    leases    to    cross    state    land 
Issues   perrnit(s)    to   cross   state  highways 


Air   emission    permits   and   oil    pollution 
control    requirements    for   pump  stations    and 
tank    storage    facilities 

Any  discharge   of    hydrostatic    test   water  and 
discharges    from   tank    storage    facilities 

River   or  stream  crossing 


Pipeline    crossing   on   state    lands 
Pipeline,    access  roads,    transmission   lines 


Table    1-1    (Cont.) 


Agency 


Nature  of   Action 


Project    Feature 


Department    of  Fish   and   Game 


i 

en 


Water  Resources  Control  Board 


Air  Pollution  Control  Districts 


State  Historic  Preservation 
Office 

Department  of  Water  Resources 


Issues  stream  alteration  agreement 

Issues  Biological  Opinion  on  state  rare, 
threatened,  and  endangered  species  pursuant  to 
Bl.M  and  California  Dept.  of  Fish  and  Game 
Memorandum  of  Understanding,  for  Bl.M  lands, 
and  pursuant  to  California  Endangered  Species 
Act  for  lands  not  owned  by  BLM. 

Issues  permit  to  discharge  hydrostatic  test 
water 

Issues  permit  for  wastewater  discharge 

Issues  permit  for  operating  pump  stations 
and  storage  tanks 

Issues  cultural  resource  clearance 


Issues  permits  to  cross  California  water 
projects 


Cal  ifornia  Air  Resources  Board      Authorization  to  construct 


California  Tire  Marshall  Office     No  permit  to  be  issued 


COUNTY 
Kern 

Air    Pollution  Control    District 

Planning  Department 


Note:      Monitors   pipeline   construction    for 
adherence    to    al  1    safety    regulations 


Authority    to   construct 
Permit    to   operate 

Cancellation   permit    for   land   conservation 

contracts 


Possible    alterations   of   stream  course 
Pipeline,    access   roads 


Pipel  ine 


Any  discharges    from   pump   stations,    including 

Air   emissions    from  oil    heaters  and 
storage    tanks 

Pipeline,    access  roads;    clearance  required 
prior   to   construction 

Pipeline  crossings   of   irrigation   canals 
and   aqueducts 

Construction   and   operation   of  booster   sta- 
tions 

All    project    features 


Construction   and   operations   of   booster 
stations 

Al  1    project    features   within    county 


Zoning 


Table    1-1    (Cont.] 


Agency 


Nature  of  Action 


Project   Feature 


Kern  (Cont.) 


i 


Pubi  ic  Works  Department 
West  Kern  Water  District 
Lost  Hills  Water  District 
Bel  ridge  Water  Storage  District 
Kern  Co.  Board  of  Supervisors 
Kings 

Air  Pollution  Control  District 

Planning  Department 

Public  Works  Department 

Westland  Water  District 

Fresno 

Air    Pollution  Control    District 


Public  Works    and  Development 
Services 


Conditional    use  permit 

Building   construction   and   grading  permit 

Electrical    and   plumbing   permit 
Floor   hazard  evaluation 

Encroachment   permit 

Permit    to   cross   canal 

Permit    to   cross  canal 

Permit    tu  cross   canaL 

Issue  permit    for  crossing  county  roads 
Issue  permit    for  removing   Joshua  trees 


Authority    to  construct 
Permit    to   operate 

Zoning   permit 
Building   permit 
Structural    permit 

Encroachment    permit 
Bl  asting   permit 

Permit    to   cross  canal 
Water    apropriation   permit 


Authority    to   construct 
Permit    to   operate 

Unci assified  conditional    use   permit 
Zoning   clearance 
Buil ding   permit 


Al  1  roadways  crossed  within   county 

All  irrigation  ditches  within  jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches  within    jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches   within   jurisdiction 

All  roadways  within  county 


Construction   and   operation   of  booster 
stations 

Al  I    project    features   within  county 


All    roadways   within   county   construction 
of   pipel  ine 

All    irrigation   ditches   within    jurisdiction 


Construction   and   operation   of   booster 
station  SJV-2 


Table    1-1    (Cont.) 


Agency 


Nature   of  Action 


Project   Feature 


i 

--4 


Fresno  (Cont.) 


Pleasant  Valley  Water  District 
West!  and  Water  District 

Central  California  Irrigation 
District 

Merced 

Planning  Department 

Public  Works  Department 
Quinto  Water   District 

Ruinero  Water   District 
San  Luis   Water   District 

Santa   Nel  1  a  County    Water  District 
Centinell a  Water   District 
fandsdale   Water  District 
Mustang  Water   District 
Central    Cal  .    Irrigation  District 


Inspection  permit   for  building,   electrical 

and    sewage 
Grading   permit 
Encroachment    permit 
Drainage   permit 

Permit   to   cross  canal 

Permit    to   cross  canal 
Water   appropriation  permit 

Permit    to   cross  canal 


tand    leveling/grading   permit 
Building   permit 
Conditional    use   permit 
Blasting   permit 

Encroachment    permit 

Permit    to  cross  canal 
Water    appropriation   permit 

Permit    to   cross   canal 

Permit    to   cross   canal 
Water    appropriation   permit 

Permit  to    cross  canal 

Permit  to   cross   canal 

Permit  to    cross   canal 

Permit  to  cross   canal 

Permit  to   cross  canal 


All    project    features   within   county 
(including   roadways  and    irrigation   ditches) 


All    irrigation   ditches  within    jurisdiction 
All    irrigation  ditches  within   jurisdiction 

All    irrigation    ditches   within    jurisdiction 


All  project    features   within   county 

All  roadways   crossed   in  county 

All  irrigation  ditches  within  jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches    within    jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches   within   jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches   within    jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches   within   jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches   within    jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches   within   jurisdiction 

All  irrigation   ditches   within    jurisdiction 


Table    1-1    (Cont.) 


Agency 


Nature   of   Action 


Project    Featuri 


i 

CO 


Stanisl  aus 

PI  arming   Commission 

Public  Works  Department 

Fire   Warden  Department 
County    Council 
San    Joaquin 

Air    Pollution  Control    District 

Planning   Department 

Public   Works  Department 

Sheriff's  Department 
Hospital    Water   District 
Plain   View  Water   District 
A I ameda 

Planning  Department 


Use   permit 
Zoning   permit 

Building  permit 
Grading   permit 
Encroachment    permit 

Blasting   permit 

Franchise    agreement 


Authority    to   construct 
Permit    to   operate 

Conditional    use    permit 
Building   permit 
Subdivision  permit 

Encroachment   or    franchise   permits 
Flood   hazard   evalation 

Blasting   permit 

Permit    to   cross   canal 

Permit    to   cross  canal 
Water    appropriation   permit 


Conditional    use   permit 

Grading   permit 

Amendment    to   land  conservation  contract 

Approval    of  conformance   with  general    county 

pi  an 
Subdivision   permit 


All    project    features   within   county 

Pipeline   construction 

Roadways  crossed   in  county 

Pipeline  construction 

All    project    features    within  county 


Construction   and    operation  of  booster 
station  SJV-4 

Operation   of   booster   station  SJV-4 


Roadways   crossed    in   county 
Streams  crossed    in   county 

Pipeline   construction 

All    irrigation   ditches   within   jurisdiction 

All    irrigation   ditches   within   jurisdiction 


Construction    and    operation   of   pipeline; 
all    project    features 


Table    1-1    (Cont. 


Agency 


Nature  of  Action 


Project    Feature 


A I  a me da   (Cont.) 

Public  Works  Department 

Fire    Patrol    Department 
Contra  Costa 

Planning  Department 

Building   and  Grading  Department 

Public   Works  Department 

Flood  Control    Department 
County   Board   of  Supervisors 


Encroachment    permit 

Flood  control    permit 

Seismic    and   geologic   evaluations 

Blasting  permit 


Structural    permits 

Electrical    and   plumbing   permits 
Grading   permit 
Buil ding   permit 

Drainage    permit 
Stream  crossing   permit 

County  road  crossing  permit 

Flood   control    permit 
Encroachment    permit 

Blasting   permit 


All    irrigation   ditches   within   county 

Pipeline  construction 

Operation   of  Martinez  meter  station 
Operation   of  Martinez  meter   station 

All    irrigation    ditches   within   county 

Roadways   crossed    in  county 

All    irrigation   ditches   within  county 

Construction   of   pipeline 


Source:      Woodward-Cl  yde ,    1985;    Ecology    and   Environment,    Inc.,    1986. 


California  state  regulatory  requirements  parallel  those  of  the 
federal  government.  Construction,  operation,  and  abandonment  of  the 
facilities  on  state  lands  require  a  Land  Use  Lease  from  the  California 
SLC  under  the  California  Public  Resources  Code.  SLC,  in  order  to 
grant  right-of-way,  is  required  to  comply  with  the  California  Environ- 
mental Quality  Act  (CEQA).  Under  CEQA,  other  state  agencies  are 
involved  in  the  approval  process  with  which  the  additional  permitting 
requirements  are  coordinated. 

1.4  ENVIRONMENTAL  REVIEW  PROCESS 

The  actual  environmental  review  of  the  proposed  action  and  its 
alternatives  was  initiated  once  all  lead  agency  project  application 
procedures  were  completed.  The  BLM  started  the  federal  EIS  process  by 
publication  of  a  Notice  of  Intent  to  prepare  an  EIS  in  the  Federal 
Register  of  January  17,  1986.  In  California,  the  EIR  process  began 
with  the  publication  of  a  Notice  of  Preparation,  which  the  SLC  circu- 
lated to  all  state  and  local  agencies  and  jurisdictions  along  the  pro- 
posed pipeline  route.  The  Notice  of  Preparation  contained  a  brief 
project  description  and  a  set  of  maps,  and  requested  the  involved 
agencies  to  submit  their  comments,  questions,  or  concerns  about  the 
proposed  action.  The  JRP  used  these  agency  responses,  as  well  as 
input  from  public  hearings  held  along  the  pipeline  route,  to  identify 
the  issues  which  are  addressed  in  this  EIR/EIS. 

The  next  step  in  the  environmental  review  process  is  the  publica- 
tion of  a  Draft  EIR/EIS  on  the  proposed  action  and  its  alternatives. 
The  present  document  has  been  prepared  to  fulfill  this  requirement. 
It  is  called  a  "draft"  because  it  is  subject  to  revision  based  on 
input  received  during  the  public  comment  period,  which  ends  60  days 
after  the  Draft  EIR/EIS  publication  date.  Under  NEPA  and  CEQA,  any 
individual  or  agency  may  comment  on  the  contents  of  this  document  dur- 
ing the  public  review  period.  The  comments  may  be  presented  either  by 
testimony  at  scheduled  public  hearings,  or  by  letter. 

Sixty  days  after  Draft  EIR/EIS  publication,  the  lead  agencies 
will  collect  and  organize  all  comments  received  on  the  document,  and 
use  these  as  the  basis  for  preparing  the  Final  EIR/EIS.  Responses 
will  be  made  to  all  comments.  Depending  on  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  individual  comments,  the  text  of  the  Draft  EIR/EIS  may  be  revised, 
and  individual  written  responses  will  be  prepared,  or  the  Final  EIR/ 
EIS  may  be  presented  in  an  abbreviated  format  which  includes  a  summary 
of  the  proposed  action  and  its  alternatives,  identification  of  the 
preferred  alternative,  and  a  summary  of  and  responses  to  comments 
received  on  the  Draft  EIS.  Once  the  Final  EIR/EIS  is  published,  the 
lead  agencies  will  consider  the  document  for  certification  as  adequate 
and  complete.  Assuming  Final  EIR/EIS  certification,  the  lead  agencies 
will  then  consider  the  project  itself  for  approval. 

1.5  PURPOSE  OF  AND  NEED  FOR  THE  PROJECT 

The  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  project  is  proposed  as  a  means  of 
assuring  a  reliable  supply  of  crude  oil  for  delivery  at  a  competitive 
price  from  Kern  County  oil  fields  to  Shell's  refinery  in  Martinez. 


1-10 


Under  an  exchange  agreement  with  Texaco,  Shell  currently  transports 
120  MBD  of  oil  through  Texaco's  heated  pipeline,  which  extends  from 
the  Caliola  tank  farm  in  Fresno  County  to  refineries  in  Contra  Costa 
County.  This  exchange  agreement  expires  in  1988,  after  which  the 
Texaco  pipeline  will  be  available  to  Texaco  and  independent  producers 
and  refiners  having  protected  rights  to  use  the  pipeline  under  the 
Texaco/Federal  Trade  Commission  Consent  Decree  (related  to  Texaco's 
acquisition  of  the  Getty  Oil  Company).  Once  this  decree  becomes 
effective,  it  could  reduce  the  transmission  capacity  available  to 
Shell  in  the  Texaco  pipeline.  In  addition,  Texaco's  own  transporta- 
tion requirements  could  reduce  or  preempt  the  pipeline  capacity 
available  to  Shell. 

Economic  factors  also  support  a  proposal  to  build  a  pipeline  to 
the  Martinez  refinery.  The  Texaco  pipeline,  with  a  20-inch  diameter, 
is  currently  transporting  over  200  MBD,  including  Shell's  component  of 
about  120  MBD.  This  200-MBD  total  volume  is  at  or  near  the  pipeline's 
capacity,  and  because  this  flow  rate  exceeds  optimum  operating  costs 
on  a  per-barrel  basis,,  it  is  not  cost-effective  for  Shell  to  continue 
to  transport  oil  through  the  Texaco  pipeline,  even  if  Shell  could 
obtain  a  long-term  guarantee  for  its  120-MBD  share  of  the  total  capa- 
city. Additionally,  because  the  Texaco  line  is  privately  owned  and 
operated,  Shell  must  pay  for  the  right  to  use  this  pipeline,  a  cost  it 
would  avoid  by  constructing  its  own  pipeline.  The  costs  of  building 
the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  are  currently  estimated  at  $110  mil- 
lion, and  it  is  uncertain  if  cost  savings  alone  are  sufficient  to 
justify  the  project.  However,  the  project's  main  objectives  are 
reliable  and  cost-competitive  oil  transportation,  and  these  would  be 
achieved  by  building  a  new  pipeline. 

As  a  common  carrier,  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  must  be  made 
available  to  any  transporter  meeting  tariff  requirements  specified  by 
the  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  Commission  (FERC) .  Although  no  studies 
have  been  made  of  other  sources  of  oil  that  might  be  available  for 
shipment  using  the  proposed  pipeline  and  their  destinations,  the  rout- 
ing of  the  proposed  pipeline  makes  it  reasonably  accessible  to  San 
Joaquin  Valley  crude  production  areas. 

1.6  AGENCY  PREFERRED  ALTERNATIVE 

Federal  regulations  developed  by  the  Council  on  Environmental 
Quality  (CEQ)  require  federal  agencies  to  identify  their  preferred 
alternative  if  one  exists  [40  CFR  1502.14  (e)],  although  the 
California  Environmental  Quality  Act  does  not  have  a  similar 
requirement.   In  keeping  with  the  CEQ  requirements,  the  BLM  has 
developed  the  agency's  preferred  alternative.  However,  the  preferred 
alternative  stated  below  is  not  a  final  agency  decision;  rather,  it  is 
an  indication  of  the  federal  agency's  preliminary  preference.  The 
preference  identified  below  is  that  of  the  BLM,  the  federal  lead 
agency. 

Construction  of  the  proposed  San  Joaquin  Valley  pipeline  as 
described  in  this  document,  including  all  specified  mitigation 
measures,  is  the  BLM's  preferred  alternative. 


1-11 


1.7  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EIR/EIS 


The  following  sections  cover  the  material  in  the  necessary  depth 
for  environmental  management  and  information  purposes: 


Section 


Project  Description 
Affected  Environment 
Environmental  Consequences 
Cumulative  Impacts 
Mitigation  Measures 
Unavoidable  Adverse  Impacts 


Section  2 

Section  3 

Section  4 

Section  5 

Section  6 

Section  7 

Section  8:  Relationship  Between  Local  Short- 
term  Uses  of  Man's  Environment  and  Long-term 
Productivity 

Section  9:   Irreversible/Irretrievable  Commit- 
ment of  Resources 

Section  10:  Growth-Inducing  Impacts 

Section  11:  Bibliography 

Section  12:  Consultation  and  Coordination 

List  of  Acronyms  and  Abbreviations 

Technical  Appendices 


Page 


2-1 
3-1 
4-1 
5-1 
6-1 
7-1 
8-1 

9-1 

10-1 
11-1 
12-1 


1-12 


2.   PROJECT  DESCRIPTION 


This  section  describes  the  proposed  action;  discusses  standard 
and  special  construction,  operation,  and  maintenance  procedures;  and 
presents  the  various  alternatives  to  the  proposed  project,  including 
the  no-action  alternative. 

2.1  PROPOSED  PROJECT 

The  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company  (SJVPLC)  proposes  to 
construct  a  heated,  buried  pipeline  system  to  transport  120  MBD  of 
crude  oil  from  existing  oil  production  fields  in  the  southern  San 
Joaquin  Valley  to  the  existing  Shell  Oil  Company  Martinez  refinery 
near  Suisun  Bay  in  Contra  Costa  County.  The  sources  of  the  oil  are 
the  South  Belridge,  Midway-Sunset,  Coalinga,  Kern  River,  and  Mount 
Poso  oil  fields  in  Kern  and  Fresno  counties.  Planned  deliveries  are 
shown  in  Table  2-1. 

The  proposed  project  entails  the  construction  of  257.6  miles  of 
new  pipeline  in  four  segments,  construction  of  two  new  booster  sta- 
tions, and  modification  of  three  existing  booster  stations  and  two 
existing  injection  stations.  Booster  stations  pump  and  heat  the  crude 
oil  to  ensure  a  continuous  flow  through  the  pipeline  at  design  capaci- 
ties. Injection  stations  add  new  oil  to  the  pipeline. 

The  project  will  be  operated  as  a  public  utility  subject  to  the 
applicable  provisions  of  the  California  Public  Utilities  Code  and, 
therefore,  as  a  common  carrier,  it  will  be  available  to  any  shipper 
who  meets  tariff  requirements.  However,  the  primary  shipper  is 
anticipated  to  be  the  Shell  Oil  Company,  an  affiliate  of  the  SJVPLC. 

Shell  is  currently  transporting  about  120  MBD  of  crude  oil  from 
the  San  Joaquin  Valley  fields  to  its  Martinez  refinery  via  exchange 
agreements  with  other  companies  that  operate  pipelines.  Shell's  pri- 
mary exchange  agreement  is  through  the  privately  owned  Texaco  heated- 
oil  pipeline  extending  directly  to  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Area.  The 
agreement  for  Shell  to  transport  via  the  Texaco  pipeline  expires  in 


2-1 


Table  2-1 
PLANNED  DELIVERIES 


Field 


Typical 

Deliveries 

(MBD)* 


Maximum 

Deliveries 

(MBD) 


South  Belridge 
Midway- Sunset 
Coalinga 
Kern  River 
Mount  Poso 


40 
30 

10 
25 
15 


80 
30 
20 
45 

25 


TOTAL 


120 


*MBD  a  Thousand  barrels  per  day. 
♦♦Maximum  delivery  estimates  for  each  field  are  not 
additive  and  cannot  exceed  pipeline  capacity. 

Source:   San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company, 


2-2 


the  beginning  of  the  third  quarter  of  1988.  The  Texaco  pipeline,  the 
only  existing  heated-oil  pipeline  extending  north  to  the  San  Francisco 
Bay  Area,  is  operating  at  or  near  maximum  capacity  and  does  not  pro-  . 
vide  an  adequate  degree  of  flexibility  and  assurance  for  Shell's  long- 
term  transportation  requirements. 

The  present  project  is  proposed  to  ensure  that  Shell  can  continue 
to  transport  120  MBD  of  crude  oil  to  Martinez.  Other  transportation 
methods  would  be  less  efficient,  less  reliable,  and  more  costly  than 
the  proposed  project.  These  alternative  transportation  methods 
include  a  combination  of  rail,  marine,  and  truck  transportation,  and 
crude  oil  exchanges  involving  other  pipeline  companies. 

No  pipelines  are  anticipated  to  be  abandoned  as  a  result  of  the 
construction  and  operation  of  this  project.  In  addition,  the  produc- 
tion and  capacity  of  the  existing  Martinez  refinery  would  not  be 
affected  by  the  proposed  project,  because  the  refinery  is  already 
operating  at  or  near  capacity  and  because  the  proposed  project  would 
deliver  no  more  oil  to  the  refinery  than  is  currently  being  delivered 
(i.e.,  120  MBD).  The  Final  EIR  for  the  Martinez  refinery  (Shell  Oil 
Company  Martinez  Manufacturing  Complex  Modernization,  November  1979, 
State  Clearinghouse  No.  SCH/9101608)  contains  detailed  information 
about  the  refinery  and  its  capacity. 

2.1.1  Description  of  the  Proposed  System  and  Project  Components 

The  project  consists  of  existing  and  proposed  facilities,  includ- 
ing the  pipeline  and  associated  valves  and  meter  station,  booster/ 
heater  and  injection  stations,  communication  sites,  and  other  ancil- 
lary facilities.  These  facilities  include  equipment  storage  sites;  a 
new  80,000-barrel  (80-MBBL)  storage  tank  to  be  constructed  at  the 
existing  Mid  booster  station  in  Kern  County;  access  roads;  and  energy 
and  water  supplies  for  all  new  stations  and  communication  sites. 
Figure  2-1  shows  the  proposed  pipeline  and  associated  facilities. 
Table  2-2  summarizes  the  pipeline  components.  Detailed  maps  of  the 
pipeline  system  are  contained  in  Appendix  A. 

Nearly  97%  of  the  proposed  pipeline  right-of-way  and  the  total 
construction  and  operation  acreage  for  all  project  facilities  is  on 
privately  owned  land.  Table  2-3  lists  ownership  category  and  areas  of 
land  that  will  be  affected  by  the  proposed  action. 

2.1.1.1  Pi  pel ine  System 

The  project  is  divided  into  four  segments,  each  having  a  dif- 
ferent pipeline  size  (see  Table  2-2).  The  size  of  the  pipe  in  each 
segment  is  determined  by  expected  oil  throughputs  and  the  optimum 
pressures  required  for  efficient  movement  of  oil  through  that  segment. 
The  257.6-mile  pipeline  originates  near  Fellows  in  Kern  County  and 
extends  northwesterly  for  a  total  of  258.3  miles  to  its  terminus  at 
the  Martinez  refinery  (see  Figure  2-1).  The  discrepancy  between  the 
length  of  the  pipeline  and  the  total  length  of  the  system  is  due  to 
land  requirements  for  the  booster/ injection  station  facilities.  Each 
of  the  proposed  pipeline  segments  is  described  below. 


2-3 


V       Microwave  Stations 

□       Booster/injection 
Stations  to  be 
Modified 

New  Booster  Stations 


(5 20  40 

0  50 


SCALE 

SO  80 

100 


100  120  MILES 


150  KILOMETERS 


Figure  2-1      PROPOSED  PIPELINE  SYSTEM  AND  PROJECT  COMPONENTS 
(SEE  DETAILED  PROJECT  MAPS  IN  APPENDIX  A) 


2-4 


ro 
i 

cxi 


Table  2-2 
SUMMARY  OF  PIPELINE  FACILITIES 


Pipeline 
Segment 

Length 
(miles) 

Diameter 
(inches) 

Status 

Injection/Booster 
Stations 

Station 
Status 

Proposed  Microwave 
Towers* 

1 

18.5 

10.75 

Proposed 

Weir  (I) 
.  McKittrick  (I) 

Existing 
Modify 

Weir  (MW-1) 
McKittrick  (MW-1A) 

2 

21.6 

18 

Proposed 

Kernridge  (I) 

Modify 

Kernridge  (MW-2) 

3 

44.4 

14 

Proposed 
(loop) 

Mid  Station  (B)*» 

Modify 

Mid  Station  (MW-3) 

14 

Existing 

Kettleman  (B) 

Existing 

Kettleman  (MW-4) 

4 

173.1 

24 

Proposed 

Caliola  (B) 
SJV-2b  (B) 

SJV-3b  (B) 

Modify 
Proposed 

Proposed 

Caliola  Pump  Station  (MW-5) 

Skunk  Hollow  (MW-6) 
Panoche  Junction  (MW-7) 

SJV-2(b)  Booster  Station  (MW-B) 

Laguna  Seca  Ranch  (MW-9) 
Cottonwood  Hill  (MW-10) 
SJV-3(b)  Booster  Station  (MW-11) 
Mount  Oso  (MW-1 2) 
Mount  Diablo  (MW-13) 
Martinez  Refinery  (MW-14) 


Key:   1=  Injection,  B  =  Booster 

♦Location  and  height  of  these  towers  are  listed  in  Table  2-8. 
♦♦Includes  construction  of  one  80,000-BBL  storage  tank  at  the  station. 


Table  2-3 
OWNERSHIP  OF  LAND  AFFECTED  BY  THE  PROPOSED  PROJECT 


Owner 

Right-of-Way 

Length 

(miles) 

80-foot 
Construction 
Right-of-Way 

(acres) 

30-foot 

Operation 

Right-of-Way 

(acres) 

BLM 

2.3 

22.3 

8.4 

8ureau  of  Reclamation 

3.5 

33.3 

12.7 

U.S.   Navy 

1,1 

10.6 

4.0 

State 

1.0 

9.5 

3.6 

County 

1.0 

9.5 

3.6 

Total  Public 

8.9 

85.7 

32.3 

Total  Private 

249.4 

2,418.4 

906.9 

TOTAL 

258.3* 

2,504.1 

939.2 

•■The  minor  discrepancy  of  0.6  miles  between  the  estimated  length  of  the 
right-of-way  and  the  length  of  the  pipeline  (257.6  miles)  is  due  to 
additional  land  included  in  booster  station  houses. 


2-6 


Mileposts  used   in  this  EIR/EIS  are   arranged  such  that  the  south- 
ernmost point  of  the  pipeline  is   set  to  0  (zero)   and  the  northern 
terminus   is  set  to  258.3.     Mileposts,  therefore,   are  continuous   and 
increase  from  south  to  north.     Since  the  mileposts  differ  from  those 
used   in  the   application  submitted  to  the  SLC,   Table  2-4   is   included 
for  cross-reference.     This  table  also   identifies  the  USGS  topographi- 
cal  maps  which   show  the  route  at   a  scale  of  1:24,000. 

Segment  1  -  Weir  Injection  Station  to  Kernridge  Station 

The  first  section,  which  consists  of  approximately  18.5  miles  of 
10.75-inch  diameter  pipeline,  will   be  constructed   in  Kern  County  from 
the  existing  Weir  injection  station   in  the  Midway-Sunset  oil   field 
through   an  existing  Shell   central    storage  facility  in  the  Belridge 
production  field,   to  the  existing  Kernridge  injection  station.     The 
McKittrick   injection  station,  located  "about  halfway  between  Weir   and 
Kernridge,   will   be  modified   as  part  of  the  project.     The  existing  Weir 
station  will    not  be  modified. 

This   section  of  the  pipeline  system  will    transport  30  MBD  from 
the  Midway-Sunset  field  through  the  Belridge  storage  facility  into 
Segment  2  of  the  pipeline,   with   a  contribution   of  15  MBD  from  the  Weir 
station   and  15  MBD  from  the  McKittrick   injection  station.     The  Weir 
station  has   a  30-MBBL  tank  from  which   oil   will    be  pumped  through 
meters   into  the  10.75-inch  pipeline.     Since  these  facilities  presently 
pump  this  oil    into  the  Texaco  pipeline  system,  no  modifications   are 
required.     The  McKittrick   injection  station  will    inject  Midway-Sunset 
oil    from  existing  Union  Oil   Company  tankage   into  the  10.75-inch   pipe- 
line.    Meters   and   positive  displacement   pumping  units  will   be  added  to 
the  station. 

Segment  2  -  Kernridge  Station  to  Mid  Station 

Segment  2  consists   of  21.6  miles   of  18- inch-diameter  pipeline 
from  the  Kernridge  station  to  Mid   station,   where   it  will    feed   into   an 
existing  14- inch-diameter  Shell   Oil   Company  crude  oil    pipeline  and   a 
proposed  14-inch   line  constructed   parallel    to  the  existing   line  (Seg- 
ment 3).     This  configuration   is   referred  to   in   the   industry  as   a 
looped  pipeline.     Beginning   at  Kernridge,   oil   will    pass  directly  into 
this   segment  of  the  18- inch   pipeline  without   being   stored.     The 
existing  Kernridge  injection  station,   now  delivering  40  MBD  from  the 
Belridge  field,   will   be  upgraded  to  deliver  the   additional   30  MBD  from 
the  Segment  1  10.75-inch  pipe.     Thus,   this  segment  will   transport   a 
total    of  70  MBD  of  oil. 

Segment  3  -  Mid  Station  to  Caliola  Booster  Station 

From  Mid  station  to  the  Caliola  booster  station,   approximately 
44.4  miles  of  14-inch-diameter  pipeline  will   be  constructed   parallel 
to   an  existing  14-inch-diameter  Shell    pipeline  originating  near 
Bakersfield   and  terminating   at  the  existing  Shell   Caliola  tank   farm 
and  booster  station   in  Fresno  County.     This   looped   pipeline  will    use 
and  tie-in  both  the  new  and  the  existing  14- inch  pipelines.     The 
existing  Kettleman  booster  station,  located   at  the  midpoint   of  Segment 
3  (approximately  milepost  62),   will    not  require  any  modifications. 

2-7 


Table  2-4 

EIR/EIS  MILEPOSTS  FOR  THE 

PROPOSED  PROJECT  IDENTIFIED  BY 

USGS  QUADRANGLE,  COUNTY,  PIPELINE  SEGMENT,  AND 

MILEPOSTS  USED  IN  ORIGINAL  APPLICATION  (FROM  SOUTH  TO  NORTH) 


USGS 
Quadrangle 

Quad 
Map. 
No. 

County 

Pipeline 
Segment 

SJVPLC 
Milepost 

EIR/EIS 
Milepost 

Fellows 

1 

Kern 

1 

0.0  - 

2.7 

0.0 

2.7 

Western  Hills 

2 

Kern 

1 

2.7  - 

5.23 

2.7 

- 

5.2 

Reward 

3 

Kern 

1 

5.23  - 

12.9 

5.2 

- 

12.8 

Belridge 

4 

Kern 

1  4  2 

12.9  - 

23.2 

12.8 

- 

22.9 

Lost  Hills 

5 

Kern 

2 

23.2  - 

31.65 

22.9 

- 

31.5 

Lost  Hills,  NW 

6 

Kern 

2  4  3 

31.65  - 

0.76 

31.5 

- 

40.9 

Lone  Tree  Well 

7 

Kern 

3 

0.76  - 

1.57 

40.9 

- 

41.7 

West  Camp 

8 

Kern/ Kings 

3 

1.57  - 

11.3 

41.7 

- 

51.4 

Dudley  Ridge 

9 

Kings 

3 

11.3  - 

13.51 

51.4 

- 

53.7 

Los  Viejos 

10 

Kings 

3 

13.51  - 

22.4 

53.7 

- 

62.6 

Kettleman  City 

11 

Kings 

3 

22.4  - 

24.8 

62.6 

- 

64.6 

La  Cima 

12 

Kings 

3 

24.8  - 

33.87 

64.6 

- 

73.8 

Avenal 

13 

Kings/ Fresno 

3 

33.87  - 

35.9 

73.8 

- 

75.7 

Guijarral 

14 

Fresno 

3  to  4 

35.9  - 

40.64 

75.7 

- 

84.9 

Coalinga 

15 

Fresno 

4 

40.64  - 

42.68 

84.9 

- 

87.0 

Domengine  Ranch 

16 

Fresno 

4 

42.68  - 

53.55 

87.0 

- 

97.7 

Tres  Picos  Harms 

17 

Fresno 

4 

53.55  - 

54.55 

97.7 

- 

98.7 

Lillis  Ranch 

18 

Fresno 

4 

54.55  - 

63.6 

98.7 

- 

107.8 

Levis 

19 

Fresno 

4 

63.6  - 

67.35 

107.8 

- 

111.4 

Monocline  Ridge 

20 

Fresno 

4 

67.35  - 

76.0 

111.4 

- 

120.0 

Tumey  Hills 

21 

Fresno 

4 

76.0  - 

77.6 

120.0 

- 

121.5 

Chounet  Ranch 

22 

Fresno 

4 

77.6  - 

87.3 

121.5 

- 

131.2 

Hammonds  Ranch 

23 

Fresno 

4 

87.3  - 

89.15 

131.2 

- 

133.1 

Laguna  Seca  Ranch 

24 

Fresno/ Merced 

4 

89.15  - 

99.3. 

133.1 

- 

143.2 

Ortigalita 

25 

Merced 

4 

99.3  - 

99.9 

143.2 

- 

143.9 

Ortigalita  Peak,  NW 

26 

Merced 

4 

99.9  - 

109.55 

143.9 

- 

153.6 

Volta 

27 

Merced 

4 

109.55  - 

116.37 

153.6 

- 

160.2 

San  Luis  Dam 

28 

Merced 

4 

116.37  - 

121.8 

160.2 

- 

166.0 

Howard  Ranch 

29 

Me  reed/ Stanislaus 

4 

121.8  - 

131.07 

166.0 

- 

175.4 

Newman 

30 

Stanislaus 

4 

131.07  - 

132.37 

175.4 

- 

176.8 

Orestimba  Peak 

31 

Stanislaus 

4 

132.37  - 

140.25 

176.8 

- 

184.5 

Patterson 

32 

Stanislaus 

4 

140.25  - 

149.3 

184.5 

- 

193.7 

Westley 

33 

Stanislaus 

4 

149.3  - 

151.5 

193.7 

- 

195.9 

Solyo 

34 

Stanislaus/San  Joaquin 

4 

151.5  - 

161.3 

195.9 

" 

204.6 

2-8 


Table  2-4  (Cont.) 


USGS 
Quadrangle 

Quad 
Map. 
No. 

County 

Pipeline 
Segment 

SJVPLC 
Milepost 

EIR/EIS 
Milepost 

Lone  Tree  Creek 

35 

San  Joaquin 

4 

161.3 

-  161.76 

204.6 

-  205.0 

Tracy 

36 

San  Joaquin 

4 

161.76 

-  169.97 

205.0 

-  213.5 

Midway 

37 

San  Joaquin/Alameda 

4 

169.97 

-  175.75 

213.5 

-  219.4 

Clifton  Court  Forebay 

38 

Alameda 

4 

175.75 

-  179.1 

219.4 

-  222.7 

Byron  Hot  Springs 

39 

Alameda/Contra 

Costa 

4 

179.1 

-  186.77 

222.7 

-  230.6 

Brentwood 

40 

Contra  Costa 

4 

186.77 

-  191.04 

230.6 

-  235.6 

Antioch  South 

41 

Contra  Costa 

4 

191.04 

-  199.67 

235.6 

-  244.6 

Clayton 

42 

Contra  Costa 

4 

199.67 

-  202.4 

244.6 

-  247.3 

Honner  Bay 

43 

Contra  Costa 

4 

202.4 

-  207.3 

247.3 

-  252.3 

Vine  Hill 

44 

Contra  Costa 

4 

207.3 

-  213.7 

252.3 

-  258.3 

This  section  of  looped  pipeline  will  transport  a  total  of  110 
MBD,  including  the  70  MBD  from  the  proposed  18-inch  Kernridge-Mid 
station  line  and  the  40  MBD  currently  being  transported  by  the  exist- 
ing 14-inch  Bakersfield  to  Caliola  line.  The  oil  streams  from  each  of 
these  pipelines  will  be  combined  at  the  Mid  booster  station  and 
carried  to  the  Caliola  station  through  both  the  existing  14-inch  line 
and  the  proposed  14-inch  line. 

Approximately  once  a  week,  for  a  period  of  1.5  days,  lube  crude, 
a  unique  type  of  crude  oil  from  the  Poso  field,  will  be  sent  through 
the  Bakersfield  line  and  allowed  to  accumulate  in  the  new  80-MBBL 
storage  tank  at  Mid  station.  During  this  time,  the  normal  flow  of 
heavy  crude  from  Bakersfield  will  be  shut  off  to  allow  transport  of 
this  lube  crude,  and  heavy  crude  from  Segment  2  will  be  pumped  to 
Martinez  at  this  segment's  full  design  capacity  of  110  MBD  (rather 
than  the  normal  70  MBD).  When  the  80-MBBL  storage  tank  is  full  of 
lube  crude,  the  flow  from  Segment  2  will  be  shut  down,  and  this 
special  crude  will  be  pumped  out  of  the  tank  and  transported  to 
Martinez. 

Both  the  Mid  and  Kettleman  booster  stations  are  existing  sta- 
tions. Mid  station  will  be  modified  to  accommodate  the  increased 
throughputs;  it  will  require  an  additional  gas  turbine-driven  pumping 
unit,  a  5  million  (5  MM)  BTU/hr  direct-fired  heater,  and  the  new 
80-MBBL  storage  tank. 

Segment  4  -  Caliola  Booster  Station  to  Martinez  Refinery 

For  the  remaining  173.1  miles,  a  24-inch-diameter  pipeline  will 
be  constructed  from  the  Caliola  tank  farm  and  booster  station  through 
Fresno,  Merced,  Stanislaus,  San  Joaquin,  Alameda,  and  Contra  Costa 
counties,  to  the  existing  Shell  Martinez  refinery  (see  Figure  2-1). 
For  most  of  its  length,  this  section  of  pipeline  has  been  routed 
adjacent  to  an  existing  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  transmission  line 
right-of-way  and  a  Texaco  pipeline  right-of-way. 

Segment  4  will  transport  120  MBD,  including  110  MBD  from  the 
looped  segment  and  10  MBD  from  local  Coalinga  production.  (During  the 
time  that  lube  crude  is  being  transported  through  Segment  4,  the 
10  MBD  of  local  Coalinga  production  will  be  stored  in  tankage  at 
Caliola.)  The  Caliola  booster  station  and  proposed  SJV-2(b)  and 
SJV-3(b)  booster  stations  will  pump  and  heat  the  oil  along  this 
length,  and  the  oil  will  pass  through  the  Martinez  meter  station  and 
into  existing  tankage  at  the  Martinez  refinery.  The  proposed  SJV-2(b) 
and  SJV-3(b)  booster  stations  will  be  located  at  mileposts  132.9  and 
201.0,  respectively.  The  Caliola  station  will  be  modified  to  pump  the 
increased  throughputs.  These  modifications  will  consist  of  a  new  gas 
turbine-driven  pumping  unit  and  a  new  gas-fired  heater. 

2.1.1.2  Project  Components 

As  previously  described,  pipeline  diameter  will  vary  along  the 
proposed  258-mile  route  based  on  throughput  volumes  and  operating 
pressures.  Specifications  for  the  pipeline  and  related  facilities 


2-10 


will  meet  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation  (DOT)  regulations  (49  CFR 
195,  ANSI  B-31.4)  and  the  California  Pipeline  Safety  Act  (California 
Government  Code,  Chapter  1222,  Sections  51010-51018).  A  cathodic  cor- 
rosion protection  system  will  be  designed,  installed,  and  operated  to 
DOT  specification.  No  insulation  will  be  used  on  any.  portion  of  the 
pipeline.  A  summary  of  pipeline  design  specifications  is  provided  in 
Table  2-5. 

The  proposed  pipeline  system  will  include  a  meter  station  near 
the  Martinez  refinery  and  17  block  (shutoff)  valve  stations:  six  at 
existing  or  proposed  booster/injection  stations;  one  near  the  Martinez 
meter  station;  seven  at  aqueduct,  canal,  or  river  crossings;  and  the 
other  three  at  intermediate  points  along  the  pipeline.  These  block 
valves  will  be  no  more  than  30  miles  apart. 

The  total  land  requirements  for  the  project  are  summarized  in 
Table  2-5  and  described  below  for  booster  stations  and  ancillary 
facilities. 

Booster/Injection  Stations 

The  project  includes  five  booster  or  pump  stations  and  three 
injection  stations.  Only  two  new  booster  stations  (SJV-2b  and  SJV-3b) 
need  to  be  built  as  part  of  the  proposed  project;  the  others  are 
existing  stations,  some  of  which  require  modifications.  Table  2-7 
gives  information  on  the  locations,  status  (existing,  modified,  or 
new),  designed  horsepower,  and  heater  requirements  for  these  stations. 
A  typical  layout  of  a  booster  station  is  shown  in  Figure  2-2  (see  also 
the  visual  simulation  in  Section  4.2.10).  New  gas  turbine-powered  and 
existing  electric  motor-driven  pumps  will  be  used  to  boost  the  pres- 
sure in  the  pipeline.  Waste  heat  from  the  gas  turbine  pumps  proposed 
for  four  of  the  five  booster  stations  will  be  used  to  heat  crude  oil 
in  the  pipeline.  Natural-gas-fired  heaters  will  supplement  this  waste 
heat  in  reducing  oil  viscosity  and  facilitating  flow. 

The  land  requirements  for  two  new  booster  stations  total  about  12 
acres  for  construction  and  6  acres  during  operations. 

Communication  Sites 

The  project  includes  15  communication  sites,  consisting  of  micro- 
wave tower  repeater  stations  with  associated  electronic  equipment. 
These  sites  have  been  numbered  from  1  and  1A  to  14  in  Figure  2-1.  The 
facilities  are  designed  to  relay  pipeline  data  by  microwave  communica- 
tions between  the  booster/injection  stations  and  along  the  pipeline  to 
Shell's  control  center  in  Anaheim.  A  typical  microwave  repeater  sta- 
tion is  illustrated  in  Figure  2-3.  Two  sites  require  modifications, 
while  the  other  sites  require  a  full  complement  of  microwave  communi- 
cation facilities  including  microwave  repeater  towers  (see  Table  2-8). 

The  existing  microwave  communication  facilities  at  Weir  and 
Kernridge  stations  will  be  modified  for  use  by  the  project.  At  the 
Weir  station,  the  existing  microwave  station  at  the  Shell  Weir  Produc- 
tion Office  will  be  modified  by  addition  of  multiplex  channels  (indoor 
electronic  equipment).  No  other  changes  will  be  necessary. 


2-11 


Table  2-5 
DESIGN  SPECIFICATIONS  FOR  EACH  PIPELINE  SEGMENT 


Characteristic 


Segment  1 
(18.5  miles) 


Segment  2 
(21.6  miles) 


Segment  3 

(looped) 

(44.4  miles) 


Segment  4 
(173.1  miles) 


Pipe  Line  Dimensions 


10.75-inch 
outside  diameter 
X  0. 188-inch 
wall  thickness 


1B-inch 

outside  diameter 
X  0.188-inch 
wall  thickness 


14-inch 

outside  diameter 
X  0. 188-inch 
wall  thickness 


24-inch 

outside  diameter 
X  0.188-inch 
wall  thickness 


i 


Maximum  Operating  Pressure  1637  psig* 

Maximum  Operating  Temperature       200°F 
Maximum  Nominal  Design  Flow  Rate     30  MBD** 


Proposed  Delivery  Volumes 


30  MBD 


978  psig 
200"  F 
110  MBD 

70  MBD 


1 ,257  psig 
200°  F 
150  MBDt 
110  MBD 


789  psig 
200°  F 
160  MBD 
120  MBD 


♦Pounds  per  square  inch  gauge. 
♦♦Thousand  barrels  per  day. 
t Includes  75  MBD  in  new  looped  14-inch-diameter  pipeline  and  75  MBD  in  existing  14-inch-diameter  pipeline. 


Source:   San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company. 


Table  2-6 

TOTAL   ADDITIONAL   LAND  REQUIREMENTS   FOR 
CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  OF   THE  PROJECT* 


Facility 


Right-of-way    for  pipeline 

Construction  staging   areas 

Rights-of-way    for  ancillary   facilities: 

SJV-2b,  MW  #8 
SJV-3b,  MW  #11 
MW  U,    7,    9,    10,    12,    13 

Total  rights-of-way 


Land   Requiremen 

ts 

(acres) 

Construction 

Operation 

2,503.2** 

938.8 

60.0 

0 

38.4 
26.6 
19.0 

19.2 

13.3 

9.7 

2,647.2 


981.0 


Land  for  ancillary    facilities! 

SJV-2b 

SJV-3b 

MW  #6,   7,    9,    10,    12,    13 

MW  #1A,   3,   4,   5 

Total  land   for  ancillary   facilities 


6.0 

3.0 

6.0 

3.0 

0.6*** 

0.3 

0.4*** 

0.2 

13.0 


6.5 


Total   land  requirements 


2,660.2 


987.5 


MW=Microwave  station 

♦Other  land  requirements  are  met  by   existing    facilities. 
**Not  including  temporary   work  spaces  of  about   0.5  acre  each  at  highway  and 
waterway  crossings. 
•♦♦Estimated  acreage  twice  as  large  as  during  operation. 


2-13 


Table  2-7 

BOOSTER/INJECTION  STATION  LOCATIONS,    STATUS, 
AND  DESIGNED  ENERGY  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  PROPOSED  PROJECT 


Station 
(Segment) 

Location 
(County) 

St  atus 

Existing 

Horsepower 

Ratings 

New  or 

Additional 

Horsepower 

Requirements 

Existing 

Heating   Capacity 

(Btu/hr) 

New  or  Additional 

Heating   Requirements 

(Btu/hr) 

Weir   (1) 

Kern 

As   existing 

None 

No    additional 
horsepower 

0 

No    additional  heaters 

McKittrick 
Injection   (1) 

Kern 

Modified 

None 

600  (additional)* 

0 

No   additional  heaters 

Kernridge 
Injection   (2) 

Kern 

MadiFied 

2,400 

No   additional 
horsepower 

0 

No   additional  heaters 

Mid  Station  (3) 

Kern 

Modi  f  ied 

2,000 

2,500   (additional)** 

15  MM 

5  MMt 

no 
i 

i— • 
*> 

Kettleman   (3) 

Kings 

As   existing 

2,000 

No   additional 
horsepower 

— 

No   additional  heaters 

Caliola   (3) 

Fresno 

Modified 

2,000 

1,800   (additional)** 

48  MM 

15  MMt 

SJV-2b    (4) 

Fresno 

New 

— 

1,800** 

— 

15  MMt 

SJV-3b   (4) 

Stanislaus 

New 

— 

1 ,800** 

— 

15  MMt 

*Electric   motor 
**Gas  turbine 
tGas-fired 

Note:      All  booster/injection  stations  occupy  or  will  occupy  about   3  acres  (360  feet   x  360  feet). 

Source:      San   Joaquin   Valley   Pipe   Line  Company. 

MM     s  million 

BTU  -  British  Thermal  Units 


no 

i 


en 


o 

10 


DIESEL 

FUEL  TANK 

1 
i 
i 
i 
I 
I I 


IqJ 

STAND-BY 
GENERATOR 


c 


T 

b 


ELECT. 

SUB. 

STATION 


CONTROL 
BLDG. 


MICROWAVE 
TOWER 

A 


EXHAUST  STACK 


HEATER/ 


-{FoVtKJ— 


Hll 
I  M  I 
|U| 


| —  -*-* txj- 


PUMP  CANOPY 


n&i 


r&i 


o 


ENTRANCE 


V 


5-^j-l X-tNt  T     » fNl-D&C! SX-+4 J 


-t*4- 1 tX 


STATION  BY- PASS 


-360' 


SOURCE:    Woodward  -Clyde  Consultants 


NOT  TO  SCALE 


Figure  2-2      LAYOUT  OF  TYPICAL  BOOSTER  STATION 


NOT  TO  SCALE 


Figure  2-3     TYPICAL  MICROWAVE  TOWER  REPEATER  STATION 


2-16 


Table  2-8 
PROPOSED  LOCATIONS   OF  MICROWAVE  TOWER  REPEATER  STATIONS 


Station 
(Segment) 

Location 

Site 
Number 

County 

Township 

Range 

Section 

Height 
(feet) 

1 

Weir  (1) 

Kern 

T31S 

R22E 

22 

100 

1A 

McKittrick   (1) 

Kern 

T30S 

R22E 

18 

100 

2 

Kernridge   (2) 

Kern 

T28S 

R21E 

32 

205 

3 

Mid   (3) 

Kern 

T25S 

R21E 

20 

205 

4 

Kettleman  (3) 

Kings 

T22S 

R18E 

24 

255 

5 

Caliola  Pump  Station   (3) 

Fresno 

T20S 

R16E 

4 

180 

6 

Skunk   Hollow   (4) 

Fresno 

T18S 

RISE 

36 

180 

7 

Panoche  Junction   (4) 

Fresno 

T16S 

R14E 

7 

205 

8 

SJV-2b  Booster 
Station  (4) 

Fresno 

T13S 

R11E 

35 

205 

9 

Laguna  Seca  Ranch   (4) 

Merced 

T12S 

R10E 

25 

130 

10 

Cottonwood  Hill   (4) 

Merced 

T9S 

R8E 

4 

105 

11 

SJV-3b   Booster 
Station   (4) 

St  anisl aus 

T4S 

R6E 

21 

50 

12 

Mount   Oso   (4) 

Stanislaus 

T5S 

R5E 

12 

50 

13 

Nbunt  Diablo   (4) 

Contra  Costa 

T1N 

R1W 

36 

50 

14 

Martinez  Refinery   (4) 

Contra  Costa 

T3N 

R2W 

__ 

80 

Note;      Microwave  communication  towers  exist   at  Vteir  and  Kernridge.      Their  heights  will   remain 
the  same,   but  indoor   electronic   eguipment   will  be   added.      All  other   microwave   towers 
will  be  constructed   including   the  SJV-2(b)    and  SJV-3(b)    towers,    which  will  be  built 
within  the  booster  station   acreage.      The   remaining   towers   will   require   plots   measuring 
50  feet  x  50  feet. 

Source:      San   Joaquin  Valley   Pipe   Line  Company  . 


2-17 


Microwave  facilities  exist  at  the  Kernridge  production  facili- 
ties, but  not  at  the  injection  station  site.  A  fiber-optic  cable 
local  area  network  is  currently  being  installed  as  part  of  the  Kern- 
ridge production  fields,  though  not  as  part  of  the  proposed  project. 
However,  the  local  area  network  will  provide  an  interconnection 
between  the  existing  microwave  station  and  the  injection  station,  so 
that  the  existing  station  can  be  used  as  part  of  the  communication 
system  for  the  proposed  project.  The  only  modification  required  will 
be  the  addition  of  multiplex  channels  to  the  existing  station. 

No  microwave  facilities  are  currently  present  at  Mid,  Caliola, 
McKittrick,  or  Kettleman,  and  microwave  stations  will  be  required  to 
be  built  at  each  of  these  sites,  at  the  two  new  booster  station  sites 
(SJV-2b  and  SJV-3b),  and  at  the  Martinez  metering  station.  The  other 
six  will  be  located  at  sites  along  Segment  4  not  presently  associated 
with  existing  Shell  facilities.  Some  are  sited  less  than  1  mile  to 
over  3  miles  from  the  pipeline.  Exact  locations  will  depend  on  topo- 
graphical prominence  and  ease  of  access.  Each  tower  will  occupy 
approximately  2,500  square  feet  of  fenced  area  (50  feet  x  50  feet) 
with  varying  additional  right-of-way  area  required  for  access  and 
electrical  lines  to  those  sites  not  located  at  existing  stations. 

Ancillary  Facilities 

Ancillary  facilities  required  for  operation  of  the  pipeline 
system  may  generally  be  categorized  as  follows: 

•  Three  temporary  work  space  areas  (staging  areas)  to  assemble 
and  store  equipment  and  materials  for  all  phases  of  project 
construction. 

•  Access  roads  from  existing  roads  to  the  new  booster  stations 
and  to  microwave  repeater  station  No.  10  (Cottonwood  Hill). 

•  Water  lines  (2-inch-diameter)  for  water  to  promote  efficient 
fuel  combustion,  natural  gas  supply  lines  from  existing  mains 
to  booster/injection  stations,  and  electrical  transmission 
lines  from  existing  power  lines  to  booster/injection  stations 
and  microwave  sites. 

•  The  addition  of  an  80-MBBL  insulated  storage  tank  to  be  con- 
structed in  accordance  with  design  code  API  650  (governing 
welded  storage  tanks)  at  the  Mid  booster  station. 

•  A  total  of  five  500-gallon  diesel  tanks,  one  each  at  Mid, 
Caliola,  SJV-2b,  and  SJV-3b  booster  stations,  and  one  at  the 
Martinez  meter  station,  to  contain  fuel  to  be  used  only  in  the 
event  of  a  disruption  in  natural  gas  delivery. 

The  two  new  booster  stations  require  gas,  water,  and  electricity. 
Rights-of-way  for  natural  gas,  water,  and  electric  transmission  lines 
will  be  60  feet  wide  during  construction  and  30  feet  wide  during  oper- 
ation. Rights-of-way  for  access  roads  for  the  two  new  booster  sta- 
tions will  be  60  feet  during  construction  and  30  feet  during  opera- 
tion. The  right-of-way  for  the  new  access  road  for  microwave  repeater 


2-18 


station  No.  10  will  be  20  feet  during  both  construction  and  operation. 
The  five  other  new  microwave  repeater  stations  in  Segment  4  have 
access  but  require  electric  power.  Total  right-of-way  requirements 
for  all  ancillary  facilities  are  about  84  acres  during  construction 
and  42  acres  during  operation  (see  Table  2-9  for  a  summary  of  these 
facilities). 

Two  of  the  five  required  staging  areas  will  be  located  at  exist- 
ing stations  (Kernridge  and  Mid  stations),  while  the  others  will  be 
located  at  mileposts  46,  117,  and  186.  About  20  acres  will  be 
required  for  each  staging  area. 

2.1.2  Typical  Pipeline  Construction  Procedures 

This  section  describes  the  techniques  that  will  be  used  during 
construction  of  the  pipeline. 

Construction  is  scheduled  to  begin  in  mid-1987  and  to  be  com- 
pleted in  mid-1988.  Pipeline  construction  will  be  split  between  two 
contracts,  with  one  contract  covering  the  84.5  miles  from  Weir  station 
to  the  Caliola  station  (Segments  1  to  3)  and  the  other  contract 
extending  from  the  Caliola  station  to  the  Martinez  refinery  (Segment 
4). 

Two  construction  spreads  are  planned.  Each  spread  will  consist 
of  130  to  200  personnel.  One  spread  will  begin  work  at  the  Martinez 
meter  station  and  proceed  south,  while  the  other  spread  will  start  at 
the  south  end.  When  the  two  spreads  meet  in  approximately  the  middle, 
the  two  ends  of  the  pipeline  will  be  welded  together  to  form  one 
continuous  line.  Construction  will  average  1  mile/day,  or  6  miles/ 
week  for  each  spread.  A  spread  assigned  to  a  given  segment  will  be 
responsible  for  all  aspects  of  pipeline  construction  for  that  segment. 
Two  partial  spreads  of  30  to  50  personnel  each  may  be  used  in  con- 
gested areas  near  Martinez  and  near  Kernridge. 

The  total  pipeline  construction  work  force  is  expected  to  range 
up  to  500  personnel.  Including  the  construction  work  force  for  all 
ancillary  facilities,  total  construction  personnel  for  the  entire 
project  could  range  up  to  800.  Construction  crews  will  be  housed 
primarily  in  motels  and  at  mobile  home  parks.  They  are  expected  to 
stay  at  a  given  lodging  for  an  average  of  one  to  three  months  before 
moving  to  another  location. 

Prior  to  construction,  right-of-way  easements  will  be  surveyed 
and  acquired.  Landowners  will  be  compensated  and  the  easements  will 
contain  provisions  or  agreements  made  with  the  landowners  to  address 
their  concerns  and  obtain  consent.  In  addition,  all  necessary  fed- 
eral, state,  and  local  permits  will  be  finalized  before  construction 
begins.  Pre-construction  activities  also  include  the  fine-tuning  of 
the  design  and  location  of  pipeline  facilities  based  on  the  environ- 
mental review  and  permit  specifications. 

Mainline  pipeline  construction  typically  involves  the  following 
major  operations: 


2-19 


Table  2-9 

TOTAL  RIGHT-OF-WAY  REQUIREMENTS   FOR 
NEW   ANCILLARY   FACILITIES 


Right- 

-of-Way 

.acres) 

Area 

Facility* 

Right-of-Way 
Length 
(Miles) 

Feature 

Ope 

ration 

Construction 

SJV-2b 

Access  road 

0.1 

0.3 

0.6 

Booster  Station 

Natural  gas  pipeline 

3.5 

12.7 

25.4 

(includes  MW 

Electric  transmission 

line 

0.1 

0.3 

0.6 

Site  8) 

Water  pipeline 

1.6 

5.9 

11.8 

SJV-3b 

Access  road 

1.0 

3.6 

7.2 

Booster  Station 

Natural  gas  pipeline 

0.3 

1.0 

2.0 

(includes  MW 

Electric  transmission 

line 

0.5 

1.8 

3.6 

Site  11) 

Water  pipeline 

1.9 

6.9 

13.8 

MW   Site  6 

Electric  transmission 

line 

0.5 

1.8 

3.6 

(Skunk  Hollow) 

MW  Site  7 
(Panoche   Junction) 

MW  Site  9 

(Laguna  Seca  Ranch) 

MW  Site  10 
(Cottonwood  Hill) 

MW  Site  12 
(Mount  Oso) 

MW  Site  13 
(Mount  Diablo) 


Electric  transmission  line 


Electric  transmission  line 


Electric  transmission  line 
Access  road** 

Electric  transmission  line 


Electric  transmission  line 


0.2 
1.4 

0.2 
0.3 

0.1 
0.1 


0.7 

5.2 

0.7 
0.7 

0.3 
0.3 


10.3 

1.5 
0.7 

0.7 
0.7 


Total  Acreaget 


42.2 


84.0 


♦Operation  and  construction  widths  of  30  feet  and  60  feet,   respectively. 
♦♦Operation  and  construction  widths  of  20  feet. 
tTotal  operation  and  construction  acreage   for  the  pipeline  right-of-way  will  be  approximately 
937  and  2,498  acres,   respectively. 

Source:      San  Joaquin  Valley   Pipe  Line  Company. 


2-20 


Clearing  and  grading; 

Ditching; 

Stringing; 

Pipe  installation   (e.g.,   bending,  welding,  weld  testing,  joint 
coating,   lowering-in,   and  tying-in); 

Backfilling; 

Hydrostatic  testing;  and 

Cleanup  and  restoration. 

These  activities  are  illustrated  in  Figure  2-4  and  the  general 
procedures  are  summarized  below.     This  description  addresses  certain 
measures  which  would  be  applied  to  reduce  disturbances  to  the  environ- 
ment and  minimize  public  inconvenience  during  the  construction  period. 
These  measures  are  detailed  in  the  Project  Description  on  file  with 
the  SLC  and  have  been  integrated  into  this  report,  but  they  do  not 
represent  the  complete  range  of  mitigation  measures  which  will   pertain 
to  this  project  as  described  in  Section  6. 

Clearing  and  Grading 

This  operation  involves  the  removal  of  obstacles  (trees,  brush, 
large  rocks,  logs)  from  the  right-of-way  and  from  pipe  storage  areas, 
as  well   as  leveling  and  smoothing  the  ground  within  the  right-of-way. 
A  typical   cross  section  of  a  construction  right-of-way  is   shown  on 
Figure  2-5.     Access  to  the  right-of-way  will   be  from  existing  roads. 
The  construction  right-of-way  will   normally  be  80  feet  in  width,  with 
additional   temporary  work  space  required   in  certain   areas   such  as 
highway,  waterway,  canal,   and   aqueduct  crossings.     This   additional 
space  will    amount  to  approximately  0.5  acres  on  each  side  of  the  road, 
creek,  canal,  or  aqueduct  being  crossed.     Additional   temporary  work 
space  (a  maximum  100-foot-wide  right-of-way)  may  be  necessary  in  areas 
of  steep  or  rocky  terrain,   or  in  areas  where  ravines  or  low  wet  areas 
are  crossed,   such  as   in  Contra  Costa  County  near  the  pipeline  termi- 
nus. 

Routine  procedures  provide  that  timber  within  the  right-of-way 
will   be  cut  and  stacked  neatly  along  the  right-of-way.     However,  trees 
and  significant  shrubs  are  so  rare  along  the  proposed  route  that 
special  mitigative  measures  apply  (see  Section  6.1.13).     If  any  trees 
need  to  be  cut,   as  low  a  stump  as  possible  will   be  left,  though  it 
will   not  be  higher  than  4  inches.     Removal   of  some  stumps  may  be 
necessary.     All   brush,  stumps,   and  other  debris  cleared  from  the 
right-of-way  will   be  disposed  of  by  on-site  burial,   at  an  approved 
off-site  landfill,  or  as  specified  by  the  landowner. 

The  right-of-way  will  be  graded  to  the  minimum  necessary  to  allow 
for  the  movement  of  construction  machinery  and  for  subsequent  ditching 
and  pipe  installation  operations.     Grading  and  excavation  will   be 


2-21 


BACKFILLING 


i 

no 


STRINGING       CLEARING 
AND 
GRADING 


CLEANUP  AND  RESTORATION 


PIPE  COATING 


WELDING 

AND 
TESTING 


SOURCE:    Ecology  and  Environment  Inc.,  1986 


NOT  TO  SCALE 


Figure  2-4      TYPICAL  PIPELINE  CONSTRUCTION  SPREAD 


TEMPORARY  CONSTRUCTION  RIGHT-OF-WAY  WIDTH 


EXCAVATED  MATERIAL 


60"  NORMALLY,  :W: 
34"  IN  CULTIVATED  AREAS  :%:• 


TEMPORARY  CONSTRUCTION  EQUIPMENT  WORKING  WIDTH 


TEMPORARY 

W®*!**fr*$$      SPO"-  STORAGE 
WIDTH 


60' 


•'•■••.^•^w*^^.-.".* 

«^_ 


SOURCE:    San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company. 


Hfh 


20' 


NOT  TO  SCALE 


Figure  2-5    TYPICAL  CROSS  SECTION  OF  CONSTRUCTION  RIGHT-OF-WAY 


2-23 


performed  in  areas  with  steep  side  slopes  in  order  to  minimize 
potential  adverse  effects  on  natural  drainage  and  slope  stability 
during  construction. 

Where  fences  are  encountered  along  the  right-of-way,  bracing  will 
be  installed  at  each  edge  of  the  right-of-way  prior  to  cutting  the 
wires  and  installing  temporary  wire  gaps  or  gates.  Gates  will  be  kept 
closed  when  not  in  use.  Following  completion  of  construction,  the 
fences  will  be  restored  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  easement. 
No  gates  or  cattle  guards  on  established  roads  over  public  land  will 
be  locked,  blocked,  or  closed  without  approval  from  the  applicable 
public  agency. 

Hard-rock  formations  may  be  encountered  during  grading.  Blasting 
is  required  for  right-of-way  preparation  under  these  conditions. 
Should  blasting  be  required,  the  construction  contractors  will  follow 
these  procedures: 

•  Blanketing  of  blasting  (mats)  will  be  used  if  structures  or 
other  utilities  are  located  within  75  feet  of  the  area  to  be 
blasted.  No  blasting  will  be  conducted  within  0.25  miles  of 
1-5,  the  California  Aqueduct,  or  other  major  canals. 

•  Special  care  will  be  taken  to  avoid  damage  to  underground 
utilities  or  underground  watercourses  or  springs.  Blasting 
will  generally  be  avoided  in  these  areas. 

•  Landowners  or  tenants  that  may  be  affected  will  be  notified 
at  least  48  hours  in  advance  so  that  adequate  steps  can  be 
taken  to  protect  livestock  or  other  property. 

o  Any  loose  rock  scattered  by  the  blast  will  be  collected  and 
disposed  of  in  the  manner  specified  by  the  landowner. 

•  All  necessary  permits  will  be  obtained  prior  to  conducting 
any  blasting  work.  All  work  will  be  performed  in  compliance 
with  state  and/or  local  codes  or  ordinances. 

t  All  work  will  comply  with  safety  procedures  prescribed  by  the 
explosives  manufacturer  as  well  as  accepted  practices  in  the 
industry,  including  ANSI  A10.7,  Safety  Requirements  for  Use 
of  Explosives  in  the  Construction  Industry,  and  ANSI/NFPA  495, 
Code  for  Manufacturing,  Storage  and  Use  of  Explosive  Mate- 
rials. 

Ditching 

After  clearing  and  grading,  the  ditching  (trenching)  operation 
will  begin.  Ditching  includes  all  excavation  work  required  to  provide 
a  channel  of  specified  width  and  depth  for  the  pipe,  and  involves  the 
use  of  a  ditching  machine  and,  in  some  cases,  a  backhoe.  Hand  digging 
will  be  used  to  locate  and  cross  buried  utilities,  where  appropriate. 
Should  extremely  rocky  terrain  be  encountered,  blasting  may  be 
necessary  and  the  procedures  described  above  under  clearing  and 


2-24 


grading  will  be  followed.  Ditches  will  generally  be  84  inches  deep 
and  about  42  to  48  inches  wide  across  cultivated  lands,  and  60  inches 
deep  and  42  inches  wide  across  other  lands.  Minimum  cover  require- 
ments will  be  36  inches  in  soil  and  18  inches  in  rock.  Sixty  inches 
of  cover  will  be  provided  in  cultivated  lands. 

In  areas  where  intensive  agriculture  is  practiced,  topsoil  and 
underlying  soil  materials  will  be  separated  and  restored  in  compliance 
with  federal,  state,  and  local  agency  requirements,  as  well  as  land- 
owner requirements.  Soil  separation  generally  involves  two  passes 
with  the  ditching  machine— the  first  pass,  to  a  depth  of  about  40 
inches,  to  remove  the  topsoil  and  the  second  to  remove  the  underlying 
soil  materials.  However,  topsoil  may  be  so  shallow  that  special  miti- 
gation applies  (see  Section  6.1.2).  Topsoil  and  the  underlying  soil 
materials  will  be  stored  in  separate  piles  in  areas  where  soil  separa- 
tion is  necessary. 

The  stockpiled  material  from  the  ditching  operations  will  be 
cleared  of  organic  or  other  foreign  materials  that  may  produce  an 
unsatisfactory  backfill.  Gaps  will  be  made  in  the  rows  of  excavated 
soil  to  allow  for  drainage.  Vehicle  crossovers  will  also  be  provided 
where  necessary.  The  maximum  length  of  open  ditch  will  be  limited  to 
6  to  8  miles  for  each  spread  in  open  country,  and  3  to  5  miles  across 
irrigated  land  and  more  developed  areas.  A  trench  will  remain  open  no 
more  than  30  days  in  a  given  area. 

To  ensure  vehicle  safety,  it  may  be  necessary  to  construct  tem- 
porary bridges  or  culverts  across  drainage  ditches  and  irrigation 
canals  on  the  working  side  of  the  right-of-way;  these  would  be 
required  for  a  maximum  of  30  days  at  any  one  location.  No  diversion 
dams  will  be  required.  At  Pacheco  Creek  in  Contra  Costa  County, 
because  of  space  limitations,  specialized  waterway  construction 
methods  will  be  used,  as  summarized  in  Section  2.1.3. 

Stringing 

Stringing,  or  placement  of  pre-coated  pipe,  valves,  and  fittings 
from  the  storage  yards  along  the  right-of-way,  can  occur  either  before 
or  after  trenching.  Pipe  will  be  transported  to  the  right-of-way  by 
trucks  and  unloaded  by  tractors  fitted  with  side  booms.  The  stringing 
operation  will  be  conducted  in  a  manner  to  prevent  damage  to  the  pro- 
tective coating  on  the  pipe,  through  the  use  of  padded  forks  on  fork 
lifts  and  aluminum  end  hooks  that  hook  inside  the  ends  of  the  pipe  so 
that  they  do  not  touch  the  pipe  coating. 

Pipe  Installation:  Bending,  Welding,  Coating,  Lowerinq-in,  Tyinq-in 

The  pipe  will  be  delivered  to  the  construction  area  in  straight 
sections  (joints),  and  bent  to  conform  to  minor  changes  in  the  direc- 
tion of  the  pipeline  alignment  and  the  contours  of  the  ditch.  Indi- 
vidual joints  of  pipe  will  be  bent  to  the  desired  angle  in  the  field 
using  a  track-mounted,  hydraulic,  pipe-bending  machine  and  placed  on 
supports.  The  inside  of  the  pipe  will  be  swabbed-clean  and  joints 
will  be  clamped  in  preparation  for  welding. 


2-25 


Welding  is  a  critical  phase  of  pipeline  installation  and 

requires  the  joining  of  the  various  pieces  of  pipe  in  a  manner  that 

gives  the  welded  joint  strength  and  serviceability  equal  to  or  greater 

than  the  pipe  itself.  Welding  will  be  performed  by  qualified  welders 

as  identified  in  API  Standard  1104,  "Standard  for  Welding  Pipe  Line 
and  Related  Facilities." 

API  Standard  1104  describes  the  accepted  industry  standards  for 
welding  tests;  these  standards  will  be  followed  for  this  project. 
Visual  inspection  of  welds  and  welding  operations  by  qualified  welding 
inspectors  will  be  performed  to  minimize  defects  and  indicate  when 
further  examination  of  certain  welds  is  advisable.  Radiographic  exam- 
ination of  selected  welds  will  be  made  by  placing  bonding  film,  which 
is  sensitive  to  X  or  gamma  rays,  in  close  contact  with  a  weld  and 
exposing  the  weld  and  adjacent  pipe  metal  to  these  rays.  The  result- 
ing pictures  will  be  examined  by  trained  inspectors  to  identify  any 
defects.  Defective  welds  will  be  repaired  as  outlined  in  API  1104  and 
as  directed  by  the  welding  inspector.  If  the  X-ray  tests  show  a  pat- 
tern of  defects,  then  all  the  welds  in  that  stretch  of  pipe  will  be 
inspected  and  repaired,  if  necessary. 

Although  DOT's  minimum  requirement  is  10%,  at  least  25%  of  the 
welds  will  be  inspected  radiographically.  In  addition,  radiographic 
testing  of  all  welds  is  required  in  sensitive  areas  such  as  railroad, 
public  road,  or  major  waterway  crossings  and  at  pipeline  tie-ins.  All 
radiographic  inspections  will  be  performed  as  outlined  in  DOT  Title 
49  CFR  195,  "Transportation  of  Hazardous  Liquids  by  Pipeline." 

Following  welding,  the  welded  joints  will  be  coated  with  epoxy  to 
protect  against  corrosion.   Any  other  surface  damage  to  the  pre- 
coated  pipe  will  be  repaired  by  field  coating.  Acceptable  padding 
material,  such  as  sand  bags,  will  be  inserted  in  the  trench  if  neces- 
sary to  protect  the  pipeline.  Ditch  padding  is  not  necessary  in  areas 
where  soils  do  not  present  a  risk  to  the  integrity  of  the  pipe. 

Side-boom  tractors  are  then  used  to  lower  the  long  sections  of 
welded  pipeline  into  the  ditch.  Inspections  will  be  conducted  to 
ensure  that  the  pipe  conforms  to  the  bottom  of  the  ditch  and  that  the 
bottom  of  the  ditch  is  free  of  sharp  rocks  or  debris  that  could  damage 
the  coating.  Any  section  of  pipeline  that  does  not  follow  bends  in 
the  trench  will  be  removed,  and  a  new  section  will  be  bent,  rewelded, 
and  lowered  in.  The  pipeline  sections  are  then  joined  (tied-in)  by 
tie-in  welds,  typically  done  by  the  most  experienced  welders  in  each 
spread.  Finally,  the  cathodic  protection  system  components,  such  as 
leads,  anode  wires,  etc.,  are  installed. 

Backfilling 

Once  the  pipe  is  lowered  into  the  ditch  and  tied-in,  the  pipe  is 
covered.  Backfill  will  be  placed  using  proven  techniques  so  as  to 
avoid  subsequent  settlement  that  would  leave  a  surface  depression,  and 
to  avoid  damaging  the  surface  of  the  pipe.  Finely  graded  materials 
from  ditch  excavation,  which  proviae  support  around  and  under  the 
pipe,  are  backfilled  first;  these  preclude  voids  and  large  rock  or 


2-26 


clods  falling  against  the  pipe  coating.  The  natural  subsoil  is  then 
returned  to  the  trench.  Finally,  in  areas  where  topsoil  has  been 
segregated,  the  original  topsoil  is  placed  over  the  subsoil,  leaving  a 
small  temporary  crown  or  berm  over  the  ditch  line  to  allow  for  some 
settling.  Extra  soil,  should  there  be  any,  will  be  disposed  of  in  a 
Class  III  landfill  unless  otherwise  directed  by  the  landowners. 

Hydrostatic  Testing 

The  pipeline  will  be  hydrostatically  tested  after  backfilling  and 
after  all  construction  work  that  would  affect  the  pipe  has  been  com- 
pleted. The  pipeline  segments  will  be  filled  with  water  and  held  at  a 
specified  pressure  for  a  specified  length  of  time  to  verify  the  integ- 
rity of  the  entire  pipeline  system. 

Freshwater  will  be  used  for  hydrostatic  testing,  and  no  biocides 
or  other  chemicals  will  be  added  to  the  test  water.  The  water  will  be 
obtained  through  agreements  consistent  with  local,  state,  and  federal 
regulations.  Available  sources  include  aqueduct  water  and  local 
groundwater  supplies.  The  estimated  volume  of  water  required  for 
testing  of  the  proposed  pipeline  is  63  acre-feet.  The  same  water  will 
be  used  to  test  different  sections  of  the  pipeline  by  pumping  it 
forward  from  one  section  to  the  next.  Internal  test  pressures  will  be 
125%  of  the  maximum  daily  operating  pressure  in  accordance  with  DOT 
regulations  for  liquid  petroleum  pipelines  (DOT  Title  49  CFR  195). 
Records  of  tests  will  be  made  using  recording  pressure  gauge  charts 
that  will  be  dated,  identified,  and  verified  by  the  responsible  opera- 
tors ana  inspectors.  The  test  water  will  be  disposed  of  or  discharged 
in  accordance  with  federal,  state,  and  local  regulatory  requirements. 

Cleanup  and  Restoration 

The  final  phase  of  pipeline  construction  is  cleanup  and  restora- 
tion. All  surplus  soils,  vegetation,  and  construction  debris  will  be 
disposed  of  in  a  manner  specified  by  landowners,  tenants,  or  lessees, 
or  will  be  removed  from  the  right-of-way  and  disposed  of  in  a  Class 
III  landfill.  Salvageable. material s,  such  as  sections  of  pipe,  will 
be  sold  for  scrap  and  recycled. 

Restoration  of  the  right-of-way  will  be  initiated  during  back- 
filling operations.  Further  breaking-up  of  soil  clods  and  smoothing 
the  earth  surface  will  be  accomplished  using  disc  harrows  or  other 
equipment.  Runoff  will  be  controlled  by  the  placement  of  water  bars 
or  terraces,  soil-filled  sacks,  rock  riprap,  or  other  materials.  The 
need  for  these  techniques  is  anticipated  in  areas  of  high  potential 
susceptibility  to  water  erosion.  Final  grading  will  minimize  poten- 
tial effects  on  natural  drainages  and  return  the  construction  right- 
of-way  to  natural  contours.  Where  terraces  or  diversion  dams  are  cut, 
the  areas  will  be  restored  to  as  near  original  conditions  as  prac- 
ticable, consistent  with  the  restoration  of  natural  drainage  patterns 
upstream  or  downstream  of  the  alterations.  The  right-of-way  area  not 
in  cultivation  will  be  seeded  with  grass  to  establish  vegetative  cover 
and  to  control  erosion.  Croplands  will  be  restored  so  that  normal 
cultivation  can  be  resumed.  Cleanup  and  restoration  activities  will 


2-27 


be  performed  in  conformance  with  landowner  requirements.  Project 
operation  normally  will  require  a  30-foot  permanent  right-of-way  to  be 
maintained  clear  of  woody  vegetation.  Agricultural  use  of  the 
permanent  right-of-way  will  be  allowed. 

All  final  repairs  or  replacement  of  fences  and  gates  will  be  per- 
formed during  cleanup  and  restoration.  Markers  showing  the  exact 
location  of  the  pipeline  will  be  installed  at  all  road  crossings  and 
at  most  property  lines  and  will  contain  emergency  information.  Aerial 
location  markers  also  will  be  installed.  Placement  of  location 
markers  and  information  provided  on  them  will  be  in  accordance  with 
appropriate  regulations. 

2.1.3  Special  Construction  Techniques 

Special  construction  techniques  which  will  be  used  at  highway, 
railroad,  and  waterway  crossings  are  described  below. 

Highway  and  Railroad  Crossings 

Major  highways  and'  rai lroads  will  be  crossed  primarily  by  hori- 
zontal boring  or  augering.  Where  required,  a  pipe  casing  or  sleeve 
will  be  inserted  and  a  complete  section  of  pipeline  placed  therein. 
As  part  of  this  procedure,  it  will  be  necessary  to  excavate  .a  pit 
(usually  10  feet  x  30  feet)  off  the  road  large  enough  to  accommodate 
equipment  on  each  side  of  the  crossing.  All  construction  activities 
near  highways  and  railroads  will  be  conducted  in  a  work  area  of  100 
feet  x  200  feet.  Traffic  disruptions  will  be  minimized.  In  addition, 
equipment  will  be  operated  in  a  manner  designed  to  prevent  injuries  to 
workers  and  to  the  public. 

All  road  crossings  will  be  completed  in  accordance  with  applica- 
ble regulatory  requirements  and  API  1102,  "Recommended  Practice  for 
Road  Crossings." 

The  pipeline  will  be  installed  across  lightly  traveled  and  unim- 
proved rural  dirt  roads  by  the  open  cut  method.  All  such  construc- 
tion operations,  including  repair  and  surface  restoration,  will  be 
completed  in  one  day,  although  construction  of  approved  temporary 
detours  may  be  required. 

Waterway  Crossings 

Pipeline  construction  techniques  across  streams  and  canals  may 
vary  with  the  volume  of  flow,  channel  size,  and  other  characteristics; 
in  any  case,  techniques  for  canal  crossings  will  be  specified  in 
California  Department  of  Water  Resources  (DWR)  permits,  while  stream 
crossings  are  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  California  Department  of 
Fish  and  Game  (CDFG).  Intermittent  streams  and  dry  washes  will  be 
crossed  in  the  dry  season  when  possible,  using  conventional  dryland 
pipeline  construction  methods.  If  these  crossings  are  required  during 
the  winter  rainy  season,  they  will  be  done  during  periods  of  low  flow. 
The  proposed  underground  crossings  of  aqueducts,  larger  irrigation 
canals,  waterways  with  special  engineering  requirements,  and  larger 


2-28 


streams  will  involve  specialized  techniques.  The  major  waterways 
crossed  by  the  proposed  route  are  listed  in  Table  2-10. 

The  flow  of  perennial  streams,  including  Pacheco  Creek,  will  be 
maintained  while  the  trench  is  excavated  from  the  stream  bank  using 
equipment  such  as  a  dredge  bucket,  which  will  be  pulled  across  the 
bottom  repeatedly  until  the  trench  is  the  required  depth  to  bury  the 
pipe.  The  pipeline  will  be  placed  below  scour  depth  and,  at  a 
minimum,  the  trench  will  be  sufficiently  deep  to  allow  at  least  5  feet 
of  cover  below  the  natural  channel  bottom,  depending  upon  CDFG  permit 
specifications.  Excavated  material  will  be  stockpiled  on  the  bank 
above  the  ordinary  highwater  mark.  The  pipe  will  be  weighted  to 
eliminate  instability  in  water-saturated  zones.  After  pipe  installa- 
tion, the  trench  will  be  backfilled  with  originally  excavated  material 
or  suitable  imported  material  as  specified  by  applicable  permits.  The 
banks  will  be  backfilled,  stabilized,  and  restored.  Stabilization  and 
restoration  of  the  banks  of  intermittent  streams  will  be  accomplished 
by  grading  to  original  contour  and  revegetating.  At  Pacheco  Creek, 
the  largest  natural  creek  crossed,  the  stream  bank  will  be  restored  to 
original  contours  and  stabilized  with  soil  or  concrete-filled  sacks, 
riprap,  or  vegetation  to  reduce  erosion. 

The  California  Aqueduct  (milepost  160.0)  and  the  Delta  Mendota 
Canal  (milepost  163.3)  will  be  crossed  by  constructing  the  pipeline  on 
existing  pipeline  suspension  bridges  (see  Figure  2-6).  The  bridges 
include  sufficient  space  for  utilization,  and  their  use  has  been 
declared  acceptable  by  the  bridges'  owners.  The  pipe  will  be  con- 
structed under  all  other  waterways  using  directional  drilling. 
Because  it  avoids  disturbance  to  the  channel  bottoms,  banks,  or  sur- 
faces, directional  drilling  is  similar  in  purpose  to  highway  or  rail- 
road boring.  However,  directional  drilling  uses  a  rotating  drilling 
rig  with  special  tools  that  allow  for  change  in  drilling  direction  and 
depth,  while  bored  crossings  typically  remain  horizontal.  Crossings 
using  directional  drilling  are  usually  deeper  than  bored  road  cross- 
ings, and  will  require  approximately  one  week  at  each  site. 

2.1.4  Proposed  Station  Construction/Modification 

Booster/injection  stations,  microwave  stations,  and  the  Martinez 
meter  station  will  be  constructed  or  modified  separately  from  the 
pipeline.  Construction  work  on  the  six  new  or  modified  booster/injec- 
tion stations  will  be  performed  under  contracts  independent  of  pipe- 
line construction. 

After  the  required  permits  are  obtained,  construction  will  occur 
in  four  stages:  (1)  site  preparation,  (2)  equipment  installation,  (3) 
testing  and  start-up,  and  (4)  cleanup.  Site  preparation  on  the 
approximately  3  acres  of  land  includes  site  survey,  clearing,  grading, 
road  construction,  erection  of  fences,  and  pouring  of  concrete 
foundations.  All  electrical  conduits  and  any  plumbing  must  be  placed 
in  the  concrete  forms  before  the  concrete  is  poured. 

The  second  phase  involves  equipment  and  piping  installation  and 
electrical  hook-up.  At  the  booster  station  sites,  a  prefabricated 


2-29 


Table  2-10 

MAJOR  WATERWAYS  CROSSED  BY 
THE  PROPOSED  PIPELINE 


Waterway 

County 

Approximate 
Milepost 

500  Canal 

Kern 

21.3 

415  Canal 

Kern 

25.9 

California  Aqueduct 

Kern 

32.0 

California  Aqueduct 

Kings 

60.8 

Pleasant  Valley  Aqueduct 

Fresno 

84.6 

California  Aqueduct* 

Merced 

160.0 

Delta  Mendota  Canal* 

Merced 

163.3 

California  Aqueduct 

Merced 

165.4 

Pacheco  Creek 

Contra 

Costa 

256.8,  257.1 

Contra  Costa  Canal 

Contra 

Costa 

254.1 

♦Proposed  crossing  is  by  existing  overhead  suspension  bridge; 
all  other  crossings  are  proposed  to  be  underground. 

Source:   San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Co. 


2-30 


i 


SOURCE:    San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company 


NOT  TO  SCALE 


Figure  2-6     TYPICAL  ABOVE  GROUND  AQUEDUCT  CROSSING 


fiberglass/metal  control  building  will  be  unloaded  at  the  site  and 
placed  on  the  concrete  foundation.  The  pump  units  and  other  equipment 
will  then  be  placed  in  the  station  according  to  the  design  drawings. 
At  the  same  time,  the  piping,  fittings,  and  flanges  will  be  welded 
together,  and  the  electrical  conduits  and  wiring  will  be  installed. 
The  fabricated  piping  sections  will  be  put  in  place  and  then  connected 
to  the  pumping  units,  heater,  and  the  mainline  pipe. 

The  third  major  phase  of  station  construction  is  testing  and 
start-up.  At  a  booster  station,  the  piping  will  be  filled  with  water, 
pressurized,  and  observed  for  leaks.  Each  electrical  power  and  con- 
trol circuit  will  be  checked  and  tested  to  verify  operability.  The 
turbine  and  stand-by  generator  unit  will  be  started  and  checked  out. 
All  safety  devices  will  be  tested  and  calibrated.  After  all  testing 
and  check-out  is  completed,  valves  will  be  opened  and  oil  will  be 
pumped  into  the  stations  and  mainline. 

For  a  microwave  station,  the  second  phase  will  consist  of  erec- 
tion of  the  tower  and  antennas,  and  electrical  hook-up.  The. third 
phase  will  include  alignment  of  the  antennas  and  testing  of  the  com- 
munication channels. 

The  fourth  phase  of  station  construction  involves  cleanup.  The 
applicant  and  construction  contractor  will  inspect  the  entire  station 
and  write  up  a  list  of  unfinished  items.  The  contractor  will  then 
finish  or  repair  the  items  listed  and  complete  the  final  cleanup  of 
all  trash  and  left-over  materials. 

Modifications  of  the  booster/injection  stations  will  be  performed 
within  the  existing  facility  areas.  It  is  estimated  the  total  con- 
struction work  force  will  be  45  personnel  for  each  of  the  pump  sta- 
tions and  30  for  the  Martinez  meter  station.  Construction  will  be 
done  in  stages,  and  may  take  eight  to  10  months  to  complete.  The 
nature  of  the  construction  tasks  will  determine  the  number  of  workers 
required  at  these  sites  at  any  one  time. 

The  ancillary  facilities  will  be  similarly  constructed.  Clearing 
and  grading  will  precede  trenching  for  natural  gas  and  water  lines; 
electrical  transmission  facilities  will  also  require  clearing  and 
grading  of  the  right-of-way  prior  to  their  installation. 

2.1.5  Operation  and  Maintenance 

Following  commissioning  and  initial  start-up,  operation  of  the 
proposed  pipeline  system  will  be  continuous.  Once  oil  starts  flowing, 
it  will  continue  unless  interrupted  by  unforeseen  circumstances. 
Shell  Oil  Company's  flowing  volume  may  vary  depending  on  the  require- 
ments of  the  Martinez  refinery,  but  will  not  exceed  the  refinery's 
maximum  capacity  of  120  MBD. 

Specific  operation  and  maintenance  procedures  will  be  developed 
for  the  proposed  pipeline  facilities.  Manuals  explaining  these  proce- 
dures and  training  will  be  made  available  to  all  operating  personnel. 
All  manuals  and  operating  procedures  will  comply  with  DOT  Regulation 


2-32 


49  CFR  195,  "Transportation  of  Hazardous  Liquids  by  Pipeline:  Minimum 
Federal  Safety  Standards,"  and  state  requirements  such  as  the 
California  Hazardous  Liquid  Pipeline  Safety  Act.  The  Applicant 
anticipates  that  10  to  12  full-time  personnel  currently  employed  by 
Shell  will  be  required  for  routine  operation  and  maintenance  of  the 
new  pipeline  system. 

The  major  features  of  the  operation  and  maintenance  program  are 
summarized  below. 

Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan 

An  Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan  for  the  project,  as  required  by  DOT 
Regulation  49  CFR  195,  has  been  submitted  to  the  SLC  and  is  included 
in  Appendix  B  to  this  document.  The  contents  of  the  plan  are  sum- 
marized in  Section  4.2.15;  key  features  of  the  control  system  are 
discussed  below. 

Control  System 

The  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  will  be  operated  from  the  Shell 
Oil  Company  Pipe  Line  control  center  in  Anaheim,  California.  The 
Anaheim  control  center  is  a  computer-based  supervisory  system  with  a 
second,  fully-redundant  computer  which  will  provide  immediate,  auto- 
matic back-up  in  the  event  of  a  failure  in  the  primary  system.  Mate- 
rials will  be  stored  in  areas  close  to  the  pipeline  to  enable  quick 
repairs  in  the  event  of  a  leak.  The  communication  system  for  the 
proposed  project  will  include  each  of  the  booster/injection  stations. 
The  new  booster  stations  in  Segment  4  will  be  remotely  controlled  from 
the  Anaheim  control  center,  while  the  stations  at  existing  locations 
are  and  will  continue  to  be  locally  controlled.  Shutoff  valves  on 
either  side  of  all  booster/injection  stations  and  at  the  Martinez 
meter  station  will  be  automated;  those  along  the  pipeline  will  be 
manually  operated. 

Three  primary  methods  will  be  used  to  detect  leaks:  pipeline 
operator  controller  judgment,  computer  software  detection  tools,  and 
air  surveillance  of  the  pipeline.  These  methods  provide  for  contin- 
uous monitoring  of  discharge  pressures  at  pump  stations  to  ascertain 
whether  changes  in  pressure  result  from  normal  variations  or  a  poten- 
tial leak,  and  line-volume  balancing,  which  is  a  comparison  of  incom- 
ing volumes  from  the  injection  stations  with  the  amounts  being 
delivered  at  Martinez. 

An  oil  movements  controller  will  be  on  duty  24  hours  a  day.  The 
controller's  sole  responsibility  will  be  to  monitor  the  pipeline  for 
proper  and  safe  operation,  including  detection  of  leaks.  Information 
such  as  pipeline  pressure,  flow  rate,  and  temperature  will  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  control  center  from  field  locations  and  updated  with 
real-time  data  approximately  every  15  seconds.  The  controller  will 
analyze  incoming  data  to  monitor  current  operating  conditions,  will 
determine  abnormal  conditions,  and  can  take  appropriate  action, 
including  shutting  down  the  pipeline  if  necessary. 


2-33 


To  assist  the  controller,  a  leak  detection  program  will  be 
installed  in  the  computer  at  the  Anaheim  control  center.  The  proposed 
project  will  be  monitored  by  a  proprietary  Shell  program  called  "Line 
Balance,"  which  will  be  customized  for  the  characteristics  of  the 
project.  This  program  compares  the  volume  of  crude  oil  measured  into 
the  pipeline  against  the  volume  measured  out  at  the  end  of  the 
pipeline.  This  ongoing  comparison  is  done  for  the  most  recent  60 
minutes  and  is  updated  continuously  every  minute.  When  the  volume  of 
oil  measured  entering  the  system  compared  to  the  volume  of  oil  which 
is  received  at  the  refinery  indicates  a  discrepancy  of  a  certain  size, 
an  alarm  will  be  activated.  The  controller  will  then  review  all 
operating  data  to  determine  if  a  leak  has  occurred  and  will  take 
appropriate  action. 

All  remotely  controlled  locations  will  also  be  provided  with 
stand-by  power  systems  to  maintain  remote-control  operation  and  shut- 
down capability  in  case  of  a  power  failure.  Facilities  to  be  con- 
trolled will  be  connected  via  the  microwave  communications  system. 

Oil  Spill  Potential 

Since  the  proposed  pipeline  includes  mainline  shut-off  valves  no 
more  than  30  miles  apart,  the  section  of  the  pipeline  in  which  a  leak 
is  suspected  can  be  isolated  and  shut  down.  Under  a  worst-case 
scenario  of  a  total  pipeline  failure,  the  maximum  potential  gravity 
spill  volume  would  be  a  drainage  volume  of  36,000  barrels.  This 
figure  is  based  on  analysis  of  elevational  profiles  and  distance 
between  valves  to  determine  the  maximum  volume  that  could  drain  from 
the  ruptured  pipeline  by  gravity. 

The  maximum  (worst-case)  volume  of  crude  oil  that  would  be  pumped 
from  the  pipeline  before  detection  by  the  controller  at  the  Anaheim 
control  center  will  be  approximately  870  barrels  (i.e.,  significantly 
less  than  the  worst-case  gravity  spill).  This  leak  volume  could  only 
occur  during  about  two  hours  per  week,  when  the  pipeline  flow  rate  and 
operating  pressure  will  change  to  accommodate  movement  of  a  special 
lube  crude.  The  following  assumptions  were  used  in  estimating  the 
worst-case  leak  volume: 

•  Instrument  inaccuracy  (  +  2%,  at  6667  bph)        266  BBL 

•  Line  pack  variation  (80  MBD  to  160  MBD 

within  60  minutes)  300  BBL 

•  Tolerance  to  prevent  false  alarms  84  BBL 

•  Controller  decision/reaction  time  (2  minutes)     220  BBL 

Total  870  BBL 

This  volume  (detection  volume)  should  be  added  on  to  the  drainage 

volume.   The  worst-case  spill  volume  before  detection  during  the 

remaining  166  hours  (99%)  of  the  week  would  be  less,  only  570  barrels. 

Volumetric  imbalance  due  to  line  pack  would  not  be  a  factor  during 


2-34 


this  period.     Volumes  due  to  instrument  inaccuracy,   false  alarm 
prevention,   and  decision/reaction  time  would  be  the  same  as   above. 

Storage  tanks  at  the  Weir  and  Mid  stations  will   also  be  metered 
and  equipped  with  overflow  control   devices.     In  addition,   these  tanks 
will   have  dikes  designed  to  contain  110%  of  the  maximum  tank  volume. 

Systems  safety  and  reliability  and  oil    spill   potential    and 
effects   are  further  discussed   in  Sections  4.2.14  and  4.2.15. 

Surveillance  and  Maintenance 

An  operations  and  maintenance  plan  and  schedule  will   be  imple- 
mented to  monitor  and  ensure  safe  pipeline  operation.     The  30-foot- 
wide  permanent  right-of-way,  which  will    largely  have  been  returned  to 
its  original   land  use,  will   be  used  to  provide  access  for  any  neces- 
sary pipeline  maintenance.     The  pipeline  and  right-of-way  will   be 
inspected  weekly  utilizing  aerial    surveys  to  find  small    leaks  that 
would  not  be  detected  by  instrumentation.     Such  small    leaks   include 
pinhole  leaks  due  to  corrosion  or  drip-type  leaks  from  a  pipe  fitting 
or  flanged  connection.     Since  the  proposed  pipeline  will   be  con- 
structed primarily  in  an  existing  utility  corridor,   air  surveillance 
by  other  utilities   in  the  same  corridor  may  actually  provide 
information  about  pipeline  conditions  at  more  frequent  intervals.     No 
routine  on-the-ground  inspection   is  planned,  but  maintenance  crews 
will   be  working  up  and  down  the  pipeline  regularly  and   in  the  process 
will   observe  any  maintenance  and/or  repair  requirement. 

The  air  surveys  and  ground  maintenance  work  will    identify  poten- 
tial  right-of-way  use  encroachments,  pipeline  exposure  and  mechanical 
damage,   and  other  conditions,   such  as  excessive  vegetation  growth  on 
non-agricultural   portions  of  the  right-of-way  which  might  constitute  a 
safety  hazard.     Should  vegetation  need  to  be  removed,  mechanical 
equipment,   such  as   a  brush  hog,   will    be  used  to  mow  the  right-of-way 
as  needed,  most  likely  only  in  the  northernmost  25  miles  of  the  route. 
Herbicides  will    not  be  used  to  manage  the  vegetation  on  the  right-of- 
way.     Any  requirements  for  remedial    erosion  control    or  restoration 
work  will    be   identified   and   implemented  before  significant  problems 
develop.     All   valves  and  valve  actuators  will   be  operated,   inspected, 
and   lubricated   at   least  once  every  six  months. 

2.1.6  Abandonment 

The  economic  life  of  the  proposed  project  is  estimated  to  be  30 
to  40  years.  At  the  end  of  operation,  the  oil  in  the  underground 
pipeline  will  be  removed  and  delivered  to  the  refinery.  The  pipeline 
will  be  filled  with  water,  sealed,  and  abandoned  in  place.  The  pur- 
pose of  filling  the  pipeline  with  water,  which  will  contain  rust 
inhibitors,  is  to  slow  down  or  eliminate  internal  corrosion  and  to 
give  greater  structural  strength  to  the  abandoned  pipeline  than  if  it 
were  left  hollow.  All  above  ground  facilities  and  foundations  will  be 
dismantled  and  removed.  Equipment  will  be  salvaged  for  reuse  to  the 
extent  possible.  Refuse  and  unsalvageable  materials  will  be  disposed 
of  at  authorized  disposal  sites.  The  above-ground  sites  will  be 


2-35 


restored  in  accordance  with  applicable  agency  regulations  and  permit 
stipulations. 

2.2  PROPOSED  ALTERNATIVES 

A  range  of  alternatives  to  the  proposed  action  was  considered 
during  the  application  process,  four  of  which  were  identified  as 
feasible  alternatives  to  the  proposed  action: 

•  Alternative  pipeline  routes; 

•  Alternative  number  and  locations  of  new  booster  stations; 

0  Alternative  power/fuel  sources  at  new  and  existing  booster 
stations;  and 

t  Overhead  aqueduct  crossings. 

These  alternatives  will  be  evaluated  to  the  same  level  of  detail 
as  the  proposed  project.  The  no-action  alternative,  which  likewise 
requires  evaluation,  is  described  in  Section  2.3.  Other  alternatives 
initially  considered  but  later  rejected  are  referred  to  in  Section 
2.4.  These  alternatives  were  determined  to  be  incompatible  with  the 
goals  and  objectives  of  the  project;  or  would  cause  other,  unaccept- 
able impacts  without  environmental  benefits;  or  were  remote  or 
speculative  in  nature;  or  would  require  an  inordinate  amount  of 
resources  to  analyze  in  detail.  The  elimination  of  alternatives  from 
further  analysis  in  this  EIR/EIS  based  on  these  types  of  constraints 
is  consistent  with  CEOA  and  NEPA  guidelines. 

2.2.1  Alternative  Pipeline  Routes 

Two  alternative  pipeline  routes  were  evaluated:  the  Combination 
Route  and  the  Contra  Loma  Route  (see  Figure  2-7).  These  alternative 
routes  were  developed: 

•  To  avoid  potential ly  environmental ly  sensitive  areas; 

•  To  utilize  existing  utility  and  transportation  corridors  as 
much  as  practicable; 

•  To  avoid  prime  croplands,  vineyards,  and  orchards;  and 

•  To  accomplish  project  objectives  in  a  technically  sound  and 
cost-effective  manner. 

Each  of  the  alternative  routes  is  described  below. 

Combination  Route 

The  Combination  Route  consists  of  approximately  44  miles  of 
14-inch-diameter  pipeline.  It  would  take  the  place  of  the  looped 
segment  (Segment  3)  of  the  proposed  route  between  Mid  station  and  the 
Caliola  booster  station,  i.e.,  between  mileposts  40  and  83.4  of  the 


2-36 


MONO 


ISO  Kl  LOMETERS 


Figure  2-7    ALTERNATIVE  ROUTE  LOCATIONS 


2-37 


proposed  route.  The  Combination  Route  was  selected  as  an  alternative 
because  it  is  aligned  parallel  and  adjacent  to  Interstate  Highway  5 
(1-5),  and  runs  adjacent  to  utility  and  transportation  corridors 
slightly  more  closely  than  the  proposed  route.  The  Combination  Route 
deviates  less  than  one  or  two  thousand  feet  from  the  proposed  route 
between  mileposts  40  and  49  and  between  mileposts  76  and  83.  It  has  a 
distinct  identity  between  mileposts  76  and  83,  where  it  is  aligned 
just  to  the  east  of  the  proposed  route  and  adjacent  to  1-5. 

This  alternative  would  not  require  any  changes  over  the  proposed 
action  in  injection  and  pumping,  or  in  communications  facilities  and 
related  ancillary. facilities.  It  would  be  about  0.5  miles  longer  than 
the  equivalent  portion  of  the  proposed  project  and,  for  this  reason, 
could  have  slightly  higher  construction  and  operation  costs. 

Contra  Loma  Route 

The  Contra  Loma  Route,  a  3.5-mile  bypass  in  Contra  Costa  County 
near  the  northern  terminus  of  the  pipeline,  was  developed  to  avoid 
potential  landslide  areas  in  this  portion  of  the  county.  This  alter- 
native route  is  aligned  about  0.5  miles  to  the  north  and  east  of  the 
portion  of  the  proposed  route  and  crosses  less  rugged  terrain.  It 
corresponds  with  mileposts  240.6  to  244  of  the  proposed  route  in  this 
area  (Segment- 4).  Because  it  crosses  less  rugged  terrain,  the  Contra 
Loma  Route  would  result  in  lower  construction  and  operation  costs, 
but  these  advantages  could  be  offset  by  more  difficult  right-of-way 
acquisition  due  to  the  proximity  to  developed  areas. 

2.2.2  Three  New  Booster  Station  Alternative 

Another  alternative  under  consideration  is  a  project  with  three 
new  booster  stations  (SJV-2,  SJV-3,  and  SJV-4;  see  Figure  2-8)  instead 
of  the  two  new  booster  stations  in  the  proposed  action  (SJV-2b  and 
SJV-3b).  The  advantage  of  this  alternative,  which  would  add  one  more 
new  booster  station  to  Segment  4,  is  that  pumping  and  heating  facili- 
ties could  be  sized  for  greater  throughput  efficiency  and  more  eco- 
nomical operation.  Additionally,  this  alternative  would  allow  the 
option  of  a  20-inch  pipe  diameter  for  Segment  4,  or  it  could  be  built 
with  24-inch  pipe  diameter  as  in  the  proposed  action.  Either  the 
24-inch  or  the  20-inch  pipe  could  transport  120  MBD  through  Segment  4 
of  the  pipeline.  The  alternative  would  utilize  19  mainline  block 
valves--two  more  block  valves  than  for  the  proposed  action.  This 
alternative  would  add  one  more  microwave  tower  than  the  proposed 
action,  to  be  located  at  booster  station  SJV-4. 

20-inch-Diameter 

The  addition  of  a  booster  station  accompanied  by  a  block  valve 
for  the  20-inch-diameter  pipe  has  a  potential  environmental  advantage 
because,  in  the  event  of  a  worst-case  pipeline  rupture  in  Segment  4,  a 
smaller  volume  of  oil  would  be  spilled  than  with  a  larger  diameter 
pipe.  For  example,  for  the  worst-case  scenario  of  a  pipeline  break  in 
Segment  4  between  the  two  block  valves  with  the  greatest  difference  in 
elevation,  the  maximum  oil  spill  over  the  173-mile  stretch  would  be 


2-38 


MONO 


□    Boo  star  and  Injection 
Stations 

^  Microwave  Stations 


0__  20 

0 


40 


SCALE 

SO         so 

100 


100 


120  MILES 


150  KILOMETERS 


Figure  2-8     ALTERNATIVE  BOOSTER  STATION  CONFIGURATIONS 


2-39 


reduced  from  about  24,000  barrels  to  about  16,500  barrels  as  a  result 
of  the  smaller  (20-inch)  pipeline.     However,  this  alternative  would 
not  modify  the  maximum  potential  oil   spill   for  the  project,  which  has 
been  estimated  at  36,000  barrels,  because  this  maximum  potential   spill 
location  is  for  Segment  2   (the  18-inch  pipe),  which   is  unaffected  by 
this  alternative. 

24-inch-Diameter 

The  additional  booster  station  alternative  could  also  be  built 
with  the  proposed  24-inch  pipe  in  all  of  Segment  4.     The  selection  of 
pipe  diameter  would  depend  not  only  on  safety  considerations,   but  also 
on  cost  and  engineering  factors,  because  the  proposed  20-inch  pipe 
would  require  substantially  more  powerful   pumps  and  higher  pressures, 
although  slightly  less  heating,  than  24-inch  pipe  (see  Table  2-11). 

2.2.3     Alternative  Power  Source  Configurations 

In   view  of  possible  disruptions  in  the  supply  of  natural   gas,   and 
because  electric  motors  are  cleaner  and  less  complex  than  turbines 
using  waste  heat,  two  alternative  pump  and  heater  power  source  config- 
urations require  evaluation  in  addition  to  to  the  proposed  action: 


Alternative  1  Alternative  2  (Proposed  Action) 


Pumps  Electric  motors        Electric  motors  Gas  turbines 

Heaters         Crude-oil-fired         Natural-gas-fired         Natural-gas-fired 
heaters  heaters  heaters  with  waste 

heat  from  gas  tur- 
bines 


Implementation  of  alternatives  1  or  2  would  require  that  high- 
voltage  electric  transmission  lines  from  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric 
Company  be  constructed  to  new  booster  stations  and  to  the  Caliola  sta- 
tion.    Alternative  2  requires  natural   gas  supply  lines  comparable  to 
the  proposed  action,  while  Alternative  1  would  not  require  natural   gas 
supply  lines. 

Under  Alternative  1,  the  crude  oil   for  the  heaters  would  be  taken 
from  the  proposed  pipeline  and  stored  in  a  small   tank   (less  than  1,000 
BBL)    at  each  station.     The  oil  that  would  be  utilized  for  heating 
would  have  a  sulfur  content  of  0.7  to  1.2%  by  weight.     The  fuel   con- 
sumption rate  at  each  station  would  range  between  0  and  190  gallons/ 
hr,  depending  on  the  season  of  the  year  and  the  flow  rate  through  the 
pipeline,   but  fuel   requirements  would  average  approximately  90  gal- 
lons/hr. 


2-40 


Table  2-11 

COMPARISON  OF  HORSEPOWER  AND  HEATER  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  DIFFERENT  PIPELINE  DIAMETERS  USING 

THE  THREE  NEW  BOOSTER  STATION  ALTERNATIVE 


Heat 

er 

Horsepower* 

(million 

BTU/hr) 

24-inch 

20-inch 

24-inch 

20-inch 

Sbation 

pipe 

pipe 

pipe 

pipe 

Mid 

1,600 

2,700 

13 

5 

Kettleman 

** 

#* 

»* 

** 

Caliola 

1,400 

2,500 

13 

10 

SJV-2 

1,400 

2,500 

13 

10 

SJV-3 

1,400 

2,500 

13 

10 

SJV-4 

1,400 

2,500 

13 

10 

♦Using  gas  turbine. 
**No  additional  requirements. 

Source:  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company. 


2-41 


2.2.4  Alternative  Aqueduct  Crossing  Technique 

The  project  could  be  developed  by  constructing  new  overhead  sus- 
pension bridges  as  an  alternative  to  underground  crossings  of  the 
aqueducts  traversed  by  the  project.  The  basis  for  evaluating  this 
alternative  is  that  the  California  Department  of  Water  Resources 
(DWR),  which  maintains  jurisdiction  over  San  Joaquin  Valley  aqueducts, 
has  expressed  strong  reservation  about  the  proposed  underground  cross- 
ings. This  alternative  aqueduct  crossing  technique  could  be  used  at 
six  of  the  ten  major  water  crossings  (see  Figure  2-9)  listed  in  Table 
2-10  in  Section  2.1.2.  It  is  not  considered  for  the  crossings  of 
Pacheco  Creek,  which  is  not  an  aqueduct  under  DWR  jurisdiction.  Use 
of  the  existing  suspension  bridges  at  the  other  two  canal  crossings— 
the  California  Aqueduct  (at  milepost  160.3)  and  the  Delta  Mendota 
Canal  (milepost  163.8)  — are  already  part  of  the  proposed  action. 

2.3  NO-ACTION  ALTERNATIVE 

The  no-action  alternative  implies  that  neither  the  pipeline,  its 
ancillary  facilities,  nor  any  of  its  alternatives  would  be  built. 
This  would  occur  if  the  proposed  action  and  all  of  its  alternatives 
were  denied  the  permits  or  approvals  necessary  for  their  construc- 
tion. 

2.4  ALTERNATIVES  CONSIDERED  BUT  ELIMINATED  FROM  DETAILED  ANALYSIS 

In  addition  to  the  alternatives  described  above,  a  number  of 
other  alternatives  were  initially  evaluated  and  eliminated.  These 
included  additional  pipeline  route  alternatives,  an  alternative  com- 
munications technique,  and  pipeline  insulation.  These  alternatives, 
and  the  primary  reasons  for  their  elimination,  are  summarized  below. 

2.4.1  Alternative  Routes 

Various  alternative  routes  were  initially  evaluated  for  both  the 
southern  (Segments  1,  2,  and  3)  and  northern  (Segment  4)  portions  of 
the  proposed  action.  These  alternative  routes,  which  are  described 
briefly  here,  were  eliminated  prior  to  detailed  analysis  because  of 
overriding  environmental,  engineering,  or  economic  constraints. 

During  initial  project  development,  several  alternative  routes 
were  considered  in  the  southern  project  area,  including  a  route  east 
of  and  adjacent  to  the  1-5  route;  a  route  west  of  and  adjacent  to  the 
1-5  route;  the  Texaco  pipeline  route;  and  the  Lost  Hills  Road  route. 
All  of  these  routes  were  eliminated  from  further  consideration  because 
they  would  have  required  diagonal  crossings  of  lands  under  cultiva- 
tion, more  irrigation  trench  and  aqueduct  crossings  than  the  proposed 
route,  and  more  crossings  of  1-5.  In  addition,  these  routes  would 
have  entailed  a  greater  number  of  highway  and  canal  crossings;  more 
extensive  construction  in  areas  of  more  rugged  terrain;  more  difficult 
right-of-way  acquisition  problems;  and  constraints  in  terms  of  access 
to  the  right-of-way  and  ancillary  facilities. 


2-42 


saS   BRIDGE   CROSSINGS 

BRIDGE   CROSSINGS   ALREADY 
■*    PART  OF  THE  PROPOSED   ACTION 
AT  THESE   LOCATIONS 


20 


50 


SCALE 

SO  30 

100 


100 


120  MILES 


150  Kl  LOMETERS 


Figure  2-9        ALTERNATIVE   OVERHEAD  AQUEDUCT  CROSSING  LOCATIONS 


2-43 


Highway  33  Alternative 

A  Highway  33  Alternative,  consisting  of  approximately  62  miles  of 
24-inch  pipeline,  was  considered  in  Kern  and  Fresno  counties  because 
it  would  have  provided  a  more  direct  route  than  the  corresponding 
segment  of  the  proposed  route  between  the  end  of  Segment  1  (milepost 
21.6)  and  the  beginning  of  Segment  4  (milepost  84.5).  This  alterna- 
tive also  had  the  advantage  of  adjoining  existing  pipeline  and 
electric  corridors,  as  well  as  following  existing  ranch  roads  and 
property  boundary  lines,  to  a  greater  extent  than  the  proposed  action. 

However,  this  alternative  was  rejected  because  it  did  not  meet 
the  needs  of  the  project  due  to  a  reduction  in  operational  flexibil- 
ity. This  reduction  in  flexibility  results  from  not  looping  the 
existing  14-inch  pipeline  between  Bakersfield  and  Caliola,  which  would 
preclude  the  use  of  existing  ancillary  facilities.  For  example,  the 
alternative  would  bypass  the  Mid  booster  station  and  would  result  in 
the  loss  of  a  control  point  over  Segments  2  and  3  to  regulate  the 
varying  inputs  of  oil  into  the  pipeline.  These  reasons  were  con- 
sidered sufficient  to  eliminate  the  alternative  from  in-depth  evalua- 
tion. 

Texaco  North  Alternative 

The  Texaco  North  Alternative  was  identified  as  a  potential  route 
which  would  have  utilized  an  additional  25  miles  of  existing  corridors 
in  Contra  Costa  County  (Segment  4).  It  would  follow  an  existing 
Texaco  crude  oil  pipeline,  a  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company  trans- 
mission line,  and  an  unimproved  ranch  road. 

This  alternative  was  eliminated  from  further  evaluation  because 
it  would  have  substantially  higher  construction  and  operation  costs 
due  to  an  increase  of  1,200  feet  in  the  maximum  elevation  of  the 
pi  pel ine. 

Additionally,  this  route  would  cross  erosion-prone  hillsides  and 
rugged  terrain,  which  have  caused  operation  and  maintenance  problems 
for  existing  utilities  presently  using  the  corridor. 

Other  Alternative  Routes 

Five  additional  alternative  routes  in  Contra  Costa  County  were 
initially  evaluated  and  eliminated  from  further  consideration  because 
of  confirmed  or  potential  slope  stability  problems,  the  crossing  of  or 
encroachment  upon  expanding  residential  areas,  disruption  of  sites 
with  known  cultural  resources,  and  the  crossing  of  regional  parks  and 
other  special-use  areas. 

An  alternative  route  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  San  Joaquin 
Valley  was  also  evaluated  on  a  conceptual  level  to  determine  whether 
impacts  to  environmentally  sensitive  features  such  as  habitat  for 
special  status  wildlife  species  could  be  eliminated.  However,  it  was 
determined  that  such  a  route  would  not  significantly  reduce  environ- 
mental impacts,  in  addition  to  greatly  increasing  socioeconomic  and 


2-44 


land  use  impacts  from  potential   oil   spills  because  of  the  area's  high 
value  agricultural   crops  and  the  type  of  irrigation  practiced. 

2.4.2  Alternative  Transportation  Methods 

Other  means  of  transporting  oil  from  Weir  to  Martinez  were  con- 
sidered, but  rejected  because  of  greater  environmental  impacts, 
logistical  difficulties,  and  higher  cost  compared  to  pipeline  trans- 
port. Alternative  transportation  means  initially  considered  included 
trucks,  railroad,  and  tankers.  About  600  trucks  would  be  required  to 
travel  between  Weir  and  Martinez  each  day,  or,  alternatively,  three 
sets  of  trains  containing  72  cars  each  would  be  required,  in  order  to 
deliver  120  MBO  to  Martinez.  Compared  to  pipeline  transport,  either 
of  these  transportation  methods  would  cost  more,  would  increase  high- 
way or  rail  traffic,  and  would  greatly  increase  the  risk  of  oil  spills 
resulting  from  accidents  or  oil  transfers.  Marine  transport  was  re- 
jected because  of  its  impractical ity;  the  oil-production  areas 
associated  with  the  project  are  landlocked,  and  this  alternative  would 
therefore  require  that  oil  be  transported  to  the  coast,  either  by 
truck,  rail,  or  pipeline,  before  it  could  be  loaded  onto  tankers.  Any 
route  to  the  coast  would  have  to  cross  the  rugged  Coastal  Ranges. 

2.4.3  Fiber-Optic  Cables  for  Communication 

The  use  of  fiber-optic  cable  laid   in  the  pipeline  trench  was 
considered  as  an  alternative  to  the  microwave  communication  system  to 
relay  pipeline  information  to  Shell's  control   center  in  Anaheim.     This 
option  would  cost  about  twice  as  much  as  the  proposed  network  of 
microwave  towers.     The  use  of  fiber-optic  cable  would  avoid  the 
towers'   visual    impacts,  but  a  review  of  available  information  deter- 
mined that  a  communication  system  based  on  fiber-optic  cables  has  an 
unproven  record  of  reliability  in  cross-country  pipeline  applications. 
Also,   there  was   substantial   concern   about  fiber-optic  cable  failures 
(splices,   protective  cover  deterioration,   third-party  damage),   the 
need  for  repairs,   and  repair  time.     In  addition,   according  to  the 
applicant,   the  technology  available  to  pinpoint  a  damaged  cable  is 
costly  and  time-consuming. 

2.4.4  Pipeline  Insulation 

The  proposed  pipeline  will  not  be  insulated.  The  alternative  use 
of  pipeline  insulation  for  the  purpose  of  energy  conservation  was 
eliminated  for  several  reasons.  Economic  analysis  did  not  indicate  an 
economic  benefit  to  the  project.  The  original  cost  of  insulated- 
pipeline  would  be  higher  than  for  an  uninsulated  pipeline,  even  though 
long-term  transportation  costs  per  barrel  of  crude  oil  would  be  about 
equal.  A  few  potential  disadvantages  of  insulation  were  identified. 
These  included  the  risk  of  water  absorption  by  the  insulation  in  wet 
areas;  the  insulation  deteriorating  due  to  the  moisture  and/or  loss  of 
its  insulating  qualities;  and  subsequent  disbonding  from  the  pipe. 

2.5  INTERRELATIONSHIPS  WITH  OTHER  PLANNED  OR  PROPOSED  PROJECTS 

As  a  first  step  in  assessing  cumulative  impacts  of  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline,  projects  potentially  interrelated  with  the 

2-45 


proposed  action  were  evaluated.     However,   inclusion  criteria  for 
planned  or  proposed  projects  for  cumulative   impact   analysis   are  not 
well   defined  for   linear  projects,   such  as   a  258-mile  pipeline. 
Therefore,  the  evaluation  of  potentially  interrelated  projects  was 
limited  to  major  projects  which  are  currently  proposed  or  have  a 
reasonable  likelihood  of  being  proposed   in  the  near  future,   and 
which:  . 

t     Would  compete  for  the  same  resources   near  the  originating  or 
terminating  points  of  the  proposed   action;  or 

•  Would  add  significantly  to  the  proposed   action's   short-term 
(construction)   impacts  due  to  possibly  overlapping  construc- 
tion schedules;  or 

•  Would  add  significantly  to  the  proposed  action's  long-term 
(operation)   impacts. 

In  formulating  the  list  of  potentially  interrelated  projects, 
therefore,   size,   type,   and  proximity  to  the  proposed   action's  facili- 
ties were  taken  into  account.     These  projects  are  listed  in  Table 
2-12. 

Beyond  these  listed  projects,   it  is  conceivable  that  the  approxi- 
mately 120-MBD  capacity  that  would  become  available  in  the  Texaco 
pipeline  once  Shell   discontinues  using  it,   as  well    as  the  40-MBO  addi- 
tional  capacity  in  the  proposed  pipeline,  could  be  used  to  transport 
crude  oil   to  the  Bay  Area.     The  Texaco  pipeline,  with  a  maximum  capa- 
city of  about  200  MBD,   has  the  capability  to  deliver  crude  to  four 
Contra  Costa  County  ref ineries--Tosco   in  Avon,   Shell    in  Martinez,   and 
Exxon  and  Huntway  in   Benicia.     The  Texaco  Trading   and  Transportion 
Company  has   indicated  that  while  it  has  no  contracts  or  plans  for 
filling  up  the  capacity  that  will   be  made   available  by  the  proposed 
action,   it  would  try  to  find  transporters  to  fill    the  capacity 
(Whitlock  1986).     According  to  the  Bay  Area  Air  Quality  Management 
District  (BAAQMD),   any  available  pipeline  capacity  to  the  Bay  Area 
could  be  filled  quickly,   based  on   the  number  of  permit  applications 
they  have  received  recently  for  shipping  crude  from  the  Bay  Area  to 
other  refinery  locations    (Karas  1986). 

Therefore,   although  the  additional   pipeline  capacity  made  avail- 
able by  the  proposed   action  could  result   in  more  oil    being  refined   in 
Contra  Costa  County,   it  seems  more  likely  that   if  this  crude  is 
delivered  to  the  Bay  Area,   it  might  be  sent  by  oil   companies,  via 
tanker,   from  the  Bay  Area  to  other  refinery  locations   (Karas  1986). 
The  BAAQMD  now  requires   that  any  new  tanker-loading  proposal    include 
provisions  for  vapor-controlled  transfer  of  oil    (from  storage  tank  to 
oil   tanker),  which  virtually  eliminates  emissions  resulting  from  such 
projects   (Karas  1986).     Moreover,  because  all    Bay  Area  refineries  have 
BAAQMD  permits   specifying  either  their  maximum  oil    throughput  or  their 
maximum  emission   allowances,   any  significant   increase  in   a  refinery's 
production  would  require  notification  of  the  BAAQMD. 


2-46 


Table  2-12 
PROJECTS  POTENTIALLY  INTERRELATED  WITH  THE  SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEY  PIPELINE 


Project 


Description/Location 


Interrelationship 


All-American  Pipeline 


Pacific-Texas  Pipeline 


Southern  California 
Pipeline  System  (SCPS) 
(Angeles  leg) 


West  Valley  Pipeline 


Kern  River,  Mojave, 
or  El  Dorado  Gas 
Pipelines 


A  30-inch,  heated,  1, 769-mile 
pipeline  currently  under  con- 
struction between  Las  Flores 
on  the  California  coast  and 
Webster,  Texas  (near  Houston), 
with  a  capacity  of  about  300 
MBD. 

A  42-inch,  unheated  pipeline 
between  Los  Angeles  and  Mid- 
land, Texas,  designed  to 
receive  and  transport  Alaskan 
North  Slope  crude  (about  900 
MBD).  With  sufficient  dilu- 
tions, heavier  crudes  could 
also  be  sent  through  this 
pipeline.   (Final  EIR/EIS 
released  in  November  1985.) 

A  30-inch,  heated,  150-mile 
pipeline  from  Emidio  in  Kern 
County  to  Los  Angeles  refin- 
eries, with  a  capacity  of 
about  330  MBD.   It  is  a  joint 
venture  by  Four  Corners  Pipe- 
line Co.  (a  subsidiary  of 
ARC0) ,  Chevron,  Texaco,  and 
Shell,  and  is  designed  to 
transport  offshore  and  San 
Joaquin  Valley  crude  oil  to 
Los  Angeles.   (Draft  EIR/EIS 
expected  in  early  1987.) 

A  feeder  pipeline  from  San 
Joaquin  Valley  oil  fields  to 
Emidio,  this  is  proposed  as  a 
means  of  transporting  Kern 
County  oil  directly  to  Los 
Angeles  via  the  Southern 
California  Pipeline.   In  the 
proposal  stages,  this  project 
would  begin  7  miles  north  of 
Taft  and  run  about  34  miles 
with  an  80-MBD  capacity.   This 
project  will  depend  on  comple- 
tion of  the  Angeles  leg  of  the 
proposed  SCPS  pipeline. 

Various  alternative  interstate 
gas  pipelines  to  Kern  County 
oil  producing  areas,  with  the 
purpose  of  supplying  gas  for 
enhanced  oil  recovery  (using 
gas  to  heat  the  steam  used  for 
oil  recovery). 


Would  compete  for  some  of  the 
crude  oil  that  might  otherwise 
be  sent  north  via  the  Texaco 
pipeline  after  mid-1988. 
Potential  interrelationship  in 
tax  benefits  to  government. 


Might  compete  for  some  of  the 
crude  oil  that  could  otherwise 
be  sent  north  via  the  Texaco 
pipeline  after  mid-1988. 
Potential  interrelationship  in 
tax  benefits  to  government. 


Would  compete  for  some  of  the 
crude  oil  that  might  otherwise 
be  sent  north  to  Bay  Area 
refineries.  Potential  inter- 
relationship in  construction 
effects  if  schedules  overlap 
(air  quality,  noise,  socio- 
economics, visual  resources). 


Would  compete  for  some  of  the 
crude  oil  that  might  otherwise 
be  sent  north  to  Bay  Area 
refineries.   Potential  inter- 
relationships in  construction 
effects  if  schedules  overlap 
(air  quality,  noise,  socio- 
economcis,  visual  resources). 
Interrelated  effects  on  bio- 
logical resources  in  Kern 
County. 


Potential  interrelationships 
in  construction  effects  if 
Kern  County  construction 
schedules  overlap  (air  qua- 
lity, noise,  socioeconomics, 
visual  resources).  Would  sup- 
port the  increased  production 
of  crude  oil  that  could  be 
sent  north  to  Bay  Area  refi- 
neries. 


2-47 


Table  2-12  (Cont.) 


Project 


Description/Location 


Interrelationship 


Energy  Production  Projects 


Kern  County  48, 
Biomass  Plant 


7-MW 


Lost  Hills  Cogeneration 
Plant 


Gabriel  44-MW  Biomass 
Plant 


Mendota  Biomass  Power 
25-MW  Biomass  Cogener- 
ation Plant 


Stanislaus  County 

Waste-to-Energy 

Project 


Corn  Products  Cogen- 
eration Facility 


Richmond  Energy 
Recovery  Project 


Construction  of  a  48. 7-MW 
electric  generating  facility 
on  a  123-acre  parcel  in 
Delano,  Kern  County.  Fuel  to 
consist  of  orchard  and  vine- 
yard prunings,  cotton  stalks, 
and  other  agricultural  wastes. 

Construction  of  an  8.4-MW 
cogeneration  plant  on  a 
1-acre  parcel  in  the  South 
Belridge  oil  production 
field. 

Construction  of  a  44-MW 
biomass- fueled  electrical 
generation  plant  on  85  acres 
of  industrial  land  near 
Mendota  in  Fresno  County  Plant 
will  consume  up  to  300,000  dry 
tons/year  of  predominantly 
lumber  waste  and  forest 
3lash. 

A  proposed  25-MW  biomass- fired 
plant  in  Mendota  on  40  acres 
of  industrial  land.  Facility 
will  burn  about  260,000  dry 
tons/year  of  vegetative  waste 
from  local  counties. 

A  proposed  300,000  ton/year 
solid  waste  incineration 
facility  near  Patterson  in 
Stanislaus  County.   The  site 
would  be  close  to  1-5  near  the 
Fink  Road  Landfill,  and  would 
produce  electricity  for  sale 
to  PG&E. 

Proposed  construction  and 
operation  of  a  5Q-MW  coal- 
fired  cogeneration  plant  adja- 
cent to  an  existing  corn  pro- 
cessing mill;  it  is  near  the 
Stockton  Metropolitan  airport 
in  San  Joaquin  County. 

A  proposed  330,000  ton/ year 
municipal  waste  and  sludge- 
burning  plant  in  Richmond, 
Contra  Costa  County.  The  pro- 
posed volume  of  wastes  to  be 
processed  has  been  increased 
from  about  165,000  tons/year 
to  the  currently  planned 
330,000  tons/ year. 


Potential  interrelationship 
with  regard  to  operational 
air  pollutant  emissions. 


Same  as  above.  Potential 
interrelationship  with  regard 
to  visual  resources  once  plant 
is  built. 


Potential  interrelationship 
with  regard  to  operational  air 
pollutant  emissions. 


Same  as  above. 


Same  as  above. 


Same  as  above . 


Same  as  above. 


2-48 


Table  2-12  (Cant.) 


pr0ject  Description/Location  Interrelationship 


Tosco  Small  Power        A  proposed  87.6-MW  cogenera-  Same  as  above.  Potential 

plant  tion  facility  to  be  fueled  interrelationship  with  regard 

primarily  by  refinery  gas  in  to  visual  resources  at  the 
Martinez  (Contra  Costa  northern  terminus  of  the  pro- 
County),  posed  pipeline. 


2-49 


For  the  purposes  of  the  cumulative  impact  analysis,  the  possible 
indirect  effects  from  the  proposed  action  that  are  alluded  to  above 
are  not  included,  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  no  new 
projects  with  the  specific  objective  of  refining  or  shipping  the 
additional  oil  that  could  be  sent  to  the  Bay  Area  in  1988  have  been 
proposed.  And,  because  the  oil  industry  is  subject  to  substantial 
fluctuations  in  the  extent  and  locations  of  oil  supply  and  demand,  it 
is  not  possible  to  predict  the  likelihood  of  such  projects  being 
proposed.  Such  decisions  depend  on  economics  and  private  sector 
marketing  strategies,  which  are  subject  to  sudden  changes.  Analyzing 
possibilities,  as  opposed  to  probabilities,  is  beyond  the  scope  of 
cumulative  impacts  as  outlined  under  CEQA  definitions. 

2.6  SIGNIFICANT  IMPACT  SUMMARY 

Table  2-13  lists  the  principal  features  affected  by  the  proposed 
project  and  identifies  significant  impacts  and/or  hazards.  The 
classification  is  based  on  a  mitigated  action. 

2.7  COMPARISON  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS 

This  section  compares  the  significant  impacts  of  the  proposed 
project  to  the  significant  impacts  of  the  alternatives,  after  mitiga- 
tions have  been  applied  to  each.  The  differences  between  the  proposed 
system  and  the  alternatives  in  terms  of  environmental  disadvantages 
and/or  advantages  are  generally  minor. 

2.7.1  Alternative  Routes 

Combination  Route 

The  Combination  Route  has  the  same  impact  as  the  proposed  route 
since  it  traverses  similar  features.  A  minor  point  is  that  the 
alternative  route  follows  1-5  more  closely  than  the  proposed  route  for 
almost  7  miles,  and  this  is  preferred  from  a  land  use  viewpoint. 

The  proposed  route  would  be  fully  restored  and  revegetated  in 
this  flat  area  and  would  be  farmed,  as  the  Combination  Route  would 
probably  be,  also.  Along  1-5,  there  is  less  likelihood  that  the  pipe- 
line would  be  impacted  by  agricultural  activities  or  other  equipment. 
No  strong  case  can  be  made  for  the  selection  of  either  route  over  the 
other,  since  the  distance  involved  is  small.  No  residual  significant 
adverse  impact  is  associated  with  one  but  not  the  other. 

Contra  Loma  Route 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  crosses  lower  topography  and  fewer  steep 
slopes  than  the  proposed  route  and  is  preferred  in  terms  of  soils 
stability.  However,  the  Contra  Loma  Route  avoids  only  a  small  number 
of  the  steep  slopes  crossed  by  the  proposed  route,  since  it  is  so 
short.  The  Contra  Loma  Route  would  cross  an  estimated  five  slopes 
steeper  than  18%  and  11  steeper  than  12%,  whereas  the  proposed  route 
would  traverse  10  slopes  steeper  than  18%  and  12  steeper  than  12%. 
The  difference  is  small,  considering  that  the  proposed  route  traverses 


2-50 


Table  2-13 

PRINCIPAL  ENVIRONMENTAL  FEATURES  AND 
SIGNIFICANT  IMPACTS/HAZARDS  FOR  THE  PROPOSED  ACTION 


Residual 

Hazard  or  Impact  Significance 

After  Mitigation 


Environmental 
Area 


Action 


Affected  Features 


Not 
Significant    Significant 


1X3 

i 
en 


Geology  and 
Topography 


Geological 
Hazards 


Soils 


Surface  Water 


Slope  modification 


Blasting 


Preempting  of  commercial 
resources 


Fault  crossing 
Ground  shaking 
Subsidence 
Landslides 
Scour 


Revegetation  failure 
related  to  erosion 

Other  soil  limitations 
or  sensitive  soils 


Steep  slopes,  primarily  in  Contra 
Costa  County 

Occasional  beds  of  hard  rock  of 
mainly  Panoche  Formation 

Sand  and  gravel 


Concord  Fault 
Mid  station  storage  tank 
Booster  station  sites 
Pipeline  integrity 
Pipeline  exposure 


Steep  slopes  or  broken  terrain, 
for  a  total  of  about  65  miles 

36  miles 


Stream  crossings,  scour, 
sedimentation,  turbidity, 
oil  spill  hazard 


Oil  spill  hazard  to 
reservoirs  and  aqueducts 
or  canals 


5  perennial  streams 

17  intermittent  streams 

231  unnamed,  intermittent  or 

ephemeral  creeks 

Bethany  Reservoir,  Contra  Lama 
Reservoir,  California  Aqueduct, 
Delta  Mendota  Canal 


X 
X 
X 


X 

X 
X 
X 


Table  2-13  (Cont.) 


Environmental 
Area 


Action 


Affected  Features 


Residual 
Hazard  or  Impact  Significance 
After  Mitigation 

Not 
Significant    Significant 


Groundwater 


Oil  pollution 
Water  removal 


Aquifer  water  quality 
Aquifer  overdraft 


Air  Quality 


Air  quality  standards 
exceeded 


Along  right-of-way  during 
construction 

At  booster  stations 


Socioeconomics 


i 

en 


Value  of  project 

Labor  force  housing  and 
infrastructure  require- 
ments 


Increase  in  tax  base 

Limited  short-term  requirements 
distributed  over  at  least 
20  communities 


Travel  to  and  from 
construction  site, 
congestion,  accidents 


16  state  highways,  4  U.S.  and 
Interstate  highways;  some 
crossed  several  times 


Noise 


Construction-related 
noise   to  60  dB(A) 

Booster  stations 


Noise-sensitive  recreation 
and  residential  areas 

Within  250  feet  from  selected 
site 


X 
X 


Land  use  and 
Recreation 


Right-of-way  and 
facilities 

Land  use  conflicts 


2,600  acres  during  construction 
988  acres  during  operation 

Proposed  Coalinga  Air  Cargo 
Port   in   Fresno  County,    Bethany 
Reservoir  State  Recreation  Area   in 
Alameda  County,    Black  Diamond 
Mines   Regional   Preserve,    Stoneman 
Park   and  Proposed  Reservoir, 
and   proposed   residential   areas, 
landfills,    and  Highway  4 
improvements  in  Contra  Costa 


X 
X1 


Table  2-13  (Cont.) 


Environmental 
Area 


Action 


Affected  Features 


Residual 
Hazard  or  Impact  Significance 
After  Mitigation 


Significant 


Not 
Significant 


r\i 


en 


Land  use  and 
Recreation  (Cont.) 


Public  land  ownership 


Visual  Resources 


Paleontology 


Cultural 
Resources 


Terrestrial 
and  Aquatic 
Resources 


Intrusions  and  contrast 
by  right-of-way 

By  booster  stations  and 
microwave  towers 


Heavy  construction 
equipment 

Unauthorized  collections 


Federals  6.9  miles 

State:  1  mile 

County:  1  mile 

Private:  249.4  miles 


Direct  impact  of 
construction 


Establishment  of  weed 
species  on  right-of-way 


Long-term  habitat 
reduction,  loss  of 
sensitive  habitat 


No  contrast  after  revegetation 
adjacent  to  existing  corridors 

On  sites  already  characterized 
by  similar  facilities  or  other 
developments 


Direct  damage  to  fossils  on 
right-of-way 

Already  possible  if  fossils 
are  present 


Ongoing  survey  for  and  protection 
of  eligible  sites 


Native  habitat,  countered  by  soil 
conservation  and  use  of  approved 
grass  mixtures,  keeping  native 
planting  stock  viable  and  returning 
it  to  the  trench  area 

Vernal  pool  (milepost  227)  oak  trees 
(milepost  237,  238),  sycamore  trees 
at  Orestimba  Creek;  minor  avoidance 
by  fine-tuning  the  route 


Table  2-13  (Cont.) 


Environmental 
Area 


Action 


Affected  Features 


Residual 
Hazard  or  Impact  Significance 
After  Mitigation 


Significant 


Not 
Significant 


en 


Terrestrial 
and  Aquatic 
Resources 
(Cont.) 


System  Safety 


Oil  Spills 


Loss-term  habitat 
reduction,  loss 
of  sensitive  habitat 
(Cont.) 


Special-status 
species  lasses 


Aquatic  habitat 
disturbance;  reduction 
in  population  strength; 
oil  spill  into  aquatic 
habitat 


System  integrity 

Public  and  worker  safety 
measures  and  state-of-the- 
art  design,  security 
systems 


Seismic  or  direct  impact 
or  corrosion  or  defective 
pipe 


Freshwater  wetlands;  minor 
extent  (0.3  acres)  of  saltwater 
marsh  maintained  by  restoring 
present  hydrology;  saltbuah 
scrub  (177  acres)  and  alkali 
aink  habitat  (45  acres)  and 
saltbush  scrub  habitat  countered 
by  leaving  root  systems  in  place. 

Raptora;  endangered  plants; 
endangered  wildlife;  kit  fox  dens 
(38)  avoided  my  minor  fine-tuning 
of  the  route  in  den  areas. 

Wetland  and  vegetation  and 
associated  wildlife  on  Pacheco 
Creek;  aquatic  organisms  of 
perennial  streams,   Pacheco 
Creek  resources  protected  by 
block  valves. 

Natural  gas  leaks 

Oil  and  natural  gas  leaks, 
weed  fires  snd  other  fires, 
snd  explosion  effects  on 
people  and  property. 


Soil  and  surface  water  contami- 
nation, mortality  of  special 

status  species,  damage  to 
biological  communities 


X2 


X^  _  Conflicts  resolved  at  the  local  planning  level  are  expected  to  have  an  insignificant  residual  conflict. 
X2  =  Significance  is  a  function  of  many  factors,  including  size  of  spill  and  response  action. 


MMMMH 


more  than  50  slopes  steeper  than  18%,  regardless  of  which  route  is 
selected.  However,  some  of  the  steepest  slopes  (i.e.,  in  excess  of 
35%)  are  avoided  along  the  Contra  Loma  alternative. 

Both  routes  cross  the  Concord  Fault  at  Pacheco  Creek;  therefore, 
the  risk  of  seismic  hazards  is  the  same. 

The  advantage  that  the  Contra  Loma  Route  has  in  avoiding  the 
Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional  Park  (1.4  acres)  is  offset  by  several 
land  use  conflicts  unique  to  this  route,  including: 

•  The  requirement  for  the  removal  of  10  to  30  homes  in  a 
residential  area; 

•  Traversing  Contra  Loma  Regional  Park;  and 

•  Proximity  (500  feet)  to  the  Contra  Loma  Reservoir. 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  would,  like  the  proposed  route,  affect 
competing  land  uses  for  residential,  landfill,  and  Highway  4  improve- 
ments. Neither  route  is  free  of  significant  impacts. 

2.7.2  Three  New  Booster  Station  Alternative 

The  booster  station  alternative,  which  would  integrate  three  new 
booster  stations  (SJV-2,  3,  and  4)  instead  of  the  two  proposed  sta- 
tions (SJV-2b  and  3b),  does  not  have  significantly  different  environ- 
mental impacts  from  the  proposed  project.  This  assumes  landscaping  at 
SJV-3b  (mitigation  measure  [39])  to  avoid  an  impact  on  the  Westley 
Rest  Stop  Park.  The  most  substantial  difference  between  the  alterna- 
tive and  the  proposed  project  is  the  requirement  for  additional  land 
(less  than  25  acres) . 

2.7.3  Alternative  Power  Source  Configurations 

The  alternative  which  proposes  to  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  cogen- 
eration  of  heat)  or  the  other  alternative,  which  would  rely  on 
electricity  and  natural  gas.  The  oil-burning  alternative  would  result 
in  SO2  exceeding  ambient  standards  by  a  factor  of  seven  at  SJV-3b. 

2.7.4  Overhead  Aqueduct  Crossings 

The  environmental  impacts  of  this  alternative,  which  proposes  to 
use  suspension  bridges  to  cross  the  canals  and  aqueducts,  differ  from 
those  of  the  proposed  action  in  regard  to  visual  resources  and  poten- 
tial spill  impacts. 

Visual  resources  (VRM  Class  2  and  3)  would  be  impacted  in  Kern, 
Kings,  and  Fresno  counties.  Any  spill  due  to  a  break  at  the  points  of 
suspension  into  a  canal  or  aqueduct,  although  unlikely,  would  directly 
impact  substantial  volumes  of  water  until  the  system  could  be  closed 
down.  Because  these  aqueduct  crossings  would  leave  the  pipeline 


2-55 


exposed  in  six  areas  that  would  not  be  exposed  in  the  proposed  action, 
this  alternative  would  create  the  possibility  of  above-ground  damage 
causing  spills  into  the  aqueducts. 

2.7.5  No-Acti on  Al tern ati ve 

The  no-action  alternative  is  not  without  environmental  impacts, 
if  it  would  mean  the  use  of  other  modes  of  oil  transportation  than  a 
pipeline  to  convey  the  crude  to  Martinez.  If  it  would  not  mean  the 
use  of  other  modes  of  transportation,  no-action  would  have  none  of  the 
environmental  impacts  described  in  this  report. 

2.8  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY/ENERGY  CONSERVATION  ANALYSIS 

The  energy  efficiency  and  energy  conservation  analysis  was  based 
on  data  supplied  by  the  applicant  and  on  the  energy  analyses  completed 
for  several  recent  pipeline  environmental  impact  documents. 

Currently  oil  supplies  58%,  and  natural  gas  32%,  for  a  total  of 
90%  of  California's  primary  energy  needs.  The  remaining  10%  uses  a 
variety  of  resources  and  is  supplied  almost  entirely  as  electricity. 
The  proposed  action  will  have  a  negligible  impact  on  energy  consump- 
tion in  the  project  area.  The  analysis  indicates  that  the  proposed 
action  has  been  designed  to  avoid  inefficient,  wasteful,  and  unneces- 
sary consumption  of  energy. 

The  proposed  project  will  enable  Shell  to  discontinue  using  an 
existing  pipeline  that  is  operating  above  its  design  capacity  and  is 
nearing  the  end  of  its  economic  life.  With  the  increase  in  energy 
prices  of  the  past  decade,  the  trend  has  been  toward  design  of  more 
energy-efficient  equipment,  including  pumps  and  heaters.  For  this 
reason,  the  proposed  action  will  in  all  likelihood  be  more  energy- 
efficient  in  its  operation  than  the  existing  pipeline. 

The  alternatives  for  transporting  oil  by  pipeline  include  truck, 
train,  or  tanker.  The  primary  cost  of  transporting  a  barrel  of  oil 
results  from  the  energy  consumed  during  transportation  rather  than 
from  capital  expenditures.  Therefore,  a  comparison  of  the  costs  of 
alternative  transportation  modes  also  serves  as  an  order  of  magnitude 
comparison  of  energy  consumption. 

Truck  transportation  would  require  600  trucks  per  day,  with  an 
average  capacity  of  200  barrels  per  truck,  and  would  cost  4  to  5  times 
more  than  transportation  by  pipeline  due  to  higher  energy  costs. 
Similarly,  rail  transportation  would  require  6  daily  train  sets  of  72 
cars  each  and  would  cost  2  to  3  times  more  than  pipeline  transporta- 
tion. It  is  impossible  to  compare  tanker  transportation  for  the  pro- 
posed project  because  it  is  not  feasible  to  transport  San  Joaquin 
crude  to  Martinez  by  tanker,  and  the  origin  of  other  crude  that  might 
be  transported  to  the  refinery  under  exchange  agreements  would  be 
purely  speculative.  However,  several  recent  environmental  impact 
documents  (Celeron/All  American,  Pacific  Texas)  have  concluded  that 
transportation  by  tankers  requires  1.5  to  2  times  more  energy  than 
transportation  by  pipeline. 


2-56 


Construction 

Energy  consumption  during  construction  is  estimated  at  2,000 
gallons  of  gasoline,  2,800  gallons  of  diesel  and  0.13  million  KWh  per 
mile  of  pipeline,  based  on  recent  pipeline  EIR/S's.  About  60%  of  the 
gasoline  consumption  results  from  workers  traveling  daily  to  and  from 
the  work  site.  An  estimated  60%  of  all  workers  will  travel  to  the 
construction  site  by  bus,  with  15%  traveling  by  car  and  25%  by  trucks 
used  on  the  construction  site  (i.e.,  pick-up  trucks).  This  energy 
conservation  measure  will  significantly  reduce  total  energy  consump- 
tion during  construction  and  will  prevent  waste  of  energy. 

Operation 

In  addition  to  energy  required  to  overcome  changes  in  elevations, 
two  major  interrelated  features  of  the  proposed  pipeline  system 
require  energy  consumption:  pumping  the  oil  to  overcome  friction 
and  heating  the  crude  oil  to  reduce  its  viscosity  thus  enabling  it  to 
flow  in  the  pipeline.  Pumping  and  heating  are  interrelated,  because 
for  any  given  flow  rate,  pipe  friction,  and  consequently  the  amount  of 
pumping  required  to  overcome  it,  can  be  reduced  by  increasing  the  pipe 
size  and/or  reducing  the  viscosity,  within  certain  parameters,  by 
additional  heating.  Table  2-11  compares  horsepower  (pumping)  and 
heating  requirements  for  various  sizes  of  pipe,  and  demonstrates  that 
for  this  project,  pumping  energy  increases  while  heating  energy 
decreases  as  pipeline  diameter  decreases. 

As  discussed  in  Section  2.2.3,  alternative  power  sources  exist 
for  both  pumping  and  heating.  Two  alternatives  were  considered  in  the 
analysis,  uitilizing  a  combination  of  electric  drive  motors,  crude 
oil-fired  heaters,  and  natural-gas  fired  heaters  to  arrive  at  an 
optimal  combination. 

Energy  consumption  for  the  proposed  action  and  the  various  com- 
binations of  alternative  power  sources  and  number  of  stations  is  pro- 
vided in  Table  2-14.  For  a  given  booster  station  and  pipeline  dia- 
meter configuration,  Table  2-14  shows  that  the  proposed  power  sources 
of  natural  gas  turbines  and  utilization  of  exhaust  heat  are  the  most 
energy  efficient  for  pipeline  operations. 

Typically  about  90%  of  the  energy  required  to  boost  pressure  in 
a  pipeline  is  consumed  in  overcoming  friction;  hence  opportunities  for 
reducing  friction,  thus  conserving  energy,  are  limited  to  those 
identified  above.  The  primary  opportunity  for  enhancing  energy 
conservation  is  to  reduce  heating  energy  consumption.  For  the  pro- 
posed project,  this  will  be  achieved  by  using  waste  heat  from  the  gas 
turbines  at  5  of  the  7  stations,  to  heat  the  crude  oil  in  the  pipe- 
line. Heat  exchangers  will  be  used  to  transfer  waste  heat  from  the 
gas  turbine  drivers  to  the  pipeline  oil.  As  shown,  on  Table  2-14, 
this  conservation  measure  will  significantly  reduce  the  energy 
required  to  heat  the  oil  in  the  pipeline. 


2-57 


Table  2-14 

COMPARISON  OF  ENERGY  CONSUMPTION  OF  PROPOSED 
AND  ALTERNATE  POWER  SOURCE  CONFIGURATIONS 


Proposed 
Power  Source 


Alternate  1 
Power  Source 


Alternate  2 
Power  Source 


Booster  Station/ 
Pipeline  Diameter 
Configurations 


(Natural  Gas 

Turbine  Drivers 

and  Exhaust   Heat) 


(Electric  Motor 

Drivers   and- 
Crude-Oil-Fired 
Heaters) 


(Electric  Motor 
Drivers  and 
Natural-Gas- 
Fired  Heaters) 


Proposed:    2  new 
Booster  Stations/ 
24-inch-diameter 
Pipeline* 


10,500  BHP 
50  MM  BTU/HR 


10,500  BHP 
105  MM  BTU/HR 


10,500  BHP 
105  MM  BTU/HR 


Alternative:      3  new 
Booster  Stations/ 
20-inch-diameter 
Pipeline* 


15,300  BHP 
45  MM  BTU/HR 


15,300  BHP 
115  MM  BTU/HR 


15,300  BHP 
115  MM  BTU/HR 


Alternative:      3  new 
Booster   Stations/ 
24-inch-diameter 
Pipeline* 


9,800  BHP 
65  MM  BTU/HR 


9,800  BHP 
115  MM  BTU/HR 


9,800  BHP 
115  MM  BTU/HR 


♦Refer  only   to  the  diameter  of   the   173  miles  comprising  Segment  4. 
Source:      San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe  Line  Company. 


2-58 


A  second  possible  conservation  measure  involves  insulating  the 
pipeline.  Typically  pipelines  are  designed  to  achieve  the  most  cost 
effective  means  of  transporting  crude  oil  based  on  an  economic  balance 
between  energy  costs  and  the  capital  costs  of  insulation.  The  climate 
in  the  project  area  is  temperate,  and  based  on  industry  data,  the 
minimum  soil  temperature  will  be  about  53"F.  The  pipeline  will  be 
buried  at  a  depth  of  3  to  5  feet;  because  of  the  insulating  properties 
of  soil,  this  substantially  reduces  heat  losses  compared  to  bare  pipes 
above  ground.  However,  energy  savings  would  be  significant  if  insula- 
tion were  used  on  this  pipeline.  Assuming  an  insulation  thickness  of 
2  inches  around  the  pipe,  total  heating  requirements  would  be  reduced 
from  about  50  million  BTU  per  hour  to  about  650,000  BTU  per  hour,  a 
decrease  of  98.7%.  Power  requirements  for  pumping  would  also  be 
reduced,  from  a  total  of  about  10,500  horsepower  to  about  6,500  horse- 
power, a  decrease  of  38.1%.  Despite  these  energy  savings,  crude  oil 
transportation  costs  would  be  about  equal  for  an  insulated  buried 
versus  uninsulated  buried  pipeline  on  this  project,  when  the  costs 
associated  with  installing  insulation  are  factored  in. 

However,  the  design  engineers  believe  that  insulation  has  other 
disadvantages,  such  as  the  potential  absorption  of  water  in  wet  areas, 
thus  causing  its  insulating  capabilities  to  be  lost,  and  have  there- 
fore decided  against  insulation. 

The  energy  impact  of  routine  maintenance  of  the  pipeline  system 
will  be  negligible  since  only  a  dozen  personnel  who  are  currently 
employed  by  Shell  will  be  required. 

Assuming  the  24-inch  diameter,  258-mile  pipeline  is  constructed 
in  one  year,  the  energy  consumption  as  a  percentage  of  annual  energy 
consumption  of  gasoline,  diesel  and  electricity  in  the  San  Francisco 
Bay  Area  is  as  follows: 

Gasoline  0.02% 

Diesel  0.05% 

Electricity  0.06% 


2-59 


AFFECTED  ENVIRONMENT 


3.1  INTRODUCTION 

This  EIR/EIS  analyzes  the  environment  that  the  proposed  project 
and  its  alternatives  would  affect.  The  area  covered  by  this  analysis 
varies,  depending  upon  the  nature  of  the  resources  affected  by  the 
proposed  action.  For  example,  for  soils  and  surface  water,  the 
affected  area  would  be  the  immediate  area  of  disturbance,  while  for 
air  quality  and  socioeconomics,  a  larger,  more  regional  area  is  con- 
sidered. 

Each  subsection  lists  the  data  sources  used  to  prepare  the  vari- 
ous environmental  descriptions  and  the  regulatory  framework  for  each 
environmental  feature.  Federal  and  state  regulatory  actions  that  per- 
tain to  the  project  as  a  whole  are  discussed  in  Section  1.3. 

The  environmental  descriptions  in  this  section  identify  sensitive 
environmental  features.  Impacts  to  these  sensitive  resources  will 
depend  on  interaction  with  the  project,  resource  values  and  sensitivi- 
ties, and  possible  mitigation  (as  described  in  Sections  4  and  6).  Not 
all  of  the  features  described  will  necessarily  be  impacted  by  the 
project.  In  general,  resources  which  do  not  have  the  potential  to  be 
significantly  affected  by  project  construction  and  operation  are  not 
discussed  in  detail.  However,  certain  environmental  features  which 
will  not  be  significantly  impacted  are  described  to  provide  a  complete 
description  consistent  with  the  requirements  for  the  preparation  of  an 
EIR/EIS.  To  avoid  repetition,  sensitive  environmental  features  which 
could  be  affected  by  development  of  the  various  alternatives  to  the 
proposed  project  are  not  discussed  in  detail  if  the  same  or  similar 
resources  could  also  be  affected  by  the  proposed  project.  Details  on 
the  environmental  features  for  each  of  the  counties  are  also  presented 
in  Appendix  C,  which  also  includes  maps  showing  sensitive  soil  and 
land  use  features.  These  county-specific  descriptions  are  summarized 
for  each  environmental  feature  in  this  section. 


3-1 


3.2  PROPOSED  ROUTE 

3.2.1  Geology  and  Topography 

Data  Sources 

The  data  sources  used  to  describe  the  geology  and  topography  of 
the  project  area  and  to  assess  the  potential  for  environmental  impacts 
included  USGS  7.5-minute  quadrangle  maps  (scale  1:24,000);  USGS  pro- 
fessional papers;  USGS  open  file  reports;  USGS  water  resources  inves- 
tigations reports;  and  USGS  water  supply  papers.  In  addition,  maps, 
bulletins,  and  special  studies  zone  maps  of  the  California  Department 
of  Natural  Resources,  Division  of  Mines,  were  consulted.  The  environ- 
mental impact  report  prepared  by  CH2M  Hill  for  the  Chemical  Waste 
Management  Kettleman  Hills  Facility  in  Kings  County,  California,  was 
reviewed,  and  county  public  works  departments  were  consulted. 
Specific  references  cited  in  the  text  are  included  in  the  bibliography 
(see  Section  11) . 

Regul atory  Setting 

The  use  and  protection  of  geological  resources  and  features  falls 
under  the  general  federal  and  state  regulatory  requirements  outlined 
in  Section  1.3,  particularly  those  of  the  BLM  and  SLC.  In  addition, 
local  public  works  and  planning  departments  require  a  variety  of  per- 
mits, which  are  identified  in  Table  1-1.  These  include  grading 
permits,  blasting  permits,  and  seismic  and  geologic  evaluations. 

Environmental  Setting 

The  majority  of  the  proposed  pipeline  route  is  located  within  the 
western  edge  of  the  Central  Valley  of  California.  From  the  pipeline's 
southern  terminus  in  western  Kern  County  to  its  northern  terminus  in 
Martinez,  Contra  Costa  County,  the  pipeline  crosses  the  Great  Valley 
and  Coast  Ranges  geologic  provinces. 

The  San  Joaquin  Valley  is  an  elongated  south-southeast/north- 
northwest  trending  basin  that  is  bounded  on  the  east  by  the  Sierra 
Nevada  and  on  the  west  by  the  Coastal  Range.  The  basin  terminates  in 
the  north  at  the  delta  of  the  San  Joaquin  and  Sacramento  rivers  and  in 
the  south  at  the  Tehachapi  Mountains.  The  San  Joaquin  Valley  includes 
the  area  between  the  foothills  of  the  surrounding  ranges  and  the  area 
near  the  northern  border  of  San  Joaquin  County.  The  geology  of  the 
counties  in  the  affected  region  is  described  in  Appendix  C  and  is 
summarized  in  Table  3-1. 

Historically,  the  area  has  been  divided  into  three  major  geo- 
graphic subareas:  the  Delta  Basin,  San  Joaquin  Basin,  and  Tulare  Lake 
Basin.  Geologic  units  within  these  three  basins  are  generally  divided 
into  two  types:  consolidated  sedimentary  rocks,  and  unconsolidated  or 
semi-consolidated  deposits.  This  division  is  a  direct  reflection  of 
the  erosional  and  geomorphic  events  in  the  adjoining  mountains. 


3-2 


Table  3-1 

GEOLOGICAL  FEATURES  ALONG  THE 
PROPOSED  SAN  JOAQUIN  PIPELINE  BY  COUNTY 


County 


Kern 


Kings 


CO 

i 

CO 


Fresno 


Landform  Features 


Western  border  San  Joaquin 
Valley  (Midway  Valley, 
HcKittrick  Valley,  Antelope 
Plain,  Lost  Hills) 

Western  border  San  Joaquin 
Valley,  east  of  Kettleman 
Hills 


Along  eastern  border  of 
Kettleman  Hills  and  Ciervo 
Hills  and  Cantua  and  Panoche 
Creek  alluvial  fans 


Elevation 
(feet  ASL*) 


1,550-300 
(Origin-Kern  Co. 
Border) 


225-580 

(Kern  Co.  Border- 

MP  69) 


450-1,140 

(Los  Gat os  Creek  - 

Laguna  Seca  Hills) 


Topography 


Predominant 
Formations 


Dominant 
Rock  Types 


Potential  Commercial 
Geologic  Resources 


Low,  eroded  hills 
and  alluvial  valleys 


Low  relief, 
dissected  alluvial 
fans 


Alluvial  fans  and 
broad  relief;  steep 
slopes  and  valley  of 
Laguna  Seca  Hills 
north  of  Little 
Panoche  Creek 


Tulare  Formation 
and  alluvium 


Recent  sediment , 
gradational  with 
Tulare  Formation 
near  Kettleman 
Hills;  inter- 
fingered  with 
older  mudflow 
deposits  in  some 
areas 

Alluvial  and  flood- 
plain  deposits; 
Cretaceous  sedi- 
ments of  the  Laguna 
Seca  Hills 


Poorly  consolidated 
sands  and  gravel,  silt 
and  clay 


Moderately  to  poorly 
sorted  gravels  and 
sands,  silt  and  clay 


Unconsolidated  deposits, 
consolidated  and  aemi- 
consalidated  shale,  mud, 
and  sandstone 


Sand  and  gravel 
oil  and  gas 


Sand  and  gravel 


Sand  and  gravel 


Merced       Laguna  Seca  Hills, 

O'Neill  Forebay,  and 
eastern  foothills 
of  Diablo  Range 


1,100-180 

(Laguna  Seca  Hills- 
San  Luis  Creek 
[O'Neill  Forebay]) 


Steeply  dissected 
hills  and  valley 
alluvium 


Upper  CretaceouB 
Great  Valley 
sequence,  alluvium 


Micaceous  shale  with 
sandstone  and  conglom- 
erates 


♦Above  sea  level 


Table  3-1    (Cont.) 


County 


Landfonn  Features 


Elevation 
(feet  ASL*) 


Topography 


Predominant 
Formations 


Dominant 
Rock    Types 


Potential   Commercial 
Geologic   Resources 


St  anislaus 


Eastern  foothills 


660-200 
(Del   Puerto 
Canyon-MP   186.5) 


Steeply   dissected 
hills  and  alluvial 
fans  and  terraces 


Panoche  Formation 


Los  Banoa  Creek 
alluvium 


Sandstone,    shale,    and 
conglomerate 


Sand  and  gravel 


Sand  and  gravel 


Tertiary 


Shale,    siltstone, 

and  sa neb  tone 


San   Joaquin        Alluvial    fans  and  terraces 


i 


Alameda  Predominantly    dissected 

foothills  of  Diablo  Range 


250-400  Terraces  and   valley 

(MP  215-Alameda  Co.      fills 

Border) 


400-240 

(San  Joaquin  Border- 
South   Bay   Pumping 
Plant) 

570-0 


Contra  Costa     Alluvial   fans  and  terraces, 

dissected  hills  on  north  end  of      (MP  251 .5-Pacheco 
Diablo  Range,  Creek) 

Sacramento  Delta 


Low  eroded  hills, 
alluvial   fans,    and 
terraces 


Cretaceous 

Tulare    Formation 

Tulare   Formation, 
alluvium 


Cretaceous  and 
Tertiary 


Low  relief  alluvial 
fans  and  terraces, 
steep  dissected  hills 
and   flat    marshland 


Tertiary,  Cretaceous 


Recent  alluvium   and 
deltaic  sediments 


Shale  and  siltstone 

Sand  and  gravel 

Sandstone  and  shale   with 
tuff  and  conglomerate, 
also  unconsolidated 
sediments 

Sandstone  and  shale 


Sandstone,    shale,    tuff, 
and  conglomerate 


Sand  and  gravel 


Unconsolidated  sediments         Sand  and  gravel 


♦Above  sea  level 


The  geologic  formations  along  the  proposed  route  range  from  the 
Cretaceous  and  Tertiary  sedimentary  rocks  of  the  Diablo  Range  to  the 
Quaternary  alluvial  deposits  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 

The  consolidated  rock  units  along  the  proposed  route  consist 
mainly  of  marine  shale,  sandstone,  and  mudstone,  with  some  volcanic 
tuff  encountered  along  the  northern  section  of  the  route.  Hard  bed- 
rock may  be  encountered  in  cemented  beds  of  sandstone,  shale,  and 
conglomerates  associated  with  the  Panoche  Formation.  Areas  along  the 
proposed  route  which  are  likely  to  have  near-surface  bedrock  are 
summarized  in  Table  3-2,  while  Table  3-3  indicates  the  geology  for 
sites  to  be  developed  for  the  ancillary  facilities. 

The  unconsolidated  deposits  overlying  the  consolidated  rock  are 
primarily  gravel,  sand,  silt,  and  clay  derived  from  the  sedimentary 
rocks  of  the  Diablo  Range.  The  large  alluvial  fans  at  the  base  of  the 
foothills  consist  of  Quaternary  coll uvi urn  and  fluvial  deposits  from 
the  foothills  region.  These  gradually  interfinger  with  the  flood 
basin  sediments  on  the  valley  floor. 

Sand  and  gravel  deposits  of  potential  commercial  value  are 
encountered  in  each  county. 

3.2.2  Geological  Hazards 

Data  Sources 

The  discussion  on  geological  hazards  in  the  project  area  is  based 
on  (JSGS  professional  papers  and  USGS  open  file  reports;  State  of 
California  special  studies  zone  maps;  and  the  seismic  safety  elements 
of  various  county  planning  departments.  In  addition,  information  on 
the  occurrence  of  earthquakes  in  the  region  was  obtained  from  the 
California  Department  of  Natural  Resources,  Division  of  Mines  and 
Geology.  Other  sources  included  several  reports  by  Woodward-Clyde  on 
the  geology  and  geologic  hazards  of  the  project  area  as  well  as  a 
report  prepared  by  the  Earthquake  Engineering  Research  Institute  on 
the  1983  Coalinga  earthquake.  In  addition,  the  environmental  impact 
report  prepared  by  CH2M  Hill  for  the  Chemical  Waste  Management  Kettle- 
man  Hills  Facility  in  Kings  County,  California,  was  reviewed.   For 
specific  references  cited  in  the  text,  see  the  bibliography  (Section 
11). 

Regulatory  Setting 

While  no  regulatory  actions  pertain  directly  to  geological 
hazards,  county  general  plans  include  seismic  safety  elements  which 
are  considered  in  the  local  permit  process  and  which  stipulate  build- 
ing codes  in  zones  affected  by  structural  hazards  including  ground 
shaking  and  ground  failure,  faults,  and  seismic  activity. 

Environmental  Setting 

Potential  geological  hazards  are  primarily  due  to  seismic  activ- 
ity, which  includes  ground  shaking  and  the  potential  for  ground  rup- 
tures along  the  surface  traces  of  a  fault.  Secondary  natural  hazards 

3-5 


Table  3-2 


LOCATIONS  OF   POTENTIALLY   HARD  LAYERS   OF   BEDROCK 
ALONG  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


County 


Milepost 


Fo  rma  t  ion 
(or  age) 


Anticipated  Litholoqy 


Fresno-Merced 

Merced 

Merced 

Merced 

Merced 

Merced 

Merced 

Stanislaus 
St  anislaus 
Stanislaus 

Stanislaus 


Alameda- 
Contra  Costa 

Contra  Costa 


137-139.7 


140.5-143 


217-226 


Panoche 


Panoche 


144-146  Panoche 

150-152  Panoche 

153-159  Panoche 

166-168  Panoche 

169-170  Panoche 

175-179  Paleocene 

186-190  Paleocene 

190-192.5  Panoche 

192.5-196  Pliocene 


Panoche 


238.5-244  Eocene/Miocene 


Contra  Costa  244-254  Miocene    (Neroly)/ 

PI  locene 


Contra  Costa 


257.3-257.6        Panoche 


Sandstone,    shale, 
conglonBrate 

Sandstone,  shale, 
conglomerate 

Sancbtone,  shale, 
conglomerate 

Sancbtone,  shale, 
conglomerate 

Sandstone,  shale, 
conglomerate 

SandBtone,  shale, 
conglomerate 

Sancbtone,  shale, 
conglomerate 

Sancbtone,  shale, 

Sandstone,    shale, 

Sandstone,  shale, 
conglomerate 

Sandstone,   shale, 
conglomerate 

Sandstone,  shale, 
conglomerate 

Sancbtone,   tuff, 
shale 

Sandstone,   tuff, 
shale 

SandBtone,  shale 


Source:      Vbodverd-Clyde   Consultants   1985. 


3-6 


Table  3-3 

SURFACE  GEOLOGY  OF  SITES  PROPOSED  FOR 
NEW  ANCILLARY  FACILITIES  BY  COUNTY* 


County 


Kern 

Fresno 
Stanislaus 


Facilities 


80-MBBL  Storage  Tank 
(Mid  Station) 

SJV-2(b)  Booster  Station 

SJV-3(b)  Booster  Station 


Geology 


Alluvium 

Alluvial  fan 
Alluvial  fan 


Microwave  Tower  Repeater  Stations 


Fresno 
Fresno 
Fresno 
Merced 

Merced 

Stanislaus 
Stanislaus 

Contra  Costa 

Contra  Costa 


Skunk  Hollow  (No.  6) 
Panoche  Junction  (No.  7) 
SJV-2(b)  Booster  Station  (No.  8) 
Lag  una  Seca  Ranch  (No.  9) 

Cottonwood  Hill  (No.  10) 

SJV-3(b)  Booster  Station  (No.  11) 
Mount  Oso  (No.  12) 

Mount  Diablo  (No.  13) 

Martinez  Refinery  (No.  14) 


Sandstone/shale 

Alluvial  fan 

Alluvial  fan 

Sandstone/ shale/ 
conglomerate 

Sandstone/ shale/ 
conglomerate 

Alluvial  fan 

Franciscan 

metamorphics/ 

igneous 

Franciscan 

metamorphics/ 

igneous 

Sandstone 


*Does  not  include  existing  microwave  towers  at  existing  facilities. 


3-7 


result  from  the  interaction  of  ground  shaking  with  existing  ground 
instabilities,  which  include  subsidence,  liquefaction,  and  settlement. 
The  potential  for  slumping  or  dimensional  instability  is  discussed  in 
Section  3.2.3.  Most  of  the  hazard  studies  were  conducted  on  the 
northern  portion  of  the  proposed  route  (Woodward-Clyde  Consultants 
1986).  For  this  discussion,  the  northern  portion  of  the  project  is 
considered  to  consist  of  Merced,  Stanislaus,  San  Joaquin,  Alameda,  and 
Contra  Costa  counties.  The  southern  portion  of  the  project  is 
considered  to  consist  of  Kern,  Kings,  and  Fresno  counties.  Primary 
and  secondary  geological  hazards  are  discussed  below  in  terms  of  these 
northern  and  southern  sections  and  are  summarized  in  Table  4-1. 

Primary  Hazards.  Although  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  prob- 
ability of  surface  fault  ruptures  in  an  area,  the  potential  for  ground 
failure  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  proposed  project  is  minor  since 
the  pipeline  route  does  not  cross  any  major  fault  systems  within  this 
area.  Strong  ground  shaking  poses  a  greater  seismic  threat  than  the 
possibility  of  a  local  ground  rupture.  Insignificant  surface  ruptures 
may  be  expected  in  areas  of  minor  faulting,  but  this  will  probably  be 
confined  to  areas  adjacent  to  the  faults  (e.g.,  southwestern  Kings 
County)  (Seismic  Safety  Element  1974). 

Figures  3-1  and  3-2  show  trends  of  major  mapped  faults  and  the 
epicenters  of  the  major  earthquakes  in  California.  No  area  of 
California  is  free  from  the  possibility  of  major  ground  shaking  (1978 
Modified  Mercalli  Scale  Intensity  VII  and  greater).*  Since  1810,  at 
least  six  major  earthquakes  (>7  on  the  Richter  scale)  have  occurred  in 
California.  These  include:  the  January  9,  1857,  earthquake  near  Fort 
Tejon;  the  March  26,  1872,  earthquake  near  Lone  Pine  (Owens  Valley); 
the  San  Francisco  earthquake  of  April  18,  1906;  an  earthquake  west  of 
Point  Arguello  that  occurred  on  November  4,  1927;  the  Imperial  Valley 
earthquake  of  May  18,  1940;  and  the  Arvin-Tehachapi  (Bakersfield) 
earthquake  of  July  21,  1952.  An  earthquake  at  these  magnitudes  will 
produce  ground  shaking  on  a  regional  scale.  The  effects  of  such 
earthquakes  depend  not  only  on  their  magnitude,  but  their  depth  and 
the  geological  conditions  at  the  surface. 

The  virtual  certainty  of  a  devastating  magnitude  8.0  or  larger 
earthquake  in  the  next  few  decades  along  the  San  Andreas  rift  system 
is  a  matter  of  much  concern  in  California.  Statistically,  it  is  most 
probable  that  the  southern  segment  from  about  San  Gorgonio  Pass  to 
Tejon  Pass  will  be  the  site  of  the  next  massive  earthquake.  This 
interval  of  the  fault  has  been  locked  with  no  appreciable  lateral  slip 
relief  since  the  1857  Fort  Tejon  earthquake.  By  comparison,  the 
northern  end  of  the  fault  was  relieved  in  the  1906  San  Francisco 
temblor;  and  the  central  segment  from  about  Parksfield  north  to 
Hollister  (the  part  of  the  San  Andreas  system  closest  to  most  of  the 
pipeline  route)  has  been  yielding  with  creep  and  smaller  shocks. 
Therefore,  the  next  anticipated  catastrophic  earthquake  on  the  San 


*The  Modified  Mercalli  Intensity  (MMI)  measures  the  intensity  of  an 
earthquake  in  terms  of  the  damage  it  causes  to  structures,  while  the 
Richter  scale  measures  the  energy  released  by  the  earthquake. 

3-8 


CO 

I 


MAGNITUDE 

.   4.0  TO  4.9 

© 5.0  TO  5.9 

O  6.0  TO  6.9 

7.0  TO  7.9 

8.0  OR  GREATER 

INTEGER MAXIMUM   REPORTED   INTENSITY 

(Only  for  earthquakes  of  UNKNOWN  magnitude) 


Source:    Earthquake  Epicenter  Map  of  California  by  Charles  R.  Real,  Tousson  R.  Toppozada.  and  David  L.  Parke  197B  Map  Sheet  39  California  Division  of  Minesand  Geology 


Figure  3-1       EPICENTERS  OF  MAJOR  EARTHQUAKES  AND 
PRINCIPAL  FAULTS  ALONG  THE  SAN  JOAQUIN 
VALLEY  PIPELINE  ROUTE:  MILEPOST  0-125 


ANDREAS 
FAULT 


MARTINEZ  METER 
—       STATION 

MIDLAND  FAULT 

ANTIOCH-DAVIS  FAULT 

CONCORD  FAULT 

CALAVERAS  FAULT 


SJV-38 

HAYWARD  FAULT 

SAN  JOAQUIN  FAULT 


,0'NEILL  FAULT 


SJV-2B 


o  . 
0 


MAGNITUDE 

.._.  4.0  TO  4.9 
5.0  TO  5.9 

.._  60  TO  6.9 
7.0  TO  7.9 


VKiJ   BO  OR  GREATER 

INTEGER MAXIMUM   REPORTED   INTENSITY 

(Only  for  earthquakes  of  UNKNOWN  magnitude) 


FIG.  3-1 


Source:    Earthquake  Epicenter  Map  of  California  by  Charles  R.  Real,  Tousson  R.  Toppozada,  and  David  L.  Parke  1978 
Map  Sheet  39  California  Division  of  Mines  and  Geology. 


Figure  3-2      EPICENTERS  OF  MAJOR  EARTHQUAKES  AND 
PRINCIPAL  FAULTS  ALONG  THE  SAN  JOAQUIN 
VALLEY  PIPELINE  ROUTE:  MILEPOST  125-258 


3-10 


Andreas  will  probably  be  well  to  the  south  of  the  pipeline  route.  It 
is,  of  course,  not  possible  to  predict  the  size  or  location  of  future 
earthquakes. 

The  southern  portion  of  the  pipeline  is  within  40  miles  of  the 
Arvin-Tehachapi  epicenter  along  the  White  Wolf  Fault,  but  no  major 
damage  was  reported  as  the  result  of  this  earthquake  in  the  immediate 
area  of  the  proposed  project.  Major  damage  is  here  considered  to  be 
rupture  of  the  pipeline  or  of  oil  tank  facilities.  No  such  damage  was 
reported  in  the  Taft-Elk  Hills  area  in  the  wake  of  the  1952  Tehachapi 
shock.  Modified  Mercalli  Intensity  (MMI)  cannot  have  exceeded  VI  (see 
San  Joaquin  County  General  Plan,  Seismic  Safety  Element).  The 
pipeline  route  roughly  parallels  the  San  Andreas  Fault,  and  a  major 
earthquake  along  a  segment  lying  within  25  to  30  miles  of  the  pipeline 
could  potentially  break  the  pipe.  More  likely  is  the  occurrence  of  a 
moderate  earthquake,  of  the  magnitude  of  the  Coalinga  earthquake  of 
1983.  This  earthquake  took  place  in  an  area  with  little  historic 
seismicity  and  no  known  active  faults.  The  epicenter  was  about  6 
miles  northeast  of  Coalinga  under  Anticline  Ridge,  only  about  3  miles 
from  the  Caliola  station  and  the  proposed  pipeline  route.  In 
Coalinga,  the  MMI  was  estimated  at  VIII  and  some  minor  liquefaction  of 
alluvium  was  recorded  (not  severe  enough  to  cause  visible  surface 
disturbance).  There  are  several  oil  fields  in  the  area,  including  the 
East  Coalinga  Field,  directly  over  the  epicenter. 

In  regard  to  the  Coalinga  earthquake,  the  California  Department 
of  Natural  Resources,  Division  of  Mines  and  Geology  (Special  Publica- 
tion No.  66),  noted  that: 

Pipelines  fared  rather  well  during  the  earthquake  sequence. 
Although  there  were  quite  a  number  of  leaks,  most  were  small 
in  nature  and  easily  repaired.  Apparently  all  the  leaks 
were  confined  to  coupling  joints  and  connections.  There 
were  no  reports  of  lines  breaking  other  than  at  a  connec- 
tion. 

The  Coalinga  earthquake  was  6.7  on  the  Richter  scale  in  an  area 
previously  only  known  for  a  maximum  4  to  5  magnitude  earthquake. 
Although  this  was  close  to  being  a  major  earthquake,  it  seems  very 
likely  that  the  MMI  along  the  proposed  pipeline  route  did  not  exceed 
VIII.  Mr.  A.  Steele,  a  geologist  with  the  Fresno  County  Public  Works 
and  Development  Services,  noted  that  there  was  no  visible  surface 
disruption  or  signs  of  ground  disturbance  in  the  immediate  area  of  the 
proposed  project  from  the  Coalinga  earthquake  (personal  communication, 
May  7,  1986),  although  some  damage  was  reported  for  bridges  and  a 
concrete  block  structure  which  was  not  reinforced. 

In  the  northern  portion  of  the  proposed  project,  extending  from 
Merced  County  to  the  pipeline's  terminus,  the  potential  for  ground 
shaking  increases  as  the  route  approaches  a  number  of  active  faults. 
These  include  the  Calaveras  Fault,  the  Midland  and  Antioch-Davis 
faults,  the  Hayward  Fault,  the  San  Andreas  Fault,  and  the  Green  Valley 
(Concord)  Fault.  All  of  these  faults  have  a  maximum  credible  earth- 
quake potential  of  7  or  greater  on  the  Richter  scale,  with  the  possi- 


3-11 


bility  of  producing  an  MM I  of  VIII  along  the  pipeline  route.  The 
California  Division  of  Mines  and  Geology  has  designated  the  entire 
distance  as  a  moderate  severity  zone  for  earthquake  intensity  with  a 
maximum  probable  MMI  of  VII  or  VIII  (Bulletin  No.  198).  The  Division 
of  Mines  and  Geology  has  also  indicated  that,  from  1810  to  1971,  in 
Merced,  Stanislaus,  and  San  Joaquin  counties,  six  to  10  episodes  of 
ground  shaking  with  intensities  of  VI,  VII,  or  VIII  occurred  along  the 
proposed  route.  In  Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  counties,  11  to  15  such 
episodes  occurred,  also  ranging  in  intensity  from  MMI  VI  to  VIII. 
Specific  hazards  due  to  ground  rupture  at  fault  crossings  are  dis- 
cussed below. 

In  the  northern  portion  of  the  proposed  project,  the  pipeline 
crosses  four  major  faults:  the  O'Neill  Fault  System,  the  San  Joaquin 
Fault,  the  Antioch-Davis  Fault,  and  the  Concord  Fault.  The  proposed 
route  crosses  the  O'Neill  Fault  System  close  to  mileposts  148,  152, 
and  161.  According  to  Lettis  (1982,  1985),  the  O'Neill  Fault  is  a 
bedding  plane  fault;  vertical  displacement  of  the  foothill  pediment 
surfaces  ranged  from  100  meters  to  less  than  5  meters.  Lettis  also 
concluded  that  the  O'Neill  Fault  did  not  displace  alluvial  deposits 
with  ages  of  40,000  to  50,000  years,  and  deduced  that  any  large  fault 
activity  in  this  region  occurred  before  deposition  of  alluvial  sedi- 
ment. Therefore,  this  fault  is  deemed  inactive. 

The  proposed  route  crosses  a  branch  of  the  San  Joaquin  Fault 
at  approximately  milepost  173.2.  Lettis  (1982)  found  that  this  pre- 
dominately east-facing,  faceted,  linear  escarpment  had  an  average  rate 
of  displacement  (while  active)  of  47  to  55  centimeters  per  year.  His 
findings  depicted  the  fault  as  overlain  by  unfaulted,  pre-Holocene 
(40,000  to  60,000  years  old)  alluvial  sediment.  Lack  of  recent  seis- 
micity  along  this  fault  supports  his  conclusion  that  there  has  been 
negligible  activity  in  the  past  40,000  to  60,000  years.  Shed  lock  and 
others  (1980)  estimate  a  potential  for  an  earthquake  in  the  magnitude 
range  of  5  to  7. 

The  proposed  route  traverses  an  inferred  southern  extension  of 
the  Antioch  Fault  at  about  milepost  236.6.  This  area  is  referred  to 
as  the  Antioch-Davis  Fault,  and  is  a  southern  part  of  the  Davis  Fault. 
According  to  Burke  and  Helley  (1973),  the  Antioch  Fault  exhibits 
evidence  of  surface  fault  creep  in  the  City  of  Antioch  which  may  be 
attributed  to  an  earthquake  swarm  that  occurred  in  1965.  Wesson  and 
others  (1975)  estimate  that  .a  maximum  credible  earthquake  on  the 
Antioch  Fault  would  have  a  magnitude  of  6.6  and  might  be  accompanied 
by  a  surface  rupture  of  13.5  inches  (Slemmons  1977). 

Around  milepost  256.7,  the  proposed  route  crosses  the  trace  of 
the  Concord  Fault,  which  is  believed  to  be  a  northern  extension  of  the 
Calaveras  Fault,  a  major  branch  of  the  San  Andreas  Fault.  The  main 
trace  of  the  Concord  Fault  is  located  beneath  the  channel  of  Pacheco 
Creek,  where,  according  to  the  Contra  Costa  County  Seismic  Safety 
Element  (Contra  Costa  County  1975),  it  is  responsible  for  shearing 
pilings  and  deforming  the  main  span  of  the  Santa  Fe  Railroad  bridge. 
This  bridge  was  constructed  in  1975  and  is  located  just  south  of  the 


3-12 


pipeline.  Slemmons  and  Chung  (1982)  suggest  that  a  maximum  earthquake 
on  the  Calaveras  Fault  would  probably  be  in  the  range  of  6.75  to  7.25, 
which  would  yield  a  displacement  of  about  2.5  feet  (Slemmons  1977, 
Table  II).  This  would  constitute  the  largest  hazard  within  the 
pipeline  system. 

Secondary  Hazards.  The  evaluation  of  seismic-related  geologic 
hazards,  such  as  subsidence,  liquefaction,  and  settlement,  is  based  on 
analysis  of  maps  and  reports,  as  well  as  aerial  photographs.  The 
potential  for  active  settlement  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  pro- 
posed project  is  considered  minimal,  except  in  northern  Kings  County/ 
southern  Fresno  County,  where  the  pipeline  route  is  aligned  close  to 
the  highlands.  This  area  could  undergo  extensive  settlement  through 
subsidence,  which  is  a  general  lowering  of  the  ground  surface  over  a 
large  area  caused  by  either  seismic  activity  or  the  addition  of  large 
quantities  of  water  (e.g.,  from  flood  or  rainfall).  The  potential  for 
subsidence  in  this  area  is  great  due  to  the  deep  water  table  and  the 
poorly  consolidated  soils  (e.g.,  in  the  western  San  Joaquin  Valley). 

The  northern  portion  of  the  proposed  project  is  believed  to  have 
the  greatest  potential  for  liquefaction.  This  is  a  phenomenon  in 
which  saturated,  cohesionless  soils  temporarily  lose  their  strength 
and  liquefy  when  subjected  to  dynamic  forces  such  as  intense  and 
prolonged  ground  shaking.  This  occurs  when  the  water  table  is  less 
than  50  feet  below  ground  surface  and  the  soils  are  predominantly 
unconsolidated.  The  potential  for  liquefaction  increases  as  the 
groundwater  approaches  the  surface. 

Whether  or  not  soils  will  liquefy  depends  on  the  amplitude  and 
frequency  of  the  wave  motion  of  the  ground  shaking  and  its  duration. 
The  less  consolidated  the  soil,  the  shorter  the  duration  and  the  less 
intensity  of  shaking  is  needed  to  cause  liquefaction.  More  compacted 
and  consolidated  soils  will  withstand  longer  durations  of  shaking 
before  liquefaction  occurs.  The  type  of  earthquake  expected  for  the 
northern  portion  of  the  proposed  project  is  a  long  rolling  type  of 
motion  (Seismic  Safety  Element  1978).  The  primary  risk  for  liquefac- 
tion would  probably  be  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Concord  Fault  in  Contra 
Costa  County  where  delta  sediments  of  low  cohesive  strength  are  sat- 
urated at  very  shallow  depths.  Other  areas  of  lower  risk  are  satur- 
ated alluvium  in  creek  crossings  and  the  possible  areas  of  shallow 
seasonal  perched  water  tables  in  Kern  County  immediately  adjacent  to 
Mid  station. 

3.2.3  Soils 

Data  Sources 

USDA  Soil  Conservation  Service  (SCS)  field  offices  in  areas 
affected  by  the  proposed  project  were  contacted  and  soil  survey  infor- 
mation obtained  for  the  major  soil  units  traversed  by  the  proposed 
pipeline.  In  addition,  the  University  of  California  at  Davis,  Depart- 
ment of  Land,  Air  and  Water  Resources,  was  consulted.  Selected 
streams  were  field  checked.  The  California  Department  of  Transporta- 
tion was  also  consulted  regarding  the  potential  for  soils  with  shrink- 
swell  characteristics  along  the  route. 


3-13 


Regulatory  Setting 

No  particular  regulations  directly  apply  to  soils  and  particu- 
larly not  to  soils  on  private  lands.  However,  soil  resources  and  soil 
limitations,  such  as  site  and  slope  conditions  and  water  tables,  are 
indirectly  considered  in  the  regulatory  process  by  BLM,  USFWS,  and 
CDFG  in  regard  to  revegetation;  by  the  California  Food  and  Agriculture 
Department  in  regard  to  productivity;  and  at  the  county  permit  level 
in  regard  to  certain  building  codes.  The  USDA  SCS  is  involved  through 
NEPA's  overall  review  process. 

Environmental  Setting 

A  county-specific  description  of  soils  and  soil  conditions 
encountered  by  the  proposed  pipeline,  as  well  as  soil  feature  maps, 
are  given  in  Appendix  C,  which  also  includes  maps  showing  the  loca- 
tions of  sensitive  soils  features.  Tables  3-4  through  3-11  summarize 
the  major  soil  units  crossed  by  the  proposed  pipeline  route  in  each 
county.  The  tables  indicate  the  characteristic  terrain,  percent  slope 
range,  depth,  texture,  and  drainage  class  for  each  of  the  major  soil 
units.  The  factors  which  are  most  significant  from  a  pipeline  con- 
struction and  restoration  standpoint  include  slope  and  erosion  poten- 
tial, depth  to  consolidated  material,  drainage,  potential  for  slumping 
or  dimensional  instability,  shrink-swell,  and  corrosivity.  Descrip- 
tions of  varying  degrees  of  erosion  hazard  are  based  on  lands  which 
have  bare  soil  conditions,  or  have  been  disturbed,  or  otherwise  are 
not  under  soil  conservation  practices.  Soil  associations  encountered 
at  booster  stations  and  other  ancillary  facilities  are  identified  in 
Table  3-12. 

An  overview  of  Tables  3-4  to  3-11  indicates  the  presence  of  num- 
erous soil  units  which  have  specific  soil  characteristics.  A  discus- 
sion of  a  broader  summary  classification  of  these  units  has  very 
little  use,  since  they  range  from  valley  floor  and  alluvial  fan  soils 
to  the  soils  of  steep  uplands  which  are  highly  erosive,  including 
numerous  units  having  intermediate  characteristics.  These  soils  are 
generally  derived  from  the  same  parent  materials  transported  downward 
and  deposited  at  lower,  more  level  positions  as  basin  rim  soils  and 
terrace  soils  and  alluvial  fans.  These  soils  tend  to  be  deep  and  they 
may  have  slow  permeability  and  a  high  shrink-swell  potential, 
depending  on  the  clay  content;  in  addition,  they  tend  to  be  corrosive 
and  alkaline  or  saline.  In  relation  to  slopes,  a  moderate-  to  high- 
degree  of  erodibility  is  their  main  characteristic  relevant  to  a  pipe- 
line project.  This  includes  the  instability  of  deep  clays  or  clay- 
loams  on  steep  side  slopes  and  a  potential  to  slump  or  slide  down  from 
these  topographical  positions  in  certain  areas. 

3.2.4  Surface  Water 
Data  Sources 


The  data  base  used  to  describe  surface  water  resources  in  the 
project  area  and  to  determine  impact  significance  was  obtained  from 
various  sources.  Initial  watercourse  determination  and  basin 


3-14 


Table  3-4 
MAJOR  SOILS  UNITS  ENCOUNTERED  BY  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE  IN  KERN  COUNTY 


CO 

i 


Soils 
Unit 

Terrain 

Approximate 
Distance 
Along  Pro- 
posed Route 
(miles) 

Percent 

Slope 

Encountered 

Depth* 

Texture 

Drainage 
Class 

Limiting  Factors 

Hillbrick- 
Kilmer-Mendi 

Hilltops  and 
ridges 

2.3 

10-55 

Shallow 
to  deep 

Sandy  loam 

Well  drained 

Steep  slopes  and  high  ero- 
sion hazard;  highly  corro- 
sive to  uncoated  steel 

Elkhills 

Lower  hills  and 
terraces 

7.2 

9-50 

yery 
deep 

Sandy  loam 

Well  drained 

Steep  slopes  and  moderate 
to  high  erosion  hazard; 
highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel 

Panache- 
Mi  llham- 
Kimberlina 

Alluvial  fans, 
plains,  and 
terraces 

12.4 

1-3 

Very 
deep 

Clay  loams, 
sandy  loams, 
and  fine 
sandy  loams 

Well  drained 

Highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel 

Kimberlina 

Recent  alluvial 
fans  and  plains 

13.4 

1-9 

Very 
deep 

Fine  sandy 
loam 

Well  drained 

Slight  erosion  hazard  on 
slopes  greater  than  2  %; 
highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel 

Nahrub- 
Lethent 

San  Joaquin 
Valley  floor 

8.3 

0-2 

Very 
deep 

Clays  and 
silt  loams 

Well  to  some- 
what poorly 
drained 

Moderate  to  strongly 
saline  alkali;  slow  to 
very  slow  permeabilities; 

Garces- 
Panoche 


Alluvial  fans  on 
basin  rims 


1.1 


0-2      Very      Silt  loams  and 
deep      clay  loams 


high  shrink-swell  poten- 
tial; highly  corrosive  to 
concrete  and  uncoated  steel 

Well  drained    Saline-alkalinity;  very 
slow  permeabilities; 
moderate  shrink-swell 
potential  for  subsoil; 
highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel 


*Shallow  =  10  to  20  inches 
Deep  -  40  to  60  inches 
Very  deep  -   >60  inches 

Source:   Unpublished  Soil  Survey  drafts,  summaries,  personal  communications,  USDA-Soil  Conservation  Service, 
Area  Office,  Fresno,  California,  1986. 


Table  3-5 
MAJOR  SOILS  UNITS  ENCOUNTERED  BY  THE   PROPOSED  ROUTE  IN  KINGS  COUNTY 


Soils 
Unit 


Kettleman- 
Cantua- 
Me  rcey 


Terrain 


Kettleman 
Hills 


go 
1 

Wa  sco- 
Pa  no  che- 
Westhaven 

Alluvial   fans 
and  plains 
(San  Joaquin 
Valley) 

CT. 

Lethent- 

Garces- 

Panoche 

Alluvial   fans 
and  baa  in  rims 

Approximate 

Distance 
Along  Pro- 
posed  Route 
(miles) 


10.0 


13.7 


3.8 


Percent 

Slope 

Encountered 


Depth* 


Texture 


10-30 


0-5 


Maderately 
deep  to 
deep 


Very  deep 


0-1 


Very  deep 


Loan  and 
sandy  loam 


Loam  and 
sandy    loam 


Sandy  loam 
and  clay 
loam 


Drainage 
Class 


Well  to 

excessively 

drained 


Maderately 
well  drained 


Well  to 
moderately 
well  drained 


♦Moderately   deep  =  20  to  40  inches 
Deep  =  40  to  60  inches 

Very  deep  =  >6  0  inches 

Source:      Unpublished  Soil   Survey  drafts,   summaries,   personal  comnumcations,    USDA-Soil   Conservation  Service, 
Area  Office,    Fresno,   California,    1986. 


Limiting  Factors 


Moderate  to  high  erosion 
hazard;   moderate  to 
highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated  steel.      Miderate 
shrink-swell  potential 
in  some  areas. 

Slight  erosion  hazard  on 
sandy   loams;  highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated 
steel;    moderate  shrink- 
swell   potential  in  some 
subsoils. 

Saline-alkali;    very 
highly   corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel;   moderate 
to  high  corroaivity  to 
concrete;   moderate  to 
high  shrink-swell  po- 
tential in  subsoils. 


Table  3-6 
MAJOR  SOILS  UNITS  ENCOUNTERED  BY  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE  IN  FRESNO  COUNTY* 


Soils  Unit 

or 

Location 


Terrain 


Approximate 
Distance 
Along  Pro- 
posed Route 
(miles) 


Percent 

Slope 

Encountered 


Blue  Hills     Steep  slopes, 
Tuney  Hills    lower  hills 
Panoche  Hills 


Ciervo  Hills   Moderately 

steep  foothillB 


Unnamed 


Terraces 


Unnamed 


Alluvial  fans 


5.0 
1.0 
2.5 


10.0 


15.5 


26.0 


15-65 
10-50 
10-50 


10-30 


1-15 


0-5 


Depth* 


Texture 


Probably 
shallow  to 
moderately 
deep 


Probably  loams, 
clay  loams,  and 
sandy  loams 


Probably  Probably  loams, 
moderately  clay  loams,  and 
deep  to  deep  sandy  loams 


Deep,  and 
possibly 
very  deep 


Deep  to 
very  deep 


Clay  loams, 
poasibly  loams, 
and  sandy  loams 


Loams, 
loams,  _.«. 
clay  loams, 
clay 


clay 
sandy 


Drainage 

Class 


Limiting  Factors 


Well  drained, 
probably  some- 
what excessively 
in  some  areas 

Probably  well 
drained 


Probably  well 
drained 


Probably  moder- 
ately well  to 
well  drained 


Moderate  to  very  high  ero- 
sion hazard;  other 
limitations  unknown;  highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated  steel 

Moderate  to  possibly  high 
erosion  hazard;  highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated  steel 

Possibly  slow  permeabili- 
ties; slight  to  moderate 
erosion  hazard  on  steeper 
slopes;  highly  corrosive  to 
uncoated  steel;  high 
shrink-swell  potential 

Possible  slow  permesbili- 
ties  in  more  clayey  soils; 
highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel;  high  shrink- 
swell  potential 


*Soila  in  western  Fresno  County  have  not  been  surveyed  or  mapped.  Depth,  texture,  drainage  class,  and  limiting  factors  are  based  on 
analysis  of  terrain  encountered  along  the  route  in  Fresno  County  and  correlations  made,  based  on  similar  geology,  terrain,  and  known 
soils  encountered  in  adjoining  Merced  and  Kings  counties.  USDA-SCS  Fresno  Area  Office  soil  scientist  indicates  all  soils  encountered 
by  the  proposed  route  in  Fresno  County  most  likely  present  a  high  corrosivity  hazard  to  uncoated  steel. 
**Shallow  -   10  to  20  inches 

Moderately  deep  =  20  to  40  inches 
Deep  =  40  to  60  inches 
Very  deep  =  >60  inches 

Source:  Unpublished  soil  survey  drafts,  summaries,  personal  communications,  USDA-Soil  Conservation  Service,  Area  Office,  Fresno, 
California,  1986. 


Table  3-7 
MAJOR  SOILS  UNITS  ENCOUNTERED  BY  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE  IN  MERCED  COUNTY 


Soils 
Unit 

Terrain 

Approximate 
Distance 
Along  Pro- 
posed Route 
(miles) 

Percent 

Slope 

Encountered 

Depth» 

Texture 

Drainage 
Class 

Limiting  Factors 

Arburua- 
Wisflat 

Foothills 

8.8 

10-65 

Shallow  to 

moderately 
deep 

Calcareous 
loams  and 
clay  loams 

Well  drained 

Slope,  moderate  to  high 
erosion  hazard;  highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated 
steel 

Oneil- 
Apollo 

Foothills 

10.4 

10-100 

Moderately 
deep  to  deep 

Calcareous 
ailt  loams 
and  clay  loams 

Well  drained 

Erosion,  slope,  excess 
lime  content  in  some 
areas;  moderate  to  high 

CO 

! 


00 


Damluis- 
Bapos- 
Lo8  Banoa 


Terraces 


11.7 


1-15 


Very  deep 


Calcareous  clay 
loams  and  clay 
loams 


Well  drained 


corrosivity  for  un- 
coated steel 


Excess  lime  content  in 
some  areas,  slaw  perme- 
ability; slope; 
moderate  to  high 
8hrink-8well  potential; 
highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel 


Woo- 
Stanislaua 


Alluvial  fans 


8.8 


0-5 


Very  deep 


Loam,  clay  loam, 
sandy  clay  loam, 
clay 


Well  drained 


Slow  permeability  in 
clayey  soils;  high 
shrink-swell  potential 
for  some  areas;  highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated 
steel 


•Shallow  =  10  to  20  inches 

Moderately  deep  -   20  to  40  inches 

Deep  -   40  to  60  inches 

Very  deep  s  >60  inches 

Source:  Unpublished  soil  survey  drafts,  summaries,  personal  communications,  USDA-Soil  Conservation  Service, 
Area  Office,  Fresno,  California,  1986. 


Table  3-8 
MAJOR  SOILS  UNITS  ENCOUNTERED  BY  THE    PROPOSED  ROUTE  IN  STANISLAUS  COUNTY* 


Soils 
Unit 


Terrain 


East  Side 
Diablo  Range 


Foothills 


Approximate 

Distance 
Along  Pro- 
posed Route 
(miles) 


15.0 


Percent 

Slope 

Encountered 


Depth** 


Texture 


Drainage 
Class 


Limiting  Factors 


9-60  Moderately  Calcareous  Well  drained  Slope,   moderate  to  high 

deep   to  deep         loams  and  erosion  hazard;  moderate  to 

clay   loans  high  shrink-swell  poten- 

tial; highly  corrosive  to 
uncoated  steel 


CO 

i 


Unnamed 


Unn  amed 


High  terraces 


7.0 


Lower  terraces 


3.0 


1-20 


1-10 


Deep   to 
very  deep 


Deep  to 
very   deep 


Loams  and 
clay   loams 
and  clays 


Loams  and 
clay   loams 
and  clays 


Well  drained  Slow  permeabilities,   slight 

to  moderate  erosion  hazard 
in  some  areas,   runoff; 
moderate  to  high  shrink- 
swell   potential;  highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated  steel 

Well  drained  Slow  permeabilities,   slight 

and  occasionally  moderate 
erosion  hazard;   moderate  to 
high  shrink-swell  poten- 
tial; highly  corrosive  to 
uncoated  steel 


Vernalia- 
Salado 


Myers- 
Stomar 


Recent 
alluvial   fans 


Recent 
alluvial  fans 


1.0 


0.4 


0-2 


0-2 


Very  deep  Loams,   fine  Well  drained  Maderate  to  high  shrink- 

eandy    loams,  swell  potential;   highly 

clay  loams,  corrosive  to  uncoated 

and  clays  steel 

Very  deep  Sandy  clays  Well  drained  Slow  permeability;   moderate 

and  silty  to  high  shrink-swell  poten- 

clays  tial;  highly  corrosive  to 

uncoated  steel 


Zacharias- 
Positas 


Older 
alluvial  fans 


0.8 


0-9 


Moderately 
deep  to 
very  deep 


Gravelly  Well  drained  Slight  erosion  hazard  in 

loans   and  Borne   areas;   moderate  to 

clay  loams  high  shrink-swell  poten- 

tial;  highly   corrosive  to 
uncoated  steel 


♦Foothill  and  terrace  soil  areas  in  western  Stanislaus  County  have  not  been  surveyed  or  mapped.      Information  for  depth,    texture,   drainage 
class,   and  limiting   factors  is  based  on  analysis  of  terrain  encountered  along  the  proposed  route  in   Stanislaus  County,  and  correlations 
made,   based  on  similar  geology,  terrain,    and  known   soils  encountered  in  adjoining  areas  of  Merced  and  San  Joaquin  counties. 

**Moderately   deep  -  20  to  40  inches 
Deep  -   40  to  60  inches 
Very  deep  =    >60  inches 

Source:      Soils  of  West   Side  Stanislaus  Area  California,    University   of  California  at  Davis  and  County  of  aamalaus,    California, 
April   1968. 


Table  3-9 
MAJOR  SOILS  UNITS  ENCOUNTERED  BY  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE  IN  SAN  JOAQUIN  COUNTY 


Soils 
Unit 


Terrain 


Approximate 
Distance 
Along  Pro- 
posed Route 
(miles) 


Percent 

Slope 

Encountered 


Depth* 


Texture 


Drainage 
CI  ass 


Limiting  Factors 


Chaqua-      Rolling  and  hilly 
Carbona     dissected 
terraces 


11.25 


2-40      Very  deep     Clay  loam,       Well  drained    Moderate  to  high  shrink- 

clay,  loam,  swell  potential  in  sur- 

gravelly  clay  face  and  subsoils;  slow 

loam  permeabilities;  high 

corrosivity  to  uncoated 
steel;  high  erosion  hazard 
on  disturbed  steeper  areas 


Zacharias 


Low  terraces  and 
alluvial  fans 


2.0 


1 

o 


0-8       Very  deep     Clay  loam,       Well  drained    Moderate  ahrink-awell 

gravelly  clay  potential  in  some  sub- 

loam  soils;  moderately  slow 

permeabilities  in  some 
subsoils;  highly  corrosive 
to  uncoated  steel;  moder- 
ate erosion  hazard  on  dis- 
turbed steeper  slopes 


Stomar 


Nearly  level 
alluvial  fans 


1.75 


0-2 


very  deep 


Clay  loam, 

clay 


Well  drained 


Moderate  ahrink-swell  po- 
tential in  surface  high 
ahrink-swell  potential  in 
subsurface;  erodes  easily 
on  disturbed  slopes 
greater  than  3SS 


*Very  deep  =  >60  inches 

Source:   USDA-Soil  Conservation  Service,  Stockton  Soil  Survey  Office,  Stockton,  California,  Unpublished  soil  survey  drafts,  personal 
communications,  July  1986. 


Table  3-10 
MAJOR  SOILS  UNITS  ENCOUNTERED  BY  THE   PROPOSED  ROUTE  IN  ALAMEDA  COUNTY 


Soils 
Ihit 


Linne 


Terrain 


Approximate 

Distance 
Along  Pro- 
posed Route 
(miles) 


Percent 

Slope 

Encountered 


Depth* 


Texture 


Drainage 

Class 


upland  hills 


3.2 


9-30 


CO 

I 

(Vi 


Altamont 


Upland  hills 


3.2 


9-30 


Shallow  to 
moderately 
deep 


Shallow 
to  deep 


Mostly 
calcareous 
clay  loan 


Clays  and 
clay   loams 


Well  drained 


Well  drained 


Limiting  Factors 


Moderate  to  high  erosion 
hazard;  moderate  shrink- 
awell  potential;   highly 
corrosive     to  uncoated 
steel;   potential  for 
piping 


Moderate  erosion  hazard; 
highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel;  potential 
for  slumping  on  side 
slopes  greater  than  155S; 
potential   for  piping 


•Shallow  =  10  to  20  inches 
Moderately  deep  =  20  to  40  inches 
Deep  =  40  to  60  inches 

Source:      USDA-SoU  Conservation  Service,   Field  Office,    Livermore,    and  Area  Office,    Santa  Rosa,   California;   personal  communications, 

May    1986. 


Table  3-11 
MAJOR  SOILS  UNITS  ENCOUNTERED  BY  THE   PROPOSED  ROUTE   IN  CONTRA  COSTA  COUNTY 


Soils 
Unit 


Terrain 


Approximate 

Distance 
Along  Pro- 
posed Route 
(miles) 


Percent 

Slope 

Encountered 


Depth* 


Texture 


Drainage 
Class 


Limiting  Factors 


Altanont- 

Diablo- 

Fontana 


Brentwood- 

Rincon- 

Zamora 


Steep 
uplands 


Valley   fill, 
alluvial   fans, 
low  terraces 


23. B 


2.0 


9-75 


0-5 


Si  al  low 
to  deep 


Very  deep 


Clays  and 
silty  clay 
loans 


Clay  loams 
and  silty 
clay  loams 


Well  drained  Moderate  to  high  erosion 

hazard;  moderate  to  high 
shrink-swell  potentials 
highly  corrosive  to  un- 
coated steel?   susceptible 
to  slumping  and  piping 

Well  drained  Maderate  to  high  shrink- 

swell  potential;   moderate 
to  highly  corrosive  to 
uncoated  steel 


Capay- 

Sycanore- 

Brentwood 


Valley   fill 
and  floodplains 


0.7 


0-5 


Very  deep 


Silty  clay 
loams  and 
clay  loams 


Well  drained 


Msderate  to  high  shrink- 
swell  potential;   highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated    ■ 
steel 


no 


Capay- 
Rincon 


Valley   fill 


2.0 


0-5 


Very  deep 


Clays  and 
clay   loams 


Maderately  and 
well  drained 


Slight  erosion  hazard  in 
some  areas;   moderate  to 
high  shrink-swell  poten- 
tial;  moderate  to  highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated 
steel 


Clear  Lake- 
Cropley 


Marcuae- 

Solano- 

Pescadero 


Valley   fill, 
coastal  valley 
basin 


Basin  rims 


2.5 


0-5 


Very  deep         Clays 


1.25 


0-2 


Very  deep         Clays,,  loams, 

and  clay 
loams 


Poorly  to 
moderately 
well  drained 


Very   poorly  to 
somewhat  poorly 
drained 


Maderate  salinity  in  some 
areas;  high  to  very  high 
corrosivity  to  uncoated 
steel;   high  shrink-swell 
potential;   slow  permea- 
bilities;  ponding  water 

Moderate  to  strong 
salinity;   very  highly 
corrosive  to  uncoated 
steel;    moderate  to  high 
shrink-swell  potential; 
slow  permeability;   ponding 
water 


•Shallow  =   10  to  20  inches 
Deep  =   40  to  60  inches 
Very   deep  =   60  inches 


Source: 


Soil   Survey  of  Contra  Costa,    California,    USDA-Soil   Conservation  Service  and  University  of  California,    1977„ 


Table  3-12 

SOIL  ASSOCIATIONS  AT  BOOSTER  STATIONS 
AND  MICROWAVE  FACILITIES,  BY  COUNTY 


County 


Facility 


Sail  Unit* 


Kern 


MW  Station  1 

McKittrick  Station 

Kernridge  Station 
and  MW  Station  2 

Mid  Station  and 
MW  Station  3 


Elk  Hills  Association 
Elk  Hills  Association 
Panoche-Mi lham-Kimberlina 

Nahrub-Lethent-Twisselman 


King 


Kettleman  Station 
and  MW  Station  4 


Kettleman-Cantua-Mercey 


Fresno 


Caliola  Station 
and  MW  Station  5 

MW  Station  6 

SJV-2(b)  and 
MW  Station  8 


Unnamed  alluvial  fan  soils 

Unnamed  terrace  soils 
Unnamed  alluvial  fan  soil 


Merced 


MW  Station  9 
MW  Station  10 


Arburua-Wisflat 
O'Neill-Apollo 


Stanislaus 


SJV-3(b)  and 
MW  Station  11 

MW  Station  12  and 
MW  Station  13 


Myers-Stomar 

Unnamed  soils  of  the  east  side 
Diablo  Range 


Contra  Costa 


MW  Station  13 


Rock  outcrop/Xerothents** 


Note:   MW  Station  =  Microwave  station 

*See  Tables  3-4  through  3-11  for  soil  characteristics. 

•♦Shallow  (0-20  inches).   These  soils  consist  of  50-70%  rock  out- 
crop; slopes  30-7555;  excessive  drainage;  high  erosion  hazard. 
Shrink-swell  potential  is  low;  corrosivity  is  low. 


3-23 


characterization  were  based  on  an  examination  of  USGS  contour  maps, 
both  7.5-minute  and  1:250,000  scale.  Flow  regime  and  water  quality 
conditions  of  the  streams  crossed  by  the  proposed  pipeline  were  deter- 
mined based  on  EPA  (Region  IX)  STORET  data  and  USGS  water  resource 
data.  Verification  of  the  locations  and  characteristics  of  surface 
water  bodies  was  provided  by  an  aerial  overflight  of  the  proposed 
route0  Additional  information  was  sought  from  county  public  works  and 
planning  departments.  From  these  sources,  and  the  Federal  Emergency 
Management  Agency  (FEMA)S  flood  hazards  were  identified,,  Other  addi- 
tional data  sources  in  the  published  literature  which  were  reviewed 
and  which  are  cited  in  the  text  are  included  in  the  bibliography  (see 
Section  11). 

Regulatory  Setting 

Pipeline  stream  crossings  require  a  permit  from  the  U.S.  Army 
Corps  of  Engineers  (COE)  Sacramento  and  San  Francisco  Districts  for 
all  streams  with  an  average  annual  flow  rate  greater  than  5  cubic  feet 
per  second  (cfs).  The  COE  administers  the  stream  crossings  under  the 
Nationwide  404  permit  and  Section  10  permit  process. 

Hydrostatic  testing  will  require  the  withdrawal  of  test  water  and 
the  discharge  of  wastewater.  The  discharge  of  hydrostatic  test  water 
may  require  a  permit  from  EPA  Region  IX  (San  Francisco)  under  the 
National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES)  permit  pro- 
gram. The  Regional  Boards  of  the  State  Water  Resource  Control  Board 
(SWRCB)  require  an  NPDES  permit  if  the  discharge  is  into  surface 
water.  If  the  discharge  point  is  to  a  dry  watercourse  or  a  dry  lake 
bed,  a  Report  of  Waste  Discharge  is  required.  This  report  is  not 
required,  however,  if  the  water  is  not  contaminated,  if  it  lacks  the 
potential  to  contaminate  groundwater,  or  if  the  method  of  discharge 
avoids  erosion  and  soil  disturbance. 

The  diversion  and  withdrawal  of  surface  waters  for  testing  may 
require  a  temporary  permit  from  the  Division  of  Water  Rights  of  the 
SWRCB.  Such  a  permit  may  not  be  necessary  if  the  water  is  purchased 
or  if  the  water  is  returned  for  discharge  to  the  point  (or  drainage 
area)  of  withdrawal . 

The  aqueduct  crossings  and  encroachment  upon  the  California  Aque- 
duct will  require  a  permit  from  the  California  Department  of  Water 
Resources  and  from  the  U.S.  Bureau  of  Reclamation  in  the  case  of  the 
Delta  Mendota  Canal.  The  proposed  pipeline  crosses  the  California 
Aqueduct  four  times. 

The  California  Department  of  Fish  and  Game  (CDFG)  will  enter  into 
Stream  Alteration  Agreements  with  SJVPLC  to  stipulate  stream  crossing 
procedures.  Such  agreements  are  necessary  for  each  stream  crossing 
involving  trenching  within  the  mean  high  water  mark  and  alterations  to 
the  natural  features  of  these  streams. 

Permits  for  water  use  at  booster  stations  will  be  required  from 
local  water  districts  upon  review  by  the  U.S.  Bureau  of  Reclamation 
and  the  SWRCB.  In  addition,  flood  control  permits,  drainage  permits, 


3-24 


and  permits  to  cross  canals  may  be  required  from  county  or  municipal 
public  works  departments  and  water  agencies. 

Environmental  Setting 

The  proposed  pipeline  route  generally  follows  the  western  edge  of 
the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  Along  its  course  it  spans  the  foot-hills  of 
three  major  surface  water  basins:  the  Tulare  Lake  Basin  in  the  south, 
the  San  Joaquin  Basin  in  the  Central  Valley  area,  and  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Bay  Basin  in  the  north.  Surface  water  quality  along  the  pro- 
posed route  is  characterized  by  high  dissolved  solids,  sulfate,  and 
varying  mineral  and  carbonate  hardness  (USGS  1984). 

The  natural  drainage  patterns  in  all  -three  basins  have  been 
modified  by  control  structures,  diversion  structures,  agricultural 
operations,  irrigation  facilities,  and  transportation  corridor 
embankments.  These  diversion  techniques  provide  water  for 
agriculture,  which  accounts  for  more  than  95%  of  the  valley's  water 
use  (USGS  1984).  Surface  water  accounts  for  about  60%  of  the  annual 
water  supply  to  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  This  surface  water  supply  is 
made  up  of  an  estimated  two-thirds  natural  runoff  and  one-third 
imported  water.  The  imported  water  and  related  transport  system  play 
an  important  role  in  the  valley's  water  supplies.  This  supplemental 
water  balances  the  deficiency  resulting  from  the  lack  of  sufficient 
rainfall  during  the  year  to  meet  use  demands.  In  addition,  these 
waters  maintain  wildlife  habitat. 

The  climate  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  is  arid;  it  is  charac- 
terized by  hot  summers  and  cool  winters,  and  has  a  rainy  season  that 
usually  extends  from  October  to  April.  During  this  period,  the  mean 
annual  precipitation  in  the  valley  ranges  from  20  inches  in  the  north 
to  5  inches  in  the  south  (U.S.  Department  of  Commerce  1983).  However, 
this  amount  of  precipitation  does  not  meet  the  water  demands  placed  on 
the  valley's  water  resources,  creating  a  20-  to  4-inch  average  annual 
groundwater  basin  deficiency  (Todd  1983). 

Due  to  the  alignment  of  the  proposed  route  along  the  western  edge 
of  the  valley,  the  pipeline  crosses  the  westernmost  drainages  of  these 
basins.  Within  these  basins,  the  proposed  pipeline  crosses  over  225 
intermittent  and  ephemeral  streams  whose  flow  is  directly  correlated 
to  the  precipitation  noted  above.  Many  of  these  streams  are  dry 
during  most  of  the  year.  They  flow  only  during  high  runoff  when 
channels  are  formed.  However,  the  USGS  topographical  maps  (1:24,000) 
which  formed  the  basis  for  the  stream  classification  do  not  permit 
making  a  distinction  between  intermittent  streams  and  ephemeral 
streams.  The  proposed  route  also  crosses  several  canals  and  perennial 
streams.  For  all  streams  combined,  the  total  acreage  of  streambed 
directly  affected  by  construction  is  10  acres.  Table  3-13  lists  the 
surface  waters  crossed  by  the  proposed  pipeline.  A  detailed,  county- 
by-county  description  of  the  surface  water  resources  in  the  project 
area  is  contained  in  Appendix  C. 

There  are  10  proposed  crossings  of  perennial  streams,  some  of 
which  are  unnamed  on  the  USGS  7.5-minute  quadrangle  maps.  Available 
gauge  records  for  the  streams  crossed  by  the  proposed  route  are  given 

3-25 


Table  3-13 
STREAMS  AND  CANALS  CROSSED  BY  THE  PROPOSED  PIPELINE 


County- 


Kern 


Stream  Crossed* 


Buena  Vista  Creek  (I) 
Salt  Creek  (I) 
Temblor  Creek  (I) 
Chico  Martinez  Creek  (I) 
Ditch  crossing  (C) 
Ditch  crossing  (C) 
California  Aqueduct  (C) 

53  unnamed,  intermittent 
creeks 


Milepost** 


15,0 
16.0 
18.3 
21  .0 
27.0 
32.0 


Kings 


California  Aqueduct  (C) 
Arroyo  Doble  Gado  (I) 
Arroyo  Finito  (I) 
Arroyo  Pequeno  (I) 
Arroyo  Hondo  (I) 
Arroyo  Torcido  (I) 
Arroyo  Bifido  (I) 
Arroyo  Largo  (I) 

15  unnamed,  intermittent 
creeks 


61.3 
65.5 
66.4 
66.8 

67.* 
69.0 
70.3 
71.9 


Fresno 


Arroyo  Vadoso  (I) 

73.9 

Los  Gatos  Creek  (P) 

79.3 

Pleasant  Valley  Aqueduct  (C) 

84.8 

1  unnamed  perennial  creek 

88.6 

Domergine  Creek  (I) 

94.5 

Martinez  Creek  (I) 

97.0 

Salt  Creek  (I) 

99.6 

Cantua  Creek  (I) 

101.8 

Arroyo  Hondo  (I) 

106.6 

Arroyo  Ciervo  (I) 

108.9 

Panoche  Creek  (I) 

122.2 

Little  Panoche  Creek  (I) 

135.2 

73  unnamed,  intermittent 
creeks 


Merced 


Ortigalita  Creek  (I;  4 

crossings) 
Salt  Creek  (I) 
Delta  Mendota  Canal 
California  Aqueduct  (C; 

2  crossings) 
Quinto  Creek  (I) 
Mustang  Creek  (I) 

22  unnamed,  intermittent 
creeks 


146.9, 

147.8, 

151.2 

163.8 

159.9, 

168.3 
172.0 


147.5 
148.3 


165.7 


*I  =  intermittent  streams 
P  =  perennial  streams 
C  =  controlled  flow 

**As  measured  from  south  to  north 


3-26 


Table  3-13   (Cont.) 


County 


Stream  Crossed* 


Stanislaus  Garzas  Creek   (I) 

Orestimba  Creek  (I) 
Crow  Creek   (I) 
Little  Salado  Creek   (I) 
Sal  ado  Creek   (I) 
Del  Puerto  Creek  (I) 
Martin  Creek   (I) 
Arkansas  Creek   (I) 

13  unnamed j   intermittent 
creeks 


San  Joaquin  Hospital  Creek   (I) 

Lone  Tree  Creek   (P) 
Deep  Gulch   (I) 
Hetch-Hetchy  Aqueduct   (C) 
Corral  Hollow   (I) 
Patterson  Run 


Approximate 
Mile  post** 


174.7 
179.4 
183.4 
187.0 
187.4 
192.5 
199.2 
200.7 


202.7 
203.9 
206.3 
206.8 
210.3 
217.0 


Alameda 


10  unnamed,  intermittent 
creeks 


Mountain  House   Creek   (I) 

9  unnamed,    intermittent 
creeks 


219.4 


Contra  Costa         Brushy   Creek   (I) 

1   unnamed,   perennial  stream 

1  unnamed,    perennial  stream 
Kellog  Creek   (I) 

Deer  Creek   (I) 
Sand  Creek   (I) 

2  unnamed,    perennial  streams 
2   unnamed  ditches  (C) 
Contra  Costa  Canal   (C) 
Mokelumne  Aqueduct   (C) 

Seal  Creek    (P) 
Walnut   Creek   (P) 
Pacheco  Creek    (P;   2 
crossings) 

36  unnamed,    intermittent 
creeks 


226.3 

227.0 

230.2 

231.9 

235.7 

238.2 

248.6, 

254.4, 

254.1 

254.2 

254.5 

256.5 

256.6, 


250.1 
255.9 


257.1 


I  a  intermittent  streams 
P   =  perennial   streams 
C  s  controlled    flow 

**As  measured   from   south  to  north 

Source:      Ecology   and   Environment,    Inc.,    1986;   based  on   USGS   7.5- 
minute  quadrangle  maps. 


3-27 


in  Table  3-14.  These  data  show  typical  flow  conditions  along  the  pro- 
posed route,  reflecting  watercourses  highly  susceptible  to  seasonal 
runoff.  The  pipeline  also  crosses  the  California  Aqueduct  in  four 
locations,  the  Pleasant  Valley  Aqueduct,  the  Delta  Mendota  Canal,  the 
Hetch-Hetchy  Aqueduct,  the  Mokelumne  Aqueduct,  and  the  Contra  Costa 
Canal.  In  addition,  there  are  nine  major  and  several  small  reservoirs 
within  2  miles  of  the  proposed  route  (see  Table  3-15). 

With  respect  to  the  California  Aqueduct,  surface  drainage  is 
divided  into  three  zones.  In  the  project  area  from  Kern  County  to 
Kettleman  City,  surface  water  runoff  is  diverted  either  over  or  under 
the  aqueduct  via  overchutes  and  culverts  even  during  periods  of  heavy 
rains.  No  culverts  or  overchutes  exist  along  the  aqueduct  from 
Kettleman  City  to  the  O'Neill  Forebay  (corresponding  to  mileposts  63 
to  160  of  the  pipeline),  and  drainage  from  the  west  side  of  the  valley 
could  enter  the  aqueduct  during  extended  periods  of  heavy  precipita- 
tion. Arroyo  Passajero,  located  east  of  Coalinga  about  10  miles  east 
of  Interstate  5,  is  a  large  sediment  settling  basin,  the  only  such 
feature  that  could  be  affected  by  the  project.  From  the  O'Neill 
Forebay  to  its  terminus,  the  aqueduct  is  protected  from  runoff  by 
overchutes  and  culverts. 

3.2.5  Groundwater 

Data  sources  consulted  in  characterizing  the  existing  groundwater 
resources  within  the  project  area  included  USGS  professional  papers, 
USGS  water  resources  investigaton  reports,  and  USGS  water  supply 
papers.  In  addition,  technical  bulletins  of  the  California  Department 
of  Natural  Resources,  Division  of  Mines  and  Geology,  were  reviewed; 
and  the  Sanitary  Engineering  Branch  of  the  California  Department  of 
Health  Services  was  consulted,  as  well  as  the  California  Regional 
Water  Quality  Board,  Central  Valley  District.  Specific  references 
cited  in  the  text  are  included  in  the  bibliography  (see  Section  11). 

Regulatory  Setting 

Groundwater  quality  is  regulated  under  the  Federal  Safe  Drinking 
Water  Act.  Under  the  Porter-Cologne  Act,  the  State  Water  Resources 
Control  Board  (SWRCB)  administers  the  act  through  regulations  based  on 
a  nondegradation  policy  regulating  surface  as  well  as  groundwater 
pollution.  The  discharge  of  contaminated  waters  and  oil  spills  are  of 
concern  due  to  their  potential  to  affect  surface  and  groundwater 
quality. 

Environmental  Setting 

The  project  area  is  divided  into  four  groundwater  basins:  the 
Tulare  Lake  Basin,  the  San  Joaquin  Basin,  the  Sacramento-San  Joaquin 
Delta  Basin,  and  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Basin  (Tempi in  1984).  The  area 
is  further  divided  into  15  sub-basins  based  upon  a  combination  of 
political  boundaries  and  natural  features  by  the  California  Water 
Resources  Control  Board  (see  Figure  3-3). 

Tulare  Lake  Basin.  The  Tulare  Lake  Basin  is  a  closed  depres- 
sion with  internal  drainage  except  during  exceptionally  heavy  runoff 

3-28 


Table  3-14 

AVAILABLE  GAUGE  RECORDS  FOR  STREAMS 
CROSSED  BY  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


Stream 
(County) 


Watershed 
Area 
(mi2) 


Mean 

Annual 

cfa 


Period 
Recorded 


Maximum  Discharge     Minimum  Discharge 


cfs 


Date 


cfs 


Date 


Remarks 


Los  Gatos 
(Fresno) 


95. B 


6.00  1945-1984  4,360       2-24-69         No   flow  Minor  diversion  for  irri- 

( June-Sept.)  gation  and  stock   ponds 


Cantua  Creek 
(Fresno) 


46.4 


3.59  1958-1984  3,420       3-1-83  No  flow  Some  small  dams  for  stock 

(June-Sept.)  use  above  station 


Orestimba 

Creek 

(Stanislaus) 


134.0  17.20  1932-1984  10,200       4-2-58  No  flow 

(June-Oct.) 


No  storage  or  diversion 
above  station  except  for 
minor  stock  ponds 


ro 

ID 


Del  Puerto        72.6      7.80    1958-1965 
(Stanislaus)  maximums 

only  1965- 
1984 


1,800   2-16-59    No  flow 

(July-Sept.) 


Some  stock  ponds  and 
small  diversions  above 
station 


Source:  USGS,  1984,  Water  Resources  Data,  California,  Water  Year  1984,  Vol.  3. 


Table  3-15 

RESERVOIRS  WITHIN  APPROXIMATELY  TWO  MILES 
OF  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


County 


Reservoir 


Fresno 
Merced 


Little  Panoche  Reservoir 


Los  Banos  Reservoir 

O'Neill  Forebay 

San  Luis  Reservoir 

Unnamed  small  reservoir  (milepost  168) 


Alameda 

Contra  Costa 


Bethany  Reservoir 


Unnamed  small  reservoir  (milepost  223) 

Unnamed  small  reservoir  (milepost  229) 

Two  unnamed  small  reservoirs  (milepost  231) 

Unnamed  reservoir  (milepost  234) 

Several  unnamed  small  reservoirs  (mileposts  236-238) 

Marsh  Creek  Reservoir 

Contra  Loma  Reservoir 

Antioch  Municipal  Reservoir 

Mallard  Reservoir 

Martinez  Reservoir 


Source:  Ecology  and  Environment,  Inc. 
quadrangle  maps. 


1986;  based  on  USGS  7.5-minute 


3-30 


40  80  120  160  200  240  K  I  LOM  ETE  BS 


Figure  3-3      GROUNDWATER  BASINS  AND  SUB-BASINS  CROSSED 
BY  THE  SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEY  PIPELINE 


3-31 


from  the  Sierra  Nevada.  It  is  in  a  structural  downwarp  of  a  consider- 
able thickness  (up  to  3,000  feet  or  more)  of  unconsolidated  con- 
tinental sediments  of  Pliocene  and  Pleistocene  ages,  most  of  which 
bear  freshwater.  Beneath  these  are  marine  rocks  of  older  Tertiary  and 
Cretaceous  ages,  which  have  salt  or  brackish  water  and  primarily  con- 
sist of  relatively  consolidated  sandstones  and  shales.  These  crop  out 
in  the  Coastal  Ranges  and  the  foothills  of  the  Sierra  Nevada. 
Normallys  outflow  from  the  basin  is  restricted  to  small  subsurface 
flows  in  the  western  part  of  the  basin.  The  basin  includes  part  of 
Kern  County,  all  of  Kings  County,  and  most  of  Fresno  County. 

Segment  3  of  the  proposed  pipeline  runs  along  the  western  side  of 
the  Elk  Hills  Anticline  in  Kern  County.  Groundwater  is  relatively 
high  in  total  dissolved  solids  (>1,000  ppm),  but  is  used  for  irriga- 
tion. Depth  to  groundwater  is  always  greater  than  10  feet  (Wood  and 
Davis  1959). 

part  of  Segment  2,  from  Kernridge  to  Kings  County,  lies  within 
the  Belridge  and  Lost  Hills  water  districts.  Again,  water  quality  in 
the  unconfined  aquifers  is  poor,  with  total  dissolved  solids  ranging 
up  to  5,000  ppm.  Along  the  western  edge  of  Kern  County9  small 
quantities  of  groundwater  are  withdrawn  for  irrigation,,  for  oil  re- 
covery in  oil  fields,  and  for  domestic  water  supply  needs.  Total 
withdrawal  amounts  to  about  20,000  acre-feet,  with  approximately  20% 
used  for  domestic  purposes.  Most  withdrawals  are  from  wells  deeper 
than  100  feet,  situated  in  the  deeper  parts  of  the  valley  east  of  the 
pipeline  (Fryer  and  Cebell  1985). 

Groundwater  quality  is  poor  in  shallow  aquifers  along  the  western 
margin  of  the  valley  in  Kings  County.  Potable  groundwater  is  at  200 
to  300  feet  in  the  areas  immediately  to  the  east  of  the  proposed  route 
(Tempi  in  1984). 

Geologic  and  hydrologic  conditions  along  the  proposed  route  in 
Fresno  County  are  similar  to  those  in  Kern  and  Kings  counties  up  to 
the  point  where  the  proposed  route  enters  the  outcrop  of  Cretaceous 
marine  sediments  after  crossing  Little  Panoche  Creek,  at  the  northwest 
corner  of  Fresno  County.  These  sediments  contain  mostly  brackish 
water  or  saltwater  and  are  poor  aquifers. 

San  Joaquin  Basin.  Geohydrologic  conditions  in  the  San  Joaquin 

Basin  are  similar  to  those  of  the  Tulare  Lake  Basin;  the  San  Joaquin 
Basin  receives  overflows  of  surface  water  from  the  Tulare  Lake  Basin. 

Groundwater  on  the  east  side  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  tends  to 

migrate  into  the  Tulare  Lake  Basin,  while  groundwater  on  the  west  side 

in  Fresno  County  tends  to  migrate  from  the  Tulare  Lake  Basin  into  the 
San  Joaquin  Basin  (Tempi  in  1984). 

Within  the  San  Joaquin  Basin  in  Merced  and  Stanislaus  counties, 
the  proposed  route  traverses  outcrops  of  marine  Tertiary  and  Creta- 
ceous sediments  in  the  foothills  of  the  Coastal  Ranges  and  alluvial 
fans  at  the  foot  of  the  hills.  These  sediments  have  poor  supplies  of 
freshwater  and,  for  the  most  part,  contain  saltwater  or  brackish 
water.  They  are  not  used  as  water  supply  aquifers.  Small  quantities 
of  freshwater  are  available  in  the  alluvium  of  the  creeks,  but  even 

3-32 


surface  water  typically  ranges  from  900  ppm  of  total  dissolved  solids 
and  up,  with  the  exception  of  Little  Panoche  Creek  (540  ppm  of  total 
dissolved  solid)  (Templin  1984). 

San  Joaquin-Sacramento  Delta  Basin.  The  proposed  route  cuts 
across  the  southwest  corner  of  this  basin  in  San  Joaquin  and  northeast 
Alameda  counties.  The  underlying  geology  is  consolidated  sediments  of 
Tertiary  and  Cretaceous  ages,  with  the  same  characteristics  as  those 
described  above.  Again,  groundwater  is  high  in  total  dissolved 
solids,  and  the  bedrock  makes  poor  aquifers. 

San  Francisco  Bay  Basin.  Within  Contra  Costa  County,  only  Brent- 
wood and  Oakley  have  municipal  water  wells  close  to  the  pipeline,  the 
five  Brentwood  wells  are  located  approximately  3  miles  from  the  pipe- 
line, but  are  only  used  in  emergencies  because  of  their  high  nitrate 
levels.  The  wells  draw  water  from  approximately  100  feet  below 
surface.  Oakley  has  one  well  4  miles  from  the  proposed  route,  which 
withdraws  water  from  below  87  feet,  beneath  a  layer  of  clay  17  feet 
thick.  The  water  is  high  in  total  dissolved  solids,  and  Oakley  nor- 
mally uses  it  only  to  supplement  surface  water  (R.  Hultquist,  May  9, 
1985).  Within  areas  of  bedrock  outcrops,  groundwater  is  high  in  total 
dissolved  solids  and  aquifers  are  poor  (Taff  1935).  Close  to  the 
delta,  unconsolidated  sediments  are  intruded  by  brackish  water.  Some 
small  quantities  of  freshwater  will  be  available  in  the  alluvial  fill 
of  valleys  such  as  Lone  Tree  Valley,  Marsh  Creek,  and  Kellogg  Creek- 
and  there  are  wells  close  to  the  pipeline  route  at  Kellogg  Creek. 

3.2.6  Air  Quality 

Data  Sources 

Data  sources  include  emissions  inventories  included  in  the  proj- 
ect description,  available  literature,  and  contacts  with  the  Cali- 
fornia Air  Resources  Board  and  local  Air  Pollution  Control  Districts 
(APCDs). 

Regulatory  Setting 

Emissions  in  excess  of  250  tons  per  year  per  pollutant  require  a 
Prevention  of  Significant  Deterioration  (PSD)  permit.  This  permit 
protects  against  violations  of  ambient  air  quality  standards  by  impos- 
ing limits  on  emissions  and  requiring  the  use  of  Best  Available  Con- 
trol Technology  (BACT).  This  federal  PSD  permit  program  can  be 
administered  at  the  local  level  by  certain  districts  which  have  been 
granted  such  authority  upon  approval  by  EPA  of  an  adopted  set  of  rules 
and  enforcement  procedures.  In  the  study  area,  only  the  Bay  Area  Air 
Quality  Management  District  (BAAQMD)  has  been  granted  such  authority. 
The  BAAQMD  includes  the  Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  County  portions  of 
the  project  region.  However,  it  is  unlikely  that  emissions  from  the 
project's  booster  stations  will  exceed  the  250-ton  limit  and  require  a 
PSD  permit. 

In  California,  Air  Pollution  Control  Districts  (APCDs)  may  impose 
an  Authority  to  Construct.  Pursuant  to  this  authority,  a  permit  to 
operate  may  be  required.  Each  district  has  emission  standards  and 

3-33 


regulations  governing  sources,  design,  emissions,  and  control  equip- 
ment. The  proposed  project  traverses  APCDs  corresponding  to  Fresno, 
Kings,  Merced,  Stanislaus,  and  San  Joaquin  counties,  in  addition  to 
the  BAAQMD. 

in  general,  an  Authority  to  Construct  is  required  prior  to  con- 
struction of  facilities  in  each  district  in  which  a  source  of  air 
emissions  is  proposed.  The  construction  of  a  section  of  pipeline 
without  pumping/heating  stations  in  a  given  district  would  probably 
not  require  an  Authority  to  Construct.  Also,  in  most  districts,  small 
gas-fired  heat  transfer  systems  (generally  less  than  25  MMBTU/hr)  and 
small  capacity  storage  tanks  for  low  pressure  substances  or  pres- 
surized natural  gas  storage  tanks  are  exempt  from  permitting  require- 
ments. Sources  requiring  an  Authority  to  Construct  also  require  a 
Permit  to  Operate. 

Each  district  has  emission  standards  and  other  regulations  which 
specify  the  design  of  some  potential  sources  of  air  contaminant  emis- 
sions and  air  pollution  control  equipment. 

Environmental  Setting 

Climate  and  meteorology  in  the  project  area,  which  are  important 
in  determining  pollutant  dispersion,  are  described  in  Appendix  D.  The 
existing  air  quality  conditions  in  the  areas  which  would  be  affected 
by  the  proposed  pipeline  are  discussed  below.  Areas  that  would  be 
affected  by  project  emissions  include  primarily  the  San  Joaquin  Valley 
Air  Basin  (which  includes  Kern,  Kings,  Fresno,  Merced,  Stanislaus,  and 
San  Joaquin  counties)  and  part  of  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Area  Basin, 
primarily  Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  counties.  The  San  Francisco  Bay 
Area  Air  Basin  will  generally  only  be  affected  during  construction  of 
the  project. 

Ambient  concentrations  of  specific  pollutants  have  been  monitored 
at  several  locations  in  both  air  basins.  The  resulting  data  indicate 
that  air  quality  is  generally  good  with  respect  to  most  pollutants 
except  ozone  (O3),  carbon  monoxide  (CO),  and  total  suspended  partic- 
ulates (TSP),  concentrations  of  which  frequently  exceeded  state  and 
federal  air  quality  standards.  All  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Air 
Basin  is  classified  as  "nonattainment"*  for  ozone  and  carbon  monoxide. 
Stanislaus  County  is  also  nonattainment  for  carbon  monoxide.  There- 
fore, pollution  sources  associated  with  the  proposed  project  will  be 
subject  to  federal,  state,  and  local  regulations  to  restrict  increased 
net  emissions  of  these  pollutants  or  products  which  lead  to  their  for- 
mation. 

A  summary  of  the  federal  attainment  status  for  the  five 
criteria**  air  pollutants  in  the  counties  affected  by  the  proposed 


*EPA  air  quality  designations  include  "attainment,"  "nonattainment," 
and  "unclassified." 

**According  to  EPA  nomenclature,  a  "criteria"  pollutant  is  one  for 
which  a  "criteria  document"  has  been  filed  and  thus  for  which 
ambient  standards  have  been  set. 

3-34 


project  is  given  in  Table  3-16.  All  of  these  counties  are  classified 
non attainment  for  ozone.  In  addition,  Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  and 
Stanislaus  counties  are  nonattainment  for  carbon  monoxide.  Counties 
in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Air  Basin  are  nonattainment  for  TSP. 

Ambient  air  pollutant  concentrations  have  been  monitored  by  the 
California  Air  Resources  Board  and  County  Air  Pollution  Control  Dis- 
tricts. Table  3-17  summarizes  three  years  of  data  on  maximum  pollu- 
tant concentrations  for  several  air  quality  monitoring  stations  in  the 
proposed  project  area. 

Ozone  is  a  secondary  pollutant  formed  in  the  atmosphere  by  chemi- 
cal reactions  involving  sunlight,  nitrogen  oxides  (N0X),  and  reac- 
tive hydrocarbons.  These  reactions  occur  over  a  several  hour  period 
while  the  reactants  are  carried  by  the  wind.  Table  3-18  summarizes 
the  number  of  occurrences  of  ozone  concentrations  which  exceeded  state 
and  federal  standards  from  1982  to  1984  at  several  monitoring  stations 
in  the  project  region."  Exceedances*  of  state  and  federal  standards 
over  the  same  period  by  the  inert  pollutant  carbon  monoxide  and  TSP 
are  summarized  in  Tables  3-19  and  3-20,  respectively. 

3.2.7  Socioeconomics 

Data  Sources 

information  from  the  following  federal,  state,  and  local  agencies 
was  used  to  describe  existing  socioeconomic  conditions  in  the  project 
area:  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census;  California 
Department  of  Finance;  California  Board  of  Equalization;  California 
Regional  Water  Quality  Control  Board,  Central  Valley  District;  Kern 
County  Planning  and  Development  Services;  Kern  County  Board  of  Trade; 
Crown  Development  Corporation  of  Kings  County;  Fresno  County  and  City 
Chamber  of  Commerce;  Merced  County  Office  of  Economic  and  Strategic 
Development;  Stanislaus  County  Chief  Property  Appraiser;  Stanislaus 
County  Housing  Element;  San  Joaquin  County  General  Plan;  Contra  Costa 
County;  City  of  Coalinga,  City  Manager;  and  Pannell  Kerr  Forster's 
hotel  forecast  (1985)  for  the  state. 

Regulatory  Setting 

No  regulatory  authorities  or  procedures  other  than  NEPA  and  CEQA 
apply  to  the  proposed  project  with  regard  to  the  project's  socio- 
economic setting.  County  and  municipal  permits  or  approvals  are 
addressed  under  the  land  use  section  (see  Section  3.2.9).  Federal, 
state,  and  local  tax  laws  pertain  to  the  project  and  project  personnel 
regardless  of  the  siting  of  the  project,  as  do  a  wide  range  of  other 
laws  and  regulations  governing  normal  business  and  social  inter- 
actions. 


*"Exceedance"  is  a  term  used  by  the  EPA  to  mean  an  event  characterized 
by  a  measured  ambient  concentration  in  excess  of  a  National  Ambient 
Air  Quality  Standard  (NAAQS).   It  is  not  necessarily  a  violation  of 
the  standard,  which  may  depend  on  the  number  or  frequency  of 
exceedances. 

3-35 


Table  3-1 6 

AIR  QUALITY  DESIGNATIONS  FOR  COUNTIES  TRAVERSED  BY 

THE  PROPOSED  PIPELINE  BASED  ON 

NATIONAL  AMBIENT  AIR  QUALITY  STANDARDS 


Oj 

CO 

N02 

TSP 

S02 

Basin/ County 

Prams  ry 

Secondary 

Primary 

Secondary 

San  Joaquin 
Valley  Air  Basin* 

Fresno 

N 

A 

A 

N 

N 

U 

U 

Kern 

N 

A 

A 

N 

N 

A 

A 

Kings 

N 

U 

U 

N 

hi 

U 

u 

Merced 

N 

A 

A 

N 

N 

U 

u 

San  Joaquin 

N 

A 

A 

N 

N 

II 

u 

Stanislaus 

N 

A 

A 

N 

N 

u 

u 

San  Francisco 

Bay   Area 

Air  Basin 

Alameda 

N 

N 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Contra  Costa 

N 

N 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

♦Portions  of  the  air  basins  potentially    affected  by   the  proposed   project. 

A  =  Attainment 
N   =  Nonattainment 
U  =  Unclassified 


3-36 


Table  3-17 

MAXIMUM  POLLUTANT   CONCENTRATIONS 
IN  PROJECT  AREA1 


CO 

I 

CO 


Ozone 
(ppm) 

CO 

(ppm) 

N02 
(ppm) 

S02 
(ppm) 

TSP 
(ug/m3) 

Lead 
(ug/m5) 

1-Hr 

1-Hr 

8-Hr 

1-Hr 

Annual^ 

1-Hr 

24-Hr 

Annual^ 

24-Hr 

Annual' 

30-Day 

Quarterly 

McKittnck 

158 

65.6* 

.10 

.08* 

Taft 

215 

94.5 

.11 

.11 

Bakersfield  (Cheater) 

.14 

14.0* 

11.30* 

.14 

.030 

.15 

.050 

.006 

Oildale   (Manor   St.) 

.14 

.11 

.023 

.11* 

.047* 

.011* 

274 

121.9 

.34 

.30 

Kern  Refuge 

165 

53.4 

.11 

.10 

Kettleman  City   (Hwy.  41) 

.10* 

246 

90.6 

Han  ford 

.13* 

274 

90.1 

Viaalia  (Church   St.) 

13.0* 

5.40* 

.11 

.022 

.02 

.015 

.001 

Sequoia  (Ash  Mtn.) 

.08 

.07* 

Coalinga 

.11 

202 

57.0* 

Five   Points 

.11* 

3.0 

2.30 

.05* 

.011* 

191 

68.4* 

Fresno    (Olive   St.) 

.11 

21.0* 

.15* 

.027 

.07* 

.020 

.006 

.98/ .92 

Los   Banos 

131 

62.4* 

Merced    (Health) 

7.0* 

3.90* 

.07* 

.020* 

110 

66.8* 

.37 

.3  2 

Turlock 

.16* 

200 

77.0* 

Modesto    (Uth   St.) 

.14* 

15.0* 

8.60* 

.13 

.026 

.05 

.017* 

.002 

Stockton   (Hazelton) 

.15 

17.0* 

9.70* 

.19 

.022 

.04 

.016 

.003 

186 

81.9* 

Stockton    (Pacific) 

177 

60.9* 

.51 

.4  3 

Livermore 

.16 

12.0 

4.  BO 

.15 

.019 

132 

55.7* 

.35 

.33 

Concord 

.15 

1B.0 

6.40 

.13 

.024 

.07 

.012 

.000 

141 

45.6 

.55 

.43 

Pittsburg 

.16 

9.0 

5.10 

.13 

.018 

.18 

.050 

.001 

128 

57.4 

.35* 

.31* 

Modesto    (Oakdale) 

165 

55.0* 

includes  data  from  19B2-1984. 
^Calculated  by    arithmetic  mean. 
^Calculated  by   geometric  mean. 
Method  used  was  atmospheric   absorption. 

♦Data  presented  are  valid  but   incomplete,    in  that   an  insufficient  number  of  valid  data  points  were  collected  to  meet   EPA  and/or  ARB  criteria 

for    representativeness. 


Table  3-18 

OZONE s     DAYS/HOURS  ABOVE   STATE*  AND 
FEDERAL**   1-HOUR  STANDARDS 


CO 

l 

CO 

co 


1982 

1983 

1985 

>_  0.10  ppm 

>  0.12  ppm 

>  0.10  ppm 

>  0.12  ppm 

>,0.10  ppm 

>  0.12  ppm 

Bakersfield 

45/136 

7/13 

50/145 

7/10 

39/101 

2/2 

Fresno 

21/47 

1/1 

23/55 

2/2 

5/6 

— 

Five  Points 

0/0 

— 

4/8 

~ 

1/2 

-- 

Merced 

48/199 

6/10 

— 

~ 

— 

— 

Modesto 

10/15 

— 

12/30 

2/2 

38/119 

4/10 

Stockton 

6/10 

— 

17/40 

4/6 

19/35 

2/2 

Livermore 

9/20 

1/1 

20/43 

8/9 

32/79 

7/14 

Concord 

12/45 

1/1 

16/45 

4/5 

15/37 

3/3 

Source:  California  Air  Quality  Data;  Annual  Summaries,  published  by  California  Air  Resources  Board. 

♦California  1-hour  ozone  standard  is  0.10  ppm,  not  to  be  equaled. 

**Federal  1-hour  ozone  standard  is  0.12  ppm,  not  to  be  exceeded  more  than  an  average  of  once  per 
year. 


Table  3-19 

HOURLY  CO  CONCENTRATIONS  >  20  ppm  (CALIFORNIA  AMBIENT  AIR  QUALITY  STANDARD), 
8-HOUR  MEAN  CO  CONCENTRATIONS  >  9.1  ppm  (CALIFORNIA  AMBIENT  AIR  QUALITY  STANDARD), 
8-HOUR  MEAN  CO  CONCENTRATIONS  J   10  mg/m3  (NATIONAL  AMBIENT  AIR  QUALITY  STANDARD) 


CO 

I 

CO 
U3 


1982 

(Day/Hour) 

1983 

(Day/Hour 

) 

1984 

(Day/Hour) 

>  20  ppm 

£ 

9.1  ppm 

> 

10  mg/m3 

>  20  ppm 

> 

9.1  ppm 

10  mg/m3 

>  20  ppm 

> 

9.1  ppm 

> 

10  mg/m3 

Baker8f ield 

0/0 

1/1 

1/1 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

— 

Fresno 

0/0 

4/4 

3/3 

0/0 

6/6 

6/6 

1/1 

4/4 

3/3 

Five  Points 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

— 

— 

-- 

Merced 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Modesto 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

— 

Stockton 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

1/1 

1/1 

0/0 

0/0 

— 

Livermore 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

— 

Concord 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

0/0 

— 

Source:   California  Air  Quality  Data;  Annual  Summaries,  published  by  California  Air  Resources  Board. 


Table  3-20 

TOTAL  SUSPENDED  PARTICULATESs  OCCURRENCES  OF  24-HOUR  AVERAGE  CONCENTRATIONS 
>  100  jjg/m^  (CALIFORNIA  STANDARD)  AND  >  150  ^ig/m3  (NATIONAL  SECONDARY  STANDARD) 


O 


1982 

1983 

1984 

_>  100  pg/m 

3    > 

150  ug/m3 

>  100  jjg/m3 

>  150  ug/m3 

> 

100  ^g/m 

3    > 

150  jjg/m3 

McKittrick 

23 

1 

3 

0 

~~ 

Bakersfield 

31 

13 

32 

15 

37 

13 

Fresno 

38 

9 

23 

5 

31 

5 

Five  Points 

18 

4 

11 

6 

15 

A 

Merced 

3 

0 

10 

2 

19 

3 

Modesto 

12 

2 

7 

1 

9 

1 

Stockton 

12 

0 

17 

4 

13 

4 

Livermore 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

Concord 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

Source:   California  Air  Quality  Data;  Annual  Summaries,  published  by  California  Air  Resources  Board. 


Socioeconomic  Setting 

The  proposed  pipeline  route  traverses  eight  counties  in  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  in  central  California:  Kern,  Kings,  Fresno,  Merced, 
Stanislaus,  San  Joaquin,  Alameda,  and  Contra  Costa.  Socioeconomic 
conditions  in  these  counties  are  diverse,  ranging  from  agri-based  to 
retail  trade/ service-oriented  economies. 

Socioeconomic  profiles  for  each  of  the  eight  counties  are 
presented  in  Appendix  C  and  these  include  information  on  population, 
employment,  economic  diversity,  income,  transportation  networks,  and 
housing.  Table  3-21  presents  a  summary,  and  salient  socioeconomic 
characteristics  are  described  below.  Note  that  unemployment 
statistics  are  seasonally  adjusted. 

Kern  County  is  the  nation's  third  most  productive  agricultural 
county  and  is  the  leading  oil  and  mineral  producing  county  in  both 
California  and  the  United  States  as  a  whole.  Agriculture  is  also  the 
largest  economic  sector  in  Kings  County,  Fresno  County,  and  Merced 
County.  Stanislaus  and  San  Joaquin  counties  have  a  relatively  diverse 
economic  base  including  agriculture,  government  services,  manufactur- 
ing, and  wholesale/retail  trade.  Alameda  County  and  Contra  Costa 
County  economics  have  been  changing  from  rural  to  suburban  and  are 
based  on  a  mix  of  economic  activities  including  retail /wholesale 
trade,  services,  government,  industry,  and  agriculture. 

Alameda  is  the  most  populated  county  (1,208,200)  and  Kings  County 
is  the  least  populated  (85,300).  The  labor  force  and  employment  have 
been  steadily  increasing  along  with  the  population.  In  March  of  1986, 
unemployment  rates  ranged  from  approximately  17%  in  Fresno,  Merced, 
and  Stanislaus  counties  to  a  low  of  5.9%  in  Contra  Costa  County. 
Average  per  capita  income  ranged  from  $15,785  in  Contra  Costa  County 
to  $9,285  in  Kings  County. 

The  principal  communities  within  50  miles  of  the  proposed  route 
are  usually  small  in  the  southern  and  central  portion  of  the  project 
area  (see  Table  3-22).  Tourism  is  generally  important  and  accounts 
for  $9  million  in  annual  business  revenue  in  Kings  County,  approx- 
imately $200  million  in  Kern  and  Fresno  counties,  and  over  $850 
million  in  Alameda  County. 

Note  that  with  respect  to  the  lodging  industry  (i.e.,  transient 
hotels  and  motels),  the  entire  project  area  is  within  the  state's 
Central  Valley  and  San  Francisco  Bay  Area  tourism  regions.  In  the 
Central  Valley  region  as  a  whole,  the  lodging  supply  increased  by  8.8% 
between  1984-1985,  and  is  projected  to  increase  by  another  4.7%  in 
1986.  Of  the  total  8  million  rooms  available  annually  (i.e.,  the  num- 
ber of  rooms  available  on  a  daily  basis,  365  days  a  year)  in  the 
region,  approximately  64.5%  are  typically  occupied;  this  annual  occu- 
pancy rate  is  slightly  below  the  67.6%  rate  for  the  state  as  a  whole. 
In  contrast,  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Area  region,  which  encompasses  the 
northern  portion  of  the  proposed  project,  has  traditionally  maintained 
occupancy  rates  of  over  70%;  of  the  18.4  million  rooms  available,  12.9 
million  are  occupied  on  an  annual  basis  (Pannell  Kerr  Foster  1985). 
These  general  descriptions  of  occupancy  rates  apply  to  the  project 

3-41 


Table  3-21 
SUMMARY   ECONOMIC   INFORMATION 


I 

ro 


County 


Kern 


I960' 


Populat  ion 


Per  Capita 

Pereonal    Income 

(dollars) 


1986"  Si   Increase  19BI  19B2  19B3 


Stats 
Rank 


Unemployed 
(March 
1986) 


Housing  Stock 
(Units,  1980) 


Primary 

Ccononlc 

Sectors 


403,089  466,800  20.77  10,424        10,633        10,646  2B 


Kmga  73,738  B5,3U0  15.68 

Fresno  514,621  580,200  12.74 

Merced  134,560  162,100  20.47 

Stanislaus  265,900  309,400  16.36 

San  Joaquin  347,342  423,200  21.84 

Alameda  1,105,379  1,208,200  9.30 

Contra  Costa  656, 3B0  724,000  10.30 


9,197  9,162  9,285  50 

10,451  10,542  10,922  26 

9,302  9,536  9,730  40 

10,095  10.43B  10,667  31 

10,474  10,621  10,906  27 

12,483  13,148  13,971  3 

14,243  14,668  15,765  5 


14.1  165,959  Agriculture,  mineral 

production,  manufactur- 
ing,  defense/aeroapaca 
industry 


1984  Number  of 

Touriaa  1984  Hotel/ 

Expenditures  Tourism-Related  Motel 

( $)  JobB  Rooms 


200,000,000 


4,286  >3,000 


14.9 

29,000 

Agriculture,  government, 

trade 

9,045,000 

202 

100-150 

16.8 

60,000 

Agriculture,  government, 
manufacturing,  services 

224,674,000 

4,952 

>6,400 

16.  B 

55,091 

Agriculture,  government, 

trade,   services 

33,973,000 

77<! 

2,000 

17.0 

116,049 

Agriculture,   services, 
manufacturing 

73,246,000 

1,723 

1.450T 

13.9 

156,053 

Government,  manufacturing, 
agriculture,   trade 

100,443,000 

2,292 

760ttt 

6.5 

475,252 

Services,    trade,  govern- 
ment, manufacturing 

B57,3O6,O0O 

14,974 

10,000tt 

5.9 

278,400 

Trade,    services,  govern- 
ment, manufacturing 

121,287,000 

3,171 

10,000tt 

■U.S.   Department    of   Commerce,    Bureau   of  the  Census,    19BQ  Cenauo  of  Housing. 
••U.S.  Department   of  Finance,   Population  Research  unit. 

fModesto   area   only 
Ttfllemeda   and  Contra   Costa   combined. 
rtTLounty  total   not    available!    shows  rooms  available   within  >U  milea  of  pipeline  route. 

Sources:      ■      Survey    of  Current    Business,    April    19bi,    U.S.    Department    of  Commerce,    Bureau   of  Economic   Analysis. 
■     U.S.    Department   of  Commerce,    Bureau   of   Lha  Census,    19U2;    California  Department    of   Finance    19B5. 
•     Chambers    of   Commerce,    louriat    and  Convention   Bureaus,    Boards    of   Trade. 


Table  3-22 

POPULATIONS    (1986)   OF  THE   PRINCIPAL  COMMUNITIES 
WITHIN  50  MILES  OF   THE   PROPOSED  ROUTE  BY  COUNTY 


County 


Community 


Population 
(1986) 


Kern 
Kings 


Taft 

Avenal 

Kettlenian  City 
Han ford 


6,177 


4,544 
1,051* 
24,861 


Fresno 


Fresno 

Coalinga 

Mendota 


285,000 
7,825 
6,875 


Merced 


Merced 
Los  Banos 
Gustine 
Dos  Palos 


46,410 

12,619 

3,569 

4,184 


Stanislaus 


Patterson 

Newman 

Modesto 


5,020 

3,418 

131,377 


San  Joaquin 


Tracy 
Stockton 


25,436 
181,625 


Alameda 


Livermore 

Dublin 

Alameda 


53,981 
17,793 
75,232 


Contra  Costa 


Concord 
Martinez 


107,900 
27,460 


Source:      California  Department   of  Finance  data 
for  1986. 

*     1980  Census  data. 


3-43 


area;  as  a  result,  only  county-specific  lodging  data  are  presented  in 
Appendix  c.  The  transient  lodgings  listed  for  each  county  in  the 
appendix  include  only  hotels  and  motels  within  50  miles  of  the  route, 
and  of  these,  only  those  facilities  rated  by  the  American  Automobile 
Association  (AAA)  meet  certain  quality  standards.   Since  no  camping 
areas  or  non-AAA  listed  facilities  are  included,  the  estimate  of 
available  transient  lodging  is  necessarily  conservative. 

The  eight-county  region  has  a  well -developed  infrastructure  in- 
cluding several  interstate  and  state  highways.  Major  highways  crossed 
by  the  proposed  route  are  listed  in  Table  3-23  by  county.  The  South- 
ern Pacific  Railroad  is  crossed  in  Kings  County  and  in  Fresno  County. 

3.2.8  Noise 

Data  Sources 

The  following  federal,  state,  and  county  agencies  and  regulatory 
documents  were  consulted  in  reviewing  the  environmental  noise  feature 
of  the  proposed  pipeline:  EPA,  D0Ts  OSHA,  the  California  Government 
Code,  and  the  noise  elements  of  the  various  general  plans  of  the  eight 
affected  counties , 

Regulatory  Setting 

Neither  the  federal  government  nor  the  State  of  California  has 
specific  regulations  for  community  noise  that  are  directly  applicable 
to  the  proposed  project.  The  state  does  require  that  counties  and 
cities  prepare  noise  elements  as  part  of  their  mandated  general  plans 
(California  Government  Code  ss.65302[g]) .  The  state  has  also  issued 
guidelines  for  preparation  of  these  noise  elements  indicating  the 
limits  of  acceptable  community  noise  exposure  levels  which  will  apply 
to  the  proposed  route.  The  guidelines  indicate  that  an  exterior  noise 
exposure  up  to  60  dB(A)*  L^  or  Community  Noise  Equivalent  Level 
(CNEL)  is  "normally  acceptable"  for  low  density  residential  areas, 
which  is  the  most  restrictive  category.  Among  the  various  noise 
receptors  along  the  proposed  route,  it  is  expected  that  only  those 
near  a  proposed  injection  or  booster  station  would  be  affected  by 
project-related  noise  beyond  the  construction  period. 

Guidelines  and  standards  regarding  noise  are  discussed  below  for 
each  of  the  counties  traversed  by  the  proposed  pipeline. 

Kern  County.  Kern  County  has  a  specific  noise  ordinance  that  may 
require  an  acoustical  study.  This  decision  is  made  by  the  planning 
director  for  the  county  on  a  project-specific  basis. 


*dB(A)  =  decibels  (20  micropascals)  on  the  "A"  scale  of  the  sound 
level  meter  (American  National  Standards  Institute  1971).  Ldn  = 
the  day-night  sound  level  (24-hour  equivalent  level)  calculated  by 
adding  10  decibels  to  sound  levels  from  10  p.m.  to  7  a.m. 


3-44 


Table  3-23 

MAJOR  HIGHWAYS  NEAR  AND/OR  CROSSED 
BY  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE,  BY  COUNTY 


U.S.  and 
Interstate 

State 

County 

Highways 

Highways 

Kern 

5 

58,  33,  46,  99 

Kings 

5 

33,  43,  41,  99 

Fresno 

5 

198,  145,  33, 
99 

Merced 

5 

33,  152,  202, 
99 

Stanislaus 

5 

33,  132,  99 

San  Joaquin 

580 

4,  120,  99 

Alameda 

580,  680 
Route  50 

84,  21,  9 
17 

Contra  Costa 

680, 

580 

4 

3-45 


Kings  County.  Kings  County  has  recommended  standards  in  its 
noise  element  of  60  dB(A)  in  residential  areas  during  daylight  hours, 
55  dB(A)  from  7  to  10  p.m.,  and  50  dB(A)  from  10  p.m.  to  7  a.m.,  for 
L(jn  noise  levels.*  Exterior  industrial  source  noise  levels  are 
limited  to  70  dB(A)  at  all  times.  Allowances  are  made  for  transi- 
tional periods  during  which  sound  levels  are  being  brought  into  com- 
pliance. Transition  periods  may  not  exceed  three  years,  and  at  no 
time  may  sound  levels  exceed  80  dB(A)  in  commercial  and  industrial 
settings. 

Fresno  County.  The  noise  element  developed  by  Fresno  County 
indicates  a  maximum  daily  Ldn  for  outdoor  residential  locations  of 
between  45  to  60  dB(A) ,  depending  on  the  type  of  neighborhood.  An 
l_dn  f°r  commercial/industrial  sites  was  not  developed,  but  maximum 
allowable  daytime  and  nighttime  levels  are  between  65  and  70  dB(A). 
Fresno  County  has  indicated  that  areas  of  non-intensive  development 
must  not  have  stationary  noise  sources  which  have  an  "adverse  effect" 
on  adjoining  property.  Specific  noise  impact  is  evaluated  on  an 
individual  basis  with  implementation  of  mitigation  measures  as 
necessary. 

Stanislaus  County.  Stanislaus  County's  noise  element  is  non- 
specific and  uses  instead  state  and  federal  standards  applicable  to  a 
given  activity  and  location.  As  such,  it  contains  no  specific 
regulations  pertaining  to  the  pipeline  or  related  activities. 

San  Joaquin  County.  Noise  studies  conducted  throughout  San 
Joaquin  County  have  resulted  in  noise  contour  maps  of  that  region. 
State  noise  insulation  standards  are  applicable  to  all  new  residential 
and  other  sensitive  receptors  that  are  to  be  within  60  dB(A)  contours. 
Exterior  sound  levels  are  to  be  reduced  to  below  65  dB(A)  for  new 
noise-sensitive  uses  where  possible. 

A1 ameda  County.  The  criteria  established  by  Alameda  County  state 
that  exterior  noise  should  not  exceed  60  to  70  L^  for  residential 
locales.  Commerical/industrial  areas  are  limited  to  70  to  75  dB(A) 
Ldn,  while  outdoor  recreation  areas  can  have  a  maximum  of  75  dB(A) 

Ldn- 

Contra  Costa  County.  The  noise  policies  set  forth  in  the  Contra 
Costa  County  noise  element  allow  for  only  45  dB(A)  (CNEL)  in  extremely 
noise-sensitive  land  use  areas,  such  as  park  and  recreation  areas  of 
existing  or  proposed  residential  development.  The  county  will  attempt 
to  maintain  levels  below  60  dB(A)  (CNEL)  in  other  residential  areas. 
Mitigation  measures  are  to  be  implemented  to  bring  high-level  noise 
sources  below  70  dB(A)  (CNEL). 

Environmental  Setting 

With  the  exception  of  the  three  counties  at  the  northern  terminus 
of  the  proposed  pipeline,  most  of  the  areas  crossed  by  the  route  are 
predominantly  rural  or  agricultural,  with  generally  few  noise- 
sensitive  receptors,  such  as  residences,  schools,  or  parks,  in  the 
immediate  vicinity.  Existing  background  ambient  sound  levels  in 
various  environments  can  generally  by  typified  as  shown  in  Figure  3-4. 


3-46 


LOCATION 

NOISE  LEVEL  (dBA) 

40              50              60             70 

SO 

90 

APARTMENT  NEXT  TO  FREEWAY 

D 

0.75  MILES  FROM  RUNWAY  AT 

1 

MAJOR  AIRPORT 

DOWNTOWN  AREA  WITH  SOME 

□ 

CONSTRUCTION  ACTIVITY 

URBAN  H1GH-DENSITY  APARTMENT 

1 

— 

URBAN  ROW  HOUSING  ON  MAJOR  AVENUE 

1 

OLD  URBAN  RESIDENTIAL  AREA 

1 

WOODED  RESIDENTIAL 

1 

AGRICULTURAL  CROPLAND 

1 

RURAL  RESIDENTIAL 

1 

WILDERNESS 

1 

SOURCE:    USEPA  1978. 


Figure  3-4       OUTDOOR  DAY-NIGHT  AVERAGE  SOUND  LEVELS  AT 
VARIOUS  LOCATIONS 


3-47 


As  this  figure  shows,  background  ambient  sound  levels  are  represented 
by  a  rural  low  level  of  noise,  typical  also  of  residential  areas  in 
the  evening.  Where  the  project  parallels  Interstate  Highway  5  (1-5), 
near  highway  crossings,  and  also  near  developments  at  the  northern  end 
of  the  pipeline,  existing  noise  levels  will  be  substantially  higher 
and  locally  will  exceed  70  dB(A). 

3.2.9  Land  Use  and  Recreation 

This  section  describes. land  ownership,  existing  and  proposed  land 
use  patterns,  and  recreational  facilities  that  may  be  affected  by  the 
proposed  project.  It  also  summarizes  local  permits  and  approvals  and 
issues  of  concern.  A  county-specific  description  of  land  use  and 
recreation  facilities  for  the  project  area  is  contained  in  Appendix  C, 
which  includes  maps  showing  the  locations  of  sensitive  land  use 
features. 

Data  Sources 

Aerial  photographs,  USGS  maps,  BLM  land  status  maps,  and  compre- 
hensive county  land  use  plans  and  maps  were  reviewed  for  existing  land 
uses  within  the  project  area.  State,  countys  and  municipal  agencies 
contacted  included:  California  Department  of  Parks  and  Recreation; 
California  Department  of  Transportation;  California  Department  of 
Water  Resources;  Contra  Costa  County  Community  Development  Department; 
East  Bay  Regional  Park  District;  Kern  County  Board  of  Trade;  Kern 
County  Planning  and  Development  Services;  Kern  County  Parks  and 
Recreation  Department;  Kings  County  Planning  Agency;  Kings  County 
Public  Works  Department;  Fresno  County  Parks  and  Recreation  Depart- 
ment; Fresno  County  Planning  Department;  Fresno  County  Zoning;  Fresno 
County  Public  Works  and  Development  Services  Department;  Merced  County 
Public  Works  Department;  Stanislaus  County  Public  Works  Department; 
San  Joaquin  County  Public  Works  Department;  Alameda  County  Planning 
Commission;  City  of  Antioch;  City  of  Coalinga;  and  City  of  Pittsburg 
Community  Development. 

Regulatory  Setting 

The  federal  and  state  land  use  permits  which  are  required  will  be 
those  which  pertain  to  the  crossing  of  federal  and  state-owned  lands, 
and  waterways  across  which  rights-of-way  need  to  be  granted.  Land  use 
controls  are  mostly  of  a  local  nature  implemented  at  the  county  and 
municipal  level  and  include  zoning  permits,  approvals  to  cross  county 
roads,  blasting  permits,  and  building  permits.  Numerous  water  dis- 
tricts require  permits  to  cross  canals  and  some  require  water  appro- 
priation permits.  The  types  of  permits  vary  from  county  to  county  and 
are  identified  in  Appendix  C  for  each  county  in  the  project  area  (see 
also  Table  1-1). 

Environmental  Setting 

The  proposed  pipeline  will  be  constructed  through  eight  counties. 
Since  each  of  these  counties  has  its  own  land  use  plans  and  goals, 
each  county  is  discussed  separately  in  Appendix  C.  Summary  informa- 
tion is  presented  in  Tables  3-24  through  3-27. 

3-48 


Table  3-24 
DISTRIBUTION  OF  LAND  USE  TYPES  ALONG  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


Total     Irrigated  Dryland 

Miles  of  Agriculture  Agriculture     Rangeland 

Pipeline  

Per 

County  Miles    %  Miles    %         Miles    % 


Industrial/ 
Commercial 


Miles 


Shrubland/ 
Woodland 


Miles 


Kern 

44 

Kings 

n 

Fresno 

65 

Merced 

35 

Stanislaus 

30 

San  Joaquin 

15 

Alameda 


Contra  Costa 


15  34.1 


18  27.4         0 


8  22.3         0 


0.3         1, 


0  0 


8.2       16 


47 


0  27 


37 


3.2 


J         5.6       28 


0  15 


0  23 


36.6 

9 

21. 

1 

0 

0 

63.7 

0.5 

1. 

9 

0 

0 

72.6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

77.7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

93.3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100.0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100.0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

62.7 

3 

7 

6 

10 

26.5 

Total 


258 


49 


19*  8 


178 


6955         13 


5%  10 


3-49 


Table  3-25 
SENSITIVE  LAND  USES  ALONG  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


County 


Mile- 
post 


Feature 


Proximity  to 
Pipeline  (miles) 


Kern 


1 
2 

2 
3 
5 
6 
8 
9 
19 


Industrial  Area 

Derby  Acres  Park 

BLM  Lands 

Town  of  Derby  Acres 

BLM  Lands 

State  Highway  58 

BLM  Lands 

Industrial  Area 

Industrial  Area 


Adjacent 

1,0 

Crosses 

0.7 

Crosses 

Crosses 

Crosses 

Adjacent 

Adjacent 


20 
31 
31 
31 
32 
36 


State  Highway  33 
Lost  Hills  Park 
Lost  Hills  School 
State  Highway  46 
California  Aqueduct 
Interstate  Highway  5 


Crosses 

0.5 

0.5 

Crosses 

Crosses 

Crosses 


Kings 


61 
61 
63 
63 
70 


California  Aqueduct 

State  Highway  41 

Kettleman  City  Fishing  Access 

Town  of  Kettleman  City 

BLM  Lands 


Crosses 

Crosses 

0.3 

0.5 

Crosses 


Fresno 


73 
75 

80 
35 

87 

90 

93 

136 


Interstate  5  Rest  Area 

Interstate  Highway  5 

Proposed  Coalinga  Air  Cargo  Port 

Pleasant  Valley  Canal  (Bureau  of 
Land  Reclamation) 

State  Highway  198 

State  Highway  145 

State  Highway  33 

Little  Panoche  Reservoir 


0.2 
Crosses 

Crosses 
Crosses 

Crosses 
Crosses 
Crosses 

0.9 


Merced 


152 
153 

157 

158- 
160 

159 

160 

161- 
165 
161- 
165 

162 


Bureau  of  Reclamation  Lands 

Los  Banos  Creek  Reservoir/ 
Recreation  Area 

Billy  Wright  Landfill 

Bureau  of  Reclamation  Lands 

State  Highway  152 

California  Aqueduct 

San  Luis  Reservoir  State  Recreation 

Area 

San  Luis  Reservoir/O'Neill  Forebay 

State  Highway  207 


Crosses 
Crosses 

Adjacent 
Crosses 

Crosses 
Crosses 


Crosses 
Crosses 


3-50 


Table  3-25   CCont.) 


County 

Mile- 
Post 

Feature 

Proximity  to 
Pipeline  (miles) 

163 

163 

165 

166- 

172 

Delta  Mendota  Canal 
Delta  Forebay  Golf  Club 
California  Aqueduct 
United  Technologies  Proposed 
Production  Plant 

Crosses 
0.9 

Crosses 
Ad j  acent 

Stanislaus 

201 

Interstate  5  Rest  Area 

Adjacent 

San  Joaquin 

206 
207 

Hetch-Hetchy  Underground  Aqueduct 
Tracy  Golf  Course  and  Country  Club 

Crosses 
Crosses 

Alameda 

219 

Interstate  Highway  580 

Crosses 

222 

Bethany  Reservoir  State  Recreation 
Area 

Crosses 

Contra  Costa 

226 
234 

Proposed  East  Contra  Costa  County 

Airport 

Marsh  Creek  Reservoir 

Adjacent 
0.8 

240 

Antioch  Airport 

0.3 

240 

Municipal  Golf  Course 

0.3 

241 

Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional 
Preserve 

Crosses 

241 

Contra  Loma  Regional  Park 

Adjacent 

244 

Residential  Area 

0.4 

245 

Residential  Area 

Adjacent 

247 

Stoneman  Park  and  Proposed 
Reservoir 

Adjacent 

249 

Residential  Area 

0.3 

251 

State  Highway  4 

Crosses 

253 

Naval  Weapons  Center,  Concord 

Crosses 

254 

Residential  Area 

0.2 

254 

Naval  Weapons  Station 

Adjacent 

256 

Industrial  Area 

Adjacent 

256 

Pacheco  Creek  Canal 

Crosses 

257 

Residential  Area 

Adjacent 

257 

Interstate  Highway  680 

Crosses 

3-51 


Table  3-26 
RECREATIONAL  FACILITIES!  VISITORS  INFORMATION 


County 


Kern 


Kings 


Size    Capacity        Use 
Facility      (acres)  (#  Visitors)   (Visitors/Yr.) 


Derby  Acres      3.8 


Lost  Hills       7.6 


Kettleman  City    0.5 
Fishing  Access 


No  record 


No  record 


Facilities 


Picnicking j 

restroomsj 

playgrounds 

Picnicking; 

restrooms 

playgrounds 


Fresno 


1-5  Rest  Area 


11 


Merced 


Little  Panoche 
Retention  Res- 
ervoir 

Los  Bancs  Creek 
Reservoir  State 
Recreation  Area 


2,475 


74,090 
(1985  data) 


San  Luis  Reser- 
voir State  Park 

23,551 

■=„„ 

490,759 
(1985  data) 

--- 

Delta  Forebay 
Gulf  Club 

— 

___ 

— 

— 

Stanislaus 

1-5  Rest  Area 

__ 

— 

— 

San  Joaquin 

Tracy  Golf  and 
Country  Club 

140 

— 

210  member- 
ships,  use 
anytime 

Golf;   swimming 

Alameda 

Bethany  Reser- 
State  recrea- 
tion area 

300 

No   maximum 
capacity 

16,575 

(7/84-6/85) 

Picnic  areas; 
fish  ing 

Contra  Costa 

Black  Diamond 
Mine  Regional 
Preserve 

3,400 

Varies 

No   record 

Coal  mine, 
silica  mine 

Contra  Loma 
Regional   Park 

83- acre 

lake; 

776 

total 

5,000 
per  day 

600,000 

Swimming , 
boat    rental; 
picnics   (day 
use  only) ; 
fishing;   wind- 
surfing;  hunt- 
ing;  horseback 
riding 

Stoneman  Park 

278.87 

No   record 

No    record 

Golf  course 

3-52 


Table  3-27 
EXISTING  LANDFILLS  NEAR  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


County 


Landfill 


Type 


Available 

Capacity 

(cubic  yards) 


Anticipated  Date 
of  Full  Capacity 


Kern 


Taft  Landfill 
Buttonwillow  Landfill 
Lost  Hills  Landfill 


Sanitary 
Sanitary 
Sanitary 


850,000 
208,000 
1,874,000 


2048 
2003 
2005 


Kings 


Corcoran  Landfill 
Hanford  Landfill 


Sanitary 

Hazardous 

Materials 


2013 
1993 


Fresno       Coalinga  Landfill  Sanitary 

West  American  Avenue  Landfill   Sanitary 


500,000  -  700,000     2005 
>400,000  2005 


Merced 


Billy  Wright  Landfill 


Sanitary  390,0000 


1991 


Stanislaus    Fink  Landfill 


Sanitary    500,000** 


2015 


San  Joaquin   Corral  Hollow  Landfill 

Alameda      Altamont  Sanitary  Landfill 

Contra  Cost   Contra  Costa  Landfill 
Acme  Fill 
Proposed  Kirker  Pass 


Sanitary 


Sanitary 

Sanitary 
Sanitary 
Sanitary 


650,000 
4,900,000 

* 
26,000,000 


1990 


2019 


1992-1994*** 
1987-1989*** 
2012-2020*** 


•Unknown 
♦♦Expansion  planned  for  early  1990s  will  add  13.6  million  cubic  yards  of  capacity  to  this 
landfill. 
♦♦♦Environmental  Impact  Planning  Corporation,  1986. 

Source:  Ecology  and  Environment,  Inc.;  based  on  County  Public  Works  and  Engineering  Depart- 
ment estimates. 


3-53 


The  data  in  Table  3-24  indicate  that  the  proposed  project  will  be 
across  178  miles  (69%)  of  rangelands;  57  miles  of  croplands  (22%), 
which  are  mostly  irrigated;  10  miles  (4%)  of  shrub  and  woodlands;  and 
13  miles  (5%)  across  industrial /commercial  land. 

Land  ownership  data  are  presented  in  Table  2-3;  these  data  indi- 
cate that  the  project  will  cross  249  miles  (96%)  of  private  land  and  9 
miles  of  public  lands  mostly  managed  by  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation  (3.5 
miles)  and  the  BLM  (2.3  miles). 

Table  3-25  presents  a  detailed  inventory  of  land  use  features 
near  and/or  traversed  by  the  project.  The  details  pertaining  to 
recreation  areas  included  in  this  table  are  tabulated  separately  in 
Table  3-26. 

Table  3-27  lists  existing  landfills  which  might  be  available  for 
disposal  of  wastes  from  the  project  and  data  pertaining  to  these 
facilities. 

3.2.10  Visual  Resources 

Data  Sources 

A  review  of  existing  policies  regarding  visual  resource  manage- 
ment in  the  areas  along  the  proposed  route  was  conducted  to  determine 
which  portions  of  the  pipeline  right-of-way  and  ancillary  facility 
sites  would  be  located  in  visually  sensitive  areas  that  have  special 
policies  for  the  protection  of  visual  resources.  The  review  included 
the  general  plans  for  each  of  the  eight  counties  in  the  project  area; 
the  general  plans  for  the  East  Bay  Regional  Park  District  and  the 
CalTrans  Master  Plan  of  State  Highways  Eligible  for  Official  Scenic 
Highway  Designation;  the  visual  resource  objectives  and  policies  in 
the  general  plans  for  the  cities  of  Antioch,  Pittsburg,  and  Martinez; 
and  BLM's  revised  Visual  Resource  Management  Program  (BLM  1985). 

The  analysis  was  conducted  using  a  combination  of  aerial  photo- 
graphs and  large-scale  USGS  topographic  maps  to  determine  visibility 
and  landscape  characteristics.  On-site  inspections  were  made  and 
photographs  were  taken  in  sensitive  visual  resource  areas. 

Regulatory  Setting 

Federal .  Federal  regulations  regarding  visual  resources  apply 
only  to  lands  owned  and  managed  by  the  federal  government.  Only  a 
small  portion  of  the  project  (less  than  8  miles  of  right-of-way)  is 
located  on  federal  lands  including  lands  of  the  BLM,  Bureau  of  Reclam- 
ation (BOR),  and  Department  of  Defense  (DOD).  BOR  and  DOD  do  not  have 
specific  policies  for  visual  resource  management,  while  the  BLM  has 
developed  a  method  called  the  Visual  Resource  Management  (VRM)  system 
(BLM  1985).  The  VRM  system  is  applied  to  proposed  projects  to  deter- 
mine their  degree  of  potential  contrast  with  the  surrounding  landscape 
and  the  relation  to  the  specific  VRM  class  for  the  area  in  which  they 
would  occur.  An  explanation  of  the  system  appears  in  Appendix  E. 


3-54 


State.  Although  only  a  small  portion  of  the  project  (1  mile)  is 
located  on  state  land,  visual  resource  management  policies  would  apply 
along  designated  or  potentially  designated  scenic  routes  of  the  ■ 
California  Department  of  Transportation.  The  California  Scenic  High- 
way Program  was  established  in  1963  to  preserve  scenic  corridors.  The 
local  jurisdiction  is  responsible  for  preparing  a  program  to  protect 
or  enhance  scenic  corridors  selected  for  designation  as  a  State  Scenic 
Highway.  The  state's  minimum  requirements  are:  regulation  of  land 
use,  including  density  and  intensity  of  development;  land  and  site 
planning;  control  of  outdoor  advertising;  attention  to  and  control  of 
earthmoving  and  landscaping;  and  the  design  and  appearance  of  struc- 
tures. Development  and  activities  proposed  in  designated  scenic  cor- 
ridors are  governed  by  the  performance  standards  specified  in  the 
local  jurisdiction's  scenic  highways  program. 

County  and  Local .  County,  city,  and  other  local  jurisdictions 
have  established  visual  resource  management  objectives  and  policies  in 
their  general  plans  which  apply  to  various  portions  of  the  proposed 
project.  As  noted,  local  jurisdictions  apply  specific  policies  for 
control  of  visual  resource  alterations  along  designated  State  Scenic 
Highways.  In  addition,  many  local  jurisdictions  have  designated  other 
scenic  routes  and  have  established  protective  policies  for  areas  of 
high  scenic  value  or  sensitivity. 

Environmental  Setting 

Visual  Resource  Areas 

The  proposed  route  traverses  a  variety  of  visual  landscapes  com- 
posed of  varying  terrain,  rural  and  urban  settlement  patterns,  vegeta- 
tion, water  features,  roads,  trails,  utility  corridors,  and  other 
natural  features  and  cultural  modifications.  These  visual  elements 
have  been  characterized  and  classified  according  to  the  VRM  system 
developed  by  the  BLM,  but  with  modifications  for  this  project.  Under 
this  modified  VRM  classification  system,  both  scenic  quality  and 
sensitivity  level  are  combined  to  define  three  VRM  classes.  VRM 
classes  along  the  proposed  pipeline  route  at  the  ancillary  facilities 
sites  are  indicated  in  Tables  3-28  and  3-29. 

Visual  Resource  Management  Class  1.  VRM  Class  1  is  defined  as 
areas  of  superior  visual  landscapes  in  which  existing  management 
policies  guard  against  permanent  alteration  of  the  landscape.  Pro- 
posed landscape  alterations  may  be  controversial  and/or  require 
relocation/redesign  of  project  features  and/or  other  mitigation 
measures. 

Extensive  VRM  Class  1  areas  are  located  along  Segment  4  of  the 
proposed  route  in  Contra  Costa  County.  This  stems  in  part  from  the 
concentrations  of  large  populations  (viewers)  in  the  county,  including 
Pittsburg  and  Antioch.  The  VRM  Class  1  areas  along  the  pipeline  route 
are  located  predominantly  in  the  scenic  hill  lands  of  the  Coastal 
Range  in  Contra  Costa  County  near  dense  populations,  where  important 
areas  have  been  protected  as  part  of  the  East  Bay  Regional  Park 
District,  and  along  numerous  scenic  roads,  trails,  and  bicycle  paths. 


3-55 


Table  3-28 

MATRIX  OF  VISUAL  RESOURCE  AREAS 
ALONG  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


Segment 

Milepost 

VRM  Class 

General  Description 

View*  From 

0-2 

3 

Disturbed   flat  area,  oil 
field 

MG: 

Derby  Acres 

2-4 

2 

Open  plain 

FG: 

Derby  Acres 

4-8 

2 

Open,   low  hills 

MG: 

McKittrick 

8-12 

3 

Disturbed  flat  area,  oil 
field,   tanks 

MG; 

McKittrick 

12  -  18.5 

3 

Disturbed   flat  area,  oil 
field 

— 

2 

18.5  -  35 

3 

Flat  agricultural   fields 

— 

2 

35-40 

3 

Flat  fields  and  trans- 
mission lines 

FG, 

MGs      1-5 

3 

40-61 

3 

Flat   fields  and  trans- 
mission lines 

FG, 

MG:      1-5 

3 

61   -  63 

3 

Flat   fields  and   trans- 
mission  lines 

FG, 
MG? 

MG:      1-5 
Kettleman  City 

3 

63  -  71.3 

3 

Flat   fields  with 

FG: 

1-5 

71.3-80 


gullies  and  trans- 
mission lines 

Flat  agricultural  fields 
and  scenic  route 


3 

80-84 

2 

Flat   fields 

4 

84  -  87.5 

3 

Flat   fields 

4 

87.5   -  88.5 

1 

Flat   fields 

scenic  route  crossing 


FG:      1-5** 

FG,  MG:      1-5** 

BG:  1-5** 

FG:  Highway   198** 


*Key:      FG  =  view  in   foreground;   MG  a  view  in  middleground; 
BG  =  view  in  background;   SS  =  seldom  seen 

♦♦Designated   scenic   route 


3-56 


Table  3-28  (Cont.) 


Segment 

Milepost 

VRM  Class 

General  Description 

View*  From 

4 

88.5  -  104 

2 

Low  hills,    flat   fields, 
transmission  lines 

re, 

MGs      1-5** 

4 

104  -  116 

'] 

Flat   fields,   low  hill3 
with  gullies 

FG: 

1-5** 

4 

116  -  135 

2 

Low  hills  with  gullies, 
transmission  lines 

MG: 

1-5** 

4 

135  -  148 

3 

Grassy  hills  with  gullies 
and   transmission  lines 

SS 

4 

148  -  152 

3 

Grassy  hills  with  roads 

ss 

4 

152  -  158.5 

2 

Grassy   hills  with  gullie3, 
transmission  lines  and 
agricultural   land 

MG: 

1-5** 

k 

158.5  -  163 

1 

Gentle  agricultural  land, 
scenic  route  crossings, 
bicycle  route  crossing 

FG: 
FGs 

Highway  152** 
Highway  207** 

4 

163  -  168.5 

3 

Flat  grasslands  and 
transmission   lines 

BG: 
8G: 

Highway   207** 
1-5** 

4 

168.5  -  174 

1 

Hilly  grasslands,   trans- 
mission lines,   aqueduct, 
near   a  residence 

MG, 

BG:      1-5** 

4 

174  -  179.5 

3 

Flat  to  hilly  grasslands 
and   transmission  lines 

MG, 

BG:      1-5** 

4 

179.5  -  181 

2 

Flat  to  hilly  grasslands 
and   transmission  lines 

FG: 

Orestimba 
Park  Site 

4 

181   -   192 

3 

Flat   to  hilly  grasslands 

SS 

4 

192  -  203 

1 

Flat   and   hilly  grasslands 

FG: 

Del   Puerto 

and  transmission  lines 


Canyon  Road** 
FG:   1-5** 
MG:   Ingram  Creek 

Park  Site 


♦Key:  FG  =  view  in  foreground;  MG  =  view  in  middleground; 
BG  =  view  in  background;  SS  =  seldom  seen 

♦♦Designated  scenic  route 


3-57 


Table  3-28  (Cont.) 


Segment    Milepost    VRM  Class 

4  203  -  220        1 

4  220  -  224.5      2 

4  224.5  -  227.5     2 

4  227.5  -  235      1 

4  235  -  244  1 


4 

244  -  245.5 

2 

4 

245.5  -  246.5 

1 

4 

246.5  -  247 

2 

4 

247  -  252 

1 

4 

252  -  254 

1 

4 

254  -  256 

2 

4 

256  -  258 

3 

4 

258  -  259 

2 

General  Description 


View*  From 


Flat  and  hilly  grasslands 


Hilly  grasslands,  scenic 
route  crossings,  wind 
farms  and  transmission 
lines 

Hilly  grasslands 

Low  hills,  grasslands, 
pipeline  right-of-way 


Hilly  grasslands, 
scenic  route  crossings, 
parkland  crossing 


Grassy  hills  and 
transmission  lines 

Grassy  hills 

Grassy  hills  and 
transmission  lines 

Grassy  hills 


Grassy  hills 


Flat  wetlands, 
transmission  lines 

Flat,  oil  tanks, 
transmission  lines, 
industrial  uses 

Fields,  residential 


FGs  1-5** 

FGs  Golf  Course 

BGs  Tracy 

FGs  1-580** 
FGs  Altamont 

Pass  Road  ** 


SS 

FGs  Vasco  Road** 
FGs  Camino 

Diablo  Road** 
BGs  Brentwood 

BGs  Brentwood  and 
Antioch 

Deer  Valley  Road** 
Pas@o  Corto  Road** 
Somersville  Road** 

FGs  Contra  Loma  Park 

MGs  Pittsburg 

FG:   Railroad  Avenue** 
BGs   Pittsburg 


BGs  Pittsburg  and 

Concord 
FGs   Highway  4** 

BGs   Pittsburg  and 
Antioch 

BGs  Highway  4** 


BGs   Highway  4* 


FGs   Vine  Hill 


»Keys  FG  =  view  in  foreground;  MG  =  view  in  middleground; 
BG  =  view  in  background;  SS  =  seldom  seen 

•♦Designated  scenic  route 


3-58 


Table  3-29 

MATRIX  OF  VISUAL  RESOURCE  AREAS 
AT  THE  ANCILLARY  FACILITIES  SITES 


Facility 

Milepost 

VRM  Class 

Microwave  No.  1 

0 

3 

Microwave  No.  1A 
McKittrick  Station 

8.5 

3 

Microwave  No.  2 

and  Kernridge  Station 

18.5 

3 

California  Aqueduct 
Crossing 

32 

3 

Mid  Station 

and  Microwave  No.  3 

40 

3 

California  Aqueduct 
Crossing 

61 

3 

Kettleman  Station 
and  Microwave  No.  4 

62 

3 

General  Description 


View*   From 


Caliola  Station  84 

and  Microwave  No.  5 

Microwave  No.  6 

Microwave  No.  7 

SJV-2  Booster  Station 

and  Microwave  No.  8      124 

Panoche  Creek 

Crossing  136 

Microwave  No.  9 

California  Aqueduct 

Crossing  161 

Delta  Mendota  Canal 

Crossing  164.5 

California  Aqueduct 

Crossing  166.5 

Microwave  No.  10        171 

and  SJV-3  Booster 

Station 

Microwave  No.  11 

Microwave  No.  12 

SJV-3  Booster  Station 
and  Transmission  Lines 

Microwave  No.  13 


Microwave  No.  14 


2 
2 
2 


3 
2 

2 

2 

1 

2 
2 

1 


Disturbed  flat  area, 
oil  field 

Disturbed  flat  area, 
oil  field,  tanks 

Disturbed  flat  area, 
oil  field 

Flat  agricultural  fields 

Flat  agricultural  fields 

Flat  agricultural  fields, 
transmission  lines,  roads 

Flat  agricultural  fields, 
transmission  lines,  oil 
tanks 

Flat  agricultural  fields, 
existing  pumping  station 

Rolling  grasslands 

Flat  fields 

Flat  agricultural  fields, 
transmission  lines 

River  valley,  roads  and 
transmission  lines 

Grassy  hills 

Flat  agricultural  fields, 
bicycle  route  crossing 

Flat  grasslands, 
transmission  lines 

Flat  grasslands 


Grassy  hills 

Steep  hills 

Steep  hills  (Mt.  Oso) 

Grasslands  and 
transmission  lines 

Mountain,  park  land 


MGs  Derby  Acres 
MG:  McKittrick 

SS 

FG:  1-5 

FG:  1-5 


FG:  1-5 

MG;  Kettleman 

City 

MG:  1-5** 


Urbanized  area 


MG:  1-5** 
MG:  1-5** 
BG:  1-5** 


FG:  Panache  Road 
BG:  1-5** 

BG:  1-5** 

MG:  1-5** 

MG:  Highway  152** 

BG:  Highway  152** 
BG:  1-5** 

BG:  1-5** 


MG:  1-5** 

BG:  1-5** 

BG:  1-5** 

FG:  1-5** 


FG:  Mt.  Diablo 
State  Park 

BG:  Concord, 
Martinez 

FG:  Martinez 


*FG  =  view  in  foreground;  MG  =  view  in  middleground;  BG  =  view  in  background;  SS 
♦♦designated  scenic  route 


seldom  seen 


3-59 


Elsewhere  along  the  pipeline  route,  the  Class  1  areas  are  located 
predominantly  along  designated  or  eligible  scenic  roadways. 

Visual  Resource  Management  Class  2.  VRM  Class  2  is  defined  as 
areas  of  mostly  common  visual  landscapes  with  some  outstanding  visual 
resources.  Evident  alterations  of  the  visual  landscape  may  be  signif- 
icant. Proposed  permanent  landscape  alterations  may  be  controversial 
in  some  areas;  mitigation  may  be  required. 

VRM  Class  2  areas  are  located  predominantly  in  Contra  Costa 
County  where  integral  vistas  are  located  adjacent  to  Bay  Regional 
parks,  such  as  Black  Diamond  Mines  and  Contra  Loma.  The  hilly  areas 
of  the  Coastal  Range  have  widespread  areas  of  Class  A  and  B  scenic 
quality  (see  Appendix  E).  Much  of  the  Class  A  areas  are  located  in 
rural  settings,  fairly  remote  areas  from  population  centers.  However, 
use  probably  is  substantial,  although  concentrated  on  roads  and  trails 
throughout  the  area.  For  this  reason,  the  area  has  medium 
sensitivity. 

in  the  southwestern  part  of  Stanislaus  County,  the  pipeline  route 
crosses  and  roughly  parallels  a  designated  bicycle  route  and  trends 
through  the  designated  Lower  Orestimba  Creek  Regional  Park  site. 
While  this  site  has  some  landscape  elements  that  qualify  it  for  high 
visual  quality  designation,  a  major  transmission  line  corridor  trends 
through  the  middle  of  the  site.  The  proposed  pipeline  route  closely 
follows  the  transmission  line  corridor. 

In  Fresno  County,  where  the  pipeline  route  trends  parallel  to  but 
about  a  mile  or  so  distant  from  1-5,  a  designated  scenic  route,  the 
area  is  considered  within  the  integral  vista  of  the  highway.  Much  of 
the  route  in  the  county  is  Class  2,  except  where  it  closely  aligns 
with  1-5.  VRM  Class  2  lands  are  located  near  small  population 
centers,  such  as  Avenal  and  Lost  Hills. 

Class  2  areas  in  Kings  and  Kern  counties  occur  near  population 
centers. 

Visual  Resource  Management  Class  3.  VRM  Class  3  is  defined  as 
areas  that  are  seldom  seen,  have  common  visual  landscapes,  or  are 
visually  degraded.  Alterations  of  the  visual  landscape  are  not  likely 
to  have  significant  impact  or  raise  substantial  controversy;  minor 
mitigation  may  be  required  to  protect  visual  resources. 

Except  for  the  industrialized  area  near  Martinez,  the  VRM  Class  3 
areas  are  located  predominantly  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  study 
area.  In  Stanislaus  County  west  of  Patterson  and  in  Merced  County, 
VRM  Class  3  areas  are  located  along  the  pipeline  route  where  it  trends 
parallel  but  a  good  distance  west  of  1-5,  a  designated  scenic  route  in 
this  area,  such  that  it  forms  a  background  element  of  the  visual  land- 
scape. The  route  is  located  west  of  1-5  but  behind  hills  that  obscure 
the  view  from  the  highway  or  valley.  The  area  has  Class  B  scenic 
quality,  with  numerous  transmission  lines,  and  is  a  seldom  seen  area. 

Almost  all  of  Kings  County  and  Kern  County  are  comprised  of  Class 
3  areas.  This  is  partly  because  of  a  lower  scenic  quality  rating  in 

3-60 


these  areas.  Class  B  and  C  areas  predominate.  The  lower  sensitivity 
rating  is  the  result  of  low  population,  few  scenic  roads  and  trails, 
and  a  few  localities  of  degraded  visual  landscape. 

Scenic  Resources 

Segment  4  of  the  proposed  pipeline  crosses  or  trends  parallel 
close  to  two  Interstate  highways,  1-580  and  1-5;  portions  of  both  are 
designated  State  Scenic  Routes.  1-580  is  indicated  as  an  eligible, 
but  not  officially  designated,  State  Scenic  Route  in  the  California 
Master  Plan  of  State  Scenic  Route  in  the  California  Master  Plan  of 
State  Highways  (California  Department  of  Transportation  1974). 

Interstate  5,  in  the  portion  located  in  San  Joaquin  County,  is 
shown  as  an  eligible,  but  not  officially  designated,  State  Scenic 
Highway.  1-5  is  an  officially  designated  State  Scenic  Route  in  all  of 
Stanislaus  County  and  in  the  northern  portion  of  Merced  County  to 
State  Route  152.  1-5  has  no  designation  for  inclusion  in  the  State 
Scenic  Route  Plan  in  the  portions  located  in  southern  Merced  County 
(south  of  Highway  152),  and  in  Fresno,  Kings,  or  Kern  counties  (Cali- 
fornia Department  of  Transportation  1974). 

In  Merced  County  near  Santa  Nella,  the  pipeline  route  approaches 
within  middleground  viewing  distance  of  1-5,  a  designated  State  Scenic 
Route  in  this  area,  and  crosses  Highways  207  and  152,  both  officially 
designated  State  Scenic  Routes.  Merced  County  Zoning  Ordinance  No. 
309  and  the  General  Plan  provide  strict  control  of  use  in  the  areas  of 
Highways  207  and  152  to  protect  and  preserve  scenic  views  from  the 
highways  (County  of  Merced  1975). 

In  Fresno  County,  the  pipeline  route  crosses  Highway  198,  an 
eligible,  but  not  officially  designated,  route  identified  in  the  State 
Master  Plan  for  Scenic  Routes.  In  Fresno  County,  1-5  is  a  designated 
scenic  highway  in  the  County  General  Plan,  but  lacks  that  designation 
by  the  state  (County  of  Fresno  1978) . 

In  northwestern  Stanislaus  County,  the  pipeline  route  trends 
parallel  and  close  to  1-5  and  approaches  a  designated  bicycle  trail 
between  the  highway  and  the  canal  (Stanislaus  Area  Association  of 
Governments  1974).  The  pipeline  also  crosses  a  designated  county 
bicycle  trail  west  of  Patterson  that  leads  into  Del  Puerto  Canyon. 
The  road  through  Del  Puerto  Canyon  is  also  designated  a  proposed 
scenic  highway  in  the  Stanislaus  County  General  Plan.  In  northwestern 
Stanislaus  County,  the  pipeline  route  trends  along  the  edge  of  Ingrain 
Creek  State  Park  site  located  adjacent  to  1-5;  the  park  has  not  yet 
been  developed.  A  proposed  microwave  would  be  located  in  Mt.  Diablo 
State  Park.  Since  scenic  resources  are  an  important  part  of  the  land 
management  plan,  the  state  park  has  strict  controls  on  development 
within  the  park.  However,  numerous  communications  towers  already  are 
located  on  the  summit  of  Mt.  Diablo. 


3-61 


1-5  is  designated  as  an  official  San  Joaquin  County  scenic  route 
in  the  County  General  Plan. 

1-580  is  a  designated  Alameda  County  scenic  highway.  In  addi- 
tion, the  proposed  route  crosses  Altamont  Pass  Road,  a  designated 
Alameda  County  Scenic  Route  (Alameda  County  1977). 

In  Contra  Costa  County,  the  proposed  pipeline  route  crosses  or 
approaches  designated  scenic  roads  in  the  county  (Contra  Costa  County 
1974,  1978): 

•  Scenic  Freeway/Expressway  -  Highway  4 

•  Scenic  Thoroughfares 

Kirker  Pass  Road  (Railroad  Avenue) 

•  Scenic  Minor  Thoroughfares  and  Collectors 

paseo  Corto  Road 

Lone  Tree  Way  (close  approach) 

Vasco  Road 

•  Scenic  Rural  Recreation  Routes 

Somersville  Road 

Deer  Valley  Road 

Vasco  Road/Walnut  Boulevard 

Camino  Diablo 

The  City  of  Antioch  General  Plan  also  designates  Somersville  Road 
and  Paseo  Corto  Road  as  open  space,  scenic  routes.  The  latter  is  to 
be  treated  as  a  parkway.  Antioch  also  has  established  an  action 
program  which  places  specific  emphasis  on  retention  of  visual 
resources  of  the  Diablo  foothills,  restrictions  on  soil  disturbance, 
and  landform  alteration  and  watercourses. 

Contra  Costa  County  includes  extensive  areas  of  designated  scenic 
resource  preservation  including  all  lands  managed  by  the  East  Bay 
Regional  Park  District  (EBRPD),  notably  the  Black  Diamond  Mines 
Regional  Park  and  Contra  Loma  Regional  Park  (East  Bay  Regional  Park 
District  1980).  Contra  Loma  Park  is  crossed  by  the  proposed  pipeline 
route;  the  route  closely  approaches  the  border  of  Black  Diamond  Mines 
Park.  The  pipeline  route  crosses  two  designated  hiking  and  riding 
trails  and  two  designated  Class  II  and  III  bicycle  routes  (on  road)  in 
the  EBRPD  Regional  Trails  Plan  (East  Bay  Regional  Park  District  1976, 
1984).  It  also  crosses  a  proposed  regional  trail  of  the  EBRPD. 

3.2.11  Paleontology 

Data  Sources 

Data  for  the  following  description  of  paleontologic  resources 
within  the  project  area  were  compiled  from  records  of  previous  geo- 
logic and  paleontologic  investigations  and  from  a  field  survey  of 
potentially  sensitive  segments  of  the  project  route. 

Non-field  data  sources  included  the  existing  paleontologic 
overview  for  the  project  area  (Woodward-Clyde  Consultants  1986), 

3-62 


references  included  therein,  additional  published  descriptions  of  the 
geology  (including  geologic  maps),  published  and  unpublished  paleon- 
tologic  research  papers,  museum  records,  and  interviews  with  individ- 
uals having  first-hand  knowledge  of  resources  within  specific  sub- 
areas.  References  summarized  in  Woodward-Clyde  (1986)  include  most  of 
the  pertinent  paleontological  literature.  Sources  consulted  on  the 
general  geology  of  the  area  included  papers  and  geologic  maps  in 
California  Division  of  Mines  1954  and  American  Association  of  Petro- 
leum Geologists  (AAPG)  1968.  More  specific  geologic  information,  in 
the  form  of  1:24000  scale  geologic  maps  (Adegoke  1969;  Dibblee  1980a, 
b,  c,  d,  1981a,  b,  c;  Lett  Is  1982),  was  available  for  slightly  more 
than  half  of  the  project  route.  Fossil  locality  records  at  the 
University  of  California  Museum  of  Paleontology  and  curators  at  the 
San  Bernadino  County  Museum  and  the  George  C.  Page  Museum  in  Los 
Angeles  provided  most  of  the  data  concerning  distribution  of  pre- 
viously known  localities  along  the  proposed  route. 

A  19-day  field  survey  was  conducted  of  those  segments  of  the  pro- 
ject route  for  which  the  data  sources  had  indicated  potential  impacts 
on  sensitive  paleontologic  resources. 

Regulatory  Setting 

Effects  of  the  proposed  project  on  paleontological  resources, 
especially  those  including  vertebrate  fossils,  are  addressed  under 
CEQA  (Public  Resources  Code  4097);  NEPA  (P.L.  91-190,  Title  1,  Section 
101  [b]);  Executive  Order  11752  of  December  17,  1973;  and  the  Federal 
Land  Policy  and  Management  Act  (P.L.  94-579). 

Environmental  Setting 

The  area  near  the  western  margin  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  pro- 
vides a  record  of  geologic  and  biologic  history  which  spans  more  than 
80  million  years,  dating  from  the  late  Cretaceous  period.  Under  the 
combined  influences  of  sporadic  subsidence  of  the  valley  floor,  uplift 
in  the  area  of  the  Coastal  Range,  and  worldwide  sea  level  changes, 
sediments  and  included  remains  (fossils)  of  marine  and  terrestrial 
organisms  have  accumulated  to  produce  an  unusually  complete  record  of 
past  life  and  geography.  This  complex  record  has  been  almost  continu- 
ously investigated  during  this  century  (Adegoke  1969;  Payne  1974)  and 
was  of  sporadic  interest  much  earlier  (e.g.,  Leidy  1865;  see  histori- 
cal account  in  Church  1968). 

Much  of  the  paleontologic  interest  in  the  project  area  stems  from 
the  presence  of  both  marine  and  terrestrial  fossils.  This  important 
and  rare  attribute  of  the  foothills  region  is  a  result  of  its  former 
position  at  or  near  the  shoreline  of  the  inland  seaway  which  occupied 
the  present  valley  area  during  most  of  the  time  represented  by  its 
rock  record.  Sea  level  fluctuations  caused  alternating  deposition  of 
marine  and  non-marine  sediments,  preserving  fossils  of  animals  from 
both  environments.  The  area  thus  provides  temporal  links  between  the 
sequences  of  fossil  assemblages  ("time  scales")  historically  developed 
independently  for  the  terrestrial  and  marine  environments.  _  Such  links 
have  increased  in  importance  as  geological  and  paleontological 


3-63 


research  has  focused  on  short-term  worldwide  events  such  as  mass 
extinctions  and  possibly  catastrophic  environmental  change. 

Another  rare  set  of  circumstances  late  in  the  valley's  geologic 
history  produced  a  significant  accumulation  of  fossils  near 
McKittrick.  Tars  which  seeped  to  the  surface  along  a  fault,  appears 
to  have  caused  the  entrapment  of  mammals,  reptiles,  birds,  and  rarely- 
preserved  insects.  The  diverse  late  Pleistocene  fauna  preserved  in 
this  area  may  equal  or  surpass  that  of  the  Rancho  La  Brea  deposit  in 
Los  Angeles  (Church  1968;  Jefferson  1986;  Woodward-Clyde  1986). 

The  only  existing  comprehensive  paleontological  inventory  for 
more  than  minor  segments  of  the  proposed  project  area  is  that  prepared 
by  Woodward-Clyde  (1986).  That  report  includes  detailed  referenced 
descriptions  of  paleontologic  resources  and  the  geologic  formations  in 
which  they  occur  along  the  proposed  route.  The  field  survey  which 
that  report  recommends  was  subsequently  performed  and  the  data  were 
integrated  with  that  in  the  Woodward-Clyde  report  and  other  sources, 
as  discussed  above.  A  brief  discussion  of  combined  conclusions  and 
general  patterns  of  fossil  distribution  is  included  here. 

The  entire  proposed  route  crosses  sedimentary  rock  formations 
or  young,  unconsolidated  sediments,  all  of  which  are  potentially 
fossiliferous.  However,  the  expected  abundance  and  kinds  of  fossils 
vary  widely  from  place  to  place,  and  paleontologic  resource  sensitiv- 
ity likewise  varies  along  the  route.  This  report  emphasizes  fossils 
of  vertebrate  animals  (as  opposed  to  those  of  invertebrates  and 
plants)  because  of  their  relative  rarity  and  the  scientific  importance 
of  individual  specimens. 

All  but  the  youngest  of  the  formations  have  been  tilted  from 
their  original  horizontal  position  by  geologic  forces  which  caused  the 
uplift  of  the  Coastal  Ranges.  Gradual,  long-term  erosion  has  removed 
parts  of  these  formations  so  that  rocks  and  included  fossils  of 
various  ages  are  now  at  or  near  the  surface  throughout  most  of  the 
proposed  route.  Those  formations  or  parts  of  the  formations  with 
higher  concentrations,  of  fossils  now  exist  at  or  near  the  surface  as 
bands  of  varying  width  across  the  terrain,  but  are  obscured  in  most 
areas  by  soil,  vegetation,  or  thin  deposits  of  surficial  sediment. 
Thus,  visual  detection  of  fossils  is  possible  in  those  areas  where 
natural  erosion  or  man-made  excavations  have  removed  this  cover. 

In  obscured  areas  overlain  by  vegetation  and  overburden,  the 
presence  or  absence  of  fossils  must  be  inferred  from  the  distribution 
of  known  nearby  fossil  localities,  exposures  of  non-fossil iferous 
rocks,  and  the  surface  trends  of  different  rock  types.  In  advance  of 
excavation,  such  inferences  can  be  expressed  only  as  relative  proba- 
bilities of  the  existence  of  fossils  along  given  segments  of  the  pipe- 
line route.  Predictions  of  the  kinds  and  importance  of  fossils  are 
subject  to  similar  constraints. 

Analysis  of  non-field  data  (distribution  of  known  localities  in 
combination  with  geologic  maps)  permitted  coarse-scale  resolution  of 
areas  likely  to  include  concealed  fossils.  Subsequent  field  inves- 
tigation of  these  areas  included  direct  examination  of  available 

3-64 


exposures  and  certain  localized  severe  bedrock  disturbance  or  deep 
cover  of  surficial  sediments.  These  new  data  led  to  improved  identif- 
ication of  fossiliferous,  non-fossil iferous,  and  paleontologically 
unimportant  subzones  of  mapped  geologic  units  and  substantially  nar- 
rowed the  areas  assessed  to  have  a  high  potential  for  important,  vul- 
nerable fossils.  Only  about  33  miles  (13.5%)  of  the  proposed  route 
are  now  considered  most  likely  to  possess  sensitive  vertebrate  fossil 
resources.  (A  discussion  of  paleontological  sensitivity  criteria 
appears  in  Appendix  F.) 

The  area  with  the  highest  potential  for  vertebrate  fossils  along 
the  proposed  route  is  near  its  southern  end,  in  the  vicinity  of 
McKittrick.  Known  nearby  localities  and  the  distinctive  asphaltic 
deposit  in  which  they  occur  delineate  a  fossiliferous  band  which  the 
proposed  route  crosses  for  about  0.2  miles.  The  expected  abundance 
and  scientific  value  of  fossils  here  makes  it  an  area  of  particularly 
high  sensitivity.  Within  this  area,  however,  fossils  are  not  uni- 
formly distributed,  but  typically  occur  in  localized  patches 
(Jefferson  1986),  two  of  which  were  found  very  close  to  the  proposed 
project. 

The  Tulare  Formation  underlies  more  than  one-third  of  the  seg- 
ments of  the  proposed  route  identified  as  having  high  paleontologic 
sensitivity.  Though  most  of  the  formation  was  deposited  on  land, 
marine  and  brackish-water  sediments  and  fossil  occur  locally  (as  in 
the  vicinities  of  Kettleman  City  and  Coalinga),  enhancing  its  scien- 
tific importance.  The  field  survey  revealed  previously  unrecorded 
marine  and  terrestrial  vertebrate  fossil  localities  within  500  feet  of 
the  proposed  route  in  both  these  areas,  suggesting  that  similar  fos- 
sils will  probably  be  encountered  during  grading  and  trenching  for  the 
pipeline.  In  the  area  of  McKittrick,  the  close  association  of  the 
Tulare  Formation  with  the  McKittrick  Brea  deposits  increases  its 
importance,  though  Tulare  fossils  appear  to  occur  in  lower  abundance 
here.  Nearby  Tulare  localities  have  raised  paleontological  questions 
which  are  as  yet  unresolved,  and  any  new  fossils  may  shed  light  on 
these  problems.  In  some  other  areas  investigated  during  the  field 
survey,  the  Tulare  Formation  either  was  found  to  have  low  concentra- 
tions of  fossils  or  was  contaminated  by  older  fossils  reworked  from 
previously  uplifted  formations,  thus  reducing  its  scientific  value. 

The  San  Joaquin  Formation  immediately  underlies  the  Tulare,  and 
also  includes  both  marine  and  non-marine  fossils,  locally  in  high 
abundance.  Despite  extensive  soil  and  vegetation  cover,  numerous 
vertebrate  (and  invertebrate)  fossil  localities  had  been  previously 
recorded  within  and  adjacent  to  the  project  area,  and  a  number  of 
additional  specimens  were  found  during  the  field  survey.  These  occur 
within  a  5-mile  segment  north  of  Coalinga,  and  near  the  proposed 
microwave  site  No.  6.  This  area  has  contributed  to  many  published 
paleontologic  investigations  (e.g.,  Adegoke  1969  and  included 


T, 


references),  but  much  remains  to  be  learned. 


The  San  Pablo  Group  includes  several  formations  (not  differenti- 
ated in  this  report)  of  both  marine  and  non-marine  origin,  all  of 
which  have  considerable  variability  in  local  fossil  content.  Of  about 
15  miles  of  the  San  Pablo  Group  crossed  by  the  proposed  route,  the 
field  survey  permitted  identification  of  2.5  miles  with  sufficient 


3-65 


sensitivity  for  further  consideration.  The  southernmost  identified 
segment  is  in  an  area  mostly  obscured  by  soil  and  grass  cover,  but  in 
the  same  part  of  the  unit  as,  and  geographically  close  to,  known  pro- 
lific terrestrial  vertebrate  fossil  localities.  Portions  of  this 
area,  however,  were  eliminated  because  the  yery   coarse  sediments 
within  the  project  right-of-way  would  not  likely  have  preserved  useful 
fossils.  Shorter  segments  to  the  north  are  of  marine  origin,  but 
specimens  found  during  the  survey  included  bird  and  possibly  terres- 
trial vertebrate  bones  as  well  as  marine  fish  teeth  and  bones. 

The  much  older  marine  Kreyenhagen  Formation  (Eocene)  is  crossed 
for  many  miles  by  the  proposed  route  in  Contra  Costa  County,  though 
most  of  it  was  found  during  the  survey  to  be  unproductive  of  verte- 
brate fossils.  Two  miles  of  the  proposed  route,  however,  cross  a  sub- 
unit  of  well-bedded  white  rock  (diatomite)  which  contained  well- 
preserved,  complete  fish  skeletons  as  well  as  isolated  teeth  and 
bones,  and  rarely-preserved  crustaceans  (shrimp). 

Three  segments  of  the  proposed  route  near  its  north  end  cross 
bedrock  assigned  to  the  Wolf ski  1 1  Formation  of  Pliocene  age.  Ter- 
restrial vertebrate  fossils,  both  in  previously  known  localities  and 
at  a  new  site  discovered  during  the  field  survey,  occur  scattered 
throughout  the  formation,  and  may  be  encountered  at  any  point  along 
the  4.7-mile  section  of  the  proposed  route.  Known  specimens  include 
well-preserved  skulls,  jaws,  and  isolated  bones  and  teeth  of  horses, 
camels,  tapirs,  elephants,  carnivores,  and  deer. 

3.2.12  Cultural  Resources 

A  Class  I  cultural  resources  inventory  was  conducted  and  sub- 
mitted to  the  California  SLC  as  part  of  the  project  application.  This 
information  is  supplemented  by  detailed  field  inventories  of  the  pro- 
posed route  which  took  place  in  July  and  August  of  1986. 

The  Class  I  study  area  was  defined  as  a  0.5-mile  zone  on  each 
side  of  the  proposed  pipeline  route;  thus,  the  study  corridor  is  1 
mile  in  width,  although  the  area  of  direct  impact  that  may  result  from 
construction  activities  is  80  feet  in  width.  However,  because  of  the 
potential  for  error  when  computing  distances  on  7.5-minute  topographic 
quad  maps,  sites  within  200  feet  of  the  pipeline  have  been  identified 
as  within  the  baseline  field  study  zone.  The  field  survey  covered  the 
80-foot  zone. 

A  field  evaluation  was  performed  on  all  accessible  lands  along 
the  proposed  construction  corridor,  where  identification  of  cultural 
resources  was  feasible.  The  survey  included  re-evaluation  of  pre- 
viously recorded  resources,  where  necessary,  to  determine  signifi- 
cance. Lands  omitted  from  the  survey  included  those  that  are  in- 
accessible due  to  lack  of  rights-of-entry  and  those  in  which  identi- 
fication of  cultural  resources  was  not  feasible,  such  as  deeply-ripped 
agricultural  land,  overflowed  land,  or  land  where  the  original  surface 
has  been  covered  by  fill. 


3-66 


Data  Sources 

A  review  of  existing  cultural  resource  literature  and  available 
documentary  resources  was  conducted  for  the  project  area.  Background 
information  concerning  the  prehistory,  history,  ethnography,  and 
ethnohi story  of  the  region  was  sought  to  provide  a  context  for  and  to 
determine  the  prehistoric,  historic,  and  ethnohi storic  use  of  the 
area.  A  cultural  resource  record  search  was  conducted  at  each  of  the 
following  Archaeological  Inventory  Offices:  Northwest  Information 
Center  at  Sonoma  State  University,  Rohnert  Park,  for  Alameda  and 
Contra  Costa  counties;  Central  California  Information  Center  at 
California  State  College,  Stanislaus,  for  Merced,  San  Joaquin,  and 
Stanislaus  counties;  Central  San  Joaquin  Valley  Information  Center  at 
California  State  College,  Bakersfield,  for  Fresno  and  Kings  counties; 
and  South  Central  Information  Center  at  Bakersfield  College,  for  Kern 
County. 

Cultural  resource  inventories  maintained  by  the  BLM  at  the 
Caliente  and  Hollister  Resource  Area  Offices  also  were  reviewed.  In 
addition,  California  Historical  Landmarks  listings  and  the  NRHP  were 
reviewed  to  identify  any  resources  near  the  proposed  route,  as  were 
the  Historical  American  Building  Survey  and  the  Historical  American 
Engineering  Record.  To  augment  these  data,  both  the  Historic 
Resources  Inventory  at  the  California  State  Historic  Preservation 
Office  (Sacramento)  and  Government  Land  Office  files  for  1850-1900 
(BLM,  California  State  Office,  Sacramento)  were  carefully  reviewed  for 
indications  of  structural  locations  at  which  material  evidence  might 
still  be  found.  Local  historical  societies,  museums,  and  libraries 
also  were  contacted  regarding  properties  in  the  study  area.  Informa- 
tion was  solicited  regarding  structures  or  places  of  interest  to  local 
municipalities  and  ethnic  or  other  special-interest  groups  not  in- 
cluded in  the  above-mentioned  inventories. 

Ethnographic  and  ethnohi storic  literature  sources  were  reviewed 
to  identify  Native  American  village  locations  and  other  named  places 
in  the  study  area.  Sources  consulted  included  Cook's  (1955,  1957, 
1960,  1962)  compilations  of  historic  accounts,  Latta's  (1977)  and 
Gayton's  (1948)  Yokuts  ethnographies,  and  Bennyhoff's  (1977)  ethnogeo- 
graphic  study,  as  well  as  Krober's  (1925)  data,  and  Gifford  and 
Schenck's  (1926)  attempt  to  correlate  archaeological  and  historical 
data. 

Letters  providing  a  brief  description  of  the  proposed  project  and 
a  location  map  were  sent  to  Native  Americans  and  organizations  identi- 
fied from  county  referral  lists  provided  by  the  Native  American  Heri- 
tage Comnission  and  from  suggestions  provided  by  the  BLM  anthropolo- 
gist. Information  also  was  solicited  regarding  concerns  about  places 
of  heritage  or  religious  significance  that  might  be  affected  by  proj- 
ect implementation.  Initial  response  from  the  Native  American  com- 
munity included  a  request  to  be  kept  informed  of  any  planned  archaeo- 
logical or  construction  activities. 

Regulatory  Setting 

The  primary  legislation  relating  to  treatment  of  cultural 
resources  during  this  project  is  Section  106  of  the  National  Historic 

3-67 


Preservation  Act,  which  establishes  the  procedures  for  compliance  with 
other  applicable  legislation,  including  agency  review.  Existing 
federal  and  state  laws  that  apply  to  the  project  include: 

§  Executive  Order  11593,  Protection  and  Enhancement  of  the  Cul- 
tural Environment  May  13,  1971  (36  FR  8921,  16  USC  470).  This 
order  makes  various  federal  agencies  responsible  for  the  pre- 
servation of  cultural  resources  of  the  nation  and  for  iden- 
tifying properties  qualified  for  nomination  to  the  National 
Register. 

•  Federal  Land  Policy  and  Management  Act  of  1976.  This  act 
extends  the  previous  consideration  into  the  realm  of  general 
planning. 

•  The  Antiquities  Act  of  1906  (34  Stat.  225).  This  act  estab- 
lishes protection  for  archaeological  sites  and  authorizes 
uniform  rules  and  regulations  to  carry  out  this  responsibi- 
lity. 

•  The  Historic  Sites  Act  of  1935  (49  Stat.  666).  This  act  esta- 
blishes as  public  policy  preservation  of  archaeological 
remains  of  national  significance. 

t  National  Historic  Preservation  Act  of  1966  (80  Stat.  915). 
This  act  augments  the  provisions  of  the  1935  act  to  include 
sites  and/or  districts  of  local  and  regional  significance  as 
well  as  national  significance. 

•  The  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  of  1969  (91  Stat.  852). 
This  act  includes,  as  a  responsibility  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment, to  aid  in  decision  making  regarding  impacts,  including 
economic  and  technical  considerations,  of  systematic  actions 
affecting  the  environment. 

«  Native  American  Religious  Freedom  Act  of  1978  (42  USC  1996). 
Guarantees  inherent  rights  of  Native  Americans  to  follow  their 
traditional  religions,  including  access  to  sites,  use  and  pos- 
session of  sacred  objects,  and  freedom  to  worship  through 
ceremonial  and  traditional  rites. 

•  California  Environmental  Quality  Act  (Public  Resources  Code, 
Section  21060.5).  California's  principal  statute  providing 
protection  of  archaeological  resources  is  the  California 
Environmental  Quality  Act  of  1970  (CEQA).  Modeled  on  the 
NEPA,  CEQA  requires  that  archaeological  resources  be  eval- 
uated during  the  evaluation  of  EIRs.  On  the  basis  of  such 
evaluations,  state  agencies  may  impose  restrictions  on  land 
use  and  require  mitigation  as  a  condition  of  permit  issuance 
as  an  exercise  of  their  authority.  The  guidelines  for  imple- 
mentation of  CEQA  identify  a  number  of  projects  that  are  cate- 
gorically exempt  from  the  requirement  of  preparing  an  EIR. 

•  California  Native  American  Heritage  Commission  (Public 
Resources  Code,  Section  5097.94).  This  charges  the  Native 

3-68 


American  Heritage  Commission  with  identifying  places  of  special 
religious  or  social  significance  to  Native  Americans  and  empowers 
the  commission  to  "...bring  an  action  to  prevent  severe  and 
irreparable  damage  to...  a  Native  American  sanctified  cemetery, 
place  of  worship,  religious  or  ceremonial  site,  or  sacred  shrine 
located  on  public  property " 

Local  regulation  regarding  cultural  resources  in  California  is 
usually  at  the  county  level,  and  is  generally  closely  tied  to  CEQA. 
This  insures  that  compliance  with  the  federal  and  state  agencies  will 
satisfy  local  statutes  as  well. 

Environmental  Setting 

The  Class  I  inventory  study  determined  that  51  cultural  resource 
inventories  have  been  performed  along,  adjacent  to,  across,  or  within 
0.5  miles  of  the  proposed  route.  Most  of  these  inventories  were  con- 
ducted within  Kern  or  Contra  Costa  counties  and  cover  about  10*  of  the 
route,  or  20.2  miles.  The  1-mile-wide  study  area  contains  37  known 
cultural  resources,  of  which  three  prehistoric  sites  and  five  isolated 
prehistoric  finds  occur  100  to  2,700  feet  from  the  proposed  route. 

The  sites  on  the  route  include  two  lithic  scatters,  a  midden 
deposit,  and  an  isolated  find.  The  other  prehistoric  cultural 
resources  identified  within  the  study  corridor  include  seven  camp 
sites  (some  with  midden  deposits),  four  lithic  scatters,  three  bedrock 
mortar  sites,  five  isolated  finds,  and  one  area  with  hearth  features. 

There  is  not  enough  information  available  for  most  previously 
recorded  sites  to  permit  an  evaluation  of  the  significance  of  the 
sites  near  the  route.  This  reflects  an  absence  of  specific  data  on 
the  site  survey  forms  and  knowledge  of  the  current  condition  of  the 
sites.  Based  on  field  survey  data,  BLM  and  the  State  Historic 
Preservation  Office  (SHP0)  will  require  an  evaluation  of  any  sites  on 
the  right-of-way  to  determine  their  eligibility  for  inclusion  in  the 
National  Register. 

The  13  historic  period  sites  include  four  dumps,  three  sites  with 
dumps/features,  four  with  structural  remains,  one  mine  adit,  and  one 
oil  drilling  site.  In  addition  to  sites  identified  by  the  Class  I 
inventory,  a  review  of  historic  maps  was  conducted  prior  to  the  field 
survey;  this  review  identified  several  potential  historic  sites  in  the 
study  area. 

There  has  been  considerable  archaeological  work  conducted  in 
areas  adjacent  to  the  1-mile-wide  study  corridor  included  in  the  Class 
I  inventory.  The  majority  of  these  cultural  resource  inventory 
studies  in  the  Coastal  Ranges,  interior  Coastal  Ranges,  and  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  were  related  to  water  resource  and  mining  developments, 
although  other  types  of  urban  development  projects  initiated  cultural 
resource  studies  in  the  Bay  Area.  Based  on  these  previous  studies,  a 
tentative  sensitivity  model,  identifying  areas  of  high,  moderate,  and 
low  potential  for  locating  unrecorded  archaeological  resources,  has 
been  developed,  as  described  below.   In  advance  of  the  archaeological 
field  survey,  the  model  supplied  a  preliminary  idea  of  what  types  of 

3-69 


sites  may  have  existed  on  the  route  and  the  probability  of  finding 
them  in  specific  areas.  It  remains  a  good  predictive  tool  for  the 
cultural  resources  environment  in  the  study  area,  since  the  narrowness 
of  the  survey  corridor  precluded  general  conclusions  on  area!  distri- 
bution of  resources. 

•  High-Sensitivity  Areas  Within  the  Project  Right-of-Way.  Water 
is  of  critical  importance  for  human  habitation  in  the  western 
San  Joaquin  Valley  and  seasonal  occupation/use  can  and  did 
occur  near  annual  drainageways.  The  mouths  of  creeks  emptying 
into  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  and  the  valleys  west  of  these 
mouths  are  considered  to  have  a  high  probability  of  containing 
cultural  resources.  Areas  of  high  sensitivity  include  areas 
near  streams  on  the  alluvial  fans  east  of  the  Coast  Range 
stream  valleys,  old  sloughs,  and  old  tule  marshes.  The  old 
shorelines  of  Lake  Tulare  may  also  be  considered  archaeo- 
logically  sensitive,  as  "early  man"  projectile  points  have 
been  found  on  these  shorelines.  The  high  sensitivity  zones 
may  produce  midden  sites,  structural  remnants  (house  pits), 
bedrock  mortar  sites,  and  lithic  scatters.  Human  burials  may 
be  present  in  the  midden  sites,  but  these  will  be  difficult  to 
discern  unless  human  bone  has  been  displaced  by  rodents  or 
erosion.  The  majority  of  the  previously  recorded  sites  and 
the  one  new  site  located  during  the  survey  are  near  reliable 
water  sources. 

In  the  interior  Coastal  Ranges  (Alameda  and  Contra  Costa 
counties),  areas  of  high  archaeological  sensitivity  are 
watered  valleys,  terrace  areas  near  streams,  springs,  and  old 
estuarine  areas  or  coastal  marshlands.  Large  and  small  midden 
sites,  bedrock  mortars,  rock  art,  lithic  scatters,  and  shell 
mounds  may  be  encountered.  Burials  may  be  present  in  the 
midden  sites.  All  the  known  resources  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
pipeline  in  this  area  are  so  situated—although  industrial 
development  has  destroyed  the  evidence  in  coastal  marsh  zones. 

•  Moderate-Sensitivity  Areas  Within  the  Project  Right-of-Way. 
These  areas  are  less  easy  to  define  along  the  proposed  route 
because  there  is  little  information  available  on  the  settle- 
ment pattern  for  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  area  as  a  whole. 
Stream  channels  that  are  not  wel 1 -developed  and  have  narrow 
valleys  are  less  likely  to  contain  archaeological  sites  than 
the  larger  stream  valleys.  Small  midden  sites,  bedrock  mortar 
sites,  lithic  scatters,  and  camp  sites  with  cultural  deposits 
may  be  present  in  these  zones.  The  survey  revealed  no  sites 
at  all  on  the  proposed  route  in  such  settings,  but  the  narrow 
corridor  did  not  provide  a  comprehensive  sampling  of  this  type 
of  terrain.  The  site  density  in  these  areas  are  assumed  to  be 
much  lower  than  in  high-sensitivity  areas,  and  the  corridor 
did  not  pass  over  any  sites  in  these  areas. 

Areas  of  moderate  sensitivity  in  the  interior  Coast  Ranges  dre 
zones  that  lack  perennial  water  flow  or  spring  areas  and  that 
do  not  have  associated  flats  and  gentle  sloping  ground.  Small 
midden  sites,  bedrock  mortar  sites,  lithic  scatters,  and  rock 


3-70 


art  may  occur  in  these  zones.  Temporary  camp  sites  or  special 
task  sites  may  also  be  extant.  Again,  the  survey  did  not 
record  any  sites  in  these  areas. 

•  Low-Sensitivity  Areas  Within  the  Project  Right-of-Way.  These 
are  areas  of  moderate  to  steep  slopes,  narrow  stream  canyons, 
and  open  grasslands  that  occur  well  away  from  water  sources. 
These  may  be  devoid  of  sites  or  contain  evidence  of  low- 
intensity  transitory  use.  Habitation  sites  will  be  absent. 
It  is  possible  that  bedrock  mortar  sites  or  rock  art  may  occur 
where  bedrock  is  present. 

In  the  interior  Coastal  Ranges,  these  zones  will  have  steep  to 
moderately  steep  slopes,  steep-walled  canyons,  and  open 
grasslands  devoid  of  water  sources.  The  same  expectations  for 
the  San  Joaquin  zones  apply  to  these  areas.  As  site  density 
in  these  areas  would  be  very  low,  it  is  not  surprising  that 
the  survey  did  not  reveal  any  resources  in  these  areas. 

Resources  from  the  Historic  Period 

The  Class  I  inventory  has  defined,  from  the  General  Land  Office 
maps,  numerous  historical  features  in  the  1-mile-wide  study  corridor. 
Assessment  of  sensitivity  is  based  on  the  knowledge  that  exploitation 
of  resources  underlies  all  settlement,  both  prehistorically  and 
historically.  Early  historic  settlement  was  geared  more  to  individual 
aggrandizement  of  environmental  resources;  later  economic  expansion 
was  more  diversified.  Therefore,  early  settlement  may  be  expected  to 
have  occurred  in  the  same  high-sensitivity  areas  in  the  San  Joaquin 
Valley  as  in  the  prehistoric  period.  Later  occupation/use  may  be 
expected  to  occur  in  less  desirable  and  seemingly  less  habitable 
areas.  A  good  example  of  this  would  be  the  oil  exploitation  that 
centers  in  rather  desolate  areas  of  the  southern  San  Joaquin  Valley. 
The  majority  of  the  historic  era  sites  along  the  route  are  expected  to 
relate  to  agricultural  or  pastoral  pursuits,  but  this  can  encompass. -a 
wide  variety  of  site  types,  ranging  from  major  structural  remnants  and 
water  diversions  to  minor  ditches  and  trash  dumps. 

The  survey  revealed  no  historic  resources  on  the  alignment, 
although  several  old  farm  buildings  in  current  use  are  near  the  pro- 
posed route.  The  sites  of  potential  historic  resources  identified 
during  research  but  not  found  in  the  field  are  now  almost  inevitably 
cultivated  fields. 

Ethnographic  Resources 

The  discussion  of  sensitivity  for  this  subdiscipl ine  is 
difficult.  The  Indians  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  and  coastal  zones 
suffered  early  and  severe  population  dislocations  from  mi ssionization 
practices.  The  plague  of  1830  to  1833  further  decimated  the  Yokuts. 
There  are  living  descendents  of  southern  Yokuts,  but  the  Northern 
Yokuts  have  vanished.  The  Costonoan  and  particularly  the  Saclan  (Bay 
Miwok)  have  few  descendents.  As  a  result  of  these  decimations,  there 
is  little  information  concerning  sacred  lands,  village  names,  or  other 
aspects  of  settlement. 

3-71 


The  ethnographic  information  that  is  available  is  not  specific 
enough  with  regard  to  site  location  to  indicate  named  villages  or 
other  features  that  lie  along  the  pipeline  route.  The  most  that  can 
be  said  about  ethnographic  sensitivity  is  that  areas  of  concern  will 
probably  be  associated  with  archaeological  resources  identified  during 
the  field  inspection.  Sensitive  zones  should  closely  parallel  those 
identified  for  cultural  resources  of  the  prehistoric  period. 

The  Class  I  inventory  and  field  survey  did  not  reveal  any  Native 
American  concerns  that  could  potentially  be  affected  by  the  proposed 
project.  Native  American  groups  were  contacted. 

3.2.13  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology 

Data  Sources 

The  information  contained  in  this  section  was  compiled  from 
literature  reviews,  agency  contacts,  aerial  surveys,  and  field  study. 
Baseline  data,  including  information  from  aerial  photos  (December 
1985),  USGS  topographic  maps,  California  Department  of  Fish  and  Game 
(CDFG)  Natural  Diversity  Data  Base  (CNDDB)  records,  Wildlife  Habitat 
Relationship  Model  (WHR),  and  observations  made  during  overflights  in 
May  1986,  were  used  to  prepare  a  preliminary  description  of  existing 
biological  conditions  within  the  project  area,  and  to  formulate  an 
approach  to  field  survey  of  the  project  route.  CDFG  biologists  in 
each  region  were  contacted.  The  CNDDB  office  provided  listings  of 
known  locations  of  special  status  animal  species,  plant  species,  and 
plant  communities  located  within  1  mile  of  the  project  route.  The 
United  States  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service-Office  of  Endangered  Species 
(USFWS-OES)  provided  listings  of  all  threatened,  endangered,  and 
candidate  species  potentially  occurring  within  the  project  area. 
OES's  correspondence  also  included  recommendations  for  field  survey 
methods. 

A  scoping  meeting  was  held  in  May  1986  with  representatives  from 
BLM,  the  USFWS-OES,  CDFG,  and  SLC.  Field  study  methods  were  reviewed. 
A  field  program  designed  to  meet  applicable  state  and  federal  environ- 
mental review  requirements  was  approved. 

Field  study  along  the  pipeline  corridor  was  conducted  in  July  and 
August  1986.  The  field  program  is  described  in  detail  in  a  Biological 
Assessment,  available  for  public  review  at  the  BLM  State  Office  and 
the  SLC  Office,  in  Sacramento.  The  study  included  characterization  of 
vegetation  types  occurring  along  the  project  route,  an  intensive  sur- 
vey program  for  special  status  plants  and  animals  (within  a  400-foot 
corridor  centered  on  the  pipeline  route),  live  trapping  of  small  mam- 
mals, night-time  spotlighting,  and  scent  post  stations. 

Regulatory  Setting 

The  USFWS  and  CDFG  share  responsibility  for  management  and 
protection  of  natural  resources  in  the  project  area.  USFWS  Region  1 
oversees  natural  resource  management  in  five  western  states;  the 
project  areas  fall  within  the  direct  purview  of  the  Sacramento  Field 


3-72 


Office.  The  project  area  falls  within  three  of  the  five  CDFG  regions. 
Region  2  responsibilities  cover  eastern  Contra  Costa  and  San  Joaquin 
counties.  Region  3  covers  Alameda  and  western  Contra  Costa  counties. 
Region  4  covers  Fresno,  Kern,  Kings,  Merced,  and  Stanislaus  counties. 

The  Fish  and  Wildlife  Coordination  Act  (FWCA)  of  1978  requires 
that  any  federally  permitted  project,  such  as  the  proposed  pipeline, 
be  reviewed  and  approved  by  USFWS  and  CDFG  with  respect  to  the  proj- 
ect's impacts  on  biological  resources  and  proposed  mitigation 
measures.  The  FWCA  directs  such  projects  to  address  Endangered 
Species  Act  (ESA)  requirements,  as  discussed  below,  and  directs  both 
federal  and  state  resource  agencies  to  comment  on  the  Corps  of 
Engineers  (COE)  Section  404  Regulatory  Program,  also  discussed  below. 

The  proposed  pipeline  route  traverses  a  number  of  areas  where 
state  or  federally  listed  special  status  species  could  potentially 
occur.  Under  separate  state  and  federal  legislation,  each  agency  con- 
ducts a  detailed  review  and  formal  consultation  process  with  the  lead 
agency  and  project  sponsor  of  a  project  that  could  affect  any  plant  or 
animal  species  listed  or  proposed  as  rare,  threatened,  or  endangered 
by  the  state  or  federal  government.  If  a  listed  species  may  be 
affected,  the  lead  agency  must  initiate  a  formal  consultation  with  the 
USFWS  or  CDFG,  as  applicable  to  federal  or  state  law. 

Federal  law  dictates  that  all  federal  departments  and  agencies 
shall  use  their  authority  to  conserve  endangered  and  threatened 
species  as  declared  in  the  ESA,  Public  Law  93-2,  Section  7.  The  act 
defines  as  "endangered"  any  species  which  is  in  danger  of  extinction 
throughout  all  or  a  significant  portion  of  its  range  (other  than  cer- 
tain species  of  insects).  A  "threatened"  species  is  any  species  which 
is  likely  to  become  an  endangered  species  within  the  foreseeable 
future  throughout  all  or  a  significant  portion  of  its  range.  Addi- 
tional species  of  concern  are  divided  into  three  further  categories: 
(1)  Proposed  listing  as  threatened  or  endangered;  (2)  CI  Candidate, 
enough  data  are  on  file  to  support  the  federal  listing;  and  (3)  C2 
Candidate,  threat  and/or  distribution  data  are  insufficient  to  support 
federal  listing. 

Section  7  of  the  biological  assessment  sets  forth  procedures  to 
be  used  and  requirements  to  be  met  by  federal  departments  and  agencies 
in  order  to  comply  with  the  act.  Once  a  federal  agency  has  determined 
that  its  action  may  likely  affect  an  endangered  species,  the  agency 
must  initiate  a  formal  consultation  process.  In  that  process,  the 
lead  agency  prepares  a  biological  assessment  to  be  submitted  to  the 
USFWS,  which  details  what  species  are  present  and  whether  suitable 
habitat  exists;  this  assessment  also  analyzes  the  effects  of  the  pro- 
posed action  on  the  species  (individuals  and  populations),  including 
cumulative  effects  of  the  action,  and  analyzes  alternative  actions 
that  may  provide  conservation  measures.  The  USFWS  then  prepares  a 
biological  opinion  to  assess  whether  the  project  will  jeopardize  the 
continued  existence  of  the  species,  to  identify  incidental  take,  to 
specify  mandatory  measures  and  other  conservation  strategies. 
Although  Section  7  requires  formal  consultation  only  on  those  species 
currently  listed  as  threatened  or  endangered,  USFWS  has  recommended 
certain  candidate  species  for  consideration  in  this  project  assessment 

3-73 


because  they  may  become  listed  during  the  design  and  construction 
phases  of  the  project. 

The  CDFG  is  the  state's  trustee  agency  for  endangered  and  threa- 
tened species  under  CEQA.  Section  21104.2  of  CEQA  directs  each  state 
agency  to  consult  with  CDFG  on  any  project  the  agency  initiates  that 
is  not  statutorily  or  categorically  exempt  from  CEQA.  Section 
15065(a)  of  the  CEQA  guidelines  declares  that  impacts  to  rare  or 
endangered  plants  or  animals  are  significant.  Section  1900  of  the 
State  Fish  and  Game  Code,  the  Native  Plant  Protection  Act,  also 
affords  limited  protection  to  special  status  species. 

The  passage  of  the  California  Endangered  Species  Act  (CESA)  in 
1985  gave  CDFG  a  more  clearly  defined  responsibility  to  review 
proposed  projects  for  impacts  on  California  listed  rare,  threatened, 

California  "endangered"  species 
jeopardized.  California  "rare" 
presently  threatened  with 
throughout  their  range  that  they 
if  their  environments  change  or  deteriorate, 
categories  of  officially  listed  species.  All 
rare  by  the  Fish  and  Game  Commission  prior  to 
automatically  reclassified  as  "threatened"  by 
act  did  not  do  the  same  for  plants,  however,  and 
Game  Commission  acts  to  change  the  listing  of 
plants  from  "rare"  to  "threatened, 
as  of  January  1986. 


and  endangered  species.  CESA  defines 
as  those  whose  continued  existence  is 
or  "threatened"  species,  although  not 
extinction,  are  in  such  small  numbers 
may  become  endangered 
CESA  also  revised  the 
animals  designated  as 
January  1,  1985,  were 
the  legislation.  The 
until  the  Fish  and 

there 


are  none  now  so  designated 


A  formal  consultation  process  must  be  initiated  with  CDFG  for 
projects  that  the  state  lead  agency  has  determined  may  or  will  have  an 
effect  on  listed  species.  As  with  USFWS  policy,  candidate  species  are 
not  subject  to  the  same  consultation  requirements  as  listed  endan- 
gered, rare,  or  threatened  species.  CESA  does  encourage  informal  con- 
sultation for  candidate  species  that  may  become  officially  listed 
prior  to  completion  of  the  CEQA  process.  For  the  proposed  project, 
CDFG  is  being  consulted  by  SLC,  the  state  lead  agency. 

The  proposed  pipeline  traverses  several  areas  where  wetlands  are 
present,  e.g.,  Pacneco  Creek  and  Suisun  Bay  brackish  marshes.  Wetland 
areas  of  the  pipeline  corridor  may  be  subject  to  Section  404  of  the 
Clean  Water  Act  (1972),  under  which  the  C0E  regulates  disposal  of 
dredged  or  fill  material  into  "waters  of  the  United  States,"  including 
all  streams  to  their  headwaters  (5  cfs  average  annual  water  flow); 
lakes  over  10  acres;  and  contiguous  wetlands  (wetlands  around  San 
Francisco  Bay  occur  in  both  diked,  tidal,  and  some  riparian 

Pursuant  to  Section  404(b)(1),  EPA  also  has  developed 
guidelines  for  review  of  permit  applications  and 
federally  regulated  or  sponsored  projects.  These  guidelines  require 
that  consideration  be  given  to  the  need  for  the  proposed  project  and 
the  availability  of  alternate  sites  or  construction  methods  that  are 
less  damaging  to  the  environment.  Need,  in  this  context,  means  water 
dependency  of  the  project. 


situations) 
comprehensive 


For  projects  proposed  in  wetlands,  C0E  evaluates  the  proposed 
site  and  makes  a  formal  jurisdictional  determination,  delineating  its 


3-74 


areas  of  permit  authority.     COE  solicits  comments  on  permit  applica- 
tions through  a  public  notice  process,  which  initiates  a  public 
interest  review  of  the  project.     By  legislative  order  and  government 
acts,   including  the  FWCA,  several   agencies  are  given  review  and 
comment  responsibility  for  all  COE  regulated  projects.     These  agencies 
include  USFWS,  CDFG,  SLC,  and  the  National   Marine  Fisheries  Service 
(NMFS);   other  agencies  also  comment,   as  appropriate  to  the  location 
and  issues  of  the  application. 

In  addition,   under  Section  1603  of  the  Fish  and  Game  Code,  CDFG 
enters  into  formal   Stream  Alteration  Agreements  with  the  project 
sponsor.     The  agreements  are  required  for  each  stream  crossing  which 
has  the  potential  to  affect  the  natural  state  of  the  stream  within  the 
mean  high  water  mark.     The  proposed  project  crosses  numerous  perennial 
and  intermittent  streams. 

The  California  Native  Plant  Society  (CNPS)  publishes  and  regu- 
larly updates  the  Inventory  of  Rare  and  Endangered  Vascular  Plants  of 
California.     The  CNPS  gathers  information  from  the  CNDDB,  the  CDFG, 
and  amateur  and  professional   botanists  throughout  the  state.     The 
inventory  has  become  the  standard  reference  on  California's  rare  and 
endangered  plants.     Plants  listed  by  CNPS  but  not  officially  listed  by 
the  state  are  nevertheless  accorded  equivalent  protection  under  CEQA; 
that  is,   impacts  to  CNPS  species  are  considered  to  be  significant. 

CNPS  has  developed  a  three-component  scheme  to  assign  plants  to 
categories.     These  components  are: 

»     Rarity--the  extent  of  the  plant,   both   in  terms  of  numbers  of 
individuals  and  the  nature  and  extent  of  distribution; 

•  Endangerment--the  perception  of  the  plant's  being  threatened 
with  extinction,  for  whatever  reason;   and 

•  JJistribution--the  general   range  of  the  plant. 

In  addition,  plants  are  grouped  into  four  lists.     List  1  contains 
(A)   plants  presumed  extinct  in  California  and  (B)   plants  rare  and 
endangered  in  California  and  elsewhere.     List  2  contains  plants  rare 
or  endangered  in  California,   but  more  common  elsewhere.     Li  st  3 
contains  plants  about  which  more  information  is  needed.     List  4 
contains  plants  of  limited  distribution   (a  "watch"   list). 

Environmental   Setting 

From  south  to  north,  the  proposed  pipeline  route  traverses  the 
western  San  Joaquin  Valley,  the  foothills  of  the  central   Coastal   Range 
(the  Temblor  and  Diablo  mountains),    and  the  upland  edge  of  marshes 
along  the  southern  shoreline  of  Suisun   Bay.      Along  the  258.3-mile 
alignment,    the  project  passes  through   nine  general   habitat  types  that 
support   a  variety  of  wildlife  species.      This  section  describes  the 
terrestrial    and   aquatic  habitats   and  their  associated  wildlife.      It 
highlights  those  plant   and  animal    species   and  natural   communities 
occurring  within  the  project   area  which  have  been  given  special    status 

3-75 


by  the  state  or  federal  governments  have  special  wildlife  values, 
and/or  are  considered  to  be  potentially  sensitive  to  project  impacts. 
Common  names  for  plants  and  animal  species  and  their  scientific  names 
are  listed  on  the  following  page. 

TERRESTRIAL  BIOLOGY 

The  description  of  terrestrial  biology  addresses  first  the  vege- 
tation and  wildlife  common  to  the  project  area  and  then  focuses  on  the 
vegetation  and  wildlife  that  constitute  sensitive  biological  resources 
within  the  project  area.  The  basic  habitat  types,  vegetation 
associations  and  characteristic  wildlife  along  the  project  corridor 
are  described,  followed  by  a  discussion  of  sensitive  communities, 
special  management  interest  areas,  and  special  status  plants  and 
wildlife.  References  in  the  text  to  milepost  (MP)  locations  along  the 
proposed  route  are  shown  on  Figures  3-5  through  3-13  included  at  the 
end  of  this  section. 

Habitat  Types  and  Associated  Wildlife 

The  proposed  route  passes  through  nine  habitat  types:  Valley 
Grasslands  Saltbush  Scrub9  Alkali  Sink,  Oak  Savannah,  Freshwater 
Marsh,  Brackish  Marsh,  Riparian,  Disturbed  (e.g.,  oil  production  or 
abandoned  agriculture),  and  Cultivated.  These  habitat  types  are 
described  in  Table  3-30,  which  presents  characteristic  plant  and 
animal  species  occurring  in  each  type.  Figures  3-5  through  3-13  (at 
the  end  of  this  section)  map  the  location  of  each  of  these  habitat 
types  along  the  proposed  route. 

Land  uses  and  management  practices  (extensive  agriculture,  indus- 
trial and  residential  development)  have  significantly  altered  vegeta- 
tion along  the  proposed  route.  A  1983  study  of  the  Tulare  Basin  (the 
southern  half  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley)  concluded  that  the  current 
areal  extent  of  native  vegetation  on  the  valley  floor  represents  less 
that  5%  of  its  historic  distribution  (California  Nature  Conservancy 
1983).  The  displacement  of  native  vegetation  has  resulted  in  a 
reduction  of  both  plant  species  richness  and  wildlife  habitat. 

Sensitive  Biological  Resources 

Within  the  project  vicinity,  natural  communities  of  concern  and 
populations  of  a  number  of  special-status  plant  and  animal  species 
have  been  identified  as  potentially  occurring  in  the  nine  habitat 
types.  These  identified  communities  and  species  are   considered  par- 
ticularly sensitive  to  potentially  significant  project  impacts. 

Biological  Communities  of  Concern 

Biological  communities  of  concern  discussed  in  this  report  con- 
sist of  both  those  denoted  as  such  by  CNDOB  and  those  identified  as 
important  by  resource  agency  personnel  and  based  on  field  survey. 
CNDDB  considers  saltbush  scrub  and  alkali  sink  to  be  Communities  with 
High  Inventory  Priority  (CNDDB  1983).  CNDDB  considers  the  following 
to  be  "communities  of  special  concern":  sycamore  woodland  (a  riparian 
community),  vernal  pool  (occurring  within  the  valley  grassland),  and 
native  perennial  grassland  (occurring  within  the  valley  grassland). 

3-76 


PLANT  LIST 


Common  name 

Blue  oak 

Bluegrass 

Brewer's  hesperolinon 

Brodiaea 

Buckeye 

Bull  thistle 

Buttercup 

California  melic 

Cattail 

Cockleburr 

Common  buckbrush 

Cottonwood 

Coulter  pine 

Diablo  rock  rose 

Digger  pine 

Downingia 

Elderberry 

Fescue 

Foxtail  barley 

Iodine  brush 

Live  oak 

Lupine 

Manzanita 

Nodding  needle  grass 

Paintbrush 

Pepper  grass 

Pickleweed 

Poison  oak 

Poppy 

Purple  needle  grass 

Purple  owl's  clover 

Rabbitfoot  grass 

Red  brome 

Red-stemmed  filaree 

Ripgut  brome 

Rush 

Russian  thistle 

Ryegrass 

Saltgrass 

Sandwort 

Sedge 

Sunflower 

Sycamore 

Tamarisk 

Tree  tobacco 

Tule 

Valley  oak 

Walnut 

Wildgrape 

Willow 


Scientific  name 

Quercus  Douglasii 

Poa  sp. 

Hesperolinon  Breweri 

Brodiaea  sp. 

Aesculus  californicus 

Cirsium  vulgare 

Ranunculus  sp. 

Melica  californica 

Typha  sp. 

Xanthium  sp. 

Ceanothus  sp. 

Populus  sp. 

Pinus  Coulteri 

Helianthella  castanea 

Pinus  sabiniana 

Downingia  sp. 

Sambucus  sp. 

Festuca  sp. 

Hordeum  leporinum 

Allenrolfea  occiden  talis 

Quercus  wislizenii 

Lupinus  sp. 

Arctostaphylos  sp. 

Stipa  cernua 

Castilleja  sp. 

Lepidium  sp. 

Salicornia  virginica 

Toxicodendron  diversilobum 

Eschscholzia  californica 

Stipa  pulchra 

Orthocarpus  purpurensis 

Polypogon  monspielensis 

Bromus  rubens 

Erodium  cicutarium 

Bromus  rigidus 

Juncus  sp. 

Salsola  sp. 

Lolicum  sp. 

Distichlis  spicata 

Arenaria  sp. 

Carex  sp. 

Helianthus  sp. 

Platanus  racemosa 

Tamarix  sp. 

Nicotiana  glauca 

Scirpus  sp. 

Quercus  lobata 

Juglans  sp. 

Vitis  californica 

Salix  sp. 


3-77 


TABLE  3-30:   HABITAT  TYPES  ALOHG  THE  PROJECT  ROUTE 


HftBITM  TKPfi    LOCAT10H70CCURAHCE 

VALLEY         Valley  floor,  and  also 
GRASSLAND      extends  as  an  understory 

Into  low  foothill 

communities. 


CHARACTERISTIC  PLANTS/STRUCTURE. 

Annual  grasses:   red  brome,  fescue,  ripgut 
brome,  foxtail  barley;  russian  thistle, 
red-stemmed  filaree.   Many  native  wild  flowers: 
e.g.,  poppy,  buttercup,  purple  owl's  clover, 
lupine,  paintbrush.   Occasional  scattered 
common  sal thrush. 


CHARACTERISTIC  MILPLIPE 

Kltfox,  coyote,  badger,  jackrabbit,  ground 
squirrel,  desert  cotton-tail,  Heermann's 
kangaroo  rat;  several  mice  species: 
pocket,  gopher,  deer,  and  meadow  mouse;  turkey 
vulture,  black-shouldered  kite,  northern  harrier, 
golden  eagle,  killdeer,  barn  owl,  lesser  night- 
hawk,  yellow-billed  magpie,  burrowing  owl,  red 
tailed  hawk,  kingbird,  meadowlark,  mourning 
dove,  kestrel;  tiger  salamander,  California 
newt,  western  spadefoot,  bullfrog,  striped  racer, 
western  rattlesnake,  gopher  snake,  western 
toad,  coast  horned  lizard. 


MILES /PERCENT 
IH  400-FOOT  ROM 

122.8/46.9% 


Vernal  Pools  -  occur  in  hardpan  depressions 
interspersed  in  the  Valley  Grassland.  Salt 
downingla,  pepper  grass,  sandwort,  brodlaea. 


Co 

I 


Native  Perennial  Grassland  -  occurs  on  dry 
plains  and  low  foothills  of  eastern  slope 
Coast  Range,  Interspersed  in  valley  (annual) 
grassland.   Purple  needle  grass,  nodding 
needle  grass,  California  melic. 


See  valley  grassland  above 


SALTBUSH       Ron-alkaline, 
SCRUB  sandy  soils  on 

valley  floor,  and 
on  foothills 
between  2000  feet 
and  valley;  inner 
south  Coast  Range 
from  Merced  to  Kern 
Co. 


Common  6altbrush/10Tt-100X 
cover.   Understory  of  annual 
grasses  and  forbs  (see  Valley 
Grassland  above). 


See  valley  grassland  above 


29.2/11.2% 


Continued 


TABLE  3-30:   HABITAT  TYPES  ALOHG  THE  PROJECT  ROUTE,  continued 


HABITAT  TYPE 


ALKALI  SIHK 


OAK  SAVAHUAH 


Valley  floor,  una rained 
low-lying  depressions. 


foothills  east  of  Ht. 
Diablo. 


CHARACTERISTIC  PLAMTS/ STRUCTURE 

Iodine  brush,  seepweed,  common 
saltbruBh.  plckleweed.  Grasses; 
saltgrass,  annual  fescue,  red  brome; 
red-stemmed  fllaree. 

Blue  Oak/valley  oak/live  oak  canopy 
closure  30%  or  less. 
Understory  of  annual  grasses  (see 
Valley  Grassland  above).   Shrubs: 
common  buckbrush,  manzanlta,  coyote 
brush,  poison  oak. 


CHARACTERISTIC  WILDLIFE 

Coyote,  kitfox,  badger,  jackrabbit;  several 
mice  species  -  brush,  deer  &  pocket; 
kangaroo  rats;  side-blotched  lizards,  gopher 
snake  klngsnake 

Mule  deer,  western  grey  squirrel, 
compton  flicker,  white-breasted 
nuthatch,  red-tailed  hawk, 
acorn  woodpecker,  turkey  vulture, 
scrub jay,  king  snake,  gopher  snake, 
(see  also  Valley  Grassland  above). 


MILES /PERCEHT 
IB  400-EOOT  ROW 

7.4/  2.8* 


3.5/  1.3* 


CO 

I . 


FRESHWATER     Along  Irrigation  ditches.  Cattail,  sedges,  rushes,  rebbitfoot 
HARSH  ponds,  areas  of  standing   grass,  bull  thistle,  curly  dock, 

water. 


BRACKISH  MARSH   Hargins  of  Sulsun  Bay, 
along  Pacheco  Creek 
crossing . 


RIPARIAM 
HABITAT 


DISTURBED 

(e.g. ,  oil 
production , 
abandoned 
crop-land) 

CULTIVATED 


Streamside  corridor 


Primarily  on  valley 
floor. 


Plckleweed,  saltgrass,  cattails,  sedges 
rabbitfoot  grass. 


Woodland:   cottonwood,  sycamore, 
willows.   Understory-grasses,  shrubs: 
Weedy  pioneer  species  of  annual 
grasses,  thistles. 

Weedy  species  (e.g.,  russian  thistle, 
annual  grasses  and  forbs) 


Herons,  egrets,  bitterns,  grebes,  geese, 
black-shouldered  kite,  red-tailed  hawk, 
kestrel,  swallows,  blackbirds;  several  mice 
species  -  house,  harvest  fc  deer;  coyote, 
striped-skunk;  Pacific-tree  frog,  western 
bullfrog,  common  klngsnake. 

Waterfowl,  shoreblrda,  great  horned  owl 
belted  kingfisher,  swallows,  red-winged 
blackbird . 

Coyote,  kit  fox  skunk,  beechy  ground  squirrel; 
killdeer,  red-tailed  hawk,  great-blue  heron, 
morning  dove,  northern  oriole,  woodpeckers, 
house  finch's,  hummingbirds. 

Occasional  use  by:  San  Joaquin  kit  fox, 
blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard,  coyote. 


1.8/  0.7* 


Coyote;  nlghthawks, 
ground-squirrels. 


red- tailed  hawks,  beechy 


0.2/  0.1* 


1.2/  0.5* 


18.4/  7/0* 


77.3/29.5* 


SOURCE;   Compiled  by  Environmental  Science  Associates  based  on  CDEG  Wildlife  Habitats  Relationships  model 


In  addition,  riparian  associations,  wetlands,  and  large  oaks  of  the 
savannah  woodland  are  considered  to  be  limited  but  important  resources 
of  concern.  A  brief  description  of  these  sensitive  biological 
resources  follows. 

Vernal  Pools.  Vernal  pools  occur  in  hardpan  depressions  inter- 
spersed  in  the  valley  grassland.  These  pools  fill  with  water  in  the 
winter,  and  as  they  dry  up  in  the  spring,  various  annual  plant  species 
flower,  often  in  conspicuous  concentric  rings.  These  "island"  hab- 
itats host  unique  native  plant  associations  with  a  high  degree  of 
endemism.  Twisselmann  (1967)  identified  two  distinct  plant 
associations  within  the  vernal  pools  of  Kern  County;  those  of  the 
Temblor  and  of  the  San  Emigdio  ranges,  both  of  which  may  occur  in  the 
project  area.  Vernal  pools  also  occur  in  proximity  to  the  pipeline 
route  in  Contra  Costa  County.  Two  vernal  pools  were  documented  in  the 
field  survey  (MP  227.2,  MP  227.5) 

The  delta  green  ground  beetle,  a  federally  listed  insect  species, 
is  associated  with  vernal  pools  and  is  known  to  occur  in  Sacramento 
and  Solano  Counties  (M.  Marangio,  personal  communication). 

Native  Perennial  Grassland.  Remnant  native  perennial  grassland 
communities  can  be  found  on  the  dry  valley  plains  and  eastern  base  of 
the  Coastal  Ranges  up  to  500  feet  elevation.  Dominant  species  are: 
purple  needle  grass,  nodding  needle  grass,  and  California  melic.  One 
stand  of  native  grasses  is  known  to  occur  in  southern  Contra  Costa 
County  in  the  project  vicinity;  others  may  occur  in  areas  that  are 
.inaccessible  to  livestock.  No  native  perennial  grasses  are  present  in 
the  pipeline  corridor. 

Riparian  Habitat.  Streamside  vegetation  may  vary  from  herbaceous 
cover  of  grasses  and  shrubs  to  multi-layered  woodland.  Field  surveys, 
conducted  during  the  summer  of  1986,  revealed  17  riparian  habitat 
areas,  11  of  minimal  value,  totaling  approximately  1.5  miles  of 
riparian  habitat  along  the  proposed  pipeline  route.  This  represents 
approximately  0.5%  of  the  total  miles  traversed.  The  areas  of  minimal 
value  are  characterized  by  cattle  "cropped"  vegetation  with  little  or 
no  water  present,  and  are  in  alignment  with  previously  disturbed 
pipeline  and  power  transmission  corridors  or  have  been  degraded  by 
intensive  grading,  vehicle  use,  or  mining.  The  historic  Central 
Valley  flooaplain  forests  have  been  largely  destroyed  by  agricultural 
clearing  and  flood  control  activities.  Nonetheless,  the  riparian 
areas  serve  as  an  oasis  for  animal  life  during  the  summer.  Water  in 
the  arid  western  valley  region  is  a  critical  resource  for  wildlife, 
such  as  the  special-status  species  known  to  occur  in  the  project 
region  (e.g.,  tiger  salamander,  red  legged  frog,  and  San  Joaquin  kit 
fox).  Existing  riparian  areas  in  the  region,  in  particular, 
represent  a  sensitive  wildlife  habitat  that  supports  a  broad  variety 
of  species.  Important  creek  crossings  with  riparian  vegetation  and 
wildlife  use  observed  are  listed  in  Table  3-31. 

South  of  Merced  County,  the  pipeline  crosses  two  creeks  mapped  as 
perennial  by  the  USGS:   Los  Gatos  Creek  and  one  unnamed  creek.  During 
the  summer  field  survey,  there  was  no  flow  in  either  of  the  perennial 
creeks.  Los  Gatos  Creek  supports  very   sparse  riparian  vegetation, 

3-80 


TABLE  3-31:   IMPORTANT  STREAM  CROSSINGS 


iHrgsffl 

Los  Gatosi  Creek 


Panocho  Creek 


Stream      Water  Present    Stream      Dominant 
Width  at  ROW     (Ttes  or  Ho)     Ratjna/a/    Vegetation 


79 


122.5 


1,000" 


25" 


Little  Panoche 

135.5 

20' 

a 

1 

Creek 

(Dan 

controlled) 

Ortlgalita 

Creek  01 

1*7.3 

15" 

H 

1 

OO 

Ortlgalita 
Creek  1)2 

1*7.8 

20' 

H 

1 

00 
t—1 

Ortlgaltta 
Creek  03 

148.3 

35' 

"K 

1 

Salt  Creek 

151.2 

2"-10' 

t 

I 

Qulnto  Creek 

168.4 

25' 

* 

1 

Garzas  Creek 

174.8 

200" 

(pooled) 

1 

Oreatlmba 

179.6-179.8 

200' 

* 
(pooled) 

Crow  Creek 


Del-Puerto 

Canyon 


183.5 


192.5 


25' 


50' 


Salt  cedar,  cotton- 
wood,  saltbush, 
thistle,  sunflower, 

grasses 

Saltbush,  tamarisks 
grasses 

Saltbush,  grasses,, 
cattail 


Grass,  sedges 


Aquatic 
Organisms  Observed 

Bone 


None 


Tree  frog,  snail 


Grasses 


Sedges,  duckweed 


Hone 

Cottonwood,  willow 
cattails 

Willow,  cottonwood, 
cattail,  sedge, 
sunflower 

Sycamore,  willow, 
saltgrass,  bluegrass, 
louegrass 


Saltgrass,  sedge, 
sunflower 

Tree  tobacco, 
willow,  saltbush,  salt- 
grass,  sunflower 


Hone 


None 


Mosqultofish. 
Insects  (Qdjsnaia) 

Backswimmers 


Wildlife 
Observed 

Doves,  lizard, 
J  ackrabblt , 
cottontails, 
coyote 

Jackrabbit,  barn 
owl,  lizard 

Beechy  ground 
squirrel, 
j ackrabblt 

Hone 


Hone 


Beechy  ground 
squirrels 

Hone 


Bullfrogs,  mosquito-  Magpies 
fish,  gerrldae 


Mosquitof lsh„ 
crayfish 


Mosquitof ish 
tadpoles,  Gerrldae 


Western  toad, 
house  finch 


Signs  of  Disturbance 

Agriculture, 
highway,  ORV  use 


Agriculture,  garbage, 
ORV  use 

Grazing,  paved  road 
ORV  use 


Grazing 

Grazing,  road 

Grazing 

Plowing,  grazing 
Grazing,  agriculture 

Hone 


Red- tailed  hawk   Grazing 

Odonata.  magpies, 

hummingbirds , 

H.  flicker, 

great  blue  heron, 

beechy  ground 

squirrel 


Mosquitof ish, 
Gerridae 

Mosquitof Ish 


Odonata. 
hummingbirds 

Kingbirds, 
kllldeer 


Grazing 


Grazing 


(continued) 


TABLE  3-31:   IMPORTANT  STREAM  CROSSINGS  (Continued) 


Stream 
Unnamed 
Kellogg  Creek 

Harsh  Creek 


CO 

•   Unnamed 
00 


Pacheco 


Stream 
HUepost   Width  at  ROW 


222.8 
231.8 

233.7 


242-243 


255.4 


20'-30' 
125' 


50-75" 


20' 


300' 


Water  Present    Stream      Dominant 
(Yes  or  flo)    Rating/a/   Vegetation 

Y  I       Cattail,  grasses 

N  I       Cockleburr,  sedge, 

tule 

Y  P       Cottonwood,  willow, 

sycamore,  valley  oak, 
walnut,  buckeye, 
elderberry  wild 
grapes,  nugwort, 
cockleburr,  grass, 
sedge,  ryegrass 


Aquatic 

Wildlife 

Organisms  Observed 

Observed 

Hone 

None 

Hone 

Hone 

Gerrldae 


Sedge,  cattail,  wlUaw„  Hyla,  reelllas 
watercress,  Cottonwood 


Beaver,  fence 
lizard,  hawk, 
crow.  Black 
Pheobe ,  Anna 
Hummingbird, 
northern  Oriole, 
Hut tail's  Wood- 
pecker, Scrub  Jay, 
California  Quail 

Fence  lizard, 


Signs  of  Disturbance 
Pumping  plant,  grazing 
Grazing 

Agriculture 


{ Pacific  tree  frog)   Black  Pheobe, 

Western  Kingbird 


Sedge,  cattail,  rush, 
saltgrass,  picklweed, 
rabbitfoot  grass 


Hone 


Frogs „  great 
blue  heron, 
egret 


Grazing,  road 


Industrial  development, 
road,  railroad. 


7a/  P  =.  Perennial;  I  »  Intermittent.   As  defined  by  USGS  7.5  minute  topographic  maps. 
SOURCE:   Environmental  Science  Associates,  Inc. 


with  salt  cedar  and  a  few  cottonwoods  along  the  banks.  Terrestrial 
wildlife  use  of  the  creek  area  includes  mourning  doves,  side-blotched 
lizards,  black-tailed  jackrabbits,  desert  cottontails,  and  coyotes. 
The  unnamed  perennial  creek  crossed  at  MP  89.3  is  also  a  drywash, 
situated  in  a  grazed  grassland  area  that  does  not  support  riparian 
vegetation  or  unique  wildlife. 

Two  of  the  larger,  intermittent  creeks  are  Panoche  and  Little 
Panoche  creeks.  Panoche  Creek  at  the  crossing  has  some  saltbush  and 
tamarisk  shrub  cover,  with  an  understory  of  annual  grasses  and 
"volunteer"  wheat  from  the  nearby  agricultural  lands.  The  creek  is 
very   disturbed,  with  ORV  and  bulldozer  tracks  in  the  bed,  as  well  as 
evidence  of  garbage  dumping  and  sheep  grazing.  Wildlife  use  observed 
at  Panoche  Creek  includes  barn  owl,  black-tailed  jackrabbit,  and 
side-blotched  lizard.  Little  Panoche  Creek  at  the  pipeline  crossing 
is  controlled  by  the  dam  of  Little  Panoche  Detention  Basin, 
approximately  1  mile  upstream.  Saltbush  grows  on  the  drier  edges  of 
the  creek  bed,  with  cattails  and  rushes.  Aquatic  snails  occur 
instream  with  terrestrial  wildlife  including  beechy  ground  squirrels, 
blacktailed  jackrabbits,  and  small  rodents  (probable  Dipodomys). 
Sheep  are  grazed  in  and  around  the  creek,  and  there  is  evidence  of  ORV 
and  dirt  bike  use  of  the  creek  bed. 

The  remainder  of  the  creek  crossings  in  the  southern  portion  of 
the  valley  are  all  of  small  intermittent  creeks  characterized  as  dry 
washes  which  support  little,  if  any,  riparian  vegetation. 

North  of  the  Fresno/Merced  county  line,  four  high-value  riparian 
habitat  areas  will  be  crossed  by  the  proposed  project  at  Marsh  Creek, 
Garzas  Creek,  Pacheco  Creek,  and  Orestimba  Creek.  These  high-value 
riparian  areas  are  characterized  by  vegetation  that  is  now  uncommon  to 
the  Central  Valley  region.  Marsh  Creek  supports  stands  of  cottonwood 
and  willows,  sycamore  valley  oak,  and  elderbery,  with  diverse 
understory  vegetation  and  water  present.  Terrestrial  wildlife  such  as 
red-shouldered  haute,  black  phoebe,  Anna's  hummingbird,  northern 
oriole,  and  Nuttall's  woodpecker  potentially  use  the  habitat  at  the 
crossings.  Garzas  Creek  has  willow  and  cottonwood  on  its  banks,  with 
limited  wildlife  use.  Neither  of  the  creeks  are  grazed  and 
disturbance  is  minimal. 

The  Pacheco  Creek  crossing  represents  a  different  type  of 
riparian  habitat;  it  is  a  brackish  marsh  influenced  by  Suisun  Bay  (see 
discussion  under  wetlands,  below).  Cattails,  sedges,  pickleweed, 
saltgrass,  and  rabbitfoot  grass  predominate.  The  area  is  utilized  by 
aquatic  and  terrestrial  wildlife  species. 

Sycamore  woodland  has  been  identified  as  a  plant  community  of 
concern  (CNDDB).  Sycamore  woodland  occurs  along  Orestimba  Creek  in 
Stanislaus  County.  This  community  is  dominated  by  an  overstory  of 
sycamore  with  various  woody  and  herbaceous  components  in  the 
understory.  The  proposed  crossing  at  Orestimba  Creek  is  already 
affected  by  the  existing  pipeline  and  powerline  corridor,  cattle 
grazing,  and  the  flood  that  occurred  in  the  winter  of  1986.  High 
water  in  1986  caused  localized  flooding  and  the  relocation  of  the 


3-83 


channel,  which  has  since  been  bulldozed  to  return  the  flow  to  its 
original  configuration.  As  a  result,  little  vegetation  remains  along 
the  creek.  Despite  the  impacts  of  grazing,  and  creekbed  degradation, 
the  riparian  habitat  at  Orestimba  Creek  is  still  a  high-value  area. 
Wildlife  use  includes  diverse  birds  and  mammals,  with  some  aquatic 
life  in  the  pooled  areas  (see  Aquatic  Biology  section). 

Two  crossings  are  in  riparian  habitats  of  moderate  value:  Quinto 
Creek  and  the  unnamed  crossing  at  MP  242-243 .  These  habitats  are 
characterized  by  sparse  cottonwoods,  with  understory  vegetation,  but 
also  receive  pressure  from  grazing  and  agriculture.  The  pipeline  also 
crosses  several  riparian  areas  created  by  the  draining  of  an 
impoundment  in  the  managed  O'Neill  Forebay  Wildlife  Area  (CDFG).  The 
drainage  channels  support  edge-rows  of  cottonwoods  and  willows  that 
create  riparian  habitats. 

Wetlands.  Freshwater  marsh  habitat  occurs  sporadically  through- 
out the  project  area  along  the  margins  of  irrigation  ditches,  low- 
lying  irrigation  return  ponds,  and  other  areas  of  standing  water. 
Small  wetland  areas  are  encountered  along  the  pipeline  route,  as  well 
as  a  larger  wetland  area  caused  by  a  breech  of  an  irrigation  canal  (MP 
40-41).  The  wetland  is  characterized  by  tamarisks  and  willows,  with  a 
cattail  and  rush  understory.  Aquatic  and  terrestrial  organisms  use 
the  area.  The  O'Neill  Forebay  Wildlife  Area  (MP  161.3)  also  includes 
wetland  areas.  The  pipeline  crosses  through  grassland  adjacent  to  the 
wetland  areas  in  the  Forebay. 

Brackish  marshes  occur  along  the  margins  of  San  Francisco  Bay  in 
both  tidal  and  diked  situations.  Within  the  project  area,  brackish 
marsh  is  present  along  Pacheco  Creek  (MP  255.4).  Characteristic 
vegetation  includes  cattails,  sedges,  pickleweed,  saltgrass,  and  rab- 
bitfoot  grass.  Fill  and  development  of  the  bay  margins  has  substan- 
tially reduced  marsh  habitat  in  the  Bay  Area.  The  remaining  marsh 
areas  support  extensive  bird  populations  and  may  provide  habitat  for 
the  salt  marsh  harvest  mouse,  the  California  clapper  rail,  and  the 
California  black  rail.  The  salt  marsh  harvest  mouse  is  known  to  occur 
in  marshes  less  that  one-half  mile  from  the  project  corridor  (CNDDB 
1985).  No  known  occurrences  of  the  clapper  rail  near  the  corridor  are 
listed  and  no  rails  were  sited  during  the  1986  survey.  The  nearest 
known  siting  of  a  black  rail  is  over  a  mile  from  the  corridor  and  no 
black  rails  were  sited  during  the  survey. 

Oak  Savannah.  Oak  trees  dominate  community  life  in  the  oak 
savannah  areas  traversed  by  the  pipeline  route,  from  MP  239-253.  The 
oaks  serve  as  observation  posts  for  hawks,  turkey  vultures,  and  other 
predators,  and  provide  a  tree  canopy  and  cavities  for  nesting.  They 
are  rich  food  sources  for  acorn-eaters  such  as  acorn  woodpeckers, 
magpies,  scrub  jays,  mule  deer,  and  ground  squirrels,  and  support 
immense  insect  populations.  Lewis'  woodpecker,  western  bluebirds, 
rufous-sided  townees,  mourning  doves,  titmice,  and  black-headed 
grosbeaks  are  among  the  wildlife  species  supported  by  oak  savannah. 
The  oak  savannah  area  traversed  by  the  proposed  pipeline  route  is 
heavily  grazed. 


3-84 


Unique  and  Managed  Areas 

A  number  of  distinctive  areas  within  or  near  the  project  area  are 
known  and/or  managed  for  their  biological/and  related  recreational 
values.  They  are  briefly  described  below  and  listed  in  Table  3-32. 

The  Lost  Hills  Natural  Area  in  Kern  County  has  been  designated  as 
a  privately  owned  area  of  biological  interest.  This  area,  which  runs 
adjacent  to  the  proposed  pipeline  between  MP  28  and  34,  contains  rem- 
nants of  once  extensive  riparian,  marsh,  and  alkaline  play  a 
communities.  Two  rare  plants,  slough  thistle  and  San  Joaquin 
saltbush,  are  found  in  the  area,  as  well  as  the  San  Joaquin  kit  fox 
and  the  blunt-  nosed  leopard  lizard. 

The  Kettleman  Hills  Natural  Area  is  a  grassland  and  scrub  area  in 
private  ownership  and  management.  The  proposed  pipeline  would  run 
along  the  area  between  MP  59  and  72  on  the  east  side  of  Interstate  5 
in  Fresno  County.  The  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  and  San  Joaquin  kit 
fox  occur,  along  with  San  Joaquin  saltbush. 

The  Little  Panoche  Wildlife  Area  in  Fresno  County  lies  within  1 
mile  of  the  proposed  pipeline  at  MP  13.  Designated  as  a  California 
Natural  Area,  it  contains  a  reservoir  that  attracts  game  birds  such  as 
the  native  California  quail  and  the  introduced  chukar.  The  site  is 
also  used  by  waterfowl  during  the  winter  migratory  season  and  is 
managed  for  hunting  by  the  CDFG. 

Byron  Hot  Springs  in  Contra  Costa  County  is  a  privately  owned 
property  that  is  designated  as  a  California  Natural  Area.  The  area 
contains  a  number  of  scattered  hot  mineral  springs  and  alkali  mud 
flats.  A  rare  snail  (not  listed),  Helminthoglypta  contracostae,  is 
found  at  this  location.  The  pipeline  would  pass  within  1  mile  of 
Byron  Hot  Springs  near  MP  229. 

Nortonville  Coulter  Pine  Groves  Natural  Area  is  located  to  the 
west  of  the  proposed  pipeline  between  MP  242  and  245  in  Contra  Costa 
County.  Part  of  the  area  is  owned  and  managed  by  the  East  Bay 
Regional  Park  District  as  the  Black  Diamond  Mines  Park.  A  distinct 
pine  woodland  characterized  by  Coulter  pine  and  digger  pine  is  found 
here,  along  with  a  number  of  rare  plants  such  as  Diablo  rock  rose 
and  Brewer's  hesperol inon. 

The  Tule  Elk  Reserve  Natural  Area  is  located  in  the  Concord  Naval 
Weapons  Station  near  MP  215  in  Contra  Costa  County.  The  proposed 
pipeline  would  pass  within  1  mile  of  a  corner  of  the  reserve.  The 
area  is  fenced  and  is  being  managed  by  the  United  States  Navy  to 
protect  the  tule  elk  (Cervus  nannodes)  herd  which  was  brought  to  the 
reserve  in  1977. 

O'Neill  Forebay  Wildlife  Area  is  located  between  MP  161.3  and 
163.7  in  Merced  County:  the  project  would  pass  directly  through  the 
wildlife  area.  O'Neill  Forebay  was  established  as  mitigation  for  the 
construction  of  O'Neill  Reservoir.  A  series  of  on-grade  ditches  and 
ponds  have  created  riparian  habitat.  Large  stands  of  cottonwood  and 

3-85 


TABLE  3-32:  UNIQUE  AND  MANAGED  AREAS 

Manaqed  Area 

Milepost 

County 

Distance 
from  ROW 

Feature 

Lost  Hills 
Natural  Area 

28-34 

Kern 

1  mile 

Riparian,  marsh  and 
alkaline  playa  com- 
munities 

Kettleman  Hills 
Natural  Area 

59-72 

Fresno 

.9  mi 1e 

BNLL/1/,  SJKF/2/ 
habitat  San 
Joaquin  saltbush 

Little  Panoche 
Wildlife  Area 

13 

Fresno 

1  mile 

Reservoir  —  game 
birds,  hunting 

Byron  Hot  Springs 
Natural  Area 

229 

Contra  Costa 

1  mile 

Mineral  springs, 
alkali  mud  flats. 
Rare  snail  habitat. 

Contra  Loma 
Regional  Park 

241 

Contra  Costa 

0 

Reservoir  -  swimming 

Nortonville  Coulter 
Pine  Groves 

242-245 

Contra  Costa 

1  mile 

Pine  Woodland 

Natural  Area 

(Black  Diamond  Mines 

Park) 

Tule  Elk  Reserve 
Natural  Area 

253 

Contra  Costa 

.8  mile 

Tule  elk  herd 

O'Neil  Forebay 
Wildlife  Area 

161.3- 
163.7 

Merced 

0 

Riparian  habitat 

/]/   Blunt  nose  leopard  lizard 
111   San  Joaquin  kit  fox 

SOURCE:  Environmental  Science  Associates 


3-86 


willow  trees  are  found  on  the  site.  The  wildlife  area  is  open  to  the 
public  for  hunting  and  nature  study.  Grain  is  grown  on  the  site  to 
provide  seeds  for  doves,  pheasants,  and  other  birds. 

Special  Status  Plant  and  Animal  Species 

The  state  and  federal  listed  and  candidate  plant  and  animal 
species  potentially  occurring  within  the  project  area  are  presented  in 
Tables  3-33,  3-34,  3-35,  and  3-36.  In  addition,  Table  3-37  presents 
these  species  by  habitat  along  the  project  route.  Known  occurrences 
of  these  species  are  identified  on  the  maps  included  as  Figures  3-5 
through  3-13  at  the  end  of  this  section.  Each  state  and  federal 
listed  species  is  briefly  described  below.  No  listed  species  were 
located  within  the  project  area  during  the  1986  field  survey.  Further 
botanical  studies  will  be  conducted  in  1987. 

Plants-Listed  Species 

Palmate-bracted  bird's  beak  (Cordyl anthus  palmatus) .  Listed  as 
endangered  by  USFWS  and  CDFG.  Habitat  is  generally  confined  to  alkali 
soils  of  lowland  flats  and  plains.  The  sites  are  typically  wet  during 
winter  and  spring  months,  and  are  found  within  grassland  habitat. 
Historically  known  from  seven  scattered  locations  in  Fresno,  Madera, 
San  Joaquin,  Yolo  and  Colusa  counties;  recent  observations  have 
extended  its  known  range  to  Alameda  County.  At  present,  only  three 
sites  are  known:  two  are  in  private  and  city-owned  lands  near  the 
cities  of  Livermore  in  Alameda  County,  and  Woodland  in  Yolo  County, 
and  the  third,  a  transplanted  colony,  is  within  the  Mendota  State 
Wildlife  Area  near  Mendota,  Fresno  County  [U.S.  Department  of  the 
Interior  (USDI)  1985].  The  rarity  of  the  saline-alkaline  soils  occu- 
pied by  the  species  and  the  intensive  agricultural  and  urban  develop- 
ment within  its  range  make  the  likelihood  of  finding  additional 
colonies  remote  (USDI  1985). 

Soft  bird's  beak  (Cordyl anthus  mollis  subsp.  mollis).  Listed  as 
a  Candidate  2  species  by  the  USFWS  and  as  rare  by  CDFG,  it  occurs  in 
salt  marsh  habitats  of  Contra  Costa  County. 

Giant  fiddleneck  (Amsinckia  grandifora).  Listed  as  proposed 
endangered  by  the  USFWS  and  classified  as  endangered  by  CDFG.  It  is 
presently  restricted  to  only  one  site,  Site  300,  Lawrence  Livermore 
National  Laboratories,  San  Joaquin  County,  California,  1  mile  north  of 
Corral  Hollow  Road.  The  population  at  Site  300  fluctuates  with  the 
amount  of  annual  precipitation.  Numbers  are  known  to  fluctuate  from 
several  thousand  to  no  plants.  Marginal  soil  conditions  and  areas  of 
restricted  grazing  may  be  especially  suitable  for  growth  of  the 
large-flowered  fiddleneck. 

Colusa  grass  (Neostapfia  colusana).  Listed  as  Candidate  2  by 
USFWS  and  as  endangered  by  CDFG.   It  is  found  in  large  or  deep  vernal 
pool  bottoms,  commonly  in  pure  stands,  in  Stanislaus,  Merced,  and 
Sol ano  counties. 

Mason's  lilaeopsis  (Lilaeopsis  masonii).  Listed  as  a  USFWS 
Candidate  2  species  and  as  rare  by  CDFG.  The  plant  occurs  on  the 

3-87 


TABLE  3-33:   FEDERAL  AMD  STATE  LISTED  PLAHT  SPECIES  P0TEHT1ALLY  OCCURRING  WITHIN  THE  PROJECT  VICINITY 


Status 


CQnanon  Haqie 


State   Federal 

lkilis  Hqme  ififiEfil    (usfws)    SMfj 


tlfiK£Eln&-ESJCififl  Habitat 

Giant    fiddleneck  Mnstncfcia   IVmM l»?ra  CE  PE  3-3-3  April-May  Valley  grassland 

List  1 


Palmate-bracted 
bird's  beak 


Soft  blrd'B  beak       Cordrlanthus  naiiifi 

subsp.  BfiiiiS 


Delta  coyote-thistle   Ermjtium 


CO 


Co    Mason's    Ulaeopsls  Lllaeopslg  roasonll 


CoLusa    grass 


ttSQBtapfja   colusana 


Crampton's    tuctorla  Tuctorla,  puctonata 


CortYUnttWB  Eftlmaiua  CE  E  3-3-3  June-October  Valley  (rasa land 

List  1 


CE 


ca       C2    2-2-3       July-November       Brackish  marsh 
List  1 


CE       C1    3-3-3       June-September      Valley  grassland 
List  1 


CB       C2    2-2-3       April-July 
List  1 


CE       C2    3-3-3       May-July 
List  1 


FE    3-3-3 
List  1 


Brackish  marsh 


Valley  grassland 


April-July         Vernal  Pool 


Known  Distribution 


Contra  Costa  County 
San  Jose 
Us250K  T1N/R1E) 


San  Joaquin  and 
Sacramento  Valley 


Contra  Costa  County 


Historically  known  from  San 
Joaquin  Delta  Region;  recently 
known  from  a  single  population 
In  Calaveras  County. 


Sacramento/San  Joaquin 
Delta  region 


Stanislaus  and 
Merced  Counties 


Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin 
Valleys 


Key  to  Table  3-33  on  page 


TABLE  3-34:   FEDERAL  AMD  STATE  CANDIDATE  PLANT  SPECIES  POTENTIALLY  OCCURRING  WITHIN  THE  PROJECT  VICINITY 


Common  Hot*? 
Furcate  flddleneck 

Suisun  aster 


Scientific  Haira 
Amsinckla  furcal^a, 


Aster  chUensjs 
var.  tent,ug 


BaVersfleld  saltbush   Atrip lex  tularenBJs 


Lost  Hills  saltbush    Atrip  lex  valilcoia 


CO 

Co   California 

,-D      jewelflower 


Status 


State   Federal 
(CDFG)   (USFWS)   CMPS 


NL 


C2     1-2-3 
List  X 


UL 


C2     2-2-3 
List  1 


San  Joaquin  saltbush   Atriplex  pa tula  HL 

subsp.  splcata 


C2 


UL 


CI 


3-3-3 
List  1 


UL 


Caulanthus  cal^fqrnjcus     HL 


Slough  thistle 


Cirslum  crassicaule 


HL 


C2 


2-2-3 
List  1 


Flowering  Period 
March-Hay 


Habitat 

Valley  grassland;  dry 
grassy  plains  and  slopes 


Known  Distribution 
Fresno  County 


June-November 


Brackish  marsh;  tidal 
sloughs  and  marshes 


Sloughs  and  marshes 
in  Contra  Costa  County 


June-October       Alkali  sink;  periphery  of   Throughout  San  Joaquin 
alkaline  playas  Valley 


June-October 


Alkali  sink;  periphery  of   Kern  County 
alkaline  playas 


June-October 


Alkali  sink;  periphery  of   Kern,  Kings  and  Fresno 
alkaline  playas  Counties 


C2 


2-2-3 
List  1 


June- August 


**C2  ?-?-3       Harch-April        Valley  grassland;  Throughout  San  Joaquin 

List  3  grassland  below  3,000  feet  Valley 


Freshwater  marsh; 
streambanks ,  washes, 
sloughs  or  canals, 


Northwest  Kern  and 
adjacent  Kings  Counties 
Counties 


continued 


TABLE  3-34:   FEDERAL  AMD  STATE  CANDIDATE  PLANT  SPECIES  POTENTIALLY  OCCUBR1NG  WITHIN  THE  FHOJECT  VICINITY  (Continued) 


Common  Maine 


Scientific  Name 


Status 


State   Federal 
(CDFG)   (USFVJS)   CUPS 


Flowering  Period     Habitat 


Known  Distribution 


Hispid  bird's  beak 


Qordylgnthus  mollis 
subsp.  hlspldus 


HL 


C2     2-2-3 

List  I 


Congdon's  eatonella    Eatonella  congdonil         NL 


**C2  1-1-3 
List  4 


Kern  mallow 


Bcemalche  keraensis 


NL 


C2     2-3-3 
List  1 


Hoover's  vooly-star    Eriastruro  Hooveri 


NL 


CO 

I 

o 


Delta   tule-pea 


Lathyrus    iepsonii 
subsp.    Iepsonii 


HL 


C2    2-2-3 


Caper-fruited 
tropidocarpum 


Tropidocarpum  capparideuro   NL       C2 


Key  to  Table  3-34  on  following  page. 


3-1-3 
List  1 


June- July 


March- April 


April-Hay 


**C2   l-X-3       April-June 
List  A 


Hay-June 


Bearded   allocarya  PURiobothrvs  hvstriculus        NL  C2  3-3-3  April-Hay 

List  1 


Harch- April 


Valley  grassland;  alkaline  Herced  and  Kern  Counties; 
soils  extirpated  from  southern 

San  Joaquin  Valley 


Alkali  sinks;  valley 
grassland 


San  Joaquin  Valley  from 
Fresno  County  to  Kern 
County 


Saltbush  scrub 


Temblor  Valley  near 
McKlttrick  in  Kem  Co. 


Valley  grassland 
sites; 


Approximately  12  known 

Fresno  County 
to  Kern  County 


Brackish  marsh 


Sulsun  marshes,  southern 
San  Francisco  Bay 


Valley  grassland 


Herced  County 


Valley  grassland;  alkaline  Contra  Costs,  Alameda 
soils  Western  San  Joaquin 

Counties 


■BHM| 


KE¥  TO  TABLES  3-33  and  3-3* 


CO 
I 

10 


STATE  LISTED  PLAHTS 


FEDERAL  CAHblOATES  AMD  FEDEBALL*  LISTED  PUMTS 


CE 
CE 
CT 
UL 


State  listed,  endangered 

State  listed,  rare 

State  listed,  threatened 

Ho  listing;  CHDDB  Species  of  Concern 


CUPS   B-E-P  CODE/LIST 


FT 
Cl 
C2 

**C2 


H  (Rarity) 


rare,  but  found  In  sufficient  numbers 
and  distributed  widely  enough  that 
the  potential  for  extinction  or 
extirpation  Is  low  at  this  time, 
occurrence  confined  to  several 
populations  or  to  one  extended  population. 
occurrence  limited  to  one  or  a  few 
highly  restricted  populations,  or 
present  In  such  small  numbers  that 
it  Is  seldom  reported. 


Federally  listed,  endangered 

Federally  listed,  threatened 

Candidate,  enough  data  are  on  file  to  support  the  federal  listing 

Candidate,  Information  now  available  indicates  that  listing  may  be  appropriate  but  supporting  data 

are  not  currently  on  file 

Candidate,  status  likely  to  be  elevated  from  candidate  to  threatened  on  endangered. 


List  1 


list  3 


E  (Kndangenoent) 

1  -  not  endangered 

2  =■  endangered  in  a  portion  of  its  range 

3  »  endangered  throughout  its  range 


D  (Distribution) 

1  -  mare  or  less  widespread  outside  California 

2  »  rare  outside  California 

3  -  endemic  to  California 


List  4 


A)  plants  presumed  extinct  In  California; 
plants  rare  and  endangered  In  California, 
plants  about  which  more  Information  Is  needed 
plants  of  limit  distribution  (a  "watch"  list) 


B)  plants  are  rare  and  endangered  in  California  and  elsewhere 
but  more  common  elsewhere 


SOUBCK:   Compiled  by  Environmental  Science  Associates 


TABLE  3-35:   FEDERAL  AMD  STATE  LISTED  WILDLIFE  SPECIES  POTENTIALLY.  OCCURRING  WITHIN  THE  PROJECT  VICINITY 


Common  Maine 


Scientific  Hame 


Status 


State   Federal 
(CDFG)   (USFWS) 


Hskiisi 


Distribution 


San  Joaquin  antelope 
squirrel 


Giant  kangaroo  rat 


Blunt-nosed  leopard 
lizard 


CO 

to     Peregrine   falcon 


AirenospermophlluB 
nelsoni 


Pipodomvs   ingena 


<?9mb«U9   sllus 


Falco  PereRrinus 


California   clapper   rail  Rallus    longirostris 

obsoletus 


San  Joaquin  kit  fox 


yylpqg  macrotis  mutica 


CT      C2        Valley  grassland,  saltbush  scrub, 
alkali  sink;  level/gently  sloping 
land,  sandy  loam  soils,  sparse 
vegetation 


CE      PE         Valley  grassland,  alkali  sink; 

saltbush  scrub,  disturbed  areas; 
level/gently  sloping  land;  sandy 
loam  soils;  sparse  vegetation 


CE      FE         Valley  grassland,  alkali  sink, 

saltbush  scrub,  disturbed  areas; 
sparse  vegetation 


CE      FE 


CE 


FE 


Salt  marsh  harvest  mouse    Reithrodontomys  CE 

raviventris 


FE 


California  black  rail      Lateral lus  iamaicensis 


CT 


C2 


Riparian,  alkali  sink,  freshwater 

marsh 


Brackish  marsh;  tidal/non  tidal 


Tulare  Basin,  San  Joaquin  Valley 


Tulare  Basin,  San  Joaquin  Valley; 
western  side  of  valley;  Merced  to 
Kern  County 


Tulare  and  Kern  Counties,  eastern 
Coast  Range  foothills;  Carrlzo  Plain 


Throughout  California 


South  San  Francisco  Bay; 
Napa  marshes;  San  Pablo  Bay 


Brackish  marsh;  tidal/non  tidal 


San  Francisco  Bay  marshes 


CT      FE         Oak  savannah,  valley  grassland,        Tehachapl  foothills,  foothills  of 
alkali  sink,  saltbush  scrub,  slopes    western  San  Joaquin  Valley  to 
less  than  30*  Byron,  Contra  Costa  County 


Brackish  marsh 


San  Francisco  Bay 


Key  to  Table  3-35  on  page 


TABLE  3  36:   FEDERAL  AMD  STATE  CAHDIDATE  WILDLIFE  SPECIES  POTENTIALLY  OCCUHHIMG  W1THIH  THE  PBOJF.CT  VICIH1TY 


Status 


Conmton  Hanre 

California   tiger 

salamander 


Scientific   Maine 

Ambvstoma   tiKrlnum. 
celiforalenae 


State        Federal 
(CDFG)      (USfV)§) 


Tipton  kangaroo   rat 


Short-noaed 

kangaroo   rat 


podornvs  nttratQi'lsa 

prevtnaaus 


Alameda  atrlped  racer 


euryxanthug 


l 

CO 


ISL 


C2 


Dipodomvg  Oi  nltratoideg  HL  C2 


UL 


C2 


lit 


C2 


San  Joaquin  pocket  mouse   Perognathus  1.  tnornatua     HL 


C2 


H»bttat 
Freshwater  marsh;  riparian 


Alkaline  sink 


Valley  grassland,  alkali  sink 


Valley  grassland,  oak  savannah 


Valley  grassland,  oak  savannah, 
alkalal  sink 


Distribution 
Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Valleys 


Tulare  Basin,  San  Joaquin  Valley 


Western  San  Joaquin  Valley 


Valleys  to  low  mountains.  Coast  Range 
east  of  San  Francisco  Bay  and  west  of 
Central  Valley  In  Contra  Costa  or 
Alameda  Counties. 


Tulare  Basin,  San  Joaquin 
Valley.  Sacramento  Valley 
Panache  Valley 


KEY  TO  TABLES  3-35  AMD  3-36 


STATE  LISTED  AHIHALS 


FEDERAL  CAHPIDATES  AMP  FEDERALLY  LISTED  AHIHALS 


CE  a  State  listed,  endangered 
CT  -  State  listed,  threatened 
HL   -  Ho  listing;  CHDDB  Species  of  Concern 


FE  =  Federally  listed,  endangered 

FT  =  Federally  listed,  threatened 

PE  =  Proposed  endangered 

CI  =  Candidate,  enough  data  are  on  file  to  support  the  federal  listing 

C2  a  Candidate,  threat  and/or  distribution  4ata  are  insufficient  to  support  federal  listing 

**C2  m  Candidate,  6tatus  likely  to  be  elevated  from  candidate  to  threatened  on  endangered 


SOURCE:   Compiled  by  Environmental  Science  Associates,  1986 


I 


■atftBSSSHiMBMBtmn 


TABLE  3-37:   PQTEHTIAL  OCCURAHCB  OF  LISTED  SPECIES  (CDFG/USFWS)  BY  HABITAT 


HABITAT 

VALLEY 
GRASSLAND 


PLAHT  SPECIES 


LISTIBO 


AHIMAL  SPECIES     LISTIHG 


-  Cordvlanthus  Palmatus  USFWS 

-  Tuctoria  mucronata  USFWS,  CDFG 

-  Amsinckia  erandiflora  CDFG 

-  Krynzium  racemosum  CDFG 


SALTBUSH  SCRUB 


-  Heostafia  co^usa^a 
Hone 


ALKALI  SIHK 


SOUS 


FRESHWATER  HARSH    NOME 


RIPARIAH 
OAK  SAVANHAH 
BRACKISH  HARSH 


DISTURBED 


See  VALLEY  GRASSLAND 

-  Cordvlanthus  mollis 
subsp.  mollis 

-  Lilaeoosis  masonii 


SEE  VALLEY  GRASSLAND 


CDFG 


San  Joaquin  kit  fox  USFWS.CDFG 

Blunt-nosed  leopard  USFWS.CDFG 

lizard 

Giant  kangaroo  rat  USFWS.CDFG 

San  Joaquin  antelope  CDFG 

squirrel 


-  San  Joaquin  kit  fox 

-  Blunt-nosed  leopard 
lizard 

-  Giant  kangaroo  rat 

-  San  Joaquin  antelope 
squirrel 

-  San  Joaquin  kit  fox 

-  Blunt-nosed  leopard 
lizard 

-  Giant  kangaroo  rat 

-  California  clapper 
rail 

-Peregrine  falcon 

-  Peregrine  falcon 

-  San  Joaquin  kit  fox 

-  Salt  marsh  harvest 
mouse 

-  California  clapper 
rail 

-  Black  rail 

-  Blunt-nosed  leopard 
lizard 

-  Giant  kangaroo  rat 

-  San  Joaquin  Kit  fox 


USFWS.CDFG 
USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 
CDFG 


USFWS.CDFG 
USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 

USFWS.CDFG 
USFWS.CDFG 
USFWS.CDFG 


SOURCE:   Environmental  Science  Associates 


3-95 


margins  of  the  Sacramento-San 
the  project  route  for  Mason's 

Joaquin  delta, 
lilaeopsis  may 

Potential 
occur  at  MF 

habitat 
257.2. 

along 

Orcutt's  grass  (Tuctoria  mucronata).     Listed  as  Endanqered  by 
USFWS  and  CDFG.      It   is  a  yellow-green  annual   grass  that  flowers  from 
May  to  July.     The  species  occurs   in  white-alkaline  vernal   pools.     At 
present  T.  mucronata  is  known  from  a  sinqle  location  in  Solano  countv. 
PotentiaT  habitat  for  T.  mucronata  occurs  along  the  project  aliqnment 
near  MP  227.2. 

Plants  -  Candidate  Species 

A  number  of  candidate  plant  species  have  the  potential  to  occur 
in  the  project  area  (see  Table  3-34).  No  candidate  plant  species  were 
located  during  1986  field  surveys.  Further  botanical  studies  will  be 
conducted  in  1987,  following  certification  of  the  Final  EIR/EIS  but  in 
advance  of  final  pipeline  design. 

Wildlife  -  Listed  Species 

San  Joaquin  kit  fox  (Vulpes  macrotis).  Listed  as  Endangered  by 
USFWS  and  Threatened  by  CDFG.  Originally  it  was  a  relatively  common 
carnivore  of  the  semi-arid  habitats  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  from  San 
Joaquin  and  Stanislaus  counties  south  to  Kern  County  (Grinnell  et  al . 
1937).  Starting  in  the  early  1900s,  agricultural,  industrial,  and 
urban  developments  brought  about  rapidly  increasing  rates  of  habitat 
loss  that  eventually  led  to  population  declines.  Three  areas  with 
exceptionally  high  San  Joaquin  kit  fox  population  densities  (nearly 
four  foxes  per  square  mile)  have  recently  been  identified:  the  Elk 
Hills  Naval  Petroleum  Reserve  in  Kern  County  (O'Farrell  1980),  the 
Elkhorn  Plains  in  San  Luis  Obispo  County  (O'Farrell  and  McCue  1981), 
and  Camp  Roberts  on  the  Monterey/San  Luis  Obispo  county  line 
(Balestreri  1981).  Dens  are  usually  found  in  loose-textured  soils  in 
the  southern  portion  of  their  range  and  in  harder  clay  soils  in  the 
northern  part  of  their  range  (Biotech  1983;  Hall  1983).  Studies  on 
the  Naval  Petroleum  Reserve  #2  (Elk  Hills)  indicate  that  the  kit  fox 
is  adaptable  to  denning  in  man-made  structures.  The  1986  corridor 
survey  identified  38  potential  kit  fox  den  systems.  Three  of  the  den 
systems  located  between  MP  3.7  ana  16.2  appeared  to  be  natal  dens. 
The  highest  density  of  den  systems/mile  occurred  in  the  saltbush  scrub 
habitats  (0.41/mile),  followed  by  the  valley  grassland  (0.16/mile), 
cultivated  habitats  (0.08/mile),  and  disturbed  habitats  (0.06/mile). 
Approximately  75%  (N=29)  of  the  den  systems  were  located  between  MP 
2.4  and  16.9.  In  addition,  two  kit  foxes  were  observed  along  the 
pipeline  corridor  during  spotlight  surveys  at  MP  4.5  (Telegraph  Hills 
area)  and  MP  41.5  (alkali  sink  area  north  of  Mid  station). 

Blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  (Gambelia  silus).  Listed  as  Endan- 
ger ed~T5yH]Tn^riinTTM  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  at  least  to  Modesto  and  perhaps  San  Joaquin  County 
(Montanucci  1965).  This  species  is  now  confined  to  natural  habitats 
on  tne  valley  floor  in  Kern,  Tulare,  Fresno,  Madera,  and  Mercea 
counties,  in  portions  of  the  inner  Coastal  Ranges  of  San  Luis  Obispo 
and  Monterey  counties,  and  the  Upper  Cuyama  River  Valley.  The  type  of 


3-96 


soil  inhabited  varies  from  gravel  to  hardpan  or  sandy  loam.  Abandoned 
or  occupied  burrows  of  kangaroo  rats  and  abandoned  squirrel  burrows 
are  utilized  for  permanent  shelter.  Preferred  habitat  for  the 
blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  are  ecotonal  areas  comprised  primarily  of 
grasses  interspersed  with  shrubby  vegetation  in  flat  and  low  foothill 
areas.  One  possible  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  observation  was  made 
in  saltbush  scrub  habitat  at  MP  17.7.  In  addition,  a  carcass  was 
located  in  a  California  ground  squirrel  colony  at  MP  107.9.  The  route 
crosses  sections  of  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  essential  habitat 
( Brode  et  _al_.  1976),  particularly  in  Kern  and  Kings  counties. 

Giant  kangaroo  rat  (Dipodomys  ingens).  Listed  as  proposed  Endan- 
ger edlDTTJSTwTanTTsTnl^  the  species  presently 
occupies  about  2  to  3%  of  its  historic  range.  Only  five  small  areas, 
totaling  about  12  square  miles,  support  healthy  populations.  Habitat 
for  the  giant  kangaroo  rat  consists  of  areas  with  friable  soils,  and 
exceedingly  sparse  vegetation  and  low  amounts  of  precipitation.  The 
giant  kangaroo  rat  is  most  commonly  found  in  open,  usually  flat 
ground,  gently  sloping  plains,  and  higher  level  or  hummocky  ground 
(Grinnell  1932).  No  giant  kangaroo  rats  were  observed  during  the 
field  survey.  Survey  results  indicate  that  habitats  traversed  by  the 
project  are  not  optimal  for  the  giant  kangaroo  rat. 

Salt  marsh  harvest  mouse  (Reithrodontomys  raviventris) .  Listed 
as  Endangered  by  both  USFWS  and  CDFG,  the  salt  marsh  harvest  mouse  is 
restricted  to  salt  marsh  habitats  (Fisher  1965).  Pickleweed 
(Salicornia  sp.)  is  the  dominant  plant  species  associated  with  salt 
marshes  where  this  species  has  been  found  (Fisher  1965;  Shel lhammer 
1977),  and  has  been  considered  a  necessary  component  of  optimal  habi- 
tat (Wondolleck,  Zoland,  and  Stevens  1976).  However,  areas  dominated 
by  fat  hen  (Atriplex  patula)  and  other  salt  marsh  species  may  also  be 
used  (Rice  1974;  Botti,  Warenucia,  and  Becker  1986).  This  species  is 
endemic  to  the  marshes  of  San  Francisco  and  San  Pablo  bays  and  their 
brackish  tributaries.  The  marshland  habitat  which  once  completely 
surrounded  the  bay  has  now  been  greatly  reduced  by  human  activities. 
Dikes  and  landfill  have  restricted  the  habitat  to  isolated  pockets. 
Documented  occurrences  exist  within  1,100  feet  of  the  proposed  route 
at  the  Pacheco  Creek  crossing.  This  area  supports  salt  marsh  vegeta- 
tion that  is  characteristic  of  optimal  harvest  mouse  habitat.  No  salt 
marsh  harvest  mice  were  observed  during  the  field  survey,  but  the 
potential  for  occurrences  within  the  corridor  exists. 

California  clapper  rail  (Rallus  longirostris  obsoletus).  Listed 
as  a  USFWS  and  CDFG  Endangered  bird,  it  inhabits  estuarine  tidal  salt 
and  brackish  marshes  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay  area.  The  bird  nests  in 
cordgrass,  glasswort,  or  at  the  base  of  gumweed  plants.   It  is  a  poor 
flyer  and  has  a  small  home  range.  Clapper  rails  were  not  observed  in 
the  brackish  marsh  habitat  along  Pacheco  Creek  (MP  256.5)  or  any  of 
the  freshwater  marsh  habitats  along  the  proposed  alignment.  They  are 
not  known  to  occur  within  the  corridor,  though  marginal  habitat 
exists. 

California  black  rail  (laterallus  jamaicencis) .  Listed  as 
Candidate  2  by  USFWS  and  Threatened  by  CDFG.  The  California  black 


3-97 


rail  occurs  in  pickleweed  salt  marshes  and  less  frequently  in  fresh- 
water bulrush  marshes.  Historically,  it  occurred  in  limited  numbers 
from  Tomalas  Bay  in  Marin  County  south  to  northern  Baja  California  and 
in  inland  freshwater  marshes.  The  small,  secretive  bird  is  rarely 
seen  and  its  current  distribution  and  population  size  are  not  fully 
known.  It  has  been  observed  in  the  San  Joaquin  Delta  marshes,  Suisun 
Marsh,  San  Pablo  Bay  marshes,  and  in  the  South  San  Francisco  Bay, 
Alameda  County.  Destruction  of  coastal  and  inland  wetlands  by  filling 
and  draining  threatens  habitat  vital  to  its  existence. 

Peregrine  falcon  (Falco  peregrinus).  Listed  as  Endangered  by 
both  USFWS  and  CDFG.  This  species  requires  cliffs  for  nesting  and 
perching  close  to  lakes  or  rivers.  It  is  predaceous,  feeding  on  birds 
such  as  band-tailed  pigeons,  woodpeckers,  and  jays.  It  breeds  from 
early  March  through  late  August,  with  a  peak  from  early  May  to  late 
June.  Its  habitats  range  from  annual  grassland  through  lodgepole 
pine.  There  are  few  known  nesting  sites.  During  migration,  indivi- 
duals have  been  observed  in  a  variety  of  habitats.  Peregrine  falcons 
were  not  observed  nesting  or  foraging  during  the  field  survey. 
Peregrine  falcons  could  potentially  occur  in  all  habitats  along  the 
pipeline  route,  particularly  in  the  freshwater  marsh  and  coastal  salt 
marsh  habitats. 

San  Joaquin  antelope  squirrel  (Ammospermophilus  nelsoni). 
Classified  as  Candidate  2  by  USFWS  and  Threatened  by  CDFG,  this  desert 
ground  squirrel  is  characteristic  of  desert  wash,  alkali  sink,  and 
creosote  bush  shrub  areas,  where  it  is  found  mostly  on  rocky  or 
gravelly  soil  (Ingles  1965).  It  digs  burrows  under  dense  brush  clumps 
or  next  to  boulders.  It  also  nests  in  old  kangaroo  rat  burrows  (S. 
Lowe,  personal  communication).  The  squirrels  appear  to  require  shrubs 
or  other  cover  (D.  Williams,  personal  communication).  The  Nelson's 
antelope  squirrel  (referred  to  as  the  San  Joaquin  antelope  squirrel  in 
CDFG  1980)  historically  inhabited  dry,  sparsely  vegetated,  loamy  soil 
on  the  western  side  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  from  southern  Merced 
County  south  to  Kern  and  Tulare  counties,  including  portions  of  the 
Carrizo  Plain  in  San  Luis  Obispo  County  and  the  Cuyama  Valley  in  San 
Luis  Obispo  and  Santa  Barbara  counties.  It  is  estimated  that  about 
20%  of  the  original  range  is  still  occupied  by  Nelson's  antelope 
squirrels;  moderate  densities  of  three  to  ten  squirrels  per  hectare 
(2.5  acres)  were  found  during  a  survey  of  about  41,000  hectare 
(102,500  acres)  (CDFG  1980). 

AQUATIC  BIOLOGY 

The  preferred  project  alignment  crosses  a  number  of  named  and 
unnamed  natural  creek  channels  as  well  as  channelized  water  distribu- 
tion facilities  (e.g.,  canals  and  aqueducts).  The  natural  and  man- 
made  watercourses  crossed  by  the  project  are  listed  in  Table  3-13  and 
described  in  Section  3.2.4.  Riparian  habitats  are  described  above 
under  Biological  Communities  of  Concern.  This  section  provides  an 
overview  of  the  aquatic  environments  within  the  project  area,  and 
identifies  specific  streams  and/or  areas  which  support  or  potentially 
support  aquatic  resources  (i.e.,  fish  or  invertebrate  species).  Table 


3-98 


3-31  identifies  stream  crossings  with  streamside  vegetation,  standing 
water,  or  other  evidence  of  potentially  important  aquatic  resources. 

Overall,  the  stream  resources  along  the  project  route  are  not 
well  documented.  Most  of  these  streams  are  not  managed  by  the  CDFG 
(Regions  2,  3,  and  4)  for  recreational  or  special -status  species  and 
have  not  been  recently  surveyed.  The  majority  of  the  creeks  traversed 
by  the  preferred  alignment  are  intermittent  in  nature,  flowing  as  a 
direct  result  of  precipitation  and  local  runoff.  Consequently,  the 
creeks  do  not  support  significant  fish  populations.  Aquatic  inverte- 
brate populations  are  minimal,  limited  to  areas  of  pooled  water. 
Riparian  vegetation  along  these  predominantly  dry  washes  is  uncommon. 
In  addition,  the  predominance  of  agricultural  lands  and  grazing  have 
removed  most  riparian  vegetation,  thus  further  altering  the  nature  of 
the  streams.  Eight  perennial  streams  will  be  crossed  by  the  proposed 
project.  Only  one,  Pacheco  Creek,  has  flows  sufficient  to  sustain 
fish  populations.  The  primary  importance  of  the  streams  in  the  proj- 
ect area  is  their  value  to  terrestrial  wildlife  rather  than  to  aquatic 
life. 

In  the  southern  portion  of  the  project  area,  along  the  western 
edge  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  south  of  Merced  County,  aquatic 
resources  are  limited  by  low  annual  rainfall  and  negative  net  precipi- 
tation. Most  of  the  creeks  are  small  and  flow  only  intermittently. 
Only  during  high  rainfall  years  does  water  reach  the  valley  floor;  in 
most  years  creeks  are  dry  within  a  few  miles  of  their  mountain  sources 
(California  Nature  Conservancy  1984).  The  larger  creeks  (e.g., 
Panoche  and  Little  Panoche)  are  also  predominantly  intermittent,  dry- 
ing up  during  summer  or  fall,  and  therefore  unable  to  sustain  fish- 
eries or  other  aquatic  life.  Areas  of  pooled  water  are  evident  in 
Little  Panoche  Creek  but  not  at  the  crossing.  Two  creeks  mapped  as 
perennial  (Los  Gatos  and  an  unnamed  creek)  also  do  not  support  evident 
aquatic  organisms. 

In  the  northern  portion  of  the  project  area,  north  of  the  Fresno/ 
Merced  County  line,  there  is  a  greater  number  of  flowing  creeks  or 
creeks  with  water  pooled  in  some  areas,  although  the  majority  of 
creeks  crossed  by  the  pipeline  route  are  intermittent,  with  character- 
istics similar  to  those  in  the  south.  In  addition,  the  project 
crosses  a  number  of  water  distribution  facilities  (canals  and  aque- 
ducts) . 

Three  perennial  creeks  are  crossed  by  the  alignment  in  the  north- 
ern area:  one  unnamed  creek,  Marsh  Creek,  and  Pacheco  Creek.  Water 
was  present  in  all  three  creeks  at  the  time  of  the  survey  (July- 
August).  At  the  unnamed  creek  crossing,  which  is  characterized  by  the 
presence  of  cottonwood,  sedges,  cattails,  and  willow,  Pacific  tree 
frogs  are  common.  Marsh  Creek  supports  aquatic  insects  (Gerridae)  as 
well  as  many  terrestrial  organisms.  The  flow  in  Pacheco  Creek  is 
subject  to  tidal  influence  from  Suisun  Bay.  While  no  aquatic  species 
were  observed  during  the  field  survey,  other  studies  indicate  the 
following  species  are  likely  to  occur  in  Pacheco  Creek  (Brown  and 
Caldwell  1985):  the  native  fish  species  Sacramento  sucker,  Sacramento 
western  roach,  and  threespine  stickleback;  and  the  exotic  species 
carp,  golden  shiner,  mosquito  fish,  green  sun  fish,  bluegill,  and 
Redear  sunfish. 

3-99 


The  pipeline  route  crosses  seven  intermittent  creeks  in  the 
northern  portion  of  the  project  area.  In  general,  they  vary  from 
being  unvegetated  dry  washes  to  having  water  pooled  in  areas  and  sup- 
porting some  riparian  vegetation  and  aquatic  life.  These  creeks 
include  Ortigalita  Creek  crossing  #3,  Salt  Creek,  Quinto  Creek,  Garzas 
Creek,  Orestimba  Creek,  Crow  Creek,  and  Del  Puerto  Canyon.  Of  the 
seven,  only  Salt  Creek  does  not  support  some  riparian  vegetation. 
Salt  Creek  is  in  a  heavily  overgrazed  area,  denuded  of  vegetation  by 
cattle  and  human  disturbance.  Backswimmers  (Gerridae)  are  character- 
istic of  the  limited  aquatic  organisms  present. 

The  other  six  creeks  with  water  present  in  the  dry  season  support 
some  riparian  vegetation  and  aquatic  organisms.  Mosquito  fish,  tad- 
poles, crayfish,  and  backswimmers  are  common  organisms  present.  No 
large  fish  appear  to  inhabit  the  pooled  areas.  The  riparian  vegeta- 
tion found  in  these  areas  ranges  from  cattails  and  sedges  to  willows, 
cottonwood,  and  sycamore  with  herbaceous  understory  vegetation.  A 
more  detailed  account  of  the  Orestimba  creek  crossing  is  presented 
above  under  Riparian  Habitats.  The  crossings  of  Ortigalita  Creek  (#1 
and  #2),  Kel logg  Creek,  and  an  unnamed  creek  at  MP  222.8  are  typically 
dry  in  the  summer.  Some  vegetation  is  present  (cattails  and  sedges) 
but  no  aquatic  organisms  are  evident . 

In  addition,  the  project  route  crosses  several  water  transmission 
facilities  (see  Table  3-13  in  Section  3.2.4).  These  constitute  a 
perennial  source  of  water  for  the  area,  but  provide  yery   limited 
aquatic  habitat.  The  California  Aqueduct  of  the  State  Water  Project 
and  the  Delta  Mendota  Canal  of  the  federal  Central  Valley  Project 
(Bureau  of  Reclamation)  both  support  game  and  non-game  fish  species. 
These  species  originate  primarily  in  the  Sacramento  Delta  (or  in  water 
facilities  such  as  reservoirs).  They  become  entrained  in  water  intake 
facilities  and  are  then  transported  into  the  aqueduct  and  canal  sys- 
tem. Neither  the  aqueduct  nor  the  canal  is  stocked  with  fish  for 
recreation  nor  managed  by  the  CDFG  for  any  special  status  species  or 
native  fish  species  (D.  Peterson,  DWR,  personal  communication).  These 
facilities  do  not  provide  spawning  or  rearing  habitat  nor  do  they 
support  important  populations  of  native  fish  species. 

Fish  species  commonly  found  in  these  water  facilities  include 
game  fish,  e.g.,  channel  catfish,  striped  bass,  white  catfish,  black 
bullhead,  and  starry  flounder,  as  well  as  non-game  fish,  e.g.,  thread- 
fin  shad,  threespine  stickleback,  California  roach,  and  carp.  The 
Bureau  of  Reclamation  and  the  California  DWR  provide  public  access  to 
these  facilities  for  recreational  fishing. 

3.3  ALTERNATIVE  ROUTES 

The  only  feasible  alternative  routes  to  the  proposed  route 
involve  relatively  minor  deviations.  The  reason  for  this  is  the 
physiographic  nature  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  which  stretches  for 
260  miles  from  the  Tehachapi  Mountains  to  the  Sacramento  River  Delta, 
with  an  average  width  of  50  miles.  The  San  Joaquin  valley  is  confined 
by  the  Sierra  Nevada  (to  14,492  feet  ASL)  and  the  Coastal  Ranges  (up 
to  5,840  feet  ASL).  Due  to  these  constraints,  the  presence  of  highly 
productive  agricultural  lands  to  the  east,  and  the  locations  of  the 


3-100 


LEGEND 

HABITAT 

(\)  Valley  Grassland 
(g)  Saltbush  Scrub 
(|)  Alkali  Sink 

(4)  Freshwater  Marsh 

(5)  Riparian 

(6)  Oak  Savannah 
(?)  Brackish  Marsh 
@  Disturbed 

(D  Cultivated 


WILDLIFE 
SIGHTINGS 

^  San  Joaquin 
^  Kit  Fox 

7*  San  Joaquin 
"  Antelope  Squirrel 


A 


Blunt-nosed 
Leopard  Lizard 


.9* 


Managed  Natural  Areas 
are  noted  in 
BOLDFACE  ITAUC 


CN       -KERMGOU«TY 


>%MWSITENO.  1A  •v^v^Jiur?j  £ 

*&LL&S-\  (PROP.  AND  ALT.)  "'"'  f '.>"**>  *."_  \|.- 

">•_  " "PETROLEUM  & 


•I 

N0i4 


-*■"-"•  ^5  \g£  o8ts>o.ceuN-nfT 


-r^^-r 


L < ;  :*v-  -r-f 

v  / 

— -V 


0— -, 


T" 

1 

I 


-^r 


Slf 


\   1       ! — ~         -^TST 
■»?}     1       NAVAl-  JIf 

■'•  !        >         "    !' 
-*:   '  PEfROLE-tl'^L.-:-. 

WEIR  STATION      iRVE  No-.2j 
MPO  MWSITENO.  1        '"* 
'(PROP.  AND  ALT.)"'""" 


\ 


[+. 


I   ^.^Mj 


Ranm  •  water 


.  x   -  - 


^  .Wntef 

t 

J*  ,. 


\ 


«  1       • 

1     1557 


■-    Honjtinr' 


.U 


-  -  .'.  -v     <v. 


I ■  *."-."■ 


> 


\ 


■■%>. 


"il 

IE 


MLES 


SOURCE:  ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.5 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  0-21 .2 


3.-101 


LEGEND 

HABITAT 

0 

Valley  Grassland 

(D 

Saltbush  Scrub 

(D 

Alkali  Sink 

® 

Freshwater  Marsh 

CD 

Riparian 

© 

Oak  Savannah 

(!) 

Brackish  Marsh 

® 

Disturbed 

(D 

Cultivated 

WILDLIFE 

SIGHTINGS 

© 

San  Joaquin 
Kit  Fox 

— 

San  Joaquin 

Antelope  Squirrel 

A 

Blunt-nosed 

Leopard  Lizard 

Managed  Natural  Areas 

are 

loted  in 

BOLDFACE  ITAUC 

0  MILES 


SOURCE:  ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.6 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  21 .2-56.8 


3-102 


LEGEND 

HABITAT 

(?)  Valley  Grassland 
(|)  Saltbush  Scrub 
(?)  Alkali  Sink 

(4)  Freshwater  Marsh 

(5)  Riparian 

(?)  Oak  Savannah 
(7)  Brackish  Marsh 
(5)  Disturbed 
(?)  Cultivated 


WILDLIFE 
SIGHTINGS 

•<s\  San  Joaquin 
^  Kit  Fox 

U7A  San  Joaquin 
Antelope  Squirrel 


A 


Blunt-nosed 
Leopard  Lizard 


^>?4^>yt^: 


Managed  Natural  Areas 
are  noted  in 
BOLDFACE  ITAUC 


=  MP ", 


#. 


_EMAN  STATION 
MWSIT£N0.4 
(PFtOP.  AND"  ALT.) 


>MP60 


~r**\     '    ' 


.-^tef 


-v '  ■■.■.■^■x-^z/M?"-^^  '■■■■    -fe,- ..'-      /  *      -<  ¥*t«»%  -\. 

>...   -    ■  /    -\  -  >  V  ■  V;t^,v*"^->-    '-**;.-  .-,•  f**-*       <    ,  /  \  ,        ,         J—    •       '.Gi.  ■'11- 


0         MUES  4 


trtlti- 


>.o>" 


SOURCE:  ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.7 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  56.8-70.7 


3-103 


LEGEND 

HABITAT 

© 

Valley  Grassland 

(D 

Saitbush  Scrub 

<D 

Alkali  Sink 

© 

Freshwater  Marsh 

(D 

Riparian 

© 

Oak  Savannah 

® 

Brackish  Marsh 

© 

Disturbed 

© 

Cultivated 

WILDLIFE 

SIGHTINGS 

® 

San  Joaquin 
Kit  Fox 

San  Joaquin 

Antelope  Squirrel 

A 

Blunt-nosed 

Leopard  Lizard 

Managed  Natural  Areas 

are  noted  in 

BOLDFACE  ITALIC 

k   -.  "KT*kJ>! —  ■  i 


MLES 


SOURCE:  ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.8 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  70.7-97.3 


3-104 


Managed  Natural  Areas 
are  noted  in 
BOLDFACE  ITAUC 


=L 


,-mcxa 


j .-Xa,-!^— .1 .fV-j 


Mint 


'•'    urn       -   a)! 


>*W 


\fM«.(>l.      *.<***"   «IU 


*r«         I   *.<    /- 


*?'     • 


;-.J>t  Mtiieo. 


MILES 


SOURCE:  ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.9 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  97.3-135.6 


3-105 


LEGEND 

HABITAT 

© 

Valley  Grassland 

© 

Saltbush  Scrub 

© 

Alkali  Sink 

® 

Freshwater  Marsh 

© 

Riparian 

© 

Oak  Savannah 

© 

Brackish  Marsh 

© 

Disturbed 

© 

Cultivated 

WILDLIFE 

SIGHTINGS 

® 

San  Joaquin 
Kit  Fox 

_ 

San  Joaquin 

Antelope  Squirrel 

A 

Blunt-nosed 

Leopard  Lizard 

Managed  Natural  Areas 

are  noted  in 

BOLDFACE  ITAUC 

'/  ACCESS  ROAD 

MW  SITE  NO.  10 
(PROP.) 


■■■Qfytrf- 
Flat 


\    ' 


L.J- 


VJCAZlfiAi 


'«v  -■- -^^'-  -  y*-^=-~— i — 


MLES 


SOURCE:  ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.10 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  135.6-174.6 


3-106 


LEGEND 

HABITAT 

© 

Valley  Grassland 

© 

Saltbush  Scrub 

© 

Alkali  Sink 

© 

Freshwater  Marsh 

© 

Riparian 

© 

Oak  Savannah 

© 

Brackish  Marsh 

© 

Disturbed 

(D  Cultivated 


WILDLIFE 
SIGHTINGS 

<S\  San  Joaquin 
^  Kit  Fox 

m%  San  Joaquin 
"■"  Antelope  Squirrel 


A 


Blunt-nosed 
Leopard  Lizard 


Managed  Natural  Areas 
are  noted  in 
BOLDFACE  ITALIC 


MLES 


SOURCE:    ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.11 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  174.6-207.8 


3-107 


IHIlMilllllllllliilllllllWIIIIMIHII' 


am^aa^av.im>iii,ai'BKif.x,:^;: 


LEGEND 


HABITAT 

(7)  Valley  Grassland 
(D  Saltbush  Scrub 

(f)  Alkali  Sink 

@  Freshwater  Marsh 
@  Riparian 
©  Oak  Savannah 
(7)   Brackish  Marsh 

(g)  Disturbed 
(f)  Cultivated 


WILDLIFE 
SIGHTINGS 

/<^.  San  Joaquin 
^  Kit  Fox 

Etzs  San  Joaquin 
Antelope  Squirrel 


A 


Blunt-nosed 
Leopard  Lizard 


Managed  Natural  Areas 
are  noted  in 
BOLDFACE  ITAUC 


:      ,-  'It      ...  *V  ''.I'        '««<«*   '    - 


J. 


MLES 


SOURCE:  ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.12 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  207.8-241.1 


3-108 


HABITAT 

m  Valley  Grassland 

(g)  Saltbush  Scrub 

(3)  Alkali  Sink 

(4)  Freshwater  Marsh 

(5)  Riparian 

@  Oak  Savannah 
(7)  Brackish  Marsh 
(I)  Disturbed 
(D  Cultivated 


WILDLIFE 
SIGHTINGS 


San  Joaquin 
Kit  Fox 

San  Joaquin 
Antelope  Squirrel 


A 


Blunt-nosed 
Leopard  Lizard 


Managed  Natural  Areas 
are  noted  in 
BOLDFACE  ITAUC 


-ts/N  \)m*W:MP  257.6 

&£  MW  SITE  NO.  14  (PROP.) 
MW  SITE  NO.  15  (ALT.) 


'f^W^^^^'^A'TULE  ELK  RESERVE      '{  „ 

:■";/;  |  ;-^^^;|^;^^7UflAi.A/?£A  ^  ^^J  5"  '_     - y/z 

-'i/ijife    £J£J!^  "\^&NORTONVlLLE  COULTER  1 
E^Sb  0fd^^^pfNE  GROVES  NATURAL  A 

iJO^^^^=^--S^na!r^ T.?"  ^r«JT.  MW  SITE  NO.  14 

irArePAfurtu     -T  lAUI-> 

'    ■"-.    ■  ;-■- 1    ...  ,yi    : 

•rr     ACCESS  HOAD'  ->'     ! 


'■V  S.FF1  '«£         ■        :        '"'   '' 

1  ->         -MW  SITE  NO.  13 
(PROP.) 


.<■':£.  \(£Z£l- ■     '•{''■'-       .  .  ^:---^%'''         '-\i    Danviiie 


=L 


MLES 


H  1   t 


V 


,  .0' 


m^- 


j^^*1 


SOURCE:  ESA  and  Ecology  &  Environment 


FIGURE  3.13 

HABITAT  BY  MILEPOST, 
WILDLIFE  SIGHTINGS,  MANAGED  NATURAL  AREAS 

MILEPOST  241.1-257.6 


3-109 


northern  and  southern  termini,  the  proposed  route  has  been  aligned  as 
a  relatively  direct  route  running  along  the  base  of  the  easternmost 
scarp  of  the  Coastal  Ranges.  1-5  and  other  transmission/transporta- 
tion lines  are  located  in  this  same  corridor  for  similar  reasons,  and 
major  alternatives  would  be  impractical. 

The  overall  description  of  the  existing  environment  presented  in 
Section  3.2  pertains  to  the  two  alternative  routes--the  Combination 
Route  and  the  Contra  Loma  Route.  These  alternatives  traverse  the  same 
region  and  the  same  counties  as  the  proposed  route.  The  geology  and 
geological  hazards  are  similar;  surface  and  groundwater  water 
resources  are  the  same;  meteorology  and  air  quality  are  the  same;  and 
the  socioeconomic  environment  is  also  the  same  as  for  the  proposed 
route. 

The  Combination  Route  and  the  Contra  Loma  Route  differ  from  the 
proposed  route  in  certain  details.  Route-specific  details  are  depen- 
dent on  the  final  alignment  and  will  require  consideration  at  the  time 
of  the  centerline  survey  and  right-of-way  acquisition.  Examples  of 
such  details  are  the  location  of  residences,  road  and  stream  crossing 
routes,  the  location  of  trees  and  groups  of  trees,  individual  steep 
slopes,  and  rock  outcrops.  Such  features  can  occur  along  both  the 
proposed  route  and  the  alternatives  and  their  exact  location  with 
respect  to  the  identified  routes  are  generally  beyond  the  scope  of 
this  report. 

Overall,  since  the  selected  alternatives  are  near  the  proposed 
route  and  the  environment  along  the  alternatives  will  differ  only  in 
certain,  route-specific  details,  the  environmental  description  in 
Section  3.2  applies.  This  section  describes  only  those  features  that 
clearly  differ  from  the  proposed  route. 

3.3.1  Combination  Route 

The  environment  traversed  by  the  Combination  Route  is  similar  to 
that  described  for  the  proposed  route  in  regard  to  the  following 
environmental  features: 

Geology  and  Topography  (see  Section  3.2.1,  also  Appendix  C) . 

Geological  Hazards  (see  Section  3.2.2). 

Soils  (see  Section  3.2.3,  Tables  3-4  and  3-5). 

Surface  Water  (see  Section  3.2.4,  Table  3-13). 

Groundwater  (see  Section  3.2.5). 

Air  Quality  (see  Section  3.2.6). 

Socioeconomics  (see  Section  3.2.7). 

Noise  (see  Section  3.2.8). 

Land  Use  and  Recreation  (see  Section  3.2.9). 

Paleontological  Resources  (see  Section  3.2.11). 

Cultural  Resources  (see  Section  3.2.12). 

Biological  Resources  (see  Section  3.2.13). 

The  environmental  features  that  differ  (visual  resources)  are 
described  below. 


3-110 


Visual  Resources 

The  Combination  Route  is  located  within  VRM  Class  1,  where  the 
route  closely  approaches  and  trends  parallel  to  1-5,  a  designated 
scenic  highway  in  Fresno  County.  1-5  in  this  area  is  not  a  designated 
state  scenic  route.  Where  the  right-of-way  is  located  farther  from 
1-5,  it  is  considered  to  be  part  of  the  scenery  visible  from  1-5,  and 
thus  in  a  Class  2  area. 

3.3.2  Contra  Loma  Route 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  traverses  a  similar  area  in  the  same  county 
(Contra  Costa)  as  the  proposed  route.  It  is  similar  to  the  proposed 
route  in  regard  to  all  aspects  of: 

Groundwater  (see  Section  3.2.5). 
Air  Quality  (see  Section  3.2.6). 
Socioeconomics  (see  Section  3.2.7). 
Paleontological  Resources  (see  Section  3.2.11) 
Cultural  Resources  (see  Section  3.2.12). 

The  environment  traversed  by  the  Contra  Loma  Route  differs  from 
the  proposed  route  in  regard  to  geology  and  topography,  geological 
hazards,  soils,  surface  water,  noise,  land  use,  visual  resources,  and 
biological  resources.  Each  of  these  is  described  below. 

Geology  and  Topography 

The  geology  of  the  area  traversed  by  the  Contra  Loma  Route  is 
similar  to  the  geology  described  for  the  proposed  route;  however,  the 
Contra  Loma  Route  traverses  an  area  of  less  rugged  topography  and 
lower  elevations  than  the  proposed  route,  therefore  avoiding  slopes  of 
from  30%  to  as  steep  as  75%.  This  alternative  route  is  aligned  over 
more  alluvial  fan  deposits  than  the  corresponding  portion  of  the 
proposed  route. 

Geological  Hazards 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  is  affected  by  similar  geologic  hazards  as 
the  proposed  route.  The  potential  for  liquefaction  is  higher  than 
along  the  proposed  route  because  the  Contra  Loma  Route  traverses 
debris  flow  channels  from  slope  erosion  that  prevails  upslope  of  this 
area.  Such  debris  is  particularly  susceptible  to  liquefaction. 

Soils 

The  Contra  Loma  Route,  which  extends  for  approximately  4  miles  in 
Contra  Costa  County,  was  identified  for  the  primary  advantage  of 
avoiding  areas  susceptible  to  slumping  or  landslides.  The  predominant 
soils  encountered  are  the  gently  sloping  and  very  deep  Capay-Rincon 
soils,  which  are  free  of  major  limitations  and  pose  only  a  slight 
erosion  hazard.  This  alternative  route  also  traverses  Altamont, 
Diablo,  and  Fontana  soils  units,  which  have  severe  limitations  and 
high  potential  for  slumping  for  a  distance  of  approximately  1  mile  as 
compared  to  approximately  3  miles  for  the  corresponding  portion  of  the 
proposed  route. 

3-111 


Surface  Water 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  is  located  near  the  proposed  route  and,  as 
such,  will  traverse  the  same  surface  waters,  with  flow  and  quality 
characteristics  similar  to  those  described  for  the  proposed  route. 
However,  the  Contra  Loma  Route  would  pass  within  0.1  mile  of  the 
Contra  Loma  Reservoir,  which  is  a  sensitive  area,  whereas  the  cor- 
responding portion  of  the  proposed  route  would  come  no  closer  than  0.5 
mile  to  the  reservoir. 

Noise 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  passes  through  two  noise-sensitive  areas 
not  crossed  by  the  proposed  route--Contra  Loma  Regional  Park,  and  a 
subdivision  within  the  city  limits  of  Pittsburg.  As  mentioned  in 
Section  3.2.8,  policies  in  the  Contra  Costa  County  noise  element  call 
for  a  45  dB(A)  (CNEL)  limit  in  these  areas,  while  construction  noise 
will  locally  have  a  sound  level  of  60  dB(A). 

Land  Use  and  Recreation 

The  land  uses  along  the  Contra  Loma  Route  differ  from  those  along 
the  proposed  route  in  Contra  Costa  County.  The  Contra  Loma  Route  does 
not  traverse  the  Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional  Preserve,  but  does  cross 
the  Contra  Loma  Regional  Park,  a  proposed  residential  development  (Sky 
Ranch),  and  an  existing  residential  area.  The  corresponding  portion 
of  the  proposed  route  does  not  cross  any  residential  areas. 

Visual  Resources 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  crosses  areas  of  VRM  Class  1,  including 
Somersville  Road,  a  Contra  Costa  County-designated  scenic  rural 
recreation  route,  and  Paseo  Corte  Road,  a  county-designated  scenic 
minor  throughf are/collector  route.  As  stated  in  regard  to  noise  and 
land  use,  this  alternate  route  also  crosses  Contra  Loma  Regional  Park. 

Biological  Resources 

The  Contra  Loma  Alternative  crosses  valley  grassland  and  oak 
savannah,  as  does  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  proposed  route,  but 
it  also  crosses  areas  of  disturbed  habitat  caused  by  the  expansion  of 
residential  areas.  No  special-status  plant  or  animal  species  were 
observed  during  the  biological  surveys  along  this  alternative  route. 
This  route  also  crosses  two  ephemeral  streams  of  low  biological 
value. 

3.4  THREE  NEW  BOOSTER  STATION  ALTERNATIVE 

This  alternative  proposes  to  utilize  three  new  booster  stations 
(SJV-2,  SJV-3,  and  SJV-4)  along  the  proposed  route.  These  stations 
would  be  located  in  Fresno,  Merced,  and  San  Joaquin  counties, 
respectively.  The  environment  is  generally  similar  to  that  described 
for  the  proposed  project  in  Section  3.2.  Only  certain  site-specific 
details  are  highlighted  in  this  section. 


3-112 


Geology  and  Topography 

The  alternative  booster  station  SJV-2  site  is  just  north  of  the 
Panoche  Creek  crossing,  parallel  to  Route  5,  in  Fresno  County.  The 
booster  station  is  situated  along  the  eastern  flank  of  the  Panoche 
foothills,  in  gently  sloping  terrain  of  alluvial  and  flood  basin 
deposits.  Bedrock  underlying  the  area  consists  mainly  of  Tertiary  age 
shales,  sandstones,  and  mudstones. 

The  proposed  booster  station  SJV-3  and  associated  power  and  water 
sources  are  located  in  the  northwestern  portion  of  Merced  County,  at 
the  Quinto  Creek  pipeline  crossing.  This  region  is  characterized  by 
gently  sloping  alluvial  deposits,  approximately  8  feet  thick.  These 
deposits  are  underlain  by  Upper  Cretaceous  sandstones  of  the  Great 
Valley  Sequence. 

The  proposed  booster  station  SJV-4  is  located  in  the  western 
margin  of  San  Joaquin  County,  south  of  the  intersection  of  U.S.  High- 
ways 205  and  580.  The  booster  facilities  are  situated  in  an  area  of 
gently  sloping  terrain  along  the  eastern  flank  of  the  foothills.  The 
area  is  underlain  by  a  thin  veneer  of  alluvial  sediments  which  are 
underlain  by  Tertairy  age  soft  sandstone,  with  intervals  of  tuff  and 
shale. 

Geologic  Hazards 

Geologic  hazards  at  each  of  the  proposed  additional  booster 
stations  will  be  similar  to  those  found  along  the  proposed  project 
(see  Section  3.2.2).  There  exists  the  potential  for  intense  ground 
shaking  throughout  the  region.  Liquefaction  associated  with  seismic 
events  could  affect  unconsolidated  soils  associated  with  these  three 
alternative  booster  station  sites. 

Soils 

The  three  alternative  booster  station  sites  and  associated  micro- 
wave tower  sites  will  have  soil  characteristics  and  hazards  similar  to 
those  defined  in  Section  3.2.3.  The  soil  associations  are  referenced 
in  Table  3-38,  which  follows,  and  can  be  cross-referenced  with  Tables 
3-5,  3-6,  and  3-8  in  Section  3.2.3,  which  identify  the  soil  charac- 
teristics for  Fresno,  Merced,  and  San  Joaquin  Counties,  respectively. 

Surface  Water 

Surface  water  conditions  at  each  of  the  alternative  booster 
stations  (SJV-2,  3,  and  4)  are  similar  to  the  surface  water  conditions 
found  along  the  proposed  route,  as  described  in  Section  3.2.4.  The 
sites  lack  surface  water  resources;  booster  station  SJV-2  would  be 
within  0.5  miles  of  the  nearest  stream,  SJV-3  would  be  about  a  mile 
from  the  nearest  stream,  and  SJV-4  would  be  several  hundred  feet  from 
its  nearest  stream.   In  all  three  cases,  these  streams  are  inter- 
mittent. 

Groundwater 

The  groundwater  basins  and  hydrologic  conditions  underlying  the 
additional  proposed  booster  stations  are  similar  in  characteristics  to 

3-113 


Table  3-38 

SOIL  ASSOCIATIONS  FOR   ALTERNATIVE  BOOSTER  STATION 
AND  MICROWAVE   TOWER  SITES,    BY   COUNTY 


County 


Facility 


Soil   Associations* 


Fresno 

Merced 

San  Joaquin 


SJV-2  and 
Microwave  No.   9 
Microwave  No.  8 

SJV-3  and 
Microwave  No.    12 

S3V-4  and 
Microwave  No.   14 


Unnamed  alluvial  fan 
Unnamed  terrace  soil 


O'Neill- Apollo 
Chaque-Carbona 


•Tables  3-4  through  3-11  in  Section  3.2.3  describe  the  soils 
characteristics. 


3-114 


the  hydraulic  conditions  of  the  proposed  route,  as  described   in  Sec- 
tion 3.2.5. 

The  groundwater  quality  is  generally  poor  in  the  shallow  aquifers 
of  the  area.     Potable  groundwater  is  usually  found  at  depths  of  20 
feet  to  several   hundred  feet.     The  proposed  2-inch  water  line  to  sup- 
ply booster  station  SJV-4  will   be  connected  to  an  existing  water  well 
located  nearby.     Well   water  is  available  at  SJV-2  and  SJV-3. 

Air  Quality 

The  existing  air  quality  environment  and  meteorological  condi- 
tions are  the  same  as  those  described  for  the  proposed  system  (see 
Section  3.2.6) . 

Socioeconomics 

The  three  alternative  booster  station  sites  are  in  San  Joaquin, 
Merced,  and  Fresno  counties.  The  socioeconomic  conditions  described 
for  these  counties  in  Section  3.2.7  also  apply  to  this  alternative. 
All  three  sites  are  near  the  established  transportation  network 
(1-5)-- SJV-2  is  within  2  miles,  SJV-3  is  within  one-half  mile,  and 
SJV-4  is  adjacent  to  the  interstate  highway. 

Noise 

Booster  station  SJV-2  would  be  located  in  Fresno  County  east  of 
1-5  near  Panoche  Creek.  The  maximum  background  level  for  this  non- 
sensitive,  predominantly  rural-agricultural  area,  with  an  average  of 
20  to  60  people  per  square  mile,  is  approximately  35  to  40  dB(A) . 

Booster  station  SJV-3  in  Merced  County  would  be  located  on  the 
west  side  of  1-5,  5  miles  north  of  the  San  Luis  Reservoir  and  O'Neill 
Forebay.  Exterior  sound  levels  in  this  predominantly  rural  and  un- 
developed setting  (with  an  average  of  20  people  per  mile)  have  a  maxi- 
mum background  range  of  around  40  dB(A).  This  is  not  an  area  of  sen- 
sitive receptors. 

Booster  station  SJV-4  would  be  located  southeast  of  Interstate 
580  and  U.S.  Route  50  in  a  predominantly  rural  setting  that  is  not  a 
sensitive  noise  area. 

Land  Use  and  Recreation 

Booster  station  SJV-2  would  be  located  in  Fresno  County,  east  of 
1-5  near  Panoche  Creek.  The  site  is  located  in  an  area  designated  for 
agriculture. 

Booster  station  SJV-3  and  microwave  tower  No.  12  in  Merced  County 
would  be  located  on  the  west  side  of  1-5,  5  miles  north  of  the  San 
Luis  Reservoir  and  O'Neill  Forebay.  The  site  is  located  in  an  area 
used  for  foothill  pastures  according  to  the  Merced  County  Land  Use 
Element  Map. 


3-115 


Booster  station  SJV-4  and  microwave  tower  No.  14  would  be  located 
in  San  Joaquin  County  in  an  area  where  land  use  is  primarily  agricul- 
tural. There  is  a  solid  waste  disposal  facility,  Corral  Hollow  land- 
fill, about  4  miles  southeast  of  the  proposed  station. 

None  of  the  sites  is  on  public  land  or  in  a  specially  protected 
land  use  area. 

Visual  Resources 

The  visual  resources  for  the  three  booster  station  sites  and 
associated  microwave  towers  are  generally  similar  to  those  described 
for  the  proposed  system.  These  resources  are  identified  in  Table 
3-39. 

Paleontology 

Paleontological  resources  at  the  sites  of  alternative  booster 
stations  SJV-2  and  SJV-3  are  of  low  to  moderate  sensitivity.  However, 
alternative  booster  station  SJV-4  would  be  located  on  a  site  with  a 
high  potential  for  encountering  significant  paleontological  resources. 

Cultural  Resources 

Cultural  resources  would  not  be  any  different  from  the  proposed 
action  for  the  three  new  booster  station  alternative. 

Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology 

Biological  resources  for  the  three  new  booster  station  alterna- 
tive are  the  same  as  those  described  for  the  proposed  action  in  Sec- 
tion 3.2.13. 

3.5  ALTERNATIVE  POWER  SOURCE  CONFIGURATIONS 

One  of  the  alternative  power  source  configurations  involves  the 
use  of  electricity  and  crude  oil  to  power  the  pumps  and  heat  the  oil 
at  the  new  booster  stations  (SJV-2b  and  SJV-3b),  while  the  other 
alternative  configuration  would  use  electric  power  and  natural  gas 
(see  Section  2.2.3).  The  environmental  conditions  described  in  Sec- 
tion 3.2  for  the  proposed  project  apply  equally  to  this  alternative, 
which  would  be  implemented  in  the  same  geographic  location,  at  the  new 
booster  station  sites. 

3.6  OVERHEAD  AQUEDUCT  CROSSINGS 

The  proposed   action   includes  eight   aqueduct   and  canal   crossings 
of  which  two  are  by  overhead  suspension  bridges   and   six  are  under- 
ground.    Under  this  particular  alternative,   all    six  remaining  major 
aqueduct   and   canal    crossings  will    also   be   by  suspension   bridge.     Two 
minor  diversion/transport  channels    in   Contra  Costa  County--the   Contra 
Costa  Canal    and   Mokelumne  Aqueduct--wi 11    be   traversed   by  conventional 
underground   techniques,    as    in   the   proposed    action.     The   overhead 
crossings   planned   under   this   alternative  will    occur   at   the   same  canal 
locations   as   the  corresponding  underground   crossings   of  the   proposed 


3-116 


Table  3-39 

VISUAL  RESOURCE  CLASSIFICATION 
FOR  ALTERNATIVE  BOOSTER  STATION  SITES 


VRM 
Facility      Class 


Description 


View  From 


SJV-2  and 
Microwave  No.    8 


Flat   agricultural  BG:    1-5* 

fields,   transportation 

lines 


Microwave  No.   9 


Flat  agricultural 
fields,   transportation 
lines 


MGs    1-5 


SJV-3  and 
Microwave  No.  11 


Grassy  hills 


MGs    1-5 


SJV-4  and 
Microwave  No.  13 


Grassy  hills, 
booster  station 


BG:    1-5 


*MG  =  View  in  middle  ground 
BG  =  View  in  background   from  1-5 


3-117 


action.  For  this  reason,  the  affected  environmental  setting  of  this 
alternative  is  identical  to  that  described  for  the  proposed  action  in 
Section  3.2  and  more  particularly  in  reference  to  surface  water 
resources  in  Section  3.2„4„ 


3-118 


4.   ENVIRONMENTAL  CONSEQUENCES 


4.1  INTRODUCTION 

This  section  discusses  environmental  impacts  that  could  result 
from  the  construction,  normal  operation,  accidental  conditions,  and 
abandonment  of  the  proposed  project  and  its  alternatives.  As  required 
by  both  the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  (NEPA)  and  the 
California  Environmental  Quality  Act  (CEQA),  the  criteria  used  to 
determine  whether  impacts  are  significant  are  outlined  for  each  issue 
or  environmental  feature  of  concern.  Only  impacts  that  are  deemed 
significant  must  be  covered  in  detail  under  NEPA  and  CEQA. _  Therefore, 
anticipated  impacts  whose  magnitudes  were  below  the  significance 
thresholds  were  not  assessed  in  detail  in  the  impact  analyses  con- 
ducted for  this  EIR/EIS.  This  approach  has  been  followed  throughout, 
except  when  potentially  significant  impacts  were 
scoping  process  or  by  responsible  agencies  prior 
these  impacts  are  described  in  detail  regardless 
they  exceed  the  significance  criteria. 

4.2  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


identified  during  the 
to  EIR/EIS  analysis; 
of  whether  or  not 


4.2.1  Geology  and  Topography 

Impacts  to  geology  and  topography  were  assessed  based  on  a  review 
of  maps  and  baseline  data,  including  published  reports  of  the  U.S. 
Geological  Survey  (USGS)  and  the  California  Division  of  Mines  and 
Geology;  USGS  quadrangles;  aerial  overflights  of  the  proposed  route; 
and  consultations  with  state  and  federal  agencies.  This  information, 
presented  in  Section  3,  provides  the  basis  for  the  following  discus- 
sion on  geologic  impacts. 

For  geology  and  topography,  impacts  were  determined  to  be  sig- 
nificant if  project  construction  or  operation  would  disturb  or 
restrict: 

t  Unique  geologic  features  or  resources; 

9     Access  to  commercially  important  geologic  materials  such  as 
sand  and  gravel  deposits,  minerals,  or  petroleum  resources;  or 


4-1 


•  Important  paleontological  resources. 

Construction 

The  construction  of  the  proposed  project  will  not  affect  any 
unique  geologic  resources,  since  there  are  none  along  the  proposed 
route.  Geologic  resources  along  the  route  that  could  be  affected  by 
construction  are  limited,  as  far  as  is  known,  to  those  areas  of  poten- 
tial sand  and  gravel  exploitation  identified  in  Section  3.2.1.  The 
areas  of  sand  and  gravel  that  will  be  temporarily  removed  from  poten- 
tial exploration  cannot  be  considered  "commercially  important."  Alter- 
native sources  exist,  and  the  pipeline  will  not  prevent  exploration  of 
the  greater  part  of  those  deposits  that  it  does  cross,  if  they  do 
become  commercially  viable.  Gravel,  by  its  nature,  is  a  low-value 
bulk  commodity.  These  impacts  are  therefore  not  considered  signifi- 
cant. Excavation  of  such  areas  within  the  pipeline  right-of-way  could 
threaten  the  structural  support  of  the  pipeline,  thus  threatening  its 
integrity.  Therefore,  these  small  areas  of  sand  and  gravel  will  be 
restricted  from  potential  exploitation  during  the  lifetime  of  the 
project;  this  is  an  insignificant  impact. 

There  will  be  no  effect  on  existing  oil  or  gas  exploitation  as  a 
result  of  project  construction,  but  the  availability  of  the  pipeline 
may  make  newly  discovered  marginal  oil  fields  commercially  productive. 

It  is  possible  that  important  paleontological  resources  may  be 
discovered  during  project  construction  (see  Section  4.2.11). 

The  pipeline  route  is  aligned  across  a  multitude  of  drainages  and 
toe  slopes.  Some  increase  in  erosion  may  occur  along  segments  of  the 
pipeline  both  during  and  after  construction,  particularly  in  areas  of 
steep  slope  and  bedrock.  Slope  stabilization,  right-of-way  restora- 
tion and  revegetation,  and  mitigation  measures  for  instream  construc- 
tion are  incorporated  in  the  proposed  action  in  order  to  minimize 
erosion  (see  Sections  4.2.3  and  4.2.4). 

Along  most  of  the  route,  no  cuts  or  fills  are  expected  except  to 
construct  and  fill  the  pipeline  trench.  Alterations  of  topography 
will  be  minimal  during  construction,  and  the  route  will  be  restored  to 
its  former  condition  as  much  as  possible.  Steep  topography  would  be 
impacted  in  Contra  Costa  County  and  in  the  Alameda  County  where 
grading  of  the  construction  right-of-way  would  involve  cutting  into 
hillsides  and  reducing  the  grade  on  unstable  slopes.  Such  impacts 
will  not  be  significant. 

Materials  that  cannot  be  excavated  with  either  a  trenching 
machine  or  a  backhoe  are  not  generally  encountered  in  alluvial  de- 
posits. Most  of  the  geologic  units  along  the  route  contain  occasional 
cemented  beds  that  could  be  difficult  or  impossible  to  excavate  with 
conventional  trenching  equipment.  Only  a  fraction  of  the  areas  indi- 
cated in  Table  3-2  will  require  blasting,  depending  on  the  degree  of 
cementation  (induration)  of  the  rock.   It  is  anticipated  that  the 
majority  of  these  bedrock  sections  can  be  pre-ripped  by  bulldozer  but 
may  require  supplementary  blasting  in  restricted  areas.  None  of  the 


4-2 


locations  listed  in  Table  3-2  is  less  than  one-half  mile  from  an 
existing  building,  even  in  Contra  Costa  County.  In  general,  these 
beds  do  not  appear  to  be  extensive  and  they  are  relatively  thin  (i.e., 
only  a  few  feet  thick). 

The  construction  of  ancillary  facilities  will  not  significantly 
impact  geologic  resources.  The  area  of  surficial  geologic  disturbance 
is  small  for  all  of  the  project  facilities. 

Operation 

Operation  of  the  pipeline  and  its  ancillary  facilities  will  not 
impact  the  geology  and  topography  of  the  affected  environment.  Main- 
tenance of  the  right-of-way  during  operation  will  prevent  degradation 
of  the  physiographic  environment. 

Accidents 

An  oil  spill  or  a  fire/explosion  will  not  significantly  impact 
geology  Or  topography  because  than  are  no  unique  geologic  features  or 
commercially  important  resources  within  the  project  area.  Impacts  to 
paleontologic  features  are  discussed  in  Section  4.2.11. 

Abandonment 

Abandonment  in-place  would  result  in  no  significant  geologic 
impacts. 

4.2.2  Geological  Hazards 

Potential  impacts  to  pipeline  and  ancillary  facilities  resulting 
from  direct  and  indirect  seismic  effects  (vibration,  ground  motion, 
liquefaction),  surface  faulting,  slope  instability  (slumping  and  land- 
sliding),  ground  subsidence,  and  soils  with  excessive  shrink-swell 
potential  were  analyzed  based  on  the  information  presented  in  Section 
3.  Impacts  were  considered  significant  if  the  following  conditions 
existed: 

•  The  potential  for  rupture  or  substantial  damage  to  the  pipe- 
line or  ancillary  facilities;  or 

•  The  need  for  special  engineering  design  or  maintenance  proce- 
dures to  prevent  damage  to  or  failure  of  the  pipeline. 

Significant  geologic  hazards  are  discussed  in  detail  below,  and 
are  summarized  in  Table  4-1. 

Construction 

In  general,  geologic  hazards  will  have  no  significant  impact  on 
construction.  Minor  slides  may  be  caused  on  unstable  slopes  if  the 
pipeline  trench  is  not  shored.  Such  impacts  will  be  minor  and  will  be 
corrected  during  construction  so  that  the  pipe  can  be  laid  and  con- 
struction may  continue.  The  standard  procedures  for  trenching  along 


4-3 


Table  4-1 


SUMMARY  OF  GEOLOGIC  HAZARDS  ALONG  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


i 

4* 


Hazard 

Locat  ion 

Soil  Type 

Potent  ial 

Consequences 

GROUND  RUPTURE 
AT  FAULT 
CROSSINGS 

0' Neill 

(MP  148,  152, 

161  ) 

Alluvial 
sed iment  s 

Inactive 

No  significant  impacts 

San  Joaquin 
(MP  173.2) 

Un  f aul ted,  pre- 
Holoc  ene  allu- 
vial sed  imen  t 

Ear  thquake 
magnitude  of 
5  to  7 

No  significant  movement, 
therefore  no  significant 
impac  t s . 

An t  i  och-Da v  i  s 
(MP  236.6) 

Max  imum 

credible  earth- 
quake of  6.6 

Potential  surface  fault 
rupture;  however  damage 
to  pipeline  unlikely  due 
to  shallow  burial  and 
unconsolidated  soils 

Concord 
(MP  256.7) 

Del t  a  sedimen  t a 

Maximum  earth- 
quake of  6.75 

to  7.25 

Surface  rupture  causing 
pipeline  to  break; 
special  design  measures 
required 

Source :   Ecology  &  Environment,  1986 


Table  4-1  (cont  .) 


SUMMARY  OF  GEOLOGIC  HAZARDS  ALONE  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


4^ 


Hazard 

Location 

Soil  Type 

Potential 

Consequences 

SUBSIDENCE 

Northern  Kings 
Count  y 
southern 
Fresno  County 

Various 

Addition  of 
water  during  an 
except  ional 
rainfall 

Impact  not  significant 
because  no  structural 
damage  would  result. 

LIQUEFACTION 

Vicinity  of 
Conco  rd  fault 

Delta  sediments 

Earthquakes 
featuring  pro- 
longed ground 
shaking 

Impact  not  significant 
due  to  shallow  burial  of 
pipeline  and  flat 
terrain  in  areas  of 
potential  liquefaction 

Cr  eek 

crossings 

Saturated 
al  1 uv  ium 

Same  as  above;  concrete 
casings  will  counter  any 
temporary  bouyancy 

Mid  Stat  ion 

(booster 
station) 

All  uv  ium 

Seasonal 
perched  water 
tables  com- 
bined with  in- 
tense ground 
shaking 

Liquefaction  causing 
failure  of  storage  tank; 
special  design  measures 
requi  red  . 

Source :   Ecology  A  Environment,  1986 


existing  ranch  roads  will  entail  cutting  into  hillsides  in  places.  In 
some  cases,  this  may  destabilize  marginally  stable  slopes,. but  again, 
shallow  failure  of  a  cut  slope  would  not  be  expected  to  affect  the 
integrity  of  the  pipeline.  Regrading  to  restore  the  original  topog- 
raphy will  restabilize  slopes  when  vegetation  is  restored  (see  Section 
4.2.3). 

Operation 

The  measures  included  in  the  project  to  address  geologic  hazards 
are  discussed  below. 

Special  design  features  that  reduce  or  eliminate  potential  pipe- 
line damage  resulting  from  fault  movement,  landslides,  and  other  geo- 
logical hazards  are  being  incorporated  into  the  pipeline  design.  The 
designs  will  conform  to  the  applicable  stress  criteria  of  the  American 
National  Standards  Institute  (ANSI)  B31.4.  Design  criteria  will 
include  internal  design  pressure,  surge  pressure,  test  pressure, 
vacuum,  fluid  inertia  loads,  temperature,  external  pressure  (including 
overburden),  and  differential  movement  due  to  surface  fault  displace- 
ment, local  liquefaction,  or  other  loss  of  support. 

The  pipeline  crosses  or  passes  close  to  four  faults  which  were 
identified  in  Section  3  as  sites  of  potential  faulting  and  surface 
rupture:  the  O'Neill  Fault  west  of  Los  Banos  in  Merced  County;  the 
San  Joaquin  Fault  Zone  west  of  Patterson  in  Stanislaus  County;  the 
Antioch-Davis  Fault  south  of  Antioch  in  Contra  Costa  County;  and  the 
Concord  Fault  east  of  Martinez,  also  in  Contra  Costa  County.  A  fault 
is  considered  active  based  on  historic  data  and  evidence  of  movement 
that  have  displaced  Holocene  (recent)  alluvium. 

As  discussed  in  Section  3.2.2,  the  O'Neill  Fault  System  is  inac- 
tive and  the  San  Joaquin  Fault  Zone  has  not  shown  significant  move- 
ment. Therefore,  no  significant  impacts  will  result  from  the  proxim- 
ity of  the  pipeline  to  these  faults.  The  Antioch-Davis  Fault  Zone  and 
the  Concord  Fault,  however,  are  considered  to  be  seismically  active. 

The  Antioch-Davis  Fault  has  a  ^jery   long  recurrence  interval  and 
has  the  potential  for  surface  fault  rupture.  The  unconsolidated 
nature  of  the  surrounding  soils  and  the  shallow  depth  of  the  pipeline, 
however,  would  most  likely  prevent  any  serious  structural  damage  to 
the  pipeline  and  thus  avoid  a  significant  impact,  as  long  as  ground 
shaking  does  not  exceed  intensity  VIII  on  the  Modified  Mercalli  Scale. 

The  Concord  Fault  is  considered  seismically  active  and  produces 
unequivocal  evidence  of  right  lateral  creep.  Recent  studies  indicate 
that  the  pipeline  traverses  only  one  trace,  located  beneath  the  chan- 
nel of  Pacheco  Creek.  Due  to  the  ability  of  the  pipeline  to  stretch, 
there  would  be  less  danger  of  rupture  in  areas  of  unconsolidated  mate- 
rial, such  as  Pacheco  Creek,  than  in  rock  in  this  area.  A  fracture  in 
a  bedrock  area  would  cause  the  pipeline  to  shear,  resulting  in  an  oil 
spill  into  the  creek  and,  in  turn,  into  Suisun  Bay.  However,  esti- 
mates of  a  maximum  potential  earthquake  are  Richter  Scale  7  or  an 


4-6 


Modified  Mercalli  Intensity  (MMI)  of  VIII  or  IX.  This  represents  a 
significant  environmental  risk  requiring  special  engineering  design 
measures. 

Local  ground  liquefaction  may  be  expected  in  areas  were  satu- 
rated, cohesionless  soils  are  subjected  to  prolonged  ground  shaking. 
The  greatest  potential  for  liquefaction  of  water- saturated  granular 
alluvial  soils  is  in  Contra  Costa  County  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Con- 
cord Fault.  However,  since  the  alluvial  soils  are  on  flat  terrain  and 
are  unlikely  to  flow  much,  the  risk  of  any  serious  structural  damage 
resulting  from  ground  movement  would  appear  to  be  minor.  Thus,  the 
impact  is  not  significant. 

Local  subsidence  should  be  expected  in  some  areas  if  large 
amounts  of  rainfall  or  irrigation  water  are  allowed  to  infiltrate  into 
soils  in  the  vicinity  of  the  pipeline.  The  highest  potential  for 
subsidence,  as  mentioned  previously,  is  in  northern  Kings  County  and 
southern  Fresno  County,  and  stems  from  compaction  of  soils  due  to  the 
addition  of  water  as,  for  example,  during  an  exceptional  rainfall. 
Impacts  would  not  be  significant  because  subsidence  would  not  result 
in  structural  damage  to  the  pipeline.  Potential  impacts  from  slumping 
or  dimensional  instability  are  discussed  in  Section  4.2.3. 

Ancillary  structures,  booster  stations,  the  storage  tank  at  Mid 
station,  and  microwave  towers  are  not  located  where  ground  rupture  is 
a  hazard.  These  facilities  would  be  subject  to  the  same  probabilities 
of  ground  shaking  as  the  pipeline.  Where  these  facilities  are  located 
on  bedrock,  the  intensity  of  ground  shaking  is  likely  to  be  less  than 
for  those  facilities  built  in  areas  of  unconsolidated  sediments.  The 
proposed  storage  tank  at  Mid  station  is  in  an  area  which  is  poten- 
tially subject  to  intense  ground  shaking  (up  to  MMI  of  VIII)  and  has  a 
high  water  table  which  could  lead  to  liquefaction,  a  significant 
impact  which  requires  engineering  design  measures. 

The  SJV-2b  booster  station  and  microwave  tower  are  in  an  area 
subject  to  subsidence,  but  only  in  the  event  of  increased  irrigation 
or  an  exceptional  rainfall;  no  significant  impacts  are  expected.  The 
site  is  located  above  flood  levels.  No  other  facilities  are  subject 
to  potential  secondary  geologic  hazards. 

Damage  from  shrink-swell  potential  is  considered  nonexistent. 
The  possibility  of  pipeline  rupture  from  ground  collapse  caused  by 
oil/gas  or  groundwater  withdrawal  is  ^ery   remote  and  is  addressed  in 
Section  4.2.6. 

Accidents 

Geologic  hazards  that  could  result  in  spills  are  discussed  above. 
An  oil  spill,  fire,  or  explosion  would  not  affect  geologic  hazards. 

Abandonment 

After  abandonment,  the  pipeline  would  represent  no  further  risk 
to  public  safety  or  the  environment  in  terms  of  geologic  hazards. 


4-7 


4.2.3  Soils 

The  following  discussion  of  potential  impacts  to  soils  is  based 
on  the  soil  types  and  characteristics  described  in  Section  3. 

Project  impacts  are  addressed  mainly  in  terms  of  soils,  without 
describing  in  detail  the  secondary  impacts  which  only  partially  depend 
on  soil  characteristics.  For  these  impacts,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
other  relevant  descriptions  in  this  section  of  the  report.  For  ex- 
ample, soil  erosion  effects  on  water  quality  are  discussed  in  Section 
4.2.4,  under  surface  water;  liquefaction  associated  with  shrink-swell 
potential  and  hydrocompaction,  which  depend  on  the  presence  of  water 
in  the  soils,  are  discussed  in  Section  4.2.2,  under  geoloqical  haz- 
ards. 

Project  impacts  on  soils  are  significant  if  either  construction 
or  operation  would  prevent  rehabilitation  or  revegetation  of  disturbed 
areas  for  longer  than  one  growing  season. 

Criteria  used  to  identify  sensitive  soils  areas  along  the  pro- 
posed route  were  derived  from  determinations  made  by  the  U.S  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  (USDA)  Soil  Conservation  Service  (SCS)  and  the 
University  of  California  Agricultural  Extension,  and/or  were  based  on 
the  judgment  of  professional  resource  specialists. 

The  applicant  has  identified  general  reclamation  and  erosion  con- 
trol measures  to  mitigate  potential  impacts  on  soils.  These  include- 
topsoil  segregation  and  replacement  on  agricultural  lands-  use  of 
erosion  control  features  to  limit  steepness  and  length  of  slope-  and 
soil  preparation,  reseeding,  fertilizing,  mulching,  and  monitoring  of 
disturbed  areas.  y 

Construction 

In  general,  construction  of  the  pipeline  will  cause  impacts  to 
soils  resulting  primarily  from: 


o 
o 


Accelerated  soil  erosion  and  deposition; 

Decreased  productivity  due  to  compaction  and  horizon  mixina- 
and  3' 

t  Increased  potential  for  soil  slumping. 

Any  of  these  factors,  in  addition  to  natural  causes  such  as  soil 
limitations  and  steep  slopes,  will  make  revegetation  difficult  and 
enhance  the  potential  for  a  significant  impact  due  to  reveqetation 
failure. 

Sensitive  soils  are  identified  on  the  maps  found  in  Appendix  C 
Potentially  significant  impacts  are  summarized  in  Table  4-2. 

The  potential  for  accelerated  soil  erosion,  which  could  occur  as 
sheet  wash,  rills,  and  gullies,  exists  in  all  counties  where  pipeline 


4-8 


Table  4-2 
SUMMARY  OF  POTENTIALLY  SIGNIFICANT  IMPACTS  ON  SOILS,  BY  COUNTY 


County 

Slumping 

Revegetation 

Failure  and 

Erosion 

Soil 
Degradation 

Ponding 

Revegetation 
Failure  Due  to 
Soil  Chemistry 

Kern 

No 

Mileposts  5-12 

Mileposts  21-36 

Locally 

Mileposts  36-44 

Kings 

No 

Mileposts  62-71 

Mileposts  49-59 

No 

Mileposts  44-49 

Fresno 

No 

Mileposts  82-96; 
108-112 

Mileposts  71-83; 
120-T32 

Locally  on 
alluvial    fans 
and   terraces 

No 

Merced 

No 

Intermittent 
stream  crossings; 
Mileposts  138-158 

No 

Locally  on 
alluvial   fans 
and   terraces 

High  lime 
content; 
Milepost   160 

Stanislaus 


San  Joaquin 


No 


No 


Alameda        Yes 
Contra  Costa    Yes 


Mileposts  176-179;      No  No 

187-195 

Mileposts  202-204;      No  Locally  on 

209-211  alluvial   fans 

Mileposts  217-224       No  No 

Mileposts  224-225;      Intermittent  Locally 

239-254  in  creek 

valleys; 
Mileposts  236-240 


No 


No 


No 


Mileposts  226- 
228; 

Mileposts   254- 
298 


4-9 


construction  disturbs  the  soils  and  vegetative  cover  on  steep  and 
moderately  steep  slopes,,  The  impact  is  potentially  significant  when 
the  soils  are  thin  and  revegetation  efforts  may  be  only  partially 
successful,  or  where  rapid  runoff,  wind  erosion,  and  evaporation  com- 
pound the  problem  by  removing  soil  materials  and  creating  unfavorable 
seedbed  conditions.  The  pipeline  will  be  warm,  and  high  permeabililty 
and  evaporation  will  reduce  soil  moisture  in  the  trench  area,  espe- 
cially on  sloping  sites.  These  conditions  are  unfavorable  for  plant 
growth. 

Though  the  erodibility  of  soils  may  vary  somewhat,  in  general, 
those  areas  along  the  proposed  route  where  slopes  are  moderately  steep 
to  very   steep  (15%  slopes  and  greater)  will  be  especially  susceptible 
to  erosion  problems.  Also,  slumping  is  a  potential  hazard  on  slopes 
greater  than  15%  where  clay  soils  predominate.  This  impact  potential 
exists  in  Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  counties,  where  the  slopes  are  par- 
ticularly steep  (30%  to  over  50%)  and  significant  slumping  and  erosion 
hazard  occurs  for  several  miles.  Slumping  soils  and  slope  instability 
constitute  a  hazard  to  the  construction  work  force,  and  after  instal- 
lation, to  the  pipeline,  especially  on  cut-and-fill  or  benched  sec- 
tions of  the  right-of-way.  The  number  of  steep  slopes  is  given  in 
Table  4-3  to  provide  a  quantitative  estimate  of  the  steeply  sloping 
sections  posing  a  high  erosion  and/or  soil  slumping  hazard. 

Soil  degradation  on  productive  agricultural  lands,  resulting  from 
mixing  of  horizons,  will  be  avoided  by  selective  segregation  and 
replacement  of  topsoil.  However,  the  already  difficult  conditions 
along  the  uncultivated  portions  of  the  route,  i.e.,  climate  and  lack 
of  complete  vegetative  cover  even  under  natural  conditions,  could  be 
exacerbated  by  mixing  of  soil  horizons  during  ditching.  This  would 
increase  the  potential  for  revegetation  failure,  a  significant 
impact. 

Agricultural  production  along  the  route  is  generally  a  feature  of 
bottom  lands  in  creek  valleys.  On  the  alluvial  soils,  compaction  of 
soils  by  heavy  equipment  reduces  the  infiltration  rate  and  water- 
holding  capacity  of  the  soil.  Compaction  of  clay  soils  having  poor 
permeability  may  also  increase  the  tendency  to  ponding,  which  inter- 
feres with  agricultural  practices  and  lowers  production.  However, 
routine  land  preparation  such  as  disc  plowing  and  harrowing  could 
render  this  impact  insignificant. 

Revegetation  will  be  difficult  on  soils  having  a  high  salinity 
content  or  which  are  high  in  lime.  General  vegetation  mixtures  will 
not  establish  themselves  on  saline  or  alkaline  soils,  and  revegetation 
requires  the  use  of  tolerant  species  to  avoid  significant  impacts.  If 
revegetation  is  unsuccessful,  other  significant  impacts,  such  as  ero- 
sion, will  also  occur  and  compound  the  impact  of  revegetation  fail- 
ure, which  is  a  significant  impact. 

Construction  of  ancillary  facilities,  booster  stations,  and 
microwave  towers  will  preempt  soils  from  their  present  productive  use 
by  covering  them  with  pavement  and  structures  for  the  long-term  (about 
6.5  acres).  The  primary  concern  would  be  steep  access  roads  promoting 


4-10 


Table  4-3 

STEEP  SLOPING  SITES  ALONG  THE 
PROPOSED  ROUTE,  BY  COUNTY 


Mileposts 

Number 

of  Slopes* 

County 

>12& 

MBS 

Kern 

6.5   -  6.8 
11.4  -  12 

1 

1 

Kings 

64.5   -   71 

34 

— 

Fresno 

92  -  96.5 
108.8  -  111, 
134  -  138.8 

5 

10 

a 

8 

2 

Merced 

138.8   -  139 
140.5   -  146. 
150.5   -  155. 
156.5  -   157 

2 
5 

1 
5 

5 
1 

1 

2 

Stanislaus 

177.5   -  179 
185.5  -   194 

5 

5 

4 
18 

— 

Alameda 

218   -  221 
223   -  224.3 

6 
4 

— 

Contra  Costa 

224.3   -  226 
230  -   235 
240   -  254 

6 

4 
5 

59 

Estimate  based  on  USGS  topographical  maps  (1:24,000) 


4-11 


erosion.  However,  the  proposed  microwave  tower  sites  are  already 
accessible,  with  the  exception  of  microwave  station  No.  10,  which 
requires  150  feet  of  access  road  on  Cottonwood  Hill.  The  applicant 
will  perform  additional  soil  and  engineering  studies  to  determine 
foundation  requirements  for  the  booster  stations  and  the  Mid  station 
storage  tank. 

Operation 

In  Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  counties,  the  potential  for  soil  to 
slump  upon  becoming  wet  and  for  significant  erosion  to  occur  if  the 
right-of-way  is  not  adequately  stabilized  and  revegetated  also  consti- 
tute a  hazard  to  the  pipeline  system  during  operations. 

Accidents 


Oil  spill  impacts  would  primarily  involve  pronounced  effects  on 
physical,  chemical,  and  microbiological  properties  of  soils  and  on  the 
growth  of  vegetation. 

Oil-contaminated  soils  exhibit  decreased  infiltration  rates  and  a 
resistance  to  wetting  from  the  surface;  however,  once  "wetted,"  these 
soils  tend  to  retain  moisture.  More  severely  contaminated  soils  may 
exhibit  deflocculation  and  loss  of  structure,  rendering  the  soils  more 
susceptible  to  erosion  (Ellis  and  Adams  1961). 

Microbial  activity  is  enhanced  in  soils  after  contamination  by 
petroleum  hydrocarbons.  Aerobic,  and  on  a  lesser  scale,  anaerobic 
organisms  utilize  petroleum  hydrocarbons  in  their  metabolism.  Reduc- 
ing conditions  accompany  the  decomposition  and  assimilation  processes 
of  microorganisms  in  these  soils,  greatly  increasing  exchangeable 
manganese  and  ferrous  ions.  The  increase  of  exchangeable  manganese  is 
most  often  to  toxic  levels,  inhibiting  plant  growth  for  a  considerable 
period.  If  the  soil  is  returned  to  its  more  normal  oxidation  state 
(by  cultivation  and  aeration),  vegetation  growth  will  be  restored. 

Numerous  studies  have  shown  that  when  soils  are  severely  contam- 
inated with  crude  oil,  vegetation  is  virtually  eliminated  for  a  period 
of  time.  However,  once  the  source  of  contamination  is  removed,  and  if 
the  soils  are  aerated,  vegetation  returns  in  a  short  period  of  time, 
and  often  yields  more  productive  growth  than  adjacent  unaffected  soils 
(Ellis  and  Adams  1961). 

In  general,  any  oil  spill  occurring  from  the  pipeline  would  be 
considered  small  in  magnitude,  due  to  the  limited  potential  for  crude 
oil  to  spread  over  large  areas  of  land.  This  is  generally  a  result  of 
crude  oil's  high  viscosity.  However,  the  magnitude  and  duration  of 
the  impacts  to  soils  would  depend  on  conditions  in  the  spill  area, 
such  as  infiltration,  depth  of  contamination,  soil  characteristics 
(depth,  permeability,  structure,  etc.),  topography,  and  vegetative 
cover.  From  McKay  and  Mohtadi's  (1957)  studies  of  53  oil  spills  in 
Alberta,  Canada,  as  well  as  their  studies  of  experimental  crude  oil 
spills,  an  equation  was  derived  for  estimation  of  the  area  affected  by 
a  heated  crude  oil  spill: 


4-12 


Spill  area  (m?)  =  53.5  [spill  volume  (m3)]0-89 

or: 

Spill  area  (ft?)  =  112  [spill  volume  (bbls)]0-89 

Using  McKay  and  Mohtadi's  equation,  oil  spills  of  2,000  barrels, 
7,500  barrels,  and  15,000  barrels  could  be  predicted  to  affect  areas 
of  approximately  2,  7,  and  13  acres,  respectively.  An  oil  spill  might 
affect  fewer  acres  on  level  deep  soils  than  would  be  estimated  by  the 
equation,  and  more  acres  when  the  affected  area  is  characterized  by 
steeply  sloping  shallow  soil  areas,  void  of  sorbent  vegetation. 

Agricultural  areas,  and  especially  the  cultivated  croplands, 
would  be  most  sensitive  to  soil  spill  impacts.  Contamination  of  the 
soils,  cleanup  activities,  and  any  subsequent  land  treatment  efforts 
would  involve  crop  production  losses.  However,  due  to  ease  of  access- 
ibility and  workability  of  the  soil,  remediation  of  an  oil  spill  on 
croplands  and  pastures  can  be  generally  accomplished  over  a  shorter 
time  period  than  in  the  shallow  soil  rangelands. 

Abandonment 

Abandoning  the  pipeline  in  place  will  not  result  in  additional 
soil  impacts. 

4.2.4  Surface  Water 

This  section  discusses  the  potential  impacts  to  surface  water  result- 
ing from  pipeline  construction,  operation,  accidental  spills,  and 
abandonment.  A  county-by-county  description  of  sensitive  surface 
waters  in  the  project  area  is  given  in  Appendix  C.  The  methodology 
used  to  determine  project  impacts  to  surface  water  consists  of  eval- 
uating the  effects  of  proposed  construction/operation  procedures  on 
surface  water  features  (e.g.,  stream  flow,  water  quality)  and  the 
potential  effects  of  stream  characteristics  on  the  proposed  project 
(e.g.,  scour  depth  and  100-year  flood  zones). 

Impacts  to  surface  waters  from  project  activities  are  significant  if 
they  have  the  potential  to  result  in: 

t  Increased  sediment  loads  and  resuspension  of  sediments; 

•  Degradation  of  water  quality  below  beneficial  use  criteria 
recognized  by  EPA,  the  California  Department  of  Health  Ser 
vices,  or  the  California  SWRCB; 

■  Reductions  or  limitations  in  the  supply  of  surface  water 
volume  to  current  users  and  important  aquatic  habitats  in 
accordance  with  low-flow  criteria  established  by  the  SWRCB, 
CDFG,  or  the  USFWS; 

•  Damage  to,  or  reduction  in  size  of,  critical  aquatic  habitats, 
such  as  spawning  areas; 


4-13 


•  Streambed  alteration  as  a  result  of  the  project,  or  exposure 
of  the  pipeline  because  of  scouring;  or 

•  Construction  of  any  permanent  above-ground  facilities  in  100- 
year  flood  zones. 

Construction 

The  project  includes  several  measures  to  reduce  impacts  to  sur- 
face waters.  For  example,  construction  through  streams  will  be  con- 
ducted during  the  dry  season.  In  addition,  the  area  of  disturbance  in 
streams  and  rivers  will  be  contained,  any  disturbed  areas  will  be 
stabilized,  and  the  time  required  for  construction  will  be  reduced. 
Required  low  flow  volumes  will  be  maintained.  In  flood-prone  areas 
where  the  potential  for  scour  exists,  the  pipeline  will  be  constructed 
with  concrete-coated  pipe  to  prevent  pipeline  buoyancy;  and  hydro- 
static test  waters  will  be  released  in  a  controlled  manner  consistent 
with  all  regulatory  requirements. 

Potential  areas  sensitive  to  surface  water-related  impacts  during 
construction  are  identified  in  Table  4-4.  Good  construction  prac- 
tices, including  the  measures  identified  above,  are  required  to  pre- 
vent construction  impacts  from  exceeding  the  significance  criteria. 
Construction  during  the  dry  season  will  prevent  significant  impacts  to 
water  quality.  Soil  erosion  by  surface  runoff  occurs  naturally  and 
sediment  loads  will  not  be  substantially  increased  by  construction  of 
the  project  because  the  present  loads  are  already  very  high  during 
high  runoff  events.  The  annual  sediment  load  entering  the  California 
Aqueduct  in  agricultural  runoff  is  high,  and  sediment  loads  resulting 
from  erosion  during  pipeline  construction  will  be  temporary  and  minor 
when  compared  to  the  annual  loads.  No  significant  effects  on  the 
water  quality  of  the  California  Aqueduct  will  result  even  during  a 
worst-case  runoff  event  if  one  were  to  occur  during  pipeline  construc- 
tion (Lucas  1986) . 

The  release  of  hydrostatic  test  waters  will  be  controlled  to  pre- 
vent downstream  sedimentation  by  erosion  and  scouring  at  the  point  of 
discharge. 

Other  potential  construction  impacts  could  result  from  spills  of 
lubricating  oils  or  equipment  fuels  to  surface  waters.  Such  impacts 
would  be  small  in  terms  of  area!  extent  but  would  be  significant  if, 
for  example,  the  accident  occurred  in  or  adjacent  to  a  stream  that  is 
actually  flowing. 

Impacts  on  aquatic  habitats  and  organisms  are  discussed  in  Sec- 
tion 4.2.13. 

Construction  of  the  booster  stations,  microwave  towers,  and  other 
ancillary  facilities  will  have  no  significant  impacts  on  surface 
water. 


4-14 


Table  4-4 

AREAS  SENSITIVE  TO  SURFACE  WATER-RELATED 

IMPACTS  DURING  CONSTRUCTION, 

BY  COUNTY* 


County 


Sedimentation 

of  Irrigation 

Systems  and  Soils 


Rugged  Topography 

Compounding 

Sediment   Loads 


Construction 

in  Perennial 

Streams 


Kern 

Kings 

Fresno 

Merced 


Stanislaus 

San  Joaquin 
Alaneda 

Contra  Costa 


Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Locally 

Locally 

Locally 
Locally 

Locally 


Lost  Hills  Area 

Near  Kettleman  Hills 

Eastern  boundary  of 
the  Ciervo  Hills, 
Panoche  and  Little 
Panoche  creeks 

Ortigalita  Creek  and 
Salt  Creek  valleys, 
slopes  north  of 
Los  Banos  Reservoir 

Between  Hospital  and 
Lone  Creek  valleys 

Diablo  Range 

Northeast  Foothills 
of  Alameda  County 

Kellogg,   Marsh,    Deer, 
and  Sand  Creek 
valleys 


Los  Gatos  Creek 


Lone   Tree  Creek 


Seal  Walnut,    and 
Pacheco  creeks 


*  Sensitive  areas  where  use  of  good  construction  practices  as  proposed  will 
avoid  significant   impacts. 


4-15 


Operation 

Areas  sensitive  to  operation  impacts  are  listed  in  Table  4-5. 
The  pipeline  could  be  affected  by  scour  and  natural  channel  geometry 
changes  over  its  operational  life.  The  proposed  project  crosses  over 
200  streams  which  are  usually  dry  and  intermittent.  The  stream 
valleys  are  crossed  near  where  they  enter  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  so 
that  the  proposed  route  is  aligned  across  numerous  slopes  and  toe 
slopes  which  form  the  western  margin  of  the  valley.  As  a  result,  the 
proposed  alignment  is  vulnerable  to  erosion  and  pipeline  exposure  at 
numerous  streams  during  periods  of  high-intensity  runoff  or  large  flow 
events.  This  hazard  exists  over  the  life  of  the  project.  Measures 
will  be  taken  to  ensure  that  at  each  of  these  vulnerable  points  the 
pipeline  is  buried  below  channel  scour  depth  (see  Section  6.2.3). 

In  flood  zones,  identified  in  Table  4-5,  the  hazard  is  that  the 
buoyancy  of  the  pipeline  will  cause  the  pipe  to  rise  to  the  surface 
and  become  destabilized  and  exposed.  This  will  be  prevented  by  casing 
the  pipe  in  concrete  in  flood  zones. 

The  primary  hazard  to  surface  water  quality  over  the  life  of  the 
pipeline  is  from  a  major  oil  spill.  This  impact  is  addressed  below 
under  Accidents. 

During  pipeline  operations,  maintenance,  including  aerial  sur- 
veillance of  the  right-of-way  to  identify  and  remedy  instances  of 
scour,  will  insure  early  detection  of  potential  scour  problems,  thus 
minimizing  impacts.  No  significant  impacts  will  result  from  opera- 
tion. 

Accidents 

The  systems  used  to  detect  and  minimize  oil  spills  are  discussed 
in  Section  4.2.15,  Oil  Spill  Potential  and  Effects.  In  general,  the 
project  will  meet  all  required  standards  and  an  oil  spill  contingency 
plan  has  been  developed  for  the  project  to  quickly  and  properly  clean 
up  spills. 

The  maximum  potential  oil  spill  data  presented  in  Section  4.2.15 
indicate  spill  volumes  can  range  from  592  barrels  at  Pacheco  Creek  to 
23,000  barrels  at  the  California  Aqueduct  crossing  at  milepost  32.3. 
Detection  volumes  of  approximately  800  barrels  should  be  added  to  the 
estimated  drainage  volumes,  which  are  worst-case  estimates  for  these 
specific  locations.  Under  these  worst-case  conditions,  small  drain- 
ages and  watercourses  would  be  overwhelmed  by  these  quantities  of  oil, 
and  larger  perennial  streams  and  aqueducts  would  carry  the  oil  many 
miles  downstream.  The  most  sensitive  of  the  larger  watercourses  are 
the  aqueducts  which  transport  water  to  locations  hundreds  of  miles 
away.  Water  from  the  California  Aqueduct  is  treated  prior  to  use  for 
drinking  water  in  the  Central  Valley.  An  oil  spill  reaching  the  aque- 
duct would  adversely  affect  water  treatment  equipment,  resulting  in  a 
significant  adverse  impact  due  to  reduced  drinking  water  supplies 
(Lucas  1986). 


4-16 


Table  4-5 

AREAS  SENSITIVE  TO  SURFACE-WATER-RELATED  IMPACTS 
DURING  OPERATIONS,  BY  COUNTY* 


County 

Water  Sources 

at  Risk 

from  Spill 

Flooding 

Potential 
Catastrophic 
Flood/Release 

Kern 

California  Aqueduct 

Salt  Creek, 

Chico  Martinez  Creek, 

Santos  Creek 

Zone  A 
Flood  Areas 

Kings 

— 

Santos  Creek 

— 

Fresno 

Pleasant  Valley 
Aqueduct 

Los  Gatos  and 
Panoche  creeks 

Zone  A 
Flood  Areas 

Merced 

Delta  Mendota 
Canal,  California 
Aqueduct 

Los  Banos , 
O'Neill  Forebay, 
and  San  Luis 
Reservoir 

Stanislaus 

— 

Orestimba, 

Sal  ado,  and  Del 

Puerto  creeks 

-— 

San  Joaquin 

— 

Corral  Hollow  Creek 

Zone  A 
Flood  Area 

Alameda 

Bethany  Reservoir, 
California  and 
Delta  Mendota 
canals 

Contra  Costa 

Contra  Loma  Reservoir, 
Marsh  Creek  Reservoir, 

Brushy  and 
Pacheco  creeks 

Zone  A 
Flood  Areas 

Brackish  Marsh, 
Mokelumne  Aqueduct 


♦Oil  spills  will  result  in  significant  impacts;  potential  damage  to  the  pipeline 
system  from  catastrophic  floods  or  releases  is  improbable.  Flooding  will  be 
mitigated  by  weighting  the  pipe. 


4-17 


Water  quality  will  be  degraded  by  the  more  volatile  fractions  of 
the  oil  going  into  solution.  Depending  on  the  flow  characteristics  at 
the  time  of  the  spill s  oil  could  be  incorporated  into  the  sediment  of 
the  stream  bottom  so  that  some  oil  would  continue  to  be  released  after 
the  surface  spill  was  initially  cleaned  up.  Duration  of  the  water 
quality  impacts  would  probably  be  only  a  few  weeks  after  the  oil  was 
cleaned  up,  particularly  for  larger  streams  with  a  large  enough  flow 
to  dilute  any  oil  remaining  after  cleanup.  This  would  depend  on  the 
time  of  the  year  and  the  volume  of  flow  in  the  intermediate  drain- 
ages. 

As  discussed  in  Section  3,  the  only  sediment  settling  basin  asso- 
ciated with  the  California  Aqueduct  that  could  be  affected  by  the 
project  is  Arroyo  Passajero  (Lucas  1986).  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  sig- 
nificant water  quality  degradation  downstream.  The  likelihood  of  an 
oil  spill  occurring  during  a  flood  or  sustained  storm  of  sufficient 
magnitude  to  transport  oil  from  the  pipeline  to  the  basin,  a  distance 
of  10  miles,  is  very  small. 

A  catastrophic  flood  or  release  of  water,  such  as  could  occur  if 
the  spillways  on  the  O'Neill  Forebay  and  San  Luis  Reservoir  gave  way, 
could  uncover  and  wash  out  sections  of  pipeline,  and  thus  cause  an  oil 
spill.  This  impact  is  significant  but  improbable,  and  can  be  miti- 
gated by  casing  the  pipe  in  concrete. 

Abandonment 

The  pipeline  will  be  purged  of  all  oil  and  contaminants,  flooded 
with  water,  and  abandoned  in  place.  The  rust  inhibitors  in  the  water 
filling  the  abandoned  line  will  degrade  over  time  and  will  have  no 
significant  impacts.  As  the  pipeline  corrodes,  it  will  begin  to  leak 
incrementally  and  in  many  places;  no  single,  large  release  is  ex- 
pected. As  such,  there  will  be  no  effect  in  a  stable  channel.  How- 
ever, if  the  channel  began  to  degrade,  the  pipeline  might  be  uncov- 
ered, thus  affecting  the  flow  regime  of  the  stream  by  catching  sedi- 
ment and  trash.  The  pipeline  and  the  right-of-way  would  require  main- 
tenance over  the  duration  of  the  abandonment  period  to  prevent  scour 
and  damage  from  exposure  of  the  abandoned  system. 

4.2.5  Groundwater 

Potential  impacts  on  groundwater  were  assessed  by  combining 
information  on  aquifer  characteristics  developed  in  Section  3  with 
possible  effects  of  pipeline  operation  on  subsurface  conditions.  Sen- 
sitive aquifers  or  basins  along  the  proposed  route  were  defined  in 
Section  3  as  those  which  are  shallow,  unconfined,  and  overlain  by 
highly  permeable  alluvium,  or  which  are  used  for  drinking  water  or 
irrigation.  Significant  impacts  are  those  which  would  have  the  poten- 
tial to: 

a  Measurably  degrade  water  quality  in  any  aquifer;  or 


4-18 


•  Restrict  or  limit  the  volume  of  groundwater  available  to 
existing  users,  for  either  irrigation,  drinking  water,  or 
other  beneficial  uses,  or  measurably  contribute  to  overdraft 
in  any  groundwater  basin. 

Construction,  operation,  abandonment,  and  oil  spills  are  dis- 
cussed below  in  terms  of  potential  significant  impacts  to  groundwater 
resources  in  the  project  area. 

Construction 

During  construction,  63  acre-feet  of  water  will  be  used  to  hy- 
draulically  test  the  integrity  of  the  pipeline.  This  water  will  be 
provided  by  water  districts;  whether  it  will  be  supplied  from  surface 
or  groundwater  sources  is  unknown.  It  will  be  used  repeatedly  to  test 
sections  of  the  pipe  until  all  of  the  line  has  been  tested  and  the 
water  is  discharged.  For  comparison  purposes,  Kern  County  uses  over  1 
million  acre-feet  of  water  per  year.  Even  in  the  western  portion  of 
Kern  County  along  the  proposed  route,  withdrawals  of  groundwater  are 
20,000  acre-feet  per  year.  Thus,  the  planned  63  acre-feet  withdrawal 
does  not  represent  a  significant  impact  on  available  groundwater  sup- 
plies. However,  as  shown  on  Figure  3-3,  the  Kern  County  sub-basin  is 
subject  to  overdraft.  If  the  hydrostatic  test  water  is  withdrawn  from 
this  sub-basin,  a  significant  impact  would  result  if  the  basin  is  not 
recharged. 

Impacts  on  groundwater  quality  from  oil  spills  during  refueling 
of  equipment  along  the  proposed  route  will  not  be  significant  because 
such  spills  will  be  small,  will  spread  on  the  surface,  and  will  be 
cleaned  up  before  they  impact  the  aquifers. 

Operation 

The  operation  of  the  proposed  project  will  not  significantly 
impact  groundwater  because  it  will  not  degrade  water  quality  or  have 
any  effect  on  groundwater  recharge  or  volume. 

Water  for  wet  fuel  injection  at  the  booster  stations  is  required 
at  a  rate  of  4,000  gal  Ions/day/ station  or  8,000  gallons/day  for  the 
two  new  stations;  i.e.,  approximately  80  to  115  million  gallons  over 
30  to  40  years.  The  water  will  be  purchased  from  the  San  Luis  and 
Kern  Canyon  Water  Districts  based  on  permit  applications.  The  impact 
is  insignificant  because  the  total  water  requirement  is  about  30  acre 
feet;  i.e.,  less  than  that  required  for  testing  the  pipeline. 

Accidents 

For  5.5  days  of  the  week,  the  pipeline  will  be  carrying  a  high 
melting  point  oil  with  low  volatiles  content  and  of  such  high  viscos- 
ity that  it  will  be  almost  solid  at  ambient  temperatures.  It  would 
not  flow  far  from  the  point  of  leakage  or  spillage  through  the  soil, 
and  downward  migration  to  aquifers  would  be  slow.  The  maximum  impact 
of  a  pipeline  break  will  occur  only  if  the  break  happens  while  the 
line  is  carrying  "lube  crude,"  a  lower  viscosity  oil  with  a  higher 


4-19 


vol atiles  content.  Impacts  are  discussed  for  soils  in  Section  4.2.3 
and  for  surface  water  in  Section  4.2.4. 

Because  the  depth  of  the  pipeline,  which  is  normally  5  feet,  is 
less  than  the  depth  of  the  groundwater  table,  which  is  usually  found 
at  20  feet  or  more,  a  spill  or  leak  will  first  have  to  penetrate  a 
deep  layer  of  unsaturated  soil  or  rock  to  impact  groundwater.   Since 
the  Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan  provides  for  prompt  remedial  action,  no 
significant  impacts  will  occur,  as  elaborated  below.  A  break  in  a 
creek  would  result  in  contact  between  the  oil-  and  water-saturated 
alluvial  sediments,  but  the  oil  would  float  at  the  surface  and  it 
would  be  cleaned  up. 

Spill  volumes  probable  along  each  segment  of  the  route  are  shown 
in  Table  4-6.  These  volumes  are  based  on  the  pipeline  diameters  and 
topography,  assuming  that  a  total  break  occurs  at  a  point  draining  the 
average  length  of  pipe  in  each  case. 

In  the  event  of  a  pipeline  rupture  with  maximum  volumes  as  esti- 
mated, the  following  effects  are  anticipated  (for  further  information 
on  spill  potential,  see  Section  4.2.15). 

From  Weir  Station  to  Caliola,  i.e.,  through  the  first  three  seg- 
ments of  the  pipeline,  the  groundwater  is  normally  20  feet  deep  or 
more,  except  that  it  is  seasonally  higher  at  Mid  station  (Fryer  and 
Cebell  1984;  Tempi  in  1984).  Water  quality  is  over  1,000  ppm  total 
dissolved  solids  (TDS);  thus,  it  is  not  potable.  Based  on  the  depth 
to  groundwater  and  characteristics  of  the  crude,  a  spill  will  not 
impact  drinking  water  and  groundwater  used  for  livestock  watering  and 
irrigation,  provided  it  is  cleaned  up  and  no  contaminated  oil  is  left 
in  place. 

Along  Segment  4,  from  Caliola  to  Martinez  (approximately  175 
miles),  the  depth  to  groundwater  is  generally  >20  feet.  Through  much 
of  this  section,  the  proposed  pipeline  passes  through  areas  with 
unconfined  aquifers  having  high  levels  of  TDS.  The  only  areas  with 
potential  potable  unconfined  groundwater  resources  are  the  Little 
Panoche  Creek  alluvium,  the  Los  3anos  Creek  alluvium,  and  close  to  the 
delta  in  Contra  Costa  County  where  some  of  the  alluvial  fill  of  the 
valleys  for  Kellogg,  Brushy,  Deer,  Sand,  and  Marsh  creeks  may  contain 
usable  supplies.  The  only  known  municipal  water  wells  within  3  miles 
of  the  route  are  those  at  Brentwood  in  Contra  Costa  County,  which  are 
used  only  in  emergencies  because  of  their  high  nitrate  content.  These 
wells  draw  water  at  depths  of  more  than  100  feet  from  the  surface. 
Given  the  depth  to  groundwater,  and  because  spills  will  be  cleaned  up, 
there  is  no  indication  that  oil  spills  of  the  maximum  magnitude  pos- 
sible will  result  in  impacts  on  aquifers  used  as  municipal  drinking 
water  sources. 

Abandonment 

During   abandonment   the  pipeline  will    be   filled   with  water.     This 
will    require   a  one-time  extraction   of   approximately  76  acre-feet,    an 
insignificant   impact   in   terms   of   rate  of  present  withdrawals   and 


4-20 


Table  4-6 
CALCULATED  MAXIMUM  CRUDE  OIL  SPILL  POTENTIAL 


Sequence 

Segment 

Diameter 
(inches) 

Maximum 
Potential 

Spill 
(barrels) 

* 

Maximum 

Oil   Spill/ 

Segment* 

(barrels) 

** 

1 

Vteir  -  Kernridge 

10 

2,600 

3,300 

2 

Kernridge  -  Mid 

18 

17,700 

36,000 

3 

Mid  -  Kettleman 

Loop 

14 

3,600 

4,300 

3 

Kettleman  -  Caliola 

Loop 

14 

3,600 

4 

Caliola  -  Valve  1 

24 

16,000 

*■»* 

4 

Valve  1    -  Station  2 

24 

11,000 

*** 

4 

Station  2  -  Valve  2 

24 

8,000 

*** 

4 

Valve  2  -  Valve  3 

24 

8,000 

*■** 

4 

Valve  3   -  Station  3 

24 

11,000 

*** 

4 

Station  3  -  Valve  4 

24 

14,000 

*** 

4 

Valve  4   -  Martinez 

24 

16,000 

24,000 

*  Assimes  a  total   pipe   failure   (i.e.,   unrestricted   flow  of  oil    from 
point   of   failure)   occurring  at  the   average   elevation   for  the   line. 
Spill  volume   was  then  calculated  based  on  the  drainage   from  lengths 
of  pipe  that   were   greater  than  the    average   elevation,   taking  into 
consideration   intermediate  elevation  peaks  that  would  limit  drain- 
age.     Source:      Vtoadward-Clyde   Consultants    1985. 

**  Worst-case  maximum   spill  for  segment  is  based  on  residual   drainage 
by  gravity    following   valve  closure.      Spill  location   is  at  the  bottom 
of  the  longest  slope  between  valves.      Source:      Ecology    and  Environ- 
ment,   Inc.  ,    1986. 

***  Maximum   spills   in  subsegments  of   Segment  4  will  be  smaller  than  the 
24,000  barrels   listed    for  the   distance   from  Valve  4  to   Martinez. 


4-21 


supplies.  While  the  groundwater  in  the  western  margin  of  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  is  not  being  overdrawn  as  it  is  in  other  parts,  condi- 
tions may  change.  The  effects  would  be  subject  to  agency  review  at 
the  time  of  abandonment. 

The  water  with  which  the  pipeline  will  be  filled  will  contain 
rust  inhibitors.  In  the  event  of  a  leak,  it  would  entirely  or  largely 
evaporate  prior  to  reaching  groundwater  aquifers;  thus  no  significant 
impacts  to  groundwater  quality  will  occur. 

4.2.6  Air  Quality 

This  section  discusses  the  impacts  of  the  proposed  project  on  air 
quality.  The  impacts  were  analyzed  in  the  following  manner.  An  air 
quality  protocol  specifying  data  sources  and  the  specific  methodology 
to  be  used  for  the  analysis  was  prepared  for  review  and  approval  by 
the  appropriate  agencies  (the  Air  Quality  Protocol  is  contained  in  a 
separate  publication  entitled  Supplemental  Air  Quality  Technical 
Appendix  for  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  EIR/EIS,  which  is  avail- 
able upon  request  from  the  agencies  listed  in  the  front  of  the  docu- 
ment). The  purpose  of  the  protocol  was  to  make  sure  that  the  most 
appropriate  data  and  state-of-the-art  computer  models  would  be  used  to 
determine  impacts.  Next,  data  required  for  the  analysis  including 
information  on  emission  source  locations,  terrain  elevations,  meteoro- 
logical data,  background  pollutant  concentrations,  and  project  emis- 
sions during  both  construction  and  operation  were  collected.  These 
data  were  necessary  to  determine  what  project  emissions  will  be,  how 
they  will  disperse  in  the  environment,  and  how  they  will  interact  with 
background  pollutant  concentrations  to  either  meet  or  exceed  air  qual- 
ity standards.  The  project-specific  impacts  were  determined  by  apply- 
ing several  computer  models  to  simulate  how  project-related  impacts 
will  behave  in  the  environment;  several  different  models  were  used  to 
account  for  differences  in  pollutant  emissions.  These  simulated 
effects  were  then  compared  with  air  quality  standards  to  predict  air 
quality  impacts  of  the  project.  The  specific  data  collected,  models 
used,  and  conclusions  drawn  are  discussed  below. 

Site  location  data,  in  Universal  Transverse  Mercator  (UTM)  coor- 
dinates, and  terrain  elevations  at  each  computational  receptor  point 
were  taken  from  USGS  7.5-minute  topographic  maps  (scale  1:24,000). 
Source  data  were  used  as  presented  in  the  protocol.  Emission  data  and 
building  dimensions  are  project-specific.  The  emission  data  include 
values  for  the  heating  equipment  at  the  existing  booster  and  injection 
stations,  as  well  as  for  the  new  stations  (SJV-2b  and  SJV-3b)  and  the 
alternates  (SJV-2,  3,  and  4).  The  emissions  for  each  scenario  are 
incremental,  that  is,  they  are  to  be  added  to  the  "existing"  emissions 
(background) . 

Meteorological  data  were  supplied  by  the  California  Air  Resources 
Board  (ARB).  Computations  for  each  booster  station  were  made  using 
the  meteorological  data  from  the  closest  weather  station,  Air  quality 
data  were  extracted  from  California  Air  Quality  Data  summaries  for 
1982,  1983,  1984,  and  1985  released  by  the  ARB. 

Sensitive  receptors  were  identified  from  the  USGS  maps.  Because 
few  sensitive  receptors  are  present  and  because  the  project's  emis- 

4-22 


sion  sources  are  relatively  remote,  it  was  decided  that  these  maps 
were  adequate  to  identify  sensitive  locations.  Sensitive  receptors 
were  found  only  in  the  town  of  Coalinga,  near  the  Caliola  station,  and 
are  listed  in  Table  4-7. 

Estimates  were  made  of  compliance  or  non-compliance  with  U.S.  and 
California  air  quality  standards  due  to  project-specific  emissions, 
added  to  high  observed  background  concentrations.  The  standards  are 
used  as  thresholds  of  the  significance  of  computed  impacts.  For  cases 
in  which  concentrations  were  computed  to  be  in  excess  of  a  standard, 
without  project  emissions,  EPA-approved  significance  criteria  for  con- 
centration increases  were  applied.  Conservative  values  of  these  sig- 
nificance levels  were  taken  from  the  Bay  Area  Air  Quality  Management 
District  Draft  Guidelines  (Table  4-8). 

Air  quality  impacts  of  the  proposed  action  and  of  several  alter- 
natives were  estimated  using  a  set  of  computerized  air  dispersion 
models  to  predict  the  concentrations  of  pollutants  that  would  occur. 
Models  used  are  briefly  summarized  below. 

Pollutants  addressed  include  carbon  monoxide  (CO),  nitrogen 
oxides  (N0X),  ozone,  sulfur  dioxide  (SO2).  total  suspended  parti- 
culates (TSP),  and  TSP  material  of  less  than  10  microns  in  diameter 
(PM10).  In  addition,  reactive  organic  gases  (ROG)  are  evaluated.  ROG 
is  not  regulated  as  an  air  pollutant,  but  it  is  an  air  quality  con- 
cern. 

Modeling  of  the  estimated  impacts  of  non-reactive  pollutants 
(i.e.,  CO,  SO2,  TSP,  PM10)  was  carried  out  using  standard  EPA 
models,  with  an  ARB  model  designed  for  analyzing  line  sources  and  an 
ARB  model  designed  for  studying  "fumigation"  impacts.  Because  high 
plume  impacts  sometimes  occur  as  a  "fumigation"  of  an  elevated  plume 
to  ground  level  for  brief  periods  (less  than  one  hour)  under  special 
meteorological  conditions,  impacts  were  also  computed  with  the  ARB 
"PTFUM"  model. 

Modeling  of  the  construction  impacts  was  done  with  CALINE  4,  a 
model  developed  by  the  ARB  for  analyzing  impacts  from  extended, 
linear,  ground-level  sources  such  as  highways.  The  construction 
activity  is  confined  to  an  80-foot-wide  corridor,  with  equipment 
extended  over  about  a  3-mile  length  at  any  one  time.  Data  sources 
for  the  modeling  included  the  equipment  list  for  a  typical  construc- 
tion "spread." 

Modeling  of  ozone  impacts  was  done  with  two  Systems  Applications 
models,  PARIS  and  RPM  II-S.  PARIS  is  a  model  that  addresses  the  for- 
mation of  reactive  pollutant  products  (i.e.,  ozone)  with  detailed 
plume  computations  within  a  background  of  reactions  and  dispersion 
computed  on  a  three-dimensional  grid  of  analysis  cells.  The  computa- 
tions of  the  plume  become  merged,  automatically,  with  the  grid  cell 
computations  when  the  plume  expands  to  a  size  that  fills  a  cell.  Grid 
computations  address  reactions  between  plume  pollutants,  background 
ambient  pollutants,  and  emissions  from  all  sources  in  a  gridded  inven- 
tory of  all  regional  sources  of  N0X  and  ROG. 


4-23 


Table  4-7 
SENSITIVE  RECEPTORS  IN  THE  CALIOLA  IMPACT  AREA 


Site 


Coordinates 


UTM-N 


UTM-E 


Distance- km 
from  Source 


Jr  College 


Hospital 


Park 


737. 94  4039.40 


High  School  737.43  4003.00 


737.31  4003.00 


Cheney  School  737.21  4002,75 


Sunset  School  737.21  4003.17 


738.54  4002.25 


13.5 
14.0 
14.0 
14.0 
14.0 
13.5 


Sources  Systems  Applications,  Inc.,  1986. 


4-24 


Table  4-8 

SIGNIFICANCE  LEVELS   (ppm) 

FOR  CONCENTRATIONS    IN   EXCESS  OF   STANDARD 

NOT   INCLUDING  NEW  PROJECT   EMISSIONS 


Averaging  Time 


Pollutants  1  Hour  3  Hour  8  Hour  24  Hour  Annual 


CO  2,000                 —                 500 

NO2 

SOj  —                     25 

PM10  — 


Sources      Bay  Area  Air  Quality  Management  District  Draft  Guidelines. 


4-25 


NO2  plume  impacts  are  computed  with  the  Ozone  Limiting  Method 
(0LM)s  an  EPA  method  that  recognizes  the  rapid  formation  of  NO2  from 
oxidation  of  emitted  NO  by  contact  with  ambient  ozone. 

Construction 

The  results  of  construction  air  quality  modeling  are  summarized 
in  Table  4-9.  Table  4-9  shows  that  construction  does  not  produce  any 
unacceptable  or  significant  air  quality  impacts. 

Operation 

This  description  of  operational  impacts  on  air  quality  first 
addresses  non-reactive  pollutants  (S02>  CO,  and  TSP)  and  then  the 
reactive  pollutants  (ozone  and  NO2).  The  results  for  each  of  the 
non-reactive  pollutants  indicate  that  several  violations  may  occur 
based  on  total  impact  divided  by  standard . 

A  review  of  the  violations  listed  in  Table  4-10,  which  divides 
the  new  impacts  from  the  proposed  project  by  the  respective  U.S.  or 
California  standards  to  display  the  share  of  the  project's  emissions 
as  a  percentage  of  these  standards,  shows  that  the  project  does  not 
contribute  substantially  to  the  violations.  The  exception  is  N0X 
but  the  model  tends  to  overestimate  N0X,  and  EPA  model  guidelines 
recommend  the  use  of  the  Ozone  Limiting  Method  (OLM)  when  the  computed 
N0X  levels  exceed  the  standard.  The  OLM  was  therefore  used  in  ana- 
lyzing N0X  impacts. 

In  Table  4-10,  all  violations,  with  the  exception  of  the  NO2 
violations,  are  produced  mainly  by  existing  emissions  and  background. 
All  of  the  SO2  and  TSP  violations  are  primarily  due  to  background 
concentrations.  In  each  case,  the  impacts  due  to  the  new  emissions 
alone  are  well  below  the  significance  level  for  incremental  effects 
(see  Table  4-8). 

In  Table  4-10,  the  impacts  for  NO2  are  included  only  to  present 
the  very  conservative  upper  limit  estimates  produced  by  the  EPA  model, 
thus  indicating  the  reason  for  application  of  the  ozone  limiting 
method  based  on  estimated  concentrations  of  the  reactive  agents. 

The  PARIS  model  results  were  scanned  and  ozone  concentrations 
tabulated  for  each  hour  of  the  day  at  each  of  12  regional  monitoring 
stations.  The  results  of  the  PARIS  modeling  show  that  the  emissions 
of  Mid  station  make  no  significant  change  (by  modeling)  in  the  local 
or  regional  ozone  patterns. 

The  highest  credible  ozone  concentration  in  the  presence  of  NO2 
was  determined  to  be  177  micrograms  per  cubic  meter  (ug/nH).  Higher 
background  concentrations  of  ozone  were  estimated  but  not  coincidental 
with  N0X.  The  ozone  limiting  method  was  applied  to  estimate  NO? 
by  assuming  the  "worst  case"  concentrations  of  ozone  (177  ug/m^j; 
thermal  N0X  as  10%  of  the  computed  total  NOg  concentrations 
(including  the  project  and  background  levels);  and  ambient  NO2  at 


4-26 


Table  4-9 
MODELED  CONSTRUCTION   IMPACTS 


Concentrations   (pom) 


Averaging         NO2  CO  SOz  PM10 

Time 


1-Hour  0.18  1.73  0.0072 

3-Hour  —  —  0-065 

8-Hour  —  1.23 

24-Hour  —  —  0.009               25 


Source:      System  Applications,    Inc.,   1986. 


4-27 


Table  4-1  0 

ANALYSIS  OF   VIOLATIONS  OF  AIR  QUALITY  STANDARDS 

BASED  ON  TOTAL  EMISSIONS 

(Existing  AND  New  Emissions) 


Pollutants 

Averaging 
Period 

Station 

New   Impacts 
(ug/nr) 

Percent  of 
Standard 

SO2 

Annual 

Kettleman 

0.04 

0.05C) 

1    tour 

Mid  Station 

0.16 

0.02^ 

Kettleman 

0.89 

0.13^2) 

SOz 

3  Hour 

Kettleman 

0.70 

0.05^) 

SO2 

24  Hour 

Mid  Station 

0.04 

0.01<1> 

Kettleman 

0.18 

0.050) 

NO* 

1  Hour 

SJV-2b 

586. 91  (3) 

124(2) 

SJV-3b 

620. 52<  3) 

131«) 

Caliola 

123.4(3) 

26(2) 

Kettleman 

396. 52^ 

84(2) 

TSP 

Annual 

SJV-2 

0.00 

0.0 

SJV-2b 

Q.11 

0.150) 

SJV-3 

0.00 

0.0 

SJV-3b 

0.23 

0.31<1> 

SJV-4 

0.00 

0.0 

Caliola 

0.03 

0.04(1) 

Mid   Station 

0.01 

o.oi(1) 

Kettleman 

0.00 

0.0 

TSP 

24-Hour 

Mid   Station 

0.07 

0.03(1) 

Kettleman 

0.00 

0.0 

(^National   Standard 

(2 California  Standard 

'^'Extremely    Conservative   Upper  Limits 


4-28 


50  ug/m3,   as  explained   in  the  protocol.     The  estimates  for  total 
NO2  including  background  levels  are  as  follows: 

at  SJV-2b:  285.69  jj/m3,  which  is  61%  of  the  standard 

at  SJV-3b:  289.05  ju/m3,  which  is  62%  of  the  standard 

at  Caliola:  239.34  p/m3,  which   is  57%  of  the  standard 

at  Kettleman:  266.65  ;j/m3,  which  is  70%  of  the  standard 

Thus,  even   impacts  caused  by  N0X  are  calculated  to  be  below  the 
standard.     Therefore,  no  significant  impacts  are  estimated  for  the 
gas-fired  operation  of  the  proposed  project  facilities  for  any  of  the 
reactive  and  non-reactive  pollutants. 

Accidents 

No  air  quality  impacts  will  result  from  oil  spills.  Fires  might 
result  in  significant  air  quality  impacts  but  cannot  be  calculated. 

Abandonment 

Abandonment  will  have  a  small  but  insignificant  effect  on 
regional  air  quality  by  eliminating  project  emissions. 

4.2.7  Socioeconomics  and  Transportation 

The  project  description  presented  in  Section  2,  and  particularly 
the  data  on  the  number  of  construction  workers  and  full -time  operation 
personnel,  were  analyzed  in  relation  to  the  socioeconomic  setting 
described  in  Section  3.2.7.  County  housing  and  population,  public 
service  and  infrastructure  capacity,  general  traffic  patterns,  tour- 
ism, and  tax  assessment  bases  were  evaluated  to  determine  impacts  to 
socioeconomics  and  transportation  in  the  project  area.  The  criteria 
used  to  determine  significant  impacts  to  socioeconomics  and  trans- 
portation are  discussed  below  in  the  respective  subsections. 

SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  ANALYSIS 

The  evaluation  of  socioeconomic  impacts  was  based  on  data  for  the 
proposed  project  concerning  the  number  of  spreads  (self-contained  con- 
struction equipment  and  crews),  number  of  construction  workers,  esti- 
mated number  of  local  versus  non-local  workers,  and  housing  logistics 
for  the  construction  crews.  The  local  versus  non-local  composition  of 
the  construction  work  force  was  verified  through  an  assessment  of 
local  skilled/unskilled  labor  force  availability,  as  well  as  analyses 
of  relevant  literature  concerning  typical  pipeline  construction  crew 
composition,  such  as  the  Pipeline  Construction  Worker  Profile  (Moun- 
tain West  1979)  and  EIR/EISs  prepared  for  other  pipeline  projects  in 
California.  A  local  worker  is  one  who  commutes  to  and  from  the  con- 
struction site  from  his  permanent  place  of  residence  on  a  daily  basis. 
In  contrast,  a  non-local  worker  is  one  who  moves  to  the  construction 
area  only  for  the  duration  of  the  project. 

Construction  of  the  proposed  project  is  scheduled  over  a  year- 
long period,  between  mid-1987  and  mid-1988.  Construction  will  involve 


4-29 


the  use  of  two  mainline  spreads,,  each  consisting  of  130  to  200  work- 
ers, as  well  as  two  mini-spreads,  each  consisting  of  approximately  30 
to  50  workers.  One  of  the  mainline  spreads  will  essentially  construct 
pipeline  Segments  1  to  3  {i.e.,  the  84.5  miles  from  Weir  station  to 
the  Caliola  station),  while  the  other  will  cover  pipeline  Segment  4, 
from  the  Caliola  station  to  the  Martinez  refinery.  The  mini-spreads 
will  be  used  to  construct  the  pipeline  through  two  areas  where  main- 
line construction  would  not  prove  effective  because  of  congestion; 
these  include  the  oil  fields  near  Kernridge  and  the  more  developed 
areas  near  Martinez. 

In  addition,  the  construction  of  two  new  booster  stations  (SJV-2b 
and  SJV-3b)  and  the  modification  of  four  existing  booster/injection 
stations,  as  well  as  the  construction  of  a  meter  station  at  Martinez, 
will  proceed  independently  of  pipeline  construction,  and  is  expected 
to  require  10  months.  The  maximum  construction  work  force  for  each  of 
the  booster/injection  stations  is  45  persons.  Construction  of  the 
Martinez  meter  station  will  require  a  maximum  of  30  personnel. 

Operation  of  the  project  will  require  the  employment  of  10  to  12 
full-time  personnel  who  will  be  needed  to  operate  and  routinely  main- 
tain the  new  system. 

Impacts  are  considered  significant  if  construction  and  operation 
of  the  project  would  result  in  the  following  criteria  being  exceeded: 

t  Demand  for  temporary  housing  in  excess  of  the  existing  supply 
(based  on  current  occupancy  rates);  unavailability  of  housing 
accommodations  within  a  commuting  distance  of  100  miles 
(roundtrip);  or  demand  for  permanent  housing  representing  5% 
or  more  of  the  projected  vacancies  in  any  one  area. 

t  Permanent  estimated  demand  on  infrastructure  facilities  in 
excess  of  25%  of  the  current  level  of  demand,  or  temporary 
demand  in  excess  of  existing  capacity  in  the  areas  where  the 
work  crews  would  live. 

•  Permanent  estimated  increases  in  water  demand  of  2%  or  more  in 
areas  where  total  water  supplies  are  fixed. 

•  Projected  negative  changes  in  local  tax  bases  of  greater  than 
10%. 

•  Projected  changes  in  local  area  population  in  excess  of  10%  in 
any  one  year. 

•  Projected  negative  long-term  changes  in  property  values  of  10% 
or  more. 

•  Projected  shifts  in  the  economic  contribution  of  employment 
sectors  (in  relation  to  total  regional  or  local  employment)  of 
10%  or  more  for  any  given  sector  for  a  period  of  one  or  more 
years. 


4-30 


•  An  accident,  such  as  fire  or  explosion,  which  could  be  fatal 
or  cause  injuries  to  the  general  public,  creating  an  unaccept- 
able level  of  public  risk. 

•  Relocation  of  residents  is  required,  or  the  character  of  a 
neighborhood  is  permanently  altered. 

•  Projected  loss  of  more  than  10%  in  tourist  revenue,  either  on 
a  temporary  or  a  permanent  basis. 

•  A  loss  of  more  than  10%  (temporary  or  permanent)  in  revenues 
to  livestock  permittees  on  BLM  lands. 

The  impacts  are  described  for  the  various  phases  of  the  proposed 
project  on  population,  employment  and  income,  housing,  infrastructure 
facilities,  and  revenue.  Affected  communities  were  identified  along 
the  pipeline  route  based  on  commuting  distance,  access,  driving  time, 
and  housing  availability,  as  well  as  the  review  of  the  construction 
schedule  and  worker  housing  plans. 

Construction 

The  construction  of  the  proposed  project  will  have  a  minor,  tem- 
porary effect  on  socioeconomic  conditions  in  the  eight-county  project 
area.  As  described  below,  this  is  primarily  because  of  the  compara- 
tively small  number  of  non-local  workers  who  would  be  involved  in  the 
project,  as  well  as  the  quick  pace  and  short  duration  of  the  overall 
construction  schedule  and  the  availability  of  the  existing  infrastruc- 
ture and  housing  facilities  to  temporarily  accommodate  the  workers. 

The  socioeconomic  impact  evaluation  is  predicated  upon  a  worst- 
case  scenario  in  which  the  potential  maximum  peak  construction  work 
force  for  pipeline  construction  will  be  800;  i.e.,  assuming  the 
following: 

•  Construction  activities  occur  ar  the  same  time. 

•  A  maximum  number  of  200  workers  are  employed  on  each  mainline 
spread,  50  workers  on  each  mini-spread,  45  at  each  booster/ 
injection  station,  and  30  for  the  construction  of  the  Martinez 
meter  station. 

•  Only  15%  of  the  non-local  workers  bring  their  families  because 
of  the  short  construction  periods  (SLC/BLM  1984),  and  they 
will  be  more  likely  to  occupy  rental  units  or  recreational 
vehicles/campers  than  rent  hotel /motel  rooms. 

Of  the  eight  counties  traversed,  all  but  Alameda  and  Contra  Costa 
counties  exhibited  recent  high  (double-digit)  unemployment  rates  (see 
Table  3-21  in  Section  3.2.7).  Since  this  local  labor  force  is  avail- 
able and  the  project  is  committed  to  using  local  labor,  it  is  expected 
that  at  least  50%  of  the  construction  work  force  will  be  drawn  from 
this  existing  local  labor  pool.  Under  this  assumption,  a  maximum  of 
400  non-local  workers  will  temporarily  relocate  to  the  eight-county 
project  area  during  the  construction  period. 

4-31 


The  non-local  construction  labor  force  will  be  composed  princi- 
pally of  skilled  workers  who  will  remain  in  the  project  area  only  for 
the  duration  of  construction.  However,  because  one  of  the  two  main- 
line construction  spreads  will  begin  construction  at  the  southern  end 
of  the  route  and  proceed  north,  while  the  other  begins  in  the  north 
and  proceeds  south,  a  maximum  of  200  non-local  workers  will  be  in  any 
one  construction  location  during  most  of  the  project,,  The  only  point 
at  which  all  400  non-local  workers  could  be  based  in  approximately  the 
same  construction  area  will  be  when  the  two  construction  spreads  meet 
to  join  Segments  3  and  4  of  the  pipeline  in  Fresno  County. 

The  overall  effect  of  the  temporary  relocation  of  construction 
workers  on  the  project  area  population  is  insignificant,  considering 
the  eight-county  project  area's  current  combined  population  of  almost 
4  million  (see  Table  3-21  in  Section  3.2.7),  and  the  availability  of 
transient  lodging  and  infrastructure  within  50  miles  (one-way)  of  the 
proposed  route. 

The  construction  workers  will  be  housed  primarily  in  motels/ 
hotels  and  mobile  home  parks  within  daily  commuting  distance  (100 
miles  roundtrip)  of  the  proposed  route.  The  location  of  the  workers' 
transient  lodging  will  change  periodically  as  construction  proceeds 
along  the  proposed  right-of-way  at  an  average  rate  of  6  miles  per 
week.  It  is  expected  that  the  workers  will  be  housed  between  4  and  12 
weeks  at  any  one  location;  the  specific  time  will  depend  on  housing 
availability,  commuting  time,  and  the  exact  length  of  time  for  par- 
ticular construction  tasks  in  each  area. 

Most  of  the  maximum  400  non-local  construction  workers  are 
expected  to  prefer  to  live  as  close  to  the  pipeline  route  as  possible. 
Based  on  previous  analyses  (BLM  1984),  it  is  assumed  that  the  non- 
local work  force  will  select  various  temporary  accommodations  accord- 
ing to  the  following  breakdown:  motel/hotel  (42%  or  168  workers); 
rental  units  (26%  of  104  workers);  recreational  vehicles/campers  (28% 
or  112  workers);  and  other  (4%  or  16  workers). 

Table  4-11  projects  the  length  of  time  that  construction  would 
occur  in  any  of  the  counties  (based  on  this  daily  rate  and  the  miles 
of  the  route  within  each  county)  and  identifies  the  availability  of 
transient  lodging  to  construction  workers.  The  availability  of  lodg- 
ing was  estimated  on  a  conservative  basis,  using  only  a  50-mile  dis- 
tance from  the  proposed  route  and  using  only  facilities  rated  by  the 
AAA  (see  Section  3.2.7). 

As  Table  4-11  shows,  lodging  facilities  are  extensively  available 
along  all  of  the  route  with  the  exception  of  Kings,  Merced,  and  Stan- 
islaus counties.  However,  these  areas  are  within  a  100-mile  roundtrip 
commuting  distance  from  large  communities  like  the  cities  of  Hanford, 
Fresno,  Modesto,  and  Stockton,  where  lodging  is  available.  With  the 
exception  of  Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  counties,  county-wide  vacancy 
rates  are  all  above  the  5%  rate  generally  considered  to  be  indicative 
of  adequate  housing  availability.  Moreover,  the  lodging 

4-32 


Table  A- 11 
SUMMARY  OF  SOCIOECONOMIC  DATA  FOR  CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  PROPOSED  PROJECT 


CO 
CO 


County 


Kern 


Kings 


Fresno 


Merced 


Stanislaus 


Total 

Miles   oF 

Pipeline 

per  County 


44 


27 


65 


35 


30 


San  Joaquin  15 

Alameda**  5 

Contra  Costa**   37 


Project 
Construction 

Period 

per  County* 

(in  weeks) 


Principal  Communities 

(Community  Population) 

50  Miles  of  the 

Proposed  Routet 


Lodging  Facilities 


Total  Available   Rooms  Available    Total    19B6    Available 
Hotel/Motel  Rooms   to  Construction   Housing  Vacancy   Housing 
Within  50  Miles      Workerstt       Units    Rate      Units 


7.3 

4.5 

10.8 

5.B 

5.0 

2.5 
0.8 

6.2 


Bakersfield 
Taft 


(105,600) 
(6,100) 


Avenal  (4,540) 

Hanford        (21,000) 
Kettleman  City  (1,051) 


Coalinga 

Fresno 

Mendota 

Los  Banos 
Merced 

Patterson 
Modesto 

Stockton 

Hay ward 
Livermore 

Antioch 
Concord 
Martinez 


(7,671) 

(218,200) 

(6,062) 

(12,100) 
(36,500) 

(4,000) 
(106,100) 

(149,800) 

(94,200) 
(48,300) 

(43,600) 

(103,300) 

(22,600) 


2,200 
500 

3,300 

300 

780 

1,250 
1,319 

1,234 


440  165,959  9%  14,936 

100  29,000  1%  2,030 

660  60,000  5.9%  3,540 

60  55,091  9.3%  5,123 

156  116,049  7%  8,123 

250  156,053  7%  10,924 

264  475,252  3%  14,258 

247  278,400  3%  8,352 


*Based   on   an   expected    average   construction    rate   of  6  miles   per   week,    and   on  a  six-day   work   week. 
•'Includes   only    those    lodging   facilities    in  communities   nearest    the   proposed   route;    3.7  million   rooms    available   within  commuting 
distance   of   the    project. 
Hist    includes   communities    in    which   workers    would  most    likely   live   during    the    construction  period. 


ervative   occupany   rate   of   80%   (instead  of   the  65%  listed    for   the   project    region)   and    assumes   that  only  the 
of    the    rooms   would  be   available    to   construction   workers.      This  conservative   approach   was    taken  to    account    foi 


t I Assumes   a   conse 

remaining   20% 

jotenlial    conflicts    with    tourism  during   select    periods   of    the    year 


f 


bo 


nice:      Conipi  led   by   Ecology   and  Environment,    Inc.,    1986. 


supply  is  not  static  but  will  increase  by  about  5%  during  1986  and 
again  during  1987.  Sharing  motel  rooms  is  not  uncommon.  The  impact 
will  be  beneficial  on  the  economy  of  the  lodging  industry. 

In  summary,  as  Table  4-11  shows,  in  the  areas  in  which  the  non- 
local construction  crews  would  be  expected  to  be  housed,  the  temporary 
population  increase  during  the  construction  period  will  be  well  below 
the  significance  criteria  of  a  10%  increase.  On  a  regional  basis, 
construction  workers,  tourists,  and  migrant  farm  workers  will  not 
seriously  compete  for  lodging  because  of  the  availability  of  housing 
and  transient  lodging  facilities.  (On  an  individual  basis,  tourists, 
migrant  farm  workers,  and  pipeline  workers  will  compete  for  lodging  in 
some  motels  along  1-5  but  in  general  the  demand  will  affect  lodging  in 
different  price  categories.)  Tourists  may  prefer  to  bypass  sections 
where  construction  is  in  full  progress.  Because  of  construction 
activities  in  some  areas,  late  arrivals  without  reservations  may  not 
find  lodging  in  motels  nearest  to  the  pipeline  and  will  be  required  to 
search  for  other  lodging.  This  is  an  inconvenience  impact  and  is 
insignificant  because  the  demand  for  temporary  housing  will  not  exceed 
supply  in  any  area. 

The  construction  work  force  for  the  pipeline  will  utilize  the 
existing  infrastructure  facilities  and  services  in  the  communities  in 
the  project  area.  Based  on  consultations  with  local  and  county  offi- 
cials, none  of  the  construction  spreads  is  large  enough  to  result  in 
temporary  demands  in  excess  of  the  current  capacity  on  community  in- 
frastructure facilities  and  services,  such  as  water/sewer  systems, 
police  service,  medical  facilities,  and  fire  or  educational  services. 
Moreover,  the  construction  work  force  will  not  cause  an  increase  in 
water  demand  of  2%   or  more  in  any  of  the  locations  in  which  the 
workers  will  be  housed.  This  is  because  the  temporary  work  force  will 
not  constitute  more  than  2%   of  the  population  in  any  one  area.  The 
construction  workers  would  be  expected  to  use  a  maximum  amount  of 
about  100  gallons  of  water  per  day;  thus  in  any  one  location,  the  in- 
cremental water  usage  increase  (attributed  to  the  maximum  of  200  non- 
local workers)  would  be  20,000  gallons  of  water  per  day.  Likewise, 
the  construction  population  will  not  cause  any  long-term  adverse 
effects  to  community  social  well-being  due  to  the  transient  nature  of 
the  construction  process.  Thus,  no  significant  impacts  to  the  exist- 
ing infrastructure  in  the  project  region  will  occur. 

Because  the  construction  period  will  be  short  and  50%  of  the 
workers  will  be  drawn  from  the  local  labor  pool,  and  because  of  the 
large  economic  base  of  the  eight-county  region,  there  will  be  no  shift 
in  employment  of  10%  or  more  in  any  economic  sector;  as  a  result,  no 
significant  employment  impacts  will  occur  from  the  pipeline  construc- 
tion. Because  adequate  temporary  housing  is  available,  any  loss  of 
tourist  revenue  will  be  far  less  than  10%.  No  significant  air  impacts 
will  result  from  the  proposed  project,  and  increased  noise  and  dust, 
even  near  recreation  areas,  will  be  so  temporary  that  they  will  not 
affect  the  project  area's  attractiveness  to  tourists.  In  fact,  the 
income  earned  by  the  construction  workers  could  help  stimulate  some  of 
the  economies  along  the  pipeline  route,  causing  positive  multiplier 
(indirect)  effects  in  terms  of  employment  and  income.  The  estimated 


4-34 


averaqe  daily  wage  would  be  about  $205  per  worker;  overall  about  $40 
million  will  be  spent  on  wages  and  salaries  during  the  construction 
period. 

Local  workers  are  expected  to  spend  most  of  their  wages  in  the 
project  region,  whereas,  based  on  previous  analysis,  non-local  workers 
San  be  expected  to  spend  approximately  11%   of  their  wages  (i .e   about 
$76/day)  on  local  goods  and  services,  such  as  food,  clothing,  ana 
entertainment.  These  increased  expenditures  will  have  Positive, 
short-term  effects  on  local  retail  sales  and  indirect  employment,  as 
well  as  on  sales  tax  revenues. 

Similar  positive  effects  will  result  from  the  local  purchase  of 
an  indeterminate  amount  of  supplies  and  materials  for  the  pipeline 
construction  by  the  contractors.  Such  supplies  and  materials  could 
include  fuel,  equipment  parts,  and  tools. 

The  construction  of  the  pipeline  will  not  cause  an  unacceptable 
level  of  public  risk,  given  that  the  route  has  been  aligned  through 
sparsely  populated  portions  of  the  eight-county  project  region. 
Moreover/standard  safety  measures  to  be  employed  during  construction 
will  further  minimize  the  risk  to  the  public  (see  Sections  2.1  and 
4.2.14). 

The  single  exception  is  an  area  near  the  northern  terminus  of  the 
route  east  of  Interstate  680  where  the  pipeline  will  be  constructed 
adjacent  to  a  residential  subdivision  for  about  3,500  feet.  Although 
the  safety  measures  employed  during  construction  will  be  adequate  to 
protect  the  responsible  public  from  accidents,  additional  measures  are 
necessary  to  safeguard  curious  children  attracted  to  the  construction 
in  the  neighborhood  (see  Section  6.1.6). 

In  reqard  to  socioeconomic  effects  on  livestock  permittees,  the 
construction  of  the  project  will  affect  a  total  of  22.3  acres  of  BLM 
land  (see  Table  2-3);  this  acreage  includes  separate  parcels  in  botn 
Kern  and  Kings  counties.  Because  of  the  small  grazing  acreage 
involved  overall  and  in  each  county  and  the  fact  that  construction 
activities  will  incorporate  practices  to  avoid  direct  impacts  to  live- 
stock (see  Section  2.1.2),  the  livestock  permittees  will  not  suffer  a 
temporary  revenue  loss  of  10%  or  more  and,  as  a  result,  no  significant 
impacts  will  occur. 

Construction  through  cultivated  agricultural  areas  will  result  in 
■a  loss  of  revenues  associated  with  the  temporary  removal  of  the  area 
along  the  right-of-way  from  production.  However,  the  resulting 
impacts  will  not  be  significant  because  of  the  comparatively  small 
width  of  the  construction  right-of-way  (80  feet)  and  the  compensation 
of  landowners  for  crop  losses  depending  on  their  right-of-way  agree- 
ments . 

Operation 

Operation  and  maintenance  of  the  project  will  require  the  employ- 
ment of  approximately  12  people.  These  people  are  presently  employed 
by  Shell  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  and  would  be  transferred  to  the 

4-35 


proposed  project.  Thus,  no  increase  in  population  or  employment  will 
result.  Because  of  this,  the  operation  of  the  project  will  not  result 
in  permanent  demands  in  excess  of  25%  of  the  current  level  of  demand 
on  local  infrastructure  facilities  and  services,  and  will  not  cause 
any  adverse  socioeconomic  impacts.  The  total  wages  and  salaries  for 
operation  and  maintenance  personnel  are  about  $900,000  annually. 

The  operation  and  maintenance  of  the  project  will  not  cause  sig- 
nificant adverse  socioeconomic  effects  on  the  value  of  land  within  the 
right-of-way  or  adjacent  to  it.  This  is  because  most  of  the  proposed 
route  is  aligned  adjacent  to  existing  transportation  corridors  and 
through  cultivated  agricultural  areas  or  rangeland,  which  will  con- 
tinue to  be  used  for  such  purposes  after  the  completion  of  construc- 
tion (see  also  Sections  3.2.9  and  4.2.9).  Thus,  the  overall  economic 
use  of  the  properties  will  not  be  impaired. 

The  project  will  have  no  effect  on  tourism  in  the  project  area. 
It  will  not  result  in  significant  air  quality  impacts.  Noise  will 
have  no  significant  impacts  on  tourism,  because  the  booster/injection 
stations  are  remote  and  the  surrounding  land  uses  do  not  attract  tour- 
ists. The  impact  on  visual  resources  is  not  significant  over  the 
long-term  and  not  of  a  scale  that  would  have  a  measurable  effect  on 
tourist  revenues. 

The  project  will  have  a  long-term  positive  impact  on  local  prop- 
erty tax  revenues,  since  taxes  will  be  collected  for  both  the  pipeline 
and  its  associated  ancillary  facilities.  The  pipeline  will  be 
assessed  on  a  full -cost  basis  for  the  first  several  years  following 
construction,  and  thereafter  on  the  basis  of  earnings  to  users.  The 
total  estimated  cost  of  the  pipeline  and  associated  facilities  is  $110 
million;  however,  the  cost  within  each  county  is  a  function  of  the 
pipe  diameter  and  the  type  and  number  of  ancillary  facilities.  The 
potential  significance  of  the  increased  tax  revenues  will  vary  from 
county  to  county,  since  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  will  depend  on  the 
length  of  the  pipeline  right-of-way  (as  a  percentage  of  the  total 
right-of-way)  and  the  number  of  associated  facilities  within  each 
county  (as  well  as  on  local  tax  rates).  The  magnitude  of  the  positive 
impact  of  such  tax  revenues  to  each  county  will  depend  on  the  current 
total  county  assessment  and  the  project's  percentage  effect  on  this 
assessment  (see  Table  4-12). 

Accidents 

The  potential  social  and  economic  effects  of  oil  spills  will  be  a 
function  of  the  spill  location,  spill  magnitude,  and  adjacent  land 
uses.  Socioeconomic  impact  significance  criteria  will  not  be  exceeded 
by  an  oil  spill  because,  even  in  a  worst-case  situation,  an  oil  spill 
will  have  only  short-term  limited  effects  in  terms  of  influx  of  popu- 
lation, laborers,  and  housing  infrastructure  requirements.   If  a 
worst-case  spill  were  to  occur  in  a  sensitive  land  use  area  (e.g., 
cultivated  cropland,  water  supply  source,  urbanized  areas),  the  social 
and  economic  effects  in  terms  of  lost  crop  value/productivity  and 
property  damage  could  be  substantial  on  an  individual  property  or 
site-specific  basis.  The  SJVPLC  will  be  responsible  for  containment, 


4-36 


Table  4-12 
SUMMARY  OF  ESTIMATED  PROJECT  IMPACTS  ON  PROPERTY  TAX  REVENUES 


i 


County 


Project  Facilities 


Miles  of 
Pipeline 


Associated 
Facilities 


Kern  44  McKittrick   Station  (M) 

Kernridge  Section  (M) 
Mid  Station  (P) 

Kings  27  Microwave   Tower  (1) 

Fresno  65  Caliola  Station   (M) 

SJV-2    (P) 
Microwave    Towers    (4) 

Merced  35  Microwave   Towers   (2) 

Stanislaus  30  SJV-3   (P) 

Microwave   Towers    (2) 

San   Joaquin  15  N/A 

Alameda  5  N/A 

Contra  Costa  37  Martinez   Meter  Station 

Microwave  Towers  (2) 


Estimated 

Value 

of  Pipeline 

and  Facilities 

(thousands  $)t 


$19,495 

7,660 
28,250 

13,500 
16,100 

5,700 

1,900 

18,760 


Total 
Countywide 

Assessed 

Valuation* 

(thousands  $) 


$32,000,118 

2,465,736 
18,808,586 

4,496,146 
8,696,880 

12,227,683 
39,875,839 
32,423,464 


Projected   Annual 

A3  Valorem 

Tax  Revenues 

(Based  on   t.13 

tax    rate) 

(thousands   $) 


$214 

04 
311 

149 
177 

63 

21 

206 


Key:      M  -  Modifications    to   existing   station 
P    =  Proposed   (new  construction) 

M985-1986  data 

tValue   estimated   baaed   on   the    following  projected    average    construction  costs: 

•   Pipeline      10.75    inches  -    $315.0QO/nule 
14   inches   =   $280,00u/mile 
18    inches   -   'i360,000/mile 
24   inches   -   $3B0,000/mile 

■  Booster   station  -    $4.5  million 

■  Microwave    station  =    $100, QUO 
Totals  not   exact   due    to   rounding 

Source:      California  Board   of  Equalization   1986;    San  Joaquin   Valley   Pipe   Line  Company   1986 


cleanup,  and  compensation  to  insure  that  this  impact  is  mitigated  at 
the  individual  property  level  and,  for  this  reason,  the  impact  to 
socioeconomic  conditions  and  resources  of  the  local' municipalities  is 
not  considered  to  be  significant  over  the  long-term. 

Other  public  safety  considerations  are  evaluated  in  Section 
4  2  14  System  Safety  and  Reliability.  The  oil  itself  is  not  con- 
sidered to  be  a  fire  hazard  due  to  its  chemical  characteristics. 
Therefore,  fire  hazards  will  be  limited  to  the  use  of  natural  gas  and 
diesel  as  fuels.  The  booster  stations  are  located  in  remote  areas, 
and  the  fire  protection  and  security  systems  to  be  employed  by  the 
project  will  be  adequate  to  contain  any  fires  within  the  property 
boundaries.  Therefore,  the  population  at  risk  from  the  proposed  pro- 
ject consists  primarily  of  employees  who  are  present  on  site  at  the 
time  of  an  accident,  and  the  impact  on  the  public  at  large  is  negligi- 
ble. (Assuming  standard  operating  procedures,  the  probability  rate  of 
fatalities  will  be  less  than  0.000001  per  person  per  year  for  the  pop- 
ulation in  the  project  region.) 

Abandonment 


The  abandonment  of  the  pipeline  in-place  and  the  dismantling  of 
above-ground  facilities  will  not  result  in  any  significant  socio- 
economic impacts.  This  is  because  the  activities  required  to  decom- 
mission the  pipeline  system  will  involve  a  substantially  smaller  labor 
force  than  would  be  required  to  construct  the  entire  pipeline,  which, 
it  has  been  shown,  will  not  cause  significant  adverse  socioeconomic 
impacts.  It  is  estimated  that  no  more  than  45  workers— the  number 
required  to  construct  a  booster  or  injection  station— will  be  re- 
quired to  dismantle  the  same  facilities.  Fewer  workers  are  needed  to 
remove  the  microwave  stations  and  other  ancillary  facilities.  These 
workers  will  be  housed  in  the  same  general  locations  as  the  construc- 
tion workers,  where  lodging  and  infrastructure  facilities  have  full 
capacity  to  support  them. 

Any  loss  in  tax  revenue  as  a  result  of  abandonment  of  the  Pipe- 
line system  will  not  amount  to  a  significant  decrease  (i.e.,  over  10%) 
in  any  of  the  eight  counties'  tax  base  (see  Table  4-12).  As  a  result, 
the  abandonment  of  the  system  does  not  constitute  a  significant  tax 
impact. 

TRANSPORTATION 

The  primary  transportation  impacts  associated  with  the  proposed 
project  involve  potential  disruptions  of  traffic  during  construction, 
either  on  roads  crossed  directly  by  the  pipeline  or  on  roads  used  by 
the  construction  work  force  to  access  the  construction  site.  Poten- 
tial traffic  disruptions  include  decreased  levels  of  service,  conges- 
tion, or  delays.  Disruption  of  traffic  flows  are  considered  signifi- 
cant if  the  following  criteria  are  met: 

•  Traffic  increases  as  a  result  of  the  project  cause  a  long-term 

change  in  the  level  of  service  (LOS)  of  a  highway,  or  a  change 

in  a  LOS  lasting  more  than  three  months  during  the  construc- 
tion phase; 

4-38 


0 


0 


0 


Traffic  delays  as  a  result  of  pipeline  construction  are  more 
than  30  minutes  on  minor  arterial s  during  low-use  periods  and 
more  than  15  minutes  on  principal  arterial s  and  major  collec- 
tors; 

The  project  has  permanent  impacts  to  roads,  rail  networks, 
other  pipeline  systems,  or  electrical  power  transmission  sys- 
tems; or 

Pipeline  construction  causes  delays  or  precludes  emergency 
access  across  any  portion  of  the  pipeline  corridor. 


Construction 

The  construction  of  the  proposed  project  will    involve  the  move- 
ment of  equipment,   supplies,   and  manpower  to  the  right-of-way  and  pro- 
posed sites  of  ancillary  pipeline  facilities.     Major  pieces  of  con- 
struction equipment  will   be  moved   to  the  right-of-way  at  the  beginning 
of  each  spread;  this   equipment  will    then  proceed   along  the  right-of- 
way  in  a  linear  fashion  until   construction   is  complete.     Similarly, 
major  construction  equipment  will    be  moved  to   the  proposed   locations 
of  the  ancillary  facilities   and  will    remain  on-site  until    construction 
activities  are  finished.     Resultant  traffic  delays   are  not  likely  to 
exceed  the  15-  or  30-minute  thresholds.     Manpower   and   supplies,   on  the 
other  hand,   will   be  transported  to   and  from  the  right-of-way  and 
ancillary  facility  sites  on  a  daily  basis.     For  example,   it  is  esti- 
mated that  about  3,300  truck  loads  will   be  required  to  transport  pipe 
from  pipe  storage  areas  to  the  construction  right-of-way. 

The  principal   transportation   impacts   as   a  result  of  pipeline  con- 
struction activities  will   be  associated  with  the  daily  movements  of 
manpower  and  supplies  to  the  right-of-way,    as  well    as  potential   dis- 
ruptions to  traffic  flow  from  pipeline  construction   across  roads. 
Impacts  will    also  occur  as   a  result  of  the  daily  movement  of  construc- 
tion personnel   and   supplies  to  the  ancillary  facility  sites. 

The  entire  project   area   is   easily  accessible  via  a  system  of 
existing  roads.     These  existing  roads  will   be  used  to   access  the 
right-of-way,  which  will    serve  as  the  primary  access  way  for   all   con- 
struction activities. 

The  construction  workers  will    travel   by  private  automobile  from 
their   lodgings   to  the  nearest  access  point  to  the  construction   area. 
Vehicles  will   be  parked  along  the  pipeline  right-of-way,    away  from 
public   roadways.     On   an   average  day  during   peak   construction,    a 
maximum  of  800  construction  workers  could  drive  to  the  pipeline  right- 
of-way  or   ancillary  facilities  using   the  nearest  major   roadway  to  the 
construction   site.     Assuming   a  worst-case  of  one  private  vehicle  for 
each  worker,   this  will    result   in   a  total    of  800  additional    automobile 
movements.     However,   these   vehicle  movements   will    be   spaced   out   along 
the  pipeline  route   in   accordance  with   the    location   of   the  various 
spreads   and   the   specific  work   locations  within  the  spreads,    as_well    as 
the   locations   of  the   ancillary   facilities.      As   a  result,    a  maximum   of 

4-39 


200  workers  will   drive  to  the  right-of-way  in   any  one  location.     This 
is   a  worst-case  assumption  because  the   applicant  estimates   that  60%  of 
the  workers  will   be  transported   to   the  right-of-way  by  bus. 

The  construction  workers   are  expected  to  commute  to  the  site(s) 
between  6:30  and  7:30  a.m.,    and  to   leave  the   site{s)    between  4:30  and 
5:30  p.m.     The  routes  used  by  the  crews  will    differ  since  pipeline 
construction   activities  will    not  remain   in  any  one   location   along  the 
right-of-way  for  longer  than   an   average  of  20  days. 

To  predict  the   impact  of  project  construction  on   local    traffic 
flow,   average  daily  traffic   (ADT)   volumes  on   several    roads   along   the 
route  that   are  representative  of  those  that  will    be  used   to   access   the 
right-of-way  were  evaluated.     Along   the  northern  portion  of  the  route 
in  San  Joaquin  County,    Interstate  580,    a  four-lane  highway,   has  ADTs 
of  15,000  to  38,000  and   Interstate  205,   a  major  four-lane   access   road 
to  Interstate  580,   has   an  ADT  of  23,000;   in  contrast,   Coral   Hollow 
Road   (two   lanes)   has   an  ADT  of  800.     Traffic  volumes   are  smaller  on 
roads   in  the  southern   project   area;  e.g.,    in   Fresno  County,    Interstate 
5   (four  lanes)   has   an  ADT  of  about  15,000  and  State  Route  145  has   an 
ADT  of  3,000.     From  these  data,   it   is   evident  that  construction  crew/ 
equipment  movements  on  major  roads  will    have  no  effect  on  the   level    of 
service   (LOS),   since  the  maximum  of  800  daily  vehicle  movements   (400 
to  the  construction  sites  and  400  from  the  sites)  will    constitute  less 
than  5%  of  the  existing  ADT  volumes.     However,  on   local    two-lane  roads 
where  ADTs  are  relatively  low,   the  additional    traffic  movements  could 
constitute  27%  to  100%  of  the  current  volumes  under  worst-case  condi- 
tions.    The  exact  impact  of  the  additional   traffic  on  the  LOS  on  these 
roads  will   depend  on  the  timing  of  construction-related  movements  com- 
pared to  the  current  movements,   and   the  overall    capacity  of  each  road. 
However,  because  of  the  short  construction  period   in  any  one  location 
and  the  number  of  different  roads   available  to   access   the  right-of-way 
(especially  I'nterstates  5   and  580),   even   if  the  LOS  were  to  be   ad- 
versely affected,   this  change  would  not   last  more  than   three  months. 
In   addition,  delays   of  greater  than  30  minutes  on  arterial s  or  15 
minutes  on   larger  highways  will    not  occur.     As  a  result,   the  impact  of 
the  project  on   transportation  will    not  be  significant. 

The  proposed  route  will   cross   approximately  15  major   state   and 
federal   highways  (see  Table  3-23),   as  well    as  numerous  minor  public 
and  private  roadways.     To   avoid  traffic  delays  or  preclude   any  limita- 
tion on  emergency  vehicle  access,   these  major  road  crossings  will   be 
bored   and  traffic  flow  will    not  be   interrupted.     Some  construction 
activities  may  occur  within   the  major   road  rights-of-way,   but  will   be 
planned   so  as  not  to   interrupt  traffic  flow  on   the  roadway  itself. 

Some  smaller  county  or   private   roads  may  be   open-cut   and  may 
require  traffic  controls,    such   as   the   use  of   proper   signing,    barriers, 
or   flagmen.     However,   temporary  access   will    be  provided    across   or 
around   any  roads   on   which   service   will    be   temporarily   interrupted. 
Some  traffic   congestion   could   occur    in   these   areas   for   the  duration   of 
the  construction   period.      However,    emergency   access  will    be   provided, 
either   by  access   roads   across    the   trench  or  minor   detours   around    the 


4-40 


open-cut  area.     Delays  exceeding  the  threshold  criteria  are  not  ex- 
pected.    Therefore,   the  impacts   are  judged   to  be   insignificant. 

Slow-moving  heavy  construction   equipment  will    be  moved  to  the 
right-of-way  via  the  major  highways   along   the  proposed  route.     As 
noted  previously,   once  on  the  pipeline   right-of-way,   this  construction 
equipment  will   move  sequentially  along   the  right-of-way  for  the  dura- 
tion of  the  construction   period.     Thus,  the  only  potential   for   inter- 
ruption of  traffic  flow  will    occur   at  highway  crossings   as  the  equip- 
ment moves   across  the  roadway.     During   the  movement  of  the  heavy 
equipment  on  and  over  highways,   some  congestion  will    occur. _  This  will 
result  from  the  need  to  stop  traffic   to   allow  for  the  crossing  of 
heavy  equipment   as  well    as  the  need   to  reduce   traffic   speeds  of  cars 
following  the  heavy  equipment   along  the  roadways.     Precautions, 
including  flashing   lights,   flagmen,    and   signing,   will    be   implemented 
to  ensure  that  operations  within   the  highway  right-of-way  are 
conducted   in  a  safe  manner.     However,   these   interruptions  will    occur 
infrequently.     No   long-term   impacts  will    occur  to  roads,   rail 
networks,  other  pipeline  systems,   or   electrical    power   systems   as   a 
result  of  the  construction  of  the  pipeline,   since   all    appropriate 
measures  will   be  taken  to  insure  that  these  facilities  remain 
operational   during  and   after  construction   (see  Section  2.1). 

Operation 

The  operation  and  maintenance  of  the  project  will  not  have  any 
impact  on  transportation  patterns  since  the  10  to  12  workers  who  will 
be  permanently  assigned  to  the  project  are  already  based  in  the  area. 

Accidents 


If  an  oil  spill  occurs  adjacent  or  underneath  a  road  or  highway, 

the  event  could  endanger  the  public  and  cause  traffic  delays.  This 

impact  may  be  significant  if  it  occurs,  but  is  not  considered  to  be 
likely. 

Abandonment 

The  abandonment  of  the  proposed  system  will  not  result  in  any 
significant  impacts  on  transportation  for  the  same  reasons  as 
described  above  for  construction. 

4.2.8  Noise 

Noise  impacts  were  evaluated  by  qualitatively  predicting  the _ 
intrusive  effect  of  construction  noise  and  booster/injection  station 
operating  noise  on  the  existing  noise  environments  along  the  proposed 
route  as  described  in  Chapter  3.  The  analysis  took  into  account  the 
timing,  magnitude,  and  duration  of  noise,  and  the  number  of  people 
potentially  affected  by  it.  Construction  noise  levels  were  estimated 
based  on  standard  data  on  construction  equipment  noise  ranges  used  in 
similar  EIR/EISs  and  in  EPA  publications,  and  took  into  consideration 
the  noise  mitigation  techniques  that  will  be  specifically  incorporated 
as  part  of  the  project  (see  Section  2). 


4-41 


Significance  criteria  were  derived  from  regulatory  standards 
(which  take  into  account  the  number  of  receptors  in  a  given  area,  as 
well  as  the  time  of  day)  and  research  information.  Noise  impacts  are 
significant  if  they: 

f  Exceed  the  guidelines  specified  in  county  or  city  noise  ele- 
ments or  other  local  standards  on  a  long-term  basis  or  for 
sensitive  land  uses/receptors  on  a  short-term  basis; 

•  Result  in  long-term  inconsistencies  with  the  State  of 
California's  land  use  compatibility  criteria  for  community 
noise;  or 

•  Exceed  (on  a  long-term  basis)  a  day-night  average  noise  level 
of  55  dB(A),  the  level  considered  by  EPA  to  be  the  maximum 
level  that  will  not  interfere  with  speech  or  other  activities 
in  outdoor  areas. 

Any  project-related  noise  (construction  or  operation)  that  meets 
the  most  stringent  of  the  above  criteria  was  determined  to  be  signifi- 
cant. Noise  impacts  from  project  construction,  operation,  accidents, 
and  abandonment  are  discussed  below. 

Construction 

The  construction  of  the  proposed  project  will  result  in  minor  and 
short-term  noise  impacts  in  most  areas.  This  is  because  most  of  the 
route  has  been  aligned  through  sparsely  populated  areas  where  few 
noise  receptors  are  present;  and  because  the  construction  activities 
in  any  one  location  will  be  temporary  (as  work  will  proceed  sequen- 
tially along  the  right-of-way)  and  will  be  limited  to  the  daytime, 
when  noise  sensitivity  is  less.  The  following  discusses  the  basis  for 
the  non-significance  determination  for  noise  impacts  along  most  of  the 
route  and  identifies  the  areas  where  impacts  would  be  significant. 

With  the  exception  of  the  three  counties  along  the  northern  por- 
tion of  the  proposed  pipeline  route,  most  of  the  areas  crossed  by  the 
route  are  predominantly  rural  or  agricultural,  with  generally  few 
noise-sensitive  receptors  such  as  residences.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
northern  portion  of  the  pipeline,  especially  in  Contra  Costa  County, 
will  traverse  suburban  areas  which  are  particularly  sensitive  to  noise 
but  where  the  existing  ambient  noise  levels  are  much  higher  than  in 
the  rural  environment.  High  noise  levels  prevail,  particularly  where 
the  proposed  route  is  aligned  parallel  and  adjacent  to  major  highways 
such  as  1-5  and  1-580.  Next  to  major  freeways,  the  ambient  noise 
environment  is  estimated  at  close  to  90  dB(A)  as  a  result  of  normal 
traffic  (see  Figure  3-4  in  Section  3.2.8). 

In  the  immediate  vicinity  of  project  construction,  the  incremen- 
tal noise  effects  will  be  a  function  of  the  existing  noise  environment 
as  well  as  the  noise  generated  by  construction  equipment  and  any 
necessary  blasting  (see  Section  4.2.1);  the  location  and  sensitivity 
of  nearby  land  uses  to  such  noise;  and  the  timing  and  duration  of 
noise-generating  activities.  The  intrusive  noise  effect  will  also 


4-42 


depend  on  the  distance  of  the  construction   activity  from  the  receptor, 
since  noise  levels  diminish  by  at  least  six  decibels  per  doubling  of 
distance  from  the  source. 

A  typical   noise  generation  profile  for  pipeline  construction 
activity  is   illustrated   in  Figure  4-1.     This   noise  profile  for  typical 
construction   activities  can  be  superimposed  on  the  existing  noise 
environments   along  the  route   (see  Figure  3-4  in  Section  3.2.8)   to 
evaluate  the  noise  impacts   as   a  result  of  construction.     As   these 
figures  show,   the  areas  within   about  2,000  feet  of  the  pipeline  con- 
struction  spread  can  be   expected  to  experience  noise   levels  of  65      _ 
dB(A).     These  are  less  than  the  noise   levels  currently  experienced   in 
the  more  developed   areas   in   the   northern   portion   of  the  route  and 
substantially  less  than  the   sound   levels   attributed   to  rreeways   li.e., 
about  90  dB(A)].     While  65  dB(A)    is   about  20  dB(A)   more   than  the  noise 
levels  typical   of  the  rural    agricultural    areas   along  the   southern 
portion  of  the  route,   there   are  few  noise-sensitive  receptors   in  these 
areas       Moreover,  beyond   about  3,000  to  4,000  feet  from  the  construc- 
tion  area,  the  noise   level   will    diminish   to  close  to   ambient   levels 
(see  Figure  4-1) . 

Because  most  of  the  proposed  pipeline  route  is  aligned  through 
unconsolidated  rock  which  can  be  ripped  or  excavated,   blasting  will 
rarely  be  required.     Small   parts   of  Contra  Costa  County,   the  eastern 
part  of  Alameda  County,   and  a  small    section   in   the  northern  part  of 
Merced  County  contain  rock  formations  which  may  require  some  blasting. 
While  the  sound  caused  by  such  blasting  will   exceed  the   local    stan- 
dards, the  noise  impact  is  brief  and   almost  instantaneous.     Moreover, 
blasting  (like  all   construction  activities)  will    only  be  performed 
during  the  day  when  noise  sensitivity  is   low.     Because  the  duration  of 
blasting-related  noise  will   thus  be  extremely  localized   and-  short- 
term,   no  significant   impact  will    occur. 

Several    areas   along  the  route  do  contain   sensitive  land  uses 
which  will   be   adversely  affected  by  construction   activities,  even  on   a 
short-term  basis.     This   is  because  the  receptors   are  particularly 
close  to  the  proposed   route  or  because  the  route  passes  through   areas 
that  have  been   identified   as  particularly  noise-sensitive.     Table  4-13 
lists   the  areas  which   are  sensitive  to   noise  and  will    be   impacted 
significantly  by  construction  noise. 

Operation 

The  increases  in  noise  from  the  operation  of  the  proposed  project 
will  be  geographically  restricted  to  the  vicinity  of  the  pump  and 
heater  (booster)  stations.  The  impacts  of  booster  station  noise  emis- 
sions were  modeled  using  a  worst-case  scenario  of  flat  terrain  with  no 
barrier  effects  and  no  equipment  directivity  effects  (i.e.,  no  consid- 
eration for  the  fact  that  equipment  typically  generates  sound  that 
travels  in  various  directions)  (see  Table  4-14).   It  should  be  noted 
that  actual  noise  impact  levels  will  depend  on  the  placement  of  the 
station  on  the  site,  the  terrain,  and  site  design  features. 


4-43 


1 

4^ 


- 

-6000 

- 

- 

-4000 

- 

- 

-3000 

55  dBA 

- 

- 

-2000 

- 

- 

/             B5 

-1000 

dBA 

75  dBA 
J  SPREAD^ 

65  dBA 

\ 

- 

/    r* 

3NSTRUCTIO 

3000 
REAR 


2000 


1000 


1000 


2000 


3000 


4000 


5000 
FRONT 


DISTANCE  ALONG  PIPELINE  CONSTRUCTION  (FEET) 


SOURCE:         Gully,  1983;    Modified  Iomii  BLM  Final  Environmental  Impact  Statement,  Crude  Oil  Transportation  System:     Valdez,  Alaska 
to   Midland   Texas,  Chaptui  8. 


Figure  4-1    NOISE  LEVELS  FROM  SUBURBAN  PIPELINE  CONSTRUCTION  SCENARIO 


Table  4-13 
NOISE -SENSITIVE  AREAS  SIGNIFICANT  IMPACTED  BY  CONSTROCTION 


County 


Noise  Sensitive  Area 


Proximity 

to  Pipeline 

(miles) 


Construct  ion 

i 
Noise   Level 

from  Profile 

dB(A) 


Standards  or 
Guidelines  Exceeded 


i 

en 


Kern 
Kings 

Merced 

San  Joaquin 
Alameda 

Contra  Costa 


Lost  Hills  Park 
Lost  Hills  School 

Kettleman  City 
Fishing  Access 

Town  of  Kettleman  City 

San  Luis  Reservation 
State  Recreation  Area 

Tracy  Golf  Course 

Bethany  Reservoir 
State  Recreation  Area 

Municipal  golf  course 
Contra  Lonia  Regional  Park 
Stoneman  Park 
Residential  Area 


0.5 
0.5 

55-60 

0.3 

60-65 

0.5 

55-60 

Crosses 

55-85 

0.2 

60-65 

Crosses 

55-B5 

0.3 

Adjacent 
Adjacent 
Adjacent 

60-65 
65-75 
65-75 
65-75 

EPA* 

California3   and   EPA 
EPA 

California  and   EPA 
California   and  EPA 

County,4  California,    EPA 

County,  California,  EPA 
County,  California,  EPA 
County,  California,  EPA 
County,    California,    EPA 


1Actual    levels  measured   on   a   typical    construction  site    are  profiled    in  Figure  4-1. 
2EPA   =  Maximum   sound    level    of    55  dB(A)    that   will   not    adversely   affect   public   health. 
'California  =    60  dB(A)    maximum   exterior  noise    exposure  guidelines    for  county    plans. 
^County    =  From   individual   County  Noise   Element  Plans. 

Source:      Compiled  by   Ecology   and  Environment,    Inc.,    1986. 


Table  4-14 
PUMP/HEATER  STATION  NOISE  IMPACT  MODELING  RESULTS* 


Case 


Distance    from  Facility    Center    (in    feet) 
to  Noiee   Level  Contour 


Condition  Modeled 


1  (3)   2,500-hp  electric  motor   driven  pumps 

2  (2)    3,500-hp  gas-turbine  driven  pumps 

3  (2)    30  mmB/hr    heaters 

4  Case    2  plus  one   heater 

5  Case    1    plus   case    3 

6  (3)    5,000-hp  electric   motor   driven  pumps 


70  dBA 

60  dBA 

50  dBA 

40  dBA 

30  dBA 

550 

1,300 

2,600 

4,700 

7,500 

NA** 

200 

600 

1,650 

4,000 

NA 

280 

BOO 

2,100 

4,800 

NA 

280 

800 

2,200 

5,000 

550 

1,300 

2,600 

4,800 

8,000 

720 

1,550 

3,000 

5,500 

8,800 

♦Model   employed:     ERTN0I,    ERT's  proprietary  multiple  point   source  noise   propagation  model. 
**Not    available. 

Modeling  Assumptions: 

■  Flat   terrain,    no  barrier    effects. 

■  No   equipment   directivity    effects. 

•  Electric   motor-driven  pump  combinations   use   high  efficiency  motors;    drive    speed    leas   than   1,600   rpm; 
no  enclosures. 

•  Heaters    are  natural    draft,    unsilenced   units. 

■  Gas   turbine  driven  pump   units   have    inlet    silencers    only;    with  heat   recovery    system;    NEMA  D  specifica- 
tion  assumed. 

•  Atmospheric   conditions    are   baaed   upon  a  "standard   day"    of   15  degrees  C    (59°F)    with  70%  relative 
humidity;    results   represent    long    term   average    values.      Daily  and   hourly   differences   will   exist  due  to 
wind   and   temperature  gradients   which  can   result    in    increases  or  decreases    in   noise    levels. 


Source:      LRT. 


Eight  stations   are  proposed  for  the  project,    including  two  new 
stations;  two  existing   stations,   to  remain  unchanged;   and   four  exist- 
ing  stations  scheduled  to  be  modified.     The  new  stations    (SJV-2b   and 
SJV-3b),   as  proposed,   would  utilize  1,800-horsepower  gas  turbine 
pumps       As   indicated   in  the  noise   impact  model,   these  pumps  would  be 
expected  to  generate  noise  levels   less   than  60  dB(A)    at  200  feet  from 
the  station.     This   noise   impact  exceeds  the  threshold   of  55  dB(A)    and 
is  significant  by  EPA  standards.     However,   these   stations   are   located 
in  remote  locations  which  are  not  particularly  noise-sensitive  land 
use  areas  or  near  noise  sensitive  facilities   such   as   schools   and 
houses,   and  no  mitigation   is   necessary. 

Of  the  stations  proposed  for  modification,   pump  horsepower 
increases  will   occur  at  three.     The  McKittrick   station  will    have  a 
600-horsepower   increase  using   an  electric  motor  driven   pump  which 
would  be  expected  to  generate  noise  levels  under  60  dB(A)    at  1,300 
feet  from  the  station.     At  the  Mid   station,   pumping   horsepower  will    be 
increased  by  the  addition  of  a  2,500-horsepower  gas-turbine-driven 
pump.     Again,   noise  levels  would  be  expected  to  be   less   than  60  dB(A) 
200  feet  from  this   station.     Finally,  modifications   at  the  Caliola 
station  would   increase  horsepower  by  1,800  using   a  gas-turbine-driven 
pump.     Noise   levels  no  higher  than  60  dB(A)  would  be  expected  200  feet 
from  this   installation.     These  stations  will    also  have  a  significant 
impact  by  EPA  standards  [i.e.,    in  excess  of  55  dB(A)],   but  their  re- 
mote location   away  from  noise-sensitive  land  use   areas  mitigates   the 
impact. 

Accidents 

Noise  from  an  accident,  such  as   an  explosion  at  a  booster  sta- 
tion, would  be  a  short-term,   isolated,    and  unlikely  occurrence. 
Because  no  sensitive  receptors   are  nearby,   no  significant   impacts  will 
occur. 

Abandonment 


The  abandonment  of  the  project  would  result   in   a  positive   impact 
on  the  ambient   sound   environment  since  the  booster/injection   station 
operations  would  cease   and   the  pre-construction   noise  environment 
would  be  restored.     A  localized,   but   insignificant,    impact  on   noise 
would  occur  as   a  result  of  dismantling  the   above-ground  facilities. 
This   impact  would  be   less  than   identified  for  the  construction  of  the 
proposed  project,   since  only  the  above-ground   facilities  would  be 
affected. 

4.2.9     Land  Use   and  Recreation 

Land  use  regulations   and   plans   as   well    as   existing   and   future 
land  uses  were  examined  for  the  project   area,    and  comparisons  of  the 
proposed   action's   compatibility  to   these   plans    and   uses  were  made   in 
order   to   assess   the   project's    impacts    to   land   use   and   recreation. 
The  effect   that   project   construction    and   operation   would    have  on 
opening  up   previously   inaccessible   areas   to  off-road   vehicles    and   of 
discarding   construction   spoil    and   debris    in   nearby  landfills   was 
examined.      In    addition,    the   project's    impacts   on   recreational    areas 
were   evaluated   using   the   data  developed    in   Section  3. 

4-47 


The   following   impacts   were   considered   significant: 

•  The  proposed   action   is   inconsistent  with   land  use  plans 
adopted  by  local   or  regional    agencies   along  the  right-of-way; 

•  The  proposed   action  disrupts   or  divides   the  physical    arrange- 
ment of  an  established  community; 

t     The  proposed   action  converts   prime  agricultural    land   to   a 
non-agricultural    land  use; 

•  Total   recreation  demand    in   the  vicinity  of  the  pipeline 
increases  by  10%  or  more  over  existing  demand,   or  exceeds   the 
capacity  at   any  facility; 

•  The  quality  of  recreational    activities  decreases  because  of 
noise,  visual    intrusions,   or   loss  of  land   area  to  project 
facil ities; 

•  The  pipeline  right-of-way  provides   access   to  previously 
inaccessible,   environmentally  sensitive  areas;  or 

•  Expected  volumes  of  waste  from  pipeline  construction  exceed  5% 
of  the  existing  capacity  of  the  landfills   identified   in 
Section  3.     This  would   adversely  affect  the  ability  of  local 
landfills  to  accept  routine  waste  from  other  sources. 

The  following  analysis  discusses  construction,  operation, 
accidents,   and   abandonment  impacts   to   land  use   and  recreation  from  the 
proposed  project  along  the  entire  route.     A  more  detailed 
county-by-county  discussion  of  local    land  use  and  recreation   impacts 
is  summarized   in  Table  4-15. 

Construction 

Existing   land  uses   traversed  by  the  proposed  pipeline   are   shown 
in  Table  4-16.     Land  use  impacts  during  construction  of  the  pipeline 
include  the  short-term  disruption  of  existing   land  uses   along  the 
80-foot  right-of-way.     Construction   in   agricultural    lands  will    result 
in  the  loss  of  crop  production  along  the  corridor.     However,   after 
the  completion  of  construction,   the  right-of-way  will    be  returned  to 
agricultural   use.     Similarly,   construction  through  range! and  will 
result   in  the  loss  of  productive  grazing  use   along  the  right-of-way 
during  the  construction   period.     This    impact  will    not  be  significant 
since  the  total    amount  of  rangeland   affected   (1,726  acres)    is   small    in 
terms  of  its  capacity  to  support  grazing,   and   the  right-of-way  will    be 
restored   and  maintained   as   rangeland    after   completion   of  construction. 

Impacts   on    industrial    and   commercial    areas   during   project 
construction   are   expected   to   be   insignificant.      Dust,    noise,    and^ 
traffic  congestion  may  cause   temporary   inconvenience.     The   pipeline 
passes   through  13  miles   of   industrial/commercial    lands    in  Kern,    Kings, 

4-48 


Table  4-15 

SUMMARY  OF  DETAILED  PROJECT  EFFECTS  AND 
IMPACT  SIGNIFICANCE,  8Y  COUNTY 


Feature/Location 


Comments 


Impact 
Significance* 


Kern  Caunty 

Derby  Acres  Park 
(milepost  2) 


BLM  Lands  (mileposts 
2,  5,  3) 


Town  of  Derby  Acres 
(milepost  3) 


Lost  Hills  School 
(milepost  31) 


Not  crossed;  1  mile  from 
ROW;  general  construction 
impacts** 

Soils,  grazing,  wildlife, 
cultural  and  visual 
resources 

Not  crossed;  0.5  miles  from 
ROW;  general  construction 
impacts**;  future  develop- 
ment factor 

Not  crossed;  0.5  miles  from 
ROW;  general  construction 
impacts** 


NS 


NS 


NS 


NS 


Kings  County 

Kettleman  City  Fishing 
Area  (milepost  63) 


Town  of  Kettleman  City 
(milepost  63) 


Industrial/Commercial 
Areas  (milepost  61-63) 

BLM  Land 
(milepost  70) 


Not  crossed;  0.3  miles  from 
ROW;  general  construction 
impacts** 

Not  crossed;  1.5  miles  from 
ROW;  general  construction 
impacts** 

Not  crossed;  general 
construction  impacts** 

Soils,  grazing,  wildlife, 
visual  resources 


NS 
NS 

NS 

NS 


Fresno  County 

1-5  Rest  Area 
(milepost  73) 

Proposed  Coalinga 
Air  Cargo  Port 
(milepost  30) 


Fresno  County 
Designated  Bike 
Trails 


Not  crossed;  0.2  miles  from 
ROW;  general  construction 
impacts** 

Not  crossed;  pipeline 
aligned  around  port;  possible 
impediment  to  potential 
expansion  of  cargo  port 

General  construction 
impacts** 


NS 


NS 


♦Justification  for  conclusions  (not  significant  =  NS,  significant'  =  S) 
are  contained  in  Appendix  C. 
**General  construction  impacts  are  dust,  noise,  and  traffic  congestion. 
•■♦♦Signif icance  of  future  land  use  conflicts  must  be  resolved  through  the 
local  land  use  planning  process. 


4-49 


Table  4-15  (Cant.) 


Feature/Location 


Comments 


Impact 
Significance* 


Fresno  County  (Cont.) 

SJV-2b  Booster 
Station  (milepost 
133) 

Little  Panoche 
Reservoir  (milepost 
136) 

Microwave  Towers  No.  6 
and  No.  7  (mileposts  94 
and  112,  respectively) 

Bureau  of  Reclamation 
Lands;  Pleasant  Valley 
Levee  (milepost  84.6) 


3  acres  permanently  removed 
from  agricultural  use 


Not  crossed;  0.9  miles  from 
ROW;  general  construction 
impacts** 

Permanent  removal  of  less 
than  1  acre  from  agricultural 


Traverses  approximately  330 
feet;  water  resources  (aque- 
ducts); cultural  resources 


NS 


N5 


NS 


NS 


Merced  County 

Bureau  of  Reclamation 
Land  (milepost  152) 

Los  Banos  Creek 
Reservoir  Recreation 
Area  (milepost  153) 

San  Luis  Reservoir 
State  Recreation 
Area  (mileposts  161- 
165) 

Bureau  of  Reclamation 
Lands  (mileposts 
158-180) 

Delta  Forebay  Golf 
Club  (milepost  163) 

Proposed  United 
Technologies  Plant 
(mileposts  166-172) 


Water  resources  (aqueducts);         NS 
cultural  resources 

Crossed;  general  construction        NS 
impacts** 


Crossed;  general  construction        NS 
impacts** 


Water  resources  (aqueducts);         NS 
cultural  resources 


Not  crossed;  0.9  miles  from  ROW:      NS 
general  construction  impacts** 

Mitigated  by  minor  realignment       *** 


Stanislaus  County 

1-5  Rest  Area 
(milepost  199) 


Not  crossed;  adjacent  to  ROW; 
general  construction  impacts** 


NS 


♦Justification  for  conclusions  (not  significant  =  NS,  significant  -   S) 
are  contained  in  Appendix  C. 
♦♦General  construction  impacts  are  dust,  noise,  and  traffic  congestion. 
♦♦♦Significance  of  future  land  use  conflicts  must  be  resolved  through  the 
local  land  use  planning  process. 


4-50 


Table  4-15  (Cont.) 


Feature/Location 


Comments 


Impact 
Significance* 


San  Joaquin  County 

Hetch-Hetchy  Aqueduct 
Crossing  (milepost 
206) 


Tracy  Golf  and  Country 
Club  (milepost  206) 

Carnegie  State  Vehicle 
Recreation  Area 
(milepost  211) 

Alameda  County 

Bethany  Reservoir 
State  Recreation 
Area  (milepost  220) 


Contra  Costa  County 

Proposed  East  Contra 
Costa  County  Airport 
(milepost  226) 

Black  Diamond  Mines 
Regional  Preserve 
(milepost  240) 


Contra  Loma  Regional 
Park  (milepost  240) 

Proposed  Kirker  Pass 
and  Central  Landfills 
(adjacent  to  mileposts 
238-245) 

Stoneman  Park  and 
Proposed  Reservoir 


Concord  Naval 
Weapons  Station 
(milepost  253) 

Proposed  Residential 
Development  Locations 
(mileposts  244-245; 
249;  254;  and  257) 

Proposed  Highway 
Improvements  at 
Highway  4  (milepost 
251)  and  1-680 
(milepost  257) 


Crosses  under;  potential 
contamination  of  water  supply; 
no  effect  on  aqueduct  if  con- 
structed minimum  of  1  foot 
below  aqueduct 

Not  crossed;  0.2  miles  from  ROW: 
general  construction  impacts** 

Not  crossed;  located  several 
miles  west  of  ROW;  general 
construction  impacts** 


Crosses  western  edge;  removal 
of  approximately  2  acres  of 
recreational  area  along  ROW; 
general  construction  impacts*'* 


Could  limit  future  expansion 
of  airport 

Crossed;  encroachment  on 
park;  possible  reduction 
in  use  of  park;  general 
construction  impacts** 

Not  crossed;  0.1  mile  from  ROW; 
general  construction  impacts** 

Could  hinder  long-range 
landfill  expansion 


Could  hinder  reservoir  con- 
struction plans;  general 
construction  impacts** 

Crosses  approximately  3,000 
feet  general  construction 
impacts** 

Future  development  impact 


Could  interfere  with 
engineering  plans  for 
road  lowering  and 

widening 


NS 

NS 

NS 


NS 


NS 

NS 


NS 


♦Justification  for  conclusions  (not  significant  =  NS,  significant  =  S) 
are  contained  in  Appendix  C. 
"General  construction  impacts  are  dust,  noise,  and  traffic  congestion. 
+**Signif icance  of  future  land  use  conflicts  must  be  resolved  through  the 
local  land  use  planning  process,  ci 

Source:   Ecology  and  Environment,  Inc.  1986. 


Table  4-16 
LAND  USES  TRAVERSED  BY  THE  PROPOSED  ROUTE 


Agricultural 
Land 


Rangeland 


Industrial/ 
Commercial 


Shrubland/ 
Woodland 


County 


Miles 


Miles 


Miles 


Miles 


Kern 

Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
Not  Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
County  Total 

Kings 

Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
Not  Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
County  Total 

Fresno 

Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
Not  Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
County  Total 

Merced 

Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
Not  Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
County  Total 

Stanislaus 

Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
Not  Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
County  Total 

San  Joaquin 

Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
Not  Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
County  Total 


3 

7 

7 

16 

6 

14 

a 

0 

16 

36 

9 

20 

3 

7 

0 

0 

19 

43 

16 

36 

9 

21 

0 

0 

9 

34 

17 

64 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0' 

a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

34 

17 

64. 

1 

2 

0 

0 

18 

27 

47 

73 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

a- 

0 

0 

18 

27 

47 

73 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

22 

27 

78 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

a 

0 

a 

22 

27 

78 

0 

a 

0 

0 

7 
0 
7 


28     93 

0      0 
28     93 


0 

0 

0 

0 

a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

a 

15 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

a 

15 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4-52. 


Table  4-16   (Cont.) 


Agricultural 
Land 


Rangeland 


Industrial/ 
Commercial 


Shrubland/ 
Woodland 


County 


Miles 


Miles 


Miles 


Miles 


Alameda 

Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
Not  Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 
County  Total 


0 

0 

5 

100 

a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Contra  Costa 


Parallel   to  Existing 

ROW 

1 

3 

21 

57 

3 

8 

10 

27 

Not  Parallel  to  Existing 

ROW 

0 

0 

2 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

County  Total 

1 

3 

23 

62 

3 

a 

10 

27 

Total  Parallel 

41 

168 

167 

65% 

10 

ix% 

10 

4% 

Total  Not  Parallel 

16 

6% 

11 

4% 

3 

1% 

0 

0 

Source:  Woodward-Clyde  Consultants  1985. 


4-53 


and  Contra  Costa  counties.  The  major  portion  of  the  route  in  this 
land  use  category  is  oil  fields  in  Kern  County  and  contains  other 
pipeline  rights-of-way.  In  Kings  County,  the  pipeline  traverses  less 
than  1  mile  of  industri al /commercial  lands. 

The  project  requires  five  staging  or  storage  areas  of  about  20 
acres  each.  Two  will  be  sited  at  existing  facilities,  while  the  other 
three  will  be  located  in  Fresno  County,  Merced  County,  and  Alameda  or 
Contra  Costa  County.  The  sites  are  flat  pastures  or  fallow  agri- 
cultural land  which  will  be  fully  restored  after  construction.  The 
impact  is  insignificant. 

Total  land  requirements  for  the  project,  which  were  listed  in 
Table  2-6,  are  categorized  by  land  use  in  Table  4-17.  The  impacts  on 
land  use  from  the  development  of  the  two  new  booster/injection 
stations  and  the  13  new  microwave  towers  result  from  removing  these 
sites  from  their  present  agricultural  and  rangel and  uses.  However, 
such  land  use  changes  would  be  limited  to  the  areas  required  for  such 
stations  and  ancillary  facilities  (e.g.,  for  water  lines,  access 
roads,  power  lines).  The  overall  land  requirements  and  land  use 
modifications  involve  97  acres  during  construction  and  only  48  acres 
for  operation.  The  impact  is  not  significant  because  the  sites  are 
not  located  on  prime  agricultural  land. 

The  land  use  associated  with  the  construction  of  the  proposed 
project  is  generally  consistent  with  planning  objectives  in  the 
eight-county  project  area  (and  compatible  with  the  largely  rural  land 
uses  encountered).  To  minimize  the  impacts  on  land  use,  228  miles 
(88%)  of  the  proposed  pipeline  are  aligned  parallel  and  adjacent  to 
existing  rights-of-way  (see  Table  4-16) .  Moreover,  57  miles  (22%)  of 
the  proposed  route  cross  cropland  and  178  miles  (69%)  cross  rangel ands 
which  will  be  returned  to  their  original  condition  and  land  use. 

Based  on  the  inventory  of  sensitive  land  uses  in  Table  3-25, 
there  are  some  potentially  significant  land  use  conflicts  between  the 
proposed  action  and  other  proposed  projects.  These  potential  con- 
flicts are  identified  by  county,  and  are  addressed  below. 

In  regard  to  the  many  other  land  use  features  identified  in  Table 
4-15,  the  impact  is  insignificant  based  on  the  present  alignment, 
which  will  either  bypass  these  features  or  cause  only  short-term  con- 
struction impacts  in  terms  of  dust  and  noise.  Future  development 
plans,  such  as  the  Town  of  Kettleman  City  in  Kings  County  and  the  pro- 
posed Contra  Costa  Airport,  will  have  to  be  reconsidered  to  some 
extent  because  of  the  pipeline,  but  there  is  no  indication  that  the 
project  cannot  be  accommodated.  The  proposed  project  has  been 
rerouted  to  minimize  conflicts  with  the  United  Technologies  Plant  in 
Merced  County. 

In  Contra  Costa  County,  the  pipeline  traverses  the  northern  part 
of  the  Concord  Naval  Weapons  Station  for  0.8  miles.  The  pipeline  does 
not  conflict  with  present  activities  at  the  station,  and  it  does  not 
traverse  the  Tule  elk  reservation  section  of  the  Weapons  Station.  No 
heavy  machinery,  artillery,  or  buried  ordinance  are  located  near  the 


4-54 


Table  4-17 
LAND  REQUIREMENT  BY  LAND  USE  CAfEGORIES  FOR  THE  PROPOSED  PROJECT 


Facility 


Construct  ion   (acres) 


Operation   (acres) 


Wood  Wood 

and  Indus-  and  Indus- 

Agriculture       Rangeland       Shrubland       trial  Total       Agriculture       Rangeland       Shrubland       trial 


Total 


*» 

Pipeline 

Right-of-Way 

553 

1,737 

cri 

Staging  Areas 

SJV-2b  Site 
Righta-of-Way 

SJV-3b  Site 
Rights-of-Way 

30 

6 
38 

a 

30 

6 
19 

Microwave    lowers 
11,    IA,   2,    3,  4, 
16,    7,  8,   9,    10, 
Righls-of-Way 

5 
12, 

13 

0. 

1. 

1 

7 

0.5 
17.3 

97 


6 

2 

503 

207 

652 

- 

60 

— 

— 

- 

6 
30 

3 
19 

— 

- 

6 
27 

4 

3 
9 

0.4 
0.1 

0.4 
0.7 
19 

0.1 
1.1 

0.25 
6.6 

36 


44 


939 


3 
19 

3 
13 


0.2  0.2 

0.1  0.4 

9.7 


total 


637 


1,810 


97 


116 


2,660 


234 


673 


36 


44 


9B7 


route       Final    location  of  the  right-of-way  needs   to  be  determined   in 
relation  to  easement   and   license  to  construct   (Pieper  1986).     No   land 
use  conflicts  have  been   identified   in  regard  to  the  specific   land 
areas   in  the  domain  of  the  BLM  or  Bureau  of  Reclamation.     The  total 
extent  of  the  project  on  public   lands   is   less   than  9  miles,  or   less 
than  ^%  (see  Table  2-3). 

Potential    impacts  on   recreational    facilities   in  the  eight-county 
area  resulting  from  the  construction  of  the  proposed   pipeline  will    be 
of  short  duration   and  will   be  caused  by  noise,   dust,   and  traffic 
congestion  that  will    increase  during  the  construction  period  of  2  to  8 
months   for   any  one  segment.     Minor,   short-term  disruptions,   such   as 
noise  and  dust,  may  affect  the  use  of  nearby  parks,   recreational    faci- 
lities  in  the  communities   surrounding  the  proposed   pipeline  corridor, 
and   1-5  rest  areas.       With  few  exceptions,   encroachment  on   these 
facilities   is  not   anticipated.     The  exceptions   are  the  Westley  Park 
(1-5)   Rest  Stop   in  Stanislaus  County,   Bethany  Reservoir  State  Recrea- 
tion Area   in  Alameda  County,    and   Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional   Preserve 
and  Stoneman  Park   and  proposed  reservoir   in   Contra  Costa  County. 

The  Westley  Park  Rest  Stop  is  a  much-visited  rest  area  along  1-5. 
Construction  of  the  SJV-3b  booster  station  will  not  affect  the  facili- 
ty's use;  therefore,   impacts   are   insignificant. 

The  proposed  pipeline  crosses  the  western  edge  of  the  Bethany 
Reservoir  State  Recreation  Area.     Pipeline  contruction  will    require 
approximately  2  acres  of  land  now  used  exclusively  for  recreation, 
which   is   a  significant   impact. 

The  proposed  route  traverses  the  Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional 
Preserve  for  less  than  0.5  miles   (about  2,000  feet).     This  preserve  is 
a  3,400-acre  park  with   a  well-developed  system  of  hiking  trails. 
Recreational   use  of  the  park  could  be  significantly  impacted,   since 
the  80-foot  right-of-way  will    remove  approximately  3.5  acres   of  pre- 
serve land  during  construction   and   the  maintenance  right-of-way  will 
occupy  about  1.4  acres. 

Stoneman  Park  is   owned  by  the  Department  of  the   Interior  but   is 
managed  by  the  City  of  Pittsburg.     The  pipeline  traverses   the  park   for 
1,740  feet  and   a  proposed  reservoir  within  the  park  for  1,200  feet. 
The  project  will    remove  this  land  from  recreational    use   and,   there- 
fore,  is   inconsistent  with  existing   land   use  plans,   primarily  in 
regard  to  the  proposed  reservoir   if  reservoir  construction  would 
involve  earth  movements   that  could  disrupt  the  pipeline.     This 
represents  a  significant  impact  on   the  land  use  plans  for  the  park. 

The  proposed  pipeline   also  crosses   a  number  of  waterways.     These 
crossings   are  proposed   to   be  underground,   except    in   two   locations,    and 
will    result   in   only  minor   land   use    and   recreational    impacts   during 
construction.      Fishing   will    be   temporarily   affected    in   the   immediate 
area  of  construction   until    the   crossing  'is   complete.     The   disturbed 
stream  banks   will    be   restored   to   their   original    and   stable   condition 
after   construction   has    been   completed. 


4-56 


Impacts   on   recreational    demand   are   not   expected   to  be  significant 
because  of  the  comparatively  short  construction  period   and   the  size  of 
each  construction   spread.     As   noted   in  Section  4.2.7,    a  maximum  of  400 
non-local   workers  will   be   involved   in   the  project.     These  workers 
will    be  distributed   in   two   primary  spreads   and   two  mini-spreads   along 
the  proposed  route  as  well    as  the  sites   of   ancillary  facilities  con- 
struction.    Based  on  visitor   information,   it   is   not   anticipated   that 
recreational   use  by  a  work  force  of  this   relatively  small    size  will 
increase  the  total    demand    at   any  facility  by  more  than  10%,   nor  will 
it  result   in  significant  overcrowding. 

During  construction  of  the  pipeline,   an  estimated  100  to  200 
pounds  of  solid  wastes,    such   as   scrap  timber  skids,   scrap  coating 
materials,   shipping  crates,  cardboard   boxes   and   paper  wrappings,   steel 
bands,   tires,   buffing  wheels,   welding  rod   stubs,   paint  brushes,    and 
buckets,  will    be  generated   per  mile  of  pipeline   and  will    require 
disposal    (Woodward-Clyde  Consultants  1986).     One  ton  of  solid  waste 
produced  from  this  type  of  construction  will    occupy  approximately  1 
cubic  yard  of  landfill    capacity.     Table  4-18  shows   the   impacts  of 
solid  waste  on   existing   landfill    capacity  in  counties   along   the  pro- 
posed route.     The  table  demonstrates  that  solid  wastes  from  construc- 
tion will   occupy  only  a  minor  portion   (less  than  0.0000027%)   of  the 
available  capacity.     The  impact   is   insignificant  on   the  landfill 
capacity  of  the  region   as  well    as   individual    counties. 

Operation 

Once  the  pipeline   is  built,  operation  of  the  proposed  project 
will   be  consistent  with  land  use  plans   and  objectives  in  the  affected 
eight-county  area.     Land  use  impacts  during  the  operation  of  the 
pipeline  include  the  long-term  maintenance  of  a  30-foot  right-of-way, 
removal    of  existing  land  use  for   the   life  of  the  project,   and   the 
potential   for  pipeline  rupture.     The   long-term  maintenance  of  a  right- 
of-way  prohibits  certain   land  uses   such   as  woodlands   and   structures 
and  may  impede  future  urban  growth   and  other  developments.      It  will 
not  prevent  recreational    uses   such   as   hiking,   picnicking,   or  fishing, 
and  will    thus   have  no  significant  impact   on   recreation   areas. 

Certain  potential    land  use  conflicts    identified   for  the  construc- 
tion phase  will    remain  over  the   life  of  the  project   and  will    preempt 
certain  other  development  proposals,   primarily  in  Contra  Costa  County 
(see  Table  4-15).      In  this   area,   a  variety  of  development  proposals 
are  pending,    including  residential    projects,   landfills,   a  new  reser- 
voir,   and   highway  improvements.     The  proposed    action,   which   would 
constitute   an  exclusive   right-of-way  for    about  2  miles    in   Contra  Costa 
County,   could  prevent  these  planned  developments  from  proceeding   as 
planned.     The   significance   of  these   conflicts   will    be  determined 
through   the   local    land   use  planning   process. 

Operation   of  the  project   only  requires    a  small    work   force   of   a 
dozen   people;   therefore,    recreational    use  will    not    increase   the   perma- 
nent demand   at    any  facility  by  more   than   10%   and   will    not   result   in 


4-57 


Table  4-13 

IMPACTS   OF   SOLID   WASTE   DISPOSAL 
ON   LANDFILL    CAPACITY 


Estimated  Amount 

of 

Solid   Waste 

Prodi 

jced    from  Pipe- 

Landfill 

Wast 

3   as   a 

line 

Construction* 

Capacity 

%  of 

Available 

County 

(tons) 

(cubic    yards) 

Landfill   Capacity* 

Kern 

4 

2,932,000 

1 

.3  x   10~6 

Kings 

3 

(?) 

(?) 

Fresno 

7 

1,000,000 

7  x   10"6 

Merced 

4 

390,000 

10 

.2  x    10"6 

Stanislaus 

3 

500,000 

6  x   10-6 

San  Joaquin 

2 

650,000 

3  x   10"6 

Alameda 

1 

4,900,000 

2  x    10-6 

Contra  Costa 

4 

(?) 

(?) 

TOTAL 

28 

10,340,000 

*  Estimated   solid  waste   produced   is  200  pounds   per  mile  of  pipeline 

construction   (Woodward-Clyde   1985).      It    is   assumed   that   one   ton   of   solid 
waste  occupies  one  cubic   yard  of  landfill   capacity. 

**In   Contra  Costa   County,    the   Contra   Costa  Landfill   will   be    full    sometime 
between   1992-1994  and  Acme    fill    will  close   between   1987   and   1989 
(Environmental   Impact  Planning  Corporation   1986). 


4-58 


overcrowding.     The  impacts  of  the  pipeline  right-of-way  on  previously 
inaccessible  environmentally  sensitive  areas  will    be  minimal.     Since 
most  of  the  areas   traversed   in  the  eight-county  area  are   already  ac- 
cessible to  off-road  vehicles,    and  the  pipeline  predominantly  follows 
existing  rights-of-way,   the  operation  of  the  pipeline  right-of-way   is 
not  expected  to  open  up  sensitive  areas  for  human  use. 

Operation  of  the  pipeline  will    not   significantly  impact  solid 
waste  disposal   capacity  because  operation  will   produce  only  limited 
wastes. 

Accidents 

The  impact  of  an  oil  spill  from  a  pipeline  rupture  would  depend 
on  the  amount  and  type  of  product  spilled,  the  environmental  setting 
(e.g.,  topography,  geological  conditions,  weather,  etc.),  and  the 
location  of  the  spill  (e.g.,  near  sensitive  environmental  uses).  Sen- 
sitive land  uses  such  as  parks,  waterways,  reservoirs,  and  residential 
areas  would  be  significantly  affected  in  the  event  of  an  oil  spill. 
Usage  of  such  facilities  would  be  interrupted  until  cleanup  measures 
were  completed. 

An  oil  spill  would  have  a  minor  effect  on  solid  waste  disposal 
capacity.  Oil  mixed  with  soil  would  have  to  be  excavated  and  disposed 
of  in  a  landfill.  In  California,  heavy  crude  oil  must  be  disposed  of 
in  a  hazardous  waste  type  landfill  (Class  I).  Only  one  disposal  area 
has  been  identified  along  the  proposed  route  as  a  Class  I  site:  the 
Hanford  landfill  in  Kings  County,  which  is  scheduled  to  close  in  1993. 
However,  a  variance  can  be  obtained  to  dispose  of  the  oil -contaminated 
soil  in  Class  II  landfills  if  approved  by  the  California  Department  of 
Health  and  Safety  and  the  Water  Quality  Control  Board. 

Abandonment 


At  the  end  of  the  economic  life  of  the  project  (30  to  40  years) . 
the  pipeline  will  be  abandoned.  The  oil  will  be  removed  from  the 
pipeline  and  replaced  with  water.  Impacts  of  abandonment  will  be 
similar  to  those  discussed  for  pipeline  operation.  All  above-ground 
facilities  and  foundations  will  be  dismantled  and  removed.  Impacts 
resulting  from  this  procedure  will  be  similar  to  those  described  for 
construction.  Equipment  will  be  salvaged  and  recycled.  Refuse  and 
some  debris,  however,  will  require  disposal  at  authorized  disposal 
sites. 

4.2.10  Visual  Resources 

The  assessment  of  visual  impact  was  based  on  an  adaptation  of 
BLM's  Visual  Resource  Management  (VRM)  system.  This  involved  an 
analysis  of  the  degree  of  visual  contrast  of  each  project  feature, 
which  was  determined  based  on  whether  the  specific  feature  would 


4-59 


likely  stand  out   in   its   landscape  by  virtue  of   its   form,    line,  color, 
or  texture,   as  well    as   its  degree  of  visibility  (see  Appendix  E).     The 
impact  assessment   also  considers   permissible  cultural   modifications, 
permissible  contrasts  with  project  features,    and   the  present  degree  of 
cultural   modification;   i.e.,   prior  to  project   implementation.     A 
rating  based  on  the  combination  of  these  considerations  was  used   as 
the  basis   for  the  visual    impact   assessment. 

Two  visual    simulations  of  the  project  area  are  included   in  this 
analysis.     These   are  generic   simulations;   that   is,   simulations  of 
typical   project  features  rather  than  exact  depictions  of   specific 
designs  of  project  features.     The  simulations  were  of:      (1)    a  typical 
pipeline  right-of-way  in   a  sensitive  VRM  Class  1  area   (in   this  case, 
near  31 ack  Diamond   Mines   and  Contra  Loma  Regional   Park   in   Contra  Costa 
County),   and   (2)    a  typical    pump   station   as    it  will    appear  from  an   area 
that  will   be  seen  by  large  numbers  of  people   (SJV-3b  near  the  Westley 
Rest  Stop,   along   1-5  at  the  Stanislaus-San  Joaquin  county  line). 

No   specific   standards   exist  to  determine  what  constitutes   sig- 
nificance of  visual    impact  along   any  .portion  of  the  pipeline  route  or 
at  the  ancillary  facilities   locations.     Given  the  considerations   and 
assumptions  discussed   in  Appendix  E,   the  criteria  identified  for   this 
study  provide  a  relative   indication   of  the  significance  of  the   altera- 
tion created  by  a  project  feature.     A  significant   impact  will    result 
if: 

•  The  project  feature  creates  a  visible  strong  contrast  with  the 
existing  visual    landscape; 

t     The  landscape  alteration  conflicts  with   special   policies  or 
objectives  for  scenic  protection  because  of  the  project 
feature's  visual   contrast;   and/or 

•  The  visual   contrast  of  project  features  dominates  other 
features   which   already  have  modified   the  visual    landscape,   or 
will    add  significantly  to   the  cumulative   alteration  of   a 
visual    landscape   in   a  given   area. 

These  impact  criteria  are  incorporated   into  Table  4-19,  which 
indicates  the  general    level   of  significance  for  various  contrast 
ratings   in  relation  to  VRM  classes. 

The   implementation   of  mitigation  measures  will    substantially 
reduce  short-term  significant  impacts   to   long-term   insignificant 
impacts.     This   is   evident  where  existing   pipeline   rights-of-way  have 
become  fully  revegetated   and   are  now  fully  integrated  visually  into 
the  surrounding   landscape. 

Impacts  of  the  ancillary  facilities  will  be  long-term  and  mostly 
unavoidable.  While  some  mitigation  is  possible  to  reduce  some  of  the 
visual    contrast,    the   facilities   cannot   be   hidden    from   viewers. 


4-60 


Table  4-19 
MATRIX  OF  GENERAL  VISUAL  IMPACT  SIGNIFICANCE 


VRM  Class 


Visual  Contrast  Rating 


High 


Moderate 


Low 


1        Significant 


Significant 


Insignificant 


2        Moderately  significant        Insignificant 


Insignificant 


Insignificant 


Insignificant 


Insignificant 


4-61 


Construction 

Areas  of  potentially  significant  visual    impact   are   identified   by 
milepost  in  Table  4-20.     The  significant   and   insignificant   impacts 
which   are   indicated  would  occur  during   the  short-term  construction 
period.     The   impacts   are  mitigated  by  right-of-way  restoration   and 
revegetation. 

The  pipeline  right-of-way  mostly  traverses   range! ands,    and   the 
potential   for  significant  impact  exists  for   the  short-term  period 
during   and  shortly  after  construction.     Pipeline  construction   involves 
considerable  disruption  of  the  vegetation  cover   and  soil    over  an 
80-foot-wide  strip   along  the  entire   length  of  the  right-of-way.     The 
exposure  of  the  bare  soil,    including  temporary  stockpiling  of  soil    and 
equipment  storage,   creates   a  strong  contrast  with   the  existing  visual 
landscape  along  most  of  the  route.     Less  visual    contrast  occurs  where 
soil   disturbance  already  exists  because  of  agricultural    activities, 
existing  roads   and  powerline  corridors,   oil    fields,    and  other   activi- 
ties. 

The  construction  of  the  pipeline  will    have  the  most  visual    con- 
trast during  and  shortly  after  construction  when  soil    and  vegetation 
disturbances   are  greatest.     Figure  4-3  shows  the  right-of-way  as   it 
would  look  shortly  after  the  trench  has  been  backfilled   and  before 
revegetation  has  occurred;  compare  this  with  Figure  4-2.     (These 
visual   resource  figures   are  located   at  the  end  of  this  subsection.) 

Segments  1,   2,    and  3  of  the  right-of-way  encompass  most  of  the 
areas  of  insignificant  impact.     Areas  of  potentially  significant 
visual    impacts  during  construction   are   located  only  in  Segment  4  of 
the  proposed  pipeline  route: 

Mileposts  104  -  116:      approximately  12  miles   in   length;   Fresno 
County,   in  foreground   and  middleground  of   1-5. 

Mileposts  158.5   -  163:     approximately  4.5  miles   in  length;   Merced 
County,   in  foreground  of   1-5,   Highways  152  and  207. 

Mileposts  168.5   -  174:     approximately  5.5  miles   in   length;   Merced 
and  Stanislaus  counties,  middleground  of   1-5. 

Mileposts  192   -  220:      approximately  28  miles   in   length;    Stanis- 
laus  and  San  Joaquin  counties,   foreground  of   1-5,   near  Westley 
Rest  Stop. 

Mileposts  224.5  -  227.5:      approximately  3  miles   in   length, 
Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  counties,   foreground   and  middleground  of 
C  ami  no  Diablo   Road. 

Mileposts   227.5   -   235:      approximately  7.5  miles    in   length;    in 
Contra  Costa  County,    foreground    and  middleground   of  Walnut   Boule- 
vard  and   Camino  Diablo   Road. 


4-62 


Table  4-20 
MATRIX  OF  VISUAL  IMPACTS  OF  THE  PROPOSED  PIPELINE 


VRM 

Visual 

Segment 

Milepost 

Class 

Contrast 

Comments 

Impact 

0-2 

3 

Low 



Insignificant 

2-4 

2 

Low 

._ 

Insignificant 

4-8 

2 

Low 

In   PL   ROW 

Insignificant 

9  -    12 

3 

Low 

In  PL   ROW 

Insignificant 

12  -   18.5 

3 

Low 

In   Rd   ROW 

Insignificant 

2 

18.5   -    35 

3 

Low 

In   Rd   ROW 

Insignificant 

2 

35-40 

3 

Low 

~ 

Insignificant 

3 

40-61 

3 

Low 

In   Rd   ROW 

Insignificant 

3 

61    -  63 

3 

Low 

In  PL   ROW 

Insignificant 

3 

63  -   71.3 

3 

Low 

— 

Insignificant 

3 

71.3   -   80 

1 

Low 

— 

Insignificant 

3 

80  -   84 

2 

Low 

— 

Insignificant 

4 

84   -  87.5 

3 

Low 

~ 

Insignificant 

4 

87.5  -   88.5 

1 

Low 

Near  Rd  ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

88.5   -  90 

3 

Low 

Near  Rd  ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

90  -   104 

2 

Low 

In   TL  4  PL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

104  -   116 

1 

Moderate 

In  PL   ROW 

Significant 

4 

116  -   135 

2 

Low 

In  TL  4  PL  ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

135   -   148 

3 

Low 

In   TL  4  PL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

148   -   152 

3 

Moderate 

— 

Insignificant 

4 

152  -  158.5 

2 

Moderate 

In  PL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

158.5  -  163 

1 

Moderate 

In   Rd  ROW 

Significant 

4 

163   -   168.5 

3 

Low 

Near  TL  4  PL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

168.5  -   174 

1 

High 

— 

Significant 

4 

174  -   179.5 

3 

Low 

Near  4   in   TL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

179.5   -   181 

2 

Low 

Near   TL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

■181    -   192 

3 

Low 

Near  TL 

Insignificant 

4 

192  -   203 

1 

High 

Near   Rd  ROW 

Significant 

4 

203   -  220 

1 

High 

Near   Rd  4  PL   ROW 

Significant 

4 

220  -   224.5 

2 

Low 

In  PL  4   TL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

224.5   -  227. 

5        2 

High 

— 

Significant 

4 

227.5  -   235 

1 

Moderate 

In  PL   ROW 

Significant 

4 

235   -   244 

1 

High 

— 

Significant 

4 

244  -   245.5 

2 

Low 

In   TL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

245.5   -  246 

5        1 

High 

— 

Significant 

4 

246.5   -    247 

2 

Low 

TL    ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

247    -    252 

1 

Moderate 

In   TL   ROW 

Significant 

4 

252  -   254 

1 

High 

— 

Significant 

4 

254  -   256 

2 

Low 

Near    TL    ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

256  -   258 

3 

Low 

Near   TL   ROW 

Insignificant 

4 

258    -   259 

2 

Low 

Near   TL  4   Rd   ROW 

Insignificant 

Key: 

PL    ROW   -   existing    pipeline    right-of-way 
L    ROW  =   existing    power    transmission    line    right-of-way 


4-63 


Mileposts  235   -  244:      approximately  9  miles    in   length;   Contra 
Costa  County,   foreground   and  middleground  of  Black   Diamond  Mines 
Regional   Preserve  and  Contra  Loma  Regional   Park   and  background   of 
Antioch. 

Mileposts  245.5    -  246.5:      approximately  1  mile   in    length;    Contra 
Costa  County,   foreground   and  middleground  of  Kirker  Pass  Road. 

Mileposts  247   -  252:     approximately  5  miles   in   length;   Contra 
Costa  County,  middleground   and  background  of  Highway  4. 

Mileposts  252  -  254:      approximately  2  miles   in   length;   Contra 
Costa  County,  middleground   and  background  of  Highway  4,   Concord 
and  Martinez. 

The   implementation  of  mitigation  measures  to  the  construction 
right-of-way  substantially  reduces   the  period  of  short-term  signifi- 
cant  impact;   the   long-term   impact   is   insignificant.     This    is   evident 
where  existing  pipeline  rights-of-way  are  well-revegetated   and   fully 
integrated  visually  into  the  surrounding   landscape.      It   has   been   noted 
in  the  soil    impact  section   (Section  4.2.4)    that  some  segments  of  the 
pipeline  have  a  poor  revegetation  potential   because  of  slope,   soil 
erodibility  factors,   and  climatic  extremes.     Where  revegetation  fails, 
the  potential    for   long-term  visual    impact   is   great.     Table  4-21   indi- 
cates which  right-of-way  portions  have  a  significant   impact  during 
construction  and  potentially  thereafter  because  of  significant  con- 
straints on  revegetation.     Most  of  the  area  subject  to  revegetation 
problems  will   only  undergo  a  short-term  significant   impact. 

The  construction  of  new  towers,   new  booster  stations,   access 
roads,   and  power  lines  will   result   in  visual   contrasts.     These 
ancillary  facilities  will   have  long-term  impacts  on  the  visual 
landscape.     The   impact  depends  on  the  type  of  feature   and   the  nature 
of  the  surrounding  visual    landscape,   as  described  below  (see  Table 
4-22). 

Microwave  station  No.   1  will    be   located   at  Weir  substation,    in   an 
oil   well    field.      It  will    be   located  on   an  existing  100-foot-tall 
tower,   and  will    be  visible  only  at   a  fairly  great  distance  from  the 
nearby  communities  of  Fellows   and  Derby  Acres.     Given   the  extensive 
visual    alterations   already  existing   in  this  oil   field,  the  microwave 
station  will   not   impact  the  visual    landscape. 

Microwave  tower  No.  1A  and  the  McKittrick  injection  station  will 
be  located  in  McKittrick  Valley,  which  contains  numerous  visual  land- 
scape alterations,  such  as  power  transmission  lines,  oil  tanks,  oil 
wells,  and  roads.  The  injection  station  will  not  significantly  alter 
the  landscape  or  be  highly  visible  from  McKittrick,  located  several 
miles  to  the  southeast.  The  microwave  station  will  be  100  feet  tall, 
but  will    not   have   a  visual    impact. 

Microwave   station   No.    2  will    be    located    at   the  Kernridge 
injection   station    in   the   South   Belridge   oil    field,   which   contains 
numerous   visual    landscape   alterations   such    as   power   transmission 


4-64 


Table  4-21 

LONG-TERM  VISUAL  IMPACT  ASSESSMENT  BASED  ON  PROBABLE 

CONTRAST  OF  RIGHT-OF-WAY  DUE  TO  POTENTIALLY 

POOR  REVEGETATION  BY  COUNTY 


Mileposts 

County 

Significant 
Visual    Impacts 

During 
Construction   (1) 

Potential 

Slope-Related 

Revegetation 

Failure   (2) 

Significant 

Long-Term 

Visual    Impacts 

Kern 

N.A.    (3) 

5-7 
11-21 

N.C.   (4) 

Kings 

N.A. 

62-72 

N.C. 

Fresno 

104-116 

91-96.5 
106-112 
134.5-138.5 

N.C. 
Significant 

N.C. 

(106-112) 

Merced 

158-163 
167-174 

138.5-146 

150-158 

168.5-174 

N.C. 
N.C. 
Significant 

(168-174) 

Stanislaus 

192-201 

175-179 
184-198 

N.C. 
Significant 

(192-198) 

San  Joaquin 

201-218 

205-206 
216-217.5 

Significant 
Significant 

(205-206) 
(216-218) 

Alameda 

218-220 

217.5-224 

Significant 

(218-220) 

Contra  Costa 

224-244 
245-246 
252-254 

224-226 
238.5-254 

Significant 

Significant 
Significant 

(224-226) 
(245-246) 
(252-254) 

(1)  See  Table  4-17. 

(2)  Soil  impact  (see  Table  4-2  in  Section  4.2.4). 

(3)  Not  Applicable:  No  significant  visual  impacts  during  construction. 

(4)  No  Correspondence:   Segments  having  a  low  revegetation  potential  do  not 
correspond  to  segements  having  a  high  visual  impact  during  construction. 


4-65 


Table   4-22 
MATRIX   OF   VISUAL    IMPACT   OF  ANCILLARY   FACILITIES 


Facility 


VRM 
Class 


Visual 
Contrast 


Comments 


Impact 


Microwave  No.    1 


Microwave  No.    1A 

and 

McKittrick  Station 

Microwave  No.  2 

and 

Kernridge  Station 

California  Aqueduct 
Crossing 

Mid  Station 

and 

Microwave  No.  3 


California  Aqueduct 
Crossing 

Kettleman  Station 
and  Microwave  No.  4 


Caliola  Station 
and  Microwave  No.  5 


Microwave  No.  6 

Access  road  and  power  line 

Microwave  No.  7 


SJV-2b  Booster  Station 
and  Microwave  No.  8 

Microwave  No.  9 

California  Aqueduct 
Crossing 

Delta  Mendota  Canal 
Crossing 

California  Aqueduct 
Crossing 

Microwave  No.  10 

SJV-3b  Booster  Station 
and  Microwave  No.  11 

Microwave  No.  12 


Microwave  No.  13 
Microwave  No.  14 


Key: 

FG   -   view    in    foreground 
MG   -   view    in   middleground 

*  Designated    scenic    route 


3 

None 

Existing   100- 
foot   tower 

None 

3 

None 

100-foot    tower 

None 

3 

Low 

— 

Insignificant 

3 
3 

None 
Low 

Existing   205- 
foot    tower 

Insignificant 
Insignificant 

3 

None 

Underground 

Insignificant 

3 
3 

Moderate 

None 

Near   pumping 

station 

205- foot    tower 

Insignificant 
None 

3 

Low 

Underground 

Insignificant 

3 
3 

Low 
Low 

2 
2 

Low 
Low 

2 
2 

None 
High 

2 

Low 

2 

High 
High 

3 

High 

2 

Low 

Low 


None 


High 

High 
High 

High 


Moderate 
Moderate 


Near    tanks  Insignificant 

255-foot   tower      Insignificant 


Near   tanks  Insignificant 

180-foot   tower-    Insignificant 


180-foot    tower     None 

Significant 

205-foot    tower     Insignificant 

Near  TL  ROW  Significant 

Significant 

Insignificant 

Insignificant 

Insignificant 

None 

Significant 

Significant 
Significant 

Insignificant 

Significant 
Insignificant 


Existing 
structure 

Existing 
structure 


Near   TL  ROW 

Near   TL   ROW 

Near   TL  ROW 

Steep  hills 
(Mount  Oso) 

Near   other 

Industr  ial 


BG   -    view    in    background 
SS    -    seldom   seen 


4-66 


lines,  oil  tanks,  oil  wells,  and  roads.  The  microwave  will  be  on  an 
existing  205-foot  tower.  It  will  be  visible  to  nearby  residences 
located  in  the  oil  field,  but  constitutes  a  minor  alteration  of  the 
landscape  and  the  impact  is  insignificant. 

The  crossing  of  the  California  Aqueduct  at  mileposts  32  and  61 
will  be  underground.  The  impact  is  insignificant. 

Microwave  station  No.  3  will  be  located  at  Mid  station  adjacent 
to  1-5  in  Kern  County.  The  landscape  in  this  area  is  flat  agricul- 
tural fields  with  a  large  transmission  line  located  directly  behind 
the  tower  and  station  site,  as  viewed  from  1-5.  The  microwave  will  be 
a  205-foot  tower.  No  residences  are  located  within  close  viewing 
distance  of  the  station  and  tower;  it  does  not  impact  the  landscape. 

Microwave  station  No.  4  will  be  located  at  the  Kettleman  station 
adjacent  to  1-5  in  Kings  County.  1-5  is  not  a  designated  scenic  route 
in  this  area.  The  landscape  in  this  area  is  flat  agricultural  fields 
with  a  large  transmission  line  located  east  of  the  freeway  and  hills, 
with  grasslands  west  of  1-5.  The  microwave  will  be  255  feet  high.  It 
will  be  visible  from  residences  in  Kettleman  City,  located  within 
close  viewing  distance  of  the  tower  (about  a  half-mile),  and  to 
numerous  travelers  on  1-5.  The  microwave  facility  is  an  insignificant 
alteration  of  the  landscape,  as  is  the  adjacent  injection  station. 

Microwave  station  No.  5  will  be  located  at  the  Caliola  station 
about  1  mile  west  of  1-5  in  Fresno  County.  1-5  is  a  designated  scenic 
route  in  this  area.  The  landscape  in  this  area  is  flat  to  gently 
sloping  agricultural  fields,  with  a  large  transmission  line  located 
east  of  the  freeway.  The  injection  station  is  located  adjacent  to  an 
existing  tank  farm.  The  microwave  tower  will  be  180  feet  high.  It 
will  be  visible  from  1-5.  No  residences  are  located  within  close 
viewing  distance  of  the  tower.  These  facilities  represent  an  in- 
significant alteration  of  the  visual  landscape. 

Microwave  station  No.  6  will  be  built  on  an  180-foot  tower  west 
of  1-5  in  Fresno  County.  1-5  is  a  designated  scenic  route  in  this 
area.  The  landscape  in  this  area  is  hilly  grasslands,  with  a 
large  transmission  line  located  west  of  the  freeway.  Because  of  its 
height  and  location  on  a  hill,  the  microwave  will  be  visible  from  1-5. 
No  residences  are  located  within  close  viewing  distance  of  the  tower. 
The  microwave  facility  will  have  an  insignificant  visual  impact.  The 
construction  of  an  electric  transmission  line  and  access  road  will 
create  a  high  visual  contrast  in  the  grasslands  within  the  middle- 
ground  viewing  distance  of  1-5.  Because  this  is  located  in  a  VRM 
Class  2  area,  the  impact  is  significant. 

Microwave  station  No.  7  will  be  built  on  a  205-foot  tower  about 
3/4-mile  east  of  1-5  in  Fresno  County.   1-5  is  a  designated  scenic 
route  in  this  area.  The  landscape  is  flat  agricultural  land  east  of 
1-5  and  hilly  grasslands  to  the  west.  Large  transmission  lines  are 
located  both  east  and  west  of  the  freeway.  No  residences  are  located 
close  to  the  tower.  The  tower  is  located  behind  a  major  transmission 
line,  as  viewed  from' the  freeway.   It  will  be  visible  at  a  distance 


4-67 


from  1-5  and,  because  of  its  isolated  location  in  the  fields,  will  ■ 
have  an  insignificant  impact  on  the  landscape.  The  access  road  and 
power  transmission  line  to  the  site  do  not  add  a  strong  visual  con- 
trast to  the  fields  and  existing  power  transmission  line;  therefore, 
the  impact  will  be  insignificant. 

SJV-2b  booster  station  and  microwave  station  No.  8  will  be 
located  just  west  of  1-5  in  Fresno  County.  1-5  is  a  designated  scenic 
route  in  this  area;  the  area  is  in  VRM  Class  2.  The  landscape  is  flat 
agricultural  fields,  with  a  large  transmission  line  located  west  of 
the  freeway  and  hills,  and  grasslands  further  west  forming  the  back- 
ground view  of  1-5.  The  booster  station  will  be  located  in  an  agri- 
cultural area  near  power  transmission  lines.  The  water  line  and  gas 
line  to  the  site  will  have  low  visual  contrast  and  visibility,  and  the 
impact  is  insignificant.  The  electric  power  transmission  line  will 
have  high  visual  contrast  and  will  add  to  the  cumulative  visual  alter- 
ation created  by  existing  power  lines  in  the  area.  Because  of  its 
high  visibility  in  a  VRM  Class  2  area,  the  power  line  will  have  a 
significant  impact. 

Microwave  station  No.  9  and  its  proposed  power  transmission  line 
will  be  located  in  Merced  County  at  Laguna  Seca  Ranch.  This  is  an 
area  of  hills  and  grasslands.  The  tower  will  be  located  at  the  summit 
of  a  hill  about  3  miles  west  of  1-5.  1-5  is  a  designated  scenic  route 
in  this  area.  The  tower  will  be  in  the  visual  background  of  1-5.  The 
130-foot  tower  will  be  visible  from  the  freeway,  but  will  form  a  minor 
element  of  the  visual  landscape.  The  nearest  residence  is  the  Laguna 
Seca  Ranch,  about  2  miles  away.  The  tower,  its  access  road,  and  power 
transmission  line  will  have  high  visual  contrast  in  the  landscape,  but 
will  be  insignificant  because  of  its  distance  from  the  nearest  resi- 
dence and  1-5. 

The  pipeline  crossings  of  the  California  Aqueduct  and  Delta 
Mendota  Canal  pipeline  at  mileposts  160  and  163  will  be  located  on 
existing  structures  that  carry  pipelines  over  the  aqueducts.  The 
visual  impact  of  adding  another  pipeline  at  each  of  these  crossings  is 
minor,  and  the  overall  impact  will  be  insignificant.  The  California 
Aqueduct  crossing  at  milepost  166  will  be  underground  and  without  a 
long-term  visual  impact. 

Microwave  station  No.  10  will  be  a  new  105-foot  tower  located  on 
a  grassy  hill  about  1  mile  west  of  1-5.  1-5  is  a  designated  scenic 
route  in  this  area.  The  tower  and  power  line  will  have  a  high  con- 
trast with  the  surrounding  landscape.  Although  a  major  transmission 
line  corridor  is  located  to  the  west  of  the  site,  it  is  seen  only 
intermittently  from  1-5.  A  residence  is  located  about  2  miles  south 
of  the  tower  site.  The  impact  will  be  significant. 

SJV-3b  booster'  station  and  microwave  station  No.  11  &re   located 
about  1/4-mile  west  of  1-5  in  Stanislaus  County.   1-5  is  a  designated 
scenic  route  in  this  area.  The  site  is  an  open  grassland  with  a  rela- 
tively natural  appearance.  The  Westley  Rest  Stop  is  located  about 
1/4-mile  north  of  the  site.  The  site  has  a  high  level  of  visibility 
to  traffic  in  both  the  northbound  and  southbound  directions.  The 


4-68 


microwave  tower  will  be  50  feet  tall,  which  is  not  higher  than  the 
nearby  power  transmission  lines.  However,  the  microwave  tower  and 
access  road  will  be  located  closer  to  the  freeway  than  the  transmis- 
sion lines  and  have  higher  visibility  (a  sensitive  visual  management 
area),  hence  the  impact  will  be  significant  (see  Figures  4-4  and 
4-5). 

Microwave  station  No.  12  will  be  a  50-foot  tower  located  on  the 
summit  of  Mount  Oso.  This  prominent  peak  is  visible  from  1-5,  a 
designated  scenic  route  in  this  area.  The  peak  appears  in  the  back- 
ground of  views  from  1-5  and  the  adjoining  agricultural  areas  of  the 
valley  to  the  east.  The  tower  will  be  visible  from  the  portion  of  1-5 
about  6  to  8  miles  to  the  north.  At  this  distance,  the  tower  can  be 
seen,  but  will  appear  small.  The  impact  is  insignificant. 

Microwave  station  No.  13  will  be  a  50-foot  tower  located  on  the 
summit  of  Mount  Diablo  in  Contra  Costa  County.  This  is  a  state  park, 
and  a  prominent  viewpoint  visible  to  a  large  number  of  communities  in 
the  vicinity.  It  receives  fairly  large  visitation  because  of  its 
scenic  prominence  and  natural  landscapes.  Although  numerous  towers 
already  exist  on  the  summit,  the  impact  of  microwave  No.  13  is  signi- 
ficant, contributing  to  the  cumulative  visual  impacts  occurring  on  the 
scenery  of  Mount  Diablo. 

Microwave  station  No.  14  will  be  an  80-foot  tower  located  in  an 
industrialized  portion  of  Martinez.  The  tower  will  be  fairly  promi- 
nent, but  will  not  contrast  greatly  with  the  surrounding  industrial 
structures.  The  impact  is  insignificant. 

Operation 

Operation  of  the  project  associated  facilities  will  not  have  an 
additional  impact  on  visual  resources  once  these  facilities  have  been 
built,  but  the  impacts  of  construction  last  over  the  life  of  the 
project.  Maintenance  of  the  right-of-way  will  ensure  that  the  vege- 
tation cover  does  not  degrade  through  erosion.  Periodic  mowing  of  the 
grass  cover  will  be  visible  and  contrast  right-of-way  vegetation  with 
surrounding  vegetation,  particularly  in  shrubland,  over  the  life  of 
the  project.  The  impact  is  insignificant. 

Accidents 

Visual  resources  will  not  be  significantly  impacted  by  a  spill. 
Important  topographical  elements  in  the  landscape  are  not  affected. 
The  loss  of  trees  due  to  oil  toxicity  would  be  significant  but  the 
chance  of  a  spill  near  trees  is  small  because  trees  are  relatively 
rare  or  extremely  localized  in  their  distribution. 

Abandonment 

Removal  of  structures,  pavement,  equipment,  etc.,  and  revegeta- 
tion  of  the  former  facility  site  will  eliminate  visual  contrasts.  It 
is  likely  that  some  features  may  be  retained  beyond  the  design  life- 
time of  the  project.  For  example,  some  of  the  towers  with  project 


4-69 


o 


Figure   4-2     EXISTING  VIEW   OF   PROPOSED   PIPELINE   RIGHT-OF-WAY 

SOURCE:    ESA 


I 


This  figure  si 
visual  landscape 

the  pipeline.   The  visual  contrast  is  typical  of  that  expected  to 
occur  in  areas  of  open  grasslands.   In  this  case,  the  visual 
contrast  is  rated  as  high  and  because  of  the  ROW's  location  in  VRM 
Class  1,  the  short-term  impact  is  considered  to  be  significant. 


Figure     4-3 

SOURCE;   ESA 


SIMULATED   VIEW   OF   PIPELINE   RIGHT-OF-WAY    IMMEDIATELY    FOLLOWING 
CONSTRUCTION 


*&P3«K3hi> 


4^ 
I 

r\3 


is  located  at  the  base  of  the  hills. 
1-5  at  the  Westley  Rest  Stop. 


Figure  4-4     EXISTING  VIEW  FROM  1-5   NEAR  THE  WESTLEY   REST   STOP 

SOURCE:    ESA 


>;:1&K;W 


I 
-•J 

CO 


Himw- 


V* 


■■■    ■',■■■''      ■       ■'.■.    ■':.■'    .'.'    ';'■    ': '■ 

■  •   ,  : : "  ■     ' 

V 


111'* 


v  % 


•    ■■■.:■■■/  ■.,-:   ■ 


|ilJ|lli|llH|iisliill|Wil 


'•:  'V;-.  ..V.:-:     -  ■'   ■■■-  •    ■  :  ,     '     : 


, 


This  figure  shows  the  visual  landscape  in  Figure  4-4  with  the  proposed 
SJV-3b  booster  station.  The  illustration  is  a  generic  depiction  of  how  the 
facility  might  appear  from  the  western  edge  of  1-5. 


■ 


» 


8. 


Figure   4-5       SIMULATED   VIEW   OF    SJV   3b   BOOSTER   STATION   FROM  1-5   NEAR  THE  WESTLEY   REST   STOP 

SOURCE:    ESA 


microwaves  and  canal  crossing  structures  may  be  retained,  and  future 
residents  may  find  it  desirable  to  retain  some  access  roads  con- 
structed for  the  project  and  some  landscaping  (particularly  trees  or 
shrubs  which  may  have  been  established).  Thus,  some  visual  alter- 
ations will  continue  after  abandonment  of  the  project,  but  will  not  be 
significant. 

4.2.11  Paleontology 

Potential  impacts  to  paleontological  resources  were  assessed 
based  on  a  thorough  review  of  pertinent  literature  and  critical  analy- 
sis of  the  overview  report  on  paleontological  and  cultural  resources 
along  the  proposed  route  prepared  by  Woodward-Clyde  Consultants,  and  a 
19-day  field  survey  of  route  segments  identified  in  advance  as  poten- 
tially sensitive.  Interpretation  of  the  combined  data  has  allowed 
delineation  of  areas  which  have  the  highest  probability  of  including 
abundant  and/or  especially  important  vertebrate  fossils  and  which  are 
not  insulated  by  deep,  young  alluvial  cover.  However,  the  nature  of 
paleontological  resources  is  such  that  pre-excavation  investigations 
cannot  predict  with  absolute  certainty  the  locations  of  all  important 
fossils  which  may  be  affected  by  project  construction,  especially  for 
areas  and  formations  not  previously  known  to  produce  such  fossils. 

For  purposes  of  this  assessment,  significance  of  impact  is  deter- 
mined by  the  probability  that  the  proposed  project  will  cause  direct 
loss  or  damage  or  disturbance  of  significant,  localized  fossil 
deposits. 

Impacts  to  paleontological  resources  resulting  from  the  proposed 
project  will  depend  on  such  factors  as  the  presence  or  absence  of 
previously  known  fossil-producing  localities,  extent  and  depth  of  soil 
or  recent  alluvial  cover  over  bedrock,  the  exact  relationships  between 
productive  fossil  zones  and  the  proposed  pipeline  system,  and  signifi- 
cance of  local  fossils.  Both  direct  and  indirect  impacts  may  occur 
and,  in  some  circumstances,  the  impacts  may  be  positive,  such  as  in 
areas  where  trenching  or  grading  provides  the  only  available  access  to 
bedrock  now  obscured  by  soil  and  vegetative  cover,  and  thus  provides 
an  opportunity  for  finding  fossils  which  would  not  otherwise  be 
identified. 

The  potential  for  finding  fossils  within  a  given  area  has  been 
estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  distribution  of  known  nearby  localities, 
local  geologic  trends,  and  details  of  rock  characteristics  in  the 
area.  The  reliability  and  resolution  of  these  estimates  depends  on 
the  amount  of  data  available  for  the  immediate  vicinity.  Published 
literature  and  museum  records  provided  preliminary  data  and  revealed 
broad-scale  trends.  The  field  survey  considerably  improved  the 
resolution  of  these  estimates,  but  surficial  cover  of  large  areas 
still  prevented  a  highly  detailed  delineation  of  possible  small-scale 
fossil iferous  zones.  Because  vertebrate  fossils  are  typically  rare, 
even  in  areas  considered  to  have  "high"  potential,  the  absence  of 
known  localities  cannot  be  taken  as  evidence  for  the  absence  of 
fossils.  Locality  data  are  therefore  supplemented,  when  possible, 
with  detailed  information  about  specific  rock  characteristics.  These 


4-74 


characteristics,  and  their  relationships  to  the  potential  for  fossils, 
are  summarized  in  Appendix  F.  It  is  not  possible  to  predict  specific 
locations  of  undiscovered  fossil  localities,  although  the  distribution 
of  known  localities,  coupled  with  geologic  trends  of  specific  rock 
types,  has  been  used  to  delineate  areas  of  high  fossil  probability. 
For  this  area  and  this  project,  this  approach  is  judged  to  be  the  best 
available  methodology  to  accomplish  the  impact  assessment. 

A  general  set  of  guidelines  which  have  been  applied  in  California 
in  a  number  of  projects  and  judged  acceptable  by  BUM  and  COE  are  sum- 
marized in  Appendix  F,  Table  F-2.  These  criteria  have  been  used  to 
identify  the  paleontological  resources  with  high  to  yery   high  sensi- 
tivity which  are  presented  in  Table  4-23. 

Potential  impacts  to  paleontological  resources  resulting  from 
project  construction,  operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment  are  dis- 
cussed below. 

Construction 

In  areas  of  known  and  still-productive  localities  within  the 
right-of-way  and  on  sites  designated  for  ancillary  facilities,  trench- 
ing or  grading  during  pipeline  construction  may  result  in  direct 
destruction  of  most  fossils  within  the  excavated  portion  and  may 
result  in  the  loss  of  geologic  context,  which  is  used  to  determine  the 
age  and  significance  of  the  resource.  Vehicle  traffic  may  have  simi- 
lar effects  on  near-surface  resources.  Construction  of  buildings, 
paving,  and  backfilling  may  prevent  future  access  and  scientific  in- 
vestigation. Indirect  impacts  of  unauthorized  collecting  of  verte- 
brate fossils  could  occur  or  be  increased  by  drawing  attention  to  the 
presence  and  location  of  vertebrate  fossils. 

The  proposed  route  crosses  or  comes  very  close  to  approximately 
10  recorded  fossil-producing  localities.  Nearly  100  vertebrate  local- 
ities are  recorded  within  1  mile  of  the  proposed  route.  Because  of 
extreme  variations  between  recorded  localities  in  terms  of  numbers  and 
concentrations  of  specimens  and  in  prospects  for  future  collecting, 
project  impacts  on  known  localities  vary  from  significant  to  inconse- 
quential. The  field  survey  team  attempted  to  locate  the  potentially 
threatened  localities  to  determine  probable  impacts  for  each.  In  most 
cases,  impacts  are  expected  to  be  insignificant.  For  the  remaining 
cases,  exact  locality  data  is  regarded  as  confidential  (for  protection 
of  the  resources)  and  details  will  be  provided  to  those  responsible 
for  construction  mitigation.  Proximity  to  known  localities  (even  if 
depleted)  was  considered  in  the  assessments  listed  in  Table  4-23,  as 
this  information  bears  on  the  probability  of  encountering  buried 
fossils  in  the  course  of  construction. 

Fossils  may  exist  in  nearly  all  types  of  sedimentary  rock  or 
unconsolidated  alluvial  deposits.  Because  the  entire  proposed  route 
is  aligned  within  areas  where  such  rocks  or  deposits  occur  at  and  near 
the  surface,  paleontological  resources  could  be  present,  and  impacts 
could  occur,  at  any  point  along  the  route.  However,  very  young  sedi- 
mentary deposits  (such  as  surficial  deposits,  in  historically  active 


4-75 


Table  4-23 

SUMMARY  OF  PALEONTOLOGICAL  IMPACT  SIGNIFICANCE 
ASSESSMENTS  FOR  PROPOSED  PROJECT 


Location 

Assessment 

Mil 

epost: 

Total 
Miles 

Geological 
Unit 

Potential 

From 

To 

Impact 
Significance 

2.1 

3.4 

1.3 

Tulare 

Moderate 

High 

6.3 

6.5 

0.2 

McKittrick 

Very  high 

Very  high 

11.0 

11.9 

0.9 

Tulare 

Moderate 

High 

61.3 

67.4 

6.1 

Tulare 

High 

High 

86.6 

88.5 

1.9 

Tulare 

High 

High 

89.6 

90.8 

1.2 

Tulare 

High 

Very  high 

90.8 

95.8 

5.0 

San  Joaquin 

High 

Very  high 

192.5 

194.0 

1.5 

San  Pablo 

Moderate 

High 

209.5 

210.3 

0.3 

(unnamed) 

High 

High 

211.0 

214.8 

3.8 

(unnamed) 

High 

High 

216.0 

218.2 

2.2 

Tulare 

High 

High 

218.2 

219.8 

1.6 

San  Pablo 

Moderate 

High 

228.8 

230.8 

2.0 

Kreyenhagen 

High 

High 

242.2 

242.3 

0.1 

San  Pablo 

High 

High 

242.3 

243.0 

0.7 

San  Pablo 

Moderate 

High 

243.0 

244.8 

1.8 

Wolfskill 

High 

High 

245.2 

245.4 

0.2 

San  Pablo 

Moderate 

High 

248.5 

250.9 

2.4 

Wolfskill 

High 

High 

253.7 

254.2 

0.5 

Wolfskill 

High 

High 

TOTAL 

MILES 

34.2 

Source:   Bruce  Hanson. 


4-76 


floodplain  areas)  are  of  such  limited  paleontological  interest  that 
impacts  to  them  may  be  considered  inconsequential.  In  addition,  in 
agricultural  areas,  deep  cultivation  probably  has  destroyed  any 
fossils  that  may  have  existed;  as  a  result,  any  such  affected  areas 
are  judged  to  have  insignificant  impacts. 

While  excavation  may  damage  or  destroy  undiscovered  fossil 
deposits,  their  detection  prior  to  and  during  construction  would  make 
these  resources  accessible  until  they  are  again  covered  over.  The 
discovery  and  concomitant  salvage  of  these  fossils  by  professionals 
would  add  to  the  paleontological  knowledge  base  and  would  represent  a 
beneficial  impact  of  pipeline  construction.  Any  unauthorized  col- 
lecting of  fossils  discovered  along  the  proposed  route  will  not  only 
deplete  the  resource,  but  remove  evidence  that  it  ever  existed,  there- 
by resulting  in  significant  negative  impacts. 

The  field  survey  allowed  delineation  of  several  broad-scale  zones 
(on  the  order  of  tens  of  feet  thick  and  1  or  more  miles  long,  in  most 
cases),  but  because  of  constraints  of  time  and  especially  limited  bed- 
rock exposure,  not  all  expected  small-scale  concentrations  could  be 
assessed,  though  a  few  were  detected.  The  extent  of  project  impacts 
on  these  areas  is  expected  to  parallel  the  assessed  sensitivity 
ratings  for  individual  segments  as  listed  in  Table  4-23,  and  the 
listed  segment  lengths  reflect,  in  part,  the  sizes  of  the  identified 
zones. 

Deserving  particular  consideration  is  a  zone  of  unusually  high 
vertebrate  fossil  potential  and  significance  which  is  crossed  by  the 
proposed  route  near  McKittrick.  Previous  investigations  (Jefferson 
1986)  and  the  field  survey  have  shown  that  this  late  Pleistocene  unit 
includes  geographically  restricted  "subzones"  of  particularly  high 
fossil  content,  examples  of  which  occur  within  100  feet  both  east  and 
west  of  the  route.  The  proposed  route  crosses  a  relatively  narrow 
band  of  this  deposit  (compared  to  closely  adjacent  areas),  apparently 
because  previous  excavation  of  roads  and  well  platforms  has  already 
removed  previously  existing  portions.  The  remaining  segment,  however, 
occurs  at  a  steep  cliff  which  must  be  crossed  by  the  pipeline.  This 
will  probably  require  unusually  deep  excavation  to  maintain  an  accept- 
able gradient  for  the  pipeline,  resulting  in  removal  of  a  dispropor- 
tionately large  volume  of  the  fossil iferous  deposit  and  a  significant 
negative  impact.  The  geographic  restriction  of  this  deposit  and 
access  limitations  imposed  on  the  remaining  resources  by  existing 
roads,  structures,  and  disturbed  areas  contribute  to  the  very   high 
sensitivity  of  remaining  accessible  portions. 

Operation 

The  inaccessibility  of  paved-over  sites  occupied  by  the  project 
facilities  for  the  future  discovery  of  fossil  resources  is  considered 
to  be  a  minor  adverse  construction  impact.  Operation  of  the  project 
will,  not  have  a  significant  impact  on  paleontological  resources. 
Indirect  impacts  of  unauthorized  collection  of  fossils  could  result  in 
significant  impacts  over  the  life  of  the  project  and  thereafter,  if 
fossil  discoveries  and  localities  become  widely  known. 

4-77 


Accidents 

Accidents  and  oil  spills  do  not  have  a  relationship  to  paleonto- 

logical  resources,  which  will  not  be  adversely  impacted.  Construction 

will  already  have  impacted  surficial  fossils  if  they  were  not  first 
recovered. 

Abandonment 

No  impacts  are  expected  to  occur  to  paleontological  resources 
when  the  project  is  eventually  abandoned.  New  opportunities  for 
discovering  fossils  would  occur  after  the  life  of  the  project  at  the 
sites  where  project  facilities  are  dismantled. 

4.2.12  Cultural  Resources 

Construction  of  the  proposed  project  has  the  potential  to  affect 
cultural  resources  through  the  disturbance  or  destruction  of  recorded 
or  unrecorded  sites.  Operation  and  abandonment  of  the  proposed  pro- 
ject, on  the  other  hand,  will  not  have  a  direct  adverse  effect  on  cul- 
tural resources. 

The  survey  for  identification  of  cultural  resources  on  the  pro- 
posed route  identified  several  isolated  artifacts  which  are  not  of 
cultural  significance  and  one  new  potentially  significant  prehistoric 
site  (in  addition  to  those  previously  recorded).  A  survey  report, 
including  evaluations  of  significance,  is  under  review  as  described 
below.  The  sections  that  follow  describe  the  significance  criteria 
that  will  be  employed  in  evaluation  and  a  discussion  of  impacts. 

Cultural  resources  located  along  the  proposed  route  will  be 
evaluated  in  accordance  with  established  federal  and  state  signi- 
ficance criteria.  The  eligibility  criteria  of  the  National  Register 
of  Historic  Places  (NRHP),  36  CFR  60.4  (revised  November  1981),  are 
used  to  evaluate  cultural  resources  on  federal  lands  and  private  lands 
that  may  be  impacted  by  federally  funded  or  licensed  projects.  These 
criteria  apply  to  resources  (historic  and  prehistoric  sites)  that  are 
deemed  significant  at  the  national,  regional,  state,  or  local  levels. 
Direct  or  indirect  impacts  (36  CFR  800.3)  that  produce  adverse  effects 
on  cultural  resources  are  considered  for  sites  listed  on  the  NRHP  or 
for  sites  which  meet  the  eligibility  criteria  for  inclusion  on  the 
NRHP. 

The  California  Environmental  Quality  Act  (CEQA)  also  sets  forth 
criteria  for  evaluating  cultural  resources  on  state  and  private  lands 
in  California  (see  Appendix  K  of  the  California  Administrative  Code, 
Title  14,  Natural  Resources,  Division  6,  Resources  Agency).  These 
criteria  are  applied  to  all  cultural  resources  that  may  be  adversely 
affected  by  construction  or  other  land  use  changes. 

Federal  agencies  cannot  authorize  federally  licensed  projects 
without  prior  compliance  with  Section  106  of  the  National  Historic 
Preservation  Act.  This  involves  consultation  with  the  State  Historic 
Preservation  Office  (SHPO)  and  the  Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Pre- 
servation to  determine  the  existence  and  significance  of  cultural 
effects. 

4-78 


Prior  to  authorization  of  the  start  of  pipeline  construction 
activities,  an  evaluation  of  the  project's  potential  impacts  to  cul- 
tural resources  will  be  required.  The  evaluation  will  be  based  on 
results  of  the  field  inventory  and  will  be  performed  in  consultation 
with  the  SHPO,  BLM,  and  the  Advisory  Council. 

Construction 

Cultural  resources  that  could  be  impacted  by  the  proposed  project 
include  archaeological  and  historic  sites  that  are  located  in  areas 
which  would  be  directly  or  indirectly  affected  by  project  construction 
and  facilities  operation.  Sites  located  within  the  pipeline  right-of- 
way  will  be  exposed  to  potential  direct  and  indirect  impacts,  while 
sites  located  outside  the  right-of-way  will  be  exposed  to  potential 
indirect  impacts  only. 

Direct  impacts  will  result  from  actual  surface  disturbance  of  a 
site's  spatial  configuration  or  stratigraphy  during  project  construc- 
tion. For  example,  pipeline  construction  activities,  including  clear- 
ing and  grading,  ditching,  hauling  and  stringing,  pipe  placement,  and 
backfilling,  will  disturb  or  destroy  cultural  resources.  Disturbances 
by  project-related  vehicular  activity  within  the  project  right-of-way 
and  along  access  roads  could  also  adversely  affect  near-surface  cul- 
tural resource  sites. 

A  beneficial  impact  will  occur  through  the  implementation  of  the 
field  survey  (identification)  program  implemented  for  the  project. 
This  information  will  be  added  to  the  cumulative  body  of  information 
on  settlement  systems  in  an  archaeologically  poorly  known  area  of 
California.  The  identification  of  these  resources  before  construction 
begins  may  well  prevent  any  adverse  impacts,  if  the  sites  are  avoided. 

Evaluation  of  NRHP  eligibility  using  the  regulatory  criteria  is 
often  complex  and  time-consuming.  All  cultural  resources  can  make 
some  contribution  to  regional  research  goals.  The  degree  of  that  con- 
tribution is  dependent  upon  the  type  of  resource.  Therefore,  the 
level  of  data  collection  can  be  extremely  variable,  ranging  from  site 
recordation  for  bedrock  mortar  stations  to  data  recovery  programs  for 
complex  midden  sites.  These  efforts  can  be  minimized  if  cultural 
resource  sites  can  be  avoided  by  detailed  project  design  and  final 
route  selection. 

No  ethnographic  sites  have  been  identified  for  the  proposed 
route.  This  lack  is  not  surprising  given  the  paucity  of  ethnographic 
data  for  the  study  areas.  Archaeological  sites  that  have  been  iden- 
tified along  the  proposed  route  are  described  below. 

A  survey  of  a  proposed  diatomite  mining  area,  reported  in  1978  by 
Ancient  Enterprises,  Inc.,  records  several  sites  on  or  near  the  align- 
ment in  the  far  southern  portion  of  the  project  area.  These  sites  and 
the  survey  results  regarding  them  are  as  follows: 

4-79 


CA-Ker-822  was   recorded  on  the  original    alignment  of  the  proposed 
route,   but  the  most  recent  alignment  skirts   the  recorded   site  area  on 
the  west.     The  report  notes  that  site  destruction  was   in  progress   at 
the  time  due  to  construction   activities   in  the  oil    field.     This   has 
apparently  been  completed,    as   no   sign  of  the  site  could  be  found  on  or 
near  the  alignment. 

CA-Ker-823  consists   of  40  rock  piles  regularly  spaced  over  an 
area  of  1,000  square  meters.      It   lies  west  of  the  alignment.     No   such 
rock  piles  were  found  on  the  construction   corridor. 

CA-Ker-829  is   a  yery  large  scatter   (800  x  600  meters)   of  chert 
flakes   and  chipping  debris,   but  the  flakes   are   thinly  scattered  over 
this  area—averaging  one  per  square  meter.     The  pipeline  was   origi- 
nally designed  to  bisect  the  site,   but  the  westerly  rerouting  has 
moved   it  to  the  edge  of  the  site.     This   is   an  area  of  natural   chert 
occurrence,   so  the  site  probably  represents  primarily  a  quarrying 
area.     The  only  artif actual    evidence  found   on  the   alignment   in  this 
survey  was   a  small    area   (25  x  15  meters)   containing  15  to  20  pieces  of 
chert  resulting  from  reduction  of   larger  cobbles   to  more  convenient 
size  and  shape,   i.e.,   shatter  and  cortical   flakes.     None  of  the  flakes 
showed  secondary  retouch  or  other   indications  of  use   as   tools.     There 
is  no   indication  of  depth  of  deposit  or  midden  development.      In   the 
area  of  the  alignment,    at   least,   the  only  activity  was  quarrying,   and 
even  this  was  rare. 

CA-Ker-836  is   slightly  mislocated  on  the  Information  Center  maps, 
which  show  it  on  the  proposed  route.     This  plotting   is  reasonable, 
based  on  the  information  on  the  site  record,  but  the  survey  report 
states  that  the  site  is  250  meters  east  of  the  dirt  road   that  followed 
the  pipeline,  which  was   in  place  at  the  time  of  the  survey.     This  road 
is  adjacent  to  the  current  route,   so  the  site  is   actually  about  200 
meters  east  of  the  route—well   out  of  the  construction  zone. 

Between  CA-Ker-836  and  CA-Ker-829,  an  area  of  about  2  miles,  five 
sites  were  recorded  near  the  proposed  route:  CA-Ker-846  to 
CA-Ker-850.  These  are  actually  isolated  finds,  each  one  consisting  of 
a  single  artifact,  with  no  associated  artifacts  or  features.  None 
were  located  during  the  current  survey,  which  is  not  surprising,  given 
the  narrowness  of  the  survey  corridor  and  the  wide  area  covered  by  the 
five  artifacts. 

Once  north  of  the  Ancient  Enterprises  survey  area,  the  proposed 
route  comes  near  three  previously  recorded  sites.  These  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

CA-Fre-52,    recorded    in  1939   as    a  yery  large  scatter   of  ground 
stone  artifacts,   which  was   directly  on   the   proposed    alignment.     A 
later  report   identified    a  midden   near   enough   to   the   recorded   location 
that   a  separate  site   number  was   not   assigned.     The   current   survey 
located   the  midden,   but  found   nothing   on   or   near  the   alignment.     Two 
conclusions   are  possible:      either   the   site  was   once  much    larger,   with 
all    but   the  currently  visible  midden   destroyed   by  quarrying    and    agri- 
culture;  or   the   site  was   slightly  mislocated   originally   and   the  midden 


4-80 


is  identical  with  CA-Fre-52.  In  any  event,  the  only  remaining  cul- 
tural resource  in  the  area,  the  midden,  is  well  off  the  proposed  route 
on  the  opposite  side  of  a  paved  road  from  the  project  area. 

CA-Ala-441H  is  the  remains  of  a  historic  ranch  complex  (it 
appears  on  the  General  Land  Office  Plat  of  the  area),  which  was 
recorded  in  1983.  The  proposed  route  passes  along  the  far  north- 
eastern boundary  of  the  site.  A  wind  farm  has  since  been  constructed 
on  the  site  area  and  no  sign  of  historic  structures  or  features  was 
found  in  the  construction  area  for  the  pipeline. 

CA-CCo-500  was  recorded  by  Peak  &  Associates  in  1984  within  the 
area  of  a  proposed  sanitary  landfill.  The  original  pipeline  alignment 
passed  through  the  site,  but  the  most  recent  design  passes  around  the 
site  to  the  west.  The  site  consists  of  a  scatter  of  chert  and  obsi- 
dian flakes,  and  slightly  west  of  this,  a  bedrock  outcrop  with  ground 
grooves  and  two  cupules,  but  no  bedrock  mortars.  The  alignment  passes 
near  the  bedrock  outcrop,  but  is  outside  of  the  construction  zone. 

The  current  survey  recorded  several  isolated  artifacts  which  are 
not  significant  in  terms  of  impacts  and  one  new  site.  PCJ-1  is  the 
temporary  field  number  for  a  scatter  of  artifacts  directly  on  the 
proposed  route  in  northern  Merced  County.  The  site  consists  of  a 
pestle,  a  mortar  fragment,  two  mano  fragments,  and  a  flaked  cobble  on 
the  north  bank  of  Mustang  Creek.  The  area  is  densely  covered  with 
grass,  and  there  is  every  possibility  that  more  artifacts  are  present. 
There  is  no  apparent  midden  development,  but  the  possibility  of  deep 
deposits  cannot  be  excluded. 

Direct  impact  from  trenching  for  pipeline  installation  will  occur 
only  at  CA-Ker-829  and  PCJ-1,  but  measures  to  avoid  impacts  can  be 
taken.  Impact  might  occur  at  CA-CCo-500  also,  even  though  it  is  not 
within  the  construction  zone,  because  it  is  on  the  most  convenient 
(dirt)  access  road  to  the  area,  and  construction  equipment  moving  on 
and  near  this  road  could  cause  displacement  of  surface  artifacts. 

Operation 

No  significant  impacts  are  expected  after  all  of  the  terms  of  the 
Memorandum  of  Agreement  are  fulfilled. 

Accidents 

Due  to  the  low  probability  of  sites  encountered  in  the  field 
identification  program  and  the  small  probability  of  a  spill,  no 
significant  impacts  on  cultural  resources  will  result. 

Abandonment 

Abandonment  in  place  will  not  result  in  significant  impacts. 

4.2.13  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology 

The  analysis  of  potential  impacts  to  biological-  resources  is 
based  on  information  developed  from  a  number  of  sources,  including 

4-81 


literature  review,  agency  consultation,  and  the  field  survey.  The 
field  survey  for  this  project  was  performed  to  provide  input  for  bio- 
logical assessment,  and  the  relevant  findings  of  the  biological 
assessment  have  been  integrated  into  this  section.  The  description. 
which  follows  considers  impacts  of  construction,  operation,  accidents 
and  abandonment  on  the  terrestrial  and  aquatic  biology. 

(A  detailed  analysis  of  project  impacts  on  listed  and  candidate 
threatened  and  endangered  species  is  presented  in  the  Section  7 
biological  assessment.  That  document  is  available  for  review  in  the 
BLM  State  Office  and  the  SLC  office  in  Sacramento.) 

TERRESTRIAL  BIOLOGY 

For  this  analysis,  impacts  were  considered  to  be  significant  if 
on  terrestrial  resources  they  would  have  any  of  the  following  effects: 


o 


Change  in  species  composition  of  established  plant  communi- 
ties, with  degradation  of  associated  wildlife  habitat  values, 
through  invasion  and  persistence  of  weedy  plant  species. 

t  Direct  removal  of  vegetation  in  sensitive  plant  communities  or 
alteration  of  conditions  that  are  essential  to  sustain  them 
(for  example  the  hydrology  of  vernal  pools,  wetlands  and 
riparian  woodland),  causing  permanent  or  long-term  reduction 
in  community  size,  species  composition,-  species  distribution, 
and/or  wildlife  habitat  values. 

•  Direct  or  indirect  mortality  to  rare,  threatened,  or  endan- 
gered plant  or  animal  species,  with  associated  reduction  in 
recruitment  to  their  population(s) ,  or  disturbance  or  loss  of 
critical  ranges  or  habitats  of  state  or  federally  listed  rare, 
threatened,  or  endangered  plant  or  animal  species,  as  well  as 
for  candidate,  proposed,  or  otherwise  designated  "special 
status"  species  not  officially  listed  as  endangered  (e.g., 
raptors) . 

•  Long-term  damage  to  or  reduction  in  plant  communities  and 
associated  habitat  values  caused  by  a  major  accidental  dis- 
charge of  oil  or  frequent  spills. 

Construction 

Vegetation 

Clearing  of  vegetation  for  construction  in  the  right-of-way  will 
cause  short-term  and  long-term  loss  of  habitat.  Following  construc- 
tion, all  of  the  80-foot-wide  construction  zone  will  be  revegetated 
and  about  two-thirds  of  the  right-of-way  will  approach  the  vegetation 
present  prior  to  construction.  Some  areas,  including  a  30-foot-wide 
maintenance  right-of-way,  will  be  kept  free  of  woody  vegetation,  and 
booster  station  sites  will  be  paved.  This  will  result  in  a  permanent 
loss  of  habitat  in  saltbush  scrub  and  alkali  sink  habitats  often 
dominated  by  woody  shrub  species.  The  80-foot-wide  construction  cor- 
ridor will  be  temporarily  cleared  of  vegetation  in  all  habitats, 


4-82 


except  where  sensitive  features  require  a  narrower  corridor  or  special 
construction  considerations.  This  will  result  in  a  permanent  loss  of 
habitat  in  saltbush  scrub  and  alkali  sink  habitats  often  dominated  by 
woody  shrub  species.  The  temporary  and.  permanent  loss  of  each  habitat 
type  occurring  along  the  route  due  to  construction  is  presented  in 
Table  4-24.  The  location  of  sensitive  features  is  shown  on  Figures 
3-5  to  3-13  in  Section  3.2.13. 

Revegetation  of  valley  grassland,  saltbush  scrub,  and  oak  savan- 
nah habitats  will  be  initiated  during  the  first  rainy  season  following 
construction.  In  the  southern  region  of  the  project  area,  where 
desert-like  climate  and  soils  permit  slow  successional  changes, 
natural  revegetation  of  woody  vegetation  (e.g.,  alkali  sink  and  salt- 
bush scrub  vegetation)  will  be  a  slow  process.  Recovery  could  be 
inhibited  by  competition  for  limitea  moisture  from  annual  and  pioneer 
weed  species  that  can  quickly  become  established  and  persist  in  dis- 
turbed areas.  In  this  case,  project  construction  will  have  a  signi- 
ficant impact  on  existing  communities  in  general,  except  where  these 
are  already  disturbed  (e.g.,  approximately  96  miles  combined  agricul- 
tural and  disturbed  land). 

Removal  of  the  natural  vegetation  during  construction  is  signifi- 
cant when  it  impacts  special  communities  and  special  status  vegeta- 
tion. The  following  potentially  significant  impacts  on  the  vegetation 
of  such  special  sites  have  been  identified. 

Biological  Communities  of  Concern 

Vernal  Pools.  Near  the  Byron  Hot  Springs  Natural  Area  (see  text 
belowj,  the  construction  right-of-way  approaches  the  western  edge  of  a 
vernal  pool  at  milepost  227.2.  Although  the  construction  right-of-way 
skirts  the  margin  of  the  vernal  pool  site,  incidental  disturbance  will 
result  from  construction  activity  and  the  hydrology  sustaining  the 
pool  could  be  impaired;  these  would  be  significant  impacts. 

Riparian  Habitat.  Riparian  trees  provide  nesting  sites  for  birds 
such  as  mourning  doves  and  loggerhead  shrikes  which  feed  in  sur- 
rounding areas.  Shade  from  the  trees  also  maintains  reduced  water 
temperatures  in  the  streams  and  provides  refuge  from  summer  heat  for 
diurnal  animals.  Along  Garzas  Creek,  Quinto  Creek,  Orestimba  Creek, 
an  unnamed  creek  at  milepost  242,  and  Marsh  Creek,  riparian  habitat 
will  be  affected  by  project  construction.  Most  of  the  streams  crossed 
have  low  to  no  riparian  value;  as  such,  they  will  not  be  significantly 
impacted  by  the  project.  However,  clearing  of  grass  and  shrub  vegeta- 
tion will  cause  short-term  habitat  loss.  Revegetation  of  stream  banks 
after  construction  will  reestablish  grass  and  shrub  vegetation,  and  no 
long-term  significant  impact  will  occur.  The  removal  of  mature  trees 
will  cause  long-term  habitat  loss.  On  Orestimba  Creek,  up  to  six 
mature  sycamore  trees  could  be  removed  by  construction;  this  consti- 
tutes a  significant  impact.  The  impact  on  the  riparian  vegetation  of 
Pacheco  Creek  is  described  under  wetlands  Delow. 

Wet  1 ands .   If  at  the  time  of  construction  the  project  route 
traverses  any  of  the  small  freshwater  marsh  habitats  commonly  asso- 
ciated witn  irrigation  facilities  (e.g.,  irrigation  ditches  and 

4-83 


TABLK  4  24:   HABITAT  LOSS  IM  ACRK3  SAM  JOAQUIN  WALLEY  F1PKLIMB  AH  (J  AHGILLAmY.  PAjCILITIKS 


I 


UqblUt  Typo 
Saltbvii.il  Scrub 
Alkali  Sink 
Valley  Graaalund 
Oak  Savannah 
Ulpartan 

Freahwater  Hurah 
brackish  Harsh 
Disturbed 
Cultivated 
TOTAL 


Pipeline 

IvmroHirr 

ParaansiU 

117.0 

106.2 

44.0 

26.9 

1.190.1 

0 

21.2 

12.7 

7.3 

4.4 

10.9 

6.5 

0.5 

0.3 

111.5 

66.9 

468.5 

281.1 

2.032.4 

505 

Booster     Microwave 
Stations       Sites 


Utility  Lines  and 

Access  Rooms  Total 

Tsmporaiat    gammaM      Temporary      Pamansnt 


9.0 


14.0 


6.0 
15.0 


.6 
1.2 


35.0 
49.0 


— 

177.0 

106.2 

— 

44.8 

26.9 

7.0 

1.190.7 

16.6 

— 

21.2 

12.7 

— 

J. 3 

4.4 

— 

10.9 

6.5 

— 

0.5 

0.3 

— 

111.5 

66.9 

17.5 

503.5 

305.2 

24.5 

2,067.4 

545.7 

SOUUCK:   Environmental  Science  Associates 


ponds),  construction  would  cause  short-term  habitat  disturbance. 
Since  the  project,  as  proposed,  will  not  affect  the  water  sources  and 
the  hydrology  of  these  areas  will  be  restored,  no  significant  wetland 
impacts  will  result. 

Construction  will  result  in  the  temporary  loss  of  0.5  acres  of 
brackish  marsh  on  Pacheco  Creek.  Restoration  of  the  creek  banks  and 
the  original  hydrology  of  the  diked  and  undiked  portions  of  the  marsh 
after  construction  will  permit  natural  reestabl ishment  of  cattails, 
sedges,  pickleweed,  saltgrass,  and  rabbit  foot  grass  which  charac- 
terize the  present  vegetation. 

If  the  berm  of  excess  soil  from  the  trench  area  is  left  on  the 
right-of-way  in  wetland  areas  such  as  these,  it  might  change  the 
hydrology  and  have  an  impact  on  the  wetland  vegetation  by  trapping 
silt  and  by  creating  slightly  drier  soil  substrate  or  more  prolonged 
drought  when  water  levels  are  normally  low.  Any  permanent 
modification  of  the  hydrology  and  siltation  regime  of  Pacheco  Creek 
and  downstream  marshes  attributable  to  construction  could  contribute 
to  the  degradation  of  the  brackish  marsh  habitat,  resulting  in  a 
significant  impact. 

Oak  Savannah.  It  is  possible  that  a  small  number  of  mature  oaks 
(mileposts  237,  238.2)  will  need  to  be  removed  during  construction. 
Natural  revegetation  would  be  hampered  by  grazing  activities.  Due  to 
the  value  of  oaks  for  wildlife,  the  loss  of  these  trees  is  a  signifi- 
cant impact. 

Listed  and  Candidate  Plant  Species 

Botanical  surveys  were  conducted  to  determine  whether  the  listed 
and  candidate  plant  species  described  in  Section  3.2.13  are  present  in 
the  project  area.  For  two  listed  species,  palmate-bracted  bird's  beak 
and  Colusa  grass,  no  suitable  habitat  was  identified  and  no  incidental 
occurrences  were  located.  Neither  of  the  two  were  found  to  occur  in 
the  study  area.  Candidate  species  with  potential  to  occur  within  the 
stuay  area  are:  Suisun  aster,  San  Joaquin  saltbush,  Bakersfield 
saltbush,  Lost  Hills  saltbush,  slough  thistle,  hispid  bird's  beak, 
delta  tule  pea,  and  Mason's  liliaeopsis.  None  of  these  species  was 
located  in  the  project  area  during  the  intensive  field  survey  work; 
therefore,  the  project  will  have  no  significant  impacts  on  these 
species. 

It  was  not  possible  to  conduct  surveys  for  the  giant  fiddleneck, 
Crampton's  tuctoria,  and  the  delta  coyote  thistle,  which  are  listed 
species,  due  to  the  timing  of  the  1986  survey.  However,  suitable 
habitats  were  identified  and  surveys  for  these  species  will  be 
conducted  in  1987.  Surveys  for  the  following  candidate  plants  species 
will  also  be  conducted  in  1987:  furcate  fiddleneck,  California  jewel 
flower,  Congaon's  eatonella,  Kern  mallow,  Hoover's  wooly  star,  bearded 
allocarya,  and  caper-fruited  tropiocarpum.  Although  their  presence  on 
the  right-of-way  is  uncertain,  potential  impacts  of  the  project  on 
these  species  include  the  incidental  loss  of  individual  plants,  and/or 


4-85 


the  extirpation  of  local  populations  of  any  of  these  species.  These 
would  be  significant  impacts. 

Wildlife 

Construction  will  cause  direct  mortality  of  small  numbers  of  ani- 
mals, primarily  small  mammals,  amphibians,  and  reptiles.  Those 
species  with  limited  mobility  to  avoid  construction  activities  will 
experience  a  short-term  decline  in  populations  in  the  immediate  proj- 
ect vicinity.  However,  animal  populations  will  return  to  and  re- 
populate  the  disturbed  area  following  revegetation.  Most  of  the  smal- 
ler animal  species  which  could  be  affected  by  pipeline  construction 
activities  have  high  reproductive  potential  and  are  common  in  sur- 
rounding habitats  (excluding  special-status  species  discussed  below). 
Therefore,  loss  of  individuals  is  not  considered  to  be  a  long-term 
significant  impact.  Larger  mammals,  birds,  ana  reptiles  will  be  able 
to  leave  the  project  area  and  avoid  construction  impacts.  Impacts  to 
these  animals  will  be  minor  and  insignificant. 

Given  the  long,  narrow  configuration  of  the  right-of-way,  the 
local  areas  of  impact  for  most  wildlife  habitants  are  small.  The 
short-term  displacement  of  animals  from  the  corridor  is  not  signifi- 
cant. These  losses  will  be  compensated  for  by  normal  recruitment 
after  construction  and  will  be  insignificant.  Some "disturbed  habitat 
will  require  a  long  period  of  time  to  return  to  pre-project  condi- 
tions. As  stated  above,  under  vegetation,  the  loss  of  any  trees  will 
have  a  significant  impact  on  wildlife  using  this  cover. 

Direct  and  indirect  mortality  will  have  significant  impacts  on 
certain  special  status  species.  The  significance  is  dependent  on  the 
species'  ability  to  respond  to  losses  in  population  numbers,  habitat, 
and  other  factors.  This  depends  also  on  factors  limiting  special 
status  populations  under  normal  conditions  (i.e.,  in  the  absence  of 
the  project). 

For  example,  many  areas  traversed  by  the  pipeline  are  described 
as  "marginal"  habitat  or  "prime"  habitat  for  species  of  concern. 
Prime  habitat  provides  all  the  essential  life  cycle  needs  in  suffi- 
cient quantity  to  maintain  long-term  viable  populations  of  a  given 
species.  Marginal  habitat  either  is  naturally  deficient  in  fulfil Ing 
these  needs,  is  degraded,  or  occurs  in  small  patches  that  are  not 
large  enough  to  meet  all  the  requirements  of  the  species  to  maintain 
viable  populations.  However,  marginal  habitats  are  sometimes  used  as 
a  temporary  cover  by  individuals  on  a  transitory  or  on  a  seasonal 
basis. 

Each  special  status  species  is  addressed  individually,  and  the 

loss  of  potential  habitat  for  state  and  federal  listed  wildlife 
species  is  presented  in  Table  4-25.  Locations  are  shown  on  the 
figures  included  in  Section  3.2.13. 

San  Joaquin  Kit  Fox.  Kit  fox  occurs  in  low  numbers  along  the 
pipeline  corridor.   Thirty-nine  potential  kit  fox  dens  were  observed 
within  the  pipeline  corridor.   If  any  of  these  were  occupied  during 


4-86 


-pi 
I 

CO 


TABLE  4-25:   POTEHT1AL  HABITAT  LOSS  (ACRES) 

FOR  LISTED  AHD  CANDIDATE  UILDL1ER  SPECIES 

• 

San  Joaquin 

Salt  Harsh 

Habitat  TyES 

UX  lax 

Temporary  Permanent 

blunt  nosed 

leopard  l.tiard 

Temporary  fernwnsnt 

«t»nt  Kangaroo  Bat 
Temporary  Perman«nt 

Tlnton  VansaroQ  Mai 

Temporary  Estmanent 

Antejone  Squlrr9l 
Temporary  remanent 

Harvest  House 
Temporary  Panaansnt 

Saltbush  Scrub 

1JI.0       lOt. 2 

lfj.0        106.2 

117.0       106.2 

0        o 

l/l.o      106.2 

Alkali  Sink 

44. B        26.9 

44.8         26.9 

44. •        26.9 

44. S        26.9 

44.8        26.9 

Valley  Grassland 

1.190.1        16* 

403 . 3          2 

212.3        0 

—          — 

80.1         3.3 

Oak  Savannah 

— 

— 



Riparian 

— 

— 

" 

freshwater  Harsh 

-- 

— 

" 

.5          -3 

brackish  Harsh 

— 

— 

" 

Disturbed 

— 

— 

Cultivated 

— 

— 

— 

TOTAL 

1.412.5       149.? 
tal  Science  Associates 

625.1       135.1 

434.1      133.1 

44. B        26.9 

301.9       136.4 

.5          .3 

SOURCE:   Envtroiuner 

construction,  direct  mortality  could  occur.  This  direct  individual 
mortality  would  be  a  significant  impact  to  kit  fox  populations. 

Evidence  of  kit  fox  foraging  in  saltbush  scrub,  valley  grassland, 
and  alkali  sink  habitat  was  found.  The  permanent  loss  of  about  150 
acres  (Table  4-25)  of  potential  habitat  will  result  from  pipeline  and 
ancillary  facility  construction.  This  estimate  includes  terrain  with 
slopes  greater  than  30%,  which  is  too  steep  for  the  kit  fox.  While 
the  acreage  is  small,  it  is  significant  because  of  the  cumulative 
impacts  in  the  region  due  to  widespread  agricultural  development  of 
kit  fox  habitats. 

There  will  be  a  temporary  loss  of  habitat  of  about  1,400  acres 
(Table  4-25)  due  to  clearing  and  construction.  As  this  area  will  be 
revegetated,  habitat  suitability  will  be  restored  for  the  kit  fox  and 
it  will  not  have  a  significant  long-term  impact  to  kit  fox  popula- 
tions. 

Blunt-nosed  Leopard  Lizard.  Results  of  the  survey  indicate  that 
the  pipeline  traverses  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  marginal  habitat. 
Evidence  of  the  presence  of  lizards  in  the  survey  area  was  limited  to 
one  carcass  found  at  the  entrance  to  a  beechy  ground  squirrel  burrow. 
This  indicates  the  potential  presence  of  the  lizard  in  the  area.  Due 
to  declining  population,  low  densities,  and  low  reproductive  poten- 
tial, any  loss  of  individuals  is  considered  to  be  a  significant 
impact.  Even  though  the  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  is  known  to 
inhabit  active  oil  fields  where  suitable  habitat  remains  (Kato  ana 
O'Farrell  1985),  the  temporary  loss  of  222  acres  of  saltbush  scrub  and 
alkali  sink  habitat  is  significant,  since  it  takes  several  years 
before  the  woody  vegetation  is  reestablished.  The  long-term  loss  of 
this  habitat  affects  135  acres  and  it  is  significant  for  the  same 
reason. 

Giant  Kangaroo  Rat.  No  evidence  of  the  giant  kangaroo  rat  was 
found  during  the  corridor  field  survey  nor  was  prime  habitat  for  the 
giant  kangaroo  rat  encountered.  Based  upon  potential  habitat  impact 
calculations  derived  from  giant  kangaroo  rat  range  maps  (Table  4-25), 
about  435  acres  could  be  temporarily  lost  and  133  acres  permanently 
lost.  Since  the  lost  acreage  does  not  represent  prime  habitat,  no 
significant  impacts  (loss  of  individuals  or  habitat)  will  occur  as  a 
result  of  pipeline  construction. 

San  Joaquin  Antelope  Squirrel.  Construction  of  the  pipeline  in 
antelope  squirrel  habitat  could  result  in  direct  mortality  to  indi- 
viduals that  would  be  buried  in  burrows  or  run  over  by  vehicles. 
Although  significant  in  the  short-term,  the  loss  of  individuals  is  not 
expected  to  have  a  long-term  significant  impact  to  San  Joaquin 
antelope  squirrel  populations,  because  the  reproduction  from  areas 
immediately  adjacent  to  the  right-of-way  will  compensate  for  these 
direct  losses. 

Pipeline  construction  will  temporarily  remove  about  300  acres 
(Table  4-25)  of  antelope  squirrel  habitat.  When  this  area  is  revege- 
tated, it  will  be  recolonized  by  antelope  squirrels  from  the  sur- 
rounding habitat.  Consequently,  this  habitat  loss  is  significant  for 

4-88 


San  Joaquin  antelope  squirrel  populations  only  in  the  short-term,  and 
will  not  have  a  significant  long-term  impact. 

Pipeline  construction  is  predicted  to  permanently  remove  136 
acres  of  antelope  squirrel  habitat  (Table  4-25).  This  is  a  signifi- 
cant impact  to  antelope  squirrel  populations,  in  terms  of  the  cumula- 
tive effect  of  widespread  agricultural  conversion  of  native  vegetation 
in  the  region. 

Salt  Marsh  Harvest  Mouse.  Pipeline  construction  will  result  in 
the  temporary  loss  of  0.5  acres  of  brackish  marsh  along  Pacheco  Creek, 
which  is  potential  salt  marsh  harvest  mouse  habitat.  The  harvest 
mouse  is  known  to  occur  in  marshes  less  than  one-half  mile  from  the 
project  crossing  (CND08  1985).  Any  loss  in  this  habitat  will  consti- 
tute a  significant  impact.  Any  modification  of  the  hydrology  and 
siltation  of  the  creek  and  downstream  marshes  attributable  to  con- 
struction could  also  contribute  to  the  degradation  of  the  salt  marsh 
habitat,  resulting  in  a  long-term  significant  impact  on  this  listed 
species. 


in 


California  Clapper  Rail.  Clapper  rails  are  not  known  to  occur 
the  pipeline  corridor  or  in  the  neighboring  marshes.  No  impacts  from 
construction  will  occur. 

Black  Rail.  The  pipeline  crosses  a  small  area  of  potential  black 
rail  habitat  at  Pacheco  Creek.  No  black  rails  were  heard  or  seen  dur- 
ing the  corridor  survey.  The  closest  known  black  rail  sighting  is 
over  1  mile  from  the  proposed  pipeline.  Pipeline  construction  will 
temporarily  remove  one-half  acre  of  potential  black  rail  habitat. 
This  will  not  be  a  significant  impact  to  black  rail  populations  pro- 
vided siltation  caused  by  construction  across  Pacheco  Creek  and  hydro- 
logical  modification  do  not  affect  the  downstream  marshes  where  the 
rail  is  known  to  occur. 

Peregrine  Falcon.  Construction  will  cause  a  temporary  loss  of 
approximately  1,000  acres  and  a  permanent  loss  of  approximately  600 
acres  of  foraging  habitat.  This  species  forages  throughout  California 
and  is  not  restricted  to  the  project  area.  There  are  no  peregrine 
nesting  areas  within  1  mile  of  the  pipeline  corridor.  No  significant 
impacts  to  this  species  will  occur. 

The  impacts  which  follow  pertain  to  several  candidate  species: 
Tipton's  kangaroo  rat,  San  Joaquin  pocket  mouse,  striped  racer,  and 
the  California  tiger  salmander. 

Tipton's  Kangaroo  Rat.  Tipton  kangaroo  rats  were  found  in  the 
alkali  sink  habitat  north  of  Twissleman  Road  in  Kern  County.  This 
vegetation  community  is  prime  habitat  for  the  species  (Williams  1985). 
Pipeline  construction  in  this  habitat  could  cause  direct  mortality  by 
burying  individuals  in  their  burrows.  This  loss  would  be  compensated 
for  by  recruitment  from  the  surrounding  alkali  sink  habitat.  Thus, 
while  this  loss  has  significance  in  the  short-term,  it  will  not 
significantly  impact  Tipton  kangaroo  rat  populations  over  the  long- 
term. 

Pipeline  construction  will  result  in  the  permanent  loss  of  about 
30  acres  of  habitat  (Table  4-25).  Although  this  figure  is  small, 
it  is  considered  a  significant  loss  of  habitat  for  this  species. 

4-89 


Development  of  alkali  sink  habitat  for  agriculture  has  left  little 
remaining  Tipton's  kangaroo  rat  habitat  (Williams  1985).  Pipeline 
construction  will  result  in  the  temporary  loss  of  about  50  acres 
(Table  4-25)  of  Tipton's  kangaroo  rat  habitat.  After  revegetation  it 
will  be  reoccupied.  Consequently,  this  temporary  loss  will  not 
significantly  impact  Tipton  Kangaroo  rat  populations. 

San  Joaquin  Pocket  Mouse.  No  evidence  of  pocket  mice  was  found 
during  corridor  surveys.  The  distribution,  taxonomy,  and  habitat 
requirements  of  this  species  are  unclear  and  are  currently  undergoing 
revision  and  clarification  (Williams  1986).  Pipeline  construction 
could  cause  direct  mortality  to  individuals  in  their  burrows.  Pipe- 
line ancillary  facility  construction  will  result,  in  the  long-term  loss 
of  about  150  acres  of  suitable  pocket  mouse  habitat.  There  are  large 
tracts  of  adjacent  habitat  along  the  corridor.  This  permanent  loss  of 
habitat  will  not  be  significant,  as  long  as  adjoining  lands  are  not 
converted  to  agriculture  or  other  developed  uses. 

Construction  will  result  in  the  temporary  loss  of  1,400  acres  of 
pocket  mouse  habitat  (Table  4-25).  Pocket  mice  will  recolonize  this 
area  after  it  becomes  revegetated.  Thus  any  decline  in  pocket  mouse 
numbers  is  expected  to  be  slight,  temporary,  and  insignificant. 

Striped  Racer.  No  evidence  of  this  species  was  found  during  the 
corridor  surveys.  There  are  no  known  sightings  within  1  mile  of  the 
pipeline  route  (CNDOB  1986).  Pipeline  construction  will  not  have 
significant  impact  on  this  species. 

California  Tiger  Salamander.  No  evidence  of  tiger  salamanders 
was  found  during  pipeline  surveys.  There  are  no  known  sightings  of 
this  species  within  1  mile  of  the  pipeline  route.  The  survey  corridor 
contains  some  wet  areas  which  might  provide  habitat  for  the  sala- 
mander. Pipeline  construction  may  temporarily  disturb  these  areas. 
However,  construction  will  occur  during  the  non-breeding  season  and 
will  not  have  a  significant  impact  on  tiger  salamander  populations. 

Raptors.  During  the  field  survey,  golden  eagles  and  burrowing 
owl  were  observed  at  several  points  along  the  route.  The  corridor 
does  not  include  nesting  habitat  for  golden  eagles  or  other  raptors. 
Construction  will  not  impact  nesting  raptors. 

Operation 

Operation  and  maintenance  of  the  pipeline  will   affect  terrestrial 
habitats  and  wildlife,  because  the  30-foot-wide  maintenance  right-of- 
way  will   be  maintained  clear  of  woody  vegetation.     The  routine  moni- 
toring of  the  pipeline  for  spills  will   be  by  air,  with  minimal   vehicu- 
lar traffic  along  the  right-of-way  expected.     Occasional   use  of  the 
right-of-way  by  vehicles  for  maintenance  or  repair  and  human  activity 
around  ancillary  facilities  will    increase  levels  of  disturbance  to 
wildlife,  but  this,    in   itself,  does  not  constitute  a  significant 
impact. 

Periodic  mowing,   where  it   is  necessary,  will   cause  some  mortality 
of  less  mobile  animal   species.      It  will   not   impact  animals   in  their 
burrows,    and  the  impact  will   be  substantially  less  than  that  during 
the  construction  period.      The  San  Joaquin  kit  fox,   Tipton's   kangaroo 

'4-90 


rat,   and  San  Joaquin   pocket  mouse  are  nocturnal    and  will   not  be  dis- 
turbed by  standard  right-of-way  maintenance  practices  which  do  not 
incluae  herbicide  application. 

The   impacts  of  operations,  which    involve  a  long-term  commitment 
of  maintenance   right-of-way  on  which   cover  will    be   limited  to   grasses, 
herbs,   and   small   stature  vegetation,  have  already  been   assessed   as 
"permanent   loss  of  habitat"   impacts   under  construction.     Maintenance 
will   not   impact  the  giant  kangaroo  rat,   peregrine  falcon,   California 
clapper  rail,   black  rail,   striped  racer,   or  California  tiger 
salamander,   because  there   is  no   evidence  of  their   presence   in  the 
corridor.     Other  special   status   species   such   as  the  giant  kangaroo 
rat,  San  Joaquin   antelope  squirrel,   Tipton's  kangaroo  rat,   and  San 
Joaquin  pocket  mouse  will    compensate   for   any  mortality  caused   by 
maintenance  of   the   right-of-way  through   recruitment   and   by  the   natural 
balancing   of   other  mortality  factors. 

The  pipeline  right-of-way  will   not  significantly  increase  the 
accessibility  of  previously  isolated  areas  to  human  disturbances. 
Thus,   the  present  levels  of  wildlife  disturbance,  hunting,   or   illegal 
collecting  of  sensitive  plant   and  animals   species  will   be  unchanged. 

Accidents 

Although  the  probability  of  a  major  oil  spill  is  very  small,  it 
will  significantly  affect  terrestrial  resources  on  a  short-term  basis 
and  could  also  cause  significant  impacts  on  a  long-term  basis.  Vege- 
tation will  be  destroyed.  Animal  mortality  will  occur,  and  animal 
life  will  be  displaced  or  lost  at  least  in  the  short-term.  Any  loss 
of  special  status  plants  and  animals  or  their  critical  habitat  will  be 
significant.  The  extent  and  magnitude  of  the  impact  is  dependent  on 
the  volume  and  location  of  the  spill  and  the  response  time  and  cleanup 
techniques  employed.  Spill  containment  and  cleanup  operations  will 
not  cause  additional  impacts  because  these  activities  will  be  confined 
to  the  spill  area.  However,  if  the  spill  affects  special  status 
species  it  will  have  a  long-term  significant  effect  in  spite  of 
clean-up  because  of  resultant  minor  or  major  moaif ications  in  the 
habitat  (e.g.,  polluted  topsoil  will  require  collection  and  disposal 
and  the  site's  ecology  is  changed).  Not  enough  information  is  avail- 
able to  evaluate  the  long-term  effects  of  a  spill  on  terrestrial 
resources  (see  Section  4.2.15,  p.  4-119). 

Special  status  vegetation  and  the  vegetation  of  special  areas  are 
stationary  and  cannot  avoid  the  impact  of  a  spill.  The  special  status 
wildlife  species  include  various  burrowing  animals.  Oil  will  fill 
the  burrows  and  trap  these  animals  and  their  young,  allowing  no  room 
for  escape  (San  Joaquin  kit  fox,  San  Joaquin  antelope  squirrel,  and 
candidate  species  like  the  Tipton's  kangaroo  rat  and  San  Joaquin 
pocket  mouse).  The  impact  will  be  significant,  especially  where  a 
spill  is  sufficiently  large  to  impact  several  special  status  species 
and/or  special  habitats,  such  as. brackish  marsh  and  riparian  communi- 
ties. An  estimate  where  major  spills  would  cause  the  most  impact 
because  of  concentrations  of  special  status  resources  is  provided  in 
Table  4-26. 

The  following  spill  impacts  are  unlikely  to  occur  in  part  because 
the  probability  of  a  spill  is  low  and  in  part  because  these  habitats 

4-91 


Table  4-26 

BIOLOGICAL  RESOURCES  SENSITIVE  TO 
OIL  SPILLS  BY  MILEPOST 


Milepost 


Feature 


Comment 


2-17 

40-46 

160-180 

227 
234-243 
256-258 


Kit  fox  dens 
Saltbush  scrub 

Wetlands  and 
alkali  sink 

Valley  grassland, 
Riparian  habitat 


Vernal  Pool(s) 
Oak  Savannah 
Brackish  Marsh 


Including  natal  dens 


Most  sensitive  terrestriel 
habitat  area 

O'Neil  wildlife  area 
Garzos  and  Orestimba 
Creeks 


A  few  scattered  trees 

Pacheco  Creek 

Salt  marsh  harvest  mouse 


4-92 


are  not  extensive.  There  is  one  vernal  pool  near  the  pipeline  corri- 
dor (milepost  227.2).  If  an  oil  spill  occurred  near  it,  the  spill  and 
associated  cleanup  operations  could  entirely  destroy  the  pool.  As  a 
contribution  to  the  cumulative  loss  of  vernal  pools  in  the  region, 
this  will  be  a  significant  impact.  Riparian  areas  are  found  in  a  few 
locations  in  the  northern  half  of  the  pipeline  corridor.  Depending 
upon  the  size  of  the  spill  and  the  amount  of  water  flowing  through  the 
area,  a  spill  would  be  a  significant  impact  to  these  resources.  Wet- 
lands are  a  scarce  and  diminishing  resource  in  the  region.   An  oil 
spill  in  or  upstream  of  any  wetland  will  be  a  significant  impact  on 
wetland  resources  in  the  region  (mileposts  40-50). 

Oak  savannah  occurs  along  the  corridor  in  patches  north  of  mile- 
post  230.  If  an  oil  spill  occurred  in  any  of  these  patches,  it  could 
have  sublethal  effects  or  directly  kill  young  oak  trees  or  seedlings. 
Cleanup  operations  could  also  kill  or  damage  the  oaks  by  exposing  root 
systems,  burying  root  crowns,  or  by  directly  damaging  the  stems. 
There  are  only  small  patches  of  oaks  along  the  line  which  could  be 
impacted.  Consequently,  oil  spills  have  a  small  probability  of  signi- 
ficantly impacting  this  resource. 

A  spill  will  not  impact  the  peregrine  falcon  and  the  California 
clapper  rail.  The  black  rail  and  salt  marsh  harvest  mouse  could  be 
significantly  impacted  by  a  spill  in  the  Pacheco  Creek  area  of  brack- 
ish marsh  habitat. 

A  direct  oil  spill  impact  on  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  indi- 
viduals is  not  likely  because  the  route  includes  only  marginal  habi- 
tat. The  impact  from  a  spill  on  the  kit  fox  is  more  probable  because 
the  species  is  better  represented  and  its  habitat  is  more  extensive 
than  for  the  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard.  In  the  case  of  an  oil  spill, 
kit  foxes  could  suffer  direct  mortality  or  loss  of  habitat.  Fox  dens 
are  frequently  located  in  ravines  where  spilled  oil  would  be  likely  to 
collect  into.  Oirect.  mortality  could  be  significant  depending  upon 
the  size,  location,  and  time  of  an  oil  spill  and  the  number  of  kit  fox 
trapped  in  it. 

Because  the  California  tiger  salamander  and  Alameda  striped  racer 
are  not  assumed  to  inhabit  the  right-of-way  (since  none  were 
observed),  and  appropriate  habitat  for  these-  species  is  limited  within 
the  corridor,  significant  impacts  from  an  oil  spill  are  not  likely. 

AQUATIC  BIOLOGY 

Impacts  have  been  evaluated  and  considered  significant  if  aquatic 
resources  are  affected  as  follows: 

•  Long-term  (greater  than  one  year  or  one  life  cycle)  damage  to 
or  loss  of  essential  habitat  features  (e.g.,  pools,  riffles, 
aquatic  vegetation,  shade)  for  game  fishes,  native  fishes,  or 
threatened  or  endangered  fishes  such  that  an  affected  species' 
ability  to  reproduce  and  re-establish  its  population  at  pre- 
project  levels  is  significantly  lessened  or  jeopardized. 

Reduction  in  the  population  size  of  a  game  species  or  a 
native  species  or  a  threatened  or  endangered  fish  species  to  a 


4-93 


o 


level  that  reduces  the  species'  ability  to  reproduce  and 
re-establish  populations  at  pre-project  levels. 

•  Reduction  of  essential  food  sources  (e.g.,  benthic  inverte- 
brates, aquatic  vegetation,  detritus)  due  directly  or  in- 
directly to  habitat  removal  thus  reducing  the  long-term  sus- 
tainability  of  game,  native,  or  threatened  or  endangered  fish 
and  wildlife  populations  (i.e.,  the  food  source  either  cannot 
re-establish  at  all  or  not  sufficiently  to  support  pre-project 
size  populations  of  fish,  amphibians,  and  other  animals 
dependent  on  aquatic  habitat). 

The  construction,  operation,  and  abandonment  of  the  pipeline  on 
aquatic  and  potential  accidents  are  evaluated  in  terms  of  these 
criteria. 

Construction 

Primary  impacts  to  aquatic  environments  resulting  from  pipeline 
construction  activities  are  caused  by:  (1)  substrate  removal,  (2) 
increased  sedimentation,  (3)  habitat  alteration  (e.g.,  change  in 
stream  bed  elevation,  contours,  or  flow),  and  (4)  habitat  degradation 
resulting  from  fuel  or  lubricant  spills  during  construction.  The 
potential  effects  of  these  primary  impacts  on  aquatic  biota  include: 
reduction  in  plant  and  benthic  macroinvertebrate  abundance/ 
distribution;  displacement  to  other  habitat  areas  and/or  possible 
reduction  of  resident  fish  populations;  or  reduction  of  fish  popula- 
tions as  a  consequence  of  covering,  spawning,  or  juvenile  rearing 
areas  by  sediment,  eliminating  these  areas  from  the  stream,  or  con- 
taminating them  by  a  major  spill  of  potentially  toxic  materials,  such 
as  oil  or  lubricants. 

In  Pacheco  Creek,  construction  may  cause  short-term  impacts  due 
to  increased  sedimentation  and  alteration  of  habitat  conditions. 
Since  these  impacts  will  be  short-term  in  duration  (less  than  one  life 
cycle  for  the  fish  and  several  months  for  other  aquatic  organisms), 
they  will  not  have  a  significant  long-term  effect  on  aquatic  popula- 
tions. Similarly,  in  Marsh  Creek,.  Garzas  Creek,  Crest imba  Creek,  and 
other  intermittent  creeks  with  evidence  of  aquatic  organisms,  con- 
struction will  have  a  short-term  impact  which  is  not  significant.  The 
removal  of  any  trees  from  the  stream  banks  will  have  a  significant 
long-term  impact  on  the  stream  biota  because  it  will  reduce  shale  and 
increase  water  temperatures. 

Although  other  streams  throughout  the  project  area  are  degraded 
or  have  limited  aquatic  resources,  they  present  habitat  that  is  in 
short  supply.  Project  plans  to  construct  during  dry,  low,  or  no-flow 
months,  precludes  significant  impacts  from  occurring  as  a  result  of 
construction-related  activities  in  the  streambeds  and  in  the  associ- 
ated riparian  and  aquatic  habitats. 

The  water  distribution  facilities  potentially  affected  by  the 
proposed  project  include  the  California  Aqueduct,  Delta  Mendota  Canal, 
Pleasant  Valley  Aqueduct,  Contra  Costa  Canal,  and  other  unnamed 
canals.  Installing  the  pipeline  over  and  underneath  the  California 
Aqueduct  and  under  the  Delta  Mendota  Canal  and  other  large  canals 
and  aqueducts  (e.g.,  Pleasant  Valley  Aqueduct)  will  not  impose  any 


4-94 


or  long-term  impacts  on  aquatic  resources.  Habitat  will  not  be 
altered  and  aquatic  organisms  will  not  be  exposed  to  potential  con- 
tamination or  disturbance  during  construction. 

Operation 

Operation  of  the  pipeline  will  not  have  significant  adverse 
impacts  on  the  aquatic  environment,  nor  will  right-of-way  maintenance 
during  operations  adversely  impact  the  aquatic  environment.  At  peren- 
nial stream  crossings,  any  required  major  repair  of  the  pipeline  sys- 
tem would  have  approximately  the  same  impact  as  construction  since  the 
pipe  would  have  to  be  reinstalled.  This  impact  will  be  insignificant 
to  the  same  extent  as  described  for  the  construction  impact. 

Accidents 


The  principal  and  potentially  significant  impacts  during  the 
operation  of  the  pipeline  would  result  from  an  oil  spill  in  the  vicin- 
ity of  the  Suisun  Bay  marshes  or  directly  into  Pacheco  Creek,  although 
the  probability  of  a  spill  is  relatively  low.  The  level  of  impact  to 
aquatic  resources,  in  terms  of  impact  duration  and  length  of  stream 
reach  affected,  would  depend  on  the  quantity  of  oil  spilled,  time  of 
year,  physical  characteristics  of  the  stream  (e.g.,  bottom  substrate, 
flow  channel  configuration),  containment  and  cleanup,  and  on  the  rela- 
tive abundance  and  sensitivity  of  the  dominant  or  important  aquatic 
organi  sms  to  oi 1 . 

After  oil  has  been  oxidized  and  chemically  degraded,  aquatic  com- 
munities will  generally  be  able  to  return  to  prespill  conditions  by 
recolonization  from  unaffected  areas.  The  recovery  period  from  a 
single  occurrence  is  usually  several  months  for  benthic  macroinverte- 
brates  and  several  months  to  two  years  for  fish  (Cheremisinoff  and 
Morresi  1977).  Repeated  occurrences,  however,  would  expose  the 
affected  habitat  to  potential  chronic  toxicity. 

Studies  on  a  crude  oil  spill  in  the  North  Platte  River  near  Glen- 
rock,  Wyoming,  showed  that  benthic  macroinvertebrates  were  almost 
totally  destroyed,  but  no  fish  mortality  was  observed  (EPA  1982b). 
However,  fish  flesh  did  exhibit  disagreeable  odor  and  taste  for  about 
two  months  after  the  spil.l.  Oil  concentrations  in  the  river  surface 
ranged  from  2.8  to  8,195  milligrams  per  liter  (mg/1)  immediately  after 
the  spill,  but  went  below  10  mg/1  after  seven  days.  The  EPA  study 
(1982b)  also  showed  that  macroinvertebrate  communities  recovered  at 
most  sites  after  two  months. 

Toxicity  studies  using  water-soluble  fractions  in  crude  oil  have 
shown  that  salmonids,  striped  bass,  and  slimy  sculpin  are  quite  sensi- 
tive to  oil,  while  channel  catfish  and  bluegill  appear  to  be  tolerant. 
The  negative  effects  of  a  spill  would  persist  longer  in  small  streams 
because  of  limited  flushing.  Therefore,  the  impacts  of  an  oil  spill 
will  vary  significantly,  depending  on  the  size  of  stream,  time  of 
year,  species  in  contact  with  the  oil,  duration  of  the  oil  spill,  and 
the  vol ume  of  the  spi 1  1 . 

A  major  spill  at  or  near  stream  crossings  could  cause  significant 
impacts  whether  or  not  a  stream  were  flowing  at  the  time  of  the  spill- 
At  either  a  dry  or  flowing  stream  channel,  cleanup  of  a  major  spill 

4-95 


would  require  removal  of  contaminated  soils,  thus  altering  the  stream- 
bed  and  potentially  affecting  aquatic  and  terrestrial  wildlife  use  in 
the  subsequent  wet  season  if  the  stream  were  seasonally  dry.  Soil  in 
the  stream  channel  could  also  remain  as  a  source  of  contamination  of 
water  quality  until  the  oil  broke  down  or  was  washed  from  the  site. 

Installing  the  pipeline  across  the  California  Aqueduct  and  the 
Delta  Mendota  Canal  on  existing  suspension  bridges  will  expose  aquatic 
communities  with  limited  resource  value  to  potential  oil  spills  during 
project  operation.  While  not  stocked  or  managed  for  recreation,  these 
facilities  do  support  important  recreational  fisheries  which  are  used 
by  the  public.  These  facilities  do  not  provide  spawning  or  rearing 
habitat  which  could  be  threatened  by  a  spill,  but  an  uncontained  spill 
will  cause  a  fish  kill  and  deplete  recreational  species  until  water 
was  cleaned  and  restocked  by  fish  from  the  delta  or  with  survivors  in 
the  canal  system. 

Abandonment 

Abandonment  of  the  pipeline  in-place  will  not  adversely  affect 
aquatic  communities  along  the  project  route. 

4.2.14  System  Safety  and  Reliability 

This  section  addresses  safety  and  reliability  aspects  of  the  pro- 
posed project.  The  analysis  is  based  on  a  review  of  available  prelim- 
inary project  design  documents,  including  descriptions  of  component  or 
facility  specifications  and  construction  and  operating  procedures. 
The  methodology  consists  of  a  systematic  failure  mode  analysis  of  all 
possible  accidents  involving  both  the  pipeline  and  the  booster/ 
injection  stations  and  their  causes,  and  includes  a  description  of 
design  and  operating  features  which  will  minimize  the  potential  for 
system  failures  and  their  effects  on  the  environment  and  on  public 
safety  and  health.  The  safety  of  microwave  transmission  facilities  is 
also  discussed.  The  analysis  is  based  on  preliminary  information; 
detailed  project  design  is  in  progress.  An  analysis  of  oil  spill 
volume  and  potential  is  presented  in  Section  4.2.15. 

Regulatory  Setting 

Applicable  regulations  include  federal  regulations  for  hazardous 
liquid  pipeline  safety  contained  in  49  CFR  195.  These  regulations 
specify  minimum  requirements  for  materials,  design,  fabrication, 
assembly,  construction,  operation,  inspection,  testing,  and  mainte- 
nance of  pipelines  transporting  hazardous  liquids  including  petroleum 
products.  These  regulations  are  enforced  by  the  DOT  Office  of  Pipe- 
line Safety.  The  California  Pipeline  Safety  Act  of  1981  also  applies 
to  the  project.  This  act  imposes  additional  specific  safety  require- 
ments on  intrastate  pipelines  carrying  hazardous  liquids,  including  a 
time  schedule  for  conformance  to  federal  regulations,  hydrostatic 
testing  requirements,  pipeline  maps,  contingency  plans,  and  pipeline 
incident  reporting.  This  state  regulation  is  enforced  by  the 
California  State  Fire  Marshall,  or  by  a  local  agency  designated  by 


4-96 


rre- 
ts 


ac  i  1  - 


him  The  present  survey  of  potential  system  failures  and  the  cor' 
spondinq  system  safety  features  for  the  proposed  pipeline  project 
indicates  that  the  project  will  comply  with  the  safety  requiremen 
stipulated  by  both  of  these  regulations. 

The  primary  safety  concerns  include  the  potential  for  pipeline, 
truck,  or  rail  accidents  resulting  in  public  safety  hazards  and  faci 
ity  accidents  which  cause  fires  or  explosions. 

Impacts  relating  to  system  safety  are  considered  significant  if: 

t  Facilities  fail  to  meet  any  applicable  design  codes  or  regula- 
tions, such  as  those  specified  by  API,  the  National  Fire  Pro- 
tection Association,  and  relevant  permits; 

•  Operating  policies  concerning  security  or  fire  protection  do 
not  conform  to  generally  accepted  industry  practices;  or 

t  A  fire  injures  anyone. 

These  significance  criteria  were  developed  based  on  a  review  of 
previous  EIR/EISs  for  similar  pipeline  projects,  regulatory  require- 
ments, research  information,  and  professional  judgment  of  resource 
specialists. 

The  measures  incorporated  in  the  proposed  project  to  reduce  the 
potential  risks  are  summarized  below: 

Traffic  controls  such  as  flagmen  and  markers  will  be  used. 
All  major  road  and  rail  crossings  will  be  bored  rather  than 
open  cut.  Access  for  emergency  vehicles  will  be  maintained. 

Booster  stations  will  have  the  following  fire  protection  and 
control  systems  for  the  gas  turbine  and  heaters. 

The  gas  turbine  will  have  a  fire  detection  and  suppression 
system  within  the  unit  enclosure.  The  fire  system  will  use 
halon,  a  high  quality,  efficient,  fire  suppressant  applied 
where  delicate  equipment  could  be  damaged  by  fire  fighting. 
This  halon  fire  system  will  be  incorporated  into  both  the  unit 
and  the  station  programmable  logic  controllers  to  initiate 
emergency  shutdown  of  both  the  pumping  unit  and  the  station  in 
the  event  of  a  fire.  The  system  will  consist  of  temperature 
detectors,  ultraviolet  flame  detectors,  and  a  halon  storage 
and  discharge  system.  It  will  be  designed  to  initiate  pump 
unit  and  station  shutdown  when  any  of  the  temperature  detec- 
tors or  flame  detectors  actuates,  indicating  the  presence  of  a 
fire  within  the  unit  enclosure.  Upon  initiation  of  pump  unit 
shutdown,  the  enclosure  vents  will  close  and  the  halon  charge 
wiH  be  released  into  the  unit  enclosure  in  sufficient  concen- 
tration to  extinguish  the  flame. 

The  heaters  will  have  .a  protective  device  system  which  will 
detect  the  presence  of  an  abnormal  fire  within  the  unit.  This 
system  will  be  incorporated  into  both  the  unit  and  station 


o 


o 


4-97 


programmable   logic   controllers  to   shut   down   both   the   heater 
and  the  station   in  the  event  of  an   abnormal    fire  within  the 
heater.     Since  heaters   utilize   burners,   the  presence  of   a 
flame  alone  will    not  be  sufficient  to   identify  the  presence  of 
an  abnormal    (emergency)   fire.     The   emergency  fire  detection 
system  will   consist  of  a  temperature  detector  in  the  unit 
exhaust  stack  which  will    be  activated  when  the   stack  tempera- 
ture exceeds  normal   operating  values.     Upon   actuation   and 
initiation  of  emergency  shutdown,   heater  process   inlet  and 
outlet  valves,   fuel   valves,   and   inlet   air  dampers  will   be 
closed  to   eliminate  the   sources  of  combustion   and   extinguish 
the  flame. 

In   addition   to   the   automatic   fire   protection   and   control    sys- 
tems mentioned  above,  other  fire  protection  equipment  will 
consist  of  one  150-pound  wheeled  fire  extinguisher   and   two  30- 
pound  hand-held  fire  extinguishers.     These  extinguishers  will 
be   located  within   the  control    building   and   at   key  points   in 
the  station  yard. 

All   operating   and  maintenance  personnel   will   be  trained   in 
fire  protection  and  in  the  use  of  basic  fire  fighting  equip- 
ment.    In   addition,   selected   supervisory  personnel    will 
receive  more  extensive  fire  prevention  and  fire  protection 
training   as  well    as  first  aid  courses  dealing  with  the   treat- 
ment of  burns   and  other  fire-related  injuries. 

•     Security  systems   proposed  for  the  pump   stations   and   pipeline 
block  valves  include  the  following: 

-  Six-foot  chain   link  fences  topped  with   antic! imb  barbed 
wire. 

-  Gates   that  can  be   locked  when  the  pump  station   is   left 
unattended. 

-  A  perimeter   alarm   system   installed   around   pump   stations 
which  would   sound  a  local    alarm  and  alert  the  dispatcher. 
The  dispatcher  would  then  notify  local    law  enforcement 
officers  and  company  personnel. 

-  The  gates   at  the   road  entrance  would  be   locked   at   all    times 
if   access   to   the   pump   station   is   by  private  road. 

Security  for  the   pipeline   itself  would  be  provided   by  weekly 
aerial    reconnaissance,    in   accordance  with   Section  451.5(a)    of 
ANSI   B31.4.     These   surveys   will    identify   any  potential    right- 
of-way  encroachments,   pipeline  exposure  or  mechanical   damage, 
or  other   potential    safety  hazards. 

Construction 

No  hazardous  materials  will  be  transported  by  truck  or  rail  dur- 
ing construction;  therefore,  fires  or  explosions  will  not  result,   i  he 
only  public  safety  hazards  will  result  from  ordinary  (i.e.,  not 


4-98 


involving  hazardous  materials)  traffic  accidents.  Because  of  the  rel- 
atively short  duration  of  project  construction,  the  relatively  small 
number  of  vehicles  involved,  and  the  small  number  of  vehicle  miles, 
the  likelihood  of  accidents  involving  construction  equipment  or  trucks 
is  very  low.  Therefore,  the  incremental  risk  during  construction  will 
be  negl igible. 

Operation 

Potential  safety  hazards  are  systematically  shown  on  Figure  4-6 
and  evaluated  below.  Because  of  the  physical  properties  of  the  crude 
oil  to  be  carried  in  the  pipeline,  i.e.,  its  high  viscosity,  low  pour 
point,  and  high  flash  point,  oil  will  not  be  a  significant  fire  or 
explosion  hazard.  Data  on  the  characteristics  of  the  lube  crude  were 
not  available,  but  it  is  considered  to  be  comparable  to  the  other 
crude  oil.  Therefore,  the  possibility  and  consequences  of  fires  or 
explosions  will  be  limited  to  those  caused  by  natural  gas  at  the  gas- 
fired  compressor  station.  The  only  significant  fire  hazards  asso- 
ciated with  the  proposed  project  are  the  turbine  units  and  heaters. 
The  pumps,  piping  manifolds,  control  buildings,  oil  pipeline,  oil 
storage  tanks  and  microwave  towers,  and  other  equipment  are  considered 
low  risk  fire  hazards. 

A  fire  at  a  booster  station  could  be  caused  by  a  natural  gas  leak 
together  with  an  accidental  ignition  source.  However,  because  of  the 
fire  protection  and  control  system  described  above,  it  is  unlikely 
that  these  events  will  occur  simultaneously.  If  a  fire  were  to  occur, 
its  consequences  would  be  limited  by  the  rapid  detection  and  control 
systems  described  above.  These  systems,  in  combination  with  fire 
fighting  equipment  onsite,  are  adequate  to  contain  a  fire  on  the 
property. 

The  only  possibility  of  an  explosion  would  result  from  a  natural 
gas  leak  in  the  enclosed  portion  of  the  station.  A  gas  leak  detection 
device  is  not  included  in  the  proposed  project.  If  a  gas  leak  contin- 
ued undetected  to  permit  gas  accumulation  inside  the  building,  an 
explosion  could  result  if  an  ignition  source  were  introduced.  The 
size  of  an  explosion  would  depend  on  the  amount  of  gas  inside  the 
building,  with  the  maximum  volume  equal  to  the  volume  of  the  building. 
At  worst  the  detonation  effects  of  such  an  explosion  could  only  extend 
a  few  hundred  feet  from  the  building;  employees  on  site  could  be 
injured,  a  significant  impact.  Table  4-27  shows  the  distance  from  the 
nearest  sensitive  receptor  for  each  booster  station.  As  shown,  all 
buildings  are  beyond  the  range  of  exposure  hazard.  However  at  SJV-4, 
Interstate  580  is  within  300  feet,  and  at  two  other  stations,  small 
two-lane  roads  are  within  the  explosion  hazard  range.  Injuries  to 
humans  would  result  if  one  or  more  vehicles  were  passing  by,  which  is 
a  significant  impact. 

Range  and  grass  fires  caused  by  lightning  and  recreation! sts  are 
common  in  the  region;  such  fires  could  spread  to  pump  stations.  While 
the  fire  protection  devices  are  adequate  to  control  internally  caused 
fire,  significant  impacts  could  result  from  naturally  caused  fires. 
In  this  regard,  the  use  of  herbicides  on  site  as  proposed  is  undesir- 
able because  it  will  leave  dry,  dead  vegetation  on  site. 


4-99 


SAFETY  HAZARD 

OR  ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT 


FIRE  OR  EXPLOSION 

AT  A  BOOSTER 

STATION 


FIRE  CONTROL 
SYSTEMS  FAIL 


OIL  SPILL 
CONTAINMENT 
MEASUHESFAIL 


OIL  SPILL 

GREATER  THAN 

&  BBL 


NATURAL  GAS 
LEAK  IN 

COMPRESSOR/ 
TURBINE/ 
HEATER 


IGNITION 
SOURCES 
PRESENT 


PIPELINE  OIL 

SPILL  GREATER 

THAN  6  BBL 


OIL  SPILL  AT 

BOOSTER  STATION 

OR  STORAGE 

TANKS 


PIPELINE  BREAK 


I 


O 

o 


PIPE  DEFECT 


FAILURE  OF  LEAK 
DETECTION  SYSTEM 


FAILURE  OF 

OIL  SPILL 

CONTROL  SYSTEM 


OIL  STORAGE 
TANK  LEAKS 


CORROSION 


SEAM 
FAILURE 


INTERNAL 


WELD 
FAILURE 


HARDWARE 
FAILURE 


HUMAN  OPERATOR 
ERROR 


FAILURE  OF  PRESSURE 
MONITORING  SYSTEM 


PRESSURE 
SURGE 


EARTH  MOVING 
OR  DIGGING 
EQUIPMENT 


SABOTAGE 
OH  VANDALISM 


Figure  4-6      SIMPLIFIED  FAILURE  TREE  FOR  THE  HEATED  OIL  PIPELINE  SYSTEM 


Table  4-27 

PROXIMITY   OF  BOOSTER  STATIONS 
TO  PUBLIC  HIGHWAYS   AND  OFF-SITE  BUILDINGS 


Station 

Closest  Highway 

Closest 
Highway 

(ft) 

Distance   to 

Nearest  Off-Site 

Building 

(ft) 

Kettleman 

1-5 

1,800 

1,100 

Mid 

1-5 

3,200 

3,500 

McKittrick 

(secondary   road) 

100 

500 

Kernridge 

(secondary  road) 

200 

400 

Caliola 

1-5 

over   5,000 

3,500 

SJV-2 

1-5 

over   5,000 

over   5,000 

SJV-3 

1-5 

over  5,000 

over   5,000 

SJV-4 

1-580 

300 

1,000 

SJV-2b 

1-5 

over  5,000 

over   5,000 

SJV-3b 

1-5 

1,200 

2,500 

Source:      Ecology   and  Environment,    Inc.    1986, 


4-101 


With  the  exception  of  the  lack  of  a  natural  gas  leak  detection 
system,  the  proposed  project  minimizes  the  potential  for  system  fail- 
ures. 

During  the  scoping  process,  a  question  was  raised  regarding  the 
safety  of  microwaves  used  as  part  of  the  pipeline's  communication 
system.  Microwave  transmissions  will  result  in  exposure  limits  that 
are  orders  of  magnitude  below  allowable  limits,  which  are  in  turn  well 
below  the  levels  known  to  produce  biological  damage.  However,  this  is 
an  area  of  scientific  controversy.  The  approximately  6,000  studies 
conducted  over  the  40  years  microwave  technology  has  been  in  use  have 
yielded  inconsistent  and  inconclusive  results.  While  no  clear-cut 
damage  to  human  beings  from  low-level  radiation  has  been  demonstrated, 
exposure  to  low  levels  of  microwaves  cannot  be  proved  free  of  hazards 
(Foster  and  Guy  1986). 

Studies  of  the  possible  biologic  effects  of  electromagnetic 
fields,  which  includes  microwaves,  has  been  funded  by  the  U.S. 
government  at  about  $10  million  per  year  during  the  1980s.  The 
results  of  these  studies,  and  follow-up  studies  on  significant 
results,  may  improve  scientific  understanding  of  biologic  effects,  but 
the  controversy  will  likely  continue  for  some  years.  The  EPA  is  in 
the  process  of  setting  exposure  standards.  EPA1 s  risk  assessment 
process  evaluates  known  hazards  and  builds  in  a  safety  factor.  The 
controversy  cannot  be  resolved  in  this  document.  According  to  present 
standards,  the  impacts  are  insignificant. 

Abandonment 

No  significant  safety  hazards  are  associated  with  the  abandonment 
of  the  pipeline. 

4.2.15  Oil  Spill  Potential  and  Effects 

This  section  describes  the  risks  and  consequences  of  possible  oil 
spills  associated  with  the  operation  and  construction  of  the  proposed 
project.  The  following  subsections  are  based  on  a  review  of  prelimi- 
nary project  design  data  and  literature  reviews  and  include: 

•  A  description  of  the  design  features  of  the  new  pipeline  that 
will  prevent  oil  spills  due  to  certain  types  of  causes  (see 
Operation) ; 

•  A  summary  of  oil  spill  contingency/countermeasures/cleanup 
plans  and  an  assessment  of  their  adequacy  to  protect  public 
safety  and  sensitive  environmental  resources  (Summary  of  the 
Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan) ; 

•  Estimated  probabilities  of  oil  spills  of  various  magnitudes 
for  both  the  pipeline  and  the  oil  storage  tanks  derived  from 
available  historical  statistical  data  (Oil  Spill  Probability); 

•  An  estimate  of  the  maximum  possible  oil  spill  size  for  the 
pipeline  (Maximum  Potential  Pipeline  Oil  Spill  Size);  and 


4-102 


•  A  description  of  the  exposure  of  potentially  sensitive  envi- 
ronmental target  areas  to  spilled  oil  (Exposure  of  Potentially 
Sensitive  Environmental  Resources  to  Spilled  Oil). 

Regulatory  Setting 

The  applicable  regulations  for  pipeline  safety  were  discussed  in 
Section  4  2.14.  The  Clean  Water  Act  prohibits  discharges  of  oil  or 
hazardous  materials  into  navigable  waters.  The  implementing  regula- 
tions prohibit  discharges  that  "violate  applicable  water  qual  ^stan- 
dards or  cause  a  film  or  sheen  upon  the  surface  of  the  water.... 
Because  navigable  waters  is  also  broadly  defined  virtually  all  dis- 
charges that  would  affect  water  are  prohibited  and  reportable.  Oil  is 
not  defined  as  a  hazardous  substance  under  the  Comprehensive  Environ- 
mental Response  and  Liability  Act  (CERCLA) ,  and  spills  to  land  that 
would  not  affect  water  have  no  specific  reportable  quantities  it  they 
are  contained  and  immediately  cleaned  up. 

Impacts  related  to  oil  spill  potential  are  significant  if: 

•  An  oil  spill  greater  than  5  barrels  occurs,  or  any  spill  to 
water  occurs;  or 

•  An  oil  spill  injures  anyone  or  damages  or  degrades  biological 
resources,  soil,  surface  water,  or  groundwater. 

These  significance  criteria  were  developed  based  on  a  review  of 
previous  EIR/EISs  for  similar  pipeline  projects,  regulatory  require- 
ments, research  information,  and  professional  judgment  of  resource 
specialists.  In  particular,  small  oil  leaks  to  land  are  not  con- 
sidered to  be  a  significant  impact  if  they  are  less  than  5  barrels. 
Any  spill  affecting  water  is  significant  because  it  is  prohibited  by 
statute. 

Construction 

Spills  of  oil  or  fuel  may  occur  during  construction.  Based  on 
past  pipeline  construction  experience,  such  spills  will  not  likely 
exceed  100  gallons  (i.e.,  <3  barrels)  and  would  therefore  not  be 
significant  if  no  water  resources  are  affected.  However,  impacts  of 
any  spills  to  water  will  be  significant. 

Operation 

The  various  systems  and  measures  incorporated  in  the  proposed 
project  to  reduce  the  potential  for  oil  spills  and  their  consequences 
are  discussed  in  Section  2  and  recapped  below;  where  appropriate, 
additional  information  is  also  provided. 

o  Geologic  hazards  along  the  pipeline  route  have  been  identi- 
fied. Special  design  features  that  mitigate  or  eliminate 
potential  pipeline  damage  resulting  from  fault  movement,  land- 
slides, and  -other  geological  hazards  are  being  incorporated 
into  the  pipeline  design.  The  designs  will  conform  to  the 

4-103 


applicable  stress  criteria  of  the  American  National  Standards 
Institute  (ANSI)  B31.4.  Design  criteria  will  include  internal 
design  pressure,  surge  pressure,  test  pressure,  vacuum,  fluid 
inertia  loads,  temperature,  external  pressure  (including  over- 
burden), and  differential  movement  due  to  surface  fault  dis- 
placement, local  liquefaction,  or  other  loss  of  support. 

•  To  prevent  corrosion,  the  pipeline  will  be  coated  with  an 
epoxy  compound  in  accordance  with  applicable  regulations  (49 
CFR  195).  In  addition,  cathodic  protection  will  be  installed 
as  required  by  49  CFR  195,  and  in  accordance  with  the  time 
schedule  specified  by  the  California  Pipeline  Safety  Act  of 
1981.  Corrosion  control  test  stations  will  be  installed  in 
order  to  test  the  integrity  of  the  corrosion  protection. 

•  To  prevent  overpressuring  of  the  pipeline  due  to  ambient  tem- 
perature or  operational  upsets,  the  project  will  include  a 
thermal  relief  system  and  a  pressure  relief  system  at  pumping 
or  booster  stations,  following  the  applicable  design  standard, 
ANSI  B31.4.  These  systems  will  provide  appropriate  valves  and 
sump  tanks,  as  well  as  high-level  alarms  to  prevent  overflow 
of  the  sump.  Flow  switches  on  the  relief  lines  to  tankage 
will  alert  the  24-hour  manned  control  center  so  that  the  con- 
troller will  know  that  the  fluid  level  in  the  tank  is  rising. 

•  Station  overpressure/flow  shutdown  equipment  will  ensure  that 
surges  and  line  packing  beyond  the  first  cycle  of  generation 
will  be  prevented.  The  shutdown  equipment  will  be  designed  to 
provide  this  protection  even  under  conditions  of  communication 
failure. 

•  Three  primary  methods  will  be  used  to  detect  leaks:  pipeline 
operator  controller  judgment,  computer  software  detection 
tools,  and  air  surveillance  of  the  pipeline. 

t  All  welds  in  sensitive  areas  such  as  waterway,  railroad,  or 
public  road  crossings,  and  25%  of  all  other  welds,  will  be 
inspected  by  x-rays.  The  pipeline  will  be  hydrostatically 
tested  at  1.25  times  the  maximum  operating  pressure. 

•  A  system  of  block  (shut-off)  valves  including  automatically 
operated  valves  at  booster  stations  and  manually  operated 
valves  at  other  locations  will  be  used  to  shut  down  the  system 
in  the  event  of  a  spi 11. 

•  Other  design  measures  will  be  used  to  prevent  or  minimize  the 
occurrence  of  oil  spills  caused  by  third-party  damage  to  the 
pipeline,  or  damage  due  to  natural  hazards.  These  include 
burying  the  pipeline  following  recognized  industry  safety 
practice,  and  aboveground  marking  or  identification  of  the 
location  of  the  buried  pipeline.  The  pipeline  will  be  buried 
a  minimum  of  3  feet  deep,  and  deeper  (5  feet)  in  farm  areas, 
and  its  location  will  be  marked  by  signs  in  accordance  with 
DOT  regulations  (49  CFR  195.410).  All  stream  crossings  will 


4-104 


be  analyzed  by  the  pipeline  operator  for  100-year  scour  depth 
prior  to  construction,  and  the  pipeline  will  be  buried  below 
that  depth.  A  concrete  coating  would  be  used  at  canal  or 
stream  crossings,  and  a  pipe  casing  or  sleeve  used  at  road 
crossings. 

Summary  of  Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan 

Despite  the  engineering  design,  specifications,  and  safeguards 
built  into  the  proposed  system,  the  potential  for  oil  spills  still 
exists  and  additional  containment  and  cleanup  measures  must  be 
addressed.  The  oil  spill  contingency  plan  contained  in  Appendix  B 
prepared  by  the  applicant  incorporates  procedures  for  responding  to  an 
oil  spill.  These  procedures  include  personnel  training,  an  estab- 
lished communications  network,  standard  reporting  system,  and  defined 
responsibilities  and  lines  of  authority. 

The  purpose  of  the  plan  is  to  provide  basic  procedures _ to  be  used 
by  company  personnel  in  the  event  of  hazardous  liquid  pipeline  emer- 
gencies in  order  to  minimize  public  risk.  Property  is  to  be  pro- 
tected, but  only  after  the  public  has  been  adequately  protected.  In 
general,  the  plan  complies  with  the  regulatory  requirements  of  49  CFR 
195.402(a)  and  (e),  and  the  California  Pipeline  Safety  Act  of  1981. 

The  plan  provides  both  alert  and  action  procedures.  The  alert 
procedures  for  the  handling  of  emergencies  include  notification  of  (1) 
company  personnel,  (2)  outside  companies  where  necessary,  and  (3) 
appropriate  governmental  agencies.  The  action  or  response  element  of 
the  plan  specifies  containment  and  cleanup  techniques  specifically 
developed  for  the  following  special  locations,  topographic,  or  man- 
made  features: 

•  Streams,  creeks,  and  small  rivers; 

t  Flood  control  channels  and  large  rivers; 

•  Ship  harbors  and  marinas; 

•  Storm  drains; 

«  Street  areas,  intersections,  and  freeways;  and 

•  Farm,  ranch,  or  range! ands. 

The  specific  containment  and  cleanup  procedures  adopted,  after  a 
leak  has  been  detected  and  located,  depend  on  whether  the  spill  is  in 
a  confined  (populated)  or  unconfined  (rural)  area.  The  first  priority 
in  a  confined  area  is  to  ensure  human  safety,  followed  by  appropriate 
containment  and  cleanup  procedures.  Containment  and  cleanup  proce- 
dures utilized  would  depend  on  the  size  of  the  spill  and  surrounding 
terrain  (flat  terrain,  steep  slopes,  depressions,  streams  or  rivers, 
etc.) . 

On  flat  terrain,  where  oil  would  spread  in  all  directions,  dams 
or  berms  would  be  constructed  around  the  perimeter  of  the  spill.   In 
steeper  areas  where  the  oil  may  spread  by  following  natural  drainage 
paths,  the  following  techniques  would  be  used  to  contain  and  divert 
oil: 


4-105 


Blocking  dams, 
Underflow  dams, 
Diversion  dams, 
Overflow  berms,   and 
Culvert  blocking. 

Cleanup  procedures  would  generally  require  removal   of  soil   or 
other  natural   substrates  that  become  contaminated  with  oil.     The  motor 
grader/elevating  scraper  technique  would  be  used  for  cleanup  of  rela- 
tively flat  areas,   except  where  trees  or  heavy  vegetation  creates 
difficulties.     Steep  slopes  or  uneven  terrain  often  require  a  bull- 
dozer or  front-end  loader  for  sediment  removal.     Excessively  steep  or 
rough  terrain  may  be  cleaned  using   low-pressure  water  flushing.     This 
technique  can  also  be  used  to  remove  oil   from  vegetation.     On  dis- 
turbed areas,   reseeding  and/or  replanting  would  be  undertaken  as 
necessary  to  control  erosion  and  return  the  area  to  a  stable  condi- 
tion. 

Oil   which  has  formed  pools   in  natural   depressions  or  containment 
areas  can  be  picked  up  with  vacuum  trucks.     In   less  accessible  areas, 
portable  pumps  discharging   into  barrels  can  be  used.     Sorbents  may  be 
used  to  remove  small    pools  of  oil,  to  clean   light  accumulations  of  oil 
from  impervious  surfaces,   or  to  complete  cleanup.     There  are  two  tech- 
niques  involving  pumping  that  apply  to  oil   spill   cleanup  of  ground- 
water:    water  flooding  (flotation)   and  pumping  oil  water  to  the  sur- 
face. 

The  containment  and  cleanup  provisions  of  the  contingency  plan 
for  roadways  are  specifically  directed  toward  assuring  both  pedestrian 
and  vehicular  traffic  safety  in  the  event  of  a  spill  on  a  highway  or 
road. 

In  general,   the  plan  meets  applicable  regulatory  requirements. 
However,    it  suggests  the  use  of  chemicals  for  dispersion  of  oil   spills 
in  water.     Such  uses  require  specific  authorizations  from  EPA  on  a 
case-by-case  basis,   and  this  should  be  noted  in  the  plan.     The  plan 
does  not  specifically  identify  sensitive  features  along  the  route 
(i.e.,  by  feature  and  milepost)   and  the  measures  that  would  be 
employed  at  these  locations.     (See  Exposure  of  Potentially  Sensitive 
Environmental  Resources  to  Spilled  Oil.) 

The  causes  of  oil   spills  were  systematically  evaluated  and  are 
shown  on  Figure  4-6  in  Section  4.2.14.     As   shown,   the  causes   include 
seismic  activity;   pipeline  corrosion;   pressure  surges;  human  operator 
error  or  delay  in  response;  valve  or  sensor  hardware  failure;   or 
breach  of  security  allowing   access  to  system  facilities  by  vandals  or 
sabotage. 

Seismic  Hazards.     Pipeline  loads  resulting  from  seismic  activity 
fall    into  three  categories: 

•     Loads   resulting   from  ground   acceleration   and  consequent 
response  spectra  of  the  pipeline; 


4-106 


•  Differential  motion  at  surface  faults;  and 

•  A  combination  of  the  above. 

Section  4.2.2  identified  the  locations  of  active  faults  having 
the  greatest  potential  for  effects  of  seismic  activity  on  the  pipe- 
line. The  proposed  project  includes  completion  of  engineering  analy- 
ses and  special  design  features  to  reduce  or  eliminate  potential  pipe- 
line damage  from  fault  movement,  landslides,  or  other  geological 
hazards. 

Nevertheless,  the  Concord  Fault  in  Contra  Costa  County  represents 
a  hazard  from  faulting  or  surface  rupture  which  could  cause  a  pipeline 
break  resulting  in  a  spill  exceeding  5  barrels. 

Pipeline  Corrosion  Hazards.  Corrosion  protection  is  of  critical 
importance.  Pitting  of  the  pi  pel ine  can  occur  due  to  chemical  reac- 
tion between  the  soil  and  the  carbon  steel  pipe  if  it  is  not  ade- 
quately protected.  This  pitting  will  eventually  reduce  the  strength 
of  the  pipe  sufficiently  to  cause  a  break  and  allow  oil  to  leak.  Such 
spills  are  typically  small. 

The  project's  corrosion  protection  systems  meet  regulatory 
requirements  and  the  probability  of  oil  leaks  caused  by  corrosion  will 
be  very  small.  (See  discussion  on  Maximum  Potential  Pipeline  Oil 
Spill  Size.)  However,  if  they  occur,  spills  could  be  significant. 

Pipeline  Pressure  Surges.  The  pressure  relief  systems  meet 
regulatory  requirements,  and  they  are  adequate  to  prevent  pipeline 
breaks  due  to  overpressurization,  and  no  significant  spills  will 
result. 

Pipeline  Leaks.  Quantification  of  the  sensitivity  of  a  pipe- 
line's  leak  detection  system  is  somewhat  speculative.  The  ability  to 
quickly  detect  leaks  depends  upon  many  variables  in  pipeline  opera- 
tion, including  instrument  accuracy,  oil  flow  rate,  operating 
pressure,  and  the  characteristics  of  the  crude  oil. 

The  project's  leak  detection  systems  meet  regulatory  require- 
ments. Recent  data  on  spills  at  Shell  operations  shows  that  Shell's 
average  spill  sizes  are  smaller  than  industry  average  for  the  same 
pipeline  diameters.   Nevertheless,  if  the  leak  detection  system 
fails,  a  spill  larger  than  5  barrels  could  result.  (See  discussion  on 
Maximum  Potential  Pipeline  Oil  Spill  Size.) 

Oil  Spill  Spreading  in'  the  Environment.  Block  valves  are  planned 
no  more  than  30  miles  apart  along  the  pipeline,  and  at  booster  and 
injection  stations.  Also,  manual  block  valves  are  proposed  on  either 
side  of  the  stream  crossing  at  Pacheco  Creek  in  Contra  Costa  County 
(milepost  211.6).  These  systems  as  well  as  the  Oil  Spill  Contingency 
Plan  will  limit  the  amount  of  oil  spilled  in  the  event  of  a  leak  or 
line  break.  Also,  oil  storage  tanks  will  be  provided  with  containment 
dikes  or  berms  to  limit  the  spread  of  spilled  oil. 


4-107 


Oil  Spill  Probability 

The  data  summarized  below  on  the  historical  occurrence  of  oil 
spills  is  based  on  nationwide  data  from  facilities  similar  to  those 
proposed  in  conjunction  with  this  project.  This  information  is 
offered  as  representative  of  average  potential  oil  spill  volumes  and 
probabilities  of  occurrence  over  the  life  of  the  project,  irrespective 
of  a  specific  location  along  the  pipeline. 

Historical  data  on  pipeline  oil  spills  has  been  analyzed  by  pre- 
vious investigators  in  terms  of  both  product  throughput  and  miles  of 
pipeline  operational  per  year.  For  the  purposes  of  this  assessment, 
the  probability  of  a  pipeline  spill  is  described  in  terms  of  the  num- 
ber of  spills  per  mile  of  pipeline  in  operation  each  year,  i.e., 
spills  per  mile  per  year.  Data  sources  were  oil  spill  studies  con- 
ducted for  the  Northern  Tier  Pipeline  EIS  by  the  Oceanographic  Insti- 
tute of  Washington  (OIW  1978)  as  well  as  the  EPA  (1982a). 

Table  4-28  shows  the  causes  of  U.S.  pipeline  accidents  for  both 
onshore  and  offshore  oil  pipelines  of  all  types  and  diameters  over  the 
five-year  period  from  1971  to  1975  (EPA  1982a).  As  can  be  seen,  the 
leading  causes  of  pipeline  spills  are  equipment  impact  (31%)  and 
internal  corrosion  (31%).  Pipeline  flaws,  including  defective  pipe 
and  corrosion,  accounted  for  56%  of  the  spills  and  53%  of  the  volume 
spilled.  For  spills  due  to  pipeline  flaws,  internal  corrosion  is  the 
largest  cause.  However,  internal  corrosion  is  characteristic  of  older 
pipelines  constructed  of  different  materials  than  those  proposed  for 
the  project.  The  spill  size  associated  with  corrosion  is  substan- 
tially smaller  than  the  spill  size  associated  with  seam  failure,  the 
second  largest  source  of  pipeline  spills.  The  pipelines  that  are  the 
source  of  the  data  in  Table  4-28  include  much  older  lap-welded  pipe, 
which  is  prone  to  seam  failure.  In  the  category  of  impact  damage, 
equipment  impact  accounted  for  the  largest  number  of  spills.  The 
largest  volume  of  oil  spilled  is  also  attributed  to  equipment  impact 
ruptures . 

The  EPA  (1982a)  report  also  compares  mean  spill  size  to  pipe  dia- 
meter for  pipeline  accidents  reported  to  the  U.S.  DOT  Office  of  Pipe- 
line Safety  (OPS)  during  the  period  1971  to  1975  (see  Figure  4-7). 

As  can  be  seen  from  Figure  4-7,  the  average  spill  volumes  for  the 
pipeline  industry  in  general  were  5,100  barrels  for  22-  to  28-inch- 
diameter  pipelines,  and  about  2,700  barrels  for  14-  to  20-inch-dia- 
meter  pipelines.  For  comparison,  data  on  actual  operations  of  Shell 
Oil  pipelines  for  1975-1985  show  average  spill  volumes  of  2,900 
barrels  for  22-  to  28- inch-diameter  pipelines,  and  445  barrels  for 
Shell's  14-  to  20-inch  lines.  These  volumes,  as  well  as  those  in 
Figure  4-7,  include  both  the  oil  pumped  out  before  shutdown  of  the 
pipeline,  and  the  volume  drained  out  by  static  head  after  shutdown. 
The  smaller  average  spills  from  Shell  Oil  operations  compared  to 
industry  pipelines  in  general  are  believed  to  be  due  primarily  to 
Shell's  policies  and  practices,  and  partly  due  to  the  different 
periods  used  for  comparison. 


4-108 


Table  4-28 

CAUSES  OF  PIPELINE  OIL  SPILLS  BASED  ON 
HISTORICAL  U.S.  STATISTICS 


Cause 


Percent  of  Percent  of 

Spills  Volume  Spilled 


Defective  Pipe 

■  Seam  failure 

■  Weld  failure 

•  Other 

Corrosion 

•  Internal 

•  External 

Impact  Damage 

■  Equipment  impact* 

•  Excavation  equipment 


12  25 

4  6 

1  4 


31  12 

8  6 


31  26 

3  7 


Nonimpact  Damage 
■    Natural  causes** 
•     Flow  control  error  2 


•     Other   failure 
Other 


4  7 

2  3 

1  3 


TOTAL 


100  100 


*  Includes  data   for   all  pipelines;    equipment    impact   includes   anchor 
dragging. 

**"Natural   causes"    include  damage    from  earthquakes.      Only  4S5  of 
spills  occur   from  natural  causes,   which  would   include  landslides 
and   a  flood   that  may  have  been  triggered  by  an  earthquake.      Data 
summaries  do  not  specify  earthquake-related  spills   as  a  separate 
category. 

Source:      EPA,    1982a,    Petroleum   Leak  Detection  Study. 


4-109 


7000 

I                       '                        I 

1                     /' 

..            . 

[  ]              Denotes  number  of  spills  making 

up  rneb             data  point 

(  )               Indicates  pipe  diameters  in  inches 
(Used  in  average  for  data  point) 

6000 

i^mbmm^    Industry  average  1971-1975 
from  OPSO 

■—■ ffl  Shell  Pipe  Line  Company  data 

/      #t9! 

/      w(30,32,34) 

1975-1985 

E141  m    1 
(22,24,26,28)  W  / 

5000 

1             / 
/              / 

J3    4000 

/              / 

2 

/              / 

Ul 

N 

/              1 

3 

-i 

- 

/              / 

S3 

Ul 

/              / 

Z 
< 

/              / 

1"    3000 

/             J 

2 

/              P(2] 

Ll45l                  /    (22.24,26,28) 
/•(14,16,18,20>/ 

/                           / 
/                           / 

/                          / 
/                         / 

/                         / 

2000 

list]           / 

[1461-/                       / 

no)  y              / 

1000 

/    w      / 

/    a    / 

•""*    [33117 

141  [40]*^                                 [15] 

™,                       (14,16,18,20) 

,            [181|                                           I                      ,                     I 

n 

0 

5                  10                15                20                25                30                 35 
PIPE  DIAMETER  (INCHES) 

40 

SOURCE:     EF 

A.   1982a. 

Figure  4-7      MEAN  SPILL  SIZE  AND  LINE  PIPE  DIAMETER  FOR  LINE 
PIPE  ACCIDENTS  REPORTED  TO  OPSO  (1971-1975), 
WITH  COMPARATIVE  DATA  FROM  SHELL 


4-110 


The  worst-case  spill    size  could  be  considerably  larger  than   the 
average  sizes   above   (see  discussion  on  Maximum  Potential    Pipeline  Oil 
Spill   Size  below) . 

The  OIW  (1978)   calculated   spill    rates  based   on  the  U.S.   Coast 
Guard  Pollution   Incident  Reporting  System   (USCG  PIRS)   data  for  the 
period  1973-1977.     During  this   period,   1,580  spills  greater  than  2.4 
barrels   (100  gallons)    in  volume  were  recorded,    in  a  cumulative  total 
of  728,000  combined  miles   and  years  of  pipeline  operation.     The 
inferred  rate  of  spillage   is  0.0022  spills  of  more  than  2.4  barrels 
per  mile  per  year  and  0.0016  spills  of  more  than  5  barrels  per  mile 
per  year.     The  size  distribution  of  oil    spills   stemming  from  accidents 
to  onshore  pipelines   has   been  evaluated  by  OIW  and   is   shown   in  Table 
4-29.     These  figures   are  based  on   an   average  diameter  of  10  inches   for 
U.S.   pipelines   nationwide. 

However,   recent  advances   in  pipeline  construction   technology  and 
quality  assurance/quality  control    procedures  for  both  construction   and 
operation  will   reduce  the  number  of  probable  oil    spills   indicated  by 
the  above  historical   data.     This  reduction,    attributable  to  new,   pre- 
ventive design  features,  can  be  used  to  estimate  the  probability  of 
oil   spills  for  the  proposed  pipeline,    as  follows.     For  comparison  with 
the  5  barrel   size,  50  barrels   is   also  used  to  illustrate  the  lower 
frequency  of  larger  spills.     First,    among  the  1,580  spills  counted   in 
Table  4-29,   the  number  of  spills   larger  than  50  barrels   is   approxi- 
mately 471.     Hence,   the  probability  of  a  spill    larger  than  50  barrels, 
without  mitigating  design  measures,   is  471  spills   in  728,000  combined 
miles   and  operational   years,  or  0.00065  spills   per  mile  per  year. 
Based  on  recent   industry  experience  with  pipelines  whose  design  and 
construction  have  incorporated   such   improved  technology,    it  was 
assumed  for  the  purposes  of  this   analysis  that  90%  of  those  spills 
caused  by  corrosion  and/or  defective  pipe  will    be  prevented.     Assuming 
90%  mitigation   (prevention)   by  design  of  39%  of  the  spills  due  to 
corrosion   (because  of  the  corrosion  protection   system),    and  90% 
mitigation  of  the  17%  of  the  spills  due  to  defective  pipe   (because _of 
the  quality  assurance  procedures   for  weld   inspection   and   hydrostatic 
testing  described   above  under  Pipeline  Spill   Prevention  Design 
Features) ,   the  number  of  spills    larger  than  bO  barrels   for  new 
pipeline  would  be  reduced  by  50%  to  236  spills.     Thus,   the  probability 
of  spills  of  this   size  would  be  0.0003  per  mile  per  year   (236  in 
728,000  combined  miles   and  years  of  experience),   or  fewer   than  three 
spills  over  the  life  of  the  project. 

For  spills   larger  than  5  barrels,   the  unmitigated  number  of 
spills   in  Table  4-30   is   1,173,    or  0.0016  spills   per  mile   per  year,    as 
noted   above.      If  the  50%  reduction  or  mitigation  of  these  spills   is 
assumed  due  to  pipeline  design  features   and    improved  quality  assur- 
ance,  the  estimated  number  of   spills   would   be   about  587   in   728,000 
mile-years,   or  0.0008   spills   of  more   than  5   barrels   per  mile   per  year, 
or   about  six   spills   over   the   life   of   the   project. 

Similar  estimates   of  oil    spill    frequencies   may  be   made   for   the 
larger   storage  tank   facilities    at   two   of   the  booster   stations,   based 
on  historical   data.     The  OIW  (1973)   estimated   the  historical    rate  of 


4-111 


Table  4-29 
LAND  PIPELINE  SPILL   SIZE  DISTRIBUTIONS 


Spill  Magnitude  Percent   of  Volume  Percent  of 

(barrels)  Number  Total  Number  (barrels)        Total   Volume 


2.4   -  10 

582 

36.8 

3,682 

1.0 

11    -   100 

754 

47.7 

30,298 

8.2 

101    -  1,000 

198 

12.5 

63,562 

17.3 

1,001    -   10,000 

41 

2.6 

147,541 

40.1 

10,001    -  100,000 

5 

0.3 

123,091 

33.4 

TOTAL 

1,580 

100.0 

368,174 

100.0 

Notes      Includes  only  spills  of  2.4  barrels  or  more  between  1973   and 
1977;    U.S.   nationwide   average  pipeline  diameter  of  10   inches. 

Source;     U.S.   Coast  Guard  Pollution  Incident  Reporting  System 
(Oceanographic   Institute  of  Washington  1978). 


4-112 


Table  4-30 

ESTIMATED   PROBABILITIES  FOR   THE   PROPOSED 
PIPELINE   OIL   SPILLS    IN   TWO   SIZE    RANGES 


Rate   of 

Spill   Incidents   for   Proposed   Pipeline*  Occurrence 

Spill    sizes   greater    than  50  barrels 

Over   length  of  pipeline/ year  0.08 

Per  mile/year  0.0003 

Number   of  spills/life   of  project    (40  years)  2.4 

Spill   sizes  greater   than  5  barrels 

Over  length  of  pipeline/year  0.21 

Per  mile/ year  0.0008 

Number  of  spills/life  of  project   (40  years)  6.2 


♦Relevant  characteristics   of  the  proposed   project   are: 

Diameter   (variable):      10,   14,   18,   24  inches 

Length:      257.6  miles   of  new  pipeline 

Pipeline   life:      30  to  40  years 

Susceptibility   to   various  causes   of   failure 
(mitigated  by  design) : 

-  resistant  to  corrosion 

-  less  vulnerable  to  material  defects  such  as  weld  or 
seam  failures 

Source:   Ecology  and  Environment,  Inc.  1986. 


4-113 


oil    spills  from  onshore  crude  oil    storaqe  tanks  usinq   a  st~raqe  volume 
expressed   in  barrel-years.     The  rate   is  based   on   the  USCG  PIRS  data 
for   the  period  1973  to  1976.      During   this   period,    176   spills  were 
reported,  with   a  cumulative  total   of  6.98  x  108  barrel-years   of 
storage.     The  rate  applies   to   spills  of  more  than  2.4  barrels   in  size. 

A  spill    size  frequency  distribution  of  onshore  storage  facility 
spills  was  developed  by  OIW  (1978)   based  on  176  incidents   in  the  USCG 
PIRS  data  base.     The  fractions  of  spills  exceeding   specific   volumes 
are  shown  in  Table  4-31. 

The  probability  of  a  spill    greater  than  5  barrels   in   size  can  be 
calculated  from  these  data  as  176  spills   in  6.98  x  108  barrel-years, 
or  2.52  x  10"'   per  barrel-year.     Similarly,   using  the  fractions  of 
spills   in  each  size  range  shown   in  Table  4-31,    the  probability  of 
spills   in  each  size  range  may  be  calculated.     These  are   presented   in 
Table  4-32,   together  with  the   average  numbers  of  spills   in  each   size 
range  to  be  expected  over  a  30-year  project  life,   for  the  existing 
30-MBBL  storage  tank   at  the  Weir  station,    and   for  the  80-MBBL  proposed 
storage  tank  at  the  Mid   station.     Because  of  the  relatively  small 
storage  volumes,   the  expected  numbers  of  spills   from  these  facilities 
are  quite  low. 

However,   even  these   spills   are  unlikely  to  pose   a  threat  to  the 
environment  because  of  containment  within  the  diked  or  bermed   area. 
For  the  proposed  80-MB8L  storage  tank   at  the  Mid  station,   a  berm  is 
proposed  that  will   have  a  containment  volume  of  113%  of  the  tank 
volume.     The  existing  30-MBBL  storage  tank  at  Weir   station   also  has   a 
containment  berm  surrounding  the  tank  that   at  110%  of  tank  volume 
meets  regulatory  requirements. 

Maximum  Potential   Pipeline  Oil    Spill    Size 

The  amount  of  oil    spilled   as  a  result  of  a  break   in   the  pipeline 
would  depend  on  the  extent  of  the  failure,   the   location  of  the   line 
break   in  relation  to  mainline  block  valves,   the  elevation   profile  and 
diameter  of  the  pipeline  segment  between  the  break   and   the  nearest 
block  valves,   and  the  time  required  for  the  human  operator   in   the 
pipeline  control   center   in  Anaheim  to  detect   a  potential    leak   and   to 
react  and  activate  the  appropriate  remote-control    shutoff  valves  or 
dispatch  a  man  to  close  a  manual   block  valve.     Following  a  leak,   pump- 
ing during  the  time  required  for   leak  detection,    isolation,    and  valve 
shutdown,   as  well    as   residual    line  drainage  by  gravity  through  the 
break,   would  contribute  to  the  total   volume  of  oil    spilled.     Line 
drainage   is   likely  to   be   the   largest  contribution,    as   shown   by  the 
calculations  below. 

The  maximum   (worst-case)    volume  of  crude  oil    that  would  be  pumped 
from  the  pipeline  before  detection  by  the  controller   at  the  Anaheim 
control    center    (see   Section  4.2.14)   will    be   approximately  870  barrels. 
This    leak   volume   could   only  occur  during    about   2  hours   per  week,    when 
the   pipeline  flow  rate  will    change  to   accommodate  movement  of   a  spe- 
cial   lube   crude.      The   following    assumptions   were   used    in   estimating 
the  worst-case   leak   volume: 

4-114 


Table  4-31 

VOLUME  DISTRIBUTION   OF   OIL  SPILLS 
FROM   ONSHORE   STORAGE    TANKS 


Facility  Spills*  ,  .  jiio 

Spill  Volume  Fraction  of  Spills 

(barrels)  in   this  Slze  Class 


>10  °-642 

>100  °-148 

>1,000  °-011 

>10,OOQ  ° 


♦Estimates  based  on  Table  IV-2  of  OIW  1978. 
♦♦Fractions   apply  to   the   class  of  spills  >2.4  barrels   in  size. 

Source:     Qceanographic   Institute  of  Washington   1978. 


4-115 


Table   4-32 

CURRENT  AND  FUTURE   PROBABILITIES  OF 
OIL  STORAGE   TANK  SPILLS    IN  SEVERAL  SIZE   RANGES 


Probability 
of  Spill  per 
Spill  Volume  Barrel-year 


(barrels) 


of  Storage* 


Storage  Volume 
(Mbbl) 


Wier 


Mid 


No.   of  Spills  Over 
30-year   Project   Life 


Wier 


Mid 


Station  Station  Station  Station 


>10 


2.52   x   10-7 


30 


80 


0.2 


0.6 


>100 


5.7     x   10" 


30 


80 


0.05 


0.14 


>1,Q00  4.9     x   10"  9  30 

>io,ooo  0  30 


80 


80 


0.004 


0.012 


♦Probabilities  of  spills  in  each  size  range  determined   from  historical   data  in 
the  Northern  Tier  Pipeline  EIS   (Oceanographic   Institute  of  Washington   1973); 
see  Table  4-24. 

Source:      Ecology   and   Environment,    Inc.,    1986. 


4-116 


•  Instrument  inaccuracy  (+2X,  at  6667  bph)       266  BBL 

•  Line  pack  variation  (80  MBD  to  160  MBD 

within  60  minutes)  30°  BBL 

•  Tolerance  to  prevent  false  alarms  84  BBL 
t  Controller  decision/reaction  time  (2  minutes)   220  BBL 

Total         870  BBL 

The  worst-case  spill   volume  before  detection  during   the  remaining 
166  hours  (99%)   of  the  week  would  be   less,  only  570  barrels.     Volu- 
metric  imbalance  due  to  line  pack  would  not  be  a  factor  during   this 
period.     Volumes  due  to   instrument   inaccuracy,   false   alarm  prevention, 
and  decision/reaction  time  would  be  the  same  as   above. 

These  two  worst-case  (pumpage)   scenarios   are  hypothetical.     The 
calculated  volumes   above  include  only  the  oil   which  would  be  pumped 
out  of  the  pipeline  before  the   leak  would  be  detected   and   the  pipeline 
shut  down,   and  do  not  include  the  volume  that  would  drain  out  after 
shutdown   due  to   static  head. 

For  comparative  purposes,   the  maximum  pipeline  drainage  volume, 
i.e.,  worst-case  size,   that  is  possible  for  each  segment  of  the 
pipeline  was  calculated  by  determining  the   length  of  the   longest 
section  of  pipe  that  drains  downslope  between  valves  (by  examining   the 
elevation  profile  of  the  .line  as  shown  on  the   location  maps),   and 
multiplying  by  the  cross-sectional   area  of  the  pipe,  corresponding  to 
the  diameter  in  that  segment.     These  estimated  maximum  spill   volumes 
are  shown  in  Table  4-33.     It  can  be  seen  that,   since  essentially  all 
of  Segment  2  (from  Kernridge  to  Mid   station)    is  downhill    (21.6  miles), 
this  segment  could  theoretically  result   in  the  largest  volume  of 
residual    drainage  following   valve  closure,   namely  36,000  barrels, 
assuming  the  break  occurred  at  the  worst  location,    i.e.,   at  the  bottom 
of  the  downslope  just  before  the  Mid   station.     (By  comparison,   it 
could  be  noted  that  for  a  break   at  the  "average  location,"    i.e., 
halfway  between  Kernridge   and  Mid   stations,   the   line  drainage  would 
correspond  to  only  about  10  miles  of  pipe,   and  would  therefore  be  only 
about  18,000  barrels.) 

It   should  be   noted   that   these   hypothetical    worst-case    line   drain- 
age volumes  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  entire  lengths  of  pipe- 
line several   miles  long   between  valves  which  drain   downslope  would 
completely  drain  following  a  line  break.     In  fact,    it  is  quite  poss- 
ible that  the   heavier   crude  oils   from  Kern  River  or  Tulare,   which   have 
pour  points  of  40°F   and  25°F,   respectively,    would  tend   to   solidify  or 
"clot"    at  ambient  temperatures  following   a  pipeline  break  (especially 
in   winter),    thereby  limiting   continued  outflow  of  oil.     The  fact   that 
the   actual    historical    average   spill    sizes   for  Shell    pipelines   quoted 
above,    i.e.,    less   than   2,900  barrels,    are  much   smaller   than   those    in 
Table  4-33,    would  be  consistent  with   this   possibility.      Only  the    lube 
crude,   which   has   a  pour   point  of  5°F,    could   actually  flow  sufficiently 
at   ambient   temperatures   to   result    in   a  major   spill    involving   extensive 


4-117 


Table  4-33 

MAXIMUM   POTENTIAL   OIL   SPILL   SIZE 
FOR   EACH  MAJOR   PIPELINE   SEGMENT 


Diame 

ter 

( inches) 

Maximum   Length 

Between  Valves 

that   Drains 

Downslope 

(miles) 

Maximum 
Oil  Spill  Volume* 
(barrels) 

Proposed 
Segment 

Proposed 

Alternative 

Proposed            Alternative 
Diameter              Diameter 

Weir-Kernridge 

10 

~ 

6.5 

3,300 

Kernridge-Mid 

18 

_ 

21.6 

36,000 

Mid-Caliala 

14 

24 

4.3 

4,300                  12,700 

Cal ial a-Martinez 

24 

20 

8..0- 

24,000                  16,500 

♦Based  on  residual  pipeline  drainage  by  gravity   following  pipeline  valve  closure,  i.e.,   does 
not  include  pumping  during  human  operator  diagnosis,   reaction,   or  valve  shutdown  times. 

Sources     Ecology  and  Environment,   Inc.,   1986. 


4-118 


line  drainage.  Since  this  lube  crude  will  only  be  pumped  through  the 
pipeline  1.5  days  per  week,  the  likelihood  of  such  a  large  line  drain- 
age occurring  is  correspondingly  reduced. 

This  analysis  is  refined  to  specific  locations  of  waterway  cross- 
ings along  the  proposed  route  in  the  next  subsection. 

Exposure  of  Potentially  Sensitive  Environmental  Resources  to 
Spilled  Oil 

The  most  important  environmental  resources  near  the  proposed 
route  that  are  considered  at  risk  from  an  oil  spill  are  the  various 
waterways  crossed  by  the  proposed  route,  especially  the  aqueducts. 
Based  on  the  locations  of  these  crossings,  maximum  oil  spill  volumes 
were  estimated  for  each  area,  based  on  the  local  diameter  and  eleva- 
tion profile  of  the  pipeline  and  the  locations  of  the  nearest  shutoff 
valves,  as  was  done  in  the  previous  subsection.  These  estimates  are 
shown  in  Table  4-34.  Note  that  the  proposed  action  includes  overhead 
crossings  of  the  California  Aqueduct  at  milepost  160.7  and  of  the 
Delta  Mendota  Canal  at  milepost  164.1.  Again,  only  line  drainage _ 
following  valve  closure  is  considered,  since  pumping  during  the  time 
required  for  human  operator  response  and  valve  closure  will  be 
variable,  and  smaller.  It  should  be  noted  that  manual  block  valves 
are  proposed  on  both  sides  of.  Pacheco  Creek,  and  that  these  are 
assumed  to  limit  the  spill  size  into  this  waterway. 

Potential  oil  spill  impacts  on  other  sensitive  resources  are  sum- 
marized in  Table  4-35.  Sensitive  biologic  resources  which  would  be 
adversely  affected  by  oil  spills  are  shown  on  Table  3-31.  Whereas  the 
specific  locations  of  some  features  can  be  identified  by  milepost,  the 
kit  fox,  a  special  status  species,  is  fairly  equally  distributed  along 
the  route  south  of  Contra  Costa  County.  The  Oil  Spill  Contingency 
Plan  should  be  updated  to  provide  for  these  sensitive  resources. 
Despite  the  potential  for  large  oil  spill  volumes  in  these  sensitive 
areas  following  a  pipeline  break,  evidence  from  previous  spill  inci- 
dents suggests  that  environmental  impacts  on  such  resources  may  be  of 
short  duration. 

In  general ,  most  of  the  oil  industry's  work  on  the  fate  and 
effects  of  oil  spills  has  been  on  marine  ecosystems,  because  inland 
spills  are  readily  cleaned  up,  in  part  by  intense  microbial  activity 
in  soils,  especially  in  warm  areas.  Inland  spills  have  not  been  com- 
paratively studied;  most  evaluations  are  case  histories.  For  example, 
the  only  paper  on  inland  oil  spills  given  in  recent  years  at  EPA's 
national  emergency  response  conference  was  a  case  history  of  a  well- 
documented  pipeline  rupture  at  Glenrock,  Wyoming.  This  study  indi- 
cated that  short-term  impacts  can  be  severe,  but  the  ecosystem  is 
resilient  and  can  recover  when  a^ded  by  rapid  and  effective  cleanup 
efforts. 

4.3  ALTERNATIVE  ROUTES 

This  section  identifies  impacts  that  will  occur  as  a  result  of 
the  construction  and  operation  of  the  two  alternative  routes:  the 
Combination  Route  and  the  Contra  Loma  Route.  The  Combination  Route 
replaces  the  looped  segment  (Segment  3)  of  the  proposed  route  between 

4-119 


Table   4-34 

ESTIMATES   OF  MAXIMUM  POTENTIAL  OIL   SPILL   VOLUMES 
AT   WATERWAY  CROSSINGS 


Waterway   Crossed 

Approximate 
Milepost 

Pipe 
Diameter 
(inches) 

Maximum   Length 
Between  Valves   That 
Drains  Downslope 
(miles) 

Maximum   Oil   Spill 
Line  Drainage 
Volume 
(barrels) 

500  Canal 

21.6 

18 

3.1 

5,200 

415  Canal 

27.0 

18 

8.5 

14,200 

California  Aqueduct 

32.3 

18 

13. a 

23,000 

California  Aqueduct 

61.3 

14 

4.3 

4,300 

California  Aqueduct 

84.6 

24 

2.0 

5,900 

California  Aqueduct 

160.7 

24 

2.0 

5,900 

Delta  Mendota 

164.1 

24 

2.0 

5,900 

California  Aqueduct 

165.9 

24 

6.0 

17,700 

Pacheco  Creek 

256.1 

24 

0.2* 

592 

♦Block  valves   are   on   both   sides   of  Pacheco  Creek,    at  mileposts   256.0   and   256.2. 
Source:      Ecology   and  Environment,    Inc.,    1986. 


4-120 


Table  4-35 

SUMMARY  OF  POTENTIALLY  SIGNIFICANT  OIL  SPILL  IMPACTS 
ON  SPECIFIC  ENVIRONMENTAL  RESOURCES 


Report 
Section 


Environmental 
Feature 


4.2.3  Soils 

4.2.4  Surface  water 
4.2.7  Socioeconomics 

4.2.9  Land  use 

4.2.12  Cultural   resources 


4.2.13  Terrestrial  and 

aquatic  biology 


Potential   Oil  Spill   Impact 


Reduced  crop  productivity   in 
irrigated   agricultural   areas, 
revegetation   problems 

Degradation  of  water   quality 
in  aqueducts  at  crossings 

Potential    for  highway   accident 
caused  by  oil  spill  on  highway; 
property  damage;    lost  crops 


Short-term  restrictions  on   use 
of  land 

Potential   damage   or   loss  of  one 
site  which  might  be  eligible 
for  National  Register 

Short-term  loss  of  habitat; 
short-term  reduction   of 
productivity;    loss  of 
endangered   species 


System  Safety    Features 


Contingency   plan   to   limit 
spread  of  spilled   oil;    shut- 
off  valves 

Contingency  plan;    shutoff 
valves 

Contingency  plan  has   specific 
provisions   for  spills  on 
highways;   SJVPLC  will  be 
responsible   for  cleanup  and 
compensation 

Contingency   plan   for  cleanup 


Proposed  route  to  avoid  or 
mitigate  site  (if  eligible 
for  National  Register) 

Contigency  plan   for  cleanup; 
shutoff  valves  to  minimize 
amount  of  spilled  oil 


4-121 


Mid  station  and  the  Caliola  booster  station.  The  Contra  Loma  Route,  a 
3.5-mile  bypass  in  Contra  Costa  County,  is  aligned  about  0.5  miles  to 
the  north  and  east  of  a  portion  of  the  proposed  route  to  avoid  the 
rugged  terrain  traversed  by  the  proposed  route  in  this  area. 

The  following  sections  compare  the  alternatives  with  the  proposed 
route. 

4.3.1  Combination  Route 

Geology  and  Topography 

The  Combination  Route  runs  parallel  to  and  close  to  the  proposed 
route  (not  more  than  1  mile  distant).  The  area  consists  of  broad 
alluvial  fans  and  valley  floor  flood  deposits.  Slopes  are  low  and 
geologic  boundaries  are  indistinct.  Because  both  the  proposed  and 
alternative  routes  are  aligned  very   close  to  each  other  and  cross  the 
same  formations,  the  geologic  impacts  are  the  same  for  each.  There 
are  no  significant  geologic  impacts  associated  with  either  route. 

All  phases  (construction,  operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment) 
of  the  project  under  this  alternative  will  have  the  same  impact  as  the 
proposed  route. 

Geologic  Hazards 

The  Combination  Route  is  subject  to  the  same  geologic  hazards  as 
the  proposed  route.  These  hazards  consist  of  the  possibility  of 
ground  shaking  with  an  intensity  of  up  to  MM  I  VIII,  and  the  possibil- 
ity of  soil  liquefaction  in  the  Mid  station  area  (for  about  5  miles) 
where  perched  water  occurs  at  shallow  depths  during  the  irrigation 
season. 

Neither  the  Combination  Route  nor  the  proposed  route  crosses 
faults  in  the  Kern-Kings-Fresno  County  area.  All  phases  (construc- 
tion, operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment)  of  the  project  under  this 
alternative  will  be  subject  to  the  same  geologic  hazards  as  the  cor- 
responding portion  of  the  proposed  route  through  Kern,  Kings,  and 
Fresno  counties. 

Soi  Is 

Since  the  soils  in  Fresno  County  along  the  Combination  Route  are 
similar  to  those  encountered  by  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  pro- 
posed route,  impacts  will  be  similar.  These  impacts  are  related  to 
salinity  and  the  potential  for  revegetation  failure  on  saline  soils. 
The  Combination  Route  crosses  an  approximately  similar  extent  of 
saline  soils  as  the  proposed  route,  and  these  soils  will  require 
special  rehabilitation  procedures;  i.e.,  revegetation  with  saline- 
adapted  vegetation. 

Construction,  operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment  impacts  are 
similar  to  those  of  the  proposed  route  and  are  insignificant. 


4-122 


Surface  Water 

The  environmental  setting  along  the  Combination  Route  is  similar 
to  the  proposed  route's  corresponding  portion,  and  therefore  surface 
water  impacts  will  be  similar.  The  Combination  Route  crosses  the  same 
20  intermittent  streams  as  the  proposed  route. 

All  phases  of  the  project  (construction,  operation,  accidents, 
and  abandonment)  under  this  alternative  will  have  the  same  impact  as 
the  proposed  action.  The  impact  of  a  spill  would  have  the  same 
significance  along  the  Combination  Route  as  along  the  proposed  route, 
because  this  alternative  route  is  in  the  same  watershed  as  the  project 
route,  and  a  spill  would  enter  the  same  watercourses. 

Groundwater 

The  Combination  Route  crosses  the  same  aquifers  as  the  proposed 
route.  Construction,  operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment  impacts 
are  the  same  as  those  for  the  proposed  route  and  are  insignificant. 

Air  Quality 

Because  the  Combination  Route  alternative  diverges  only  slightly 
from  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  proposed  route,  air  quality 
impacts  would  be  the  same  as  described  in  Section  4.2.6. 


Socioeconomics 

The  socioeconom 
Route  are  similar  to 
nificant  impacts  wil 
struct  this  alternat 
required  to  construe 
replace.  Because  of 
the  small  number  of 
population,  and  the 
and  housing,  no  sign 


ic  and  transportation  impacts  of  the  Combination 
those  described  for  the  proposed  route.  No  sig- 
1  result.  The  number  of  workers  required  to  con- 
ive  will  not  differ  substantially  from  those 
t  the  portions  of  the  proposed  route  it  would 
the  short  duration  of  the  construction  period, 
non-local  workers  relative  to  the  project  area 
availability/capacity  of  existing  infrastructure 
ificant  impacts  will  result. 


Operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment  impacts  are  similar  to  the 
impacts  of  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  proposed  route,  and  are 
insignificant. 

Noise 

Noise  impacts  along  the  Combination  Route  are  similar  to  those  of 
the  proposed  route  for  project  construction,  operation,  accidents  and 
abandonment.  No  significant  impacts  will  occur  due  to  noise. 

Land  Use  and  Recreation 

Land  use  and  recreation  impacts  along  the  Combination  Route  wi 1 1 
be  the  same  as  those  described  for  the  proposed  route.   In  Fresno 
County,  the  Combination  Route  does  not  deviate  much  from  the  proposed 
route.  Seven  miles  of  agricultural  lands  are  traversed  by  both  the 


4-123 


alternative  route. and  the  proposed  route.     The  Combination  Route  is 
adjacent  and  parallel   to   1-5,   while  the  proposed  route  follows  an 
existing   pipeline  right-of-way.     Sensitive  land  uses   along  the  alter- 
native route  are  listed   in  Section  3.3.9.     Table  4-36  shows  the   land 
uses  traversed   in  Fresno  County  and  the  eight-county  total    for  the 
alternative.     The  land  uses  for  the  Combination  Route  do  not  differ 
from  the  proposed  route. 

Construction   impacts  are   insignificant.     Loss  of   agricultural 
production   is   a  short-term  impact  and  the  construction  right-of-way 
will   be  returned  to  production  after  completion  of  construction. 

Project  operation,   accidents,   and  abandonment  under  this   alterna- 
tive will   have   insignificant   impacts,   the  same   as  for  the  proposed 
route. 

Visual   Resources 

The  Combination  Route  will   have  the  same  visual    impacts   as  those 
described  for  the  proposed  route   (see  Table  4-37).      Insignificant 
impacts  will   result  from  pipeline  construction  because  the  route 
crosses  flat   agricultural   fields.     The  Combination  Route   lies    im- 
mediately adjacent  to  the  1-5  right-of-way;    1-5  is   a  designated  scenic 
route  in  this   area,   and  construction  over  this   alternative  route  would 
have  significant   impacts.     However,   this  effect  would  be  temporary, 
because  upon  restoration  the  right-of-way  will   not  display  a  visual 
contrast  with  the  croplands. 

Operation  and  abandonment   impacts  will   be  insignificant  and  are 
similar  to  those  described  for  the  proposed  route.     An  accident  could 
cause  a  significant  visual    impact  because  the  Combination  Route  passes 
through  VRM  Class  1  and  2  areas.     However,   as  with  the  proposed 
action,   visual   contrast  caused  by  an  oil   spill  would  likely  be  of 
short  duration. 

Paleontology 

Several   vertebrate  fossil    localities  have  been  recorded  on  or 
^ery  close  to  the  Combination  Route.     This  route  crosses   some  areas 
having  high   paleontological    sensitivity,  from  milepost  61.3  to  67.4, 
and  the  potential   for   impacts  over  this  area  is  high.     However, 
sensitivity  and  potential    severity  of   impacts   are  exactly  the  same  as 
for  the  proposed   action,   because  mileposts  61.3  to  67.4  are  part  of 
the  area  in  which  the  Combination  Route  follows  the  same  right-of-way 
as   the   proposed   action. 

Construction,   operation,    accidents,    and  abandonment   impacts  will 
be   identical   to  those  for  the  proposed  route   (see  Section  4.2.11). 

Cultural    Resources 

The  probability  of  encountering   significant  cultural    resources 
along  the  Combination  Route   is  the  same  as  that  described   for  the 
portions  of   the   proposed   route   it  would  replace   in  Kern,   Kings,    and 


4-124 


Table  4-36 
LAND  USE5  TRAVERSED  BY  THE  COMBINATION  ROUTE 


Agricultural 
Land 


Rangeland 


Industrial/ 
Commercial 


Shrubland/ 
Woodland 


County 


Miles 


Miles 


Miles 


Miles 


Combination  Route  Only 
(Milepost  76.8  to  34.3) 

Parallel   to  Existing  ROW 

Not  Parallel   to  Existing  ROW 

Fresno  County   with 
Combination  Route 

Parallel   to  Existing   ROW 

Not  Parallel   to  Existing  ROW 

County  Total 


7 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0, 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

18 

27.4 

47 

72.6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

18 

27.4 

47 

72.6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Eight-County  Total  with 
Combination  Route 

Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 

Not  Parallel  to  Existing  ROW 


41 

16 

168 

65 

9 

4 

10 

4 

16 

6 

11 

4 

3 

1 

0 

0 

Source:   Data  from  Woodward -Clyde  Consultants  1985. 


4-125 


Table  4-37 
VISUAL  IMPACT  MATRIX  FOR  COMBINATION  ROUTE 


Milepost 


VRM  Class   Visual  Contrast     Comments         Impact 


Milepost  77  -  BO       1 


Low 


Adjacent   to  a 
transmission 
line  ROW 


Insignificant 


Milepost  80-84  2 


Low  Partly   adjacent        Insignificant 

to   road  ROW 


Source:      Environmental   Science  Associates 


4-126 


Fresno  counties.     That   is,   the  entire  alternative   is  of  low-to-medium 
sensitivity  except   in  the  vicinity  of   its  northern  terminus   (mileposts 
79  to  81),  where  it   is  considered  to  have  high   sensitivity.     However, 
field  surveys  failed  to  turn  up  any  sites  of  possible  significance 
over  this  2-mile  stretch. 

Impacts  to  cultural    resources  are  therefore  the  same   as  described 
for  the  proposed  route  for  all   phases  of  the  project. 

Terrestrial    and  Aquatic  Resources 

The  Combination  Route  passes  through   similar  habitats   (valley 
salt  brush  scrub)   as  the  proposed  route.     However,   the  Combination 
Route  includes  about  7  more  miles  of   agricultural    land.     Near  1-5,   the 
alternative  route  passes  through   areas  that  are  slightly  more  noise- 
disturbed  than  the  proposed  route. 

In  general,   construction,   operation,    accidents,   and   abandonment 
impacts  will   be  slightly  less  than  those  described  for  the  proposed 
route,   because  the  Combination  Route  avoids   an  area  in  which  San 
Joaquin  Antelope  squirrels  were  observed,   along  milepost  43  of  the 
proposed  route.     Additionally,   from  milepost  40  to  48,   this  route's 
proximity  to  1-5  would  result   in   lesser   impacts  to  biological 
resources  than  the  proposed  routing.     From  milepost  75  to  84,   this 
alternative  route  would  pass   primarily  through   agricultural    land,   and 
would  have  no  significant  impacts  on  biology. 

System  Safety  and  Reliability 

The  system  safety  and  reliability  impacts  of  the  Combination 
Route  are  the  same  as  described  for  the  proposed  route  (see  Section 
4.2.14).     The  same  design  codes,   regulations,   standards,   and  generally 
accepted  industry  safety  practices  apply  to  the  alternative  as  to  the 
proposed  route.     The  possibility  of  an  oil    spill   greater  than  5  bar- 
rels,  or  of  a  fire  at  one  of  the  gas-fired  booster  stations   are  the 
sane  and  remain  significant  impacts  regardless  of  whether  the  Combina- 
tion Route  or  the  proposed  route   is  built. 

Oil   Spill  Potential    and  Effects 

The  oil    spill   potential    and  effects  for  the  Combination  Route  are 
essentially  the  same  as  described  for  the  proposed  route   (see  Section 
4.2.15),   since  the  same  pipeline  oil    spill   probabilities   (i.e.,  number 
of  spills  per  mile-year  of  pipeline  operation)   also  apply  to  the 
alternative  route.      In   addition,   the  maximum  potential   oil    spill    is 
the  same  for  the  Combination  Route   as   for  the  proposed   action. 

Because  this   alternative  deviates  from  the  proposed   route  for 
only  a  small   distance   (less  than  1  mile),   the  estimated  response  time 
required   to  dispatch   personnel   to   close  valves  or  to   contain   a  spill 
is   the  same,    i.e.,    about   one  hour    (see  Section   4.2..14).      An   analysis 
of  the  Combination  Route  shows   that  oil    spills   or   leaks   can  occur   as   a 
result   of  the  same  types   of   causes,    and  have  the   same  environmental 
effects,    as   the  proposed   route   (see  Section  4.2.15). 


4-127 


There  will   not  be  any  significant  spill   or  fire  hazard  during 
construction  or  abandonment,   since  these  phases  of  the  project  do  not 
involve  major  quantities  of  fuels  or  oils  that  would  exceed  the 
5-barrel   significance  criterion   at  any  one  location. 

4.3.2     Contra  Loma  Route 

Geology  and  Topography 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  diverges  from  the  proposed  route  at  mile- 
post  240.67  and  extends   approximately  3.5  miles   in  a  generally  cur- 
vilinear course,    approximately  2,000  feet  north  of  the  proposed  route, 
rejoining  the  proposed  route  at  milepost  244.35.     The  alternative 
avoids   some  of  the  steepest  portions  of  the  slopes  encountered  by  the 
proposed  route.     The  elevation  of  the  terrain   along  the  proposed  route 
ranges  from  400  feet  ASL  to  280  feet  ASL,   while  elevation  along  the 
alternative  ranges  from  300  feet  ASL  to  180  feet  ASL.     Both  the  pro- 
posed route  and  the  Contra  Loma  Route  traverse  the  Markley  Canyon. 
The  high  and  low  topographical   features  are  less   pronounced   along  the 
Contra  Loma  Route  than  the  proposed  route,    since  the  terrain   is   less 
steeply  dissected  or   is  filled  with  alluvial   deposits  to  a  greater 
extent. 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  avoids   some   areas  prone  to  slumping   and 
erosion  between  mileposts  242  and  244  of  the  proposed  route.     The 
Contra  Loma  Route  will   require  less  cut-and-fill   during  construction 
than  the  proposed  action.     Based  on  USGS  topographical   maps,   the 
Contra  Loma  Route  crosses  five  slopes   in  excess  of  18%  and  six  slopes 
steeper  than  12%,  while  the  proposed  route  traverses  10  slopes  that 
are  steeper  than  18%  and  two  slopes  steeper  than  12%,   over  an  approxi- 
mately similar  3.5-mile  distance.     However,  only  a  fraction  of  the 
steep  slopes  are  avoided  by  the  Contra  Loma  Route  because  it   is  such   a 
short   alternative. 


see 


The  Contra  Loma  Route  will  not  have  significant  impacts  on 
geology  or  topography  during  operation,  accidents,  or  abandonment 
Section  4.2.1) . 

Geological  Hazards 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  traverses  lower  slopes  and  generally 
encounters  less  hard  rock.  It  is  subject  to  the  same  geologic  hazard 
as  the  proposed  route,  i.e.,  ground  shaking  with  a  probable  intensity 
of  up  to  MM I  VIII,  but  this  is  less  likely  to  cause  slumping  or 
landslides  than  on  the  proposed  route.  The  Contra  Loma  Route  will 
traverse  the  same  faults  as  the  proposed  route,  including  the  active 
Concord  Fault. 

The  risk  of  liquefaction  may  be  slightly  higher  for  the  alterna- 
tive route  than  for  the  proposed  route  because  the  Contra  Loma  Route 
traverses  unconsolidated  alluvial  fan  to  a  greater  extent.  However, 
this  increased  risk  would  still  not  pose  a  significant  hazard  for  the 
pipeline,  because  the  significant  flat  alluvial  soils  will  not  flow 
much  on  the  level  gradients  on  which  they  occur,  even  if  they  are 
1  iquef ied. 


4-128 


Soils 

In  Contra  Costa  County,  portions  of  the  Contra  Loma  Route  tra- 
verse areas  of  steep  slopes  through  the  Altamont-Diablo-Fontana  soils 
unit  which  present  a  high  erosion  hazard.  However,  the  Contra  Loma 
Route  avoids  areas  with  a  high  potential  for  slumping  and  the  erosion 
hazard  is  reduced  overall  because  the  alternative  route  crosses  15  to 
30%  slopes,  while  the  proposed  route  encounters  slopes  of  30%  to  over 
50%  along  the  corresponding   portion. 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  crosses  soils  having  a  slight  erosion 
hazard  for  about  56%  of   its  length  and  the  erosion  hazard   is  moderate 
along  the  balance  of  this  route.     The  soils  have  a  high  shrink-swell 
potential    and  high  corrosivity,   such   as  occurs   along  the  proposed 
route. 

Construction   impacts  are  less  significant  than  along  the  proposed 
route,   since  revegetation   is  expected  to  be  more  successful   overall. 

Operation,  accidents,  or  abandonment  would  not  result  in  signifi- 
cant impacts  to  soils.  Maintenance  of  the  right-of-way  is  facilitated 
along  the  Contra  Loma  Route,  which  traverses  lower  slopes  and  wi 1 1 _ 
have  fewer  revegetation  problems.  Slumping  of  soils  during  operations 
is  less  likely  to  occur  along  this  route  and  poses  less  of  a  hazard  to 
the  system  than  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  proposed  route. 

Surface  Water 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  traverses  within  0.1  mile  of  the  Contra 
Loma  Reservoir;  the  proposed  route  passes  within  0.5  miles  of  this 
reservoir.     The  Contra  Loma  Route  traverses  four   intermittent  streams 
in  this  area,  the  same  as  those  crossed  by  the  proposed  route. 

Construction  of  the  Contra  Loma  Route  at  lower  elevations   and 
less  steep  topography  will   make   it  easier  to  control   erosion   and 
reduce  the  requirement  for  cut  and  *111   on  a  few  steep  slopes.     This 
will   result   in   less  sedimentation  to  streams  crossed  by  the  route. 

The  encroachment  of  the  Contra  Loma  Reservoir   increases  the  sig- 
nificance of  a  potential   oil   spill    during  operation   of  the  pipeline. 
There  will   be  less  time  to  respond  to  a  spill   under  this   alternative 
because  the  route   is  located  only  500  feet  from  the  reservoir  and  the 
oil   will   enter  the  reservoir  sooner  than   it  would  from  the  proposed 
route.     The  heavy  crude  would  require  more  time  to  reach  the  reservoir 
if  a  spill   occurred   along  the  proposed  route. 

Groundwater 


The  Contra  Loma  Route  does  not  traverse  areas  underlain  by  aqui- 
;   therefore,   there  will    be  no   impact   assuming  expeditious   clean 

Any   impact  to  groundwater  could  only  occur    if   accidental    spills 
eaks  were  not  cleaned  up. 


fers 

u  D. 

or   leaks  wer 


4-129 


Construction,  operation,  and  abandonment  impacts  are  the  same  as 
those  from  the  proposed  route  and  are  insignificant. 

Socioeconomics  and  Transportation 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  has  similar  socioeconomic  impacts  as  the 
proposed  route.  The  Contra  Loma  Route,  however,  traverses  through  a 
residential  subdivision  and  its  construction  would  require  the  removal 
of  from  10  to  30  residences,  depending  on  final  alignment.  The  re- 
moval of  homes  would  have  a  substantial  adverse  impact  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  neighborhood  in  which  they  are  presently  located.  It 
will  also  cause  adverse  socioeconomic  impacts  associated  with  housing 
relocations.  These  are  significant  impacts.  The  distance  which  the 
alternative  passes  through  or  adjacent  to  this  subdivision  is  about 
4,500  feet.  Construction  would  expose  residents  to  the  significant 
risk  of  potential  accidents  during  construction;  specifically,  there 
would  be  conflicts  between  neighborhood  activity,  heavy  machinery,  and 
open  trenches.  Children  could  be  particularly  at  risk. 

Operation  and  abandonment  of  the  Contra  Loma  Route  would  not  have 
significant  socioeconomic  impacts.  An  oil  spill  over  this  route  would 
be  more  likely  to  affect  residential  neighborhoods  than  the  cor- 
responding portion  of  the  proposed  route. 

Noise 


Noise  levels  of  65  dB(A)  can  be  expected  at  2,000  feet  from  the 
construction  spread.     This  would  cause  a  short-term  significant   impact 
on  the  Contra  Loma  Regional   Park   and  residential    area  adjacent  to  this 
route  alternative. 

No  noise  impacts  are  associated  with  operation,   accidents,   or 
abandonment. 

Land  Use 

Through  Contra  Costa  County,  this  alternative  traverses  2.5  miles 
of  rangeland  and  1.0  mile  of  subdivisions.  It  is  aligned  parallel  to 
existing  utility  and  transportation  corridors  for  approximately  0.5 
miles.  The  sensitive  land  uses  along  the  proposed  route  are  listed  in 
Section  3.3.9.  Table  4-38  shows  the  land  uses  traversed  by  the  Contra 
Loma  alternative.  The  Contra  Loma  Route  crosses  an  existing  residen- 
tial area  as  well  as  an  area  proposed  for  residential  developments. 
Although  the  Contra  Loma  Route  avoids  the  Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional 
Preserve  (traversed  by  the  proposed  route  for  about  0.4  miles),  it 
instead  passes  through  a  1.4-mile  portion  of  the  Contra  Loma  Regional 
Park,  an  equally  sensitive  land  use. 

During  construction,  this  route  would  disturb  9.2  acres  of  the 
Contra  Loma  Park.  Additionally,  the  existing  housing  development  and 
the  proposed  pipeline  are  conflicting  land  uses,  representing  a  sig- 
nificant construction  impact. 


4-130 


Table  4-38 
LAND  USES  TRAVERSED  BY  THE  CONTRA  LOMA  ROUTE 


Agricultural 
Land 


Rangeland 


Industrial/ 
Commercial 


Shrub  land/ 
Woodland 


County 


Miles 


Miles 


Miles 


Miles 


Contra  Loma  Route 
Parallel   to  Existing  ROW 
Not  Parallel   to  Existing  ROW 


0 

0 

0.6** 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2.9* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Contra  Costa  County   with 
Contra  Loma  Route 

Parallel  to  Existing   ROW 

Not  Parallel   to  Existing  ROW 

County  Total 


1 

3 

19.6 

53 

3 

0 

Q 

3.4 

9 

0 

1 

3 

23 

62 

3 

10 

27 

0 

0 

10 

27 

Eight-County  Total  with 
Contra  Loma  Route 

Parallel  to  Existing   ROW 

Not  Parallel   to  Existing  ROW 


41 

16 

166.6 

64 

9 

4 

10 

4 

^           16 

6 

12.4 

5 

3 

1 

Q 

0 

♦Includes   1    mile   of   residential   development. 

►*Data   from  Woodward-Clyde  Consultants  (1985)   adjusted   to  correspond  with  E  h  E  estimate 
of   3.5  miles    for   total    length   of   this   alternative. 


4-131 


During  operation,  the  permanent  right-of-way  would  not  affect  the 
use  of  the  3.4  acres  in  Contra  Loma  Park  that  the  pipeline  would 
cross,  because  this  area  is  developed  parkland  free  of  trees.  Main- 
tenance of  the  right-of-way  will,  prevent  reestabl ishment  of  residen- 
tial areas  and  will  thus  conflict  with  surrounding  residential  uses 
for  the  life  of  the  project.  Upon  abandonment,  however,  the  land  can 
revert  to  residential  or  other  uses. 

An  oil  spill  within  Contra  Loma  Park  could  flow  into  Contra  Loma 
Reservoir,  a  public  water  supply  storage  facility  which  is  also  man- 
aged by  the  East  Bay  Regional  Park  District  for  water  recreation. 
Such  a  spill  would  therefore  have  a  significant  adverse  impact  both  on 
drinking  water  supplies  and  on  recreational  use  of  the  reservoir. 

Visual  Resources 


The  Contra  Loma  Route  would  have  a  significant  visual  impact 
because  it  runs  through  the  Contra  Loma  Regional  Park  and  would  be 
part  of  the  scenery  of  the  Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional  Preserve. 
Because  the  route  is  located  within  the  middleground  and  background 
viewsheds  of  residential  areas  in  the  cities  of  both  Antioch  and 
Pittsburg,  strong  contrasts  would  be  created,  and  visual  impacts  would 
be  significant.  The  route  specifically  crosses  steep  hills  covered 
with  grasslands  and  widely  scattered  oak  trees.  The  route  would  be  a 
new  visual  pathway  in  the  segment  between  Frederickson  Lane  and 
Somersville  Road  (see  Table  4-39).  The  segment  between  Somersville 
Road  and  milepost  244.2  follows  an  existing  transmission  line  right- 
of-way;  it  also  passes  along  an  oil  tank  area.  Because  of  its  proxim- 
ity to  residential  areas  and  its  location  within  a  park,  this  alterna- 
tive would  have  greater  visual  impacts  than  the  proposed  route  in  this 
area. 

Paleontology 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  is  situated  in  an  area  of  complex  geology 
with  potentially  significant 'fossil  resources  occurring  in  the  San 
Pablo  and  Wolf skill  formations.  Surveys  of  this  route  delineated  four 
separate  areas,  totaling  about  2.3  miles,  for  which  construction  could 
have  significant  impacts.  These  areas  are  summarized  in  Table  4-40. 

Because  of  the  geological  complexity  of  north-central  Contra 
Costa  County,  the  portion  of  the  route  which  the  Contra  Loma  alterna- 
tive would  replace  also  has  four  small  areas  of  potentially  signifi- 
cant fossils  (see  Table  4-23).  Therefore,  there  would  not  be  any 
appreciable  difference  in  construction  impacts  between  the  Contra  Loma 
Route  and  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  proposed  route. 

For  the  Contra  Loma  Route,  operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment 
impacts  would  be  the  same  as  described  in  Section  4.2.11. 

Cultural  Resources 


As  a  result  of  the  survey  work,  no  cultural  resources  were  found 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  Contra  Loma  Route,  and  therefore  the  construc- 
tion and  operation  of  the  pipeline  through  this  area  will  not 
adversely  impact  such  resources. 

4-132 


Table  4-39 
VISUAL  IMPACT  MATRIX  FOR  CONTRA  LOMA  ROUTE 


Milepost 


VRM  Class     Visual  Contrast      Comments 


Impact 


Frederickson  Lane 
to  Somersville  Road 


High 


Significant 


Somersville  Road 
to  Milepost  244.2 


Moderate 


Adjacent   to  Moderate 

a   transmis- 
sion line  ROW 


Source:     ESA,    Inc.   1986. 


4-133 


Table  4-40 

SUMMARY   OF  PALEONTOLOGIC    IMPACT  SIGNIFICANCE 
ASSESSMENTS   FOR   THE   CONTRA  LOMA   ROUTE 


Location 

Total 
Miles 

Geological 
Unit 

Revised 

As 

sessment 

Milepost 
From 

To 

Potential 

Impact 
Significance 

0.3 

0.5 

0.2 

San  Pablo 

High 

High 

0.5 

1.0 

0.5 

San  Pablo 

Moderate 

High 

1.5 

2.3 

0.8 

Wolfskill 

Moderate 

High 

2.3 

3.6 

0.8 

Wolfskill 

Moderate 

High 

TOTAL 

MILES 

2.3 

*  The  Contra  Loma  Route  diverges   from  the   proposed  route   at  milepost  240.8; 
this  milepost  is  defined  as  0.0   for  the  Contra  Loma  Route. 


4-134 


Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Resources 

The  Contra  Loma  Route  passes  through  similar  habitat  (oak 
savannah/grassland  type)  as  the  proposed  route.  However,  the  Contra 
Loma  Route  is  aligned  closer  to  development.  Also,  it  follows  1.0 
mile  more  of  an  existing  corridor  than  the  proposed  route.  Habitat 
restoration  or  revegetation  will  be  easier  than  along  the  proposed_ 
route,  because  of  less  rugged  topography.  In  a  more  settled  and  dis- 
turbed environment,  the  chance  of  conflict  with  special  status  commun- 
ities, plants,  or  animals  is  substantially  reduced.  Special  status 
plants,  including  the  giant  fiddleneck,  Brewer's  drawf  flax,  rock 
rose,  and  Mount  Diablo  manzanita,  are  of  concern  along  this  route,  as 
well  as  along  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  proposed  route.  Con- 
struction impacts  would  not  be  likely  to  have  a  significant  adverse 
effect  on  these  species,  because  of  the  small  area  of  suitable  habitat 
the  route  would  pass  through.  Operation  and  abandonment  impacts  will 
not  be  significant. 

System  Safety  and  Reliability 

The  information  presented  in  Section  4.2.14  on  system  safety  and 
reliability  for  the  proposed  route  also  applies  to  the  Contra  Loma 
Route.  However,  because  this  alternative  route  crosses  a  residential 
area  for  about  4,500  feet,  it  would  have  safety  impacts  not  associated 
with  the  proposed  action.  Construction  of  this  alternative  route 
would  expose  residents  to  the  significant  risk  of  potential  accidents 
resulting  from  heavy  machinery  used  on  the  80-foot  construction  right- 
of-way.  The  pipeline  trench  could  also  pose  a  safety  hazard  as  long 
as  it  remained  open,  particularly  to  neighborhood  children,  who  might 
be  attracted  to  the  construction  equipment  and  activities. 

Operation  and  abandonment  impacts  for  this  route  would  be  the 
same  as  those  described  for  the  proposed  route  in  Section  4.2.14. 

Oil  Spill  Potential  and  Effects 

The  information  presented  in  Section  4.2.15  on  the  proposed  route 
applies  to  this  alternative  as  well. 

In  addition,  the  proximity  of  the  Contra  Loma  Reservoir  (500  feet 
from  the  alternative  route)  is  a  major  consideration,  particularly 
because  of  the  presence  of  a  trace  of  the  Concord  Fault  under  nearby 
Pacheco  Creek.  This  geological  hazard  presents  a  potential  impact  to 
the  reservoir  should  an  earthquake  cause  a  spill.  Under  this  alterna- 
tive, a  spill  would  reach  the  reservoir  sooner  than  along  the  proposed 
route,  which  would  cause  significant  impacts  to  drinking  water  and 
recreational  use  of  the  reservoir;  and  because  the  Contra  Loma  Route 
is  on  a  north-facing  slope,  any  oil  spill  on  this  route  would  flow 
north  either  towards  the  reservoir  or  towards  existing  residential 
areas.  An  oil  spill  into  a  residential  area  would  cause  property  dam- 
age and  require  evacuation  and  dislocations  from  extensive  cleanup. 


4-135 


Overall,  in  terms  of  oil  spill  potential  and  effects,  an  accident 
would  be  considered  significant  either  for  this  alternative  or  for  the 
corresponding  portion  of  the  proposed  route,  but  would  have  greater 
adverse  effects  over  the  Contra  Loma  Route. 

4.4  THREE  NEW  BOOSTER  STATION  ALTERNATIVE 

This  section  identifies  impacts  that  will  occur  as  a  result  of 
the  construction  and  operation  of  one  additional  booster  station 
(SJV-4)  and  alternative  site  locations  (SJV-2  and  SJV-3)  for  the 
proposed  stations  SJV-2b  and  SJV-3b.  This  alternative  will  result  in 
environmental  impacts  which  are  approximately  similar  to  those _ 
described  for  the  proposed  action,  with  the  exception  that  additional 
land  will  be  required  to  accommodate  the  additional  facility. 

4.4.1  Geology  and  Topography 

Disturbance  to  the  geology  and  topography  of  the  area  of  the  new 
booster  station  will  be  insignificant  because  there  are  no  major  earth 
moving,  cut  and  fill,  or  road  construction  activities  involved.  The 
alternative  sites  for  the  three  new  booster  stations  are  not  in 
geologically  sensitive  areas,  and  therefore  will  not  result  in 
significant  geologic  impacts. 

Construction,  operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment  will  not  have 
significant  impacts  on  geological  and  topographical  features. 

4.4.2  Geological   Hazards 

The  alternative  booster  station  sites  are  not  located  in  areas  of 
geologic  hazards  such  as  liquefaction,  landslides,  or  faults.  How- 
ever, the  potential  for  ground  shaking  exists  up  to  MMI  VIII  and  would 
occur  in  the  event  of  a  major  earthquake  associated  with  nearby 
faults,  such  as  the  Calaveras,  Hayward,  or  San  Andreas  faults. 

Booster  station  SJV-3,  located  in  Merced  County,  would  be 
situated  in  a  possible  landslide  bow  (Woodward-Clyde  Consultants 
1986).  A  potential  landslide  hazard  is  present.  However,  the 
relatively  level  topography  makes  this  an  insignificant  impact. 

The  maximum  potential  spill  over  Segment  4  would  be  reduced  by 
several  thousand  barrels  with  implementation  of  this  alternative,  if 
it  were  used  in  conjunction  with  the  20-inch  pipe  over  Segment  4.  The 
probability  that  such  a  spill  could  result  from  a  seismic  event  is 
low,  however,  just  as  it  is  for  the  proposed  action  (see  Section 
4.2.2). 

4.4.3  Soils 

The  alternative  booster  stations  would  not   impact  soils   signi- 
ficantly since  construction   zones   will    be   revegetated   and/or   land- 
scaped.    The   additional    long-term   land   requirements   for  operation   are 
addressed   under   land  use   in  Section  4.4.9. 


4-136 


The  soils  that  will   be  preempted  by  the  facilities  are  not 
unique.     SJV-2  and  microwave  No.   9  are  on  deep  alluvial    soil   with    a 
high  shrink-swell   potential.     SJV-3  is  located  on  the  O'Neill-Apollo 
soils  unit,  which   is  well-drained,   and  SJV-4  is  situated  on  the 
Chaqua-Carbona  unit,  which  consists  of  deep  terrace  soils.     Erosion 
hazards  are  minor  even  when  the  soil    is  erosion-prone  because  of  the 
level  topography  of  the  sites. 

Revegetation  of  the  sites  will   be  possible  when  these  facilities 
are  dismantled  and  the  sites  abandoned. 

4.4.4  Surface  Water 

The  alternative  booster  stations  will  not  significantly  impact 
surface  water  resources.  Provisions  for  access,  power,  and  water  will 
mean  that  the  construction  of  infrastructure  requirements  would  cross 
several  drainages.  This  impact  is  temporary  and  not  significant,   me 
sites  are  near  intermittent,  unnamed  streams.  The  sites  themselves 
lack  surface  water  resources. 

No  operations  and  abandonment  impacts  will  occur.  Oil  spill 
impacts  would  have  the  same  effects  as  spills  resulting  from  the  pro- 
posed action  over  Segments  1,  2,  and  3.  If  the  20-inch  pipe  were  used 
over  Segment  4,  oil  spill  impacts  would  be  less  than  if  the  24-  inch 
pipe  were  used  over  this  segment. 

4.4.5  Groundwater 


The  alternative  booster  stations  would  have  the  same  insignifi- 
cant impacts  to  groundwater  resources  as  the  proposed  action  (see 
Section  4.2.5) . 

4.4.6  Air  Qua!  ity 

The  impact  on  air  quality  from  construction   is  equal   to  that  for 
the  proposed  system.     Operation  impacts  for  the  three  new  booster  sta- 
tion alternative  would  be  insignificant  for  all   pollutants,   regardless 
of  whether  20-  or  24-inch  pipe  is  used  over  Segment  4. 

4.4.7  Socioeconomics  and  Transportation 

The  socioeconomic  and  transportation  impacts  under  the  three  new 
booster  station  alternative  would  be  insignificant  just  as  they  are 
for  the  proposed  project.  The  construction  of  the  one  additional  sta- 
tion (SJV-4)  will  require  an  additional  labor  force  of  approximately 
45  people  for  300  days.  These  personnel  will  be  stationed  in  or  near 
Livermore  in  Alameda  County.  The  associated  impacts  are  insignifi- 
cant. 

No  significant  impacts  will  occur  as  a  result  of  operation  and 

abandonment.  The  impact  from  accidents  would  be  as  described  in 
Section  4.2.7 . 

4.4.8  Noise 

In   a  rural    setting,   the  noise  from  booster  station  construction 
will   not  be  significant. 

4-137 


Even  though  the  alternative  will  generate  additional  noise,  the 
net  impact  from  noise  during  operation  will  not  differ  from  that  of 
the  proposed  action  because  the  alternative  booster  stations  are  not 
located  in  sensitive  noise  areas.  The  noise  generated  by  the  alterna- 
tive booster  stations  will  not  be  audible  beyond  a  few  hundred  feet 
from  their  sources. 

Abandonment  would  not  create  significant  noise  impacts. 
4.4.9  Land  Use  and  Recreation 

The  siting  for  SJV-2,  SJV-3,  and  SJV-4  would  permanently  preempt 

land  use  on  22  acres  that  would  not  be  preempted  in  the  proposed 

action.  These  22  acres  include  6  acres  of  agricultural  land  and  16 

acres  of  range! and. 

Land  requirements  for  the  alternative  booster  stations  are  given 
in  Table  4-41.  During  construction,  the  booster  stations  alternative 
will  affect  120  acres,  including  land  for  the  three  sites  and  all 
ancillary  facilities,  of  which  64  acres  are  agricultural  land  and  56 
acres  are  range! and.  This  involves  49  acres  more  than  the  required 
acreage  for  the  proposed  action,  but  would  not  be  a  significant 
impact.  About  half  the  required  acreage  will  be  restored  after 
construction.  All  these  facilities  will  be  on  private  land  and  will 
not  impact  public  lands  or  recreation  areas.  The  disposal  of  solid 
waste  from  construction  will  be  in  an  approved  landfill.  Landfill 
capacity  will  not  be  significantly  impacted,  since  only  minor  amounts 
of  waste  will  be  generated.  The  total  waste  will  utilize  less  than  1% 
of  the  existing  landfill  capacity. 

Operation  of  the  facilities  will  preempt  existing  land  use.  The 
booster  stations  alternative  (including  all  required  microwave  trans- 
mission sites)  would  displace  about  32  acres  of  agricultural  land  and 
28  acres  of  rangeland,  a  total  of  60  acres;  however,  this  is  not  a 
significant  impact. 

Because  no  highways  or  off-site  buildings  are  located  within  the 
explosion  hazard  range  of  these  stations,  no  significant  impacts  will 
result  from  accidents  (see  Table  4-27). 

Upon  abandonment  of  the  facilities,  the  sites  will  be  available 
for  alternative  land  uses. 

4.4.10  Visual  Resources 

The  construction  and  operation  of  the  booster  stations  alterna- 
tive will  have  an  additional  impact  on  visual  resources.  The  intru- 
sion will  be  only  moderately  significant,  because  the  additional  sta- 
tion (SJV-4)  is  located  adjacent  to  an  existing  pumping  station  and 
the  site  is  partially  hidden  by  the  local  topography  from  view  from 
1-5,  a  designated  scenic  route.  The  booster  station  would  create  a 
strong  visual  contrast  from  a  nearby  residence  and  the  impact  is 
classed  as  significant  for  residents  at  that  home. 

The  SJV-2  booster  station  and  microwave  station  No.  8  will  be 

located  about  1.5  miles  to  the  west  of  1-5  in  Fresno  County.   1-5  is  a 

designated  scenic  route  in  this  area;  the  area  is  in  VRM  Class  2.  The 

landscape  in  this  area  consists  of  flat  agricultural  fields  with  a 

4-138 


Table  4-41 

LAND  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 
ALTERNATIVE   BOOSTER  STATIONS 


Land  Use** 


-1^ 
i 


U3 


Feature  Facility 


SJV-2 


SJV-3 


SJV-4 


Booster 
station 
and 

ancil  lary 
facilities 

Booster 
at  at  ion 
and 

ancil  lary 
f  acilit  ies 

Booster 
station 
and 

ancil  lary 
facilities 


Right-of-Way* 
(acres) 


Agricultural 
(acres) 


Recreational 
(acres) 


Operation     Construction       Operation     Construction       Operation      Construction 


20 


20 


20 


40 


40 


40 


20 


40 


14 


10 


13 


15 


26 


30 


TOTAL 


32 


64 


2B 


56 


"Estimated  based  on   land  required    for   SJV-2b  and  SJV-3b. 
*  "Estimated  based  on  aerial    pliotographs. 


large  transmission  line  located  west  of  the  freeway  and  hills  and  . 
grasslands  further  west.  The  booster  station  will  be  located  in  an 
agricultural  field,  adjacent  to  the  power  transmission  line.  No 
existing  buildings  are  located  between  the  booster  station  site  and 
1-5.  Thus,  the  station  wi.ll  have  a  fairly  high  degree  of  visual  con- 
trast to  the  landscape.  A  new  205-foot  microwave  tower  will  be  con- 
structed, which  will  be  the  tallest  structure  in  the  victnity,  visible 
from  a  great  distance  to  numerous  travelers  on  1-5  and  from  a  resi- 
dence more  than  1  mile  away.  Both  the  station  and  the  microwave  tower 
represent  a  significant  visual  alteration  of  the  landscape. 

The  SJV-3  booster  station  and  microwave  station  No.  11  are 
located  west  of  1-5,  a  designated  scenic  route,  in  hilly  grasslands  in 
Merced  County.  Few  structures  are  located  in  this  area  (a  ranch  is 
located  about  1  mile  to  the  south),  so  that  the  station  will  present  a 
high  level  of  contrast  to  the  landscape  and  will  be  highly  visible 
from  1-5.  The  impact  will  be  significant.  The  access  road  and  elec- 
tric transmission  line  will  present  high  visual  contrast  and  will  be 
visible  in  the  middle  distance  view  from  1-5.  These  facilities  will 
add  to  the  significant  visual  impact  of  the  booster  and  microwave  sta- 
tions. 

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  SJV-3b,  which  is  part  of  the  proposed 
action  and  which  is  sited  at  a  sensitive  location. 

4.4.11  Paleontology 

Because  alternative  booster  stations  SJV-2,   SJV-3,    and  SJV-4 
would  be  located  in  areas  of  low  paleontological   significance,  their 
construction  and  operation  would  create  no  significant   impacts. 

4.4.12  Cultural   Resources 


The  cultural   resources  survey  found  no  sites  of  significance  at 
or  near  the  sites  for  the  three  alternative  booster  stations.     There- 
fore,  this  alternative  would  not  have  any   impacts  resulting  from  con- 
struction, operation,   accidents,  or  abandonment. 

4.4.13  Terrestrial    and  Aquatic  Resources 

Because  alternative  booster  stations  SJV-2,   SJV-3,    and  SJV-4 
would  be  located  on  disturbed  or  agricultural    lands,   their  construc- 
tion  and  operation  would  have   no  significant  effect  on   biological 
resources. 

4.4.14  Systems  Safety  and  Reliability 

The  use  of  alternative  numbers  and  locations  of  booster  stations 
will  not  significantly  change  the  system  safety  and  reliability  from 
that  described  for  the  proposed  stations,  since  the  same  design  codes, 
regulations,  standards,  and  generally  accepted  industry  safety  prac- 
tices will  be  followed  for  the  alternative  booster  stations  as  for  the 
proposed  stations  in  Section  4.2.14.  Since  there  will  be  more  new 


4-140 


stations   under  this   alternative,   the   risk  of   a  fire   at   any  one  of  the 
qas  turbines  or  heaters  will   be  increased,   but  this   increase  is  not 
significant   in  terms  of   a  public   safety  hazard,   because   the  risk  would 
still   remain  very  low. 

Similarly     the  use  of   alternative  booster   station   locations  will 
not  significantly  change  the  potential   for  a  pipeline  oil    spill   from 
that  described  for  the  proposed   booster  stations,   since  the  probabil- 
ity of  a  spill   per  mile-year  of  pipe  will   not  change.     Further     the 
maximum  potential   oil    spill   volumes   in  each  pipeline  segment  will    not 
differ  from  those  described  for  the  proposed  configuration   in  Section 
4  2  15,   except  that  use  of   a  20-inch   pipe  over  Segment  4  would  reduce 
the  maximum  oil    spill   over  this   segment  by  several    thousand  barrels. 
Personnel    response  times,   shutdown   capability,   and  oil    spill    contin- 
gency plan  provisions  also  will    not  differ  from  those  for  the  proposed 
station  configuration. 

Therefore,  by  applying  the   significance  criteria  used   for  the 
proposed  configuration  (see  Section  4.2.14),   i.e.,   the  risk  of  fire   at 
a  booster  station,  or  of  a  pipeline  oil    spill    larger  than  5   barrels, 
there  are  significant   impacts  of  operation  for  the  alternative  booster 
station  configuration,  just   as  there   are  for  the   proposed  configura- 
tion. 

There  will   be  no   significant  safety  or  oil    spill    impacts  during 
construction  or  abandonment  under  this,  alternative  option,   since  these 
project  phases  would  not   involve  spills  of  quantities  of  fuels  or  oil 
larger  than  those  adopted  as  the  significance  criterion;   i.e.   a  spill 
larger  than  5  barrels. 

4.4.15     Oil   Spill   Potential   and  Effects 

The  three  new  booster  station   alternative,    in  combination  with 
the  24-inch  pipeline  over  Segment  4,   would  have  the  same  oil    spill 
impacts   as  described   in  Section  4.2.15.     However,    if  the  20-inch   pipe 
were  used  on  this   segment,   the  maximum  oil    spill    potential   would  be 
reduced  from  Caliola  to  Martinez.     The  hazard  of   a  natural    gas   explos- 
ion and  fire  are  not  associated  with   this  alternative.     The  possibi- 
lity of   an  oil    spill    involving   the  pipeline  remains  the   same  as  for 
the  proposed  action   (Section  4.2.15).     Response  time  and   implementa- 
tion of  the  contingency  plan  would  not  be  different  from  the   proposed 
action. 

4.5     ALTERNATIVE   POWER   SOURCE   CONFIGURATIONS 

The  two   alternative  power  source  configurations   are  planned  as 
integrated   energy  alternatives  for  the  proposed   action,   which  would 
not  change  otherwise.     The  environmental    setting   is  the  same  and 
involves   the   two    new  booster   stations   SJV-2b   and  SJV-3b   in  Fresno    and 
Stanislaus   counties,    respectively.     The  minor  differences    in   environ- 
mental   impacts   are   identified    in    this   section. 


4-141 


4.5.1  Electric  Motor   and  Natural    Gas  Heater 

This  alternative  configuration   involves  a  combination  of  electric 
motor-driven  and  natural   gas-fired  heaters.     The  environmental    impacts 
associated  with  this  alternative  are  similar  to  the  impact  of  the  pro- 
posed power  source   (natural    gas  turbine  drivers   and  exhaust  heat). 
This  alternative  does  not  eliminate  right-of-way  requirements  for 
ancillary  infrastructure.     The  requirement  for  electric  power  to  drive 
the  motors   is   in  addition  to  the  proposed   action.     However,   the  pro- 
posed configuration   also   involves  an  electric  power   line  for  the  com- 
munication system   and  light  at  the  facilities.     Thus,   the  additional 
electric  power   is  not   associated  with   additional   right-of-way  to 
accommodate  a  new  power  line.     The  minor  differences   in   impact   are 
described  below. 

No  i  se 

The  electric  motors  will  make  twice  as  much  noise  but  the  noise 
levels  perceived  are  a  function  of  distance   (see  Table  4-14  in  Section 
4.2.8).     The  noise   impact  will   be   insignificant  at   a  distance  of  sev- 
eral  hundred  feet  from  the  station,   near  1-5.     While  SJV-3b   is   located 
near  a  sensitive  land  use  and  visual   resources  site,   the  noise  envi- 
ronment  is  not  sensitive  near  1-5. 

Air  Qua!  ity 

Impacts  from  construction,    accidents,    and  abandonment  of  this 
alternative  would  be  the  same  as  those  described  for  the  proposed 
power  source  configuration.     However,   this  alternative  would  have  dif- 
ferent operational   emission  characteristics  from  the  proposed  action. 
The  use  of  electric  pump  motors  and  gas-fired  heaters  at  booster  sta- 
tions SJV-2b  and  SJV-3b  would  result  in  slightly  less  emissions  than 
the  proposed  power  configurations;    in  either  case  there  would  not  be  a 
significant  impact. 

4.5.2  Electric  Motor  and  Oil -Fired  Heater 

The  environmental    impacts  for  this  alternative,    a  combination  of 
electric  motor  driver  and  oil-fired  heater,   are  slightly  different 
from  those  described  for  the  proposed  power  configuration. 

Land  Use 


This  alternative  does  not  require  a  right-of-way  for  natural    gas 
lines,  thus  eliminating  the  requirement  for  3.4  miles  to  SJV-2b   in 
Fresno  County  and  0.4  mile  to  SJV-3b   in  Stanislaus  County.     No   spe- 
cific impacts  are  associated  with  this  right-of-way  requirement,   and 
the  reduction   in   impact   is   insignificant. 

Noise 

The  noise  impact  is  as  described  above  for  the  other  alternative 
power  configuration  (see  Section  4.5.1).   It  is  slightly  higher  than 
for  the  proposed  acion.  Consequently,  the  electric  motor  drive  should 
only  be  used  if  final  siting  of  the  facility  indicates  that  noise 
levels  require  mitigation. 

4-142 


Air  Qua!  ity 

The  use  of  electric  pump  motors   and  crude-oil-fired  heaters   at 
these  booster  stations  would  result   in  operational   SO2  and  TSP  emis- 
sions to  exceed  thresholds   of  significance.     SO2  emissions  would 
exceed  the  significance  criteria  for  this   pollutant   by  a  factor  of  7. 

Visual   Resources 

The  reduction  of  3.8  miles   in  the  right-of-way  requirement  for 
natural   gas  lines  does  not  significantly  change  the   impact  described 
for  the  proposed  action   in  Section  4.2.10.     The  reason   is  that  rights- 
of-way  and  access  roads   and  a  power   line  are   in  any  case  associated 
with  the  booster  station  and  microwave  tower. 

System  Safety  and  Reliability 

The  use  of  oil  as  a  fuel  would  require  a  minor  additional  re- 
quirement for  piping,  which  slightly  increases  the  potential  for  a 
minor  spill  at  the  facilities.  These  spills  will  be  less  than  5  bar- 
rels and  insignificant.  The  use  of  electric  power  involves  various 
hazards  such  as  shorts,  transformer  burn-out,  and  electrocution.  The 
hazard  of  a  natural  gas  explosion  and  fire  are  not  associated  with 
this  alternative.  The  possibility  of  an  oil  spill  involving  the  pipe- 
line remains  the  same  as  for  the  proposed  action  (Section  4.2.15). 
Response  time  and  implementation  of  the  contingency  plan  would  not  be 
different  from  the  proposed  action. 

4.6  OVERHEAD  AQUEDUCT  CROSSINGS 

Under  the  proposed  action,  only  two  of  the  eight  aqueduct  and 
canal  crossings  will  be  by  suspension  bridges,  while  under  this  alter- 
native, the  remaining  six  major  aqueduct  and  canal  crossings  will  also 
be  via  overhead  suspension  bridges.  Impacts  to  geology  and  topo- 
graphy, geological  hazards,  soils,  groundwater,  air  quality,  socioeco- 
nomics, noise,  land  use  and  recreation,  cultural  resources,  and 
paleontology  will  be  the  same  as  those  presented  for  the  proposed 
action  (see  Section  4.2).  Potential  impacts  on  other  environmental 
features  that  would  differ  from  those  identified  for  the  proposed 
action  are  described  below. 

Surface  Water 

The  use  of  aerial  suspension  bridges  for  crossing  all  aqueducts 
and  canals  will  avoid  the  slight  potential  of  impacts  from  below- 
channel  drilling,  but  will  increase  overhead  stream  construction  and 
operations  impacts.  Construction  of  the  suspension  bridges  and 
installation  of  pipe  across  them  will  create  the  potential  for  acci- 
dental loss  of  construction  debris  directly  into  the  watercourse. 
This  impact  can  be  controlled  so  that  it  will  not  modify  aqueduct  flow 
characteristics,  especially  during  periods  of  low  flow.  The  most  sig- 
nificant potential  impact  is  that  of  damage  to  the  suspended  segment 
of  pipe  during  operation.  Oil  would  then  spill  directly  into  the 
affected  aqueduct  or  canal  until  the  shutoff.  There  would  be  no 


4-143 


natural  barriers  or  restraints  which  would  prevent  or  delay  the  entire 
volume  of  the  spill  from  entering  the  watercourse  and  grossly  contami- 
nating the  water  supply.  The  increased  possibility  of  an  oil  spill 
into  the  aqueduct  is  considered  a  significant  impact. 

Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology 

Installation  of  the  pipeline  across  the  canals  and  aqueducts  on 
suspension  brides  will  expose  aquatic  communities  to  the  risk  of  a 
rapidly  spreading  spill  if  suspended  pipe  is  damaged  during  project 
operation.  While  not  stocked  or  managed  for  recreation,  these 
facilities  nevertheless  support  important  recreational  fisheries  that 
are  used  by  the  public.  These  facilities  do  not  provide  important 
habitat  (spawning  or  nursery)  which  could  be  threatened  by  a  spill, 
but  a  spill  could  eliminate  recreational  fish  species  until  water  is 
clean  and  new  fish  are  recruited  from  the  delta.  The  increased  risk 
of  a  spill  that  could  affect  these  aquatic  resources  is  considered  a 
significant  impact  of  this  alternative. 

Oil  Spill  Potential  and  Effects 

Overhead  aqueduct  crossings  will  increase  the  potential  for  a 
pipeline  oil  spill  over  that  described  for  the  proposed  underground 
crossings,  since  the  pipeline  will  be  exposed  to  above-ground  hazards 
at  these  locations.  The  historical  statistics  on  oil  spills  that  were 
used  to  estimate  the  average  spill  probability  per  mile  of  pipe  in 
Section  4.2.15  do  not  distinguish  buried  from  above-ground  pipelines, 
so  this  conclusion  cannot  be  supported  by  data  or  quantified  readily 
in  terms  of  an  increase  in  the  probability  of  a  spill. 

The  pipeline  will  be  protected  from  vandalism  or  sabotage  only  by 
security  fences  on  both  sides  of  the  aqueduct. 

The  overhead  crossings  would  increase  the  potential  for  signifi- 
cant contamination  of  an  aqueduct  in  the  event  of  a  pipeline  break  at 
one  of  these  locations,  since  nothing  prevents  the  oil  from  spilling 
in  large  quantities  directly  into  the  aqueduct.  The  probability  of 
such  an  occurrence,  however  remote,  will  have  to  be  considered  also  in 
terms  of  the  small  probability  of  a  major  seismic  event,  in  which  case 
more  than  one  aqueduct  crossing  could  be  damaged  simultaneously.  Per- 
sonnel response  and  oil  spill  contingency  plan  provisions  for  spills 
into  streams,  creeks,  or  rivers  will  not  differ  from  these  for  the 
proposed  action.  Therefore,  under  this  alternative,  the  potential  for 
an  oil  spill  larger  than  5  barrels  is  increased,  and  remains  a  signi- 
ficant operational  impact  according  to  the  impact  criterion  in  Section 
4.2.14.  Minor  oil  leaks  would  be  more  rapidly  detected  at  the  over- 
head crossing  than  underneath  the  aqueduct. 

4.7  NO-ACTION  ALTERNATIVE 

This  alternative  by  itself  would  result  in  none  of  the  environ- 
mental impacts  described  for  the  proposed  project  in  Section  4.  The 
environmental  setting  described  in  Chapter  3  would  not  be  modified  in 
any  way,  and  there  would  be  no  impacts  to  any  of  these  existing  re- 
sources. 


4-144 


an 


The  no-action  alternative  could  result  in  the  use  of  other,  com- 
pletely different  modes  of  transporting  the  120  MBD  of  crude  oil  from 
the  southern  San  Joaquin  Valley  to  the  refinery  facilities  at 
Martinez,  since  the  only  existing  heated-oil  pipeline,  operated  by 
Texaco,  is  near  maximum  capacity.  Such  alternative  transportation 
methods  include  tanker,  truck,  and/or  railroad  transport,  which  have 
greater  environmental  consequences  than  the  proposed  action,  particu- 
larly with  respect  to  oil  spill  potential,  air  quality  impacts,  and 
energy  consumption.  In  addition,  each  of  these  transportation  modes 
would  cost  more  than  the  proposed  action. 

The  use  of  a  tanker  to  ship  oil  to  Martinez  would  still  require  a 
pipeline  or  truck  or  rail  transportation  capability  to  move  the  oil 
about  100  miles  from  its  points  of  origination  to  the  coast.  Weir, 
Kernridge,  Bakersfield,  and  Caliola  are  all  landlocked.  No  existing 
heated-oil  pipeline  has  the  capacity  to  transport  120  MBD  to  either 
existing  or  a  hypothetical  coastal  tanker  loading  dock.  A  new  pipe- 
line would  have  to  be  constructed  to  move  oil  to  coastal  facilities, 
resulting  in  environmental  consequences  at  least  as  significant  as 
those  described  for  the  proposed  action,  since  such  a  pipeline  would 
have  to  be  constructed  over  rugged  terrain.  The  alternative  to  this, 
i.e.,  the  use  of  truck  or  rail  transportation  to  the  coast,  would  be 
less  efficient  than  a  pipeline  because  of  time,  distance,  and  energy 
cornsumption  factors.  Transport  by  tanker  would  require  the  construc- 
tion of  a  new  marine  terminal  and  the  modification  of  existing  faci- 
lities to  accommodate  the  120-MBO  throughput,  with  consequent  major 
adverse  impacts  on  coastal  air  quality  and  tanker  traffic.  These  and 
other  impacts  associated  with  marine  terminals  are  detailed  in  the 
Getty  Gaviota  Consolidated  Coastal  Facility  Draft  EIR,  dated  1984. 

Although  statistics  indicate  that  a  pipeline  spill  is  more  likely 
to  occur  than  a  tanker  spill,  the  volume  of  the  oil.  spill  resulting 
from  a  tanker  accident  would  in  all  probability  be  much  larger  than 
for  a  pipeline  spill  (Oil  Transportation  Plan  and  Draft  EIR,  Energy 
Division,  Resource  Management  Department,  County  of  Santa  Barbara, 
January  25,  1984). 

The  necessary  above-ground  transfers  of  oil  between  tanker  and 
pipeline,  truck,  or  railroad  car,  in  conjunction  with  increased 
coastal  tanker  traffic,  also  would  present  risks  in  terms  of  colli- 
sion, fire,  and  explosion,  which  are  greater  than  those  for  a  buried, 
landlocked  pipeline  system.  A  marine  spill  could  have  significant 
impacts  on  sensitive  marine  species  and,  under  most  conditions,  it 
would  be  more  difficult  to  contain  and  clean  up  than  a  spill  on  land. 

Air  pollutant  emissions  from  tanker  transportation  would  be 
greater  than  those  associated  with  the  operation  of  a  pipeline.  These 
emissions  would  derive  from  several  sources,  such  as  from  fuel  oil 
combustion,  the  fugitive  hydrocarbon  emissions  which  escape  during 
loading  and  unloading  operations,  from  storage  areas,  and  from  support 
vessels  in  the  terminal  area.  The  cost  of  shipping  by  tanker,  after 
taking  into  account  the  cost  of  transportation  from  Kern  County  to  the 
coast,  would  be  substantially  greater  than  the  cost  of  a  direct  pipe- 
line to  Martinez. 


4-145 


Compared  with   the   proposed   action,   truck  or  rail    transportation 
from  the  southern  San  Joaquin  Valley  to  Martinez  would  be   impractical 
and  would  lack  the   system   safety  advantages  of  the   proposed   pipeline 
system.     These  transport  options   lack  the  required  capacity,   and  the 
resources   needed   to    implement  them   are   not  currently  in   place.     An 
average  of  about  600  trucks  per  day  (assuming  a  typical   capacity  of 
about  200  barrels  per  truck)   would  be  needed   to   transport  the  120  MBD 
of  crude  oil   to  Martinez.     This   large  number  of  trucks  would   increase 
vehicular  traffic  on  existing   highways,    increase  total    fuel    consump- 
tion,  produce  significant   air  emissions,    and   increase  highway  safety 
risk.     Using  trucks,   large  oil    spills  would  be   less   likely  than  for   a 
pipeline  system,   but  because  of  the  large  number  of  oil    transfers 
involved   in   trucking   (loading   and   unloading  600  trucks   a  day),   the 
risk  of  many  small    spills,   with   their  associated  potential    for  fire  or 
explosion,   would  be  greater  than  for  the  proposed   action. 

On  a  per-barrel   basis,    the  cost  of  trucking  would  be  four  to  five 
times  higher  than  for  pipeline  transportation.     Train   transport  would 
be  a  less  expensive  option  than  trucking,   but  would  still    cost  two  to 
three  times  more  than  pipeline  transportation.     Assuming   a  40,000- 
barrel   train  set  capacity  (72  cars  per  set),   three  full    sets  would  be 
required   to   transport  120  MBD.     A  round-trip  would  take   about  48 
hours,   including  loading,   hauling,   unloading,   and  the  return  trip. 
The   land   and  facilities  required   for   loading   and   unloading  three 
trains  per  day  at  each  end  of  the  run  would  be  significantly  greater 
than  for  the   proposed   action  or  for  truck  transport.     The  Bel  ridge   and 
North  Midway-Sunset  oil   fields  are  not  near  any  railroads,    so 
connecting   pipelines  to   the   closest  practical    railheads,   track-side 
storage,   and  loading  facilities  would  be  needed.      In  addition,   rail 
transportation  would  result   in  significant  air  quality  impacts  from 
the  locomotive  exhaust,   and  would  introduce  the  potential   for  small 
spills  during   loading  or  unloading  or  as  a  result  of  train   accidents. 


4-146 


CUMULATIVE    IMPACTS 


Cumulative   impacts  of   the  San   Joaquin   Valley  Pipeline   project 
were  assessed   in   combination  with   the  proposed   and   likely-to-be- 
proposed  projects  described  briefly  in  Section  2.5.     These  projects 
include  oil    and  gas  pipelines  near  Kern  County  under  construction  or 
expected  to  be  built  within  the  next  two  or  three  years;   the  projects 
in  the  cumulative  analysis   also   include  new  power  plants   proposed  to 
be  built  throughout  the  eight-county  area  traversed  by  the  proposed 
action.     It   is  difficult  to   quantify  cumulative   impacts,   and    in _ some 
cases   it  is  difficult  to  define  the  precise  location  of  cumulative 
impacts  (for  example,   for   air  quality),  because  the  exact  timing  of 
construction  and  the  final  operational   characteristics  of  some  of  the 
projects   included   in  the  cumulative   list   are  not   known.     Therefore,   a 
worst-case  qualitative  analysis  is  used  in  this   section  to   account  for 
the  greatest  number  and  degree  of  cumulative  impacts   that   could  result 
from  the  construction  and  operation  of  the  proposed   action  and   all 
projects   identified   as   interrelated  to   it. 

In  general,   the  cumulative   impacts  of  the  proposed   action  and   the 
other  pipeline  projects   listed  would  be   limited  to  Kern  County. 
Assuming  overlapping  construction  schedules   in  Kern  County,   cumulative 
impacts  could  occur  during  construction   to   soils,   surface  water,  air 
quality,    socioeconomics,   land  use  and  recreation,   paleontology,   cul- 
tural   resources,  and  terrestrial    and   aquatic  biology.     However,   all   of 
these  effects  would  be  temporary  (except   possibly  with  respect  to 
biological,  cultural,   and   paleontological   resources)    and  therefore  not 
significant.     Cumulative  operational    impacts  could  affect  socioeco- 
nomic  conditions.     They  could   also    increase   the   potential    for   oil 
spills. 

The   cumulative   impacts   of   the   proposed   pipeline   and   the   energy 
development   projects   listed   could  occur  during   construction,   but   none 
would  be   significant   during  operation.     These   impacts   would   be   to 
socioeconomics,    land   use   and   recreation,    and   terrestrial    and   aquatic 
biology.     Cumulative   effects    are   discussed   below,   by  environmental 
feature. 


5-1 


5.1  GEOLOGY  AND  GEOLOGICAL  HAZARDS 

As   identified   in   the   seismic   impacts   section   for  the   proposed 
action,   the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  would  not  be  subject  to  signi- 
ficant damage  from  earthquakes  over  the   southern   portion  of  the  route. 
In  addition,    secondary  effects  from  earthquakes,    such   as   liquefaction 
and   landsliding,   are  not   expected  to   occur   in  Kern  County  due  to   the 
relatively  flat  topography  and  types  of  soils   in  this   area.     Although 
portions  of  the  Al 1-American,  Pactex,   and  Angeles  pipelines  wouldpass 
through   seismically  active  areas,   these  portions   are  not   in  the  vicin- 
ity of  the  proposed   action.     The  energy  development  projects   listed   in 
Table  2-12  may  be  subject  to   earthquakes  or  landslides,   especially  the 
Richmond  Energy  Recovery  Project,  but  the   effects  of  these  projects 
would  differ  from   those  of   the  proposed   action,    so   that   cumulative 
interactions  are  unlikely.     Therefore,   it   is   concluded  that  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  would  neither  have,   nor   contribute  to,   cumula- 
tive impacts  resulting  from  geological    and   seismic   hazards. 

5.2  SOILS 

Construction  of  the  proposed  pipeline  and   associated   facilities 
will   cause  soil   erosion  and  deposition,    increase  the  potential    for 
soil    slumping,   and  decrease  productivity  due  to   compaction   and   soil 
horizon  mixing  after  backfilling   in  those  areas  where  topsoil    is   not 
segregated  during  construction.     Similar   impacts  have  been  documented 
for  the  construction  of  the  Pactex,   All -American,   Mojave,    and  Kern 
River  pipelines,   since  all   of  these  projects   require  trenching,  occa- 
sionally through  hilly  areas  prone  to  erosion.     The  proposed  energy 
projects  would  be  expected  to  cause  some  soil    erosion  during  construc- 
tion as  a  result  of  site  preparation,   loss  of  vegetative  cover,   and 
soil    stockpiling.     Cumulative   soil    impacts  from  overlapping  construc- 
tion schedules  of  all  of  these  projects  (a  worst-case  scenario)   would 
be  most  pronounced   in  Kern  County.     However,   projects   such   as  the  Lost 
Hills  Biomass  Plant  and  the  West  Valley,   Angeles,  Kern  River,    and 
Mojave  pipelines,   as  well    as   enhanced  oil    recovery  projects    likely  to 
result  from  these  pipelines,   would  all   be  constructed   in   industrial/ 
oil    field  areas  with  only  slight  elevation   changes,   where  erosion   is 
of  less  concern  than   in  undisturbed  hilly  areas.     The  results  of 
horizon  mixing  from  the  pipeline  projects   in  Kern  County,   e.g.,    in- 
consistent vegetative  regrowth   and  possible  further  erosion,   and  an 
increase  of  airborne  particulates  during  the  dry  season,   are   likely 
cumulative   impacts,   but   would  be  temporary. 

No  further  cumulative  impacts  to  soils  would  occur  once  the  pro- 
jects began  operation  and  the  pipeline  rights-of-way  are  revegetated. 
Therefore,  impacts  to  soils  in  Kern  County,  the  area  expected  to  have 
the  greatest  cumulative  soil  impacts,  would  be  insignificant  over  the 
long-term. 

5.3  SURFACE   WATER 

As  with  soils,  the  cumulative  impacts  to  surface  water  resulting 
from  the  proposed  action  and  the  projects  listed  in  Table  2-12  would 
be  most  pronounced  in  Kern  County  and  would  occur  during  construction. 


5-2 


Because  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  would  be  constructed  across 
more  streams  and  would  affect  more  drainage  basins  than  the  construc- 
tion of  all  the  energy  plants  (except  the  Kern  County  and  Lost  Hi  lis 
oroiects)  put  together,  cumulative  surface  water  impacts  north  of  Kern 
County  would  be  little  more  than  those  identified  for  the  proposed 
action  itself  (see  discussion  in  Section  4.2.4). 

In  Kern  County,  the  worst-case  scenario  would  involve  simul- 
taneous construction  of  the  proposed  action,  the  West  Valley  Kern 
River  and  Mojave  pipelines,  and  the  Kern  County  and  Lost  Hi  Is  gen- 
erating facilities,  during  the  rainy  season.  (The  other  pipelines  are 
routed  far  enough  south  of  the  proposed  action  to  be  hydrological ly 
separate.)  If  this  were  to  occur,  the  increased  sedimentation,  ero- 
sion, and  potential  for  spilling  small  amounts  of  grease,  fuels,  and 
solvents  into  intermittent  and  ephemeral  streams  between  Fellows  and 
Belridge  would  be  cumulatively  significant  for  the  duration  of  simul- 
taneous construction.  These  surface  water  effects  could  adversely 
affect  plant  and  animal  species  adapted  to  the  widely  fluctuating _ 
conditions  typical  of  the  rainy  season.  Irrigation  water,  which  is 
generally  used  only  in  the  summer  months  when  other  sources  of  water 
are  not  available,  would  not  be  significantly  affected  by  this  scen- 
ario. 

Ouring  operation,  no  significant  cumulative  impacts  to  surface 
waters  would  be  expected  to  occur.  Although  very  unlikely,  if  an 
accident  were  to  occur  that  would  cause  spills  in  both  the  San  Joaquin 
Valley  Pipeline  and  the  West  Valley  Pipeline,  the  synergistic  impact 
would  be  potentially  significant  in  degrading  surface  water  quality. 
There  is  no  reasonably  foreseeable  event  that  could  cause  such  a 
simultaneous  dual  rupture. 

5.4  GROUNDWATER 

There  would  be  no   significant  cumulative   impacts   to   groundwater 
during  either  construction  or  operation  of  the  projects   listed   in 
Table  2-12.     Cumulative  groundwater   impacts   from  simultaneous  oil 
spills   in  the  proposed  pipeline  and  the  West  Valley  Pipeline  systems 
(a  very  unlikely  event)    could  pose   a  threat  to   groundwater,   although 
the  heavy  San  Joaquin  Valley  crude  oils  that  would  be  involved  have 
high  viscosities,   slow  percolation  rates,   and  would  tend   to   remain   at 
the  top  of  the  saturation   zone.     Also,   as   indicated   in  Section  4.2.5, 
the  depth  to   groundwater   in  the  vicinity  of  Segments  1   and  2  of  the 
proposed  action   is  normally  over  20  feet.     Moreover,   the  groundwater 
is   not  used  for  drinking  water  because  of  high  TDS  concentrations. 

5.5  AIR  QUALITY 

The  construction  of  the  proposed  action  and  the  projects  listed 
in  Section  2  would  result  in  many  emission  sources,  including  emis- 
sions from  construction  equipment,  transportation  needs,  and  fugitive 
particulates.  Such  air  quality  impacts  would  be  spread  out  over  a 
large  area,  even  assuming  that  all  construction  occurred  simultaneous- 
ly, and  would  be  temporary.  Therefore,  this  does  not  represent  a 
significant  cumulative  effect. 


5-3 


Operational  air  quality  impacts  would  result,  in  the  case  of  the 
oil  pipelines,  from  injection  and  booster/heater  stations;  in  the  case 
of  the  gas  pipelines,  from  compressor  stations;  and  in  the  case  of  the 
power-generating  projects,  from  direct  stack  emissions.  Taken  to- 
gether, these  projects  cover  a  large  area,  and  would  emit  a  signifi- 
cant quantity  of  air  pollutants  such  as  S0X,  N0X,  CO,  ROCs  (re- 
active organic  compounds),  hydrocarbons,  and  particulates.  However, 
the  air  quality  regulatory  environment  in  California  is  designed  to 
prevent,  as  much  as  possible,  significant  cumulative  air  quality 
degradation.  The  California  Air  Resources  Board  has  declared  each  of 
the  eight  counties  traversed  by  the  proposed  pipeline,  included  in 
this  analysis  of  cumulative  impacts,  as  either  in  an  attainment  cate- 
gory or  non-attainment  category  for  five  of  the  most  common  air  pol- 
lutants. The  permitting  requirements  for  new  point  sources  of  pollu- 
tants in  areas  of  attainment  are  governed  by  the  Prevention  of  Signi- 
ficant Deterioration  (PSD)  permit,  which  specifies  emission  reduction 
strategies  and  applies  if  any  pollutant  levels  exceed  250  tons  per 
year.  Permitting  requirements  are  strict  in  areas  of  non-attainment, 
where  triggering  thresholds  are  lower  than  250  tons  per  year  per  pol- 
lutant, and  local  air  quality  management  districts  generally  require 
mitigation  in  the  form  of  offsets.  This  means  that  for  e^ery   unit  of 
a  pollutant  that  a  project  would  emit,  the  project  proponent  must 
guarantee  a  corresponding  reduction  in  that  pollutant  from  somewhere 
else  in  the  same  air  quality  basin.  With  this  regulatory  system  in 
place,  the  incremental  air  quality  impact  of  each  of  the  projects 
listed  in  Table  2-12,  along  with  that  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe- 
line, would  be  unlikely  to  cause  cumulative  air  quality  degradation. 

5.6  SOCIOECONOMICS 

As  discussed  in  Section  4.2.7,  construction  of  the  San  Joaquin 
Valley  Pipeline  would  have  only  minor,  temporary  impacts  on  socio- 
economic conditions  in  the  eight-county  project  area.  A  maximum  of 
about  400  local  and  400  non-local  construction  workers  might  be  at 
work  over  the  entire  length  of  the  pipeline  at  any  one  time.  By 
itself,  this  would  have  an  insignificant  effect  on  housing  capacity, 
unemployment  rates,  or  infrastructure  capacity.  However,  in  combina- 
tion with  the  construction  of  those  projects  listed  in  Table  2-12  for 
Kern  County,  the  proposed  action  could  contribute  to  significant 
short-term  cumulative  impacts  in  Kern  County's  temporary  housing  sup- 
ply, recreational  areas,  transportation  system,  and  retail  expendi- 
tures. 

Assuming  the  worst-case  scenario  developed  in  Section  4.7.3, 
involving  simultaneous  construction  of  six  projects  in  Kern  County, 
it  is  estimated  that  1,000  construction  workers,  about  half  of  whom 
might  be  local,  could  be  employed  over  a  20-mile  radius.  Although 
Kern  County  is  accustomed  to  industries  with  transient  employment  such 
as  oil  and  energy  industries,  such  a  concentration  of  workers  could 
cause  pressure  on  nearby  accommodations  and  create  traffic  congestion 
along  1-5  and  other  major  transportation  arteries.  Construction 
vehicle  traffic  would  contribute  to  this  congestion  and  possibly  cause 
temporary  level-of-service  deteriorations  at  key  intersections.  A 
more  likely  scenario  would  involve  less  overlapping  construction 


5-4 


schedules  and  locations,  with  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  sever- 
ity of  the  above  impacts. 

In  their  off  hours,  non-local  construction  workers  in  Kern  County 
would  spend  money  on  goods  and  services,  thus  having  a  positive  effect 
on  the  local  economy.  Additionally,  local  construction  workers  would 
be  hired  predominantly  from  the  local  labor  pool,  thus  significantly 
increasing  the  rate  of  employment  in  Kern  County. 

Throughout  the  eight-county  project  area,  the  only  significant 
cumulative  socioeconomic  effect  resulting  from  pipeline  and  power 
plant  operation  would  involve  greater  tax  bases  for  each  of  the  coun- 
ties. Initially,  the  assessed  valuation  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley 
Pipeline  would  be  $110  million,  its  total  construction  cost,  with  tax 
revenues  distributed  proportionally  among  the  counties  through  which 
it  passes.  Because  the  projects  listed  as  potentially  interrelated  to 
the  proposed  action  are  most  concentrated  in  Kern  County,  this  county 
would  probably  benefit  the  most  from  increased  tax  revenues.  Signifi- 
cant long-term  employment  effects  are  not  anticipated,  because  pipe- 
lines and  small -to-medium-si zed  power  generating  plants  are  not  labor- 
intensive  in  their  operational  stages. 

5.7  NOISE 

The  proposed  action  would  create  minor  and  temporary  noise  dis- 
turbances during  construction,  as  discussed  in  Section  4.2.8.  Other 
projects  whose  construction  noise  impacts  could  potentially  interact 
with  those  of  the  proposed  action  due  to  their  proximity  are  the  West 
Valley,  Kern  River,  and  Mojave  pipelines.  However,  because  noise 
levels  drop  sharply  with  distance  from  the  source,  even  the  construc- 
tion of  these  projects  would  not  occur  closely  enough  together  to 
create  more  than  minor  cumulative  noise  interactions.  No  foreseeable 
cumulative  noise  effects  would  result  from  construction  along  any 
other  part  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  route.  Moreover,  in  all 
cases,  operational  noise  levels  would  be  lower  than  those  produced 
during  construction. 

5.8  LAND  USE  AND  RECREATION 

The  construction  of  the  proposed  pipeline  and  the  projects  poten- 
tially interrelated  to  it  would  create  short-term  impacts  on  land  use 
and  recreation.  From  Kern  County  north  to  Contra  Costa  County,  but 
particularly  in  Kern  County,  construction  of  the  projects  listed  in 
Table  2-12  would  temporarily  disrupt  current  land  uses,  mostly  agri- 
cultural and  grazing  areas,  by  taking  strips  of  cropland  out  of  pro- 
duction, interrupting  the  visual  unity  of  open  areas,  and  creating 
minor  traffic  detours.  Recreational  areas  in  Kern  County,  such  as 
Derby  Acres  Park  and  Lost  Hills  Park,  could  be  used  heavily  by  con- 
struction workers  if  all  the  Kern  County  projects  on  the  cumulative 
list  were  under  construction  at  the  same  time.  Depending  on  the  work 
hours  of  all  the  employees,  use  of  recreational  areas  could  hamper 
residents'  enjoynent  of  these  facilities.  Such  effects,  however,  are 
difficult  to  predict  and  likely  to  be  temporary,  if  they  occurred  at 
all. 


5-5 


Cumulative  operational    impacts   on   land  use   and   recreation  would 
be  minimal;  the  pipeline  right-of-ways  would   in  most  cases  be  returned 
to  their  original   uses,   and   permanent  employment  would  be  relatively 
small    and  would  not  have  a  noticeable  effect  on   the  use  of  recrea- 
tional   areas   in  the  eight-county  region.     For  the  most  part,   the 
energy-generation  projects   identified   in  Table  2-12  would  take  up 
large  parcels  of  land,   but  because  these  parcels  generally  occur   in 
industrially  zoned   areas,   their  construction  would  be  consistent  with 
existing  land  use  patterns   and  plans. 

5.9  VISUAL  RESOURCES 

The  greatest  potential  for  cumulative  impacts  to  visual  resources 
would  be  in  Kern  County  because  of  the  number  of  pipeline  and  energy 
development  projects  scheduled  for  construction  there.  These  projects 
would  include  the  construction  of  booster  stations,  communication 
towers,  and  gas  terminal  distribution  facilities,  many  or  all  of  which 
might  be  visible  from  a  single  vantage  point,  since  this  part  of  Kern 
County  tends  to  have  low  relief.  However,  as  discussed  in  Section 
3.2.10,  most  of  western  Kern  County  is  designated  as  having  low  scenic 
value  because  of  significant  existing  visual  intrusions  within  many 
viewsheds.  Therefore,  the  addition  of  more  potentially  intrusive 
visual  elements  in  this  area  would  not  be  expected  to  increase  its 
visual  contrast  rating,  and  thus  would  not  likely  result  in  signifi- 
cant impacts. 

The  Stanislaus  County  Waste-to-Energy  Project  would  be  built 
adjacent  to  the  proposed  pipeline  and  1-5  near  about  milepost  186  of 
the  proposed  pipeline.  However,  cumulative  impacts  would  not  occur 
because  this  energy  facility  would  not  be  built  in  a  sensitive  visual 
resource  area,  nor  would  it  be  within  the  same  viewshed  as  the 
SJV-3(b)  booster  station  and  microwave  tower  No.  11,  the  nearest 
above-ground  facilities  associated  with  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipe- 
line. 

5.10  PALE0NT0L0GICAL  AND  CULTURAL  RESOURCES 

Construction  of  the  proposed  pipeline  and  the  other  pipelines 
listed  on  Table  2-12  could  create  cumulative  impacts  to  paleontologi- 
cal  and  cultural  resources  in  Kern  County  because  of  the  trenching 
required  to  install  underground  pipes.  Within  the  immediate  vicinity 
of  the  Kern  County  portion  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline,  cul- 
tural resources  sensitivity  has  been  identified  as  low  or  low  to  mod- 
erate, while  paleontological  sensitivity  is  high  to  very  high  around 
the  McKittrick  tar  pits.  These  determinations  were  made  on  the  basis 
of  professional  investigations  and  field  surveys,  and  are  specific 
only  to  the  proposed  action.  Significant  cultural  and  paleontological 
resources,  though  they  yield  entirely  different  kinds  of  information 
and  clues  to  the  past,  are  similar  in  that  it  is  difficult  to  predict 
their  occurrence,  other  than  in  very  general  terms,  without  site- 
specific  surveys  and  mitigation  plans.  Mitigation  plans  for  cultural 
resources  along  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  pipeline  will  be  developed  in 
consultation  with  the  Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preservation  and 
the  California  State  Historic  Preservation  Office.   If  similar 


5-6 


mitigation  plans  are  developed  for  the  other  pipelines  listed,  cumula- 
tive damage  to  cultural  resources  in  Kern  County  would  be  minimized. 
Aggregate  effects  are  more  likely  in  the  case  of  paleontological 
resources  even  with  mitigation  and  construction  monitoring  plans, 
because  of  the  speed  and  volume  of  earth  removal  by  trenching  equip- 
ment and  because  mitigation  standards  are  not  as  clearly  defined  for 
paleontological  resources  as  for  cultural  resources. 

Mitigation  plans  and  test  excavations,  where  warranted,  should 
result  either  in  resource  recovery  or  minimizing  disturbance  to 
significant  resources,  thereby  assuring  that  cumulative  impacts  from 
new  pipelines  are  reduced  as  much  as  possible.  In  addition,  these 
pipeline  projects  could  have  a  beneficial  effect  on  cultural  and 
paleontological  resources  by  promoting  the  recovery  of  information 
that  might  otherwise  have  been  difficult  to  obtain. 

5.11  TERRESTRIAL  AND  AQUATIC  BIOLOGY 

Construction  activities  associated  with  the  proposed  pipeline, 
in  conjunction  with  the  construction  of  the  other  projects  on  the 
cumulative  list,  could  result  in  cumulative  impacts  to  vegetation  and 
wildlife  in  the  eight-county  area.  Many  of  the  sensitive  species  dis- 
cussed in  this  EIR/EIS  have  limited  ranges  and  habitats,  and  any 
regional  development  could  permanently  reduce  a  species'  surviva- 
bility, even  if  these  adverse  effects  involve  only  temporary  land  dis- 
turbance. Even  though  much  of  the  natural  environment  of  western  Kern 
County  has  been  altered  by  oil  field  and  industrial  activ-ities,  the 
environment  provides  habitat  for  such  special  status  wildlife  and 
plant  species  as  the  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard,  the  San  Joaquin  ante- 
lope squirrel,  the  giant  k-angaroo  rat,  the  San  Joaquin  kit  fox,  the  Le 
Conte's  thrasher,  the  valley  upland  saltbush,  and  the  Kern  mallow. 
The  Section  7  and  California  Endangered  Species  Act  consultation  pro- 
cesses provide  mechanisms  for  evaluating  and  controlling  impacts  to 
listed  species. 

For  example,  in  Stanislaus  County,  the  interactions  between  the 
construction  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  Pipeline  and  the  Stanislaus 
County  Waste-to-Energy  Project  could  threaten  existing  habitat  of  the 
San  Joaquin  kit  fox.  Since  any  kind  of  development  has  this  additive 
effect,  only  consistently  applied  mitigation  plans  can  minimize  the 
threat  to  rare,  threatened,  and  endangered  plants  and  wildlife  species 
in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 

5.12  SAFETY  AND  OIL  SPILL  CONSIDERATIONS 

All  of  the  pipeline  projects  listed  on  Table  2-12  have  been  or 
will  be  required  to  provide  system  safety,  reliability,  and/or  oil 
spill  contingency  plans  as  part  of  their  application  and  permitting 
processes.  Such  plans  reduce  the  likelihood  of,  and  impact  from, 
fires,  explosions,  and  oil  spills,  but  do  not  eliminate  these 
possibilities.  Once  completed,  each  of  these  projects  would  add  to 
the  overall  possibility  of  a  fire,  explosion,  or  oil  spill  in  Kern 
County.   It  is  highly  unlikely,  barring  an  earthquake  of  unexpected 
magnitude  in  this  area,  that  two  or  more  such  accidents  would  occur 


5-7 


simultaneously;  rather,  cumulative  impacts  would  mean  a  greater  chance 
of  a  given  accident  occurring  in  one  out  of  all  of  the  pipeline  sys- 
tems. Such  an  oil  spill,  fire,  or  explosion  could  endanger  public 
safety  and  would  adversely  affect  soils,  surface  water,  terrestrial 
and  aquatic  biology,  and  possibly  groundwater,  as  explained  in  Section 
4. 


5-3 


b.  MITIGATION  MEASURES 


This  section  describes  the  mitigation  measures  which  will  be 
implemented  to  reduce  and/or  avoid  environmental  impacts.  All  mea- 
sures have  been  numbered  consecutively  for  cross-reference  purposes 
with  the  summary  at  the  beginning  of  this  report.  The  mitigation 
measures  are  described  by  environmental  feature.  Two  kinds  of  mea- 
sures are  distinguished  under  each  environmental  feature: 

o  Proposed  project  description;  and 
o  Other  mitigation  measures. 

The  project  description  measures  are  those  measures  which  have 
been  integrated  into  the  proposed  project  and  which  constitute  a  part 
of  the  formal  application  to  SLC  and  BLM.  These  measures  were 
factored  into  the  impact  assessment,  and  implementation  of  the  project 
without  these  measures  would  result  in  impacts  which  are  substantially 
more  significant  than  those  described  in  Section  4. 

Other  mitigation  measures  are  those  which  are  required  in  addi- 
tion to  the  project  description  measures  proposed  as  part  of  the 
project;  these  measures  are  necessary  to  mitigate  significant  impacts 
and  potentially  significant  impacts  described  in  Section  4. 

BLM,  SLC,  and  all  other  agencies  having  permitting  authority  over 
the  particular  features  which  prompted  the  mitigation  requirements 
may  require  the  other  proposed  mitigation  measures  to  be  incorporated 
into  the  project's  permits. 

6.1  MITIGATION  OF  CONSTRUCTION  IMPACTS 

6.1.1  Geology  and  Geological  Hazards 

Project  Description  Measures 

[1]  Geotechnical  studies  of  fault  crossings,  landslide-prone 
areas,  and  area  of  potentially  erodible  materials  at  drainage  cross- 
ings were  performed  by  Woodward-Clyde  Consultants  in  1985  and  1986. 

6-1 


o  Effectiveness:  These  studies  were  essential  for  sound 
engineering  and  environmental  routing  of  the  pipeline  and 
identification  of  hazard  locations  requiring  further  mitiga- 
tion. 

i_2]  When  blasting  is  required,  the  construction  contractors  will 
follow  these  procedures: 

a.  Blanketing  of  blasting  (mats)  will  be  used  if  structures  or 
other  utilities  are  located  within  75  feet  of  the  area  to  be 
blasted.  No  blasting  will  be  conducted  within  0.25  miles  of 
1-5,  the  California  Aqueduct,  or  other  major  canals. 

b.  Special  care  will  be  taken  to  avoid  damage  to  underground 
utilities  or  underground  watercourses  or  springs.   Blasting 
will  generally  be  avoided  in  these  areas,  unless  no 
alternative  to  blasting  exists. 

c.  Landowners  or  tenants  that  may  be  affected  will  be  notified 
at  least  48  hours  in  advance  so  that  adequate  steps  can  be 
taken  to  protect  livestock  or  other  property. 

d.  Any  loose  rock  scattered  by  the  blast  will  be  collected  and 
disposed  of  in  the  manner  specified  by  the  landowner. 

e.  All  necessary  permits  will  be  obtained  prior  to  conducting 
any  blasting  work.  All  work  will  be  performed  in  compliance 
with  state  and/or  local  codes  or  ordinances. 

f.  All  work  will  comply  with  safety  procedures  prescribed  by  the 
explosives  manufacturer  as  well  as  accepted  practices  in  the 
industry,  including  ANSI  A10.7,  Safety  Requirements  for  Use 
of  Explosives  in  the  Construction  Industry,  and  ANSI/NFPA 
495,  Code  for  Manufacturing,  Storage  and  Use  of  Explosive 
Materials. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  insure  that  vibration  and 
noise  impacts  and  nuisance  effects  are  mitigated,  and  worker 
safety  is  improved.  Blasting  will  not  have  a  significant 
residual  impact. 

[3]  The  pipe  will  be  weighted  to  eliminate  instability  in  water- 
saturated  zones. 

o  Effectiveness :  This  measure  will  be  generally  effective  to 
reduce  buoyancy. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[4]  As  identified  by  geotechnical  studies  of  the  route,  the  major 
concern  with  respect  to  seismic  hazards  is  with  the  crossing  of  the 
Concord  Fault  under  the  Pacheco  Creek.   Because  this  active  fault  is 
so  close  to  the  refinery  at  Martinez,  the  proposed  terminus  of  the 
pipeline,  it  is  essentially  unavoidable  by  any  alternate  route.  A 


6-2 


geologist  will  examine  the  pipeline  trench  for  evidence  of  faulting 
during  the  centerline  survey  and  during  construction  in  this  vicinity. 

To  mitigate  potential  damage  to  the  pipeline  ana  to  minimize 
impacts  in  the  event  of  a  break  or  spill,  the  design  of  the  pipeline 
will  provide  for  lateral  displacement  of  up  to  3  feet,  the  maximum 
expected  along  this  fault.  Various  engineering  approaches  will  be 
evaluated;  for  example,  an  overhead  crossing;  or  a  wide,  shallow, 
loosely  backfilled  trench;  or  a  tube-in-tube  bored  undercrossing. 
Each  of  these  approaches  requires  the  use  of  flexible,  high-tensile- 
strength  steel  pipe.  Depending  upon  the  angle  at  which  the  fault  is 
crossed,  provisions  for  extension  or  compression  of  the  pipeline  will 
be  made.  Oil  spill  containment  equipment  identified  in  the  Oil  Spill 
Contingency  Plan  will  be  stored  near  the  fault  at  the  refinery.  See 
also  measure  [63]. 

o  Effectiveness :  These  engineering  measures  will  reduce  the 
probabi 1 ity  of  rupture  in  the  event  of  a  tremor  or  earth  move- 
ment. 

[5]  The  80,000-barrel  storage  tank  at  Mid  station  could  be  sub- 
ject to  intense  ground  shaking  and  the  high  water  table  could  lead  to 
liquefaction  during  an  earthquake.  The  tank  will  be  built,  following 
a  soil  mechanics  study  of  the  site,  on  a  specially  designed  founda- 
tion, if  necessary,  and/or  the  tank  will  be  compartmentalized  to  avoid 
sloshing  of  the  contents,  which  damaged  tanks  during  the  Coalinga 
earthquake.  The  tank  must  be  built  to  withstand  an  earthquake  of  at 
least  MM I  VIII. 

o  Effectiveness:  Proper  design  of  this  particular  storage  tank 
will  significantly  diminish  the  risk  of  a  major  oil  spill  due 
to  a  major  seismic  event  (MMI  VIII). 

[6]  Rock  will  not  be  blasted  if  it  can  be  pre-ripped  with  a  bull- 
dozer prior  to  excavation  with  a  backhoe  or  wheel  excavator. 

o  Effectiveness:  Pre-ripping  will  further  reduce  the  need  for 
blasting  hard  rock,  which  is  not  extensive  along  the  proposed 
route.  In  conjunction  with  measure  [2],  blasting  will  not 
have  a  significant  impact. 

[7]  The  manually  operated  block  valves  at  Pacheco  Creek,  which 
overlies  a  trace  of  the  Concord  Fault,  will  be  automated  to  reduce 
shutoff  time. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  the  size  of  a  spill 
by  the  amount  that  would  spill  between  the  time  of  detection 
and  manual  shutoff  of  the  block  valves  at  this  environmentally 
sensitive  location.  A  spill  would  still  be  significant. 

6.1.2  Soils 

Project  Description  Measures 

[8]  A  Soil  Conservation  Plan  will  be  developed  by  the  applicant 
prior  to  construction.  Reclamation  and  erosion  control  measures  will 

6-3 


be  implemented  to  mitigate  potential  impacts  on  soils  resulting  from 
pipeline  construction,  operation,  accidents,  and  abandonment.  The 
mitigation  measures  will  be  site-  and  soil-specific,  so  that  soils 
which  occupy  steep  slopes,  are  highly  susceptible  to  erosion,  and/or 
which  lack  suitable  topsoil  will  receive  particular  attention.  For 
the  design  and  implementation  of  reclamation  measures,  steep  slopes 
will  be  considered  to  be  those  with  a  greater  than  3:1  slope. 

Depending  on  degree  of  slope,  type  of  soil,  and  other  site  fac- 
tors, methods  such  as  use  of  excelsior  or  straw  mulch  with  plastic 
netting,  hydromulching  or  hydroseeding,  and  construction  of  terraces 
may  be  required  to  control  erosion  and  improve  vegetation  establish- 
ment in  these  areas.  Other  measures  to  stabilize  disturbed  soil  mate- 
rial, reduce  soil  loss  due  to  erosion,  revegetate  the  right-of-way  ana 
ancillary  facility  sites,  and  restore  soil  productivity  are: 

a.  Segregation  of  topsoil  ("A"  horizon)  during  trenching  to 
salvage  and  replace  topsoil  where  necessary  to  comply  with 
regulations  and  landowners'  requirements. 

b.  Construction  or  placement  of  erosion  control  features  to 
limit  steepness  and  length  of  slope  (e.g.,  water  bars,  col- 
lection ditches,  terraces,  riprap,  or  sand  bags  or  straw 
bales  for  temporary  control). 

c.  Seedbed  preparation  of  the  right-of-way  and  disturbed  areas 
including,  if  necessary,  surface  roughening  and  tilling 
across  slope. 

d.  Application  of  seed  mixtures  (adapted  grass  or  other  plant 
species)  which  have  been  approved  by  the  resource  management 
agencies  and/or  landowner. 

e.  Addition  of  soil  amendments,  such  as  fertilizer,  if  neces- 
sary, and  the  use  of  appropriate  seeding  methods  (e.g.,  drill 
seeding  and  broadcast  seeding)  to  enhance  the  degree  of 
germination  and  rooting. 

f.  Mulching  with  hay,  straw,  or  wood  fibers,  if  necessary  to 
protect  the  soil  surface. 

g.  Crimping  of  mulch  on  the  contour  into  the  soil  or  tacking 
netting  over  an  organic  mulch  to  hold  the  mulch,  soil,  and 
soil  mixture. 

h.  Monitoring  of  disturbed  areas  by  the  applicant  to  identify 
potential  soil  instability  or  eroded  areas  and  to  implement 
the  required  revegetation  measures  to  restabilize  the  soils. 

o  Effectiveness:   If  applied  during  the  time  of  the  year  when 
germination  and  revegetation  are  possible,"  the  project  soil 
conservation  plan  will  mitigate  construction  impacts  on  most 
soil  types  and  sites.  The  monitoring  will  ensure  that  special 
remedial  actions  will  be  implemented  if  problems  are  identi- 
fied. Residual  impacts  will  De  insignificant  on  all  but  the 
steepest  slopes  (i.e.,  >18%)  in  Contra  Costa  County. 

6-4 


Other  Mitigation  Measures 

Project  description  measures  identified  under  [8]  above  are 
appropriate,  given  the  commitment  made  to  site-specific  soil  conserva- 
tion and  revegetation  criteria.  Certain  additional  measures  which 
need  to  be  included  are  described  below.  None  of  the  measures  will  be 
effective  in  and  of  themselves,  but  require  implementation  on  an 
as-needed  basis  according  to  a  site-specific  conservation  plan.  Even 
under  natural  conditions,  the  ground  vegetation  cover  (percent  cover- 
age) will  be  incomplete  and  the  erosion  hazard  high  where  bare  soil  is 
exposed. 

[9]  Construction  of  segments  of  the  pipeline  through  landslide- 
prone  areas  as  identified  on  Table  4-2  will  be  accomplished  when  the 
soils  are  dry  to. minimize  the  likelihood  of  triggering  renewed  slio- 
ding.  The  pipeline  will  be  placed  at  a  depth  greater  than  the  maximum 
depth  of  geologically  recent  sliding  at  all  locations  where  such 
sliding  is  observed  during  the  centerline  survey. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  prevent  impacts  from  land- 
sl ides  and  ensure  burial  of  the  pipeline  below  any  unstable 
overburden. 

[10]  On  steep  slopes  the  trench  will  be  filled  with  unconsoli- 
dated material  that  will  dessicate  due  to  heat  and  extreme  permeabil- 
ity, will  resist  revegetation,  and  will  washout  selectively,  thus 
degrading  the  right-of-way  and  the  surrounding  environment  at  a  fast 
rate.  The  soil  conservation  plan  will  require  that  revegetation 
efforts  be  continued  on  these  steep  slopes  until  vegetation  is 
successfully  reestablished.  Permanent  measures  may  also  be  required 
(see  measure  [14]  below).  From-  among  the  sites  identified  in  Table 
4-3  in  Section  4.2.3  as  difficult  to  revegetate,  it  is  assumed  that  a 
residual  impact  will  remain  significant  on  all  slopes  of  18%  or  more 
( see  Taole  6-1) . 

o  Effectiveness:  Although  this  will  substantially  reduce  im- 
pacts, the  impact  will  remain  significant  on  steep  slopes. 

[11]  Temporary  soil  erosion  controls  will  be  implemented  until 
revegetation  measures  are  applied  during  the  proper  seasonal  period. 

The  potential  for  water  erosion  is  greatest  from  November  through 
April.  Although  disturbed  areas  of  the  route  will  have  little  poten- 
tial for  erosion  from  late  spring  to  mid-fall,  adequate  measures  for 
control  of  runoff  should  be  in  place  before  the  winter  rains  begin  and 
prior  to  beginning  revegetation.  In  many  areas,  successful  revegeta- 
tion will  be  contingent  upon  the  adequacy  of  the  erosion  control  mea- 
sures implemented  and  these  will  be  continued  until  success  is 
assured. 

The  SCS  has  developed  standards  and  specifications  for  temporary 
and  permanent  erosion/sedimentation  control,  specifically  for  those 
regions  of  California  crossed  by  the  pipeline.  Temporary  soil  erosion 
control  structures  are  designed  to  temporarily  control  runoff  until 
disturbed  areas  have  become  stabilized.   Various  temporary  structures, 

6-5 


Table  6-1 

STEEP  SLOPING  SITES  ALONG  THE 
PROPOSED  ROUTE  BY  COUNTY 


Mileposts 

Number 

of   Slopes* 

County 

>123 

>18% 

Kern 

6.5   - 
11.4  - 

6.8 
.    12 

1 

1 

Kings 

64.5   - 

-  71 

34 

— 

Fresno 

92  -   96.5 
108.8  -   111. 
134  -   138.8 

5 

10 

8 

8 

2 

Merced 

138.8 
140.5 
150.5 
156.5 

-  139 

-  146. 

-  155 

-  157 

2 
5 

1 

5 
5 

1 

1 
2 

Stanislaus 

177.5 
185.5 

-  179 

-  194, 

5 

5 

4 

18 

— 

Alameda 

218   - 
223  - 

221 
224.3 

6 

4 

— 

Contra  Costa 

224.3 
230  - 
240  - 

-   226 

235 

254 

6 
4 
5 

59 

♦Estimate  based  on  USGS  topographical  maps  (1:24,000). 


6-6 


'such  as  diversion  dikes,  interceptor  dikes,  perimeter  dikes,  straw 
bail  dikes,  interceptor  swales,  stone  outlet  structures,  sediment 
basins,  and  sediment  traps,  are  proven  effective  measures  when 
correctly  implemented  and  maintained.  They  will  be  implemented  where 
and  when  necessary  as  indicated  in  the  soil  conservation  plan. 

Seeding  of  rangeland  areas  can  only  be  successful  in  late  fall  to 
early  winter;  October  and  November  are  the  optimal  months. 

o  Effectiveness:  Revegetation  success  is  enhanced  by  seeding 
during  October  and  November,  and  by  implementing  soil  erosion 
controls  (temporary  or  permanent)  in  advance  of  winter  rains 
and  prior  to  revegetation. 

[12]  Specialized  recommendations  for  seed  mixtures  and  seedbed 
preparation,  which  have  been  developed  and  tested  by  the  SCS,  will  be 
incorporated  in  the  right-of-way  revegetation  procedures.  Grasses  and 
seed  mix  applications  recommended  for  rangeland  revegetation  in  Kern, 
Kings,  and  Fresno  counties  are  listed  in  Table  6-2.  Seeding  recom- 
mendations for  Merced,  Stanislaus,  San  Joaquin,  Alameda,  and  Contra 
Costa  counties  are  given  in  Table  6-3.  Generally,  it  is  recommended 
that  2,000  pounds  of  straw  mulch  be  applied  per  acre  to  newly  seeded 
rangel and/grassland  areas.  Ammonium  sulfate  fertilizer  should  also  be 
applied,  at  500  pounds  per  acre.  Native  grass  mixtures  which  do  not 
impact  existing  communities  will  be  specified  when  required  and  where 
necessary  to  avoid  impacts. 

o  Effectiveness:  Site-specific  recommendations  for  right-of-way 
revegetation  will  have  the  highest  degree  of  success.  The 
residual  impact  will  be  negligible  when  the  right-of-way  is 
returned  to  its  original  condition  and  properly  revegetated. 

[13]  Saline  rangeland  and  pasture  soils  encountered  by  the  route 
in  areas  of  high  water  table  will  be  revegetated  with  an  adapted 
species,  such  as  salt  grass  (Disticlis  spicata).  Dry  saline-alkali 
soils  can  be  seeded  with  any  of  the  grasses  listed  in  Tables  6-2  and 
6-3,  with  red  brome  being  the  most  salt-tolerant. 

Desert  saltbush  (Atriplex  polycarpa)  and  California  buckwheat 
(Erigonum  fasciculatum)  are  commercially  available  for  restoring 
shrub  areas  and  are  deemed  to  be  of  value  as  wildlife  habitat.  These 
plants  have  been  found  by  the  SCS  to  be  hardy  and  very   suitable 
species  for  restoring  disturbed  shrub  areas. 

Saline  soil  materials  will  be  returned  to  the  trench  first  and 
covered  with  topsoil  to  supply  an  appropriate  substrate  for  the  plant- 
ing material . 

o  Effectiveness :  Saline  soils  will  be  difficult  to  revegetate, 
but  can  be  successfully  restored  by  conserving  top  soil  and  by 
using  adapted  native  vegetation.  The  residual  impact  will  not 
be  significant. 

[14]  Severely  destabilized  areas  will  require  long-term  protec- 
tion. Permanent  drainage  and  erosion  control  structures  will  be  in- 

6-7 


Table  6-2 

GRASS  SEEDING  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  RANGELAND  IN 
KERN,  KINGS,  AND  FRESNO  COUNTIES* 


Drilled  seeding  requirements  (per  acre) 

o   2  lbs.  Zorro  Annual  Fescue  (Festuca  meqalura  var.  Zorro  j 
o   8  lbs.  Panoche  Red  Brorae  (Brorous  rubens  var.  Panocnel 

ar 

o   6  lbs.  Zorro  Annual  Fescue  Brorae 

or 

a      12  lbs.  Panoche  Red  Brome 

Broadcast  seeding  requirements  (per  acre) 

o   4  lbs.  Zorro  Annual  Fescue 
12  lbs.  Panoche  Red  Brome 

or 
o  12  lbs.  Zorro  Annual  Fescue 

or 
o  18  lbs.  Panoche  Red  Brome 


♦Any  one  of  the  above  six  options  is  an  acceptable  application 
per  acre. 

Source:   USDA  SCS,  Fresno,  California,  Area  Office,  1986. 


b-8 


Table  6-3 

GRASS  SEEDING  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  RANGELAND  IN 

MERCED,  STANISLAUS,  SAN  JOAQUIN, 

ALAMEDA,  AND  CONTRA  COSTA  COUNTIES* 


Drilled  seeding  requirements  (per  acre) 

o   8  lbs.  Blando  Brome  ( Bromus  mollis) 

2  lbs.  Zorro  Annual  Kescue  (hestuca  meqalura) 

or 

o  12  lbs.  Blando  Brome 

or 

o   6  lbs.  Zorro  Annual  Fescue 

Broadcast  seeding  requirements  (per  acre) 

o  12  lbs.  Blando  Brome 

4  lbs.  Zorro  Annual  Fescue 

or 
o  18  lbs.  Blando  Brome 

or 
o  12  lbs.  Zorro  Annual  Fescue 


♦Any  one  of  the  above  six  options  is  an  acceptable 
application  per  acre. 

Source:   USDA  SCS,  Fresno,  California,  Area  Office,  1986. 


6-9 


stalled  if  necessary;  examples  are  water  bars,  diversions,  protected 
drain  outlets,  level  spreaders,  or  riprap.  The  stabilization  effort 
will  be  continuous  until  it  is  effective. 

o  Effectiveness:  Measures  will  mitigate  erosion-induced  soil 
losses  or  extremely  sensitive,  unstable  sites  by  soil  conser- 
vation engineering  practices.  Residual  long-term  impact  will 
be  insignificant. 

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

o  Effectiveness:  The  measure  will  ensure  effective  monitoring 
of  areas  where  revegetation  will  be  difficult. 

[16]  Topsoil  segregation  from  underlying  soil  materials  and 
return  of  the  topsoil  to  the  surface  of  the  trench  area  will  be 
practiced  during  construction  of  the  entire  route.  Exceptions  based 
on  specific,  unusual,  or  prohibitive  conditions  will  be  identified  in 
the  soil  conversation  plan.  The  shallow  layer  of  topsoil,  which  may 
be  10  inches  or  less  for  certain  soils,  and  the  presence  of  saline 
subsoils  which  can  contaminate  the  topsoil  require  that  the  depth  of 
topsoiling  be  specified  in  the  soil  conservation  plan.  The  plan  will 
define  the  depth  of  topsoil  to  be  conserved,  taking  into  account  the 
desireability  of  preserving  root  stock  in  areas  covered  by  native 
vegetation. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  or  eliminate  revege- 
t at  ion  problems  caused  by  changes  in  soil  chemistry  or  char- 
acteristics by  preventing  mixing  of  soil  materials.  Topsoil 
conservation  could  reduce  the  requirement  for  purchasing  seed 
or  native  planting  material.  No  residual  impact. 

[17]  Compaction  of  soils  can  adversely  affect  productivity  due  to 
reduced  permeability,  decreased  water  uptake,  ponding  runoff  in  flat 
areas,  increased  runoff,  erosion,  and  sedimentation.  Agricultural 
soils  compacted  by  vehicles  and  heavy  equipment  during  construction 
will  need  to  be  loosened  by  discing  or  harrowing  during  restoration  to 
restore  good  soil  surface  characteristics. 

0  Effectiveness:  Soil  compaction  on  the  right-of-way  will  be 
corrected  to  a  degree  that  is  not  detrimental  to  normal  agri- 
cultural production.  Residual  impacts  are  not  expected  to  be 
significant. 

6.1.3  Surface  Water 

Project  Description  Measures 

[18]  Construction  contractors  will  minimize  the  time  of  disturb- 
ance and  the  area  disturbed  in  streams  and  will  stabilize  disturbed 
areas  promptly. 


6-10 


o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  stream-side  erosion 
and  si Itation  and  sedimentation. 

[19]  The  stipulations  of  the  landowners  and  all  applicable 
federal,  state,  or  local  regulatory  requirements  concerning  water 
quality  standards  and  the  discharge  of  hydrostatic  test  water  will  be 
followed.  Prior  to  release,  specific  tests  of  hydrostatic  test  water 
will  be  conducted  and  the  test  water  will  be  treated,  if  necessary. 
Since  no  cleaning  fluids  are  planned  to  be  used,  no  significant  levels 
of  contaminants  will  be  present  in  the  released  water  other  than  minor 
amounts  of  oil  and  grease,  rust,  or  other  metals,  because  the  water 
used  in  hydrostatic  testing  will  be  in  contact  with  new  pipe. 

o  Effectiveness:  Testing,  and  treatment  if  necessary,  will 
ensure  the  safe  release  of  hydrostatic  test  water  without  any 
impact  on  stream  water  quality. 

[20]  Test  water  will  be  released  in  a  controlled  manner  to  avoid 
scour  upon  discharge  into  natural  waterways.  Test  water  will  be 
released  using  the  following  techniques  to  control  flow:  (a)  use  of  a 
valve  at  the  discharge  point  on  the  pipeline  segment;  (b)  no  vertical 
drop  (cascading);  (c)  discharge  to  rocky  areas  to  reauce  sedimentation 
and  turbidity;  (d)  discharge  to  the  middle  of  stream  channels  and  not 
stream  slopes;  and  (e)  discharge  into  a  low  gradient  section  of  the 
receiving  stream. 

o  Effectiveness:  The  controlled  release  of  hydrostatic  test 
water  wil 1  prevent  stream  scour  and  turbidity.  No  significant 
residual  impact. 

[21]  For  flowing  streams,  including  Pacheco  Creek,  conventional 
backhoe-type  equipment  or  a  dragline  that  operates  from  the  bank  will 
be  used  to  open  the  trench  across  the  stream  bottom.  During  excava- 
tion, flow  will  be  maintained  at  all  water  crossings.  The  pipeline 
will  be  placed  below  scour  depth  and,  at  a  minimum,  the  trench  will  be 
sufficiently  deep  to  allow  5  feet  of  cover  below  the  natural  channel 
bottom,  depending  on  permit  specifications  and  design  considerations. 
Excavated  material  will  be  stockpiled  on  the  bank  above  the  ordinary 
high  water  mark.  The  pipe  will  be  weighted  to  eliminate  instability 
in  water-saturated  zones.  This  will  be  particularly  required  in  all 
Flood  Zone  A  areas.  After  pipe  installation,  the  trench  will  be  back- 
filled with  originally  excavated  material  or  as  specified  by  appli- 
cable permits.  The  banks  will  be  backfilled,  stabilized,  and 
restored.  Stabilization  and  restoration  of  the  banks  of  intermittent 
streams  will  be  accomplished  by  grading  to  original  contour  and  re- 
vegetation.  The  stream  banks  will  be  restored  to  original  contours 
and  stabilized  with  soil  or  concrete-filled  sacks,  riprap,  or 
vegetation  to  reduce  erosion. 

Weighting  of  the  pipe  by  casing  in  concrete  is  necessary  in  the 
following  areas:  marsh  deposits  east  of  the  Martinez  refinery,  along 
approximately  2  miles  of  pipeline,  and  floodplains  of  Pacheco,  Corral 
Hollow,  Los  Gatos,  Panoche,  Orestimba,  Salado,  Del  Puerto,  Salt, 
Chico,  Martinez,  and  Santos  creeks  (see  Table  4-4). 


6-11 


o  Effectiveness:  These  specifications  incorporate  good  con- 
struction practices  which  ensure  pipeline  stability  and  which 
will  help  to  mitigate  potential  impacts  on  natural  streams  and 
aquatic  communities  by  maintaining  the  water  flow  and  protect- 
ing the  banks.  No  significant  residual  impacts. 

[22]  Fueling  and  lubrication  of  construction  equipment  will  occur 
away  from  aquatic  habitats,  at  least  one-eighth  mile  from  Facheco 
Creek,  other  flowing  streams,  canals,  aqueducts,  and  riparian 
habitats.  Any  spills  will  be  cleaned  up. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  prevent  construction-related 
spills  from  impacting  water  resources.  No  residual  impact. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[23]  For  flowing  streams,  temporary  erosion  and  sedimentation 
control  measures  will  be  used  to  minimize  potential  impacts  to  surface 
water  during  construction.  Such  measures  must  be  in  place  prior  to 
the  start  of  construction  in  the  affected  streams.  They  include 
placement  of  filtration  barriers  along  stream  banks;  construction  of 
siltation  barriers  to  reduce  surface  runoff  velocities  on  steep 
grades;  installation  of  flume  pipes  or  temporary  bridges  at  shallow 
streams  that  will  be  crossed  repeatedly  by  construction  machinery;  and 
post-construction  restoration  of  stream  banks,  staging  areas,  and 
rights-of-way  as  soon  as  possible  after  construction.  Hay  bales  and 
silt  curtains  across  the  affected  stream(s)  will  be  used  to  further 
limit  downstream  sedimentation  and  turbidity.  From  September  through 
May,  these  measures  will  be  implemented  at  all  stream  crossings  (Table 
3-13)  regardless  of  whether  they  are  flowing  or  not,  to  ensure  that 
precautions  are  in  place  in  the  event  unanticipated  rains  contribute 
to  stream  flow. 

0  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  serve  to  trap  silts,  pre- 
vent  entry  of  soils  from  the  banks  into  the  streams,  and  re- 
tard the  siltation  process  so  that  increased  sedimentation  and 
turbidity  are  less  noticeable  in  the  downstream  portions  of 
the  affected  streams.  They  also  provide  for  the  overall  pro- 
tection of  all  streams  against  excessive  sedimentation  regard- 
less of  variable  stream  flows.  They  are  necessary  because  the 
project  traverses  numerous,  usually  dry  streams  which  would  be 
affected  by  a  single  precipitation  event  and  which  would  col- 
lectively contribute  to  siltation  of  the  adjacent  valley's 
irrigation  water  systems  and  fields.  Residual  sedimentation 
and  turbidity  impacts  are  not  significant  because  they  will 
approach  natural  levels. 

[24]  The  discharge  of  waters  from  trench  dewatering,  if  neces- 
sary, will  be  conducted  in  such  a  manner  as  to  minimize  erosion  and 
sedimentation  problems.  The  discharge  rate  will  be  controlled  and  the 
discharge  filtered,  diverted  to  settling  ponds  to  remove  solids  prior 
to  release  to  an  adjacent  surface  water  body,  or  allowed  to  percolate 
into  the  ground.  Should  the  water  be  released  directly  onto  the 
ground,  deflectors  will  be  used  to  disperse  it.  The  discharge  and 
disposal  of  the  effluent  will  be  conducted  in  compliance  with 


6-12 


applicable  regulatory  requirements  and  good  pipeline  construction 
practices. 

o  Effectiveness:  Trench  dewatering,  if  necessary,  will  not  have 
a  significant  residual  impact  on  water  quality. 

6.1.4  Groundwater 
Project  Description  Measures 

None. 
Other  Mitigation  Measures 
None  necessary. 

6.1.5  Air  Quality 

Project  Description  Measures 

[25]  All  activities  associated  with  the  project  will  be  conducted 
in  a  manner  that  will  avoid  or  minimize  potential  degradation  of  air 
quality.  Construction,  operation,  maintenance,  and  abandonment  activ- 
ities will  be  conducted  in  accordance  with  applicable  air  quality 
standards,  including,  but  not  limited  to,  standards  adopted  pursuant 
to  the  Clean  Air  Act,  as  amended  (42  USC  7401,  et.  sea.). 


o  Effectiveness:  Air  impacts  will  not  exceed  acceptable  stan- 
dards  and  permitted  emissions. 

[26]  Construction  emissions  will  be  mitigated  through  proper 
maintenance  of  construction  equipment,  by  maintenance  of  manufacturer- 
installed  exhaust  systems  for  construction  equipment,  and  by  watering 
the  construction  zone  to  control  fugitive  dust  emissions. 

o  Effectiveness:  Localized  construction  impacts  on  air  quality 
near  the  construction  zone  will  be  mitigated  by  these  mea- 
sures. No  significant  residual  impact. 

[27]  Construction  activities  will  be  curtailed  during  second- 
stage  smog  alert. 

o  Effectiveness:  On  high  oxidant  days,  this  measure  will  pro- 
vide a  minor  reduction  in  precursor  emissions. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

None  necessary. 

6.1.6  Socioeconomics  and  Transportation 

Project  Description  Measures 

[28]  None,  other  than  routine  measures  which  ensure  effective 
scheduling  and  implementation,  including  limitations  on  the  size  of 

6-13 


the  construction  work  force,  50%  use  of  local  workers,  and  various 
measures  required  to  maintain  near-normal  traffic  flows,  such  as: 

a.  Adequate  warning  signs  will  be  positioned  sufficiently  far  in 
advance  of  construction  zones  so  that  vehicle  drivers  will  . 
have  sufficient  warning.  Signs  will  be  positioned  in  accor- 
dance with  relevant  regulations.  Warning  signs,  barriers, 
flagpersons,  and  other  techniques  will  be  used,  as  appro- 
priate. 

b.  Detour  routes  will  be  established  using  the  nearest  available 
secondary  access  routes. 

c.  Temporary  detours  will  be  constructed  around  the  construction 
zone  where  secondary  access  roads  do  not  exist. 

d.  An  estimated  60%  of  the  workers  will  be  bussed  to  the 
construction  site. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  are  necessary  to  prevent  traf- 
fic  jams  and  accidents.  The  residual  impacts  on  transporta- 
tion are  not  significant. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[29]  In  the  area  near  the  northern  terminus  of  the  route  where 
children  may  be  attracted  and  exposed  to  construction  hazards,  leaf- 
lets will  be  distributed  to  all  houses  in  the  neighborhood  explaining 
the  nature  and  duration  of  construction  and  advising  parents  that 
children  will  not  be  permitted  in  the  construction  area.  In  addition, 
a  security  guard  will  be  on-site  during  daylight  hours  to  prevent 
unauthorized  access,  and  the  open  trench  will  be  fenced  at  night. 

o  Effectiveness:  No  significant  residual  impact;  no  unusual 
risks  of  accidents  to  the  public,  particularly  children. 

6.1.7  Noise 

Project  Description  Measures 

[30]  Potential  noise  impacts  are  primarily  related  to  the  number 
of  people  exposed  to  the  noise  and  the  perceived  nuisance  associated 
with  the  noise.  Typically,  the  greatest  nuisance  is  perceived  during 
nighttime  hours.  Construction  activities  will  be  conducted  daily  from 
7:00  a.m.  to  6:00  p.m.  In  addition,  proper  construction  equipment 
operating  techniques  will  be  implemented  and  manufacturer-installed 
noise  abatement  equipment  will  be  maintained  to  reduce  noise  levels  to 
the  greatest  possible  extent  during  construction  activities. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  mitigate  noise  impacts  dur- 
ing  the  nighttime  when  people's  perception  of  the  impact  would 
be  greatest. 


6-14 


Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[31]  There  will  be  no  weekend  construction  in  sensitive  residen- 
tial and  recreation  areas. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  avoids/mitigates  impacts  when 
most  people  are  at  home  or  using  recreational  facilities. 
Table  4-13,  in  Section  4.2.8,  lists  noise-sensitive  areas  for 
the  project. 

6.1.8  Land  Use  and  Recreation 

Project  Description  Measures 

[32]  In  areas  where  the  pipeline  crosses  agricultural  land  use 
(primarily  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley),  the  following  measures  will  be 
implemented: 

a.  Small-scale  route  variations  to  avoid  sensitive  agriculture 
fields,  if  practicable. 

b.  Small-scale  construction  scheduling  to  avoid  sensitive  time 
periods  during  agricultural  practices,  if  practicable. 

c.  Limiting  of  trenching  to  depths  above  drainage  tiles,  if 
practicable. 

d.  Restoration  of  disturbed  fields  to  pre-construction  condi- 
tions or  conditions  acceptable  to  landowners.  Specific 
measures  may  include  drainage  tile,  ditch,  and  pipe  replace- 
ment and  reestablishment  of  required  grade  for  drainage. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  mitigate  impacts  on  crop 
production  and  reduce  inconvenience  to  farmers. 

[33]  The  project  construction  work  force  will  not  use  public 
facilities,  such  as  campgrounds,  for  temporary  housing. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  avoid  impacts  on  tourism  and 
recreation,  and  on  public  park  maintenance  budgets.  Residual 
impact  is  not  significant  and  is  limited  to  the  use  of  recrea- 
tional facilities  by  the  labor  force  only  for  recreational 
purposes—a  minor  contribution  to  visitors/day. 

[34]  Public  monuments  and  markers  on  public  lands  within  the 
right-of-way  will  not  be  disturbed  or  removed.  If  the  removal  of 
monuments  or  markers  is  necessary  during  specific  construction  activi- 
ties, the  appropriate  agency  will  be  advised.  Removal  and/or  reloca- 
tion will  then  be  completed  according  to  the  detailed  instructions  of 
the  appropriate  agency. 

o  Effectiveness:  No  significant  residual  impact  on  public 
markers  and  monuments. 

[35]  After  construction,  the  area  will  be  cleaned  up  and 
restored.  All  surplus  materials  will  be  removed,  and  the  land  will  be 

6-15 


restored  to  landowner  specifications.  Solid  wastes  will  be  disposed 
of  in  an  approved  landfill  or  according  to  landowner  instructions. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  the  visual  impacts  of 
construction  and  be  responsive  to  landowner  instructions. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[36]  The  length  of  open  trench  during  construction  will  be 
limited  as  much  as  possible  and  livestock  crossovers  will  be  provided, 
if  necessary.  Open  trench  will  be  fenced  off  where  necessary. 

0  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  mitigate  impacts  on  crop 
production  and  reduce  inconvenience  to  farmers. 

[37]  Potential  land  use  conflicts,  identified  in  Tables  4-15  and 
4-16,  will  be  resolved  by  fine-tuning  of  the  final  alignment  in  co- 
ordination with  local  planning  agencies  and  regional  authorities  and 
state  and  federal  agencies,  particularly  in  relation  to  BLM  lands, 
Bureau  of  Reclamation  lands,  and  Contra  Costa  County's  Black  Diamond 
Regional  Preserve,  landfill  proposals,  ana  residential  development 
proposals  (see  Table  4-15  for  complete  listing). 

o  Effectiveness:  Significant  land  use  impacts  will  be  avoided 
by  coordinated  planning  and  fine-tuning  of  the  final  route 
alignment  in  these  areas.  The  local  land  use  planning  process 
will  resolve  conflicts  before  issuing  permits;  hence,  no  resi- 
dual impacts  will  remain  when  the  permits  are  issued. 

6.1.9  Visual  Resources 

Project  Description  Measures 

[38]  Mitigation  measures  will  be  implemented  to  reduce  or  mini- 
mize visual  contrasts  for  the  pipeline  right-of-way,  booster  stations, 
and  ancillary  facilities.  There  are  three  generic  types  of  mitigation 
techniques:  (a)  strategic  location,  (b)  minimization  of  disturbance, 
and  (c)  repetition  of  the  basic  landscape  elements  (form,  line,  color, 
texture).  The  visual  resources  mitigation  plan  for  the  project 
includes  the  following  measures: 

a.  During  construction,  clearing  of  land  for  facilities  will  be 
completed  to  create  curvilinear  ("feathered")  boundaries 
instead  of  straight  lines  and  to  minimize  disturbance  of  the 
landscape  to  the  greatest  practicable  extent.  Grading  will 
be  conducted  in  a  manner  that  will  minimize  erosion  and  con- 
form to  the  natural  topography. 

b.  Soils  and  rocks  that  are  excavated  during  construction  and 
not  used  will  be  evenly  backfilled  into  the  cleared  area  or 
removed  from  the  site.  Soil  and  rocks  will  be  graded  to 
conform  with  the  terrain  and  the  adjacent  land. 

c.  The  colors  selected  for  structures  will  be  uniform  and 
noncontrasting  to  blend  in  with  the  immediate  natural 

6-16 


environment.  Building  structures  associated  with  new  booster 
stations  will  be  painted  desert  tan. 

d.  Electric  transmission  line  poles  will  be  placed  strategically 
to  the  greatest  practicable  extent  to  make  maximum  use  of 
existing  topography  ana  vegetation  for  screening. 

e.  Wood  transmission  line  poles  will  be  utilized  to  reduce 
visual  contrasts  with  the  natural  surroundings.  Conductor 
material  will  be  carefully  selected  to  avoid  sheen  or  a 
strong  silhouette  and  to  provide  visual  blending  of  the  con- 
ductors into  any  given  setting  through  which  the  line  must 
pass. 

o  Effectiveness;  The  implementation  of  these  mitigation  pro- 
cedures  will  effectively  reduce  potential  visual  contrasts  of 
project  facilities. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[39]  Siting  requirements  and  visual  impacts  for  booster  station 
SJV-2b  and  microwave  tower  No.  8,  and  for  booster  station  SJV-3b  and 
microwave  tower  No.  11,  will  be  carefully  reviewed  in  relation  to 
SJV-4,  which  has  a  better  location  in  regard  to  visual  resources. 
SJV-2b  would  be  better  sited  near  Little  Panoche  Road  to  place  the 
station  and  microwave  tower  No.  8  in  the  background.  SJV-3b  and 
microwave  tower  No.  11  are  located  near  the  Westley  Rest  Stop- Park, 
which  is  the  most  widely  used  rest  stop  in  the  region;  consideration 
will  be  given  to  relocating  SJV-3b  and  its  microwave  tower.  SGV-4  has 
only  a  moderately  significant  impact.  If  relocation  is  not  feasible, 
a  site-specific  landscaping  plan  will  be  prepared  for  SJV-2b  and 
SJV-3b  to  provide  screening  and/or  blend  the  stations  with  their  sur- 
roundings. 

o  Effectiveness:  The  residual  impact  will  be  reduced  but  will 
remain  signifi cant. 

[40]  All  clearea  areas  of  the  pipeline  right-of-way  and  building 
or  microwave  tower  areas  will  be  revegetated  immediately  after  com- 
pletion of  construction  according  to  a  soil  conservation  plan  (see 
mitigation  measure  [9]).  Grasses  that  are  similar  to  the  adjacent 
vegetation  cover  will  be  used  where  possible  to  ensure  that  the 
created  visual  pathway  will  blend  as  much  as  possible  into  the 
surrounding  landscape. 

o  Effectiveness:  The  residual  impact  of  the  visual  intrusion 
wi  1 1  be  insignificant  for  the  right-of-way. 

[41]  Oaks,  cottonwoods,  and  other  large  trees  will  not  be  removed 
if  this  can  be  avoided  by  minor  realignment.  If  trees  must  be 
removed,  similar  tree  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  deviations  of  the  right-of-way  will  avoid 
large  visually  important  trees,  such  as  oaks,  and  tree  clusters.  The 
soil  within  the  root  zone  of  these  trees  will  not  be  disturbed. 

6-17 


o  Effectiveness:  Replanting  with  native  oaks  has  not  been  very 
effective  in  the  past  in  California.  Thus,  avoidance  of  oak 
trees  is  the  most  effective  means  of  mitigation. 

6.1.10  Paleontology 

Project  Description  Measures 

[42]  A  pre-construction  field  survey  of  paleontological  resources 
was  conducted  to  identify  sensitive  areas  more  precisely. 

o  Effectiveness:  Improved  resolution  of  resource  distribution 
will  reduce  potential  impacts  and  the  need  for  other  monitor- 
ing and  possibly  salvage  during  construction. 

[43]  Controlled  scientific  removal  of  fossils  that  would  other- 
wise be  damaged  or  destroyed  during  construction  may  be  necessary  and 
will  be  performed  by  professional  paleontologists  authorized  by  the 
appropriate  federal,  state,  and  local  collecting  permits.  In  accord- 
dance  with  these  permits,  all  fossils  will  be  placed  in  appropriate 
repositories,  with  records  of  their  precise  locality  and  descriptions 
of  the  geological  and  faunal  context  of  each. 

Sensitive  areas  will  be  monitored  during  construction.  Proce- 
dures established  and  approved  by  permitting  agencies  for  temporarily 
halting  or  redirecting  construction  if  fossil  accumulations  are 
encountered  during  construction  will  be  followed.  -An  approved 
paleontologist  will  be  notified  immediately  upon  encountering  a  fossil 
discovery  so  that  the  significance  of  the  discovery  can  be  evaluated 
efficiently  and,  if  necessary,  mitigation  actions  implemented. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  reduce  impacts  on  paleon- 
to logic  resources . 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[44]  Direct  construction  impacts  to  paleontological  resources 
will  be  mitigated  by  the  following  procedures: 

a.  Monitoring  of  ditching  within  areas  assessed  to  have  high  or 
very  high  paleontologic  impact  significance  as  shown  on  Table 
4-23  will  be  done  by  an  approved  vertebrate  paleontologist. 

b.  Any  vertebrate  fossils  discovered  during  project  construc- 
tion, by  personnel  involved  in  construction  or  other  project 
activities,  within  unmonitored  areas,  will  be  reported 
immediately  to  the  approved  paleontologist  for  assessment  of 
value  and  recommended  mitigation. 

c.  The  approved  paleontologist  will  be  empowered  to  halt 
temporarily  or  redirect  project  construction  in  the  event 
that  (1)  unforeseen  concentrations  of  vertebrate  fossils 
assessed  to  have  unusually  high  importance  (as  judged  by  the 
criteria  in  Appendix  F)  are  revealed,  and  (2)  such 

6-18 


interruption  will  avoid  further  damage  to  the  specimens. 
Sufficient  time  will  be  allowed  for  consultation  with  the 
authorizing  agencies  regarding  mitigation. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  minimize  loss  of  the 
scientific  value  of  paleontological  resources  and  improve 
knowledge  of  their  distribution. 

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

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

6.1.11  Cultural  Resources 

Project  Description  Measures 

[46]  Impacts  to  cultural  resources  will  be  mitigated  by  develop- 
ment and  implementation  of  a  cultural  resources  management  plan,  in 
consultation  with  the  California  State  Historic  Preservation  Officer 
(SHPO),  the  Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preservation  (ACHP),  and  the 
authorizing  agencies.  The  plan  will  outline  procedures  and  methods  to 
identify,  evaluate,  avoid,  or  salvage  cultural  resources  within  the 
project  area.  The  plan  includes  the  following  components: 

a.  A  cultural  resource  survey,  which  was  conducted  prior  to 
construction. 

b.  Evaluation  of  identified  resources  for  eligibility  for 
nomination  to  the  NRHP.  Potential  impacts  on  eligible 
cultural  resources  will  be  evaluated  as  set  forth  in  36  CFR 
800.3. 

c.  If  significant  adverse  effects  to  NRHP-el igible  properties 
occur  as  a  result  of  the  proposed  project,  mitigation 
measures  to  reduce  or  eliminate  these  adverse  effects  will  be 
implemented.  This  will  be  accomplished  through  minor  devia- 
tions in  the  alignment,  by  preservation  in  situ,  or  by  pre- 
construction  scientific  data  recovery  ancTreport  preparation. 
Scientific  data  recovery  and  report  preparation  is  accomp- 
lished through  archaeological  excavation,  further  archival 
research,  and,  in  the  case  of  standing  structures,  documenta- 
tion according  to  Historic  American  Building  Survey  (HABS) 
standards. 

d.  A  construction  monitoring  program  may  be  required  in  areas 
where  the  cultural  resources  inventory  indicates  that 
resources  not  now  evident  on  the  ground  surface  are  likely  to 
occur  as  buried  resources. 

e.  A  Memorandum  of  Agreement  has  been  developed  between  the 
ACHP,  BLM,  and  the  California  SHPO  detailing  specific 

6-19 


procedures  in  accordance  with  36  CFR  800  that  would  be 
followed  for  any  significant  cultural  resource  sites  that 
cannot  be  avoided. 

f.  Should  a  previously  unidentified  historic  cultural  property 
be  discovered  during  the  construction  of  the  pipeline  the 
procedures  as  noted  in  the  Memorandum  of  Agreement  shall  be 
implemented. 

o  Effectiveness:  The  above  measures  will  culminate  in  an  effec- 
tive  cultural  resources  identification  and  mitigation  plan 
consistent  with  BLM,  ACHP,  and  California  SHPO  requirements 
set  forth  in  the  Memorandum  of  Agreement. 

[47]  Prior  to  data  recovery,  a  treatment  plan  will  be  prepared 
for  review  and  approval  by  the  SHPO,  ACHP,  and  the  authorizing 
agencies  prior  to  implementation. 

Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  ensure  adequate  data  recovery. 

[48]  Sufficient  information  was  obtained  at  the  time  of  survey  to 
determine  whether  sites  are  potentially  eligible  for  inclusion  on  the 
NRHP.  Criteria  for  determining  NRHP  eligibility  are  found  in  36  CFR 
60.4.  Limited  testing  of  subsurface  deposits  may  be  needed  for  the 
single  site  identified  during  the  field  identification  program.  The 
report  documenting  results  of  the  field  identification  program  and 
evaluating  significance  has  not  been  reviewed  and  accepted  by  the 
appropriate  agencies.  For  this  reason,  it  is  premature  to  identify 
specific  mitigation  measures  that  will  be  applied  to  the  identified 
cultural  resources.  However,  the  Memorandum  of  Agreement  requires 
adequate  treatment  of  sites  evaluated  to  be  significant  (i.e.,  eligi- 
ble for  listing  on  the  NRHP),  and  provides  a  process  to  accomplish 
this. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  actions,  under  Section  106  of  the 
National  Historic  Preservation  Act,  will  ensure  that  the 
effects  of  pipeline  construction  and  operation  on  cultural 
resources  are  fully  considered,  as  required  by  law. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[49]  If  previously  undiscovered  cultural  resources  are  uncovered 
during  construction,  work  will  stop  and  a  competent  archaeologist  will 
be  called  in  to  evaluate  the  site. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  impacts  in  areas  of 
low  sensitivity  (such  as  agricultural  fields)  which  will  not 
be  surveyed  in  detail. 

[50]  Contact  will  be  maintained  with  appropriate  Native  American 
groups  to  determine  the  nature  and  extent  of  concerns  regarding 
specific  cultural  resources.  Native  Americans  will  be  notified  prior 
to  implementation  of  any  data  recovery  programs. 


6-20 


o  Effectiveness:  The  residual  impact  will  be  insignificant  on 
the  Native  American  cultural  heritage. 

[51]  In  situations  where  site  boundaries  are  ambiguous  and  close 
to  impact  areas,  an  archaeological  monitor  and  a  representative  of  the 
Native  American  group  claiming  concern  will  be  invited  to  be  present 
as  observers.  If  potentially  significant  cultural  materials  or  fea- 
tures are  encountered,  they  will  be  preserved  either  by  realignment  of 
the  proposed  facilities,  or  by  prompt  evaluation  and  recommendation  of 
any  necessary  mitigation  measures.  The  areas  requiring  such  monitor- 
ing will  be  based  on  the  results  of  the  identification  program  in  con- 
sultation with  the  authorizing  agencies,  California  SHPO,  and  ACHP. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  ensure  that  the  proper  pro- 
cedures are  carried  out  to  take  into  account  professional  and 
public  cultural  concerns. 

6.1.12  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology 

Revegetation  of  disturbed  areas  is  discussed  in  Section  6.1.2; 
mitigation  measures  designed  to  reduce  impacts  on  water  resources  and 
aquatic  habitat  are  presented  in  Section  6.1.3.  Mitigation  for  oil 
spills  is  discussed  in  Section  6.2.12. 

Project  Description  Measures 

[52]  The  following  mitigation  measures  will  be  implemented  in 
order  to  reduce  potential  adverse  impacts  of  project  implementation  on 
vegetation  and  wildlife: 

a.  when  possible,  disturbance  of  habitats  that  support  special 
status  plants,  and  sensitive  and  valuable  vegetation  types 
such  as  riparian  areas,  will  be  avoided  by  realignment  and/or 
minor  deviations  in  the  route  and  facility  siting. 

b.  The  width  of  the  construction  right-of-way  will  be  reduced 
from  80  to  50  feet  in  the  above  sensitive  areas  crossed  by 
the  proposed  route. 

c.  Temporary  work  spaces  and  storage  areas  will  not  be  placed  in 
riparian  or  other  sensitive  habitats. 

d.  Off-road  vehicle  use  by  construction  workers  in  the  project 
vicinity  will  be  restricted  to  the  construction  right-of-way. 
Contractors  will  be  required  by  specifications  in  their  con- 
tracts to  limit  off-road  vehicle  use  to  the  construction 
right-of-way. 

e.  Use  of  firearms  in  construction  areas  will  be  prohibited  to 
reduce  potential  illegal  hunting  activities. 

f.  A  wildlife  biologist  has  surveyed  all  potential  raptor  nest- 
ing habitats  located  in  the  area  of  the  pipeline  right-of-way 
prior  to  construction.  For  any  active  and  inactive  nests 
identified  within  1,000  feet  of  the  route,  protective 


6-21 


measures  required  by  the  USFWS,  BLM,  CDFG,  and  other  involved 
agencies  will  be  implemented. 

g.  Surveys  have  been  performed  to  determine  the  distribution  of 
habitats  of  federal  and  state  endangered  species,  including 
the  San  Joaquin  kit  fox  and  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard,  in 
areas  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  crossed  by  the  proposed  pipe- 
line. In  areas  of  sensitive  habitat  for  these  two  species 
that  must  be  crossed,  the  width  of  the  construction  right-of- 
way  will  be  limited  to  50  feet.  Near  the  kit  fox  dens, 
small-scale  variations  in  the  route  will  be  made  and  con- 
struction activities  will  be  scheduled  to  minimize  the 
effects  on  occupied  dens. 

h.  Site-specific  revegetation  plans  (a  soil  conservation  plan) 
will  be  developed  to  promote  reestablishment  of  suitable 
habitats  for  the  above-mentioned  species.  The  pipeline  will 
be  installed  in  a  manner  to  restore  the  topsoil  and  associ- 
ated seed  sources  when  backfilling  (see  soils,  Section 
6.1.2). 

i.  The  spread  of  noxious  weeds  will  be  minimized  as  appropriate 
by  revegetation  with  native  species  and/or  other  approved 
local  species. 

j.  Herbicides  will  not  be  used  during  construction  of  the  pipe- 
line and  ancillary  facilities. 

k.  Prior  to  trench  closure,  the  trench  will  be  inspected  to 
insure  that  any  animals  which  may  have  taken  shelter  in  the 
trench  opening  have  exited  the  trench. 

0  Effectiveness:  These  various  measures  will  reduce  impacts  on 
the  terrestrial  and  aquatic  ecology. 

[53]  An  environmental  information  program  will  be  developed  by 
the  applicant  and  distributed  to  all  workers  to  (1)  identify  important 
environmental  resources  and  potential  effects  on  them,  (2)  identify 
mitigation  measures,  and  (3)  specify  the  roles  of  the  Applicant  and 
contractor  personnel  in  implementing  these  mitigation  measures. 

0  Effectiveness:  This  will  promote  an  understanding  of  poten- 
tial  impacts  and  required  mitigation  for  sensitive  resources. 

L54]  Mitigation  measures  to  maintain  surface  water  quality,  by 
fulfilling  the  conditions  of  the  Stream  Alteration  Agreements  in 
accordance  with  CDFG  and  using  good  construction  and  best  management 
practices  at  crossings  involving  aquatic  features,  will  benefit  the 
aquatic  ecology  (see  Surface  Water,  Section  6.1.3). 

0  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  minimize  the  impact  on 
water  quality,  on  the  physical  aquatic  habitat  conditions,  and 
on  the  aquatic  organisms  dependent  on  this  habitat. 


6-22 


Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[55]  Mitigation  for  the  long-term  loss  of  habitat  (due  to  facili- 
ty siting  and  right-of-way  maintenance)  will  consist  either  of  the 
improvement  of  marginal  habitat  on  areas  adjacent  to  the  pipeline  or 
the  purchase  of  conservation  easements  along  the  corridor  in  areas 
that  may  be  under  the  threat  of  agricultural  conversion  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  Effectiveness:  This  measure  compensates  effectively  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  provisions  were  to  include  this  element  in  the 
agreements. 

[56]  Unauthorized  vehicle  operation  on  the  right-of-way  will  be 
prohibited  by  appropriate  signs  and  gates.  Authorized  use  will  be 
subject  to  a  low  speed  limit  (15  mph).  Illegal  plant  and  animal 
collections  will  not  be  permitted  as  enforced  by  current  laws  and 
appropriate  signs. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  reduce  the  chance  of 
significant  impacts  (incidental  mortality)  on  rare  or 
relatively  rare  species. 

[57]  No  construction  will  occur  within  one-half  mile  of  an  active 
raptor  nest  during  nesting  seasons  and  no  nests  will  be  disturbed. 
Construction  may  proceed  near  inactive  nests  (see  [52  f]  above). 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  ensure  that  nesting  birds  of 
prey  ana/or  their  nesting  sites  are  not  disturbed.  The  re- 
sidual impact  on  raptors  is  not  significant. 

[58]  The  site-specific  soil  conservation  plan  (see  mitigation 
measure  [9])  will  specify  special  revegetation  measures  for  areas 
covered  by  native  vegetation  (see  Table  3-30),  such  as  alkali  sink  and 
saltbush  scrub,  using  such  techniques  as  preserving  root  stock  and 
propagation  with  native  plant  materials.  Rangelands  will  be  revege- 
tated  with  approved  grass  mixtures.  The  plan  will  identify  the  depth 
of  topsoil  to  be  segregated  and  replaced  during  trenching  in  order  to 
enhance  revegetation  success  in  these  areas,  particularly  in  the  area 
over  the  pipeline. 

During  construction  in  alkali  scrub  areas,  right-of-way  clearing 
will  be  limited  to  trimming  and  crushing  whenever  possible.  The 
right-of-way  will  be  located  adjacent  to  existing  disturbed  areas 
(e.g.,  roads)  where  possible.  These  measures  will  reduce  the  amount 
of  vegetation  removed  as  well  as  reduce  erosion  potential,  and  will 
enhance  recovery  by  not  disturbing  root  systems. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  impacts  associated 
with  the  temporary  loss  of  habitat  to  an  insignificant  level 
in  grassland  areas.  Alkali  scrub  will  resprout  after 

6-23 


construction  and  expedite  habitat  recovery  on  the  right-of- 
way,  thus  reducing  temporary  loss  of  habitat  to  an  insignifi- 
cant level,  where  oak  trees  are  removed,  revegetation  will 
not  fully  restore  habitat  to  preconstruction  conditions.  This 
represents  a  significant  impact.  Cattle  would  need  to  be 
excluded  from  grazing  the  seedlings.  Avoidance  of  the  trees 
is  the  most  appropriate  mitigation  measure. 

[59]  Because  the  Tipton  kangaroo  rat  inhabits  alkali  sink  habi- 
tat, it  will  be  revegetated  with  characteristic  native  plants.  Speci- 
fic details,  including  a  schedule  for  monitoring  to  assure  revegeta- 
tion success,  will  be  developed  in  the  soil  conservation  plan. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  impacts  on  this  sen- 
sitive species.  (See  effectiveness  of  measures  57  and  58 
above. 

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


Milepost  Proposed  Real  ignme~ 

18.2  70  feet  to  east 

58.3  20  feet  to  west 
67.9  60  feet  to  east 
84.9  50  feet  to  east 
87.8  70  feet  to  east 
89.6  50  feet  to  west 

120.0  70  feet  to  west 

135.8-136.0  70  feet  to  west 

142.2  20  feet  to  west 

178.3  70  feet  to  east 


The  construction  right-of-way  will  be  reduced  to  50  feet  in  these 
areas.  If  these  potential  aen  sites  cannot  be  avoided,  identified  den 
sites  will  be  monitored  immediately  prior  to  construction  to  determine 
if  they  are  active.  If  they  are,  construction  will  be  delayed  in  that 
location  until  foxes  relocate. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  direct  mortality 
impacts  on  this  special  status  species  to  insignificant. 

[61]  The  soil  conservation  plan  will  provide  for  restoring  the 
prevailing  hydrology  and  topography  at  the  Pacheco  Creek  crossing  and 
for  revegetation  with  pickleweed  and  other  salt-tolerant  plants 
characteristic  of  this  habitat. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  impacts  on  brackish 
marsh  and  specifically  on  the  salt  marsh  harvest  mouse,  a 
special  status  species. 


6-24 


[62]  Realignment  of  the  pipeline  at  mileposts  40.5  to  40.9  about 
800  feet  to  the  west  to  avoid  a  high  quality  wetland,  and  at  milepost 
227  to  avoid  a  vernal  pool. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  eliminate  significant 
impacts  on  this  important  habitat. 


6.2  MITIGATION  OF  OPERATION,  ACCIDENT,  AND  ABANDONMENT  IMPACTS 

6.2.1  Geology  and  Geologic  Hazards 

Project  Description  Measures 

[63]  The  Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan  (see  Appendix  B)  applies  to 
emergencies  resulting  from  geologic  hazard  events  during  system  opera- 
tions. (See  also  Section  4.2.14,  which  evaluates  system  safety  and 
reliability.) 

o  Effectiveness:  Implementation  of  the  plan  will  reduce  the 
potential  impacts  associated  with  geological  hazards  which  may 
determine  the  occurrence  of  a  spill,  by  ensuring  containment 
and  cleanup. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

Automated  shutoff  valves  will  be  installed  at  the  Concord  Fault 
at  Pacheco  Creek  (see  mitigation  measure  [7]). 

[64]  On  the  basis  of  the  data  on  the  maximum  probable  Modified 
Mercalli  Intensities  (MMI)  for  the  proposed  pipeline  route,  the  pipe- 
line will  be  designed  to  tolerate  an  MMI  of  VIII  during  its  lifetime 
without  rupturing. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  prevent  damage  to  the  system 
from  surficial  seismic  events. 

6.2.2  Soils 

Project  Description  Measures 

None,  other  than  routine  maintenance. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[65]  Right-of-way  maintenance  will  include  erosion  control  and 
revegetation  as  described  in  Section  6.1.2  (measures  [9]  to  [12]), 
where  the  vegetative  cover  is  insufficient  and  erosion  is  evident. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  significant  soil 
impacts  to  insignificant  during  operations. 

[66]  The  right-of-way  will  be  maintained  in  perpetuity,  and 
mitigation  measure  [65]  will  be  applied  as  necessary. 


6-25 


o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  avoid  soil  impacts  during 
abandonment  when  the  pipeline  remains  in  the  ground. 

[67]  Impacts  on  soils  from  an  oil  spill  can  be  significantly 
reduced  if,  following  removal  of  oil  and  highly  contaminated  soils, 
these  soils  are  aerated  by  disc  plowing  and/or  harrowing  to  ensure 
that  microbial  activity  and  oxidation  degrade  residual  oils  from  the 
soils.  Following  thorough  and  standard  cleanup  procedures,  the  soils 
will  be  stabilized  and  revegetated  as  previously  described  for  post- 
construction. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  accelerate  recovery  of  the 
soils,  promote  new  growth,  and  reduce  the  impact  from  a  spill. 

6.2.3  Surface  Water 
Project  Description  Measures 

[68]  The  pipe  will  be  placed  below  channel  scour  depths. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  the  potential  hazard 
of  pipeline  exposure  during  operation.  In  conjunction  with 
routine  maintenance,  the  residual  impact  is  insignificant. 

[69]  The  pipeline  burial  depth  will  be  checked  periodically  at 
stream  and  river  crossings.  At  crossings  where  channel  degradation 
has  reduced  the  burial  depth  to  less  than  the  scour  depth,  the 
pipeline  will  be  reburied  to  the  proper  depth. 

o  Effectiveness:  In  general,  this  measure  will  effectively  pre- 
vent  pipeline  exposure  for  any  significant  length  of  time, 
given  ground  inspection  checks  at  periodic  intervals  and 
weekly  aerial  inspection  flights.  No  significant  residual 
impact  will  occur  from  scour. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[70]  Automatic  block  valves  will  be  installed  at  the  above-ground 
crossings  of  the  California  Aqueduct  at  milepost  160  and  the  Delta 
Mendota  Canal  at  164.  The  Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan  will  be  updated 
to  provide  for  containment  equipment  and  personnel  at  strategic 
locations  downstream.  The  equipment  will  include  containment  booms 
and  sorbent  materials. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  oil  spill  impacts  by 
minimizing  shutoff  and  containment  time,  thus  reducing  impacts 
on  wildlife  and  recreation  at  O'Neill  Forebay  and  on  down- 
stream water  supplies. 

6.2.4  Groundwater 
Project  Description  Measures 

None . 


6-26 


Other  Mitigation  Measures 
None  necessary. 

6.2.5  Air  Quality 

Project  Description  Measures 

[71]  Emission  control  equipment  will  be  used  to  control  emissions 
resulting  from  the  operation  of  pumps  and  heaters  at  new  and  modified 
booster  stations  and  to  meet  applicable  emissions  standards. 

0  Effectiveness:  Operational  impacts  on  air  quality  will  be 
insignificant. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

None  necessary. 

6.2.6  Socioeconomics  and  Transportation 
Project  Description  Measures 

None. 
Other  Mitigation  Measures 
None  necessary. 

6.2.7  Noise 

Project  Description  Measures 

[72]  Noise  generated  by  pumps  and  heaters  in  new  or  modified 
booster  stations  will  be  reduced  by  several  methods:  (a)  station 
sites  will  be  large  enough  to  reduce  the  amount  of  noise  transmitted 
off-site;  (b)  the  turbine  engines  as  purchased  will  be  installed  with 
sound-reducing  enclosures;  (c)  buildings  at  each  site  will  be  designed 
and  located  to  reduce  objectionable  noise;  and  (d)  trees  or  shrubbery 
will  be  established  peripherally  to  reduce  noise  levels  off-site. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  typically  attenuate  off- 
site  noise  levels.  Residual  impact  will  depend  on  the  sensi- 
tivity of  the  location  (e.g.,  Station  SJV-3b  is  sited  near  the 
Westley  Road  Rest  Stop  Park,  a  sensitive  land  use  area;  how- 
ever, it  is  not  noise-sensitive  near  1-5). 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

None. 

6.2.8  Land  Use  and  Recreation 

Project  Description  Measures 

[73]  Gates  or  other  types  of  barriers  will  be  placed  and  main- 
tained at  locations  where  the  pipeline  right-of-way  crosses  existing 


major  roads  to  prevent  motor  vehicle  access  to  the  pipeline  right-of- 
way. 

o  Effectiveness :  Unauthorized  use  of  the  right-of-way  will  not 
have  a  significant  impact. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[74]  After  construction  has  been  completed,  motorized  vehicle 
access  to  public  lands  crossed  by  the  right-of-way  will  be  prevented 
as  described  above  under  [73]. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  enhance  revegetation  efforts 
and  will  limit  the  proliferation  of  spur  roads  in  sensitive 
resource  areas. 

6.2.9  Visual  Resources 
Project  Description  Measures 

None. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[75]  Upon  abandonment,  all  physical  above-ground  facilities  will 
be  removed.  Planted  trees  and  shrubbery  will  be  left  at  the 
discretion  of  future  landowner(s) . 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  limit  long-term  impacts  on 
visual  resources  to  the  operational  phase.  No  significant 
residual  impact  on  visual  resources  will  occur. 

6.2.10  Paleontology 
Project  Description  Measures 

None. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[76]  Unauthorized  use  of  the  right-of-way  and  the  collection  of 

fossils  by  unauthorized  collectors  will  be  discouraged  by  gates;  the 

confidentiality  of  fossil  locations  will  be  maintained  (see  measure 
[73]). 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  reduce  unauthorized  access 
and  collection  to  a  level  that  may  approximate  the  present 
condition.  The  residual  impact  to  paleontology  is  insignifi- 
cant given  the  present  general  accessibility  of  the  region. 

6.2.11  Cultural  Resources 
Project  Description  Measures 

None. 

6-28 


Other  Mitigation  Measures 
None  necessary. 

6.2.12  Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology 
Project  Description  Measures 

None. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[77]  At  the  booster  stations,  vegetation  control  will  be  by 
mechanical  methods.  A  fire  break  maintained  by  disc  plowing  will  be 
more  effective  than  herbicides,  which  leave  dried,  dead  vegetation  in 
the  field.  It  also  reduces  the  risk  of  exposure  of  people  and  wild- 
life to  herbicides  and  prevents  contamination  from  the  long-term 
application  of  herbicides. 

o  Effectiveness:  The  effectiveness  of  a  fire  break  on  potential 
weed  fires  is  discussed  under  Section  6.2.13,  measure  [85]. 

[78]  In  the  event  of  extensive  maintenance  or  repair  work  or  a 
spill  in  or  near  special  status  species  habitat  shown  on  Table  4-26, 
the  USFWS  and  CDFG  will  be  notified  so  that  they  can  identify  any 
special  requirements. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  assist  in  the  development  of 
appropriate  mitigation  to  reduce  possible  spill  impacts  to 
special  status  species  but  does  not  eliminate  the  potential 
for  incidental  mortality  in  advance  of  extensive  pipeline 
right-of-way  maintenance. 

[79]  The  Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan  will  be  updated  to  include 
specific  measures  to  provide  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  immediately  of  spills  in  or  near  endangered 
species  habitats  to  afford  the  opportunity  for  consultation. 

o  Effectiveness:  Although  this  measure  will  minimize  signifi- 
cant impacts  on  sensitive  habitats,  the  impact  of  an  oil  spill 
will  remain  significant. 

6.2.13  System  Safety  and  Reliability 

Project  Description  Measures 

[80]  Specific  operation  and  maintenance  procedures  will  be  devel- 
oped for  the  proposed  pipeline  facilities.  Manuals  explaining  these 
procedures  will  be  made  available  to  all  operating  personnel,  who  will 
be  fully  trained  in  their  various  duties  and  responsibilities.  All 
manuals  will  comply  in  full  with  DOT  Regulation  49  CFR  195,  Transpor- 
tation of  Hazardous  Liquids  by  Pipeline:  Minimum  Federal  Safety 

6-29 


Standards,  and  state  requirements  such  as  the  California  Hazardous- 
Liquid  Pipeline  Safety  Act. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  insure  that  trained  opera- 
tors  wil 1  have  applicable  safety  information  and  contingency 
plans  at  hand. 

[81]  Communications  for  the  proposed  system  will  be  connected  to 
each  of  the  booster/injection  stations.  The  new  booster  stations  for 
Segment  1  will  be  remotely  controlled  from  an  existing  control  center 
at  Anaheim,  California.  Booster/injection  stations  at  existing  loca- 
tions are  manually  controlled  at  the  location.  The  Anaheim  control 
center  is  a  computer-based  supervisory  system  with  a  second,  fully- 
redundant  computer  which  will  provide  immediate,  automatic  back-up  in 
the  event  of  a  failure  in  the  primary  system.  The  system  is  capable 
of  integrating  all  pump  stations,  terminals,  automated  shutoff  valves, 
and  delivery  facilities  into  an  overall  network.  An  oil  movements 
controller  is  on  duty  24  hours  a  day  and  will  be  provided  with  stand- 
by power  systems  to  maintain  remote-control  operation  and  shutdown 
capability  in  case  of  a  power  failure.  Facilities  to  be  controlled 
will  be  connected  via  a  microwave  system.  These  communication  cir- 
cuits will  be  used  to  continuously  transfer  operating  information 
among  the  various  locations  in  the  network.  The  mainline  valves  will 
be  provided  with  bevel-gear  operators  and  will  be  located  in  accord- 
ance with  DOT  requirements.  Radio  communication  will  be  available 
between  stations  and  field  mobile  units  to  assist  in  dealing  with  any 
emergency. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  system  provides  for  rapid  shutdown  in  the 
event  of  a  spill. 

[82]  Certain  operations  and  maintenance  plans  and  schedules  will 
be  implemented  to  monitor  and  ensure  safe  pipeline  operation.  The 
permanent  right-of-way,  which  in  most  cases  will  have  been  returned  to 
its  original  use,  will  provide  access  for  any  necessary  pipeline  main- 
tenance. The  pipeline  will  be  inspected  routinely,  utilizing  aerial 
and  ground  surveys.  These  surveys  will  identify  potential  right-of- 
way  use  encroachments,  pipeline  exposure  and  mechanical  damage,  and 
other  situations  which  might  constitute  a  safety  hazard.  All  valves 
and  valve  actuators  will  be  routinely  operated,  inspected,  and  lubri- 
cated. Periodic  surveys  will  also  be  conducted  to  ensure  the  continu- 
ity of  the  cathodic  protection  system  and  to  indicate  where  preventa- 
tive maintenance  is  required. 

Routine  aerial  surveys  of  the  right-of-way  will  be  conducted  once 
a  week.  Maintenance  crews  will  make  continuous  general  observations 
of  the  pipeline,  and  ground  surveys  of  selected  points  will  be  made  at 
least  e^ery   two  months.  Block  valve  stations  will  be  inspected  twice 
a  year,  and  cathodic  protection  stations  at  least  twice  a  year.  Un- 
manned booster  and  meter  stations  will  be  inspected  at  least  once  a 
week.  All  pipeline  facilities  will  be  marked  ano  identified  in 
accordance  with  applicable  regulations. 

o  Effectiveness:  Encroachments  upon  and  hazards  to  the  pipeline 
from  man-made  or  natural  causes  will  be  quickly  detected  and 
remediated.  Valves  will  be  operational  at  all  times. 

6-30 


[83]  The  land  required  for  above-ground  ancillary  facilities  will 
be  maintained  free  of  vegetation  and  debris,  as  well  as  any  private 
access  roads  associated  with  these  facilities. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  insure  that  the  pipeline  and 
ancil lary  facilities  will  be  accessible  at  all  times. 

[84]  Booster  stations  will  have  the  following  fire  protection  and 
control  systems  for  the  gas  turbine  and  heaters. 

The  gas  turbine  will  have  a  fire  detection  and  suppression  system 
within  the  unit  enclosure.  This  halon  fire  system  will  be  incorpor- 
ated into  both  the  unit  and  the  station  programmable  logic  controllers 
to  initiate  emergency  shutdown  of  both  the  pumping  unit  and  the  sta- 
tion in  the  event  of  a  fire.  The  system  will  consist  of  temperature 
detectors,  ultraviolet  flame  detection,  and  a  halon  storage  and  dis- 
charge system.  It  will  be  designed  to  initiate  pump  unit  and  station 
shutdown  when  any  of  the  temperature  detectors  or  flame  detectors 
actuates,  indicating  the  presence  of  a  fire  within  the  unit  enclosure. 
Upon  initiation  of  pump  unit  shutdown,  the  enclosure  vents  will  close 
and  the  halon  charge  will  be  released  into  the  unit  enclosure  in 
sufficient  concentration  to  extinguish  the  flame. 

The  heaters  will  have  a  protective  device  system  which  will 
detect  the  presence  of  an  abnormal  fire  within  the  unit.  This  system 
will  be  incorporated  into  both  the  unit  and  station  programmable  logic 
controllers  to  shut  down  both  the  heater  and  the  station  in  the  event 
of  an  abnormal  fire  within  the  heater.  Since  heaters  utilize  burners, 
the  presence  of  a  flame  alone  will  not  be  sufficient  to  identify  the 
presence  of  an  abnormal  (emergency)  fire.  The  emergency  fire  detec- 
tion system  will  consist  of  a  temperature  detector  in  the  unit  exhaust 
stack  which  will  be  activated  when  the  stack  temperature  exceeds 
normal  operating  values.  Upon  actuation  and  initiation  of  emergency 
shutdown,  heater  process  inlet  and  outlet  valves,  fuel  valves,  and 
inlet  air  dampers  will  be  closed  to  eliminate  the  sources  of  combus- 
tion and  extinguish  the  flame. 

In  addition  to  the  automatic  fire  protection  and  control  systems 
mentioned  above,  other  fire  protection  equipment  will  consist  of  one 
150-pound  wheeled  fire  extinguisher  and  two  30-pound  hand-held  fire 
extinguishers.  These  extinguishers  will  be  located  within  the  control 
building  and  at  key  points  in  the  station  yard. 

All  operating  and  maintenance  personnel  will  be  trained  in  fire 
protection  and  in  the  use  of  basic  fire  fighting  equipment.  In  addi- 
tion, selected  supervisory  personnel  will  receive  more  extensive  fire 
prevention  and  fire  protection  training  as  well  as  first  aid  courses 
dealing  with  the  treatment  of  burns  and  other  fire-related  injuries. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  reduce  the  probability  and 
severity  of  a  fire  or  explosion  originating  inside  the 
booster/injection  stations,  contain  it  on  the  site,  and 
prevent  injuries  or  property  damage  from  such  a  fire. 


6-31 


Other  Mitigation  Measures 

[85]  A  fire  break  of  at  least  25  feet  will  be  kept  free  of  vege- 
tation on  the  periphery  of  the  station. 

0  Effectiveness:  The  risk  of  a  weed  fire  setting  fire  to  the 
station  will  be  reduced. 

[86]  In  order  to  provide  effective  fire  protection  at  the 
booster/injection  stations  in  the  event  of  a  brush  or  weed  fire,  it  is 
recommended  that  additional  firefighting  equipment  be  stored  at  each 
of  the  booster  stations,  including  portable  fire  extinguishers  for 
outdoor  use;  a  1,000-gallon  water  tank  and  portable  pumping  equipment; 
and  shovels. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  additional  equipment  will  provide  effec- 
tive  fire  protection  against  brush  or  weed  fires  near  the 
booster  stations,  thereby  minimizing  potential  damage  to  the 
station  or  pumps.  No  significant  residual  effect. 

[87]  Natural  gas  leak  detection  devices  will  be  installed  at  all 
pump  stations. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  reduce  the  potential  for 
explosion  due  to  natural  gas  leaks  to  an  insignificant  level. 

[88]  The  pumps  of  the  booster  stations  will  be  equipped  with  seal 
leak  detectors  that  would  stop  the  pumps  if  excess  seepage  from  the 
seal  is  detected.  Valve  stem  packing  will  be  inspected  as  part  of  the 
maintenance  program. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  increase  the  capability 
for  leak  detection  and  for  initiating  prompt  remedial  action 
if  necessary. 

6.2.14  Oil  Spill  Potential 

Project  Description  Measures 

[89]  All  applicable  safety  codes,  regulations,  design  standards, 
and  generally  accepted  industry  practices  will  be  complied  with. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  will  reduce  the  probability  of  an  oil 
spill  or  leak  due  to  design  and  construction  flaws. 

[90]  The  pipeline  will  be  designed  to  accommodate  geologic 
hazards,  using  earthquake-resistant  design  principles. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  contribute  to  pipeline 
survival  in  the  event  of  an  earthquake. 

[91]  A  pipeline  exterior  coating  will  be  used  at  weld  joints  and 
a  cathodic  protection  system  will  be  installed. 


6-32 


o  Effectiveness;  This  system  will  minimize  pipeline  failures 
due  to  external  corrosion. 

[92]  Radiographic  (X-ray)  inspection  of  pipeline  welds  and  hydro- 
static pressure  testing  will  be  used  to  nondestructively  evaluate 
pipeline  integrity. 

o  Effectiveness;  These  techniques  will  prevent  failures  due  to 
weld  and  pipe  defects. 

[93]  Pressure  relief  valves  and  a  sump  system  with  high-level 
monitors  and  alarms  to  handle  system  overpressurizations  will  be  used. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  system  will  prevent  pipeline  damage  due 
to  pipeline  pressure  surge. 

[94]  A  pipeline  leak  detection  system,  including  24-hour  operator 
surveillance  and  remotely-controlled  mainline  shutoff  valves,  which 
will  permit  rapid  response  to  a  pipeline  leak,  will  be  used. 

o  Effectiveness:  By  permitting  rapid  response  to  a  pipeline 
leak,  the  amount  of  oil  spilled  will  be  minimized. 

[95]  The  pipeline  will  be  buried  a  minimum  of  three  feet,  and 
deeper  in  areas  where  deep  plowing  or  ripping  could  result  in  damage 
to  the  pipeline.  Also,  aboveground  pipeline  markers  to  DOT  regula- 
tions will  be  installed. 

o  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  help  minimize  pipeline 
failures  due  to  external  force  or  outside  parties. 

[96]  The  oil  storage  tank  at  Mid  station  will  be  surrounded  by  a 
containment  dike  to  prevent  spread  of  spilled  oil  and  a  high-level 
monitor  and  alarm  will  be  used  to  prevent  tank  overfilling. 

0  Effectiveness:  These  measures  will  contain  the  oil  spill  to 
the  storage  tank  area  as  long  as  the  berm  remains  intact. 

[97]  Block  valves  will  be  installed  along  the  pipeline  route  no 
more  than  30  miles  apart. 

o  Effectiveness:  This  measure  will  limit  the  volume  of  oil 
spilled  in  the  event  of  a  line  break  or  leak  to  the  oil 
present  in  the  ruptured  section  between  two  valves. 

[98]  Pipeline  right-of-way  security  will  be  maintained  by  fre- 
quent (weekly)  aerial  reconnaissance  of  the  pipeline  route,  following 
DOT  regulations. 

o  Effectiveness:  Encroachments  upon  and  hazards  to  the  pipeline 
will  be  quickly  detected  to  allow  removal  of  shrubbery  and/or 
growth. 

[99]  Each  pumping  or  injection  station  will  be  equipped  with  an 
uninterruptible  power  supply  to  prevent  loss  of  remote  system  monitor- 
ing at  the  control  center  caused  hy  loss  of  electrical  power. 

6-33 


o  Effectiveness:  By  ensuring  a  continuous  power  supply,  remote 
system  control  capability  will  be  protected. 

[100]  The  Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan  will  provide  for  effective 
personnel  notification  and  action  procedures,  as  well  as  local  storage 
of  spill  cleanup  equipment  along  the  route,  in  order  to  reduce  poten- 
tial hazards  to  public  or  environmental  damage  from  an  oil  spill.  The 
proposed  plan  is  included  in  this  document  in  Appendix  B.  Special 
directives  are  given  for  response  actions  to  be  taken  in  the  event  of 
a  spill  in  special  areas,  such  as  highways,  streams,  or  farmlands. 
The  plan  lists  oil  spill  cleanup  equipment  to  be  maintained  at  several 
areas  along  the  pipeline  route,  as  well  as  names  and  telephone  numbers 
of  outside  oil  companies  and  government  agencies  and  fire  departments. 
The  plan  provides  for  the  training  of  all  operating  and  maintenance 
personnel  in  emergency  procedures  and  use  of  firefighting  equipment 
and  repair  procedures.  The  effectiveness  of  personnel  training  will 
be  evaluated  annually. 

o  Effectiveness:  In  general,  the  emergency  response  plans  and 
mitigation  measures  are  designed  to  protect  both  public  safety 
(for  example,  in  the  case  of  an  oil  spill  on  a  highway  pre- 
senting a  potential  hazard  to  automotive  traffic),  and  sensi- 
tive environmental  resources. 

[101]  An  electronic  "pig"  will  be  used  to  re-inspect  the  line 
periodically  after  pipeline  operation  begins.  The  scraper  traps  and 
pipeline  could  be  designed  to  launch  and  pass  an  internal  inspection 
tool.  Use  of  electronic  devices  to  re-qualify  the  pipeline  in  accor- 
dance with  Section  51013.5  paragraph  (d)  and  (g)  of  the  California 
Pipeline  Safety  Act  of  1979  would  require  a  variance  from  the  State 
Fire  Marshall.  By  comparing  the  weld  X-ray  taken  at  periodic  inter- 
vals, early  identification  of  potential  weld  defects  due  to  corrosion 
or  other  deterioration  during  pipeline  operation  will  be  possible.  If 
defects  are  detected,  the  weld  will  be  replaced. 

o  Effectiveness:  Detection  of  pipeline  deterioration  is  not 
left  to  chance. 

Other  Mitigation  Measures 

The  Oil  Spill  Contingency  Plan  will  be  updated  to  address  sensi- 
tive habitats  (see  measure  [80]).  The  manual  block  valves  at  Pacheco 
Creek  will  be  automated  (see  measure  [7]).  Automatic  block  valves 
will  be  installed  at  the  crossings  of  the  California  Aqueduct  and 
Delta  Mendota  Canal  (see  measure  [70]). 


6-34 


7.     UNAVOIDABLE  ADVERSE   IMPACTS 


Unavoidable  adverse  impacts  are  the  residual   impacts  that  would 
exist   in  spite  of  the  mitigation  measures  described  in  Section  6. 

Geology  and  Topography 

None  identified. 

Geological  Hazards 

A  major  earthquake  could  produce  intense  ground  shaking  and 
liquefaction,  with  resultant  damage  to  ancillary  facilities, 
particularly  the  Mid  station  storage  area.  Although  the  facilities 
are  designed  to  withstand  an  earthquake  of  MMI  VIII  intensity,  the 
risk  of  an  oil  spill  persists  as  a  small  probability  of  occurrence. 
Low  probability  exists  for  a  seismic  event  that  would  cause  a  >3-foot 
fault  rupture  at  the  Concord  fault,  and  a  resultant  pipeline  shear. 

Soils 

Revegetation  failure  on,  the  right-of-way  is  possible  at  sites 
subject  to  erosion,  especially  at  those  sites  near  or  on  steep  slopes 
(>18%).  These  are  found  primarily  in  Contra  Costa  County.  The  soil 
conservation  plan  must  address  the  issue  of  revegetation  of  erosion- 
prone  areas. 

Surface  Water 

The  hazard  of  contamination  by  an  oil  spill  of  significant  water 
resources,  including  the  California  Aqueduct,  Pleasant  Valley  Aque- 
duct, Delta  Mendota  Canal,  Bethany  Reservoir,  Contra  Loma  Reservoir, 
and  Mokelumne  Aqueduct,  is  a  residual  impact. 

Groundwater 

None  identified. 


7-1 


Air  Quality 

None  identified;  a  minor  addition  of  emissions  well  below 
standards. 

Noise 

Exceeding  local  criteria  (short-term)  of  about  60  dB(A)  in  a  few 
recreation  and  residential  areas  could  occur  during  construction  (see 
Land  Use  and  Recreation  below) . 

Land  Use  and  Recreation 

The  requirement  for  a  permanent  right-of-way  and  land  for  ancil- 
lary facilities,  affecting  less  than  1,000  acres,  is  unavoidable. 

Other  adverse  impacts  include  traversing  the  Bethany  Reservoir 
State  Park  in  Alameda  County,  and  the  Black  Diamond  Mines  Regional 
Preserve,  Stoneman  Park  and  proposed  reservoir,  proposed  residential 
developments,  and  proposed  Highway  4  improvements  in  Contra  Costa 
County.  Residual  impacts  may  be  insignificant,  depending  on  how  these 
conflicts  are  resolved  at  the  local  level. 

Visual  Resources 

By  their  nature,  the  new  booster  stations  have  a  moderately 
significant  impact  on  visual  resources,  since  they  are  man-made 
structures.  The  residual  impact  will  be  relatively  insignificant, 
however,  since  with  proper  screening  and  landscaping,  these  stations 
will  blend  in  with  other  man-made  features  such  as  electric  transmis- 
sion lines  in  the  area. 

Paleontology 

None. 
Cultural  Resources 

None. 

Terrestrial  and  Aquatic  Biology 

The  residual  impact  consists  of  temporary  habitat  disturbance  on 
the  construction  right-of-way  and  associated  mortality  of  wildlife 
including  in  all  probability  a  number  of  small  mammals  which  are 
listed  as  threatened  and  endangered  or  candidates  for  designation: 
Tipton  kangeroo  rat,  San  Joaquin  pocket  mouse,  and  the  San  Joaquin 
antelope  squirrel.  The  losses  will  be  balanced  by  reproductive 
success  following  habitat  restoration. 

Construction  will  not  be  a  mortality  factor  for  the  endangered 
kit  fox,  which  occurs  at  several  points  along  the  entire  project, 
because  its  dens  have  been  identified  and  will  be  avoided  by  slight 
adjustments  in  the  center  line.  The  impact  will  be  avoided  in  the 


7-2 


same  way  on  scattered  oak  trees  in  the  Oak  Savannah  vegetation  type, 

on  sycamore  trees  along  Orestimba  Creek,  and  on  a  vernal  pool.  The 

revegetation  of  alkali  sink  and  saltbush  scrub  habitat  (native  vegeta- 
tion types)  must  be  addressed  in  the  soil  conservation  plan. 

In  the  case  of  some  other  listed  or  candidate  species,  there  is 
no  significant  impact  because  the  habitat  is  marginal  or  not  critical 
to  these  species  and  if  present,  representation  is  extremely  limited 
and  uncertain  for  some:  California  clapper  rail  and  Alameda  striped 
racer. 

The  blunt-nosed  leopard  lizard  is  so  rare  that  any  impact 
involving  potential  direct  or  indirect  mortality  and  long-term  habitat 
loss  is  significant  for  this  species.  The  long-term  requirement  for 
right-of-way  maintenance  will  exert  certain  periodic  disturbances  ana 
is  significant  for  most  of  the  listed  and  candidate  species  addressed 
in  this  report,  with  the  exception  of  those  not  probably  present  or 
dependent  on  this  habitat  (e.g.,  the  peregrine  falcon,  and  California 
clapper  rail).  This  long-term  impact  requires  mitigation  in  the  form 
of  restitution  by  either  special  habitat  improvement  or  by  establish- 
ing conservation  easements  securing  the  survival  of  species  affected 
by  the  habitat  loss  due  to  the  project  and,  on  a  regional  scale,  by 
land  management  trends  or  developments.  If  such  compensatory  measures 
are  applied,  the  residual  impact  is  not  significant. 

Operation  and  maintenance  have  less  impacts  than  construction,  if 
any  impact  at  all  that  would  be  in  addition  to  the  long-term  habitat 
loss  described  above. 

However,  any  of  the  wildlife  and  habitats  could  be  affected  by  a 
major  oil  spill,  which  could  spread  over  several  acres  off  the 
right-of-way  and,  unlike  the  pipeline,  selectively  impact  a  low  spot 
(stream,  wetland)  where  animal  numbers  tend  to  be  relatively  high 
during  the  summer.  Whether  a  spill  will  affect  endangered  species 
cannot  be  predicted. 

The  estimated  three  spills  of  greater  than  50  barrels  over  the 
life  of  the  project  could  but  are  not  likely  to  impact  endangered/ 
threatened  species  and  unique  habitat  because  78%  of  the  route  is 
across  cultivated,  disturbed,  and  valley  grassland  (not  native).  The 
residual  impact  is  a  small  risk  of  affecting  unique  areas, ( alkal i 
sink,  saltbush  scrub,  oak  savannah,  riparian,  brackish  and  freshwater 
wetlands  and  vernal  pool)  which  the  oil  spill  contigency  plan  has 
addressed. 


7-3 


8.     RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  LOCAL  SHORT-TERM  USES  OF 
MAN'S  ENVIRONMENT  AND  THE  MAINTENANCE/ 
ENHANCEMENT  OF   LONG-TERM  PRODUCTIVITY 


The  environment  of  the  proposed  pipeline  route  and  its  associ- 
ated facilities  would  be  affected  primarily  for  the  duration  of  the 
construction  period.     Construction  of  the  pipeline  will   proceed  at  an 
average  rate  of  about  1  mile  per  day  and  construction-related  distur- 
bances will   affect  the  public  in  any  one  area  for  only  a  few  days. 
Exhaust  gas  emissions,  construction  noise,  and  turbidity  are  all 
short-term  construction  impacts,   as  is  the  disruption  of  traffic  flow 
patterns. 

Right-of-way  rehabilitation  and  revegetation  will   extend  the  time 
required  to  return  the  right-of-way  environment  to  its  original   condi- 
tion, but  not  by  a  significant  period.     In   areas  of  scattered  natural 
vegetation,  right-of-way  revegetation  will   be  difficult,   particularly 
on  steep  slopes.     It  may  take  years  for  natural   vegetation  to  recover 
in  the  construction  zone  and/or  to  establish  a  satisfactory  grass 
cover  on  that  portion  of  the  right-of-way  which   is  to   be     permanently 
maintained.     This   impact   is  anticipated  to  occur  in  steeply  sloping 
and   stony  portions  of  the  right-of-way  in  Contra  Costa  County.     The 
impact  of  the  project  on  visual   resources  is  not  particularly  signifi- 
cant because  major  portions  of  the  route  are  aligned  within  existing 
corridors. 

Since  the  pipeline  will  primarily  be  aligned  within  major  exist- 
ing transmission  and  transportation  corridors  on  the  western  margin 
of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  it  will  have  long-term  impacts  which  are 
in  addition  to  those  already  present  in  that  environment;  these _ addi- 
tional impacts  are  generally  insignificant.  If  any  paleontological 
or  cultural  resources  conflict  with  the  project,  appropriate  action 
will   be  taken  to  ensure  their  recovery  and/or  protection. 

Endangered   species  are  a  major  concern.     Based  on  the  results  of 
the  completed  ground   survey,  the  USFWS  will   offer   its  biological 
opinion;   it  may  be  necessary  to  apply  certain  avoidance  actions  to  the 
region   in  general   or  it  may  be  possible  to   avoid  certain  habitats 
through  relatively  minor  deviations. 


8-1 


A  major  oil  spill  will  have  a  significant  impact,  depending  on 
where  the  spill  occurs  and  on  the  response  action.  In  this  region, 
the  risk  of  a  spill  requires  consideration  because  of  the  seismic 
activity  and  the  infrastructure  in  place  to  store  and  deliver  the 
scarce  surface  water  resources  of  the  region  to  urban  areas  and 
croplands  under  irrigation  in  the  valley.  While  an  oil  spill  due  to  a 
seismic  event  could  occur,  this  risk  should  not  be  overestimated; 
pipelines  in  the  area  during  the  Coalinga  earthquake  did  leak  but  did 
not  result  in  major  spills  of  oil.  The  two  proposed  booster  stations 
and  the  Mid  station  storage  tank  essentially  are  no  more  vulnerable 
than  the  existing  pump  stations  or  the  existing  Martinez  refinery. 
Thus,  the  risk  of  a  spill  has  been  acceptable  in  the  past,  and  it  will 
be  no  different  for  a  new  pipeline.  It  is  "a-fact-of-life"  type  of 
impact  where  oil  production  fields  occur  in  a  seismically  active 
region,  and  requires  the  kind  of  contingency  plans  detailed  in  this 
report,  particularly  in  regard  to  the  protection  of  surface  water 
resources. 

The  project,  if  permitted,  will  contribute  to  the  economy  of  the 
region  primarily  by  improving  the  present  infrastructure  available  to 
transport  oil  from  the  Southern  San  Joaquin  Valley  to  the  Martinez 
refinery.  It  will  not  result  in  any  significant  economic  growth,  nor 
will  it  be  accompanied  by  "boom-and-bust"  economic  phenomena.  It  will 
have  certain  local  benefits  over  the  life  of  the  project  in  terms  of 
receipts  from  taxes.  Indirectly,  it  will  make  available  pipeline 
capacity  for  other  uses  at  a  rate  of  120  MBD.  Most  importantly,  it 
will  avoid: 

•  Increased  use  of