[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9205]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 18, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[FERC Docket Nos. CP93-258-000, et al. CA State Clearinghouse No.
94032040]
Mojave Pipeline Co.; Preparation/Intent to Prepare a Joint Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Statement for the Proposed Mojave Northward
Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
April 12, 1994.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare a joint environmental impact report/statement
(EIR/EIS) with the California State Lands Commission (SLC) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of
facilities proposed in Mojave Pipeline Company's Northward Expansion
Project.\1\ The FERC will use this EIR/EIS in its decision-making
process (whether or not to certificate the proposed project).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Mojave Pipeline Company's application was filed with the
Commission pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and part 157
of the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SLC will be the lead State agency for California and the FERC
will be the lead Federal agency in the preparation of this joint EIR/
EIS. The joint document, which will avoid much duplication of
environmental analyses, will satisfy the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be cooperating with the
FERC in the preparation of the EIR/EIS because of the significant
amount of BLM-managed land that the proposal would affect. The other
Federal agencies we are asking to cooperate (see appendix 1) may choose
to participate once they have evaluated Mojave's proposal relative to
their respective responsibilities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available from the
Commission's Public Reference Branch, room 3104, 941 North Capitol
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 or call (202) 208-1371. Copies of
the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the
mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the Proposed Facilities
Mojave Pipeline Company (Mojave) has an existing natural gas
transmission system which begins near Topock, Arizona and terminates
near Bakersfield, California. Mojave requests FERC authorization to
construct and operate certain pipeline and compression facilities that
will extend its system into Central and Northern California (Northward
Expansion Project). These additional facilities would enable Mojave to
transport 475 million cubic feet per day of natural gas to customers in
the San Joaquin Valley and Northern California (San Francisco Bay Area
and Sacramento).
Mojave's application proposes two facility schemes. One plan
includes the facilities Mojave would construct in the event the Kern
River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) also expands its existing
system. The second plan includes the facilities Mojave would construct
without any expansion by Kern River. This EIR/EIS will analyze the most
construction-intensive combination of Mojave facilities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Kern River's expansion application, filed with the FERC in
November 1991 (Docket No. CP92-198-000), is pending before the
Commission. A separate environmental review of Kern River's proposed
facilities was conducted by the Commission staff in the Kern River
Expansion Project Environmental Assessment, issued April 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Northward Expansion Project consists of the following
facilities:
557 miles of new pipeline with diameters ranging from 4
inches to 30 inches;
100 miles of 30-inch-diameter looping pipeline;\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\A loop is a segment of pipeline installed adjacent to an
existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three new compressor stations in California with a total
of 73,058 horsepower (hp) of compression, and 24,470 hp of additional
compression at Mojave's existing compressor station in Topock, Arizona;
and
Construction of 55 new meter stations and the modification
of 1 existing meter station.
The general locations of the facilities proposed by Mojave are
shown in appendix 2. A detailed listing of the facilities is in
appendix 3.
Mojave informed the Commission that it plans to amend its
application after the issuance of this notice. Specific details
regarding any changes to the proposed project will be available at the
public scoping meetings. The landowners who would be affected by that
amendment will receive a copy of this notice. At a minimum Mojave
expects the amendment to include:
(1) An alternative pipeline alignment between Bakersfield and
Lindsay;
(2) An extension of its Palo Alto Segment of approximately 30 miles
to a location near Hunters Point;
(3) An alternative siting of its Famoso Compressor Station near
Lindsay; and
(4) An alternative pipeline alignment to avoid the Contra Costa
Water District's Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project.
Several of the customers receiving gas from Mojave as part of this
project will need to build pipelines to take the gas delivered to them.
Although these facilities are not under the jurisdiction of the FERC,
they will be discussed in the EIR/EIS.
Land Requirements for Construction
Mojave proposes to build its new mainline and pipeline segments in
construction rights-of-way ranging from 30 to 75 feet wide. After
construction, 0 to 30 feet would be maintained as permanent easement.
Specific widths of the rights-of-way vary, depending on the proposed
pipeline diameter for specific locations. The proposed loops would be
built parallel and adjacent to Mojave's existing pipelines, using as
much of the existing rights-of-way as possible for the construction
right-of-way. The three new compressor stations would require
approximately 20 acres each.
Additional temporary work space may be required at major river,
road or railroad crossings, or where similar obstacles are encountered.
Mojave would purchase the temporary and permanent easements necessary
for constructing the project.
Construction of the pipelines would normally follow standard
pipeline construction methods: right-of-way clearing and grading;
trenching; pipe stringing, bending, welding, joint coating, and
lowering in; backfilling of the trench; and cleanup and restoration.
Mojave proposes to implement erosion control and revegetation measures
and to use special construction techniques for wetland and water
crossings and for construction in residential areas. These construction
procedures and mitigation plans will be discussed further in the Draft
EIR/EIS.
Pipeline loops in or adjacent to existing rights-of-way would
generally require less clearing and grading. Rotary-wheeled ditching
machines, backhoes, or rippers would be used to excavate a sufficiently
deep trench. For buried pipelines, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) requires a minimum of 30 inches of cover in normal
soils and 18 inches in consolidated rock. In populated areas, this
increases to 36 and 24 inches of cover, respectively. Blasting would be
required when areas of consolidated rock are encountered.
Pipeline segments would be designed according to DOT minimum safety
standards and specifications (49 CFR part 192) and would be
hydrostatically tested before being placed in service. Mojave would be
required to obtain appropriate Federal and state discharge permits
prior to hydrostatic testing. No chemicals would be used during this
testing.
The EIR/EIS Process
The NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from a major Federal action
whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity. The California SLC, as a cooperating state
agency, is required to consider the same potential impacts within the
State of California under the CEQA. The EIR/EIS we are preparing will
give both the SLC and the Commission the information we need to do
that.
NEPA (and CEQA) also requires us to discover and address concerns
the public may have about proposals. We call this ``scoping''. The main
goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIR/EIS on
the important environmental issues, and to separate those issues that
are insignificant and do not require detailed study.
The EIR/EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project. These impacts
may include, but are not limited to:
Geology and Soils
Geological and seismic hazards
Erosion control
Right-of-way restoration
Water Resources
Impact on potable water supplies
Impact on wetland hydrology
Effect of construction in areas with shallow, contaminated
groundwater
Effect of pipeline crossings on streams and canals
Biological Resources
Short- and long-term effects of right-of-way clearing and
maintenance in wetlands, forests, and riparian areas
Effects of habitat alteration
Impact on threatened and endangered species
Impact on fisheries
Cultural Resources
Impact on historic and prehistoric sites
Native American and tribal concerns
Impact on the Los Vaqueros Historic District and the California
Historic Landmarks of the Black Diamond Mines and the Desert Training
Maneuver Area
Socioeconomics
Effects of temporary population growth
Effects of increased employment and taxes on local economy
Air quality
Effect of compressor stations emissions on air quality
Noise
Effect of compressor stations operation on nearby noise-sensitive
receptors
Reliability and Safety
Assessment of hazards associated with natural gas pipelines
Land Use
Impact on California Desert Conservation District, Black Diamond
Mines Regional Preserve, Contra Loma Regional Park and Reservoir,
Sycamore Grove Regional Park, Mission Peaks Regional Preserve, Sunol
Regional Wilderness, and Levin County Park
Impact on commercial crop production
Impact on industrial areas
Effect of rights-of-way and aboveground facilities on visual
aesthetics in residential and scenic areas
Impact on Concord Naval Weapons Station, Lemoore Naval Air Station,
Edwards Air Force Base
Consistency with city and county land use plans
Impact on residences
Paleontology
Impact on significant fossil resources discovered during pipeline
construction
Alternatives
Route variations to avoid sensitive areas
Cumulative Impacts
Identification of related projects
Analysis of cumulative impacts and mitigation measures
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the project and
recommend specific mitigation measures to lessen or avoid impacts on
the various resource areas.
Our independent analysis of the issues will result in the
publication of a Draft EIR/EIS which will be mailed to Federal, state,
and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals,
affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's
official service list for these proceedings. A 45-day comment period
will be allocated for the review of the Draft EIR/EIS. We will consider
all comments on the Draft EIR/EIS and revise the document, as
necessary, before issuing a Final EIR/EIS. The Final EIR/EIS will
include our response to each comment received.
Public Participation and Scoping Meetings
You can make a difference by sending a letter with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. You should focus on the
potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the
proposal (including alternative routes), and measures to avoid or
lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more
useful they will be. Please follow the instructions below to ensure
that your comments are received and properly recorded:
Address the letter to: Ms. Lois Cashell, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426;
Reference Docket Nos. CP93-258-000, et al.;
Send a copy of the letter to the following individuals:
Michael J. Boyle, EIS Project Manager, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Room 7312, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC
20426
Mary Griggs, EIR Project Manager, State Lands Commission, 1807 13th
Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Mail comments before May 20, 1994.
In addition to asking for written comments, we invite you to attend
any of the joint public scoping meetings the FERC and SLC will conduct.
The locations and times for these meetings are listed on the next page.
Requests to hold additional public scoping meetings will be considered.
The public meetings will be designed to provide you with more
detailed information and another opportunity to offer your comments on
the proposed project. Those wanting to speak at the meetings can call
the EIS Project Manager to pre-register their names on the speaker
list. Those people on the speaker list prior to the date of the meeting
will be allowed to speak first. A second speaker list will be developed
at each meeting. Priority will be given to people representing groups.
A transcript of each meeting will be made so that your comments will be
accurately recorded.
Becoming an Intervenor
In addition to involvement in the EIR/EIS scoping process, you may
want to become an official party to the FERC proceedings by becoming an
intervenor. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive
copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other
intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide copies of its
filings to all other parties. If you want to become an intervenor, you
must file a Motion to Intervene according to Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) which is
attached as appendix 4.
The date for filing timely motions to intervene in this proceeding
has passed. Therefore, parties now seeking to file late interventions
must show good cause, as required by Sec. 385.214(b)(3), why this time
limitation should be waived. Environmental issues have been viewed as
good cause for late intervention. You do not need intervenor status to
have your scoping comments considered or to speak at a meeting.
Schedule for EIR/EIS Public Scoping Meetings
Palo Alto, California, May 9, 1994; 7:00 p.m., Lucie Stern Community
Center, 1305 Middlefield Road, (415) 329-2261
Livermore, California, May 10, 1994; 7:00 p.m., Junction Middle School,
298 Junction Avenue, (510) 606-3234
Fresno, California, May 11, 1994; 7:00 p.m., Ted C. Wills Community
Center, 770 North San Pablo, (209) 488-1035
Barstow, California, May 12, 1994; 7:00 p.m., Holiday Inn--Barstow,
1511 East Main Street, (619) 256-5673
Environmental Mailing List
If you don't want to send comments at this time but still want to
keep informed and receive copies of the Draft and Final EIR/EIS, please
return the Information Request (see appendix 5). If you do not return
the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.
Additional Questions?
Additional information about the proposed project is available from
Mr. Michael J. Boyle, EIS Project Manager, (202) 208-0918.
Information concerning the involvement of the California SLC in the
EIR/EIS may be obtained from Ms. Mary Griggs, EIR Project Manager,
(916) 322-0354.
Request for information regarding the involvement of the Bureau of
Land Management as a cooperating agency in the environmental analysis
process may be addressed to: Mr. Stephen L. Johnson, Pipeline Project
Manager, BLM--California Desert District, 6221 Box Springs Blvd.,
Riverside CA 92507-0714, (909) 697-5233.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-9205 Filed 4-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P