Plains All American United States Department of Agriculture Pipeline L.P. Forest Service Line 63 Reroute Project Pacific Southwest Region Environmental October 2014 Assessment Angeles National Forest Prepared for: Angeles National Forest Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 290 Conejo Ridge Avenue Thousand Oaks CA 91361-4971 For More Information Contact: Evy Rimbenieks Santa Clara/Mojave Rivers RD Angeles National Forest 33708 Crown Valley Rd. Acton, CA 93510 Phone: 661-269-2808 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAALP LINE 63 RE-ROUTE PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY October 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAALP) owns and operates numerous common carrier pipelines, including a 14-inch-diameter intrastate crude oil pipeline identified as Line 63 that runs north and south between Los Angeles and Bakersfield. Portions of Line 63 are located in the Angeles National Forest (ANF), Los Angeles County, California. During rain storms in the winter of 2004-2005, several landslides occurred in the area, damaging, affecting or otherwise threatening the integrity of segments of Line 63. Several repairs were performed immediately following or soon after the slides. As a result of and following a crude oil release that flowed into nearby Pyramid Lake in 2005, a legal complaint was filed against PAALP’s predecessor (Pacific Pipeline Systems). A Consent Decree was subsequently filed that established requirements to be met and repairs/relocations to be made to Line 63 prior to returning the flow of crude oil through the pipeline. In response to and in order to meet several of the Consent Decree technical requirements, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) was retained by PAALP to conduct geologic, geohazard, and geotechnical investigations along the Line 63 right-of-way (ROW). Stantec performed aerial photograph geomorphic and geohazard interpretation mapping, followed by geologic and geohazard mapping on foot. Geohazards were identified as active gullies where active erosion may threaten Line 63 or land movement-related features (such as landslides, slumps, debris flows, debris slides, rockfalls, and fault zones). Based on these data, Stantec created a geohazard inventory and a geohazard numerical ranking system (with 0 being no or minimal threat to Line 63 and 4 being the highest threat). This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential impacts associated with a proposed 2.27-mile-long (approximately 12,000 linear feet) re-route of a segment of Line 63 as well as an additional approximate 2,000 linear foot (LF) Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD). Both the re-route and the HDD are proposed in order to address and avoid a large number and concentration of geohazards located along Line 63 between MP 37.6 to 40.3. A significant section of the proposed re-route is west and upslope from where Line 63 is currently located, and will be located within the existing Line 2000 ROW. The proposed re-route was selected by PAALP on a combination of factors: the absence of geohazards; avoidance of higher-ranked geohazards; avoidance of narrow ridges with steep downslopes; near a limited number of lower- ranked geohazards when avoidance was not possible; minimizing river and stream crossings; accessibility and constructability of the route; and re-routing the segment into an ANF designated utility corridor. E.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAALP LINE 63 RE-ROUTE PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY October 2014 The location of the Line 63 segment proposed for re-route is approximately one mile east of Interstate 5 (I-5) and approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Lake Castaic between existing pipeline Mile Posts (MP) 37.6 to 40.3 (Figure 2.1-1, Regional and Project Location Map). As detailed herein, the EA evaluates a Preferred Re-Route (Proposed Action) and No Action Alternative. Construction activities for the proposed preferred re-route are expected to occur within a three- month timeframe in 2014. E.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAALP LINE 63 RE-ROUTE PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS October 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1.1 1.1 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ..............................................................................................1.1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ..............................................................................1.2 2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................2.1 2.1 PREFERRED RE-ROUTE (PROPOSED ACTION)...........................................................2.1 2.1.1 Pipeline Installation ............................................................................................2.6 2.1.2 Horizontal Directional Drilling............................................................................2.16 2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE...........................................................................................2.20 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...........2.21 2.3.1 Environmental Commitments............................................................................2.21 2.3.2 Best Management Practices (BMP)..................................................................2.45 2.3.3 Forest Service Construction Requirements ......................................................2.47 3.0 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ANALYSIS ..............................................................3.1 3.1 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................................3.1.1 3.1.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.1.1 3.1.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................3.1.1 3.1.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...............................................................................3.1.3 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................3.2.1 3.2.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.2.1 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................3.2.26 3.2.3 Direct and Indirect Effects .............................................................................3.2.32 3.3 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................3.3.1 3.3.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.3.1 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................3.3.5 3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...............................................................................3.3.6 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND HAZARDS ...............................................3.4.1 3.4.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.4.1 3.4.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................3.4.1 3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...............................................................................3.4.4 3.5 GEOLOGY/SOIL RESOURCES.....................................................................................3.5.1 3.5.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.5.1 3.5.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................3.5.2 3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...............................................................................3.5.2 3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................3.6.1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.6.1 3.6.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................3.6.1 3.6.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...............................................................................3.6.2 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..........................................................................3.7.1 3.7.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.7.1 3.7.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................3.7.6 3.7.3 Direct and Indirect