[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