Explanation:

a) Scenic highway or vista: The proposed project area does not include any scenic highways or vistas.

b) Negative aesthetic effect: Negative aesthetic impacts are expected to be less than significant. The proposed project will not alter existing natural viewsheds in the project area because the pipeline will be buried and the pump station modifications will not be visible outside of the pump stations. There will be short-term and temporary visual impacts associated with the presence of construction equipment at the project site.

c) Create light or glare: Due to the possibility of nighttime construction, there is a potential for significant light and glare impacts, which needs to be evaluated in the EIR. These impacts will be short term and temporary, but it could affect residents adjacent to the construction areas depending on the portion of the ROW constructed at night.

XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:	Potentially Significant Impact	Portentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?

Explanation:

a) Disturb paleontological resources, b) Disturb archaeological resources and c) Affect historical resources: Construction activities such as trenching and boring may have a potential significant impact on cultural and historic resources at the surface and buried along the ROW. These construction activities could result in the loss of integrity of cultural or paleontological deposits, the loss of information and the alteration of a site setting. Construction activities also have the potential to affect the built environment, including buildings and structures. There is also the potential for inadvertent discoveries during construction. SFPP has committed to several measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources, but SFPP does not address paleontological resources at all. These issues will be evaluated in the EIR.

Based on records and literature search documented in the PEA, and a field survey by SFPP, a previously recorded archaeological site (CA-LAN-389) may exist within the proposed alignment. This site was previously reported as destroyed. It is possible that significant deposits associated with this site exist beneath the street grade along Laurel Park Drive in the City of Compton. No subsurface explorations of the site have been conducted as part of earlier evaluations to confirm the destruction or existence of the site. Trenching activities have the potential to disturb intact deposits from the site resulting in a potentially significant impact. A City of Long Beach Historical Landmark property also exists adjacent to the alignment. No National Register of Historic Places or other local, state, or federal properties are known to exist in the immediate area of the ROW.

Explanation:

a) Increase demand for parks/facilities: No increased demand for parks or facilities is expected to occur as a result of the proposed project, because the project is not expected to increase population or utilization of the areas through which the pipeline passes.

b) Existing recreational opportunities: Short-term construction disturbance could affect the parks and school yards adjacent to the ROW; this potentially significant impact needs to be evaluated in the EIR. The proposed project is not expected to result in the long-term degradation, loss, or preemption of recreational uses within the study area.

XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
	Potentially Significant Impact	Portentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fishor wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Explanation: As described in VII above, the proposed project may cause potentially significant impacts to biological resources.b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Explanation: The project is essentially a long-term project in that it is being constructed to respond to expected future growth in demand for petroleum products.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
Explanation: SFPP presents 4 projects that could be constructed in the proposed project area at the same time as the pipeline construction (PEA, page 4-1). The potentially significant cumulative impacts of construction of these projects concurrent with the proposed project need to be evaluated.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Explanation: Several sections above (including Sections V. Air Quality; VI. Transportation/Circulation; IX. Hazards; XI. Noise; and XIII. Aesthetics, ) addresses the potentially significant impacts that this proposed project could have on human beings.

XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES

No information applicable.

Back to Initial Study Table of Conents