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

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