VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:	Potentially Significant Impact	Portentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
ahabitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?

Explanation:

The PEA does not address potential impacts to biological resources. However, due to the urban nature of the project area, impacts to Biological Resources will result primarily from impacts to water resources, so Section 3.4 (Hydrology) is used to provide baseline information for this issue area.

a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, b) Locally designated species, c) Natural communities including coastal habitat, and d) Wetland/riparian habitat:

The determination of the level of impact on these species and habitats for pipeline construction and pipeline operation is different; the operational impacts are considered to be potentially significant, but construction impacts are found to be less than significant.

Operational Impacts. An oil spill entering a waterway could affect riparian habitats and endangered species which would be a potentially significant impact. The PEA (page 3-44, Surface Water, Operation impacts) states that a spill into the San Gabriel River could reach the harbor in 1.65 hours and could foul the shoreline in 2.68 hours. The PEA states that an objective of SFPP’s oil spill response plan is to contain a large spill within in hour (thus preventing a spill from reaching the harbor), but the response time depends largely on the flow rate in each river. At a high rate of flow, a spill could reach the harbor in significantly less time.

The proposed pipeline will cross three major waterways: the Los Angeles River, the San Gabriel River, and Compton Creek. A pipeline spill at or near these waterways could affect biological resources in the waterways themselves, including the riparian habitat in and adjacent to the rivers, and potentially the Los Angeles Harbor. In the lower reaches of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, both the least tern and brown pelican (both are State and Federally listed endangered species) are present and could be affected by a pipeline spill. In addition, a spill that reached the lower reaches of the rivers or the harbor would also affect marine mammals such as sea lions.

Construction Impacts. The pipeline crossing of the Compton Creek could impact the riparian communities in the downstream river beds because this crossing is proposed to be an open cut crossing in a soft-bottom channel. The potentially significant construction impacts from sedimentation and erosion at the Compton Creek crossing need to be evaluated in the EIR. Construction of the remainder of the proposed project is not expected to affect these biological resources due to the temporary and short-term nature of construction.

e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors: A pipeline leak or rupture that resulted in petroleum products flowing into any of the three river channels would be a potentially significant impact that needs to be addressed in the EIR. Impacts on wildlife could be significant for a period of time until cleanup was completed. Due to the urban nature of the project area, each of the three river channels crossed by the proposed pipeline may serve as significant wildlife dispersal or migration corridors.

VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.

VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:	Potentially Significant Impact	Portentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future valueto the region and to the residents of the State?

Explanation:

a) Conflict with energy conservation plan, b) Waste of non-renewable resources, and c) Loss of availability of mineral resources: Neither the construction nor operation of the proposed project is expected to affect energy resources. Energy conservation plans do not address pipeline construction or operation, and construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would neither waste non-renewable resources nor prevent access to known mineral resources.

IX. HAZARDS

Explanation:

a) Risk of accidental explosion or release hazardous substances, c) Creation of any health hazard, and e) Contamination of water supply: While pipeline design features and spill response measures can reduce the likelihood of an oil spill, they cannot completely eliminate the possibility of occurrence. Therefore, the EIR needs to evaluate these safety and risk issues.

SFPP has incorporated a number of safety features into its pipeline design and operational procedures: periodic inspection and testing, remotely-operated valves, and a computerized SCADA system to monitor and detect leaks. In addition, SFPP has prepared an oil spill response plan which includes periodic training for response personnel and response drills. However, this 13-mile pipeline will carry petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel), which are considered to be hazardous substances, through an urban area with a significant portion of residential land uses. The risk associated with pipeline operation and failure include pump failure, flange gasket failure, earthquake, accidental physical impact or ignition by vehicles driving on site, pipe seam or welding failure, corrosion, or rupture. The release of the products carried by the pipeline could result in (1) exposure to toxic vapors, (2) fire or explosion due to flammable liquids or vapors, and (3) contamination of surrounding soils and/or water due to spilled products soaking into the ground or running into storm drains or rivers. Rupture of the pipeline at its crossing of the San Gabriel River (where it will be hanging on a bridge) could result in products quickly reaching the ocean.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project also have the potential to result in encountering existing contaminated soils. As documented by SFPP in Section 3.9 of the PEA, the proposed pipeline route will pass through many areas where contaminated soils or groundwater have been identified in various records and databases. This potentially significant impact also needs to be evaluated in the EIR.

b) Interference with emergency response. Construction of the pipeline could restrict the movement of emergency vehicles. The PEA proposes several measures to reduce potential construction impacts (Traffic Section 3.5.2.1); these measures and their potential to reduce the impact will be considered in the EIR evaluation.

d) Exposure of people to existing health hazards: The potential for the proposed pipeline to cause an increased risk of an accident from existing pipelines in the corridor is a potentially significant impact which needs to be evaluated in the EIR. The potential for pipeline construction to disturb existing contaminated soils or ground water along the ROW could expose both construction workers and nearby occupants or residents to health hazards. The proposed pipeline is located in the same corridor as several other pipelines carrying natural gas and petroleum products, and in areas where past industrial activities have left contaminated soils. In the event of fire or explosion related to the proposed SFPP pipeline, these other pipelines could explode or catch fire, creating a domino effect.

X. NOISE.

Would the proposal result in:	Potentially Significant Impact	Portentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?

Explanation:

a) Increases in existing noise levels and b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels: Construction of the proposed pipeline will result in increases in existing noise levels for short periods of time as construction passes by a particular receptor along the route. This would be a short-term impact, but it is potentially significant and needs to be evaluated in the EIR. The PEA includes applicant proposed measures N-1 through N-10 (pages 3-60 to 3-61) in an attempt to reduce noise impacts, and the effectiveness of these measures in reducing noise will be evaluated in the EIR.

Back to Initial Study Table of Conents