1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Transcription

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed ERG Foxen Petroleum Pipeline (Project) would be located in northern Santa Barbara County, six miles east of the City of Santa Maria, and between the towns of Sisquoc to the south and Garey to the north. The Project consists of construction and operation of two 8- inch diameter crude oil pipelines installed side-by-side within one trench approximately 15,080 feet long, and accessory equipment for storage and pumping located at the Cantin Tank Battery in the Cat Canyon oil field (see Figure 1-1). Although each pipeline would have a throughput capacity of 25,000 barrels of oil per day (bpod) the lines would not be operated simultaneously. Oil production from the Los Alamos, Long Canyon, Williams Holding 303, Great Western Producers (GWP), and Cantin leases would contribute to the Project throughput. This oil would be transported from the leases via flow and gathering lines from the various production sites to the Cantin Tank Battery, where oil, water, and gas streams would be separated using existing separation facilities. Once separated, the oil would be transferred to the new storage tanks and pumped to the proposed pipeline for transport out of the County to refinery destination(s). Proposed new equipment at the Cantin Tank Battery would include: two 10,000-barrel heated shipping tanks, one 3,000-barrel heated reject tank, two 10,000-barrel emergency oil storage tanks, one 5,000-barrel blend oil storage tank, and one 10 MMBtu/hr heater constructed within a previously disturbed area (see Figure 1-2). Crude oil would be transported from the storage tanks at the Cantin Tank Battery to the Phillips 66 Sisquoc Pipeline tie-in point off of Santa Maria Mesa Road, north of the town of Garey. Accessory equipment on each new 8-inch diameter oil pipeline would include one new Lease Automatic Custody Transfer (LACT) unit, flow meters, a pig launch and receiver system, and an electrically-driven pump system. 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ERG proposes to install and operate the Foxen Petroleum Pipeline project to provide for pipeline transport of crude oil produced from its Cat Canyon oil fields. The proposed pipeline would replace trucking of most of ERG s existing crude oil production and also could accommodate increased quantities of locally produced crude oil in the future, from various producers. The amount of additional trucking ERG could conduct is limited under its current Permit to Operate (PTO) issued by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. This could require that increases in field production be limited to avoid exceeding the PTO limits due to increased trucking. The proposed pipeline project could transport expected increases in oil production without exceeding the PTO requirements. 1-1

2 Figure 1-1: Proposed Pipeline Route and Tie-in to Phillips 66 Pipeline 1-2

3 Figure 1-2: Cantin Tank Battery The specific objectives for the Project, as stated by the applicant, are the following: Construct, operate, and maintain two new 8-inch diameter pipelines between ERG s Cantin Lease and the existing Phillips 66 Sisquoc Pipeline. Construct a shipping facility adjacent to ERG s existing Cantin Tank Battery on ERG s Cantin Lease. Transport up to 25,000 barrels per day of crude oil through either pipeline. The dual pipeline system is designed to provide a redundant means of crude oil transport if, or when, maintenance and repair requires shutdown of the one of the pipelines. Increase the reliability and safety of crude oil transportation from Cat Canyon to the Phillips 66 pipeline system. Provide a common carrier pipeline for other oil producers to utilize. Minimize the amount of oil exportation that occurs via truck transport. The Project design and operation is specifically intended to meet these objectives and to satisfy County policies that encourage pipeline transport of oil. 1-3

4 1.3 EIR PURPOSE AND SCOPE Purpose This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the County of Santa Barbara to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the ERG Foxen Petroleum Pipeline project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an EIR when projects are anticipated to have potentially significant impacts on the environment. EIRs are prepared in order to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided (California Public Resources Code, Div. 13, Section (a)). An EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decision makers and the general public regarding the environmental consequences of a project. While CEQA requires that major consideration be given to avoiding environmental impacts, the lead agency and other responsible agencies (agencies that have discretionary approval or permitting authority over the Project) must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals, in determining whether and in what manner a project should be approved. This EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of and the CEQA Guidelines 2. The County of Santa Barbara is the lead agency for this EIR as per Section of the CEQA Guidelines. The County will use this EIR in its consideration of the Project. The County issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (NOP; see Appendix 1) for the Project on June 7, 2013, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines. The County solicited public and agency comments on the scope of the EIR through distribution of the NOP. A Project Overview and Scope of Analysis was attached to the NOP as an EIR scoping document. An EIR scoping meeting was held on June 20, 2013 to gather additional public input on the scope of the EIR. Comments on the NOP and the scoping document were received from the public and several agencies. The comments were carefully reviewed and were used to help focus the EIR analysis EIR Scope and Format The EIR discusses environmental resources potentially affected by the Project as required by CEQA and identifies potentially significant environmental impacts, including both projectspecific and cumulative impacts, in accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15151, which states:. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the 1 State of California, Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections et seq. 2 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections et seq. 1-4

5 sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. Environmental issue areas/resources on which the project would have a potentially significant impact, as identified in the Notice of Preparation are analyzed: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazardous Materials and Risk, Transportation, Water Resources, and Growth Inducement. Aesthetic/Visual Resources, Agricultural Resources, Land Use, Noise, Public Facilities, Recreation, Cultural and Historic Resources, Energy, Fire Protection, and Geologic Processes were identified as issue areas that would have a less than significant impact. All issue areas are addressed in Section 4.0, Environmental Impacts. In addition, the EIR recommends feasible mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects. The EIR also evaluates alternatives to the Project, including the No Project Alternative, and discusses potential significant irreversible environmental changes, and benefits that would result from implementation of the Project. The EIR provides a summary of the Santa Barbara County plans and policies that would apply to the Project in Section 8.0. This EIR has drawn on pertinent policies, guidelines, and existing reports and documentation to determine baseline conditions, impacts, and design of mitigation measures. The County s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2008), A Planner s Guide to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures (February 2013), relevant Elements of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, and the County s Land Use and Development Code (July 2013) and the Petroleum Ordinance (County Code Chapter 25) were used to prepare this EIR. Copies of pertinent documents are available for review at the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department, 123 E. Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara. The content and format of this EIR are designed to meet the current requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Details of the Project description are provided in Section 2.0 and a list of other recently approved, pending, or planned projects anticipated in the vicinity of the Project site is provided in Section 3.0. A discussion of each resource area is provided in Section 4.0 in subsections that are organized as follows: Environmental Setting These subsections describe the existing physical conditions for each environmental resource investigated in the EIR, including applicable regulatory settings at the time the Notice of Preparation was issued. These subsections provide the context for assessing potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. Since the NOP was issued, production levels for the applicant s existing oil and gas leases have increased, with a commensurate increase in oil-truck trips. This increase is acknowledged in the appropriate issue area discussions but was not used for the CEQA baseline in the impact assessments. Significance Thresholds These subsections describe the methodologies used in the analysis of each environmental issue area and the thresholds or criteria used for determining the degree of significance of each identified impact. The criteria used to establish thresholds of significance are based on the County s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual and on Appendix G 1-5

6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Some issue areas include additional detailed thresholds specific to the issue area. Impacts and Mitigation These subsections describe the potentially significant effects resulting from the Project. Measures that can mitigate (e.g., avoid, minimize, or restore) potentially significant adverse environmental effects are recommended as conditions of approval. Potential Project impacts in each resource area are numbered (e.g., impacts related to biological resources would be Impact Bio.1, Impact Bio.2, etc.). All mitigation measures are numbered in a similar fashion: MM Bio-1, MM Bio-2, etc). Mitigations are also occasionally recommended to minimize adverse but less than significant impacts in order to maximize consistency with County policies. Residual Impacts These subsections identify the level of environmental impact remaining after implementation of a given mitigation or set of mitigations. The following categories for residual impact significance are used in this analysis: Class I: Significant adverse impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated or avoided. If a project with Class I impacts is approved, the decision-makers are required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 15093, explaining why project benefits outweigh the damage caused by these significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Class II: Significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated or avoided to a less than significant level. If the project is approved, decision-makers are required to make findings pursuant to CEQA Section that significant impacts would be avoided or substantially lessened with implementation of identified mitigation measures. Class III: Adverse impacts that are less than significant and therefore no mitigation are required. These impacts do not require findings to be made. Class IV: Beneficial environmental effects. Cumulative Impacts These subsections identify the potential for significant effects to occur as a result of the Project in combination with other recently approved, pending, or planned projects anticipated in the vicinity of the project site (as listed in Section 3.0). Where this potential exists, a determination is made as to whether or not the project s contribution to the impact would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant. The cumulative impacts are summarized in Section 5.0. Alternatives As required by CEQA Guidelines Section , alternatives to the Project are considered to examine a reasonable range of approaches to minimize environmental impacts while achieving most of the project objectives. Section 6.0 of this EIR evaluates several alternative project designs, as well as the No Project Alternative. The environmentally superior alternative is identified and a comparison of the alternatives to the Project also is provided in Section 6.0. Potential growth-inducing impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section (d)) and benefits of the Project are discussed in Section 7.0. Applicable County policies are identified in Section 8.0. The project s consistency with these policies will be evaluated and provided to the decision- 1-6

7 makers for consideration. A project may be found consistent with County policies and approved even if it would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. However, a project cannot be approved if it is inconsistent with adopted County plans and policies. Section 9.0 presents the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Section 10.0 lists the individuals who prepared the EIR and persons or groups contacted during the EIR preparation. Section 11.0 lists the appendices referred to in the EIR. The appendices (EIR Volume 2) are provided on the compact disk accompanying this EIR and are incorporated herein by reference Lead, Responsible and Trustee Agencies The CEQA Guidelines define "lead," "responsible," and "trustee" agencies. The County of Santa Barbara is the lead agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15367) for the Project because it has the principal responsibility for permitting the project. This EIR may be used as input for approvals or permits by other agencies besides Santa Barbara County that may be needed for implementation of the Project. A "responsible agency" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381) refers to public agencies other than the "lead agency" that have discretionary approval over the project. A trustee agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386) refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over biological resources, including onsite riparian corridors that may be affected by project development and is a trustee agency. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board also has jurisdiction as a trustee agency by law over actions affecting stream channels pursuant to the Clean Water Act; in addition, this agency is responsible for protecting water quality through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Although not trustee agencies under CEQA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also has jurisdiction by law over actions affecting stream channels on the project site pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction by law over actions affecting federally listed wildlife species that could occur on the project site pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act. The following agencies are expected to use the EIR in their decision making: Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District California Department of Fish and Wildlife U. S. Army Corps of Engineers U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1-7

8 1.4 REQUIRED PROJECT APPROVALS The following permits and other approvals are required to implement the Foxen Petroleum Pipeline project. Agency Santa Barbara County SB County Fire Department Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) Santa Barbara County Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee (APAC) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Type of Permit/Approval Development Plan, Zoning Clearance, Building Permits, Petroleum Ordinance compliance Review of County Permits Authority to Construct, Permit to Operate Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves and Farmland Security Zones - Consistency Determination (Advisory action to the Board of Supervisors) 2081 Incidental Take Permit Water quality certification per Clean Water Act 401 for drainage crossings subject to Clean Water Act 404 approval (USACOE) Endangered Species Act Consultation Clean Water Act 404 permit for applicable drainage crossings 1-8