WPC/ 6-#ݻ HyXoVl̀WK1Gpz%Kp=%-wH\PpȂjFD'z[$l(f[i\Ф8$Xt 5i1)[LbT@Ʃ V|ך~n&OX R2~!xwXHKS(K6P67"kf0|%4  5=]suvFZs%Ј2D#6RL'@(}GokN^Hق rv&V"l/`|&2X+謩zTjyVdP`#D[g`EJy6>e" WvqQ i</Xo0gW&\M?!*wq6k xgIV=>a,KX4]L`1] 0~ 0x$ 0k 0k 0r 0~  0 0[ 0? 0 0  0 01 0C5 0Vx 0 0 0A 0 0 0d 0 0 0Uw0> %n 0zt 0 ! 0=! 0F " 0Pf" 1" 0K# 1$$ 0+%}% 0~f)E) 0$) 06 * 00@* 0:p* 0* D3o, 0~,#  - 0 ~+. 0. 0/ 0[0U.6 1k*7U@7 007 068U@;; 0~{; 0< 0= 0f> 0? 0? 0@ 0A 0tB 0zC 0tC 0CU.EU+@3E 0}sE 0FU@H 0H 0J 0L 0jN 0;P 0w R 0+R 07S 02T 0V 01W 0?Y 0;XZ 03[ 0-\ 0;] 0._ 0%a 08b 0/d 0sf 0qg 0kg 0kbh 0Eh 0vi 09j 09j 0j 0gl 0:n 0o 0aq 0ts 0wyt 09u 0h)v 0vw 0y 0z 0| 0 ~ 0p 0, 0Ƃ 0 09Q 0' 05 0k 0eQ 0  0ҊU8Ԋf &,> C jfa B/* BČaw@ 5 D+;f 0~, 0) AMӎ 0) AM\ 0)" 0~K AQɑ 0) AM 7Vn 0j?beԡա h hq  "4>>)Rb{?ݯ 1mձ!pB(!pڹJ(? 0gg 0D!p !p{{!p!p[[! !p{!p!p[!p!p;!p!p!p !p"! k!p!p#!pl) )(. /V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..^  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. ) `CG Times&R& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS !    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S ($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS #  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1xF*2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper %C[:; s &(  XqX&&qXX>''*d>>''*d>\ 1\ 2\ 3\ 4\ 5\ 6\ 7\ 8\ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 P-0*6 Ї 28"    '"(V2H<$ r!     $"64Body Text0.Bullet:8Body SingleTqA,aspenGTC EIR style guide&q&&&q&q&&&qB.X  hp xT$XB  C[:;7q&&d7XXC[:;  'dxd(V2H*$ r!     HP LaserJet 4V/4MVHPPCL5E,,,,,,0 (V2H$ r!     H(EIREIR Style Guide X  X    &&&E) `CG TimesE," Xp00 !,0r.footer !&&&E) `CG TimesE6y4MACNormal            _UX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<_        #d#  :::C47D4A`ArialTTCS 5 $ I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)S   .  ,     &44:d& US      X   A7> .~^>!~$%'AU61\4 `(Times NewRomanTTU            _UX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<_        #66d#  :::C47D4A`ArialTTC .  ,     &44:d& US      X   A7> .~^>!~$%'AU61\4 `(Times NewRomanTTU7D4A`ArialTT$35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)1\4 `(Times NewRomanTT0.Header86IMP-headerU9.\4 `(Times NewRomanTTU5+ 4 <DL!5U9.\4 `(Times NewRomanTTUnd !(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACPFHKXMOR`TVYh[]`pbd gnU9.\4 `(Times NewRomanTTU5+ 4 <DL!5U9.\4 `(Times NewRomanTTUnd !(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACPFHKXMOR`TVYh[]`pbd gn.\4 `(Times NewRomanTT86IMP-NormalU9.\4 `(Times NewRomanTTU5+ 4 <DL!5U9.\4 `(Times NewRomanTTU5+ 4 <DL!5PB0HeadingChapter Heading@..  2I.3  Ԁ   Ԉ tO 4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers.. 2I.3  Ԁ  0..L=6SubheadingSubheading 2A.3  ..    ~>%8P-Lvl 1 HdgMain Heading with paragraph number  21.3  Ԁ0p..p  0p..p?%8P-Lvl 2 HdgLevel 2 heading with paragraph number  20.13  Ԁ0p..p  0p..p>"8P-Lvl 3 HdgLevel 3 heading with paragraph number  20.0.13  Ԁ0 ..   0p..p@"8P-Lvl 4 HdgLevel 4 heading with paragraph number  20.0.0.13  Ԁ0 ..   0p..pR8Level 1 HdgMain Heading   X8Level 2 HdgLevel 2 heading   X 8Level 3 HdgLevel 3 heading   :gn8line number  XXXCF*A`ArialTTCXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU*A`ArialTT* `(Times NewRomanTT<:footnote ref   4 hE) `CG TimesEG=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU<:footnote tex      4" ..UJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU* `(Times NewRomanTT64heading 9 4     G=4X4` hp x (#%'GE) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU64heading 8 4     G=4X4` hp x (#%'GE) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU64heading 7 4     G=4X4` hp x (#%'GE) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU64heading 6 4     G=4X4` hp x (#%'GE) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU64heading 5 4     G=4X4` hp x (#%'G E) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*G XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU6&4heading 4          6x}4heading 3&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU6~4heading 2&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU6|4heading 1&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU<:{ N}Normal 4     G=4X4` hp x (#%'G&&&E) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU<x}:{ 3}level 3&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU>~:{ 2}level 2)&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU@{:{ 1}level 1d)&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU>x}:{ 4}level 4)&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU>uz:{ 5}level 5)&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU@{:{ 6}level 6l)&    &&&E) `CG TimesE'  XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU<:{ W}IndentW      G=X` hp x (#%G....&&&E) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU<in:{ S}1 1/2 S  &&&E) `CG TimesEXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU<:{ I}Indent      G=X` hp x (#%G....&&&E) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU<:{ X}Indent `     G=` X` hp x (#%'G..&&&E) `CG TimesE    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU:8page number   4 hXXXCF*A`ArialTTCG=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU< :level 2 (Cap&    '  <:level 1 (Cap&    '  <:level 4 (u/l&    '  .,norm1   (&tt   4  XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTUG=X` hp x (#%'0*G XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU. ,linea  . ,lineb  (&n4       4 ......XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU(&h2  4XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTUG=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU,*toc1  4` " ! XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTUG=X` hp x (#%'0*G XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU,*toc2 4     44 " T$UJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU,*toc3       4 " UJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU,*toc4  4" T$UJ* `(Times NewRomanTTUG=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU&$H   4"  UJ* `(Times NewRomanTTUG=X` hp x (#%'0*G XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU. ,lines  &$n   4" XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTUG=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU(&h1   4"  XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTUG=X` hp x (#%'0*G XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU0.source `     ` 4` " ....UJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU(&n1 4      44" ..XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU.,Toc H   4"  XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU  G=X` hp x (#%'0*G XXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU(&n2 "      " 4` " ` ..` XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU(&h3   4" XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTUG=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU(&n3 4      44" XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU(&ce      4" ......XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU*(com 4      44" ..XXXUJ* `(Times NewRomanTTU    G=X` hp x (#%'0*GXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU. ,Times  8_6ESA Indent 4     G=4X4` hp x (#%G....    G=X` hp x (#%'0*G* (ESA  2"0Title 2  #OO #dd20Title 1  #OO #dd2in0index 1  &&&E) `CG TimesEXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU<in:index headin  &&&E) `CG TimesEXXXUG* `(Times NewRomanTTU~+_  CG TimesBold   " &H<(   3 Xp00 !X3&& 66k(#PARTD.COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVES X ?'' xdEx? dTable_A&0 d d dTABLE C i j k l Em n Eo p Uq Dr H'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(V2H $ r!     ($A<< c Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($A<< c Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($(V2H$ r!     C<< c Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($A<< c - 0H)   ^(^&&.dTG:\PROJECTS\CPUC-2\FEIRS\PART-D\PART-D.TXTdG:\PROJECTS\CPUC-2\FEIRS\PART-D\PART-D.TXT/  !!(#"US // 12/21/95!  ԫ) `CG Times&&m PE37&P) `CG TimesY PE37P) `CG TimesO PE37P7D4A`ArialTT::}D4P :P1\4 `(Times NewRomanTT}\4 PP.\4 `(Times NewRomanTTa\4 PP.\4 `(Times NewRomanTTu\4 PP*A`ArialTTomanTTXXxPXP* `(Times NewRomanTTXXx PXP* `(Times NewRomanTTdPP) `CG TimesmanTTc PE37P* `(Times NewRomanTTXXxPXP* `(Times NewRomanTTPP+_  CG TimesBoldTTQ_ i7+_  CG TimesBoldTT_ i7+_  CG TimesBoldTTf_ i7(Br$  C[:;   0H)   ^(^&&./  !!(#"US // V12/21/95!   0H)   ^(^&&./  !!(#"US // V12/21/95!   0H)   ^(^&&./  !!(#"US // b12/21/95!   0H)   ^(^&&./  !!(#"US // V12/21/95!  =@?@@@@1@Q@^@`@_@@U@@b@h@r@4@4@4@@@OA@Z@@ #  @ @ @  ^@ ^@ f@    (@  @ ?  @    TABLE C/           Table_A\:3|? r >  Y$      1    'XO` XX'l &&0 O NotethatARCOPipeLineCompanywasformerlycalledFourCornersPipelineCompany.#&H& l v#Ԁ5GE  .'  X B.X  hp xT$XB^T$ PARTC.ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS X nT$q&&qqqSOCIOECONOMICS  X 0)  X B.X  hp xT$XBq&&qqq PreAdmin.Baseline,GTCMarineTerminal10791 &q&q&q&&&q@RC.12  1   5 .H*'   &&  PARTD.COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVES X   ?'' L1xdEL1x??''xdEx? 0H)   ^(^&&./  !!(#"US // V12/21/95!  # e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)"u,ae^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==Qs~sm=Gsizbsw===\\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\DG3\\\\QQ\Q\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\QQQQQz~QsQsQsQsQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\i\QQQ}Q}Q~Q~QnrQsQsQrQ\\\\\\\\=3=3=3=3fG\r3rBs3u7r3\j\\\\yByBzDcFcFcFbGrBr3s3\\\\\\\uQuQuQ\s3\zDbGs3\\n\\sQ=33\4==\\==/N\\\=QKK\\\\\\@\\\\@==__\00\\pp\\\mff=_\@\_\壣\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNmń\QQ====؄psfpfzQsGwQ\Q=3QzffQz\Qpi\p\\sQQzpfppppsG\=33QQQppQpppp===\\\\\\\ppppppppppppppppppppppGGGGGGG\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\333333333333QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQppppppppppppppppppppppi\Q=ADEIStankeringROWsviewshedsdrainagesMetrorailFEISSisquocnearshorebblsMBD1950sLFCEsteroLuisCajonEllwoodBPDGIMt&paleontological&SocioeconJoaquinR.BORDENL.A.SEIRAdminCFR"u,ae^#'6::h[''':h''''::::::::::''uhu4hTIPVIETV'-RIjVTCTN?IVTnTTL'''::'4:4:4':: : [::::+- ::T::44:4u::::::':::::::::T4T4T4T4T4hNP4I4I4I4I4' ' ' ' V:T:T:T:T:V:V:V:V:T:T4V:T:T:T:V:C:T3T4T3O3O3P4P4VFH3I4I4H3T:T:T:T:T:T:V:V:' ' ' ' UA-R:H!H*I K#H!V:VDV:V:T:T:hTM*M*N+?,?,?,?-H*H!I V:V:V:V:V:V:nTT:K3K3K3V:I V:N+?-I T:T:VFT:V:I4' T:4''::''/uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuNTTT:::'400::f:::hh:)::::h)''<<:huu::GGYu:u:T:EaaAAh'<:n)TTuuu:Tuu=TThhuuu:uuuuhhuuuh:''uuuuuTGuhTTTTTTTTTT'u:T:A:huTuN:':T4:CT[LuuTTTTTTTTTTuuuuu6uTTTTuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuTTuuuuuuaNG[uTuuu2ETTTTuuuuuuTTT:TTuTTuuuTTT4TTTT4TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT'TTT'TTT'TTT'TTTTTTTTTTTTTTGIAGAN4I-L4V:T4' R4NAjAV4N:T4TGC:G::I4T4NGTA[GGGTGI-V:' T4T44GG4GGGG''':::::::GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG-------:::::::::::::::::::::: 4444444444444444444GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGC:4'u 0H)   &&GFinalEIS/SEIR,January1996@\\.&S&G&H&&&SD  1  ADEIStankeringROWsviewshedsdrainagesMetrorailFEISSisquocnearshorebblsMBD1950sLFCEsteroLuisCajonEllwoodBPDGIMt&paleontological&SocioeconJoaquinR.BORDENL.A.SEIRAdminCFR(W(3Y$ r!         0   0H)   ^(^&&./  !!(#"US // V12/21/95!  (#$  0  "u,ae^!%377bV%%%7b%%%%7777777777%%nbn1bOEKQEAOQ%+MEdQO?OI;EQOhOOG%%%77%17171%777V7777)+77O771171n777777%777777777O1O1O1O1O1bIK1E1E1E1E1%%%%Q7O7O7O7O7Q7Q7Q7Q7O7O1Q7O7O7O7Q7?7O0O1O0K0K0K1K1QBD0E1E1D0O7O7O7O7O7O7Q7Q7%%%%P=+M7DD(EF!DQ7Q@Q7Q7O7O7bOI(I(I);*;*;*;+D(DEQ7Q7Q7Q7Q7Q7hOO7F0F0F0Q7EQ7I);+EO7O7QBO7Q7E1%O74%%77%%/nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNOOO777%1--77a777bb7'7777b'%%997bnn77CCTn7n7O7A\\==b%97h'OOnnn7Onn9OObbnnn7nnnnbbnnnb7%%nnnnnOCnbOOOOOOOOOO%n7O7=7bnOnI7%7O17?OVGnnOOOOOOOOOOnnnnn3nOOOOnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnOOnnnnnn\ICVnOnnn/AOOOOnnnnnnOOO7OOnOOnnnOOO1OOOO1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO%OOO%OOO%OOO%OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCE=C=I1E+G1Q7O1%M1I=d=Q1I7O1OC?7C77E1O1ICO=VCCCOCE+Q7%O1O11CC1CCCC%%%7777777CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC+++++++77777777777777777777771111111111111111111CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC?71%n"u,ae^(,>CCwh,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,w;w`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``V,,,CC,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC14%CC`CC;;C;CCCCCC,CCCCCCCCC`;`;`;`;`;wY[;T;T;T;T;,%,%,%,%cC`C`C`C`CcCcCcCcC`C`;cC`C`C`CcCMC`;`;`;[;[;[;[;cPS;T;T;S;`C`C`C`C`C`CcCcC,%,%,%,%aJ4^CS%S0T%U(S%cCcMcCcC`C`Cw`X0X0Y1H3H3H3H4S0S%T%cCcCcCcCcCcC~``CU;U;U;cCT%cCY1H4T%`C`CcP`CcCT;,%%`C4,,CC,,/N```CCC,;66CCuCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,EECw##CCQQeCC`COooJJw,EC~/``C`E``wwCwwwC,,`Qw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`hV``````````>``````oYQh`9O```````C```````;````;````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QTJQJY;T4V;cC`;,%^;YJyJc;YC`;`QMCQCCT;`;YQ`JhQQQ`QT4cC,%%`;`;;QQ;QQQQ,,,CCCCCCCQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ4444444CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC%%%%%%%%%%%%;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQMC;,"u,ae^(,>CCwm,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,wCw`Y``YPhh4@hY~`hPh`JY````Y,,,CC,CJ;J;/CJ%,J%mJCJJ;4,JC`CC;CCCCCCCCC,CCCCCCCCJ`C`C`C`C`C``;Y;Y;Y;Y;4%4%4%4%`JhChChChC`J`J`J`J`C`C`KhChC`C`CPJ`C`C`C`;`;`;`;`[X;Y;Y;X;hChChChChChChJhJ3%4%4%4%yL@hJX%X5Y%Y4Y%`K`j`K`JhChCc`;`;`;K3J4K3J4X5X-Y,`J`K`J`J`K`J``CX;Y;X;`JY%`J`;J4Y,`C`C`[hC`JY;4%%hC4,,CC,,/N```CCC,C99CCCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,MMCw##CCQQeCC`CTooJJw,MC~/``C`L``wwCwwwC,,`Qw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`h[``````````@``````tYQh`9O```````C```````C````C````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QYJQJY;Y4Y;h;`;4%h;YJ~J`;YCh;`QQCQCCY;`;YQ`JhQQQ`QY4h;4%%h;`;;QQ;QQQQ,,,CCCCCCCQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ4444444;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;%%%%%%%%%%%%;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQC;,"u,ae^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\zznGXznfzz===\\=\fQfQ@\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\Q\\\\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\g\\\\nf\\\QQQQ}yQzQzQyQ\\\\\\ffF3G3G3G3iXfy3yIz3zGz3ggf\\ψQQQgFfGgFfGyIy>z=fgffgf\yQzQyQfz3fQfGz=\\}\fzQG33\4==\\==/N\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@\i\壣\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNmń\\\====؄pzfpfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qpp\p\\zQQzpfppppzGQG33QQQppQpppp===\\\\\\\ppppppppppppppppppppppGGGGGGGQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ333333333333QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQppppppppppppppppppppppp\Q="46^ ^@HdllHHHlHHHHllllllllllHH`HT|tHHHllH`l`l`Hll<<l<llllPT<llll``l`llllllHlllllllll``````````H<H<H<H<llllllllll`lllll|l_`___``_``_llllllllH<H<H<H<xTl=N<A=l~llllNNPuRuRuRtTN=<lllllll___l<lPtT<llll`H<<l4HHllHH/NlllH`XXllllllLllllLHHppl88lllllxxHplLlqllHHHllxllHl`l|d\l``HHHHxx`T`l`H<`xx`l`|lll``xTlH<<````HHHlllllllTTTTTTTllllllllllllllllllllll<<<<<<<<<<<<```````````````````|l`H"u,ae^@HdllHHHlHHHHllllllllllHHlTh͜xٜHHHllHlx`x`LlxA.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSSxJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxJxIqIqIrJrJ{dgIiJiJgIxSxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.8.8.8.z]AuSg/gZ?Z?Z?YAgYAi.xSxS{dxS{SiJ8..xS488SS88/NxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxfiA{S8..xJxJJffJffff888SSSSSSSffffffffffffffffffffffAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS............JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJffffffffffffffffffffff`SJ8"u,ae^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxIxIxJxJxqnIoJoJnISSSSSS]]?.A.A.A._P]n/nCo.oAo.x]xx]x]SS{xIxIxJ]?]A]?]AnCn9o8x]x]x]x]x]x]xxSnIoJnIx]o.x]xJ]Ao8xSxSxqSx]oJA..S488SS88/NxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxfoAJA..JxJJffJffff888SSSSSSSffffffffffffffffffffffAAAAAAAJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ............JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJfffffffffffffffffffffffSJ8"u,ae^,2EKKu222K2222KKKKKKKKKK22Cl^go^Ylo2:j^olVldQ^ollla222KK2CKCKC2KK**K*uKKKK8:*KKlKKCCKCKKKKKK2KKKKKKKKKlClClClClCdgC^C^C^C^C2*2*2*2*oKlKlKlKlKoKoKoKoKlKlCoKlKlKlKoKVKlBlClBfBfBgCgCoZ]B^C^C]BlKlKlKlKlKlKoKoK2*2*2*2*nS:jK]*]6^*`-]*oKoWoKoKlKlKlc6c6d8Q9Q9Q9Q:]6]*^*oKoKoKoKoKoKllK`B`B`BoK^*oKd8Q:^*lKlKoZlKoK^C2**lK422KK22/NlllKKK2C==KKKKKK5KKKK522NNK''KK\\rKKlKY}}SS2NK5llKlNllK充K22l\llllllllll2KlKSKldK2KlCKVluallllllllllEllllll}d\ul@YlllllllKlllllllCllllCllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll2lll2lll2lll2llllllllllllll\^S\SdC^:aCoKlC2*jCdSSoCdKlCl\VK\KK^ClCd\lSu\\\l\^:oK2**lClCC\\C\\\\222KKKKKKK\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\:::::::KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK************CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\VKC2"u,ae^!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?EJ?;HJ!'F?[JH9HC6?JH^HHA!!!22!,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,d222222!222222222H,H,H,H,H,YCE,?,?,?,?,!!!!J2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2H2H,J2H2H2H2J292H,H,H,D,D,E,E,J<>,?,?,>,H2H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!!!!I8'F2>>$?@>J2J:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C%6&6&6&6'>$>?J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?J2C%6'?H2H2Jodur[rjUdurrrg555OO5FOFOF5OO,,O,{OOOO;>,OOrOOFFOFOOOOOO5OOOOOOOOOrFrFrFrFrFjlFdFdFdFdF5,5,5,5,uOrOrOrOrOuOuOuOuOrOrFuOrOrOrOuO[OrFrFrFlFlFlFlFu_bFdFdFbFrOrOrOrOrOrOuOuO5,5,5,5,tX>oOb,b9d,e0b,uOu\uOuOrOrOri9i9j;Vb9b,d,uOuOuOuOuOuOrrOeFeFeFuOd,uOj;U>d,rOrOu_rOuOdF5,,rO455OO55/NrrrOOO5F@@OOOOOO8OOOO855RRO))OOaaxOOrO^XX5RO8rrOrRrrO卍O55rarrrrrrrrrr5OrOXOrjO5OrFO[r{grrrrrrrrrrIrrrrrrja{rC^rrrrrrrOrrrrrrrFrrrrFrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr5rrr5rrr5rrr5rrrrrrrrrrrrrradXaXjFd>gFuOrF5,oFjXXuFjOrFra[OaOOdFrFjarX{aaarad>uO5,,rFrFFaaFaaaa555OOOOOOOaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>>>>>>>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,,,,,,,,,,,,FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa[OF5"u,ae^/5IOO555O5555OOOOOOOOOO55Orjrrj_{{>L{jr{_{rXjrrrrj555OO5OXFXF8OX,5X,XOXXF>5XOrOOFOOOOOOOOO5OOOOOOOOXrOrOrOrOrOrrFjFjFjFjF>,>,>,>,rX{O{O{O{OrXrXrXrXrOrOrY{O{OrOrO_XrOrOrOrFrFrFrFrliFjFjFiF{O|O{O{O{O{O{X{X<,>,>,>,[L{Xi,i?j,j>j,rYr~rYrX|O{OurFrFrFYYi?i6j5rXrYrXrXrYrXrrOiFjFiFrXj,rXrFX>j5rOrOrl{OrXjF>,,{O455OO55/NrrrOOO5OCCOOOOOO8OOOO855[[O))OOaaxOOrOdXX5[O8rrOr[rrO卍O55rarrrrrrrrrr5OrOXOrjO5OrFO[r{lrrrrrrrrrrLrrrrrrja{rC^rrrrrrrOrrrrrrrOrrrrOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr5rrr5rrr5rrr5rrrrrrrrrrrrrrajXaXjFj>jF{FrF>,{FjXXrFjO{FraaOaOOjFrFjarX{aaaraj>{F>,,{FrFFaaFaaaa555OOOOOOOaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>>>>>>>FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF,,,,,,,,,,,,FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaOF5"u,ae^,2EKK{222K2222KKKKKKKKKK22KldlldZuu:HudluZulSdlllld222KK2KSCSC5KS*2S*{SKSSC:2SKlKKCKKKKKKKKK2KKKKKKKKSlKlKlKlKlKllCdCdCdCdC:*:*:*:*lSuKuKuKuKlSlSlSlSlKlKlTuKuKlKlKZSlKlKlKlBlBlClClfcBdCdCcBuKuKuKuKuKuKuSuS9*:*:*:*VHuSc*c3=3=3=3\QzQg3gBf3g3g3y\zny\z\\\znFnFnF\F\F\F\FgBg3f3\\\\\\zfQgFgFgF\f3z\nF\Ff3fQfQn\\nQ=33\4==\\==/N\\\=\UU\\\\\\@\\\\@==\\\33\\pp\\\b\\=\\@\[\塡\==p=\p\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNmń\QQ====pppfpfzQpGfQ\Q=3zQzffzQz\Qpp\p\\fQfQzppfppppppG\=33QfQQppQpppp===\\\\\\\ppppppppppppppppppppppGGGGGGG\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\333333333333QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQppppppppppppppppppppppi\Q=3K=K,,&Km5gT!0'0,,^0mO-%-,,J-m`%7,7,,7m`%:,:,,1:2P=P,,1&P=YHY,,Ym<^H^,,1^x/D8D,,DmI+Sy.I8I,,1Il*>2>,,>mmH)!),,,)mr,A5A,,Am?pr,E5E,,1Em)A2A,,1AT[1K=K,,j&K{V/M=M,,&MnMTRz-D8D,,jD{Q|+F8F,,FnM"u,ae^6F_\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\zzzznF\znnzfnzznn===\\=\\Q\Q@\f33\3f\\\FF3fQz\QF\\\\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\z\z\z\z\z\zQzQzQzQzQF3F3F3F3f\\\\ffffpQz\\\\nQ\n\y\z\y\yQyQzQzQuyQzQzQyQ\\\\\\ffF3F3F3F3b\z\n3nIn3n>n3ggf\\ňyFyFzFgFgFgFfFnFn3n3fgffgfznQnFnFnF\n3fzFfFn3nQnQu\fzQF33\4==\\==/N\\\F\QQ\\\\\\=\\\\===bb\33\\pp\\\iii=b\=\s\塡\==p=\z\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNmń\\\====zpzfpfzQzGpQQQG3zQzffQz\Qpp\p\\pQpQzpzfpppzpzGQG33QpQQppQpppp===\\\\\\\ppppppppppppppppppppppGGGGGGGQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ333333333333QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQppppppppppppppppppppppp\Q="u,ae^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSSdSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSnInIoJoJxddIdJdJdIxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS9/8.8.8.SJoJ]/]<].]/]/nSodnSoSxSxSod?d?d?S?S?S?S?]<]/].xSxSxSxSxSxSo]J]?]?]?xS].oSd?S?].]J]JxdxSxSdJ8..xS488SS88/NxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]ffffffAxS8..xJ]JJffJffff888SSSSSSSffffffffffffffffffffffAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS............JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJffffffffffffffffffffff`SJ8"u,ae^1?VSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Soooxodx?Sodxxduo]dxoodd888SS8SSJSJ;S]..S.]SSS??.]JoSJ?SSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSSoSoSoSoSoSuoJoJoJoJoJ?.?.?.?.x]xSxSxSxSx]x]x]x]fJoSxSxSxSdJxSdSnSoSnSnInIoJoJxknIoJoJnIxSxSxSxSxSxS]]?.?.?.?.YSoSd/dCd.d9d/x]x{x]x]xSxS{n?n?o?]?]?]?]?d?d/d.x]x]x]x]x]x]odJd?d?d?xSd.x]o?]?d.dJdJxkxSx]oJ?..xS488SS88/NxxxSSS?SJJSSSSSS8SSSS888YYS..SSffSSxS```8YS8xxSxixxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SoS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxofo]f]oJoAfJJxJA.oJo]]xJoSxJxffSfSSfJfJofo]fffofoAJA..xJfJJffJffff888SSSSSSSffffffffffffffffffffffAAAAAAAJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ............JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJfffffffffffffffffffffffSJ8) p`CG Timesl,_ p CG TimesBold)4&_ p`$CG TimesItalic*:*0 p.CG TimesBold Italic r!     ݛXX3 Xp00 !X333%  @NNH  D.1INTRODUCTION Ԉ ,  D.1.10 0 BACKGROUND 6 0(#0(# ThissectionsummarizesandcomparestheenvironmentaladvantagesanddisadvantagesofthevariousprojectalternativesevaluatedinthisEIS/SEIR.ThepurposeofthisanalysisistoassisttheUSFStomakeadeterminationontheagency'spreferredalternativeandenvironmentallypreferredalternative(s)inaccordancewithNEPARegulations,40CFR1502.14and1505.2(b).ItisnotedthatwhiletheNEPALeadAgency'spreferredalternativeisidentifiedintheEIS,theNEPAenvironmentallypreferredalternativeneednotbeidentifieduntiltheNEPALeadAgency'sRecordofDecision(ROD).Further,thisanalysisprovidesthebasisfortheCPUCtoselecttheenvironmentallysuperioralternativepursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15126(d).Thisdiscussionisprovidedtohelpthereaderunderstandthemajordifferencesinimpactsthatareanticipatedwiththeprojectalternatives.InadditiontotheProposedProject,avarietyofalternativeswereconsideredandaredescribedinPartBofthisEIS/SEIR.Uponconductingascreeninganalysis,appropriatealternativeswereselectedforfurtherconsideration.InPartCofthisdocument,theenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththeProposedProjectandtheseselectedalternativesareassessed.AsubstantialamountofinformationispresentedinPartCbecausenumerousalternativesarediscussedandtheirpotentialeffectsextendovermanymilesofvariedterrain.Thefollowingsummarycomparisonfocusesonthesignificantimpactsandmajordifferences,ortradeoffs,inimpacts.Thecomparativeanalysispresentedinthissectionisintendedtoprovidedecisionmakerswithinformationsothattheymaymakebalanced,reasoneddecisionsonthependingpipelineapplication.ThiscomparativeanalysishasbeenreevaluatedsinceissuanceoftheoriginalPacificPipelineFinalEIR(FEIR)inSeptemberof1993,becauseofthechangesintheProposedProjectandduetothefollowingchangesinthealternativessincepreparationoftheFEIR:&&330 p NoProjectAlternative 󀄄TheNoProjectAlternativenolongerincludestankeringfromSantaBarbaratoLos " Angeles,nordoesitincludefullreplacementoftheFourCornersPipeline #  1      ׀(FCPL)63pipeline.Itdoes, #V however,includetankeringfromEsteroBayinSanLuisObispoCountytoLosAngelesandtruckandtraintransportationofcrudeoilfromBakersfieldtoLosAngeles.SeePartsAandBforfurtherdetailsontheNoProjectAlternative. p(#p(# Ѐ0 p APL90Alternative 󀄄Thisalternativehasbeendeletedbecauseitisnotconsideredreasonablyforeseeable j'>!" inthenextthreetofiveyears.Atpresent,APLhasnopendingplansorapplicationsforthisalternative. p(#p(# 0 p MojaveRouteAlternative 󄄀ThisalternativehasbeenaddedforconsiderationofanotherroutelinkingtheAll )#% AmericanPipelinetotheLosAngelesBasinutilizingthepassthroughtheSanGabrielMountains(SoledadPass)thatisapproximatelymidwaybetweentheTejonandCajonPasses. p(#p(#  ,%(     33 &H&Inaddition,changeshavebeenmadetothissectionaspresentedintheDraftEIS/SEIRissuedinApril  1995.ThesemodificationsareprimarilytheresultoftherevisionoftheproposedCajonPipelineProjectmadebyCajonPipelineCompany,Ltd.aftertheissuanceoftheDraftEIS/SEIRinApril1995.TherevisedalternativeisdescribedinSectionB.4.2anditsimpactsarepresentedinPartC.Therevisedalternativeandassociatedimpactsareconsideredinthiscomparativeanalysis.ThecharacteristicsoftheProposedProjectandtheCajonandMojavealternativesaresummarizedinTableD.11@ 0 TableD.11CharacteristicsofProposedProjectandAlternatives   # *w-ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#w,r dd ,udd ,dd ,00 +  2  ( 02l &&Hf33Characteristics ?*   ?ProposedProject ?*  " ?MojaveRouteAlternative ?* " ?RevisedCajonPipeline4 9/% " 0  9#&H& l ?#l &&HExistingPipelinesCommontoAllAlternatives1   0 y XXp0 P0#&H& l #l &&H0  AAPL:LasFlorestoGaviotau~  0  AAPL:GaviotatoPentland2 KA  @10113@K10113 mc5 " @10113 @ @10113@m10113 mc5 " @10113 @ @10113@m10113 OE; " @10113  @ OМAdditionalExistingPipelinesUsed(mi)3:#&H& l #l &&H   0  AAPL:PentlandtoStartofNewConstruction  0  TexacoPipelines(PentlandtoEmidio)  0  EPTC#&H& l %#l &&HԀSystem  TotalMilesAdditionalExistingPipelineUsed#&H& l (#l &&H  (" N/A17N/A17#&H& l #l &&H '((" '70N/AN/A70#&H& l -#l &&H '(." '120N/A63183#&H& l #l &&H ,"(4"  ,Lengthof(NearTerm)NewConstruction(mi) ?5  5 `@132`@?132 i_3 6" `@132 `@ _@126_@i126 H>3 7" _@126 _@ Hf85(Cajon)+20(EPTC)=105 ,"9"  ,fTotalLengthofPipelineUsed(mi)5 ?5 : b@149b@?149 i_3;" b@149 b@ h@196h@i196 i_3<" h@196 h@ r@288r@i288 MC9=" r@288  r@ MPipelineDiameter(inches)(portionsouthofAAPL)  > 20" '?" '20" '@" '20"85mi.16"54mi.12"29mi. ,"C"  ,AverageThroughput(BPD) B8 D @130000@B130,000 oe6E" @130000 @ @130000@o130,000 oe6F" @130000 @ OA150000OAo150,000 PF<G" OA150000  OA PInsulation  H yes 'I" 'yes 'J" 'yes105milesno63miles ,"*3L"  ,AgeofPipeline(ExcludingAAPL)  N 0412yrs(Texaco) ;1P" # ;0 ;1&Q" #  ;0(Cajonportion)033yrs(EPTC) ,"S"  ,MaximumPressure(psig) @6 T @1404@@1404 ka4U" @1404 @ @1200@k1200 lb4V" @1200 @ @11606@l11606 OE;W" @11606  @ OMaximumTemperature($#&H& l #l &&HF)  wX 120170 'wY" '120170 'wZ" '180200 ,"w["  ,Heating  [d\ byTexacoatTexacosEmidioStation '_" 'byPPSIatMojaveStation 'a" 'byAAPLat12GaugeLakeStation ,"c"  ,PumpStations(numberofstationstobeused;names)  "!+e 2Emidio,Grapevine 'd"mi" '1Mojave '"!+k" '8CajonTerminal,Adelanto,Euclid,Tonner,SantaFeSprings,Alnor,#&H& l $#l &&H d"mo DominguezHills,ElReal ,"#p"  ,PressureReliefStations  #q Whitaker '#r" 'none '#s" 'none ,"#t"  ,ControlCenters  $ u TaylorYard '$ v" 'TaylorYard '$ w" 'Adelanto(Cajon)DominguezHills(EPTC)(n%w!y"   (33ff33$ F Xy X$10 F Notethat,asdescribedinPartB,theexistingsystemofpipelinesinKernCountywouldbeusedforallofthepipeline &"z alternativesindeliveringSJVoiltotherespectivealternativepipelinesystems.#&H& l '#l &&H|'#{F(#F(# -,XFXF X-20 F Additionofthisportionofthecrudeoilpipelinesystemtothepipeline#&H& l 9+#l &&HԀalternativesprovidesthetotaldistancetraveledbyOCS (&$| oilfromSantaBarbaratoLosAngelesrefineriesresultinginthefollowingtotaldistancesforeachalternative: F(#F(# 0 F ProposedProject=272miles,MojaveRouteAlternative=319miles,revisedCajonPipelineAlternative=416miles.#&H& l ),#l &&H_)h%~F(#F(# 30 F AAPL:AllAmericanPipeline;EPTC:EdisonPipelineandTerminalCompany.Notethatthefirst123milesoftheAAPL * & wouldbeusedtotransportOCScrudebyallalternatives;useofthissegmentisnotanalyzedinthisEIS/SEIR. F(#F(# 40 F Newconstructionfrom12GaugeLaketoEtiwanda;usingexistingEdisonPipeline&TerminalCompany(EPTC)systemfrom B+K' Etiwandatorefineries(includingpresumeddistributiontoChevronsElSegundoRefinery).ThisistheCajonPipelineAlternativenowaddressedinthisdocument(theoriginalCajonPipelineAlternativeisnotconsidered). F(#F(# 50 F Notincludingexistingpipelinescommontoallalternatives.#&H& l -#l &&H%-.)F(#F(#  60 F MaximumoperatingpressureallowedbyEPTC.-)F(#F(# 33f)#&H& l 91#AnotherchangeinthisdocumentsincepublicationoftheDraftEIS/SEIRistheapproachtoconsideration ofthepotentialbeneficialimpactsthatcouldresultfromeliminationoftrain,truck,andmarinetankertransportofoilasaresultofincreasedpipelinecapacity.InthecomparativeanalysisintheDraftEIS/SEIR,theenvironmentalbenefitsofthesechangesinmodesofoiltransportation,whilenottotallyguaranteedbyshippers,wereascribedonlytotheProposedProjectandnottotheMojaveorCajonalternatives.ThisassumptionwasbasedontheshippersletterstotheLeadAgencieswhichstronglystatedthattheywouldmodifytheexistingmodesoftransportationofcrudeoilonlyiftheProposedProjectwereconstructed.Theshippersrationaleincludedthefollowingreasons:6,X,` X,XFX6&&H330  AdditionalcostsassociatedwithtransportingthecrudeintheAAPLtoMojave(anadditional70milesbeyond $ -  AAPLsPentlandStation)or12GaugeLake(anadditional120miles) (#(# 0  Thesubstantialeconomicincentivesfortransportingthecrudeinthreeseparatebatches(OCS,SJVHeavy#&H&5#&&H,and |  SJVLight#&H&A7#&&H)whichwouldbeeasilyachievablewiththeProposedProject,andonlypotentiallyobtainableforthe DM  CajonorMojavealternativesandthenonlywithmodificationstotheAAPLbetweenPentlandandtotheoriginationpointoftheothertwoalternatives.#&H&7# (#(# 335BasedoncommentsontheDraftEIS/SEIRandevaluationofthisissuebytheLeadAgencies,thepotentialbeneficialimpactsarenowconsideredtobeapplicabletoallpipelinealternatives.However,itisstillprobablethatthesebeneficialimpactsaremorelikelywiththeProposedProjectthanwiththeotheralternatives. D.1.20  COMPARISONMETHODOLOGY (#(# TheProposedProjectandprojectalternativeswouldresultinadverseimpacts,someofwhichcannotbemitigatedtolevelsthatarenotsignificant.Therearemanyenvironmental,policy,andeconomictradeoffsassociatedwiththealternatives.TheenvironmentalanalysisuponwhichthecomparativeanalysisofthealternativesisbasedislargelypresentedintwomajorpartsoftheEIS/SEIRasnotedbelow:&&H  330  PartC(EnvironmentalAnalysis)Providesacomprehensiveanddetailedassessmentofimpactsandmitigation  measuresfortheProposedProjectandeachalternative;parallel,easilycomparabletreatmentsareprovidedinPartCforeachissuearea. (#(# 0  ImpactSummaryTables(whicharepartoftheExecutiveSummaryofthisdocument)Tabulateinconciseform "! allofthesignificantimpactsandmitigationmeasuresdocumentedinPartC,organizedbyclassofimpact,environmentalissuearea,andalternative. (#(# 33<&H&Acomprehensivealternativescomparisonmatrix(TableD.51)hasbeendeveloped,whichappearsatthe .&7"% endofthisPart(inSectionD.5).InthisTable,ClassI(significant)andII(significant,butmitigabletoalevelofnonsignificance)impactsaretabulatedinamatrixformatallowingeasycomparisonamongtheprojectalternatives(includingtheProposedProject).Withinthecomparisonmatrix,generalimpactparametersarecharacterizedinthefarleftcolumn(groupedbyenvironmentalissueareaintheorderoftheirpresentationinPartCandtheExecutiveSummaryoftheEIS/SEIRi.e.,AirQuality,BiologicalResources,etc.).Foreachimpactparametercharacterized,entriesareprovidedforeachofthe alternatives.Theseentriesdescribetheimpactsofeachalternativewithrespecttothegeneralimpact Q-Z), parameterorimpacttypeand,whereappropriate,theyindicatecomparativeorcontrastingfeaturesofthealternatives. Inconductingthecomparativeanalysis,thesignificantimpactsandtherelativedifficultyandprobabilityofsuccessfulmitigationmeasureimplementationwereconsidered.Theissueareasofsystemsafety,biology,airquality,hydrology,andenergywerefoundtobemajorfactorsinthiscomparisonduetothepotentialmagnitudeorseverityofimpactsintheseareas.Landuseissueswerealsoimportant,particularlyinlightofexistinglandusepolicies.Thus,theseissueareasweregivenmoreweightrelativetotheotherissueareas.Inaddition,impactsthatareofalongduration,orarewidespread,areconsideredtobemoreimportantinthecomparativeanalysisthanshortterm,localizedimpacts.Longtermeffectshavetakenevenmoresignificance,giventhepresumedincreaseinthelifetimeoftheProposedProjectandalternativesfrom20to50years.Otherfactorssuchaseconomicconsiderationsarereferencedwheretheyareimportantforoverallevaluationofanalternative,butdonotformthecriticalbasisfordeterminingenvironmentalsuperiority.PursuanttoCEQAGuidelines(Section15126),alternativeswithpotentialforavoidingorsubstantiallylesseningthesignificantimpactsmaybeconsideredeveniftheyaremorecostly.NEPArequiresthattheavailableeconomicandtechnicalconsiderationstobepresentedtodecisionmakersinadditiontotheenvironmentalconsequences.Itwillbeuptodecisionmakerstomakefinaldeterminationsontheenvironmental,economic,andpolicytradeoffsassociatedwiththeprojectandalternatives.ItisnotedthattheAllAmericanPipeline(AAPL)wouldbeusedintheProposedProject,Mojave,CajonPipeline,andNoProjectAlternatives.TheAAPL,whichisalreadyinplaceandoperating,isconsideredaspartofthebaselineinthecomparativeanalysis,exceptwhereincreasedthroughputmayresultinadifferenceinimpacts(e.g.,whereincreasedpumpingandheatingrequirementswouldresultinincrementalincreasesinenergyconsumptionandairpollutantemissions).TheanalysisinthefollowingsectionsbeginswithidentificationoftheenvironmentallysuperiorprojectalternativeandNEPALeadAgencypreferredalternative(SectionsD.1.3andD.1.4),followedbyacomparativediscussionwhichisdividedintotwosections:SectionD.2,acomparisonoftheProposedProjectwiththeprojectalternatives,andSectionD.3,acomparisonoftheAlternativeRouteAlignments,includingtheWestLiebreGulchRidgeAlternativeAlignment,withtheProposedProjectroute.SectionD.4addressesthepotentialforafutureconnectiontotheProposedProjectinSantaBarbaraCountyandSectionD.5providesthedetailedalternativescomparisonmatrixmentionedabove. D.1.3  CEQAENVIRONMENTALLYSUPERIORALTERNATIVE  &"" Determinationofwhichoftheprojectalternativesisenvironmentallysuperiorisquitedifficultanddependsonmanyfactors.AsshowninTableD.12andTableD.51,differentalternativesaresuperiorincertainissueareas,andinsomeenvironmentalissueareasthereareonlyslightdifferencesamongthealternatives.InordertomeettheCEQArequirementstoidentifyanenvironmentallysuperioralternative,weprimarilyconsideredtheimportanceofissueareasthathavepotentiallongterm,widespreadsignificantimpacts(e.g.,systemsafety,biology,airquality,hydrology,energy,andlanduse).Evenintheseissueareas, -)) determiningasuperioralternativewasdifficultbecauseofthetradeoffsassociatedwithdifferentpipelineroutes.Theselectionoftheenvironmentallysuperioralternativewasconductedbyapanelofexperts.ThispanelfirstpreparedTableD.51andthenuponconsultationandlengthydiscussionsontheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachalternativesandtheproperweightingfactors,reachedaconsensus.Theresultwaspresentedtotheleadagenciesandfinalized.Theselectionofthepreferredalternativerequiressubjectiveevaluationoftherelativevaluesofeachissueareas(e.g.SystemSafetyvs.BiologicalResources,orAirQualityvs.CulturalResources,etc.).AsshowninthecomprehensivealternativescomparisonmatrixinTableD.51,inTableD.12(asidebysidecomparisonoftheProposedProject,MojaveRoute,CajonPipeline,andNoProjectAlternatives),andasdiscussedbelowinSectionD.2,theProposedProjectandalternativeshavecloselymatchedimpactssuchthattheclearenvironmentalsuperiorityofonecannotbeeasilydemonstrated.However,asshowninTableD.12,theproposedPacificPipelinewasfoundtobesuperioroverallalternativesin6environmentalissueareas,whichincludethreeareasofclearadvantage(versus6areasofadvantagefortheNoProjectwithonlyoneareaofclearadvantage,2areasofadvantageforCajon,and1areaofadvantagefortheMojaveRouteAlternative).TheNoProjectAlternativewould not betheenvironmentallysuperioralternative,duetotheregional, V_ longtermsignificantunavoidableandpotentiallyincreasingrisksandimpactsassociatedwithtankeringfromEsteroBaytoLosAngelesandwithtruckandtraintransportationofcrudeoilfromBakersfieldtoLosAngeles.TheimpactsofthesemodesofcrudeoiltransportationoffsetanyadvantagesoftheNoProjectAlternativewithregardtoavoidanceofshorttermconstructionimpactsassociatedwiththeProposedProjectorpipelinealternatives.Theuseofsomeoftheexistinglessenvironmentallydesirablemodesoftransportation(suchastrains,trucks,andtankers)isexpectedtocontinueandpotentiallyincreaseasaresultoftheNoProjectAlternative.Inaddition,basedonthescrutinyofenvironmentalimpactanalysisandmitigationmeasureandmitigationmonitoringprogramdevelopment(includingcomprehensiveness,levelofdetail,reportingrequirements,andeffectivenesscriteria)oftheProposedProjectinthisEIS/SEIRandoftheproposedCajonPipelineinitsEIR/S(EIP,1993)andthe1995Cajonenvironmentaldocuments(ADLandEIP,1995),theactualimplementationofeffectivemitigationmeasurestoreduceenvironmentalimpactsseemstobemoreassuredatthispointforthePacificPipelineProject.Inaddition,theProposedProjecthasclearadvantagesovertheCajonPipelineintheareasoflongtermenergyconsumption,airpollutantemissions/airquality,andsystemsafety.Althoughtherearesomerelativeadvantagesintheissueareasofbiologicalandculturalresources,andaclearadvantageinhydrologyfortheMojaveRouteAlternative,overalltheProposedProjectprovidedmore"clear"and"minor"advantagesoverthisalternative.Asaresult,theProposedProjectisselectedastheenvironmentallysuperioralternativeovertheCajonPipeline,NoProject,andMojaveAlternatives. -)) Ї   33TableD.12ComparisonofProposedProject,Mojave,Cajon,andNoProjectAlternatives  &&H (Foramoredetailedcomparisonofalternativesbyissuearea,seeTableD.51)#&H& _#    l &&Hµ* ddr dd udd dd 00 -(#(#,H ,'( ,F ,' ,(H +  7" & l7EnvironmentalIssueArea ?*" ?ProposedProject ?*" ?MojaveRouteAlternative ?* " ?CajonPipelineAlternative ?* " ?NoProjectAlternative H9*" l  HµAirQuality ' ' *ClearAdvantage ' ' ' ' + + ?0!   ?BiologicalResources '  ' '  'PreferredoverProposedProjectandCajonAlternative '  ' +  + *MinorAdvantage ?0!    ?CulturalResources '  ' '  'PreferredoverProposedProjectandCajonAlternative '  ' +   + *MinorAdvantage ?0! !   ?EnvironmentalContamination ' " ' ' # ' ' $ 'PreferredoverProposedProjectandMojaveAlternative 4! ' 4 *MinorAdvantage H9* (   HGeologyandSoils ' ) ' ' * 'PreferredoverProposedProject ' , 'PreferredoverProposedProject + . + *ClearAdvantage ?0! /   ?Hydrology 'w 0 'PreferredoverNoProjectAlternative '2 ' *ClearAdvantage 'w 3 'PreferredoverProposedProjectandNoProject +5 + ?0!w 6   ?LandUseandRecreation '7 ' *MinorAdvantage 0!8 0PreferredoverCajonandNoProject 0!: 0 +; + ?0!<   ?Noise 'qz= 'PreferredoverMojaveandCajonalternatives 0! ? 0PreferredoverCajon 0!qz@ 0 +qzA + *MinorAdvantage :+!qzB   :PaleontologicalResources 'C 'PreferredoverMojaveandCajonalternatives 'E ' 'F ' +G + *MinorAdvantage :+H   :PublicUtilitiesandEnergy 'ktI ' *ClearAdvantage 'ktJ ' 'ktK ' +ktL + ?0!ktM   ?Socioecon./PublicServices 'OXN ' *MinorAdvantage 'OXO ' 'OXP ' +OXQ + ?0!OXR   ?SystemSafety '3<S ' *ClearAdvantage over 3<T CajonandNoProjectAlternatives;MinorAdvantageoverMojaveRouteAlternative 'X ' '3<Y ' +3<Z + ?0!3<[   ?Transportation '~\ ' *MinorAdvantage '~] ' '~^ ' +~_ + ?0!~`   ?VisualResources 0!bka  0 0!bkb  0 'bkc ' *MinorAdvantage +bkd + A0!bke   <AMinority/LowIncome )FOf ) )FOg ) )FOh ) *MinorAdvantage +FOi +1'%FOj <    1 l 0  l *Indicatesthealternativeshowingenvironmentalsuperiorityinenvironmentalissuearea.# l t#k(#(# &H&33Further,severalalternativeroutealignmentsthatwereconsideredfortheProposedProjectwerecompared(seeSectionD.3).TheWestLiebreGulchRidgeAlternativeAlignmentandtheAlamedaStreetEastAlternativealignmentwerefoundtobeenvironmentallysuperiorwhencomparedtotheProposedProjectalignment. D.1.40  NEPALEADAGENCY'SPREFERREDALTERNATIVE '#t(#(# ThepreferredalternativeisapreliminaryindicationoftheFederalResponsibleOfficial'spreference.ItissubjecttochangeintheRecordofDecision.TheForestSupervisoroftheAngelesNationalForesthasidentifiedtheProposedProjectwiththeWestLiebreGulchRidgeAlternativeAlignmentasthepreferredalternative,subjecttoallmitigationmeasuresapplicabletoNationalForestLandsidentifiedintheEIS/SEIR. .*{ Ї @( ( AD.2COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVES   ThissectiondescribesthebasisfortheaboveconclusionsandpresentsasummarycomparisonoftheimpactsoftheProposedProjectandalternatives.Tofacilitateaclearunderstandingoftherelativemeritsofthevariousalternatives,thissectionhighlightsthemajordifferencesamongthenumerousalternatives,includingtheProposedProject,withrespecttoenvironmentalimpacts.TheseincludetheMojave,Cajon,andNoProjectAlternatives.Thealternativesarenotrankedandtheorderofdiscussionisnotintendedtoimplyaranking.PleasenotethattheWestLiebreGulchRidgeanddowntownLosAngelesAlternativeAlignmentsarediscussedinSectionD.3,sincetheywouldreplaceshortsegmentsoftheProposedProjectandarenotstandaloneprojectalternatives.  D.2.10  PROPOSEDPACIFICPIPELINEPROJECT |3< (#(# AlthoughtherearesignificantenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithconstructionandoperationoftheProposedProject,theProposedProjectprovidessubstantialadvantagesoverotheralternatives.Thisisparticularlytrueintheimportantissueareaofsystemsafety.Fromasafetyperspective,theProposedProjectisconsideredtobesuperiortoallotheralternatives.Thisconclusionisbasedontheprobabilityofaspill,thealreadycommittedleakdetectionandcommunicationsystem,maximumpotentialspillvolumes,theavailabilityofemergencyresponseresources,thereliabilityofadedicated,singlepurposedoperation,andthegreaterpotentialforasignificantreductioninexistingriskasaresultofchangesincrudeoiltransportationmodes.SeveralfactorsneedtobeconsideredwhencomparingtheProposedProject'ssystemsafetyissuestothoseoftheMojaveRouteAlternative.First,theProposedProjectisadvantageousinthattherearefewerresidentialandpopulatedareas(comparedtotheMojaveRoute)adjacenttotheROWwhichwouldbesubjecttosafetyrisksofthepipeline.Secondly,althoughtheProposedProjectwouldbeplacedinacorridorwithotherexistingmajorutilitiesandpipelinesandwouldcontributetotheoilspillconsequencesintheeventofacatastrophic,multipleruptureaccident,thepipelinewouldrepresentanincrementalincreaseinexistingsystemsafetyrisksratherthananintroductionofanewoilspillriskintheMojavetoSantaClaritacorridor.Also,byfollowingtheexistingMobilM70pipelineovermuchoftheroutebetweenEmidioandCastaic,theProposedProjectresultsintheleastamountofdisruptiontothepublicandanadditionalmarginofsafetyduetooverlappingsafety/surveillanceprogramsandtheredundancyoftheemergencyresponseresources.Therefore,theProposedProjectisconsideredtooffersystemsafetyadvantagesovertheMojaveRouteAlternative.OtheroveralladvantagesoftheProposedProjectinclude:&&H330  AmoredirectroutewouldbeprovidedtoLosAngeles(272milestotal:132milesfromEmidiotoWilmington *&& andElSegundo,following123milesoftheAAPLbetweenLasFloresandPentlandand17milesofTexacopipelinebetweenPentlandandEmidio).Incontrast,theMojaveRouteinvolves319totalmiles(126miles,following193milesoftheAAPLbetweenLasFloresandMojave"319totalmiles),andtheCajonAlternativeinvolves168milesfollowing243milesoftheAAPLbetweenLasFloresand12GaugeLake"411totalmiles).Therefore,overthe50yearprojectlife,byfartheleastamountofenergywouldbeusedforheatingandpumping .*+ fortheProposedProject,anditwouldhavetheleastoverallairpollutantemissionsandconsequentairqualityimpactsoverthelifetimeoftheproject. (#(# 0  Lowerlongtermimpactsonlanduseandsocioeconomicparametersandassociatedpublicservicesrequirements OX relativetotheotheralternativesbecauseofloweroilspillprobabilitiesandlesschanceforoilspillstodirectlyaffectmoresensitiveresidentialandcommercialareas. (#(# 0  Fewerroadwaymiles,particularlyinbusycommercialandmixeduseareas,wouldbeimpactedbyoilspill o x effectsovertheprojectlifetime. (#(# 0  ComparedtotheCajonAlternative,theactualimplementationofeffectivemitigationmeasurestoreduce    environmentalimpactsseemstobemoreassuredfortheProposedProjectduetogreaterdetailandspecificationofeffectivenesscriteriaandreportingrequirementsformonitoring. (#(# 0  PursuanttowrittencommitmentsbyoilcompaniesregardingtheProposedProject,tankeringofChevronsSan   JoaquinValleycrudeoilfromEsteroBaytoLosAngeleswouldpotentiallycease,thussignificantlyreducingtheexistingsignificantoffshoreoilspillriskandairqualityimpactsincomparisonwiththeNoProjectAlternative[notethattheseadvantagesmayalsooccurwiththeMojaveandCajonAlternatives] (#(# 0  PursuanttowrittencommitmentsbyoilcompaniesregardingtheProposedProject,somecurrenttruckandtrain  transportationofcrudeoilwouldcease,thuseliminatingexistingsignificantsystemsafetyrisks,airqualityimpacts,andonshoreoilspillriskstolandusesalongtruckandtraintransportationcorridors(seeSectionB.2.1.2fordetailsonthetypesofanticipatedchangesincurrentcrudeoiltransportation)incomparisonwiththeNoProjectAlternative[notethattheseadvantagesmayalsooccurwiththeMojaveandCajonAlternatives] (#(# 33(&H&RelativeenvironmentaldisadvantagesoftheProposedProjectinclude:  &&H330  ComparedtotheNoProjectAlternativewhichinvolvesnonewconstruction,thisrouteinvolvesconstructionof  132milesofnewpipelinewhichwouldcausesubstantialconstructionimpactsintheenvironmentalissueareasofbiology,airquality,andculturalresources.Inaddition,shorttermvisualimpactswouldoccurasaresultofconstructionactivitiesandvisualscarringfromthepipelinerightofwayinpublicviewsheds.TheCajonPipelineoffersthecomparativeadvantageof29fewerneartermconstructionmiles(103milesofnewconstruction). (#(# 0  TheProposedProjectwouldcreategreaterpotentialforcontaminationofsurfacewaterandwatersuppliesdue JS! tothenumberofdrainagescrossedthatdrainintomajorwatersupplyresourcesandthepotentialforscourandfloodingimpacts. (#(# 0  BasedonPPSI'scommitmenttoalsotransportSJVcrudeoil,thePacificPipeline(ascurrentlysized)maynot j!s% beabletoaccommodateallprojectedSantaBarbaraOuterContinentalShelf(OCS)crudeoil.TheCajonPipelineproponentshavenotspecifiedtheratiobetweenSJVandOCScrudethatwouldbetransportedthroughtheirline.However,theCajonPipelinewouldhaveahigheroverallcapacitythantheProposedProject(duetohigherpumpingrequirements,sincetheCajonPipelinesdiameterisequaltotheProposedProjectsandtheEPTCpipediameterissubstantiallysmaller). (#(# 33'&H& D.2.20  MOJAVEROUTEALTERNATIVE  '#,(#(# TheadvantagesoftheMojaveRouteAlternativeinclude:&&H330  TheMojaveroutewoulddisturbthesmallestamountofnativevegetationandwildlifehabitatandistheleast +&'0 likelyalternativetoimpactendangeredspecies. (#(# 0  FewerculturalresourcessiteswouldbepotentiallyaffectedthanforeithertheProposedProjectorCajon u-~)3 Alternative(eightsitesversus9to11fortheProposedProjectand11sitesfortheCajonAlternative).=.F*4(#(# Ї0  TheMojaverouteencountersveryfewsteepslopesandfewerfaultsthantheProposedProjectandCajon  Pipeline. (#(# 0  ComparedtotheProposedProject,thisroutewouldresultinfewerstreamcrossingsandreducedpotentialfor OX watersupplycontamination,flooding,andscourimpacts,eventhoughthisalternativealsowouldhavesignificantimpactsonwaterresourcesalongitsroute.ThisalternativewouldalsohavelowerlongtermoilspillimpactpotentialwithrespecttoLosAngelesBasinandcoastalwaterresourcesthanfortheCajonPipelineandwouldhavenoClassIconstructionimpactsasdoesCajoninTonnerCanyon.Thisalternativewasthereforefoundtohavea"clearadvantage"inthehydrologyissueareaovertheProposedProjectandtheCajonPipelineAlternative. (#(# 0  Thisalternativewouldavoidplacementinaheavilyusedutilitycorridor,thusavoidingthepotentialcollocation    impactsofboththeProposedProjectandCajonAlternative.However,asnotedabove,thereareadvantagesofusingexistingutilitycorridors. (#(# 0  Aswiththeotherpipelinealternatives,tankeringfromEsteroBaytoLosAngelesofChevron'sSanJoaquin   Valleycrudeoilwouldpotentiallycease,thussignificantlyreducingtheexistingsignificantoffshoreoilspillrisksandairqualityimpacts,andthisalternativealsooffersthepotentialforreductionintrainandtrucktransportofoilfromtheSanJoaquinValleytoLosAngelesarearefineries(however,lesslikelythanfortheProposedProject,asdescribedpreviously). (#(# 337&H&InadditiontosystemsafetydisadvantagesdescribedaboveundertheProposedProjectdiscussion,primary  disadvantagesrelativetotheProposedProjectincludethefollowing:&&H330  TheMojaveroutewouldrequirethatcrudeoilbetransportedalongerdistancethroughtheAAPL,thus  necessitatingadditionallongtermpowerandheatingrequirementsforpumpingtheoilanextra47milesoverall,resultingin20to40percentmoreemissionsoverthe50yearprojectlifetimethantheProposedProject. (#(# 0  Newstoragetanksandassociatednewoilspillriskswouldbeintroducedintotheenvironment.Someoftheareas  crossedbytheroutedonothaveexistingoilpipelines,therefore,thenewpipelinewouldposenewoilspillrisksalongtherightofway.Thereisalargernumberofresidentialandpopulatedareasadjacenttotheroutethatwouldbeexposedtothisrisk.Itisnoted,however,thatthisriskisrelativelysmallandthatexistingsafetyrisksassociatedwithnaturalgastransmissionanddistributionlinesalongtheROWaregreaterthanfortheProposedProject. (#(# 0  Moremilesofarterialroads(38.4milesvs.27forthecorrespondingportionoftheProposedProjectroute)  # wouldbeaffectedbyconstruction.Also,theMojaveRouteispartiallywithinrailroadROWandcouldimpactMetrorailstationsandoperations,whilethesectionoftheProposedProjectthatitwouldreplacewouldhavenorailortransitimpacts. (#(# 0  ThepresenceoftheMojavePumpStationwouldresultinsignificantlongtermvisualimpactsinalocationwith # ( ahighdegreeofvisualaccess.Theseimpactswouldbedifficulttomitigateduetotheopenhighdesertcharacterofthearea. (#(# 339 &H&D.2.30  CAJONPIPELINEALTERNATIVE F'O#,(#(# ComparedtotheproposedPacificPipeline,theCajonPipelinewouldhavethefollowingprincipalenvironmentaladvantages:&&H330  Geologicalimpactswouldbeslightlylesssevere,becausefewerfaultswouldbecrossedandfewersteepslopes _,h(1 wouldbeencountered. (#(#   -)3 0  TheCajonAlternativewouldimpactfewercensustractswithhighminorityandlowincomepopulationsthan   eithertheProposedProjectorMojaveRouteAlternative(althoughmoreresidentialareasarelocatedwithin150feetoftheCajonAlternativepipelinethantheProposedProject). (#(# &H&&&H0  Newconstructionimpacts(nearterm)wouldoccuroverashorterrightofway(103milesforCajonvs.132miles )2 forPacific);however,itshouldbenotedthatduetoageoftheEPTCsystem,the63milesnotcurrentlyscheduledforreplacementwouldeventuallyrequirereplacementorwouldbeextremelyold(approximately80yearsold)towardtheendofthe50yearpresumedlifetimeoftheproject. (#(# #&H&#33533&&H0  Aswiththeotherpipelinealternatives,tankeringfromEsteroBaytoLosAngelesofChevron'sSanJoaquin # ,  Valleycrudeoilwouldpotentiallycease,thussignificantlyreducingtheexistingsignificantoffshoreoilspillrisksandairqualityimpacts,andthisalternativealsooffersthepotentialforreductionintrainandtrucktransportofoilfromtheSanJoaquinValleytoLosAngelesarearefineries(however,lesslikelythanfortheProposedProject,asdescribedpreviously).#&H&ܮ#CL (#(# 33ɮEnvironmentaldisadvantagesofthisalternativerelativetotheProposedProjectwouldinclude:33&&H0  ThelongeroveralloiltransportdistanceoftheCajonPipeline(409mileswhencombinedwithAAPLvs.272   milesfortheProposedProject),smallerpipelinediametersintheEPTCsystem,andthelackofinsulationontheEPTCSystemwouldallresultinasubstantiallyhigherlongtermlevelofenergyconsumptionforpumpingandheating,andhigherassociatedairpollutantemissionsandimpactsduringoperation. (#(# 0  Withrespecttopotentialforoilspillsandtheconsequencesofthesespills,thisalternativewasfoundtohave  higheroverallfrequenciesofspills,andwouldaffectlargerareaswithsensitiveresources.Thisisprimarilyduetotheuseofanolderexistingandunderutilizedsystemthatwasnotprimarilydesignedforcontinuoushighleveltransportationofheavy,highsulfurcrudeoil.TheexistingsystemisnotasreliableastheproposeddedicatedandsinglepurposesystemprovidedbytheProposedProjectorMojaveRouteAlternative,becauseitisrequiredtomaintaintheflexibilitytoreturntoitsoriginaluse,andisintendedtobeusedforothertransportationstorageϜpurposes.TheEPTCportionofthisalternativeisnotsubjecttothe OilPipelineEnvironmentalResponsibilityAct. (#(# 0  TheuseofmoreoftheAAPLlinetotransportSantaBarbaracrudetoLosAngelesviatheCajonAlternative  wouldresultinaveryslightincreaseinpotentialspillvolumesalongtheAAPLbecauseoftheincreasedpumpingneededtotransportadditionalvolumesofoilthroughagreaterlengthoftheAAPLline.Thispotentialsmallincrementalincreaseinspillvolumescouldresultinslightlyincreasedimpactsonbiology,hydrology,culturalresources,andlanduse.ThetemperatureincreaseinAAPLasaresultofthisalternativeisassumednottosignificantlyaffectthebaselinefailurerateforthispipeline. (#(# 0  Greateramountsofnativeandsensitivehabitatwouldbedisturbedduringconstruction(forthe12GaugeLake "#& toEtiwandaportionalone,atotalof630acresofnativehabitatwouldbedisturbedduringconstruction,ofwhich410acresishabitatforthethreateneddeserttortoiseanunspecifiedamountofadditionalhabitatintheTonnerCanyonarewouldalsobedisturbed). (#(# 0  Althoughthisroutehasfewerstreamcrossings,potentialconstructionimpacts,floodingimpacts,andeffectson & "+ watersupplyresourcesaresignificantduetolackofcomprehensivehydrology/waterqualitymitigationmeasures. (#(# 0  Newstoragetanksandincreasedusedofexistingstoragetankswouldresultinintroductionofneworhigheroil Z(c$. spillrisksintotheenvironment. (#(# 0  Fromalanduseandtransportationandtrafficpointofview,thisalternativeistheleastpreferredbecauseofthe *&1 substantiallygreateramountoflongtermoilspillriskandassociatedimpactsonresidential,commercial,andmixedlanduses,andwithinhighuseroadwayrightsofway. (#(#    -)4 33&H&DisadvantagesrelativetotheNoProjectAlternativearegenerallysimilartothoseoftheProposedProject andinclude:#&&H#  G330  Sincethisalternativeinvolvesnewconstructionof103milesofpipeline(includingtheEPTCreplacement  segments),substantialconstructionimpactswouldbeexperiencedintheenvironmentalissueareasofterrestrialbiology,airquality,andculturalresources.Inaddition,shorttermvisualimpactswouldoccurasaresultofconstructionactivitiesandvisualscarringfromthepipelinerightofwayinpublicviewsheds. (#(# 0  InstallationofanewoilpipelineandgreatlyincreasedutilizationoftheEPTCsystemwouldintroduceanewor   increasedelementofsignificantoilspillrisktoterrestrialbiologyandlandusesalongtheROW. (#(# 0  Thereisahighpotentialforimpactingculturalandpaleontologicalresourcesandthisalternativeisnotconsidered    preferabletotheNoProjectAlternativeortheProposedProjectinthisresourcearea. (#(# 33&H&? Xp00 !,X,` X? D.2.40 0 NOPROJECTALTERNATIVE  0(#0(# TheNoProjectAlternativeisdescribedinSectionB.4.3andisequivalenttothescenariosusingexistingpipelines(AAPLtoWestTexas,AAPL/ARCOLine63toLosAngeles+TexacotoSanFrancisco,MobilM1/M70toLosAngeles,andUnocalSisquoctoSantaMariaRefinery)andexistingmodesofSJVcrudeoiltransportfromKernCounty,includingmarinetankeringfromEsteroBay(inSanLuisObispoCounty)ortheSanFranciscoBaytoLosAngeles.TheNoProjectAlternativealsoincludestrainandtrucktransportationofcrudeoilfromtheBakersfieldareatoLosAngeles.Theexistingpipelines,marinetankering,truck,andtraintransportationscenariosunderthisNoProjectAlternativewouldbeusedincombinationwitheachothertopartiallyaccommodateSantaBarbaraOCSandSJVproduction.Sincenosignificantnewconstructionwouldoccur(exceptconstructionofpumpstationsfortheAPL63expansion),theNoProjectAlternativewouldofferthefollowingkeyenvironmentaladvantages:&&H  330 p Utilizationofexistingpipelinerouteswouldminimizeoravoidpotentiallysignificantshorttermconstruction  effectsonhabitats,sensitivespecies,andculturalresourcesites.Furthermore,nonewenvironmentallysensitivehabitatareaswouldbesubjectedtothepotentialconsequencesofanoilspill. p(#p(# 0 p Residentialareas,sensitivelanduses,recreationalfacilities,andtransportationsystemswouldnotbesubjected !! toconstructiondisturbancesandnewoilspillrisksassociatedwiththeProposedProjectandotherpipelinealternatives. p(#p(# 33&H&AlthoughuseofexistingpipelinesundertheNoProjectAlternativewouldoffershorttermenvironmentaladvantageswhencomparedtoconstructionofanewpipeline,thelongtermcontinuationandpotentialincreaseoftheoffshoretankeringandtruckandtraintransportationcomponentsthatarerequiredduetolackofsufficientpipelinecapacityrendertheNoProjectAlternativeenvironmentallyinferior.Further,thelackofnewstateoftheartpipelineswouldprolongtheuseofoldpipelinesand,insomecases(suchasforAPLLine63),increasesinpressureandtemperaturemaybesoughtinordertoincreasecapacityoftheseolderpipelines.Thesechangedoperatingparameterscouldcausesignificantlyhigherfrequenciesandvolumesofoilspill.Inaddition,theCaliforniaStateLegislaturehasestablished,pursuanttoCoastal ActSection30265(b),thatpipelinetransportationofoilisenvironmentallypreferabletootherformsof b-k)- transit,especiallymarinetransportation.Othermajordisadvantagesoftankering,train,andtrucktransportationoverthelongterminclude: &&H330 p Oilspillrisksandfatalityratesoftruckandtraintransportationaresignificantlyhigherthanforpipelines.p(#p(# 0 p Airpollutantemissionsaresignificantlyincreasedbytankering,train,andtrucktransportationofcrudeoil.  Trainandtrucktransportationalsorequiressubstantiallygreaterfossilfuelenergyconsumption. p(#p(# 0 p Oilspillrisksofmarinetankeringandassociatedimpactsonmarinebiology,marinewaterquality,tourism,   andcommercialfishingwouldbesignificantandunavoidable. p(#p(# 0 p Impactsoncoastallandusesandrecreationalusesfrompotentialoffshoreoilspillswouldbewidespread, F O  significant,andunavoidable. p(#p(# 0 p Coastallanduses,recreationalresources,andvisualresourceswouldbesignificantlydegradedfromthe   presenceoftankersinthenearshorearea. p(#p(# 33N&H&Mostoftheaboverisksandimpactswouldbepotentiallyreducedoreliminatedwiththecessationor & reductionoftankering,truck,andtraintransportationthatcouldbebroughtaboutbytheProposedProjectortheotherpipelinealternatives.@p p 9 D.3COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVEROUTEALIGNMENTS  1: Onlyoneshortalternativealignment,theWestLiebreGulchRidgeRoute,isevaluatedinSectionC.17ofthisEIS/SEIR.Inaddition,severalalternativeroutealignmentswereconsideredintheFEIRforportionsoftheProposedProjectrouteintheLosAngelesarea(seePartGofthisdocumentand/orSectionC.18oftheFEIR);threearestillrelevanttothecurrentroute.Thefollowingdiscussionsummarizesthemajorenvironmentaltradeoffsofthesealternativealignments,andidentifiestheenvironmentallysuperiorprojectalignment.Theselectionofanenvironmentallysuperioralignmentisbasedonthesamecomparativemethodologyoutlinedintheabovesections(i.e.,eachalignmentwascomparedbyissuearea.) D.3.1 WESTLIEBREGULCHRIDGEALTERNATIVEALIGNMENT  c l Thisshortalternativealignmentwouldreplace2.1milesoftheProposedProjectrouteintheAngelesNationalForestwitha1.8milesegment(seeFigureC.171).ThisalignmentoffersenvironmentaladvantagesintheissueareasofBiologicalResources,Hydrology,SystemSafety,andTransportationanddisadvantagesinCulturalResources.ThereisnosubstantialdifferencebetweentheProposedProjectandthisalternativealignmentinotherissueareas.Becauseitsenvironmentaladvantagesoutweighitsdisadvantages,thisalternativewasdeterminedtohaveanoverallenvironmentaladvantageovertheProposedProject.B Xp00 !Xp0 PB 33D.3.20 0 DOWNTOWNLOSANGELESALIGNMENTSALAMEDASTREETEASTANDSANTA *&) FEAVENUE t+}'*0(#0(# 33Thesetwoalternativealignmentsarefullyassessed,relativetotheproposedalignment,inthepreviousFEIRandaresummarizedinPartGofthisEIS/SEIR.Byasmallmargin,theAlamedaStreetEast -.6*- AlternativeAlignmentwasfoundtobeenvironmentallysuperiorrelativetotheproposedroute;theProposedProjectroutewasfoundtobeenvironmentallysuperiortotheSantaFeAvenueAlternativeAlignment.̜ @2D.4FUTURESANTABARBARACONNECTIONTOTHEPROPOSEDPROJECT    PPSI'sAmendedApplicationreferstoaspeculativefuturescenario(sometimesreferredtoasPhaseTwo)whichinvolvesdevelopmentofasegmentofthePacificPipelineoriginallyproposedandanalyzedinthepreviousPacificPipelineFEIR(in1993).Bydevelopingsegmentofthispipeline,aconnectionwouldbeprovidedforthefutureproduction(40,000BPDprojected)fromtheproposedMobilEllwoodClearviewProjectinSantaBarbaraCountytoLosAngeles.ItisnotedthattheformalenvironmentalreviewandpermitprocessfortheMobilClearviewProjecthasnotyetcommenced:MobilwithdrewitsoriginalapplicationtoSantaBarbaraCountyinJune1995,andmayresubmititinthefuture.Thus,thisfutureconnectionisconsideredonlyasapotentiallongtermscenariothatisspeculativeatthispoint.ThereareseveralalternativesfortransportofMobilClearviewproductionshoulditoccur.Therelativemeritsofeachalternative,includingthedevelopmentofthepreviouslyproposedPPSIpipelineareaddressedinthefollowingsection.ItisnotedthattransportationalternativesforMobilClearviewproductionwouldneedtobefullyevaluatedintheenvironmentalreviewconductedfortheMobilClearviewproject.̜ D.4.1 0 ELLWOODTOCASTAICJUNCTION  [d ThispipelinesegmentwouldbegininEllwoodinSantaBarbaraCountyandwouldproceedsouththroughthecoastalareaofSantaBarbara,throughVenturaCounty,andwouldjointhecurrentlyproposedrouteatCastaicJunction(atotalof86miles).TheimpactsofthisroutecomponentwerefullyanalyzedinthepreviousFEIRandarenotrepeatedhere.Insummary,significantconstructionimpactswouldoccurtocoastalbiologicalresources,culturalresources,andlanduses.Further,significantoilspillimpactswereidentifiedparticularlyinthecrossingoftheVenturaRiverandintheroutealongtheSantaClaraRiver.Relativetootheralternatives,thedevelopmentofthissegmenthasthefollowingmajoradvantageanddisadvantage:&&H0 p Constructionofthepipelinewouldbeenvironmentallypreferredtomarinetankering,becauseoftheavoidance # oflongtermoilspillrisksinthenearshoreandoffshoreareasofSantaBarbaraCounty. p(#p(# 0 p Constructionof86milesofpipelinewouldresultinsubstantiallymoreimpactsthanconstructionofa9mile _&h"" pipelinebetweentheEllwoodareaandLasFloresCanyontoallowtransportoftheoilbytheAAPL,asdescribedbelow. p(#p(# ̜b &H&b c c D.4.2 0 c c b &H&b Ea la a La a la a La a wa a Wa a oa a Oa a oa a Oa a da a Da 񛀜a ta a Ta a oa a Oa 񛀜La aa a Aa a sa a Sa 񛀜Fa la a La a oa a Oa a ra a Ra a ea a Ea a sa a Sa 񛀜Ca aa a Aa a na a Na a ya a Ya a oa a Oa a na a Na 񛀜Pa ia a Ia a pa a Pa a ea a Ea a la a La a ia a Ia a na a Na a ea a Ea  *$&& r f&33r ThisalternativewouldrequireconstructionofapipelinefromtheEllwoodareatoLasFloresCanyontoconnecttotheAAPLwherethecrudeoilwouldbetransportedtoLosAngelesviatheProposedProjectconnectioninEmidioortheARCOLine63orotheralternatives.Thepipelinecouldbeplacedinthe ."** originallyproposedPacificPipelineroutecorridorwithintheexistingrailroadROW.Thisrelativelyshortpipelineconnection(9miles)wouldresultinsubstantiallyfewerconstructionimpactsthanthedevelopmentoftheEllwoodtoCastaicsegmentortheVenturaPipelineConnectionAlternative(describedbelow)andwouldavoidalloffshoreimpactsassociatedwiththetankeringalternative.Further,connectiontotheAAPLwouldprovidetheflexibilitytosendthecrudetootherdestinationsincludingSantaMariaRefinery,BayArearefineries,andeasttoTexas.Forthesereasons,iftheClearviewProjectweretoproceedandwereapprovedbyregulatoryagencies,thisalternativecouldbeenvironmentallysuperiortootheroptionsfortransportingpotentialfutureMobilClearviewoilproductionoutofSantaBarbaraCounty. D.4.4  0 ELLWOODTOVENTURAPIPELINECONNECTIONr r     ThisalternativewouldinvolveconstructingaportionoftheoriginallyproposedPacificPipelinefromEllwoodtotheVenturaarea.ThepipelineroutewouldfollowtheoriginallyproposedrailroadcorridorthroughcoastalSantaBarbara,butratherthancontinuingthroughVenturaCountytotheCastaicJunctionconnectionwiththeProposedPacificPipelineProject,itwouldendintheVenturaareawhereitwouldtieintoexistingpipelinestoLosAngeles.ConstructionimpactsofthisalternativewouldbethesameasdescribedforthisroutesegmentinthepreviousFEIRandwouldbelessthanforfulldevelopmentoftheEllwoodtoCastaicsegment,butgreaterthanfortheEllwoodtoLasFloresCanyonPipelinealternative.AdisadvantageisthatthisalternativewouldinvolveuseofexistinglinesfromtheVenturaareatotheLosAngelesareathataremucholderanddesignedforacrudeoilofdifferentcharacteristics.Inaddition,sincenoneoftheVenturalinesareheated,thisalternativewouldrequireinstallationofheaters.̜̀ i D.4.4 0 i Mj aj j Aj j rj j Rj j ij j Ij j nj j Nj j ej j Ej 񛀜Tj aj j Aj j nj j Nj j kj j Kj j ej j Ej j rj j Rj j ij j Ij j nj j Nj j gj j Gj  gp ЀOilproductionfromtheMobilClearviewProjectcouldbetransportedviatankerfromtheGaviotaInterimMarineTerminal(GIMT).ThisalternativewouldrequireconstructionofapipelinefromtheEllwoodareatotheGIMT,possiblythroughtheoriginallyproposedPacificPipelineroutecorridorwithintheexistingrailroadROW.TheimpactsofconstructingthissegmentofpipelinearethesameasdescribedinthepreviousFEIR.AsdiscussedabovefortheNoProjectAlternative(SectionD.3.4),marinetankeringisnotenvironmentallypreferredduetothesignificantlongtermoilspillriskstothecoastalandoffshoreenvironmentalresources.B Xp00 !Xp0 PB̜q p p q @+ + ? D.5ALTERNATIVESCOMPARISONMATRIX  +%4!" TableD.51presentsthecomparisonoftheProposedProject,theWestLiebreGulchRidgeAlternativeAlignment,theMojaveRouteAlternative,theCajonPipelineAlternative,andtheNoProjectAlternativebyenvironmentalissueareaandimpactparameterforClassIandClassIIimpactsofeachofthesealternatives.ThisisdescribedinmoredetailinSectionD.1.2(ComparisonMethodology).OverallconclusionsbasedonthismatrixarepresentedinSectionD.1.3(CEQAEnvironmentallySuperiorAlternative)andSectionD.2(ComparisonofAlternatives),andsummarizedinTableD.12.k ThistablehasbeenrefomattedsincetheDraftEIS/SEIR,k l k andlk l m solinesindicatingchangedtextm n m arem n o donotappear.o r 33f&?r  -)+