·SPECIAL BULLETIN—MALIBU LNG WATCH·

Revised Cabrillo Port EIR Identifies 20 Significant Negative Impacts

BY HANS LAETZ

The third version of environmental studies on the proposed Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas terminal was released Friday, and concludes that the project would impose 20 substantial negative impacts on the scenic views, air quality and wildlife of the Malibu coastal strip and waters.

“Twenty proposed project impacts have been identified as significant impacts, [and are] considered major, permanent, long-term or short-term impacts under [federal and state laws],” the long-delayed Environmental Impact Report says. It says the negative effects are “significant and unavoidable, [and even] would remain after mitigation is applied.”

The report’s publication triggers a rapid series of hearings, votes and decisions on the proposed industrial addition to Malibu’s coastline. Assuming the project wins a key approval from the California State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will have to decide whether to approve or veto the project before May 20.

The report does not take sides in the heated argument over federal smog permits for Cabrillo Port, or whether Cabrillo Port is a part of the Channel Islands exemption to local smog rules, as BHP Billiton claims. But it concludes the LNG plant’s smog emissions would include nitrogen oxides and petrochemicals at levels that will exceed federal law, despite company plans to reduce smog emissions elsewhere in the state.

The EIR, posted on the Internet Friday morning, concludes that “a number of adverse effects would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable offshore impacts during project operations would be potential public safety impacts from a high-energy marine collision or damage to subsea pipelines; noise impacts to marine animals; marine biology, air quality and water quality impacts from a significant spill or LNG release from the [terminal] or offshore pipelines.”

The report sets up one major bone of contention with coastal advocates who estimate that opening up Cabrillo Port to imports would add greenhouse gas equal to five percent of California’s existing total discharge. The EIR, however, rejects that argument by only looking at actual discharges at the port itself, instead of the cumulative total caused by compressing the gas and shipping it halfway around the globe.

“The Project would generate emissions of greenhouse gases that would be insignificant alone, but could exacerbate, in combination with existing greenhouse gases, global warming effects,” the report concludes.

The analysis says negative aesthetic, noise and recreational impacts on boaters traveling near Cabrillo Port will occur, as well as similar impacts from the visual intrusion of an industrial facility into two national parks.

Among other major impacts, the EIR concludes:
· A high-energy collision or an intentional attack could rupture the tanks holding LNG, leading to the release of a flammable vapor cloud that could extend beyond the one-mile safety zone and cover adjacent shipping lanes, but not the adjacent coastline.
· Commercial and recreational fishing gear could become hung up on the pipeline and potentially damage one or both of the undersea pipelines.
· The undersea natural gas pipelines coursing across 22 miles of ocean bed could be severed due to a seismic event or undersea landslide.

The report includes the written and spoken concerns of thousands of Oxnard and Malibu residents over the past three years, along with specific responses to each and every specific comment from consultants working for the state and federal governments. For example, Ventura Congressmember Lois Capp’s concern about the shape and size of an explosive vapor cloud is addressed:
“The Independent Risk Assessment determined that the consequences of the worst credible accident involving a vapor cloud fire would be more than 5.7 nautical miles [7.4 highway miles] from shore at the closest point, the maximum distance from the [ship] in any direction that could be affected in the event of an accident. The shape and direction of the affected area would depend on wind conditions and would be more like a cone than a circle, but would not reach the shoreline.”

The EIR rejects concerns from Malibu residents about the visual impact of the ship, which would be anchored just beyond the shipping lanes used by the container vessels visible most days along the coast.

“From the shoreline, and particularly from higher elevations, the [terminal] would be seen but would appear as a thickening on the horizon,” the report says. “Night lighting used during pipeline construction and operations would be visible from the shore and to residents living in the foothills and higher elevation areas in Malibu and from the top of Anacapa Island, thereby altering the nighttime viewshed.”

The report does not mention that a key federal agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, is withholding its input on Cabrillo Port until it gets data about how whales and other protected species will be avoided by LNG tankers, and how continuous, loud noise from the terminal will affect whales.

“A natural gas leak from subsea pipelines could cause morbidity or mortality of marine biota, including fish, invertebrates, seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals,” the report says. “Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts on marine biological species from a large accidental release of LNG or fuel would remain significant.”

The report also repeats NMFS concerns that “construction and operational vessels could collide with marine mammals or sea turtles resting on the ocean surface, resulting in injury or mortality.”

And while the EIR acknowledges the impact of industrial intrusions into a scenic recreation area, it does not address the economic impact to whale-watching operations if the leviathans are driven away by the loud LNG boilers.

Lengthy new material in the report about the project’s sound impact on animals is included in the technical appendices unveiled Friday.

The report also takes a closer look at two low-income trailer parks in the Oxnard area that sit on top of where a 30-inch, high-pressure natural gas line will be installed to feed gas from Cabrillo Port to Los Angeles.

The EIR, some 3000 pages thick, will be reviewed by environmental lawyers, Malibu activists and local governments over the next three weeks. On April 4, the Coast Guard will take public testimony, but will not issue its decision on the matter until later in Washington. On April 9, the Lands Commission will hold its hearing and take a vote, followed on April 12 by the Coastal Commission.

BHP Billiton plans to start operations at Cabrillo Port in three years.