1...1991/11/05 · AREA, TYPB LAND AND LOCATION: A o.so±-acre parcel of land in the Colorado River near Topock, Arizona, and the Interstate Highway 40 river crossing, San Bernardino

' I lj

'~·.:···.· ... · 1 id

MINUTE ITEM This Calendar Item No.~

was J§.~oved os Minute Item . • by the State ~s · 1111in,1ssion by a vote of

111_ ~; at its I I ~ ~3 ·Q : meeting.

A 61

CALENDAR ITEM

28 11/05/91 w 23621 A. Scott

PRC~ s 25 7S9g ,;;,~

GENERAL LEASE - RIGHT-OF-WAY

APPLICANT: Transwestern Pipeline Company Terence H. Thorn, President and CEO 1400 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002

AREA, TYPB LAND AND LOCATION: A o.so±-acre parcel of land in the Colorado River near Topock, Arizona, and the Interstate Highway 40 river crossing, San Bernardino County.

LARD USE: Installation and maintenance of a proposed 24-inch gas pipeline crossing the Colorado River using a directional bore method under the bed of the river. The bore is to be located between the existing Interstate 40 bridge and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Bridge.

TERMS OP PROPOSED LEASE: Initial period:

Thirty (30) years beginning Noveml::;>er 1, 1991.

Surety bond: $10,000.

f-;)4-!l

Public liability insurance: ·,· Combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000 of primary ./ coverage and $4,000,000 of umbrella coverage.

COHSIDERATIOH: $250 per annum; with the State reserving the right to fix a different rental on each fifth anniversary of the lease.

BASIS POR COHSIDERATIOH: Pursuant to 2 Cal. Code Regs. 2003.

-1-

, ·~' ~ .. ------ ___ .. ...., .. ,~ .... ----

CALENDAR ITEM NO. ~ 8 (CONT'D)

APPLICANT STATUS: Applicant is owner of upland.

PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS, -FEES AND EXPENSES: Filing fee, processing costs and environmental costs have i~een received.

STATU~JRY AND OTHER REFERENCES: - ~~- P.R.C.: Div. 6, Parts 1 and 2; Div. 13.

B. Cal. Code Regs.: Title 3, Div. 3-.; Title 14, Div. 6.

AB 884: N/A

O~HER PERTINENT INFORMATION: 1. This project' involves the installation and maintenance

of a 24-inch gas pipeline under the bed-df the Colorado River using the· di~e.ctional bore method. Tpe proposed pipeline will be ~· ijonnection betwee~ an existi~g 30-inch pipeline in Ari}zona and a pipe-1·1he in California which is currently u:nder construction.

2. Pursuant to tl~.a Commission Is delegation of authority e and the state CEQA.Guidelines {14 Cal. Code-Regs. 15025), an Initial ;.:'tudy and a Proposed Negative Declaration EIR ND 571, State Clearinghouse No. 91102062., were prepared by staff and circulated for public review through the ~tate Clearinghouse. The Proposed Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures which were incorporat~d int9 the project, and are the subject of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. A copy of this environmental document, including the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, is attached' ·as Exhibit 11cn·.

Based upon the initial Study, modifications made to the pr~ject, the Proposed Negative Q.eclaratio11, and the comments received in response th~reto, there is no substantial evidence that the pr6·ject will have a significant effect on t!'le ~~Vi!'.onment.. (.14 Cal,! Code Regs. 15074[b]).

-2- -.~~~~~-~

~ALENG1~;{ PAGE ·=·--:.----. ··-; ;::TF. P1\GE --=· ;J~4S .. ---·-···----i.--:,,. ...... --- .....

CALENDAR ITEM NO. 28 (CONT'D)

3. This activity involves lands identifie~ as possessing sfgnif icant environmental values pursua~t to ?.R.C. 9370, et seq. Based upon the st~ff's consultat.-ion with the persons nominating such lands and through the CEQA review process, it is the staff's opinion that the project, as proposed, is consistent with its use classification.

4. Pursuant to the Comm~~sion's delegation of authority and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15025), the staff has prepared a Proposed Negative Declaration identified as EIR ND 571, state Clearinghouse No. 91102062. Such Proposed Negative Declaration was prepared ,apd circulated for public review pursuuht to the p·ovisions of CEQA.

Based upon the Initial Study, the Proposed Negative Declaration, an~ the comments received in response thereto, there is no substantial evidence that the project will pave a signifi~~nt effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Kegs. 15074(b))

APPROVALS OBTAINED: United States Army Corps of Engineers.

FURTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Californfa Fish and Game.

EXHIBITS: A. L~nd Description B. i;ocation Map C. /Negative Declaration ND 571, whicl~ incorporates t:l).e

Mitigation Monitoring Plan

IT IS R~COMMENDED ~HAT THE COMMISSION:

1. CERTIFY THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, EiR ND 571, STATE CL~INGHOUSE NO. 91102062, WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURS~ANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CEQA AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REV:CEWED AND CONSIDERED TH,E INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN. . . , .

2. ADOPT THE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DETERMINE ~'HAT THE PROJECT, AS' MODIFIED AND -PROPOSED, WILT.NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

-3-

' ·-·· oo M--=~·:. •••30•-0-"o' o

.. , .. , .... r ''··· . .. ,. ·-~-..-.. ·-·-"' ~

·-;:: r'lt1r.7 .J~ ..... o ...... I•• ~ < ..:~ -·-~->.J..~.. -_...-------... ---~ .

CALENDAR I'I·EM NO. 2 8 {CONT'D)

3. ADOPT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 21081.6 OF THE P.R.C~: THE MONITORING PROGRAM CONTAINE DIN ExHIBIT 11C11 FOR THE PROJECT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES.

4. FIND THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USE CLASS~FICATION DESIGNATED FOR THE LAND PURSUANT TO P.R.c.· 6370, ET SEQ. .

5. AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE TO TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE COMPANY OF A 30-YEAR GENERAL LE~SE - RIGHT-OF~WAY BEGINNING NOVEMBER 1, 1991; IN CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL RENT :r~ THE AMOUNT OF $250, WITH THE STATE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO FIX A DIFFERENT RENTAL ON EACH FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LEASE; PROVISION OF PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR COMBINED SINr~E '1,IMIT· COVERAGE OF $1, 000, 000 ,OF PRIMARY COVERAGE ·A-1'1TQ. $4., 000, 000 OF UMBRELLA COVERAGE; FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MA~N~~NANCE OF A 24-INCH GAS PIPELINE ON THE LAND DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.

-·4-

EXHIBIT"A" LAND D~SCRIPTION

. W23621

A strip of land 50 feet wide, situated in the bed of the Colorado RiverJ in Section 8, T?N, R24E,.S.B.M., located in San Bernardino County, State of California and lying 35 feet northerly and· 15 fa.et southerly of the following described centerline;

COMMENCING,at the. West 1/4 of Section 8, Township 7 North, Range 24 East, S.B.M., as said point is delineated on the Official Plat of said Township; thence N73°36'10"E, 4,023.87 feet; ther.ce N01°42'38"W, 600 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein 9esc ·:)ed centerline; thence from said point of beginning N88°1 T22"E, 1,800 feet to the end of the herein described centerline.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion lying northerly of the Arizona-California Boundary Compact Line as defined in the " Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary between the States of.Arizona and Qalifornia," Chapter 859, Stat~tes"of 1963.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion lying landward of the ordinary high water mark of the right bank or westerly bank of the Colorado Riv.er;

END DESCRIPTION

I aaa:\. 30'"~ --· ! CALENDAR PAG!;.~. A.I .

" 11 irc P/i•GE -·· ·~ . I. 1 -. •-

~~~~,Catfish! 0 1· ' . -·'--..... . '1 ~·

.:..__27Par~disel x5J•'l'.J J • - -- ~-:· · · ··- · ·-+- 2c

""- C::. i Wi'LDLIFE . - -~ -::o "?' t1\ J., •

~...p I -:_-:·

~~ Existing El Pas0 ~,.... .... ~-...... '\-

EXHIBIT 11 B" W2362I

Pipelines. g,· I. ,FT MOJAVE!

I --·-- ,-~---·--· ..

..

I . - .. --:. i

,.._.~ '/ f: --~ J <' ~ '; r·' .:::

j ,.

·--! ~r: ; r !

{I\

0

111

N

I ~-

' ..••...•..• )

::woo Scale in Feet

-.-- I ·1 ) , _,-_'Lr ~

!

Proposed Transwestem to Topor'<

Alternative Routes- lnte~connect 24" Pipelin~·

Proposed Transw<ister.1 20· Pipelrne

PROPOSED INTERCONNECT

STATE OF C:ALIFORNIA

STATE LANDS COMMISSION aEO T. McCARTHY, Lieutenanr Governor ~RAY DAVIS, Cc.~troller

THOMAS W. HAYES. Directer of Finance

EXHIBIT 11 C11

PETE Wl:..SON, GoVflrnor

EXECUTIVE CFFICE 1807 • 13th Street Sacramento. CA 95814

CHARLES WARREN Executive Officer

October 10, 1991 File: W 23621

ND571

NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIE\V OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SECTION 15073 CCR)

A Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section ~1000 et seq., Public Resources Code), the State CEQA guidelines (Section 15000 et seq., Title 14, California Code Regulations), and the State Lands Commission Regulations (Section 2901 et seq., Title 2, California Code Regulations) for a _project curr~9tly being processed by the staff of the State Lands Commission.

T1ie document is:attached for your review. Comments should be addressed to the State Lands Commission office shown above with atrnntion to the undersigned. All comments must be receiv~d by October 31, 1991.

Should you have any questions or need addi~ional information, please call the undersigned at (916) 322-0354.

Attachment

,, ~;

I l. , /, - . ; /I • ""·' / f..;1 • ·,/'_;J l.t,,,· :.-{/' ... .,r v ~ cj'' 1/'J ,/ I . IL._,, MARY GRIGGS I Division 9f Environmen al Planning

and Management

l ·'IJT~ 0 ,{;r. '" ,. ~ . • I t,; Ir~ ' ; ,.,t: ---:.:-.:--3854 . _______ ,,, ____ -.. -.. . . "'

STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE W_JJ <:;JN. GoW1rnor

STATE LANDS COMMISSION LEO T. McCARTHY. Lieutenant Governor GRAY DAVIS, Controller THOMAS W. l-IAYES. Director of Finance

EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1807 • 13th Stre&t Sacramento, CA 95. CHARLES WARRE Executive Officer

'Project Title:

Proponents:

Project Location:

Project Description:

Contact Person:

PROPOSED NEGApYE DECLARATION

File: W 23621 ND·17J.

SCH No. 91102062

Transwestem Interconnect Pipeline Project

Transwestem Pipeline Company.(ENRON)

From Topock, Arizona, crossing the Colorado River, to the PG&E Compressor Statiob, 19 miles east of Needles, San Bernardino County.

Construction 6r a 24" naturil gas pipeline (10,000 feet in length) connecting the Transwestem Natural Gas P.ipeline System (Topock, Arizona) with the Pacific Gas and Electric~Company Distribution System, at a location 19 miles southest of Needles, California.

Mary Griggs Telephone: 916/322-0354

This document is prepared pursuant to the .requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21000 et seq.: J'ublic Resources Code), the State CEQA Guidelines '(Section 15000 et seq., Title 14, California Code Regulations), and the State Lands Commission regulations (Section 2901 et seq., Title 2, California Code Regulations).

Based upon the attached Initial Study, it has been found that:

LI this project will not have a significan\ effect on the environment.

/_Ji_/ mitigaL ,Jji measures included in the project will avoid potentially significant effects.

e

' " ·- ,,,,,-:: --· 305 .:.. -· 1\ t,i.; ··;;;o.;:·- . , ' "~ !':'. • • ,~. r • "') (.) t=' f::'

: 1: . · .. • ' ... ~ ~ :!. • ·--~~

• r Ar ( I .\NOS COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'ASSESSMENT CHECKllST- PART ·11 11/82)

File Ref.:. _________ _

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

,\ Auphcant: Transwestern Gas Pipeline Company

B Checklist Date: 10 t 09 I 91

C. Contact Person: --'M=-=a=-r.._y....::G.;;:r-=i""g'""g.,,s..._ ________________________________ _

folephone: ( 916 ) . 322-0354

o PtJrpose __ c.=...;;.o.;..;n.;;:s..;t;.;;r....;u;.;c;..;t;;..:,;.....;o;..ip;.;e:;;.;r;;.;a=-t=-e=--a=n.;;:d_;;;ma=i:..:n;.;;t;.;;a;.;;i""n ....... a""n"'"""i;;;n""t""e;;.r;;.c=o:..:n:..:n:.::e:.::c;.;:t:....;go,;::a;.:s"--'0"'"1"'"· o""e=l.:.i:..:n:.::e-=f.;;:o::::r....::a:;::d:;::d::.:i:.:t::.:j::.::·o~n~a::.:1:-._

natural gas marketing flexibility and for a direct connection between Transwestern and PG&E-natural gas distribution S¥stems. Location· Topock Compressor Station, Topock, Arizona to the PG&E ,~ompressor Statj gn

southeast of Needles, CA

F DPscnpuon 12,'500 feet of pipeline (10,000 feet @ 24-inch, 2,500 .feet @· 20-inch) connect·

ing the two co~pressor stations with an under-the-river boring crossing of the Colorado

River; a project option would cross2the r~~er cn_~n ~xis~!og__piJ?eline bri~

eG Persons Contacted:---------------

11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. (Explain all "yes" and "maybe" answers}

A l:art/1. Will the proposal result in:

1 Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? .....

2. Oisrupuons, displacements, compaction, or overcovering of the soil? .......................... .

1. Change in fopography or ground surf<ce relief features?. . . . . . . . . ........................ .

.i The de.truction, covering, or mod1ficc tion of any unrQue geologic or physical featur2S7 ............. .

5 Any increase 1n wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... · .. : ·.:_:..:p~~--:.:_:..:. •••

Ytt Maybe No

D 0 [] D~D D D kJ DO~ D G.D.

6. Changes in deposition or eros_1on of beach sands, or. changes in s1lt~t1on. depom:on or. e~it?.~IY'P~~t\!!1-;:_~J~i r-1 modify the channel of <1 river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lak~r1 U.,.t-'rH'G" ... -.-- . ··u· .~ .

.,,1~ 11: rA c. • aS6-·-7 Exposure of all people or property to geologic hazards such as earthQuakes, landslid~, mu~ll~J!!,..!l.ffiill~-FT-t!'9~ (

failure. or similar hazards?.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . U L.J ~

B lir. Will the probosal result; in:

<;11b~tanua1 air emr:"11Ss1ons 01 rietenorat1on of amoient air Qualtty)

·• The creation of objectionable odors?.

., Alter:it1cn of air mo\lement. moisture or temperature. or any change m chmate,e1ther locally or regionally'.

C. :11111•r Will the proposal rt!sull in:

Ch.;r.:11!s 1n the currents. or the cour~e or d1rect1on of water movements. 1n e1th_er marine or fresh waters?

.' 1~haru.it!s·111 Jl>so11>11on rates. drainage patterns. or the rate anll amount of surface water runoff? ........ .

3 . .\ite~a_uons to ihe course or flow of flood waters?

4 Change m the amount ot surface water m anv water body?

5. 01scharqe into surface .vaters. or m anv alteration of surface water Qualtty. including but not limited to temperature. dissolved c xygen or turbidity?. . . ......................•......

ti Alteration of the direct on or rat~ of flow of ground waters?. . . ........................... .

i Change 111 the Quantity of ground waters. either through direct additions or withdrawals. or through inter· cepuon of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ .

S. Substantial reduction m ~he amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? .......... .

9 Exposure of people 01 prooerty to water·related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ............ .

1 O. S1qmf1r:in1 chanqes in the temperature, flow or r.hemical content of surface thermal springs? •.....

0. 1'111111 l.1/1'. Will the prol)OSJI 1 e~ult m:

1. Change in the d1vers1ty of ~nec1es, or number at any species of plants (Including trm, shrubs, grass. croP10. Jnd aquatic plants I?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•................................... ::.

2. Reduction of the numb1!r~ ot any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ....•...............

3. Introduction of new species of plants into an area. or in a barrier to the normal ·rephmishment of existmg ~pec1es? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .

4. Reduction m acre2ge of any agru:ultural crop?

luimal l.ift• Will the proposal result m:

...................... ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Change m the d1vers1tv of species, or numbers of any species of ani' . .i1$ (birds, lam! animals including 1t!ptlles, fish and shellfoh, benth1c organisms. or insects)? ............................... '. ..

). R1•dur.uon of the numb•!rs of any unique. rare or endangered species of animals? ...

.! Introduction of new SP•!C1es of <1nimals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of .1111mals? . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................... .

.1. Octr.r1orat1on to existini1 hsh or wildlife habitat?.

r: '"""· Wall the proposal result 111:

Increase 1n existing noist! levels? .....

2. Exposure of people to st!vere noise level\?

G. l.i.llilt and Glatt'. Will the proposal result in:

1 The p1oduct1on of new light or glare?

H }:1111t/ t:.,,.. Will the proposal result in:

.....................................

I'. A substantial alterauon of the present or planned land use of an area? ..................... .

Yes Maybe No

.-, rxi I -1

L_j CJ \. ..J

:J n ~ -· . -,

- • .J L.

. ,~@ '--' -, [] ~ .__, ·--, _., ,.-.__J ! -· ~ ~ r-1 ,.,

L..J l~

0 ~ 0 0 D lil

~"] l~: ~ ~ D liJ ~o~ ~JD £1

,___, [' c:.-, L.J . I ~J rJ r·-1 I 1 - l~ QC-0 [J ~.l D Ll ~J

D [~ ~ r-. r·-· ,_ ..... :X. ·--1] (-; 1-1

i?.C .•

D [J ei.l ,--. ~ !·-~

LJ l,_j ~I

.0 c ~

D [ i r-· -- ix.J

D D iiJ \"11111ral Rt'.\OllfC't'S. Will the proposal result 1n:

I. Increase 111 the rate of use of an.v natural resources?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tJ 0 !fl) 2. Substantial depletion of anv r,onrenewable resources? . . . . . . . . . . • . . ..... ,,_,_._...,,.,,::. • ...:.-·-·-·-·--OJJ .... ~-·~

... '"~•011R P~G;--:· 307 ..,1'\L!:i~ 111 .'\ !i.~~::'.:lS' -~--, .. • :HNUTE PAGE ... ..- . 5]' _____ .

... 2- ·-----.._--~_,, ...

e

H.l.\k 11( Upst't. Does the proposal result in: Yes fkfbe.No

A risk of an explosion or the relea1e of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticidM, chem1ca1s. or rad1at1on1 in the event ot'an accident or upset conditions? . . . • . . • • . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . D D

2 Possible interference with emergency response plan or an emergancy evacu_ation plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 LJ 1'1111ula11<111. Will the proposal result in:

I Thi! altcratton. d1str1but1on, density. or growth rate of the human population of the area? . . . . . • . . . . . . 0 [] ~ 1/1111.\lfl/:. W1 II thl.! pr 011osal result in:

i Affectrnq existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?

··JI I ra11.,1uma1ion/Ctrcula1ion. Will the proposal result-in:

...................... D D ~~

1. Generation of substantial additional vehisular movement? ........•....................•....

2. Affecting existing parking facilities. or cr~ate a demand for new parking?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .

3. Substantial impact llPOn existing transportation systems?. . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...•

.i. Alterauons to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ..............••

5 Alterations to waterborne, rail, or arr traffic? .........................•........•....••.

I} Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists. or pedestrians? ........................ .

l'11h/1r .'11•r1•1ce~. Will the proposal have an effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered governmental •t!rv1ces in any ot the following areas:

I Fire protectron? ........................................................... ,,.

2. Police protectrcn? . . .....................................•...............•..•

3. Schools? .. . . , ........................................................ . .i. Parks and other recreational facilities? ...........................•...................

5. Maint1mance of';1ubli,. faci!itie~. including roads? .............................•.......•..

·6. Other governmental services? ................................................•..•.

D D i;; ~

0 0 ~ D D ,-

~

b D !X D D ~ ,--, D ~ --J

[] 0 ~ o.q ~ D D §J op~ DD~ DD l~l

0. l:nerK_I'. Will .the proposal result in:

1. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . • . 0 0 2. Substantial increase in demand upon ex1strng sources of energy, or require the development of newsour~s? • 0 LJ

P l·11/1111!l. Will the proposal result rn a need for new systems. or subitant1al alterations to ~he following utilities:

I. Power or natural gas?. . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 0 0 ~ 2. Communication s•1stems?...... . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . D D e£j

3. Water?: ....................................... · ... ·····.··.··~ ..........••. D D ~ 4. Sewer or septic tanks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • . . . . . . • . . . . • . • . • . • . • • . . . . . . • . . • • • • . . D D ~ 5. Storm water drainage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . .•..... ·. · ...•.•.• • •. . • . • • . . . 0: D li£J 6. Solid waste and disposal? ........•.•.•..••.•••.•••...•.•. · • · •...•... • ·•.. . . • . • . . D D ~

0. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:

1. Creation of any health hazard or potential health haurd (excluding mental health!? . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . D D ~ 2. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? . . . . • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . D D ~

R .-lt'stltetics. Will the proposal result in:

1. The obstrucuon ot any scenic vista or view open to the public. or w1ll tho proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public vrew? . . • • . . • . . • • • • • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . • . . . . D ~ Ci

s. H. t'Crt'atiun. Will the proposal result in:

1. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opponunrties? ...... .'. ·:· .~~: .1111 .... ;:"":"~r=:c:-~-~-.,,i..C.1 iiJAh n1ut. --~!_ ___ _ ·~ ..... . ·~r.iu ... r: o'·GE 4-:lOc:::'.'f..i 1111« l~1n ~~-

-3-·-~·------

T <.:11/iural Res1111rces.

: . Will the proposal result in tne alteration of or the destruction ot a prenistor1c or historic arcneolog1cal's1te?.

::!. Will the oroposal result 1n adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a· prehistoric or historic building, ;truc:ure. or object?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. : ................ .

Does tnc proposal h.ive trlt! potenual to cause a physical change which would affect uniQue ethn11:: cultural

1alues? . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

4 Will the prooosal restrict existing religious o• sacred uses w1th1n the'i'Otent1al,1mpact area? ..

u Jlantla111r1· Fmtlm~s nt Si~ni/icance.

l. Does the pro1ect have tne potential to degrade the quality of the environment. reduce the habitat of a fish or w1ldhfe species. cause a t1sh or wildlife population to drop below self·sustainmg ievels. threaten to e•1mmate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or ·restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important e::<'lmo1es of the ma1or penods of California history or prehistory? ...... .

2. 'Dot!S the pro1ect nave tro Potential tC\ achieve short term. to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ .

3. Does the oro1ect have impacts which are 1rc1v1dually limited. but cumulatively considerable? ......... .

Yes M;y~ Nn ,_., ,. .

0 u 1X 1 '- .

n (1 • f •al

:J fil LJ :-i ilfil I :__i L-J. .

u 0;(]

CJ c [] 4. Does th~ oro1ect have environmental effects which will cause substar:t1al adverse effects on human beings.

P.1ther directly or indirectly) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [J C ~ Ill. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EV~LUATION (See Comments Attached/

Please refer to the pages in the Initial Study indicated below for those i~em& requiring further discussion:

!!.A.2. pg. :n anq so I!.A.S. pg. 31 and so II.B.l. pg. 31 and Sl II.C.S. pg. 32 and Sl-S2 II.E.2. pg. 32-43 and S2-56 -II.R.l. pg. 46 and 58 II.T .1. pg. 46 - 49 and S8 IJ;.T.2. pg. 46 - 49 and S8

Please refer to Section 7 in ,the Initial Study f.or a discussion of the resource areas where impacts are 11ot expected.

IV. PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION

911 the basis of thi~ mit1a! evaluation:

1 I find the proposed proiect cou,_o NOT have a s1gnif1cant .iffect on th!! environment. ar.d a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will ) be prepared.

~ l5J I find that althou\jh ,the oropo~ed pro1ect could have a s19n1flcant effect 1 jn the environment, there will not be a s19nif1cant effect in this case because the m1t1gat1on measures described on an attached sheet have been added to th!! project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .

. ' 1 1 I fmd the proposed PlOJect MAY have a s,1gmf1cant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. REPORT

IS reQUled, e Date: Oct. / 09

' I 1991

STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION

INITIAL STUDY FOR THE TRANSWESTERN TO TOPOCK INTER.CONNECT PIPID..JNE PROJECT

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

1. INTRODUCI'ION

The proposed Transwestem Int~rconnect Pipeline Project represents, a link in the natural gas pipeline infrastructure of the southwestern United Stat~s (Exlubit A). The project is located within Mohave County, Arizona and San Bernardino County, California, and crosses the Colorado River near the town of To pock. The project area is approxi.Jnately 19 miles east of Nwdles, California, and roughly parallels the Inte!'State 40 and Atchis9n, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (AT&SF) transportation corridors in the region. The purpose of the project is to provide additional natural gas marketing flexi'bility and a direct connection between the Tran.~estem Pipeline, system and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) California interstate distnbution system (Exlubit B). The Project will be integrated into a previously approved pipeline right-of-way_, (ROW) for which significant environmental stuµies have been rompleted. These stu4ies include, the Mojave-Kem River-El Dorado Natural Gas Pipeline Projects FinaI Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact StaLement (Final BIR/EIS), published in December 1987, and supplemented in October 1988, and the California State Lands Commission (SLC) Final Amendment for the Mojave-Kem River Pipeline Projects BIR (1991), State Clearinghouse Number 85081912, which was certified by the State Lands Commission on March 6, 1991.

The Proposed Pmject includes approximately 10,000 feet of 24-mch diameter gas pipeline, 2,500 feet of W.inch diameter gas pipeline, a new Meter Station, nnd a 700. foot access road. The Project connects the Mojave Topock Co!J!pressor Station with the PG&E Compressor Station. An optional routing:ofthe pipeline has also been proposed for the Project The only differenceibetween the riptfonal routing Md the proposed routing in this study is the l!lethod used to cross the Colo1ado River. The optional routing crosses the river on an existing pipeline bridge; the proposed project implements directional drilling,to place the pipell!te under the Colorado River.

1

-~" ,.: 'DAR P~GE =._.J1Jl -\_C.dl I •• •

;I!" !TE Pi\GE. -- 3860 .----·---~------_ .. _ .......

This Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with both the boring routing (designated as .the Proposed Project) and the bridge routing ft ( design~ted as the Proj~1 Option in this study). The preliminary geotechnical engineering reports, field testing and drilling evaluations have determined that the boring will be technicall-J feasible, if carefully planned apd executed (Hair, 1991 ).

This study assumes that the boring will be feasible; however, if the boring is not found to be'technicaily fr.asible during drilling, the Project Option would become the Proposoo Project Section 5 of this study descnbes the Project Option.

In addition to the Project Option discussion in Section 5, the following sections descnbe the Proposed Project:

Section 2 - Proposed, Project Description and location Section 3,_ Purpose of,the Proposed Project Section 4 - Description of the Facilities, Operatiom; and Maintenance Section S - Overview of the Proj~"'t Option and Potential Impacts Section 6 - Present Environment Section 7 - Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project and Proj::ct Option, Section 8 - Unavoidable Adverse Effects Section 9 - Mitigation Measures Section 10 - Organizatj_ons Contacted Section 11 - References

In general, the information in this study is derived from previous environmental studir.s. This study assumes that the placement of much of the Proposed Project pipeline within the approved Mojave Transfer Pipeline ROW will limit potential impacts in these areas to impacts previously addr~ in the environmental documents referenced above. This study, however, also addresses the effects of the directional drilling and tl;e requirements for new ROW.

2. THE PROPOSED PROJECT DEsCRinION AND LOCATION

The T:canswestem Pipeline Company (Transwestern) has requested an administrative transfer from the Bureau of Land Management to assume responsibility for an approved ROW Grant to construct, operate and maintain a 24-inch pipeline, approximately 17 miles in length, connecting its existing mainline fact1ities to the Mojave Pipeline Company's (Mojave) Topock: Compressor Station, all of this occurring within Arizona. However, Transwestem now proposes to construct an additional 10,000 feet of 24-inch line, from the Topock Compressor Station, crossing under the Colorado·River in a tlirectionally-drilled bore, to a proposed Meter Station site for deliveries to both PG&E and Southern California Gas Company (SOC&..). Approximately 500 feet of 20-inc~ pipe will be constructed from the proposed meter station to the SOCAL Meter Station, and an additional 2,000 feet of 20-inch pipe

2

I :~~·· ~ ;; - .. ~~ :; :-g :0

ll A~~ c· I ri1 r ii 1 \t

J t.)l I ~~! ~·· i il'-.:J Nj ! j : l 1 i :

e - ----------r----J

Nevada

Utah

California PROJECT SITE

Arizona

-Wyoming

0 150 ~·-----Colorado Scale In Miies

New Mexico

'-~' PROJECT SITE LOCATION

Proposed Transwestem to Topoc:k Interconnect Pipeline Proj~

Transwestern PlpeUne Co. OCTOBER U)g1

EXHIBIT A

'•

----,-1 I I I ! I I

I

l '((\ ~.1 1·j, .(.

Proposed Transwestern 24• PipeUne

I

·' ~-·~

"it~ ' ,.

< ,..;

Wa •. t-'

. • c: Transwe~tern to T9pt;>ek/Mojave Transfer Line . tl'(r.·'-

5P.,•' ..... ·--·-+ j<:A c . Dil\' J _,1/P.. ·.:./'-- -

f" ~·,~-

St'' ~ :, ~ ., . ?---- ,, 11 Proposed Mojavo Pipeline

Company Compressor ·1

! J··st~on ··"'

/')J l ,, - --

Transwestem to.'.opOcJ0W->jave Transfer Line ·(Project Option· Route frilm tho Mojave Compressor Station to the Tnmswesie'rr. Met<>r Station)

-·~ I •

- - - Transwestarn to Topock/Mojave ;fransfer Line

• - - - ..:.. - Proposed Transwestgrn to Topock 24" Pipe&ne

••••oonu ... Proposed Transwo~tern 20" Pipeti11e

REFERE.NCE: USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, Topock, Ari::ona - CaUfollJj:: 1970 (screened at 50% for clarity)

o N 2000 I-:. .waJ

Scale In Feet

PROPOSED INTERCONNECT Proposed Transwestem to TopoA

ln!Prro11nix:t Pipeline Pri'ljGW Transwestem Pipeline Co.

oetc5m,@1·--;;r1L1:.1~uA:-t h\GE """"'- .9---·

:MINUTE PAGE ~~JL....

EXISTING MOJAVE RIGHT OF.Wf'.Y

T

in I Ni<t~~~~~ ~1 +

,, , ~1 - - -·-_ ... _ - - -·- - --~ .. --·- --·--~-- - - -- - - -----

in IN

.,., N

in IN

in N

PROPOSED TRANSWESTERN RIGHT OF WAY (ADJACENT TO MOJAVE ROW)

.Y

PROPOSEP TRANSWESTERN RIGHT OF WAY (NEW ROW LOCATIONS)

EXPLANATION

(it&

I l V/2Zl

l<·<···/:I

Permanent ROW Aroa

Temporal}' Work Spaco

Area of Construction Disturbance for Transwestem Pipeline (Permanent ROW)

Area of Construction Disturbance for Transwostem Pipeline (Temporary) RIGHT-OF-WAY DISTURBANCE

Proposad Transwestern to Topock lntercorined elpe&no Pro~----·

---.ranswostem Ptpeld~ ~i'f!'. l=NOAR PAG~m---. Ht,•u'TE •lAGr: .. ~·,_-n:;;i~4,~- · .~111,,: r .__ .. ~~R'b"' ---------__ -"'lo-.... ,.-

from .the site of this :proposed Meter Station will be constructed to the PG&E Compressor Station, southeast of Neffdle.4l, ailifornia. f) The 17 miles between the Transwestern mainline and Mojave's Topock Compressor Station was approved as the "'Mojaye Transfer line" component of the Mojave Pipeline Project. Trus component was addressed m detail by the Federal Energy Regulatocy Commission (FERC) and the SLC in the Final EIR/EI3. Therefore, this Initial Study aqdresses the exiSting environment between the Topock Station and' the propqsed Meter Station (approximately 10,000 feet) and betw~n the proposed Meter Station and the PG&E Compr~or Station and the ~SOCAL Meter Station (approximately 2,500 feet). -

The proposoo 24-inch diameter pipeline segment connects with the ¥ojave Transfer Line at the Topcck Station, approximately 8,000 feet east of the Colorado River. It will be constructed adjacent to the approved Mojave Pipeline between the Topock Station and the point where the Mojave Une turns southwest and· crosses under 1-40. Mojave and Transwestem have agreed to share a pcrtion of the currently approved :Mojave 75-foot-wide construction ROW for this se~~nt of the pipeline. In addition to the shared, 5(}.foot-wide permanent ROW, Transwestem will require an additional, temporary 25~foot-wide construction workspace, which will result in a 100-foot-wide ROW for the Mojave Project, the proposed project and project option. The entire Transwestem-pipeline will require a perm.~ent operational SO.foot-wide ROW and a temporary 25-foot-wjde-·constructio:r;i ROW (Exiuoii C).

The proposed pipeline continues west and crosses under the \.'.'olorado River in a directional boring just north of 1-40,_ then turns south to>ilie proposed Meter Station. 7Jte undercrossing of 'the river and the connection with the Transwestern Meter S~ation will require new ROW and a boring under I-40 at Topock, California. The terminus of the proposed pipeline at th_e PG&E Compressor. Station is approximately 19 iniles east of Needles, California. The general location of the project is indicated on Exhibit A, and the proposed p~~µne route is presented on Exhloit B. The Transwestern to Topock/Mojave "fran~fer line, shown on Exlubit B, has been previously approved, and the Mojave Pipeline Company Cpmpr~~r-Station has been approved and is under construction.

3. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Tne purpose of ~e proposed pipeline project is to transport natural gas from the Transwestem m_ainline in Arizona to the pzoposed Meter Station site in California, providing deliveries to the PG&E an~ SOGAL systems in Califom{~ The project is intended to provide additional natural gas marketing flexibility beyond that ·a\;CQmplished by the Mojave Pipeline Project, and establish a direct connection between -the Transwestem Pipeline.interstate natural gas pipeline system and the PG&E California interstate natural gas.distnbution system.

3

..... -·· 315

Several 'Other pipeline projects hav~ been proposed in the vicinity of the proposed Transwestern pipeline project. They are the Mojave, El Paso, Transwestem and Kem River pipelines, and they are descnbed in more detail in the Final BIR/BIS.

The Mojave Pipeline, which is currently under construction, wm·extend fro~ western Mohave Coui1ty in Arizona across San Bernardino County and into Kem-County,, California. The route will encompass 383 ~es of pipeline construction.

The Mojave Pipeline will receive gas supplies from El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) and/or Transwestem in Mohave County, Arizona~

Transwestem pr{'~ses to loop 11 segments of its existing lines between Pyote, T~ and Needles, Califomia. Approximately 356 miles of pipeline construction will be completed in order to .tie into either the Mojave Transfer Une or ilie Bl Dorado North Receipt Lateral

Th~ K~m River pipeline, which is currently under ronstruction, will begin at Northwest's Muddy Creek Station near Opal, Wyoming, and will run south-southwest across Utah and Nevada, arid west across the'1fojave Desert to its connection with a pipeline to be shared with the Mojave Pipelfue in Daggett, California. The gas in the Kem' River system will come from major existing sources in the Overthrust Belt gas fields in southwest Wyoming and northeast Utah, and western Canadirui,1,gns fields.

Existing pipelin~ in the general vicinity include the following: two PG&E pipelines which cross the Colorado River (one crosses on the suspension bridge to ~ used by the Project Option; the other on a separate bridge), and a SOCAL pipeline.

4. DESCRIPTION .. OF FACILITIES, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

A.. Proposed Facilities

The following project components will be associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed pipeline project:

• Approximately 10,000 feet of 24-inch diameter pipeline (Interconnect) will be constructed from the Mojave Topock Compressor Station, to the proposed Transwestem/PG&E Meter Station located in Section 8, T.7N.R24B. in San Bernardino County, California. Approximately 1,500 feet will be placed in a boring under the Colorado River; the remainder will be buried using standard trenching procedures.

4

• Approximately 2,~00 feet of ZO..inch diameter buried pipeline will be constructed from the proposed TranswesternJPG&E and SOCAL Meter A Station to the PG&E Compressor Station. · 9

Construction of a Transwestern/PG&B and SOCAL Meter Station near the PG&E Compressor Station will be constructed as part of the propose4 pipeline project; the Station will disturb approximately two acres.

• &isting roads or the ROW itself will be used fo~1,Surfacc travel . At this time, T~answestem anticipates constructi9n of a new 700..foot access rqad off of the frontage road for the pipe-stringing area on q,.: California ~ide\(see F.xhl"bit D). Existing access roads will be utilized for construction of the proposed Transwestem/PG&E and SOCAL Meter Station. Use or construction of any roads across public lands will require a ROW easement from the·appropriatc goven;llllental body.

B. Construction

General Pipeline Constru@on Techniques (as quoted from the F°1tlal BIR/BIS):

The following are gene~ pipeline construction methods. It should be noted that porti".ins of this discussion may not pertain to this project specifically, but ar~ included here for thn purpoSe of clarity. e ''The first step in construction of a pipeline is to locate, design, and construct/ reconstruct access roads where needed. · On federal and state lands, such roads will be constructed/reconstructed to the standards specified by concerned fe4eral and state agencies. The sewnd step in construction of a pipeline is to prepare the ROW. Following an on-ground engineering staked survey linC, a construction ROW; [75 feet wide, is] be cleared and contoured. Above-ground vegetation an4 obstacles [are] ••• cleared [only so much as] to allow safe and efficient use of constiuction equipment.:

"Storage areas required for equipment, pipe, and other materials [arc] acquired through private permission or tempomy use permits frolJ1 appropriate surface management .s:tgencies."

"A major portion of the.wqrk associated with the construction of an 'llllderground transmission pipeline is the excavation task. Wrth few exccp~ons the entire transmission pipeline [is] burl~ in a continuous trench. The proces5 of excavating a trench [varies] depending ~n soils and terrain. Where possible a self.propelled tren~hing machine [is] used for excava,tion.

s e

... . '~ ........ -~~

·''The width and depth of a trench vary according to the diameter of therpipe·uscd, the soil type, and. the minimum caver requirements of the pipe. 1'ypically, depths • range from 60 to 66 inches and vary in width from 42 to 54 inches. When rock or rocky formations arc encountered, tractor-mounted mechanical rippers are Used for e~cavation. In ar~ where mechanical rippers are not pra~cal nr insufficle11t, blasting [is] employed. praglines [src] also used. R9Ck ~ormations a,Iong the ROW ••. necessitate the ~ of blasting. Strict,safety precautions (are} ·adhered to when blasting to clear the l~OW. To pr~ent damage ~·adjacent structures, .pa;;er atj.d commuhication lines, 'bfastiI_Jg ~J.s{t>iimkea) [are] used. Ememe cttrc,[is] ~rCised to avoid damage to underground structures, ca~lCs, conduits, pii=elin~ and underground wa~er courses or ap~. Adequ&te notice [is] provided to adjacent landowners or tenants in advance to protect property:or live$tock. An work [js) perform:<! in complete cQmpliance with state and local codes or ordinances. .Permits required for blasting [are} secured beforc·any work is performed. Blasting activity ••• adhere[s] to an manufacturer's prescn"bed safety pr~Co3 and. ~gustty p!actia"..s."

"In areas where there is a need· to r-eparate top and subsoilr., a two-pass trenching process·[is] used. The first pass remove[s] topsoil and the seromi:pa3S ••• rcmave[s] subsoil wit'1 soils fro~ each of the excavations being placed iil'-ieparate ~ Thh allqws for proper res'toratiou of the soil during the backfilling process. Spoil banks ... contain gaps to prevent storm runoff water from backinJ up 9r flooding."

''Mainline ConsJAictiow"

'The line C?f·pipe [is) strung either prior to or after "iitching. R~gardless of the seque,n\~,.,tiie opera,tion of stringing involves the placement of coated, pipe, valves, and fittings from the storage yar~1along the ROW. Pipe will be loaded onto trucks, traµsported to the ROW, and unloaded by tractors fitted with side booms.

"After the joints of pipe are strong along the trench and before th~ sectiom of.pipe are joined together, individual sections of the pipe are bent to anm..v for ~rm fit of the pipeline with th~ ~·contoura of.the bottom of die tr~~ A tractmounted, hydraulic pipe-bending machine ~.~r the shape of ~e ~·?C to conform. to the contours of the terrain. The actual Qefrid 1' made by a set of dajnp, or !hoes, that grip the outside surface of the pipe ~t the pohlt wJlere the bend i~ to be made. Where multiple or complex bends are rf.iquired in a section of pipe, (hat section of the pipeline iz fabricated in the factoxy,:"

"Installation of th~ pipe, foTiowing the bending, commences with swabbing the pipe, tining it up for W,elding, holding it in position until it is securely joined by welding, completing the welds, and lowering it onto skids or blocks."

6

·-----· .. - ... ... .. ;r .. ~. ····n;.~ P"Gr. -·· 319 l vrtLtl'l '" N " ·-· "') Q 69 MINUTE PAGE .....;;;.:..--~~0

r ........... - ... ~ ...... ,~ ...... ,

"One of the most crucial phase3· of pipeline construction is the welding process. The oveiall integrity of the pipeline depends on this pr~,ss. Welding is the mechanical fusing of the individual sectiom of pipe to form .the pipeline. Each weld must exhibit the same strucfural integrify with respect to strengtlt and ductility. &perienced · welders highly proficient in··pipeline welding are continually tested to maintain the rigorous q-q~Iifi~tion for ce1tification of pipeline welding. I&

''Every weld is inspected by quality control personnel to determine the quality of the weld. Radiographic examination is a nondestructive method of inspecting the inner structure of :welds and detemrlning or inferring the presence of defects. ~tractors specializing in radiographic inspection [arc] engaged. Defecta [are] repaired or removed aS outlined in Ameri~ Petroleum Institute (API) 1104. Governmental r~gulations require nondestructive testing of an welds in areas such as inside railroad or public road ROWs and in certain other areas. The regulations largely follow industty practice. Radiographic inspectio~ [&re] performed as outlined in 49 CFR, Part 192 - Transportati9ri of Natural and Other Gas by Pi~line."

"Each weld seam m~t be protected from corrosion. Once field coating or"wrapping of the weld (compatible with faciory-applied coating methods) is completed, the pipeline is ready to be lowered into the trench. SpeciB.I side boom tractors spread out along the.pipeline simultaneously lift the line and move it over the open trench. The string of pipe is then lowered into the trench. Great care is t.aken to prevent any damage to the pipe coating during this stage of construction."

"After the pipe h;as been lowered ~to the <litchi, the trench.~Jl be back.~ed. ~ackfill ,[is]"pfa~ -by proven techniques to avoid potential settlement that ·' •• ·leave a surface depression."

"The final phase of pipeline construction ••• involves cleanup and restoration of the ROW. The ROW (is] cleaned up by removru and disposal cf cons~ction debris and surplus materials. Restoration of the ROV/ surface• [involvea r~ntourm, to stabilize slope$, putting windrowed vegetation back onto the ROW and imprinting).

"W.i21'kcrs showing the exact location of the pipeline [are)-installed at fence anumgs and ·road- crossmp in order to identify the owner of the pipeline and convey emergency information m accordance with applicable governmental regulatiom. Special markers providing information 221d guidance to aerial patrol pilots [are] also installed. If

,. r. After ·burial, the pipeline (is] t~ted to ensure that the system is capable of witbs~ding the operating pressure for which ·it W8! designed. This procedure is

7

·--...;.;......·----~-· --~.

hydrostatic testing and [is] carried out by the construction contractor. Hydrostatic 6 test water will be purchased from the municipal water Supply ·at the Golden Shores 9

Resort· on the.Arizona side of the river, less than one mile north of th~ Interstate Highway 40. The total·volume of wa.ter to be purchased for the hydrostatic tests ii approximately 795,000 gallons. The ~\ydrostatic test water for the following sections of the pipeline will be transportr.d anthlischarged,at the proposed S\.'Tllbber station site in Sectio~ 10, T16N, R21W, Jt •• fohave County, Arizona:

c Transwestem to Topock 24" Pipeline (Proposed Project·and Project Option) e Transwestem 24" Pipe for Colorado Rfyer Bore (Proposed Project} • Transwestem to SOCAL W' Pipeline .(J:tropoSCd Pmj~ and.Project Optir:ii)

The hydrostatic test water for the following section of tile pipeline will be discharg~ into a 38-foot x 38-foot x 3·foot deep discharge pit·on'lhc west side o~ the PG&:B Compressor Station. 'The water ·.wm be discharged at a rate of 2S<Xl gallons per minut~ with a splash barrel to control the flow rate and hay bales to trap solids.

• 'I'~estem to PG&~ '211' Pipeline (Proposed Project and Project Option)

The hydrostatic test water for the folloWing meter stations will be discharged inside the met~r station fence at a rate controlled by the meter station piping valves. Hay bales wffi,aJso be used to trap sqlids. The topography of the area Will eliminate the possibility fQr discharge wntcr to run off into the Colorado A River. w

• Transwestem to PG&E and SOCAL Meter Stations

"Internal test pressures [are] in a~rdance with Department of Transportation (DOT) Title 49 CFR, Part 192. The pipeline [h] test\Xl after backfilling an~ aD consttw:tion work that ••• aff ect[ing] the pipe had been complete:L Testing at major river crossings, ·e.g.,. [Colorado River is] ~<lone prior to installation and again after installation. The test wate1 [iS] disposed of in accordmlce with applicable federal, state, and local agency·requirements. The pipeline [is] ready for operation at the conclusion of the ~ostatic t~ting. •

"Road and Railroad Croosinp:w

"When crossilig roa<b with tight traffic and where ~tted by local authority er owners of private roads, the open cut method (is] used In those jns~cea dctmm [arc often] required. The boring method [ii] uSed to cross all majorhigl"f!l&Y systems and railroads. ~the boring method, each side of the.cros.ilitg is ~~ted for the boring equipment. Pipe casing sized latger than the carrier pipe is used1u a sleeve for the boring auger. Where traffic load factor and soil conditions pe• heavy

8

i-- ~ -- 321. ~.' -No"R r~G·· ~~·iii...tJ I 111 "' :.. •!!.""::- - - • · ~lt·JliTE PAGE -~-:.:::::. 3871 r·~--" .. -"-- •

walled pipe [isl used instead of casing·the p!pc. The rascd crossm._~ ••• have vent pipes, cathodic protection, and wold be appropriately marked.

"Construction Materials Handling:"

"A mzjor logistics problem associated with the construction of a pipeline is the transportatiori, stocking and preparation of the pipe before it can be taken into the field fo;- installation. Typically.the pipe is·manuiactured by the factory in lengths up to fort}' feet. This length is generally the legal maximum length that can be transported bY carriers over federal and state highways. The pumber of pi~ that can be carried on a truck depends on the diameter and weight of the pipe. In the case of 36--inch outside diameter (OD.)-pipe, up to five segments arc carried st a time on the transport true~•

"Pipe yards and staging areas arc set up to receive and prepare the pipe for shipment to the field. To facilitate the handling and stringing of pipe along the ROW, two pipe sections [are] joined (welded) together at the staging area. This longer section of pipe (80 feet} is then strung out along ~e ROW. The pipe is inspected for damage to the protective coating applied at the factoxy. If ~ged, the coating is repaired."

Pipeline Construction Techniqyes Specific to the Proposed Project:

Construction will begin after ROW easements, grants, and an required clearances have been obtained.

Construction activities will be confined to a area of'di.~bance 15 Ieet wide, 50 feet of which will be permanent and will lie within the already existing 75'.'foot-widc Mojave construction ROW wbere,tlie lines parallel, resulting in a total disturbance area 100 feet wide. Tb.b will result in a 25-foot-wide :rone of new, tcmporafy disturbance paralleling the Mojave 75-foot construction ROW. In additiot;·; thc~;will be a 75-foot wide disturbance in new ROW locations; construction of t.M \2,509~:~~of 20-inch pipeline will also require a 75-foot-wide area of disturbance. A 7S:foot· wide permanent ROW yiill remain after construction of both pipelines, '1!l~ a SO.fi?ot· y,ide permanent ROW will remain after constructicn in new ROW loct.tiom. Construction activities will require clearing above-ground vegetatiOJ! and obstacles to allow saf~·and efficient operation of the construction eql!ip~ent. This clearing will take place only within the 75-foot construction dis~cc (Bxlu'bit C).

The proposed project i:lvolves placing the proposed pipeline benesth the Colorado River rather than routing it across the exiSting pipeline su5pension bridge used for the Mojave Line, thereby eliminating the land use impact of reduced bridge capacity for pipeline routing (see Exlnmt D for a ,photograph of the site). Appromnatcly lS.6 acres of land outside of the Mojave ROW will be ~ (pipe pull-throl!gh area

9

about 8.6. acres, boring under Highway 40 about 6 acres, and e~ workspace associated with highway boring about 1 acre). Directional drilling will be used to fl create the underground tunnel (bore) through which the pipeline will be installed.

Preliminary geotechnical studies of the riverbank have been completed, and they indicate a vecy dense sandy. gravels and ,gravel-sand-clay conglomerate stratum beneath the ~liallower river sand/gravels. Although a bore is typically difficult under these oonditioris, the angular/weak character of the gravel at the proposed boring depth will support a pree,,se drilling operation (Hair, 1991). Fin.al studies, however, and an er..onomic analysis are required before a final feasibility determination can be made. If boring does not prove feasible, the option of crossing on the suspension bridge, discussed in this analysis, will be pursued.

The directional drilling will not result in any direct impact on the river bottom or banks. The crossing is proposed between°Interstate Highway 40 and the AT&SF Railroad and will place the top of the pipeline apprc_¢mately 1()..30 feet or more below the bottom surface of the river.

The 9ank penetration points for the bore will be between 400 and 600 feet from the existing edges of the Colorado River channel The depth of the bore will be 10 or 30 feet, as decided by the contractor at the time of drilling. 10-foot bores are placed in "traditionally" drillable sand and are advantageous in that they are easily drilled. The soil 10 feet beneath the C.Olorado Ri"ier will support this bore. A 10-foot bore. however, may be disadvantageous in the proposed project in that its ~~~on is • hampered by the cobble zone on the A.Tirona bank, the vecy slight risk of r~vci»scom (a small risk since the river is heavily managed), and the risk of mud seeps into the ground or into the river (Hair 1991).

A ~0-foot bore is usually placed in angular pea gravel nr weakly cemented conglomerate, and the benefits to Qie proposed project of such a bore would include avoiding much of the Arizona bank cobble, and obtaining ~ty from vertical river activity. The ~dvanf!!ge to dri!lli1g a 30-foot bore would be the difficulty of drilling through the d~per gravel conglomerate beneath the Colorado Rive~.

To accomplish the directional bore, the'drilling ~tcm will be set in place on the Arizona side of the river and a pilot hole drilled to the California side. The pipe stringing and welding will be set up on the California side on the high cliff on the west side of the river. The pipr.day-down workspace wilt, occupy a disturbed area approximately 100 feet wide between the II1terstate 40 and the railroad ROWs and between Cave Wash and the· high cliff, fJSt west of the Colorado River (see Exln'bit D).

The pipe stringing on the California side will require grading t. '100.foot ae<:ess road from the frontage road leading to PG&E Compressor Station up to the top of the

10

cliff. This road will be parbllel and adjacent to Intentatc 'Hlghway 40 ru)d will provide access for equipment. The activities planned for,this road will not interfere with normal ~c use of Intentate Highway 40.

After drilling, stringing, and welding are completed, the area will be cleaned of debris and restored to its original condition. All drilling fluids will be removed and disposed of in an ~pproved disposal site. ~c ~tceSS road will be graded and the area allowed to natUrally revegetate (refer to Fmal ~....!S/EIR Amendment (1991), which stipuliltes, that "no mu!cbir1g, fertilii8tions or seeding shall take place within the Mojave D~rt beyond the replacement of windrowed vegetation which will be mixed with the topsoil."). A fence barrier will be installed at the entrance to«~e access road to dettr future use.

See the Final ElR/EIS (Section 2.1) for more details on pipeline construction.

C. Operation and Maintell811ce

The information in $U sectl:on and much of the information in ~on D is quoted from the Fin.al EIRJEIS. .Operation and maintenance procedures similar to those discussed in the Fmal EmJBIS will be developed for the propooed pipeline facilities., "Manuals explaining procedures will also be developed and mad~ ~~blc to all operating personnel A thorough program [will] be outlined to dearWith any tjpe of emergency ••• occur[ing] during the operation of 1he pipeline. Copies of thia plan Will be provided to an appropriate federal and state agencies. Materials must be stored in nearby locations to make quick repairs· if a leak occurs. Commuri.ications for the proposed pipeline system will be tied in to comprcsror stations which will be, operated on a pressure set point ·control The mafuline valves will be provided with gas hydraulic operators. Pressure and flow rates will be ~tinuously monitored 'for dispatching purpose! and in order to detect leaks. Block valves will· be located according to DQTcrcquirements." The wall thickness of the ppe will also V8IJ from OS i:ilches &c ~c river crossing to 9312 inch:S for moat d. the rest of the pipeline. "Radio communication and mobile ficlq units wnt be aVli!ablz among statiom to assist in dealing with emergency ,situations.•

"Certain operations and maintentance ,plans and schedult= (will] be implemented to monitor and emure safe 9peraoon. The"permanent ROW will be available to emure reasonable access to facilitate any necessary pipeline mamtcnan£e. The pipeline will be inspected re~ly uSing aerial and ground sUrveys. Initrnmenf:sl leak smvcya will also be performed. An wries and valve act\iatm1 will be routinely operated, inspected, and lubricated. Periodic SU1'VCys of the QthodiC protectit>n system ,wfil elso be conducted. All pipe}ine facilities will be marked ruid identified in acco~dancc ~iith applicable regulation~•

11

D. Environmental and Sn!ety Controls-

A number of environmental and safety controls will be implemented by Transwestern. Activities associated with the project will be conducted in a manner that will avoid or m.inimire degradation of air, land, and water quality. 'Duriv.g construction, operation, mamtenance, and termination of the project, Transwestem will perform actf-lities in accordance with applicable air and water quality standards and related plans for implementation, including \)ut not limited to standards adopted pursuant to the Qean Air Act as amended ( 42 USC 7401, et seq.), Clean Water Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 USC 1251, et seq.~."

''Regulatory agency approved herbicides wm· be--~~- ~t~ the fenced area at compressor and meter stations to prevent weed fires, and\around safety signs and valve locations within the ROW to maintain visibility."

"Where the ROW includes public lands on which cadastral sw:vey monuments and suzvey markers are located, Tr~westem will avoid disturbance or removal of su~h monuments ·or markers." Markers or monuments removed during construction activities it will be moved "in acco~dan.~ with detailed instructions established by the approp1iate agency."

"Safety concerns during the construction phase of the pipeline will focus on welding inspection. Nondestructive and destructive testing methods are available to welding inspectors for determining the quality of welds. VJSUBl inspection of welds and observation of welding operations by qualified welding inspectors wm minimire weld defects and indicate when further: examination of ccrtam welds ~· advisable. Transwestem will conduct 100% t~iting of all welds,•

"A number of saf~ty ~esign _factors hav~-been built into the pipeline engineering. For e:wnple, the-pipe is bini~·doop enough so that normal plowing for cultivation will not affect it. Heavy wall pipe or casing is used for road and railroad crossings, and corrosion.-is prevente.d by cathodic protec,tion systems. The proposed pipeline will conform .to the minimum pipeline safety standards set by the U.S. Department of Transportation, w~ch specify minimum pipe wall tbictness, strength, and depth of burial for different population densities along the route. Thicker walled pi? (O.S -inch) will be used at road, ·major creek, and river crossin.gl. The de9th of the buried line will be 30 to 36 inches in ·normal roil and 18 to 24 inches in consolidnted rock. If a rupture were to occur in the pipe, it wm be noticed immediately by the operating crews at. the compressor station since .pipeline prelSUre will be moni1ored contin'='ously. If a rupture occurred, the operator on duty will notify the proper ~rsonnel and they will ~-dispatched to cany out necessary e~ergency procedures."

12

, -~ 325 ' . ' . ~ ~ ... ~_.,.... . . . . ·~ r:: ... 4.,u75 ~ .. ""'"' -,,;..._,.,,.,-..)c..:J

- ---· .___....----····-- ....

5. OVERVIEW OF nm PROJECI,QPTION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

~ Project Characteristics

The Project Option incorporates the same facilities, construction procedures Bl;1d operations/maintenan~ procedures as are descnbcd for the Proposed Project (st:~ Section S), except for the following:

• approximatelyi\500 fee! of pipe will be placed on an existing pipeline bridge located a shaft distance ~1Y!lJStream from the proposed boring site.

• the pipeline route will foll6w the approved ROW of the Mojave Transfer Pipeline for the full length of the project, rather than traversing new ROW west a.cross the river and south under Interstate 40 to the cimnection with the proposed Meter Station (see Exh.I'bit B).

• the Project Option will not require additional disturbances at the directionaldrilling set-up and pipe ptlll-through locations, the minor access road required for the drilling set-up, or the clean-up and ·regrading after drilling is completed.

B. Present Environment • Project Option

The local vicinity of the project option is similar to that of the proposed and i! shewn in Exlu'bit B. The-areas of environmental concern are also similar,to those of the proposed project.

Land use, biological resources and cultural resources have been identified as rewurcc areas where paten~ for significant impacts ~ greater than foz the other ICSO~cc areas addressed in ·this study. Thia determination is based upon a review of the findings in the·FBIS~ previously referenced. The entire alignment of the project option will be located within ·the approved Mojave ROW; the assumption has therefore been made for the option that an impacts and mitigations associated with the Mojave Pipeline will also apply to the Transwestcm Pipeline for this alignment. For a description of the· three rcsOiirce areas, refer to Section 6.

c. Envfronmentt.ll Impacu or the Project Opt!oii

The environmental impacts assoclntcd With the project option arc very similar to those noted for the Proposed Project (see to Section 7 for a comparison of impacts). Btt;ed on the differences in project characteriStics ~ in Section S(A) above, the following impact-differences existifor tlie Project Option:

13 r------··~ --· 326 1cALENDAfi 1·:.;_ ....... !MINUTE PAGc -· ~ 3876 .; ____ _

•

•

•

:he placement of the pipeline on the bridge will preclude any Of the impacts A associated with the directional-drilling ground disturbances, accc..~

9 requirements or clean-up procedures.

the bridge routing will impact remaining bridge capacity by requiring a portion of i~ designated use potential

The Project Option will not require new ROW ~j'ond the project corridor previously studies and approved for the Mojave Pi~line, thereby reducing the potential for impacting unidentified cultural resources.

Based on the net change in impact potential (and the implementation of the mitigation measures found in Section· 9), no significant adverse impacts will resnlt from replacing the Proposed Project with the Project Option.

~. PRFSENT ENVIRONMENJ:

A. General EnVlronment

The local vicinity of the project work is shown in Exlu'bit B. The proposed project is located in the Mojave desert, in Mohave County, Arizona and San Bernardino County, California, on approximately eight acres of land. This area is within the Mohave Valley, a low desert valley filled with loose alluvium, at an elewtion of

8 approximately 400 tc 600 feet The ROW traverses within approximately 250 feet ...., of Topock Bay and 100 feet of the AT&SF before it crossc., Interstate Highway 40, State Highway 95, and the Colorado River. On the ,west side of tJ;tc Colorado River, the elevation increases steeply to approximately 600 feet.

The area is sparsely populated: the nearest towns arc Needles, California, approximately 19 miles to the cast, and Topock, California, approximately 0.5 miles to the north. The Fort M:ojave Indian Reservation lie! approximately 2 miles to the north. Several segments of the ROW pass through the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, and much of the land to the south of the ROW is part of this refuge. The entire area lies within a BLM: designated utility conidor.

After reviewing the Fmal-EIR/.BIS information pertaining to the project corridor, an but three environmental resource areas have been determined to oo adequately addressed in the Final EIR!BIS. The resource areas requiring further study include land use, biologica1 reso~ces {plant and animal life), and cultural resources.

Potential land use impacts will not result.from the newly obtained ROW required for the boring alignment outside of the l\1ojave line ROW, and line placement in boring locations. Potential impacts to tijological resources include potential effects on

14

,-~ -·-- 3Z7 · A' "'No~- r~·, ... 'C· 1.i:.1 • r.n Nu.: -····-3~7.-, ""NU .... 1 c P''·Gf. · u ' .1:111 ~ /1 ,.. ~ .. ' . ·-·,·---------

sensitive species and habitats, including potential impacts on wetlands. Potential cultural resource impacts include effects on historic structures and artifacts.

B. Land Use Environment

Tne discussion of land use along and in the vicinity of,the proposed Transwcstem pipeline route is based on existing literature sources, primarily the Final EIR/EIS, the Final BIR Amendment, and the YU.ma Res-0urce Management Plan.

Existing Land Uses

The proposettpipeline is located in an existing utility planning corridor that varies m width from two to five miles along Interstate Highway 40. Undeveloped open desert is the predominant land use (approximatct-,·,90% of the srca) along the 11.,500..foot proposed pipeline, 10,000 feet of 24" pipelin;C, and 2,SOO feet of 2f1' pipeline. Other existing land uses include the El Paso Natural Gas Co. Compressor Station, the AT&SF line, Interstate Highway 40, State Highway 9S, and the PG&E Compressor Station. ,

Planned and Future Land Usea

The 12,500-foot pipeline segtD;ent is within the boundaries of San Bernardino Co!lllty in California and Mohave County U. Arizona. The County plans and ordinances arc applicable to unincorporated private lands along the pipeline route. The land use category used in the proposed pipeline area is commercial/industrial, however, the proposed pipeline itself will pw through the BI.M utility corridor (Corridor G). In the future, other pipelines can also be added to this corridor.

I.and Ownership

A map of the landowners along the length of the proposed pipeline route is presented in Ex:luoit E. The majority of the route is priyately owned by the following three companies: AT &SF, PG&E, and El Paso. PG&E is the only private land ownedn the California portion of the proposed route. The Federal JandJ tha! will be crossed by the proposed pipeline are either public land: administered by the U3. Bureau of Land Management or are part of the HaVBIU National Wildlife Rcfllge, which is under the juris<ljction of the U.S. FJSh and Wddlifc Service. The CaJifOmia SLC, under the authority of the U.S. Submerged Lands Act of 1954, has jurisdiction for a~ties under tl1e Colorado River (which includes part of the directional boring component of the project). In additi6n to the lands mentioned above, the route will also cross Inters41te Highway 40 and State Highway 95.

15 i-·-----·· . 3"8 ·,· C·\ I .. t.'1·'"'J~ ~.~ PM~): ,;'.. ,,... 'il ·~ \ \ -- ..__,,._,. t ' - ''li.,.)78 ~ MINUiE P1\Gl:. -=· . ..;,o . __ ,.,. ____ _

~ ~-,, $ ~· a ::;,,.

. ~ :u I

Federal-SW (Havasu NatJonal WJldH!& Refuge)

\

1/ I

J~ \ .. c:~ State or \ '"'\"'- ·........._~ Alt!ona Slate of ~

\ C.lllom!e "'--

A. T. Ii S.F. Railroad

'0 ··• -........, -PO & E Comproeaor Station

Feder•I • BUii (Havasu Natfonal Wlldltf• Refuge)

El Paso Natural Gas Co;

Compressor Station

I

/ iEIPHo 11otura1 a •• co.

A.T. & S.F. Rallro11d

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY'40

I rh i:1 it ~ ir If

I i,J; J' LAND OWNERSHIP MAP I i CJ:J N Proposed Transwestern to Topod< f ''1 CD Interconnect Plpelln• Projocl I CJ) Ttanaweotern Plp•Hna Co.

A __ :, .-:- 2jl1tER 1991

'W XHIBITE

--

Transportatio·n

The principal transportation routes serving the area arc Interstate Highway 40, State Highway 95, National Trails .Highway (Old Highway 66), and the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe .Railroad Line. The proposed pipeline wid a!tcma~es will cross Interstate Highway 40, State Highway 95, the railroad, and two Interstate Highway 40 access roads. A number of unpaved roads that serve for utility maintenance and Colorado River access will also be crossed by the pipeline. A pipeline suspension bridge crossing the Colorado River is currently traversed by n PG&E pipeline and m» be crossed by the Mojave pipeline. The utility corridor along this route is' approaching maximum routing capacity; only two mar~ pipelines can be added to thb bridge before the construction of new supports requiring disturbance to the Colorado River Qc>ttom will be necessary.

C. Biological Environment

The discu')Sion of biological resources along and in the ·;icinity of the proposed pipeline route is based on (1) existing literature sources, and (2) a survey of the route conducted on 24 July 1991.

Vegetation Types and Wildlife Habitat

The proposed pipeline rout~ is apprnximatelf 12,500 feeflqµg and includes an access road of approximately 700 feet. It will traverse approximar.ely 11,700 feet of upland habitat. The proposed route will crou under approximately 1,SOO feet of riparian/wetland habitat a..c;sociated with the Colorado River.

Upland Vegetation Types/Wildlife Habitats

Upland vegetation types airing the proposed route include Mojavean creosote bush ~b and disturbed/ruderal habitat. The approximate distances of th~ vegetation types traversed by the proposed route arc 8,200 feet of Mojavcan creosote bush scrub and 3,500 feet of disturbed/rudeml. Mojavean creosote bush saub vegetation along the .propo~ route is dominated by creosote bush (Ls.m;n mdentati1) and white bursage (Am'brosia dum.Q!§). Other common plant sp¢es obsetved during the 24 July 1991 field smvey included Arnbian grasi (.Schismiis mbi911), ~ trumpet (Briogonwil inflatum}, spiny herb (Chori7Jinth~ sp.), an4 cholla cactus (Qpuntfa spp.).

This vegetation type along the proposed route is characterized by various lcveh of human-caused disturbance. Most of the route is ·within or adjacent to emting 'facilities (El Paso C.Ompressor Station, roads 1u1d Inteatate Highway·40, raikoad

16

tracks) or adjacent to ,facilities under construction (the· Mojave pipeline, Mojave Compressor Station). The proposed route traverses approximately 3,000 feet of lightly to moderately and 5,200 feet of heavily disturbed Mojavean creosote bush scrub. Other types of disturbance include vegetation,clearing, trash dumping, and noise generated by vehicles, trains, and boats.

Undisturbed and lightly disturbed Mojavean creosote bush scrub in the .region provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species adapted to arid condition=, :uch as desert tortoise (Gopherus [=Xerobates] agassizij), d~rt iguana (PjpsoauM dorsalis), zebra-tailed li7.atd (Callisaurus draconoide;s), coachwhip (Mastico.pbis , flaBeilum), gro\llld snake (Sonora scmiahnulata), seve~ specie; of ~~temates (.Crotalus spp.), homed lark (Eremopbili ~ttjl), bl&ck·throatcd sparrow :(Ampbispi7.a bilineata), white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospennop~leu£1m), Merriam's kangaroo rat (Qipodomys [email protected]), and desert kit fox (\!ulpes macrotis ,arsie~· Due to the level of existing human-cau:ed di.Sturbance and the degree of isolation caused by the railroad and Interstate Highway 40, wildlife species diversity is relatively low. Individuals and sign of, only a few species were observed during the 24· July 1991 survey, including turkey vulture (Cathartef rn), rock dove ~lumbii Jjyia), black-thr~ted sparrow, and house· finch (.Carpodatqa mexiCMYl), as well es kangaroo rat (J2illQ.Qomn sp.) burrows. No individuals or sign of desert tortoise were observed.

·Disturbed/n1deral habitat occurs along approximately 3,000 feet of the proposed route. This habitat type occurs in areas that have been cleared for many years (such as within and adjacent to roads and !}le rai4'0fid ROW), as well as areas that have been cleared and graded r~ntly during com.~iuction of the Mojave pipeline system.

Vegetation is sparse in the disturbed/ruderal habitat type. Bare ground usually exceeds 90 percent. Plant species in this vegetation ~ include a high proportion of introduced species, such as Ar~bian grass. Based on obselvations made during the site reconnaissance SUl'VCJ, the disturbcd/ruderal areas along the ·pipeline route ~ppear to represent low quality wildlife habitat, and few speciea Utilize·these areas. During the 24 July 1991 iwvey, house finches and a com.m::nnaven (Coma ~ were observed flying over disturbed/tuderal habitat. In additign, Botta'1 pocket gopher Cfhomomn bottaro burrows were found to occur at margins between disturbed/ruderar and Mojavean creosote bush ,senµ, habitats. Other species that potentially·occutring in thiS habitat along the proposed I».veline arc those adapted to high levels of disturbance, such as European starling OOmnY! mtmis) and house sparrow (f_asser domestiCU!). ·-·

Upland vegetation types along the propose<,\. projett include lightly to moderately disturbed Mojavean aeosotc bush scrub, and distuibed/rudeml habitats. ~ alternative ·traverses approximately 8,000 feet of Mojavtan creosote bush scrub,

17

•

e

inclu~g 3,000 feet ~hat contains low to moderate levels of existing human-caused disturbance, and 3,500 feet of distwbe<Yn!~-~ral habitat

RJpariaQ/Aqnatic Habitats

The propos~ route £T.OSS~,.ilild.er appro;funately 1~~00 feet of riparian and aquatic habitats. Since Uie t·i~~!ric will be place'4 unde! the habitat in a bore directionally drilled from an area'oeyond the habitats atktm:/in·water construction iJ anticipated, these habitats will not be directly in:ipacted by.pipeline construction and maintenance.

The riparian habitat at the proposed crooing is limited to narrow bands (less than 30 feet) of tamarisk rerub, characteri7.Cd by tamarisk Cfamam sp.) and mesquite (frosopis glandulosa). The former is an introduced phrcatophytic plant that ha! become es'tablished along the Colorado River. In the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route, tamarisk is the dominant plant in the riparian zone·and appean to be displacing some native ripariaµ species, such as mesquite.

Riparian zones in the region generally support a relatively diverse fauna. A variety of bird species are associated wi~.· 1tJie Colorado River, including gulls, terns, shorebirds, and waterfowL However, many of these spetjes arc associated with marsh and native riparian habitats~ Tamari..sk-domiuated ripariap zones appear to comprise lower quality habitat for wildlife in general, and specifically for birds. The avif'auna at the proposed river crossing is quite low in diversity, ~'well as in densities for individual species.

Aquatic habitat at the proposed crossings is limited primarlly to,open water. Small areas of freshwater marsh, characteriied by cattails Cl:Yn.b! sp.) and bulrushes (Scir,pus spp.) occur nearby, but not within the proposed construction zone. Most birds that utilize the Colorado River arc associated with marsh areas, rather than open water. Moreoyer, areas. of open water ,at the propo.~ crossings of the river are subject to a high level . of dis~ce caused by boat traffic. Al such, the avifauna at these crossings is quite low in density and diversity.

Between Davi.s Dam and Lake Havasu, 24 speci:s of fish have been reported in.the COJorado River (Final EIRJEIS, 1987). Many of the species arc non-native, such u brown trout (QncorbynchQJ !llltm}, carp (Q!pring ~ rcdear sunfhh Cl&Ro.m1I microiophYJ), ,BJld black <:rappic (fomam nigr:rimacumtl.!S). Sensitfy~ fish spcciea potentially occuring in this portion of the Colorado River. include the bonytai! chub (Gila eJegam)' and the razorback sucker QCyrauchrui ~·

18

. . -- 3r:. ~ L"''!r.,~~ Pi'l'F 3 ~ ... ~' c:~?J,.,., •· ·;;;......- ,

" • .,. •• D ,,~ 3~8'> .... -\ J !: \ >·.·: -·:.;.:;: 0 ~

Sensitive Jihlntl

Based on information developed for the Mojave pipeline projca (FinaL~ 9 1987), patential --~cnce of sensitive plant species along the proposed )';>ipcline segment is limited to,barrel cactus (f erocactus acanthodg var. acanthodr,tEJ., This is a Category 3c (more common than previously believed) federal candidate for listing as threatened or endangered, as well as a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Ust 3 spec~~ (a list containing plants about which little information is knoWl1). No plants of thir! species were observed during the reconnaksance auxvey of 24 July 1991.

Sensitive Wildlife

Based on information from the Final Mojave EIR/BlS and other sources, sensitive wildlife species known or with potential·to occur in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline segment include the following:

• •

•

0

0

•

-q~nytail chub- federal-) California·, and Arizona-liSted enc1angew;l ..., ,~rback sucker- Category 1 federal candidate for listing as threatene¢' or endangered,, California· and Arizona-listed endangered Desert tortoise- federal-listed threatened in Oilifomia, California-listed threatened, candidate for state listing in Arizona Yuma clapper rail-(Ralluslongirostris YJU1;lanenm)-fedenil-listed endangered and California-listed threatened .a California black rail- (Lateran~ jamaicensis coturniculpU- California-listed V threatened and Categofy 1 federal candidate. · · Other federal-listed endangered bird species, including bald eagle (Hali!!"tul leucocephalus) an~i'peregrlnc falcon (ffilm peremnlli) Other bird species with lesser clas.iliication ·of sCnsitivity, such as California yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus or..cidentalis), Arizona Bell's vireo (.Yireo ~ arizona~ elf owl (Micratbene EUtnCJi), Gila woodpecker (?yf eJanerpes uroPJ&ialiAA and bank swallow (Riparia rjparia).

Based on the location of the proposed route, types of wildlife habitats present, and method of construction, few of the above speclea OCCtU" along the propo!ed TransW~tem pipeline route. The'.bonytail ehub and ra1.0l'back Sucker occur in the lower C.Olorado River only in a few remmmt populations. The former sped~ has been stocked in Lake .Mojave, approximately 3S miles upstream Of"the pf*_,posed cros..tjng. Rar.orback suckers were collected· ftom the Colorado River near Topock in the 1970s. As sue~ there is a slight posstoility that indMduak of 0ne or both of these species occur in the vicinity Of the proposed pipeline route. However, smtablc habitat for these species is not expected to be disturbed due to constructio~ or maintenance of the proposed pipeline.

19

The desert tortoise occurs in desert habitats such as Mojavcan creosote bush scrub in portions of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. The proposed pipeline route is within an area.with various tortoise habitat classifications, including:

• Bureau of Land Management {BLM) habitat categories- uncategorized (BLM 1988 habitat category maps)

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) aass 2 habitat (USFWS 1989 habitat class maps; California only)

• California Department of Fish -and Gazr.e {CDFG) crucial habitat areas-uncatego~ (CDFG cruciai habitat m~ps, undated)

• Low density (Beny and Nicholson, 1984).

During the 24 July 1991 survey, the route was review~d by vehicle and on foot to note the type and condition of the habitat, as well 8.!·'to search for individuals and sign of desert tortoise. As noted earlier, the upland habitat consist.a of disturbed/ruderal and Mojavean creosote bush scrub, with leve!3 of human-caused disturbance ranging ·from lmy to 'ffery high. Most of the proposed roµte i! isolated by Interstate Highway 40, the railroad tr'ctcb and the Colorado PJvcr. No tortoises or sign of tortoises were observei~ Based on the lack of sign, the degree of holation, and the existing amount of hur.rian-caused disturbance, it appears that the pro~ pipeline route does not traverse suitable desert tortoise habitat.

Additional information supports the classification of habitat traversed by the pipeline route as unlikely to contain desert tortoises. Upon review of existing data, habitat classification, and 1991 photographs, agency biol~gists stated that the.Vicinity of th~ pipeline route did not appear to represent suitable tortoise habitat and that pipeline construction was not likely to result in adverse impacts to this species (R. Bransfield, U.S. Fish and Wildlife SeIVicc, personal communication, 1991; F. Hoover, California Department of Fish and Game, persqnaJ communication, 1991). Moreover, a review of data collected aJong the adjacent Mojave Pipeline route in this area during preconstruction surveys by BioSystems Analysis, Inc., indicated that no tortoises or sign of tortoises were observed. This portion of the Mojave Pipeline route in California was classified as non-habitat for desert tortoise (BioSystcms Analyiis, Inc. data files; J. Ellison, Fluor-Daniel project manager, for Mojave Pipeline, pcrsoual r.ommunication, 1991).

The Yuma clapper mil hBs been reported from Topoct Marsh south (Final EJR/EIS). A3 such, the Colorado River crossings along the proposed pipeline route is w!thin the current I'aD8C of this specia However, µianh habitat utilized by the Yuma clapper rail does not OCCU1 at the pipeline crossings. This species dOC;J not occur at the proposed crossing. Moreover, riparian/wetland habitats will not be disturbed by the proposed pipeline.

The California black rail is ·mown ... to inhabit bulrush (Scia>Yl spp.) domin~.ted freshwater marsh habitat along the Colorado River near Imperial Dam in~Imperial a. County. It has also been reported from the Bill Williams ~'Ver ~.Jta south of the W' project site. Based on this information, as well as the fact that freshwater n;arsb habitat will be avoided, the species u unlikely to be affecied by pipeline construction and operation activities.

Due tc;> a lack of nesting and winter r<>ost sites, bald eagl~s and peregrine falcons will not be seen on·more than a rare fly-over basis during migratio~ Similarly, SLntable habitat apparently dO'"...s not occur at the .Proposed crossing of the river for other sensitive species of birds, such as California yellow-billed cuckoo, Arizona ~Il's vireo; elf ow~ Gila woodpecker, and bank swallow. The .. !!f ~er species requires steep, eroding banks in which to nest. The remaining species are &SS9Ciatcd primarily with well-developed large cactus or well-developed riparian habitat characterized by native plant· species. Because those habitat types do not e>,ccur along the proPQse<! rout~ the above sensitive species of birds will not occur.

In summary, the occurrence of sensitive, threatened, or cndangell.""''Wi.tdlife species along the proposed route is unlikely.

Sen·sftive Habitat.

Sensitive habitats that occur in the region of the proposed pipeline route include riparian habitats, wetlands, and desert tortoise habitat. Riparian habitat oc:cuning • at the proposed crossing of the Colorado River is dominated by introdu~ invasive tamarlsk, with scatt~r~.ti· ·citim~ of native mesquite and &rrowwced. .. Atg such, it ~ low-quality riparian ba~~itat Although sensitive wetland!, such as freshwater marsh, occur in the vicinity- of the proposed. pipeline route, none was obsexved at the proposed crossing.

As noted earlier, due primarily to variou5 Jevels of human-caused disturbance, as wen as a high degree of isolation1ca1JSed by existing facilities, Interstate Highway 40, the railroad tracb, and the Colorado River, the proposed ro~ doe,a not &PJ>CP..r to traverse suitable desert tortoise habitat. Dur.iug-.ihe 24 1uly 1991 mivey, no individuals or sign of this speciea were observed.

D. Cultural Environment

PrehJirtoric Ov~niew

Moot of the archaeological ~yestigations ~the region have been·m conjunction wi~ Various dc:Velopment projedS, including the Mojave Pipe~e project (McGuire 1990). ·Other swvey work has been conducted by Fryman (1976) ~~Leonard (1978). In

21

.~ ... ,\.,': ---· 33S __ _ , ..•. lJ:'--·-~·

• , .•••• "('r.: 3885 ..... i"j.A,.··H:. __ .,...~-- ~ 4 --

the late 1980s (Peyton 1987) ground dra\\ings were documented to the north and west of the prqposed project.

Several regional cverviewa pertaining to the southem,portion of the Mojave Desert have been presented in ·BLM documents (KL-lg and Casebier 1981; Warren et ,al 1980; Warren et al. 1981). Warren (1984) has also addressed a regional chronology for the area. A brief summary of the prehistoric cultural chronology of the region is presented as background. Additional information is available in the sources referenced above.

Although some resear~hers have reported evidence of human activity in the ~ojave Desert predating 12,000 Before Present (B.P.), such claims arc not widely accepted. More substantial e\idence bas been found re~ted to the period knawn as the Lake Mojave (Warren 1984) or San Dieguito (Rogers 1958). This gene~ hunting culture, commonly dated to 12;000-7,0C!O.!l • .P.-~~~ and Crabtree 1986), is marked by a number of distinct tool type3.; These include large leaf-Shaped kniv~ or bifaccs, several typeS of scrapers, and leaf-shaped, long-stemmed and short wide-stemmed points.

Pinto points are,.~ai~c13~iu~·t~e next identifiable culfural petjod ~(\ltho1:V')l there js, some controversy ovet the _exact chronologiCal placement, a m1nioor,_ 9f;'Sitcs dating: between 7,000 and 4,000,B.P. have been assign~ to the Pinto period. Warren (1984) suggests that the Pinto complex evolved from the hunting complexes of the earlier period and that it represents ~ small population dependent on hunting and gathering.

Crabtree (1981) descnbes the ~gosa period (ca. 3,S00-1,000 B.P.) inventory u characteri1A.:' by a number of styliStic and adaptational ~ Thls i8 a time <.tf increased population and the broadening of economic actMtieL This period corresponds closely to the Price Butte: Nelson,, and El Dorado phases of Willow beach (Schroeder 1961, cited in Warren et al 1981), Bettiriger and Taylor's (1974) Newbeny period, and Warren's (1984) Gypsum and Saratoga Springs periods. The tool assemblage contains medium tO large stemmed and notched pcints. ManM and millinpto~es arc common, the mortar.and pcStle are introduced, and·ah~ll beads from California are pr~nt (Warren and Cmbtree 1986).

In the htter part of the Amargosa period the southern desert area appears to be influenced by activitiea,on the lower Colorado River. 'fhc cultural sequence on the lower Colorado River is relatively lmknown prior to aoout 1,200 B~4 ·wi!b. only the excavations at Willow Beach having produced infonnation1before· il;oOO B.P. 'Ibis Hakataya (or Patayan) infiu~nce in·thc southern region is as.cioclatedylith the Buff Ware potteiy and Cottonwood and Desert Side-notched projectile points.

The Late ,Prehistoric period (1,000 B.P. • historic) appeal1 to have se.cn a continuation of trends begun in earlier periods. There was a widespread adoption

of a ~umber of variations of the Cottonw9Qd Triangular and Desert Side-notched poin~. According to Crabtree (1981), there was a decrease in the imponance of e hunting and an incr~ emphasis on a relatively narrow list of plants, such as mesquite and agave.

Ethnohistoric Overview

The project area is within the home territoiy of $,e Mojave, although the :.Chemehuevi anJ the Halchidoma probably had interests in the region. Previously cited BI.M regional oveI\iews include ·information about the ethnography of the southern Mojave Desert. Additional ethnographic information on the region is presented in the environmental documentation for the Mead-Phoenix SOO-kV ~rans~!on line project (U.S. Department of Energy 1983) and the Devers-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line (Bean and Vane 1978). Only a brief summary is provided here.

The area occupied by the Mojav~ encompassed lands on both sides of the lower Colorado River from just south of Davis Dam to Topoct. They traveled ~"jond this core area, however, and their: knowledge and use of trails throughout the Mojave Desert and western Arizona was extensive. Although primarily river agriculturalists, the Mojave supplemented their diet with a variety of wild plants, game, and fish. The mesquite bean was of particular importance, with some groves harvested on a regular basis. Family groups functiolled as the primacy subsistence unit for fanning, as well 9 as bunting and gathering. Agricultural lands appear to have been owned by extended families, as indicated by boundaxy disagreements.

Available information indicates that the.Mojave lived in small nmcherlas scattered throughout the floodplains of the Colorado River. They built a number of types of structures, the most substantial being a semi-subterranean winter house. Open-sided ramadas provided shade and protection from the summer sun.

'11}~1rls~.o:cy of the project area bas been shaped by transportation routes tbrough the region. Fiist came the trails and roads along ~~ river, and later the railrOad. The river also served as a transportation corridor for steamboats canying goods an<) passengers. Into the early part of tbB centmy the steamers hauled ore and heavy machinecy for the mines in the region (Gudde 1975). Many of these vessels docked at Needles several miles north of the project.

The small community of Topock was previously known as Red Rock or Mellen. The latter appellation was taken from Jack !Mellen, a nineteenth t~ntuzy Colorado River

23

steamboat captain (Coolidge 1963). According to some sources the name came from the Mojave Indian ahatopok. which means 'bridge', and was thought to refer to the railroad bridge at Topock (Guddc 1962).

Topock has been d~n'bed as being located in a maze of transportation routes. Over the past 100 years it has served as a boat landing, a railroad station stop, and a transcontine,ntal automobile route. It was an important service center until about World War II (Norris 1980). The removal of the railroad maintenance facilities and the c:onstruction of Interstate 40 heralded a decline in activity, and·fuc town is now a small residential cluster. The area bas experienced some renewed use a5 ~; transportation corridor, this time for natural gas.

Archeeolog:lcal Inventory Results

Cultural resource investigations conducted for this project included a records search at the regional offic.e of the California Archaeological Inventocy and the files of the Arizona State Museum, Ariwna State University, Museum of Northern Ariuma, and the Arizona State Historic PreServation Office (SHPO). The project and a half mile wide area around it were include4 in the records search. Resul~1from the survey for the Mojave Pipeline arc included in this inventory. In an, 22 p~evio~)y recorded archaeological resources were ide~tilied within this area (Tab~ :0.l~, TI}ese prehistoric resourres range from isolated debris such as a single flake to ~~plex rock alignments, one of which is on the National Register. The field visit confirmed that th~ alignment avoids the National Register site.

Ethnographkal Inventory Resulu

The ethnographic data collection also involved archival rese,arch. Major sources reviewed for ethnographic and Native American concerns i!iclu~,~ Bean and Vane (1978; 1982), U.S. Department of Energy (1983), U.S. Dc~fmi~µt af Interior (1980), and Woods (1983).

Some of tbia ~ormation collected concerning ethnographical rcsaurces is considered eoniidentiaL A summaiy of this resul1J, without detailed Jocstian information, ii presented in Table 6-1.

mstorlcal Inventory Result&

The primary goal of the historical inventory was to identify historical sites that are (1) listed on official federal, state, and local registers (U.S. Department of Interior

24

1976; California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976; 1982; Quinn 1980), or (2) are of local importance. The major literature that was reviewed includes: •

• The National Register of Historic Places {NRHP)

• California Historical Landmarks

• California Inventoxy of Historical Resources

Other published sources research.ed for historical sites include Hoover and others (1966), Gudde (1962; 1975), Norris and Carrico (1978), Warren and R0ske (1981), Historical and Architectural Resources within the Lower Colorado River System (WFSrEC 1980), and the Arizona Engineering Site Inventoxy (Texas Tech University 1981). Map data ~f·'uded U.S. General Land Office plats and Perris Miner's Map.(Rand McNaily 1896).

The results of the inventory are presented in "fable 6-1. In all 14 historical resources were identified. These vary, with the community of Topock listed along with a bridge, which is on the National Register.

A field visit was ~!lde to the project area on July 24, 1991. In.addition to the previously recorded sites noted above, two other potential 'resources were observed. In Arizona a water tank (metal with a wooden root) was identified adjacent to the proposed project area. It is near the tracks and was likely associated with the development of the railroad. In California.a woode~ pole utility line with glass insulators was noted paralleling the west bank of the river. The alignment crosses under this feature. The age and any associations have yet to be determined for these structures.

25

.• ,,· ; --1339

I ' ~>~•~_;;;::';"'.,,

. ·-E ~ 111?;:--=~,3889 · -~-.....---~·-· ~Jl."~-...-.. A ·-

TABI.E~l TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE PROJECT

CULTURAL RESOURcF.s ARCIIlV AL lNVENToRY RF.SULTS

Site; ·Number Ow Description ~en11

CA-SBr-219/H Mi Topock Ma7.e NRHP CA-SBr-954 A -Petroglyphs

CA-SBr-5523 A Quru-zy

Pl462-2 A Lithic scatter

P1462-3 A Lithic scatter

P1462-4 A Stone alignment

P1471-2· A Flake

P1471-3 A Lithic scatter

P1471-4 A Lithic scatter - -?1471-5 A Lithic scatter

P1471-6 A '~!!hie scatter

P1471-7 A Lithic Scatter

?1471..g A Lithic scatter

Pl471-9 A Lithic ~-2ttcr

Pl471-11 A Stone alignments, lithic scatter

Pl471-14 A Stone alignments

26

,, -~· 40 _ .- Jl;· ... ~s~o --... : _r-_,...-- .. -~·~~~

.. ______ _,,,.....--~~· ... , .. ,

TABLB 6-t (Coptinued) TRANSWFSfERN PIPELINE PROJECT

CULTURAL RESOURCES ARCHIVAL INVF..Nioky RESUI.:rs - ,

Site Number Class Descri~tion '8>mments Al462-1 A Core

Al462-2 A Core

A1462-3 A Core.

MP-B3 A Chipping station

AZ L:7:12 A Ouany AZ L:7:13 A Rock ring

B Mojave Desert Habitation, resource exploitation

E Colorado River Resource exploitation

CHI..985 H DesertT~ Center, California-Arizona Mane'QVer Area

CA-SBr-2910H H National Old NRHP0 E-OPH-3926 Trails Road and Monument

CA-SBr-5524H. H Road P1462~1H H Foundation

H Utility line Status unknown

Site of Topock H/A Townsite Condition and status unknown

27

e

TABLE 6-1 (Continued) TRANSWES'fERN PIPELINE PROJECT

CULTURAL.RESOURCES ARCffiV AL INVENToRY RESULTS

Site Number Class Description Comments SHP042 H T'opoct Bridge

Red Rock Bridge :Demolished 1976 S~060 H Route 66

SHPO 71 H Old Trails NRHP 9-30-88 Bridge/Needles Highway Bridge

SHPO 104 H Atlantic & Pacific Portion abandoned Railroad, later AT&SF

SHPO 105 H Topock::(Mellen)

H' Water tank Status unknown A = Archaeological E =''Ethnographical H = Historical

NR..i-!P = Llsted on the,National Register of Historic Piaces

28

·--··---

Iriventory Summery

Based on the ·results of the recor& search and field visit at least two apparentif· ft unrecorded and unevaluated· potential resources occur near tlle project iirea. 'In addition to these resources, seven previously recorded sites anu a townsite.Iocale also occur within the project lliµits. The Mojave Pipeline smvey identified three prehistoric resources: a quarry (AZ 1..:7:12), a rock ring (AZ L:7:13), and a chipping station (MP-B3). The proposed-ROW vrdl make use of the Needl~ Highway Bridge (SHPO 71). The alignment ~:o passes through the communif¥ of Topock, site SHPO 105. The .westemmest alf.emative crosses the location of S-tlPO 42, however this resource has been previously demolished. This alignment also crosses the previous sjte of the town of Tc1pock on the we.~t side of the µver. The Desert Training Center Maneuver Area is \.Tossed by the ROW and both alternatives.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity

The sensitivity assessment for archaeological resources ~es two major factors int~ account. (1) known and predict:ed archaeological site density/significance; and (2) generalized level of previous impacts. Major types of previous impa~ include adjacent pipeline construction.

Sensitivity rankings for archaeolo~cal resources are defined as follows:

High • Areas of knQwn high resource density/significanec. This includes e areas which, although not surveyed, are comparable to areas of high known se·nsitivity. Avoidance of impacts will be difficult, but possi"ble. Mitigation will reduce impacts to an acceptable lt:'leL

Moderate - Archa~logical resourcci will be scattered along the ROW. Avoidance of impacts will be possible though careful siting. ·Mitigation costs will be lower than in high sensiti'lity areas.

Low - Few sites are recorded or predicted in project vicinity. Archaeological resourcca will be a minor constraint.

The portiqn of the project m·Califomia, west of the Colorado River, is an area of generally high sensitivity for archaeological resources. This is based laijcly on the Presence of a number-of rock alignments in the vicinity. The proposed pipeline alignment and alternative west of the river pass through mostly disturbed areas, with little opportunity for intact lites. The results of the Mojave Pipeline survey demonstrate an abse9ce of archaeological resources along their corridor in this area. Small relatively undimubed areas, such as the boring staging area, do exist along the Tran.~cstcm project in California. Although the

overall sensitivity for the proposechcute is low, such areas potentially contain undocumented resources.

In :Arizona, east of the river, there arc few~r documented archaeological resources, but the are_a is generaIIy less disturbed. The survey for the Mojave Pipeline has recently identified previously undocumented cultural resources along the ROW~ Although there are archaeologi~ resources located along the proposed aligr.ilnent, based .on the recommendations for the Mojave PipeliIJ.e, they arc not eligible for the National Register. When these factol'S are combined, the overall archaeological sensitiYity for the Arizona segment of the project is low.

Ethnological Sensitivi-.y

Sensitivity levels were assigned based primariJy on heritage and scientific significance. Although final sensitivity levels were assigned on a cases by case basis, the fo~owing guidelines were used.

High - Presence of high sensitivity settlements/use areas and/or the ethnographic components which compr.sc them constituting significant constraints to project siting. ExnmP.Jes of these. resources might be large villages or sacred sites.

Modei:ate - Moderate sensitivity settlementJUsc areas arid/or ethnographic components which comprise them constitute some constraint to the project.

Low - The incidence of low semitivity use areas and/or ethnographic C9mponents which oo~prise them constitute negligi"bJt.'t~~aints to the project. Procedures such as avoidance or data recovery will not be required.

Based nn the rather general con~ms identified the ethnographical sensitivity has been ranked as moderate •

. mstorical Resourca Sen:dtivity

In assessing'_; the sensitivity of historical resources the following factors were taken into account:

• Official· Status - Sites listed on the National Register an~_, ·itate historical landmarks arc accorded the bW1est·sensitivity rating.

30

• Site· Type - Different~typcs of historical sites are prone to different impacts from construction projects. For example, an historic marier in'the vicinity of 8' a pipeline might not be very sensitive with respect to the cff~ of the project. .,, Altem.atively, a structure slated to be moved from its original settjng wil.H>c much more affected by the project.

·o Previous Impacts • The generalized level of previous _impacts can affect sensitivity.

Only one of the five known histo~C81 r~urces within the project corridor lU!! been evaluated and determined eligil>le for. the National Re~. The NcPAles Highway Bridge was nominated to the Register in 1988. However, its current use as a suppart structure for a pipeline alters its othe~ Jµgh sensifrvity rating to a low. Since the Topock Bridge has ·been pr~.Jiously demolished it is also rated low for setisit:Mty to the project. Unless the project require.l the removal of strucrures -associated with the remaining three sit'!S their ovenill sensitivity rating is also ·9.sSessed as law.

7. -E.NVIRO..NMfiln:ALThAP ACTS OFTHEPROPOSFD fRO.JEG'f ANPPROJECT OPTIOlf' . . - ,.,.,

Tnl.s ~.ion a~dresses the anticipated'.envkonmental impact.s associated with the Transwestem Pipeline Project. Unless othcIWise noted in tbe specific rewurce sectioni, the impact descriptions list~ below apply to the proposed project and the project option.

Tue i:~roposed pr~ject arid project option will involve.:1~0 changes- to the area other than tb~:fut:Iodu~on of tempormy comtruction equipment and the two acre metering station. ~niequently, there will be no changes in existing topography, to unique geologic~ features, and no displacements or disruptiQfil\ of the sall. Faulting or seismic a¢y!ty is unlikely,~ thls area.. The only potentiai\ envircmmen~ impact to f.arth resources u the poSSIDility of wind cm1ion of soi}J~ '.p1is potential impact will be rendcre<! nori.significant in the proposed project tiy . ~ ~corporation of appropriate mitigation measures (1ee Section 9).

B. Air

Long-tetm impacts on. air quality were determined to be nonsignfficant for the Mojave Pipeline. Emissions caused by the proposed project and project option will not result in significantlong-temi,~pa~-, to~ quality. Co~truction·impa~ on air quality will be rendered nonSignificant in the proposed, project by the incorporation of appropriate mitigation me~..?Ies·(sce·Section 9).

31

C. Wattr

No significant intensive sutface runoff leading to an increase in sediment load and, nor decrease in water quality of the Colorado River iz expected to result from the proposed project, nor are impacts ~used by hydrostatic test water withdrawal and discharge. Groundwater contamination or adverse impacts on springs are also not likely. All of these potential impacts will not be issues of concern in the proposed project and will be rendere(f nonsignificant in the proposed project by the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures (see Section 9).

D. Plant an~ Animal Lire

Cons~ction Impacts-Proposed Project

Construction of the propo.red pipeline segment will result in temporazy, but Jong-teim disturbance to a 25-fuot-wide 20ne of habitat not pre-iiously di:!:urbed by pipeline construction. The remaming 50 feet of pennanent ROW required for the proposed pipeline will contain habitat previously disturbed by COOS!ruction of the Mojave pipeline. The portion of the route not utilizing the Mojave ROW will result in tempora_'Y, but long-term disturbance to a 25-foot-wide construction zone, and a perma.."lent ROW width of 50 feet.

In addition to the pipeline construction, habitat disturbance will also occur along this alternate route due to: (1) a>nstructio.n of the prcposed TranswcsternJPG&B and SQCAl, Meter Station adjacent to the PG&E Compressor Station (approximately 2 acres); (2). use of extra wor)<space (approximately 8.6 aaes) for COOSfluction staging and pipe pull-through at the western end of the bore under the river; and (3) extra workspace (approximately 7 acres) for boring underneath Interstate Highway 40. The first will be permanent disturbance, while the latter two are considered to be temporary, but long-term.

Cumulative impact!. will include those impacts llSSOciated with CODSlruction of both. the ·proposed pipeline regmeni and Mojave pipeline.

The areas of habitats that will be distwbed by CX>mfructioa of the propooed pipeline segment.~e fucluded 'in Table 7-1.

Impacts fu' vegetation lypc3/wiidlife 'habitats due f<l amstruction of the proposed pipeline segment will be relatively .minor due to:

• Construction adjacent tQ llie ·Moju\'c ·pipeline IOU!e. Fifty of tile needed seventy-five feet o.f stari~d construction zone.~ width will already be disturbed.

32

Constructio11 in areas ol existing disturbance. Of. the approximately 12,000 feet of pipeline iuuic:, only about 3,000 traversea Mojavean creosote~busb .• scrub v,ith !ow t9 moderate existing disturbance.

Method of crossing the Colorado River. Aquatic and npar-.. ,tµibitats will be avoided~~ boring under the river.

"

COnstruction o(. ,the pro,pcsed route will result iu disturbance to 13.62 acres of Mojavean creost'.te bus~ serub including 10.3 acres with Hght to moderate levels i>f disturbance and 3~2 acres of high levels of di.sturbancc {'fable 7w1). This acreage includes 8.6 acres of extra wor~pace, pipe laydown and pull-thr"ugh area associated with the boring operation. The high level disturbance areas include the railroad ROW and· areas already <lliturbed by Mojave pipeline construction activities.

As descnbed in Section 6, the Mojav<",an creosote bush scrub traversed .!Ji' the proposed Transwestem pipeline route does not represent high-quality wildlife -~~!!!it du~ to several factors, including existing and ongoing (such as Interstate Highway 40 and the: railroad) human-aiused disturl}ance,_ as wen as the fragmentation and isolation of tJ\·!S area. As such, construction-related disturbance to vegetation types/wildlife habitat along the propo..~ route will not be significant

Because the Mojave Pi~~line Project Final BIR/EIS addresses tl.-!~f~t construction ROW, cumulative impacts due to pipeline CJll!S1ruction ( constructiori Cf !he Mojave A and proposed Transwestem pipelinea) will be similar~, ilipse described for the w Mojave pipeline. The total width of _!he construction RO,~for both the proposed Transwe.:;tem and Mojave piJ}elin~s wm~~.:!@_(~t. ~j)Mtive impacts m the area due to construction of the proposed Transwestenr pi~~ route and the Mojave Pipeline will ~~Jude 15.S acres of ~tly to mode1~tely d61urbed Mojavea.u aeosote bush scrub, 10:22 _acres of high disturbed Mojavenn ~te ~ush scrub,.and 36.0 acres of distlµ'bed/ruderal habitat. Because both pipelines will follcw the ~am~ route in this area, factors affecting wildlife habitat qual\ty that ·are ~escribed 'above also apply to CU..'nulative impact analysis. As such, cumulative imp.acts asrociated wjth cot1tl'\!ction of the3:e pipelines will not be signifiami (refer to Table 7.2 for cumulative acreages).

Geneml Wlldlif'e Species

Potential impacts to wildlife apecies due to construction of t1re pru~ pipeline will include direct Joss of animals 'lue to crushing by equipment; displacement of animals into adjacent areas; disturbance due to increases in dust, noise, human activifJ, and· nighttime lighting; and 1os.~ of habitat ~d habitat feature:. Species most likely to be impacted will be those associated· with Mcjavean creosote bush scrub and disturbeC/ruderal ar~

33

As descnbed in Section 6, wildlife species common to Mojave&i creosote bush scrub include desert iguana, zebra-tailed lizard, homed lark, white.,~ed antelope squirrel and dese~ kit fox. Based on observation of the 24 July 1991 survey, the level of existing human-caused disturbance, and the degree of fragmentatiqµ and isolation due to Interstate Highway 49, the railroad, and the Colorado River, it appears that the dese~ tortoise is not utilizing areas traveJ:'SC4 by'~Jle proposed pipeline route.

Qver;tlli the habitats that will be disturbed by the proposed Transwestem pipeline route are not of high quality to wilcllife species. As such, a relatively low number of uidividwils of general wildlife s~es will be lost or displaced by construction. These impacts will noN.~ significant. .

Impacts associated with both the proposed Transwestem and Mojave pipelines will comprise cumulative impacts. In this area, both traverse generally low-quality wildlife habitats. Thus, cµmuJative impacts to general wildlife species d~e to construction of these pipelL,es will not be significant.

Ri~Aquatic Habitat.

The proposed,pipeline route crosses under appraximateiy 1,500 feet of riparian and aquatic habitiits (Table 7-1). Potential ~direct impaits to aquatic and riparian ·habitats due;:Lo construction of the proposed proj~ will include introductions of soif sediments; iiild vehicle fuels (accidental fuel spills), as wen as increasca in noise levels due to equipment. Ju desmbed in Section ~ a variety al fish occupy this portion of the -eo1or~do River. These species will not be significantly affc:ctcd by soil sediments because wtential amounts of ci!}ler entering the Jjvcr will be minute. Fuel spills into the river ~ alter water quality and might impact ~ of fish;. However, safety controls have been deyetoped to lessen the likclih,ood of a spill~ {refer-to S_ection 4 and Section 9). Increased noise levels will not affect wildlife species using these.habitats because: (1) wildlife occur in tamarhk scrub in low densities; and (2) these habitau are already subject to high levels of ~~ due to Interstate Highway 40, ~~,railroad, and boats oii the river.

Sensitive Spcdet

Sensitive species of plants and wildlife known from the ~.clnity of the proposeci Transwestern pipeline--routc &re descn"bed in Section 6. Generally, those include:

e Barrel cactus 0 Sensitive fish species (bonytail chub, mwrback llXker) 0 De.~rt tortoise e Yuma clapper rail

o Federal iind Californ!:j, state-listed, bird! Q>ald eagle, peregrine falci:>n)

e Other sensitive bird ~pecies

Based on observations of the 24 July 1991 survey, barrel cactuJ along the pipeline ,route 81~. ~bsent or in low densiti~. None was observed. As mch, impacu to this species 4;1e to constrJCtion of the proposed pipeline segment will not be significant.

The occurrenee of the bonytail chub and/or 187.0rback sucker in the vicinity of ~e pipeline route is possible, but vcr1 unlikely. Along the lower Colorado River, both species distnoutions have been reduced to a few,rc~t populations. Fuh species in general might be impacted by introduCtion of soil Sediments and vehicle fuels into the Colorado River. If soil sediments ai·e introduced into the river, they will likely be in minute amounts. Fuel spills might impact fish species (including these two sensitive ,fish, if present), however the likelihood of a spill inti> the ri'ler is low. Safety controls and mitigation have fx>..en developed to reduce the likelihood of occurrc~ce of these impacts (sec Section 3). Overall, impacts to these two sensitive species due to construction o~ the proposed pipeline segment wm not be significant.

As descnDed 1in Section 6, d~~f tortoises do not appear to be using habitau traversed by the proposed pipelliie segment. No in~iiduals or sign were observed during the 24 July 1991 mnvey. Based on information developed by BioSystems 'AnalySis, Inc., and on discussions w!th R. Branfield (USFWS), F. Hoover (CDFG), and J. Ellison (overall project manager for the Mojave Pipeline), the area traversed by ~e Ety"pn pipeline route does not contain suitable tortohe habitat. The Mojavcan crebsote bush scrub occurring Blong the pipeline· route contains various Ievek of e humaircaused disturbance and has been fragmented and Uolated by existing fac.ilities, ;roads (including Interstate Highway 40), the railroad, and the Colorado River., Construction of the proposed pipeline segment will not i!npact this apecles. Based on information submitted to them, R. Bransfield, USFWS, nnd F. Hoover, CDFG, e.gree with this conclusion.

Became the p~posed pipeline segment route docs not traverse marsh habitat, the Yuma clapper rail is unlikely to OCCm' along tbe)pipcline route, ~pt po3Sl'bly while travelling to and from areas of suitable habitat. Manh habitat dowmtrcrun of the pipelm route will potentially be impacted by soil sediments and fuel :ipilll. As descn'bed above, they will be introduced into the river .m minute amounts. Saietf contra& and mitigations have been developed to lc3seu the likelihood of OCCUJ.'£'el1Ce (see &ctions 4 and 9). Nearby poplllatiom of this lpedes ere not likely to be affected by indirect impacta, :rµch as increases in noise. Noise !evcll in the viclriity of the pjpeJine route ~ cmrently quite high due to Interst3te Highway .f-0, the railroad, and bo&b on the river. Potential impacts to this species, which are unlikely, will not'be significant.

Due to the lacli: of suitable habitat, other bird species with vaiimu levels "of serlsitivc and protected status do not occur in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route other

35

than on an infrequent basis during migration or other m°'"'ments. As such, if impacts to these species occur, they will not be significant. These species include: bald eagle, peregrine falcon, California black rail, California :pellow·bil!ed cuckoo, Arizona Bell's vireo, elf owl, Gila woodpecker, and bank IWaDow.

Because the Mojave pi,peline route is adjacent to the proposed Transwestem pipeline route, cumulative impai";ts to sensitive species will be similar to the impacts descnbed above for construction Cf the proposed Pipeline reroute.

Construction Imnacts - Proiect QptiQA

O:m~truction impacts to plant-and animal life resulting from the project option, ie., crossing the Colorado River via the suspension bridge, will be similar to those resulting from the proposed project, except for the following:

Acreages of disturbance to habitats resulting from COnstruction of the project option will in~Jude S.16 acres of Mojavean creoso~ bush scrub, inr"1ding 3.46 acres ,that contain !.\ relatively high level of existing human..caused disturbance. The remainder of disturbance (3. 7) ·~ will occur in areas that arc already highly disturbed ""'I/or contain ruderal habitat. -nese include the iailroad ROW and areas aJrcady disturbed by Mojave pipeline construction •ctivitles. See Table 7-1 for a ll1lmlDaiy of differences in acreage disturbed between the proposed project and the project option.

TABI..87·1

APPROXIMATE ACRES OP CONsmucnoN D~~ANCE, BY HABITAT, ALONG nm PROPOSED 'IRAN~'TERN PIPELINE Roura

.:;f.'ROPOSED PROJBCT "

Mojave.an a~te bush !a'Ub-low to

3000 moderate dJstu..~~ce

1().3• Mojavean acosote hush sau~high

S'lJH 3.3l1' disturbance

Disturbed/ruderal 5000C '!hat

-~" Tot.al 13,20t

~~ PROJECT OPTION

Mojavean acosote bush scrub-low to

3000 moderate disturbance

L7 Mojavean aeosote bush scrub-high

SOCX1 3.461 disturbance

·'-Disturbed/rudcral 4500 3.7' --Total ~ 1.8'

15.S-

1°"2:r

36.Q'l

'L72

6.9

1116'

28.9'1

48.H

a Includes 8.6 zacs for a pull-through area woeiated with boring under the Colorado River.

" Includes .86 aaes for the 500 t'eet of 2D-fnd.i pipeline to the SOCAL metCl' statfon and .16 acia An tjie 700 feet or 10-toot &ea.'11 ~

c Includes 1200 feet or route that parallel the Mojave pipclbe, 2300 t~ or new pipeline construction, and 1500 feet or cnra worbpaec asscaa~ w!th boring muler Interstate Hf&brAY 40.

d Includes approximately 2 aaa of dlaturoaiicc due l<l """"'1lctio of Ille propooec1 ~ meter station and 6 acres due to boring 1mder the Interstate Highway 40.

37

e

-. -- 351 -. .·. r.\t..;:~ . ...r.::-..:.-

. - .~ ~·.-1.;E __ 3901.,

e Includes approximately 2 :aca of disturbance due to ~mtrvctfon of the proposed Tunswestem meter station, 6 ac:ea due to boring undt;r Intentate Highway 40 and 2 acres due to CO?Structfon of the Mojave, Compressor Station.

' Includes approximately .86 acres for·thc 500 feet of W-inch pfpeline to the SOCAL meter station.

s Includ&.i ap~roximately 2 ICU3 of dls~ due to construcUon of the pro~ Thariswestem meter station. ,• .

• !nclu~ :ppro:dmately 2 acres of tµ5turt>ancc due to construction. of the proposed Transwestt.m meter station and 20 acres due to eonS'iructlon or the Mojbe Compreuor Station.

38

Operationa] Impacts • Proposed Pr~

Impacts to biological ~!S du~ to ~peration of the piop<loed pipeline segment • will genenUJr include the folfowing types of disturba.w-...e:

• A 50-foot-wfde permanent ~QW, including 2S feet in areas previously disturbed by the Mojave pipeline and 25 feet of new disturbance, The ROW is considered to be long-term disturbance and is located within the construction zone disturbance.

• Two acres of long-term disturl).ance associated with the meter station.

• Loss of individuals of general anCI sensitive species of plants and wildlife due to crushing by or coDisirins with cquipl!lent.

• Periodic adaed disturbance, such as noise, dust, and human presence.

• Possible, but Ulffikely accidents, such as pipeline leab resulting in fires or ve~~le fuel spills.

Acreages ~hewn in Table 7-2 and.descnl>ed below will not represent new distW:bance beyond t.~~ shC>Wn 41. Table 7-1. That is, acreage3 for construction disturbance include acr~ges of disturbance associated with pipeline operation and maintenance descnbed below. e Disturbance to vegetatioll ·que to operation of the proposed pipeline segment will OWJI within a total of S.oi acres of Mojavean creosott bush scrub in the permanent ROW and within 4.0 acres of disturbed/rudenil habitat in the ROW and at the meter station (Table 7m2). Because the vegetation types traversed by the proposed pipeline route are not high-quality wildlife habitats, these impacts will not'bc significant.

Vegetation along.the-proposed Transwestem and Mojave pipeline routes will~ allowed to r~tablish naturally. The same pc~ent ROW will be used for periodic inspections of both pipelines. /u such, operatiou of the Traµswestem pipeline will ;i!~~ represent a substantial additjvc impact.

Gener.~ Wlidllfe

Becailse the wildlife habitatS ~,,will be 9!3turbed due to cpemtl."?l an~ ~aintenance of the proposed pipeline route ~e ~!'::low quality, relatively few in~dwlli·of wildlife specie,, will be lost, displaced, q.~_-4isturbcd by .indir~"lln~~i((ouch as noise or dust). As such, impacts to generill \\~1~e speci~.will not be SWtiffoant.

39

'Operation and maintenance of the Mojave and the propOsed Transwestem pipeline segment will impact 'generally low-quality wildlife habitats. A!J suc::h, cumulative impacts to wildlife species Will not be significant.

Riparlao/Aquatlc Habitats

The proposed pipelirie-route will avoichiparian and aquatic habitats by boring under the Colorado River; therefore, direct impacts will not occur. Potential indirect impacts to habitats an~ wildlife species utilizing them will include accidental fuel spills from equipment. T'nis is oonsid~red an llJ)likely event. Safety controls have been developed to minimize the likelihbod of these indirect impacts (see Section 4).

·Sensitive Speclet

Sensitive species in the region of the pipeline ·route·are d~l>ed in Section 6. Due to lack of disturbance: to suitab~~ habitat along th~ pipeline route, operation and maintenance impacts will not occur to Yuma clajlper rail, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, a.Dd other sensitive bird species. Based on observations of the 24 July, 1991 ·survey, barrel cactus and desert tortoise do not appear to~ along the pipeline route. As suzb, llr!pacts;·to those species due to operation and maintenance of the pipeline will nol.oef/ur. Bees~ the pro~ pipeline will cioss under the Colorado River, operation im~ maintenance impacts to bonytail chub and razorback sucker will not oa:ur.

Because the Mojave pipeline will be adjacent to the pioposed pipeline route, disturbances will be similar. As such, cumulative impacm due to pipeline operation and1mainternll!ce will not be significant.

Operational Impacts~ PrQject Option

Operational impacts to plant and anitnal ~e ~ting from the projc.Ct option, i.e., crossing tht: Colorado River via the S\lSpcmion bridge, will be similar to those resulting from the proposed project, except for the following:

Acreages of disturbance to habitats re~ting from the operation of the project option will be the same as ,those reSulting ftoh'l. its construction, namely a total of 5.16 acres of Mojavean creosote bush scrub, including 3.46 acrea that contain a relatively high level of existing human-caUsed ~rurbancc. The remainder of disturbance (3.7 a~) will occur in areas that are already highly disturbed and/or contain ruderal babit..i These include the railroad ROW and areas already ~ by Mojave pipeline construction activities. See Table 7.2 for a summafy of differcn~ in acreage disturbed between the proposed project and the project option.

40

TABLE7·2

B~J:s~~.~~=~:gp~i:.~~~p~:g~ -

Mojavean creosote bush scrub-low to moderate disturbance

Mojave3t1: cre0sotc bush saub-hfgh disturbance

Disturf:>edlruderal

Total

PROJECT OPTION

Mojavean aeosote bush scrub-low to moderate disturbance

Mojavean creosote bush saub-high disturbance

-pisturbed/rllderal

Total

~-·

3000

5000' 4500

12,500

1.7 3 • .t

1.7 3~~

3.461 6JX:J'

3.71 ~~ .• ~ w ~

• Acr~gcs shown in this table represent areas within whkh pcnnanent or long·term disturbance associated with maintenance of the pipeline will occur. There mu uc located within areu-of

. constructi{ln d!sturl>ance shown in T:able S.1.

c

d

c

Includes .86 acres t'or the 500 feet of 2Q..inclJ. pipeline ~ the ~-~ l~don and .16 ICfel for the 700 feet of 10-foot aCCCM rOa4

Iiicludol 1200 rcci of route that p&rallel the M ~ plpdfnie route, 2300 ~,~f~~'"Pfpeline oonstructiOn, and 1500 feet of ema workspace au, ::lated with borblg under mtemate HJg?may .CO.

Includes approximlltely two aaca of disturbance due to the propo&Cd 'lhnswcstemJPO&E and SOCAL Meter Station.

Includ.cs approximately two aaes due to the proposed 'liaj~.ern!PQ~~and SOCAL Mi'.;(Ct Station and 20 aaca due to the Mojave Compressor St;adon.

Includes apprQXimately .86 aacs for the SOO feet of 20-inch pipcline to the SOCAL mctu station.

41 9 - -------~:-,355 · ":. ·::. ·, ·~::r:: -:.:-·J90S :

- -·

s Includes approximately two acrea or disturbance due to the propoted T'ramwcstcmJPO&E and, sbCAJ .. Meter Station.

Includes approximately two acres due to the proposed TranswestcrDIPG&:E and SOCALMctet Station and 20 acres due to the Moja~ Compressor Station.

42

Iirpacts of construction and operation of the proposed project and project option on plant and animal life would be rendered nons~cant by the inco~ration\9f appropriate mitigation measures (sec Section 9).

E. Noise

The potential for inc~e8Se in noise levels resulting froin construction and operation of the _proposed project and project options will be nonsignificant, e.c;pecially in comparison with the potential f9r increase in noise levels,resulting from the Mojave Pipellile, which was determined to be nonsignificant wi1hout the incorporation of mitigaticn measures. No mitigation measures will be required.

The potential for increase in light an~,glare resulting from oonstructton and operation. of the proposed project"and project options will be nonsignfficant, especially in comparison with ~e potential for increase in light and glare ,resulting from the Moj~ve Pipeline, which was determined to be nonsipfficant without the incorporati6n of mitigation measures. No mitigation measures will be required

G. Land Use

Construction Jmpnct5 ~,Proposed frnject

Tue construction-related moveme~t of equipment, ~upplies, and commuting workers on the local roads and highways will temporarily add to ntii"mal ttaffic density, but will not result in significan~ long-term impacts on roads and highways.

Pipeline crossir1gs of Interstate Highway 4a will be.accomplished by boiing beneath the roadbeds, ther~by riot interfering with traffic and service along these major transportation eorridors. At more lightly traveled county, local, and unpaved roads, open-cut excavation will be used for pipelinrf constniCtion and will require t1t;at temponuy detours be arranged. However, micll conmuction-related ~ and{~ detours are not considered significant because of the low ttaffic volomei and the short period of interference.

The proposed project will not increase pipelirie congestion on the existing pipeline suspe~ion bridge and therefore results in a benefitjal land use impact since fu~"1C pipeline use of the bridg~ ~ not precluded. It will aJJo dcm. .. mtrate the flexibilitj Of directional boring tech~ology as a Colorado ~er~ technique, which can then be used by othC?r futurci pipelin~ witl;lout dir:jci dist lbance of the river bottom. l:'lo cumulative land use impi~~wilt result"ttgie,propc>Jcd pipelin~ is installed by boripg beneath the €010rado River, since overall 1and use will not be affected.

43 ----·-·357·-... :.~J9D .. 7 . ~

Construction Impacts • Project OptjQD

Construction impacts to land use resulting from the project option, i.e., crossing the Colorado River via the suspension bridge, will be similar to those resu.Iting from the propo'..ed project, except for the following:

The {!~oposed project win result in the addition of one new pipe~e -to the existing pipeline suspension bridge. ~ bridge has a limited capacity to accept additional pipelines, therefo~e this project will reduce future flenoility because less room will exist for future pipelines, to cross the river at this point. This impact will be less than significant if BLM determines that additional natural gas transportation repres.~nts an appropriate use of thi:J increment of bridge capacity odf an additional method.of river <.-rossing is employed. This bridge can. oply accomme$te ~'? additional· pipelin~ before the construction of additional supports i.s n~. This construction can result in distth-bance to the river bottom.

~ti_onal Impacts - Proposed Proj~

FoiiOwing construction, the surface of the pipeline ~OW will be restored, and allowed to naturally revegetate to its previou5 use and appearance. The meter statjon site will preclude other land· used on the two-acre site for t]!e :fil'~~uCtpe project. These impacts are not ~nsidered significant.

The project will limit the allowable land uses along the ROW for the life of the prqiect. The amount of land that will be distuxbed over the long term, including the meter/::~tion totals approximately 9.02 acres. This does not includi: ·appioximately1· 1,500 feet of the pipeline that crosses under the ColoradtJ River. The proposed· activity is consistent with Bl.M's planned· use ~~·n utility tarridor.

Operational Impacts • Project Olilirul

Operationafimpacts to land use resulting from the project:option, Le., CrosSmg the Colorado River via the slispension bridge, will be similar to those resulting from the proposed project, with a t_otal of 8.86 acres cii land disturbed over the long tern;

Effects of the proposed project and project option on land use will be no-4-cant, ·especially in comparison will:t the effects on :Iruid use renutmg froD;l the Mo.,Ave Pipelin~; which were ~etermined to be nonsignificant without the incorporation of mitigation measures. No mitigation measures will be required.

H. Natura! Resources.

Effects of the proposed project and project option on natural IC$0ure;es will be nonsignificant, especially in camparison with the effects on natural resc>'ilr~ resulting

44

from the Mojave Pipeline, which were determined to be nonsignifk.ant without the a incorporation of mitigation m~es. No mitigation measures will be required. w L Risk of Upset

Effects of the proposed pr0ject and project option on risk of upset will be nonsignificant, eSpecially in comparison with the ,effects on risk cf upset resulting from the Mojave Pipeline, which were ~etermined to be nonsignificant without the incorporation of mitigation measures. No _mitigation measures will be required.

J. Populritfon.

Effects of the proposed project and project option on population Will be nonsignificant, especially in compariso1l'with the effects on population resultiag from the Mojave Pipeline, which were determin~ to be nonsigoificant without the incorporation of miti~tion measures. No mitigatjon measures will be required.

K. Housfns

Effects of the propcsed project and project optio~ on housing will be nonsigrillicant, especially in comparison with the effects on housing resulting from the Mojave Pipeline, which~were ·determined to be nonsignificant without the incorporation of mitigation measures. No mitigation measums will be required.

L. Trans~rta~~=--/-C'i&;.1llatfo1L

Effects of the iiroposed projed and·proj~ option on t:rall;sportation and cir~Jlation will be norisignificant, especially in comparison with the cffecu on transportation and circulation resulting from the Mojave Pipeline; which were determined to be nonsignifitm!t without the incorporation of mitigation measures. No mitigation measures will be requiiCd.

M. Public Services

Effects . of the proposed project and project option on public servi~ will be nonsignificant, especially in compari;lon:witb the cffecu on puQ~c sezviccs resulting from the Mojave Pipe~e, whfoh,v; .~ :~ cletermined to i>c nonsignificant withaat the fucorporation ()f ~tigation m~--ures. Nq mitigation measures will be reqmred.

N. Energy,

Effects of the proposed projeet and proj~ option on energy will be non.tjgnificant, especially in. comparison with the effects on 1.mergy resulting from the Mojave

45

Pipeline, which were determined to be nonsignifi~t,<without the incorporation of mitigation measures. No mitigation measures w7Jfbe required.

O. UtllUies

Effects of the proposed project and project oiJtion OJ! utilities will be nonsignificant, especially in comparison with the effects on utilitie! resulting from the Mojave Pipeline, which were determined ~9 be nonsignificant without the inco:rporation of mitigation measures. No mitigation measures will be required.

P •. Human Health

Effects of the proposed project and project option on -human health will ~ nonsignificant, especlatty in comparison with the effects on human health re.sulting from the Mojave Pipeline, which were determined to be nonsignificant without the incorporation of mitigation ~easures. No mitigation-=liiea.,\Uo::~wm be r~ed.

Q. Aesthetics

Potential impacts to visual resources will be nonsignificant, as,t~ey were in the Final FEIR/EIS for the Mojave Pipeline by iµlplenw_µting environmental 'and safc;ty controls involving recontouring. Therefore, no mitigc.don measures will be required.

R. Recreation

Effects of the proposed project and project option on recreation will be nonsignificant, especially in comparison with the effectl on recreation resulting from the Mojave Pipeline, which were detcrmiried to be nonsignificant without the incorporation of mitigation measures. No mitjgation measures will be require(L

S. Cultural Resourcet

ConstrnctionJmpacts t2 Cultural Resources - Pi'OjXjedhoj~

Table 7-3 SUDlill81i2c3 the results of the current cu1tma1 reaourcc invent my within the project alignment. The temporary constl'U:ction RPW for the pipeline~ ~!\rally be 75 feet wide wi~ a permanent ROW ~th of SO feet. Work~ acct.'js roads, 8Ild other project-related ground disturbing aCtivitiea will be kept within the 20().foot corridor sutveytd for the Mojave Pipeline to ~ impacts to ~ resources. Within the unsmveyed portions of the project, all ~ areas outside the 2CJO. foot Mojave sur1~ corridor me to be avoided. Specific areas to be avoided arc discussed below •.

Although the Needles Highway B~dgc ii lis~L·ii on·the National Register it apI>CB:B unlikely tl~t the Transwestem project will aai( .:i1ely affect this re~ource based oh iu • present function. Impacts to the other reso.uxGe.1 listed µi Table 7-3 wm be ~ to $ose from the Mojave Pipeline! Only if the temoVal of the structures ~•1requircd will the potential impacts be greater.

An intensive survey of the proposed project oorrldor bas not br..en°c9nducted as part of this study,. however, the proposed project is located mostly with.in tho survey corridor for th~ Mojave Pi¢linc. The cultural resourcea survey fi.l:t" the ·Mojave Pipeline addressed a 2QO..(oot-:-wide corridor, 100 feet on either side of their centerline. Therefore, where the Transwestem alignwcnt is within 100 feet of the Mojave pipeline an intensive cultural resources survey has been completed (McGuire 1990). The cultural resources survey for the Mojave Pipeline did not identify any significant cultural resource! along the main Transwestem alignment. During the Transwestem field visit, however, an undocumented potential resource was.noted.. A v.~en piJle utility line is crossed by the alignment. This unevaluated resource will be avoided.

The :proposed alignment is located north of the Mojave alignment between ~e Interstate Highway 40 crossing and the river boring location on the ~i side of the river. A water tank adjacent the bor#lg location will be avoided to prevent impacts to this structure. The uncµsturbed portion of the·proposed bore location on the west side of the river will be avoided to prevent potential impacts to anY undocumented resources. tt Construction lmpacts to Cultural Resources • frQject Ot!-tlml

Construction impacts to cultural resour~ resulting from the project option, i.e., cxOS§ing the Colorado River via the suspension bridge, will be similar to those resulting from the proposed project, ex~~pt that the entire proposed ROW for this option does Jie,within the Mojave RO'W, which baJ been previoUsty·survcycd for cultural r~urccs.

Ql>erational Impacts to Q!Itural R.esout£R • Pl'Qposd~~

Besed on the avoidance of areas .indicated under constroction impacts, no additional impacts are anticipated to cultural resources due to the operation of the Trcwswestem l;)ipeline.

Tue propooed project is generally situated within the .smvey corridor for the Mojave Pipeline (McGuire 1990). ,Based on the results of this survey and archival research, no signifi~t resources arc located within ~ smvcy corridor, and cons~ntly the proposed project area. Several unevaluatetl areas outside of ·the Mojave Pipeline Corridor thaf; are within the proposed project corridor will bC avoided, however,

47

including an undisturbed utility line crossing, a water tank near the east end.and all other undisturbed ,areas;, Based on the restrictions and areas avoidance indicated above, there will be no i'.impactJ to significant resourcea.

Operational Impacts to Q!ltural Resources - Project Option

Operational impacts to cultural resources resulting from th~ project option, :t_e-: crossing the Colorado River via the suspension bridge, will be similar to those resulting from the proposed project.

Impacts of construction and operation of the proposed project and project option on cu\tural resources wo~d be 1·endered nonsignificant by the incorporation appropriate mitigation measures (see SCction 9).

48

TABLE 7-3 TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE"PROfflCT

Cl.JLTURAL RESOURCES

Site Number Description Commcnli

CHL-985 Desert Tr.:a...ining Center, California-Arizona Maneuver Area

SHPO 71 Needles Highway Bridge NRHP 9-3()..88

SHPO 105 Topock (Mellen)

Water tank Status unknown

MP-B3 Chipping station Recommended not .eligible (Mc<Juire 1990)

AZ L:7:12 Quany Recommended not eligible (McGuire 1990)

AZ L:7:13 Rock ring Recommended not eligible e {McGuire 1990)

Utility· line Status unknown

Mojave Desert Native American concerns

Colorado River Native American concerns

8. ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TI-IAT CANNQI BE AVOIDED IFTIJE PROPQSEQ PROJECT IS IMPLEMEtffED ..

The potentiak~~yfro~entar impacts of the propooe<i projects are discussed in the previous ~ectio11. No significant adverse environmental impact will result from implementation of the proposed project or project option, with implementation of mitigation measures included in Section 9.

9. MITIGATION MEASURF.S WHICH·ff4YE 8EEN]NC0RPORATEP IN TIIE PRO:lliQ[

Mitigation measures that follow have been summarized. For additional details, refer to the project description and resource dkcussiom.

Where appropriate, mitigation measures have been proposed to further reduce environmental impacts to a level of nonsignificance. The following section descrjpes the measures suggest_ed for each of the impacted environmental resour~ d~,. nbed in Section, 7. Unless otherwise noted, the measures are applicable to the Proposed Project and the Project Option.

The following mitigation measures will be implemented during clearing, construction, snd restoration to control the potential loss of soils through wind erosion:

1. Topsoil Banking

• 'Topsoil from nondisturbed areas will be "separated and stock piled along the pipelfr1e alignment. Once backfilling and recontouring have been completed, thls soil shall be replaced."

2. Mojave Desert

o "All areas of the ROW containfug native vegetation shall be rcsto~etf'by the replacement of the segregated iopsoil onto the cDsturbed ROW. After return of the topsoil and the windrowed vegetation, the disturbed areas lb!Ul be imprinted."

• "No mulching, fertili7.ation or reseeding ab.all take place within the Mojave Desert beyond the replacement of the win<Jr9wcd vegetation."

o "Areas with a high potential for either· wind ~r watc:;r erosion siiaD be s~biliz.ed by the use of a tackifier such as 1-tac (40-80 fos/acre)."

so

--:-· 3li4 ··--· . '··:.:.-.~.:: 3914 .

.3. Grading and Erosion

• "In addition to the replacement of topsoil, ,rock and natural plant debris shall also be replaced to red~~ erosion potentiaL •

"Erosion control devices shall be placed where the pi~line alignments or new access roads are constructed on slopes or·in other locations such as stream crossings where er~ion may o.ccur."

These mitigation measures will reduce impacts to earth reS<>urces to a~ level of nonsignificancc.

B. Air

Several mitigation D)easurca reduce impae1s to air q>ia!ity to Domlgnificancc during construction of the pr9po~ project and project option-are as follows:

4. ''The ROW·sball be watered to reduce dUst. .,

S. "Construction related vehicle •m<ssion shall 00 reduced by using proper equipment."

6. "Construction related vehicle emissions shaD be reduc¢ by using ·proper airto-fuel ratios."

These mitigation measures will reduce jmpacts :o air quality to a level of nonsipiiicance.

Several mitigation measurca to reduce impacts to water quality to nonsignificance diµing construction a! the proposed project and project option are,as foDoVis:

51

--· 365 l

=-3915 --~-,,,,,, ......... -~----_.-"

7. I~ydros~\tic test water will~ purchased,·from the municipal water supply at the Golden Shores Resort on the Arizona side of the river, less than one mile ~orth of} the Interstate ~ghway 40. The total VOJume of water to be purch1'Sed for the hydrostatic tests is approximately 795;000 gallons. The hydrostatic test water for the following sections. of the pipeline .will be transported and discharged at. the proposed scrubber station site in Section 10, T16N, R21W, Mohave County, Arizana:

e Transwestem to Topock 24" Pipeline (Proposed Project and Project Option) • Transwestem 24" Pipe for Colorado River Bore (Proposed Project) • Transwestem to SOCAL 20" Pipeline (Proposed Project and ProJect Option)

The hydrostatic test water for the following section of the pipeline will,be discharged. into a 38-foot x 38-foot x 3-foot deep discharge pit on the west side of the PG&E Compressor Station. The water will be discharged at a rate of 2500 ·gallons per minute with a splash barrel to control the flow rate and hay bales to tra'P·solids.

• Transwestem to PG&E 2fl' Pipeline (Proposed Proj~ and Project 9ption)

The hydrostatic test water for the following meter stations win be discharged inside the meter ~tation fence at a rate controlle.d by the meter station piping valves •. Hay bales will also be used to trap solids. The topography of the area will eliminate the possibility for dischaige water to run off into the· Colorado River.

• Transwestem to PG&E and SOCAL Meter Stations

8. "If rCquired by state or federal permit, hydrostatic Water [will] be· tested and treated before release.•

·9~ "Hydrostatic test water [will] be released properly to reduce the potential for scour."

iQ. "Water discharged in hydrostatic testing [will] be done in accordance with JocaJ, state and federal permits.•

11. "Chemicais, fuels, and lubricating oil [will] not be stored near stream channels. Any·accidental spills shall be promptly cleaned up."

D. Plant and Animal !He

Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to plant and animal ~e to nonsignificance during oonstru~on and operation of the proposed project and project option arc as follows:

52

12. "Controls on Traffic, Access, and Construction Disturbance Arca:"

"Project-related activitiC{I. shall be restricted to established road!, designated access roads, the const_ruction·ROW, and other designated project ar~.!-and sltall be examined duiJng prea>nstniction IUIVeyl. ACcess roads;!f1hall be clearly flagged for use: 'The construction ROW ahall also be clearty marked at the centerline and outside boundaries."

13. "Cl~g, Grac:lin&'-'.aud Dust Control:"

'Trees and large shru~ shall be avoided or removed prior to clearing. The uJ?.F~r two to six inches of :topsoil from ~ construction ROW requiring gradlug shall ·be r~moved and windrow~ with the vegetation and kept reparatecfrc;>m the remaining spoils.'°

"Gracling'-sh11n be ·limited to that area ne.cessa.ry to permit movement and opemffon of equipment.' ·

Run·-off from project activities into the Colorado River will be avoided.

14. 'Topsoil,Salvagc and Handling:"

"Surface matetjal.[from undisturbed areas] \topsoil") [will] be sah"Sged from A trenching and any graau,g activiti~ for preservation of topsoil and existing '" seedbanks in natuial vegetation. ·

15. 'Trenching, Blast~ and Ins~on:"

'The trench must be backfilJed as quickly as possible following lowering of the pipe. The maxiJnum,Jength ~f open tre~ at' any one time shall not exceed [one] mile. Per trenches .. not filled at the cild of the day, e.scape mmps for wildlife shall be install~ at distances no greater than 0.25 mile apart.

16. 'P~ts, Camping Fu:carm.~ and Ule of Area:•

"No camping sha1l be permitted on the comtmction ROW. Only ~uthori7.ed camping areas may be utilli:ed.

'To prevent harassment, mortality, or de~ of densA>urrows of wildlife species, pets shall not be allow~ on the ROW~ staging area,,, &cccs.! roads or any other sites required for ·construction actMtie8. FJJ'C8ml5 shall also be promoited in the same arw. Vnauthorized Vt'Qrkers shall not be permitted at ronstructi'?n· ar~ during non-scheduled boun."

53

17. 'Trash Control:•

e 'To avoid attracting species of concern and potential predators, all food~· related trash and litter (wrappers,,Cans, bottles, food scraps) shall be·ptacc4 in closed containe~ and disposed of daily. The working ROW of each spread shall be [check¢j~daily to remove any trash or litter which may not have been ~posc:d of -prop.erly."

18. "Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Materials:ie

"Refueling and storage of hra.aroou! materials shall OCClll' in pr~ously: disturbed areas. Areas where refueling or ~rage of hazardous materials is proln"bited shall be marked by the cnvironrilental.monito~ The storage:of these materials near streams shall be consistent with CDFG code 5650."

19. ''Fire Control Procedures:"

"No trash-burning fires sfcall be pcrmittedJn the construction area. Vehicles used in the ROW with catalytic conv!;:.ners shall be equipped with shielding or -other acceptable fire preve~tion· features. Cons~on spread: mun· be equipped with fire eiii~guishers, with workers trained in their use. Fue resistant mats and/or wfud rereens shall ~ placed on the ground below welding and grinding operations whenever diy vegetation is present.

"SupervisolS shall have the names ·of local fire fighting.agencies. A detailed fire plan shall be prepared as a standard part of a BI.M ~nstruction, Operation and !$intenance.PJan. •

20. "Collection and Harassment of Species:

"No intentional killing or collection of either plants or wildlife .ab.all be ~nnitted. No intentional damage to trees, or" other vcgetaticin ahall be rpermitted otiui~ of the construction ROW; this ~-fudude the coll~ 'of plants including caCti without prior authorlmtion.-'

21. "Clean-Up:•

"After construction is completed, a final ROW clean-up shall include removal .of. all stakes, J&thes, flagging. barrels, cans, drums, accidental spins· and any. other refuse generated by Construction. No shrub material or other plant cover shall be disturbed during this proceSs. •

54

. ·-- .. ---............................. _..... ....... .

22. "Surface Rest.oration:'"

"Recontourlng to natUral lines and grade must ~ acoomplishcd without diSruption ~ adjacent undisturbed ~bitat Sediment 'COilectcd behind temporary hay ~ales shall be removed. 'Pcnnane:it ~tcr !?reakeri 81!,<Yor terraces shall be ~nstructed acres.. -Ute ROW on sloping ground to prC\ent erosion. On steep gra,~ earth-filled sacks or stone riprap,shBJ] be used as det~najncd necessmy to s~bilize the ground ~ce~"'

23. "Post-Construction: Access Con,trol:"

"The pe~ent ROW Ir_i8y'l}>e use..d to access the pipeline in emergency situations as defined:under conditions ~ti~ted by the .hgeD:cics. Damage to vegetation ozLthe-ROW shall'bc,fixed and the' ROW restored as-soon u pos'slbleJollOwing the emergency. The appropriate ag~ncics sha1l be notified. Signs s~ be posted indicating the ROW is cloSed to vehicles. 11

24. "Post-Construction Environmental MonitOring and ,Reportingi"

YI habitat compensation or specific reclamation mcasure.s are required, which can-Jfe measured, post-construction moniiorl%'and reporting will t3ke place.

'/ipost-ccn::i.struction monitoring shall meet tWo basic objectives: 1) to assess A 1 acrual impacts that oceur during comtruction, ruid 2) to monitor other 9 \~tigations. Post-<:e>nstruction iµspection of ·the project· area shall 'be eonducted by the environmental monitoring team after completion o.f clean-up and surface restoration.

"A fin~ constructicn monitoring report shall be prepared. Post-construction m,O:nitotjng-3ha11 be undertaken at the end ~f the fifth year of operation."

25. ,i1Equipmenf~ration inspection and Main~:"

-Since most operatiqn af f'@cilltiea ii by remote comrol, site ~ arc m8.in1y related to inspeci.ion and ¢pelilie llldinte~ N:u.s& to aitel shall be furµted to ~~ roaW, Qr newly comttucted roam approved u part of the project. All personn~l shall attend regular mee~p tO be reminded about safe~'8nd environmental concerns."

26. "Rooenticidi:s and Herbicide&:•

"If rodenticide and/ar herbicide use is reqilired, the pipeline company shall contact the USFWS and CDFGJor review and conairrence with the ~posed activity."

SS __ ,. ,,.. .. ~ ... ... --·369 . '_. J'.:::~ .... •' ·---.,. -.'":"'"' . ' :,. .· =~ 3919 -.. .__..,, ..... ~,....,.... .....

~7. "<;ontingency Plans:"

"Each pipelin~. compiiny sluill prepare appropriate-,coll~\ngency plans and procedures prior to initiation of operations 8Jld present them to th~ Agcnciea for review. These plans shall outline procedures for contacting the Agencies under a vadety of situati~ns which may c-ccur. The plans shall provide proc¢ures for notification concenµng emergencies related to pipeline leaks or rupture3 and what will constitute an emergency; plans for protecting the biologiCal resources during emergency operations; ,procedures for ,aecompliShing routine pipeline maihtenaricc; and plans for eonsultation with the Agencies for unforeseen circumstances. 11

28. "Dese.rt Tortoise:"

The area in California traversed by the piPelinc route mentionectno ~ of desert tortoise ~uring earlier preconstruction surveys for the Moja'le Pipeline project. Although the area ms classified as no!.l·babitat for tortoises (BioSystems Analysis, Inc. files), a desert tortoise survey will be conducted prior to constiuction of this pipeline.

All areas within the projected constrUction· ROW not 'previously distur~·wiil be surveyed for sign of ~rtoises, including individuals, 1:,>urrows, lcilt, carcasses, eggshell fragments, wild other sig:ls. ~e lurvcy will be ',t-C>nductcd lJy experienced tortoise biologists following tJSFWS survey guidelines.

If tortoises are obscIVed abovc-groWid, they will not be moved, but their ';~tion will be noted and made available to the biological monitor. Tortgisc bU..Tows found will be examined to assess occupancy statua. Tortoises will be -removed from active burrows and relocated at least 150 feet away from the ROW to an existing, unoccupi~ burrow. If an existing burrow cannot be }ocatcd, au artificial burrow will ~;cu~'tructed. Handling of tortoisel will follow prototal developed by agency ~3ologim for the Kem Rivcr-Mojs.ve pipeline project.

A biological moni~,r will be pre.sent during comtruction activities -m the (:'~omia portion of( the pipeline route. The monitor wm be a biologist with prior experience m1 tortoise handling protocol, and will be familiar with conmuction m9nitor~ The monitor will be responsible for moving tortoises in the unlikely ev_~nt that any are observed in the ROW during constraction. Tortoise handling procedures will follow those developed by agencfbiologm, for the Kem River-Mojave pipeline project.

Procedures will be developed for tortoise monitoring and handling in the unlikely event that tortoises are encountered.

S6

--· 370 -~ ~·3920-·

· ..... ·:~ ~

E. Noise

No mitigation measures are required.

F. IJght and Glare

No mitigation measures are reqtiircd.

G .. I.an_d Use

No mitigation measures arc required.

IL Natural Resnunu

No· mitigation measures are reqajred.

No mitigation measures arc requir~

J. Population


K. Housing

No.mitigation measure, are required.

J... TranJportatfon / Circ:ub~o11


M. P-~uc Semces


N. Eaugy


o. Utilities

~o mitigation measures are required.

57

P. Human Health

No mitigation measures are 1:lequb:ed.

Q. Aesthetfca

The mitigation measures descnl>ed in Section SLA {Earth) will be implemented to control the potential lo8s·ofvisual quality to a level of nonsignifi~:nce. No additional mitigation measures are required.

R. Recreation


S. Cultw.-~ -Resoul'C?t

Mitigation measures proposed specificaily for the proposed project and project option incluge the following:

'l9. Avoidance of the water tower· adjacent to· the AT &sF line and ·the historic transµIWion line, which parallels !}le Colorado River on the California side.

30. Additional communication with the local Native American community, -inc~dfug, communication regarding archaeological rcsource:s potentially affected by the project, as well as c~ographfo resources.

These mitigation measures-will reduce the level of impacts to ~tural resources Jo a level of nonsignificanc.e.

10. ORGANIZATIONS C0NTACTEJ2

Bureau of Land Management {BLM), S. John.son U.S. FJSh and Wildlife Service (USFWS), R. Bramtiekl California Department of Fish and Game (CFG), F. Hoover Fluor-Danie~ 1. Ellison

58

11. REFERENCE~

Bean, Lowell 1. and Sylvia Brakke Vane. 1978. ·Persistence and Power: A Study of Natr1c American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and the Devtfrs~f.li!9 Verde High Voltage Transmission_ µite. Report submitted by- Cultural :~tem.s Res~ch, Inc. to Southern California Edison Com~

Bean, Lowell J. and Sylvia Brakke Vane. 1982. The. lV8npah Generating-Station Project Ethnographic (Native American) ~esourccs. Submitted by Cultu..ral Systems Research, Inc. to Southern Califoiiilla Edison Company.

Bettinger, Robert L and R.B. Taylor. 1974. Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin anci Interior Southern California. Nevada Archaeolo2i¢al Suryej Research Papeq 5:1-26. Re:"p.

Califon$ Department of Parks ·and Recreation. 1976. California Inventocy of Historic Res-0urces. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Parb and Recreation. 1982. California Historical Landmarks. Sacramento, California.

California State Lands Commission and Fedeial Energy Regulatory Commission. !987. Mojavc-~rn Rive;r-Et Dorado Natura! Gas Pipe~e Projects F'mal Envirorimental Impact Rct~rt/Statcmcnt, Volume I and n. 8

California State Lands -Co~ion. 1991. Mojave-Kem Rivet Pipeline Projects Environmental Impact Report Final Amendm~nt.

Coolidge, Richard N. 1963. Hjstoiy.of the Colorado ru-~er Dtiring the Steamboat Era. MJ\. Thesis. San Diego State College.

Crabtree, Robert H 1981. Archaeology •. In A Cultilral Resource Overview of the Colorado Desert Planning Units, bj Elimbcth vau Till Warren, Robert H. ~btrec, Claude Warren, Martha Kn.a~ and Richard McCarthy. Pp. 25-54. Califo~ ~urea~ of Land Managemcn~ Cultural Resources Publications, Anthropology-History, Riverside.

Fi:yman, Jr. Frank B. 1976. An Archaeological Survey ot the Proposed Park Moabi Motorcyc;le Rac.c Course Project Arca, San Ber.dardino County,,California. Manuscript pn file San Bernardino County Mu&..~

Guddr., Elwin C 1962 California Pia~ Nam~ Second edition. University of California Prcu, Berkeley and ~ Angeles.

59

--•

•

Gudde,~Erwin C. 1975. California Gold ~. University of California Press, Berkeley a.'ld I..Cs,,Angetes.

'Hair, Charles W., t99i. Geotechnical Investigation, Phase II, Colorado River Pipeline- Crossing, San Bernardino County, California - Mohave County, ~.ona. Submittedtby Louis J. Qipoxz.oli and Assoc.,.Inc., to Enron Gas Pipeline Group.

fl' pver, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Re?=h, and Ethel Grace Rensch. 1966. · Historic SJ?Qts in California. Third edition. Sanford Press, Sanford;' California.

King, Chester and Denaj.s G. ·Casebeir. 1981. ~ackgrotind to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of-the F.ast Mojave Desert Region. Second Printing. Bureau of Land Managemen~ RiVerside C.alifomia.

Leonard III, Nelson. 1978. The Archaeological Assessment of the_ proposed ?ipeliue Route in the Vicinity of ·Needl~ ,California. V.i.anuScript ·nn file San Bernardino County Museum, Redlaricb.

McGuire, Kelly. 1990. A CtilturaJ Resources InventoQ' M~Valuation of the Proposed Mojave Pi.Rs.Jin~ CorridQt.jn Caljf.nmja Md Ariron1- Far Western Anthropological Research Graur;-Inc. Davis, California.

Mojave Pipeline BU-1'IDght-of-W&y Grant, CA 17204.

Mojave PipeJU~e \Company. 1991. Alignment Sheet MPO.O to MP4.0 Mojave Mainlfue.

Norris, Frank. 1980. A.t--izona State Historic Property Inventory Form. On file ~t Dames & Moore, San Diego.

Norris, Frank and Richard L Can;ico. 1978A. History of Land Use in the Califoritia Desert. Prepared by WF.SrEC SelVices for !he BW'eau cf Land Management, Rivemde, California.

Payton, Paige M. 1987. Ground Drawings of the Lower Colorado River: An Analysis of Technique, Context, and ~ Senior Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. ~uscripi on file at San Bernardino Onmty Museum.

Quinn, Ann. 1980. Historical La.ndmarb of San ·Bernardino County, ~' 'Bernardino County Museum A.ssoclatiop OwmerJI, Volume xvm, No.1 and 2.

60 .. ~ ~ -·-··----· ,

.·-. -''•"· - .. ~ 374 : ' '. ·; . - ··3924 ·. ·-

Rand McNally.& Co. 1896. -Penis; Mineo Map of t!;.~J:>eselt-ROgitiil·~isquthem • California. Oticago.

Rogers, . ~c<>lm 1. i958. Sa11 Dieguito Implements ~om the Teuaccs of the Rineon·Patano and ~to Drainage System. Thew 24{1):1-~.

Skellet, J. Persona! Communication·6 August 1991.

~teerlber&; i. Personal C.ommunication 8 August l~l.

Texas Tech Unlvenity. 1981. f-u~=a Histo!!c Bnv.~i; Site fmentoix. Histmy of Enpieeijng Pro~~- 'I..ub~k, T~ • . n ·~-

U.S. Pepartment ofEgergy. 1983. Me&.',PhQCnk 500 kVTrnnsmissJOn Line Project Envirqnmental Impact Statement; Volume 4, C..Ulturs1 E~omnent Wasbingto~ D.C.

U.S. DiiPawnent of Interior. 1976. National Register and Supplements through ·:May 1988.

U.S. ~j>artment of Inter.or. 1987. The Yuma Re&ource Area Management Plan. /Bureau of Land Management, Yuma, Arizona.

U.S. Department oUnterior. 1980. The California Desert Consetvation Area Plan. Btµ"~u~oi·Land Management, Rivcrsi~c, California.

warren, a.Ude N. 1980. The Archaeology and Arcbaeolog!cal Resou.... of the Amarg6sa-Mojavc Basin ~ Units. Pp. 1-154_ in A Cul~ Remurce OveIView for the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Pianning' Units. California Bureau ofI.andManagemen~ Cultural Resources Publications,AnthropoJogy·Hjstoiy, Riverside.

Warren, Claude N. 1984. The Desert Region, '.ln"Califorma Archaeo!ogy, by Michael Moratto. Aca~mic Prey, New "r~t~

Warren, CaU<le N. llD<\ Robert Crabtree. 1986. ·.i'r,,bistoiy of Ilic-~ Area. In C-rcat Basin, edited by Wanen o·~ pp. 183-1_93. Handboot of North American Indians, Vol 11. ~ G. S~·gencraJ editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Warren, Oaudc, N. Martha Knact, and Elizabeth von Till Warren. t980A. Cu!turnJ Resource Overview for the Amargosa-~ojtwe Basin. Pl.arming Unit!. <;:aliromia Bureau of, Land Management, Cu!lli:al Resources Publicatiom, Anthropology-Histoiy, Riverside.

61'

Warren, Elizabeth von 'fill and Ralph 1. Roske. 1981A Cultural Resources Overview qf the'-Califomia ~rt, 1776-1980: Historic Tr~ and Wagon Roads. Bureau,of Land Managemcni:,,Rfyerside, California.

Warren, Eliza~th von Till, Rol:>ert Crabtree, d~!ldc M'Warr~n, ~a Knack, and Richard McCarthy. 1981A Cultural Resource Overview of the Colorado Desert Planning Units. Californi~ Buteau,of ~;and Management, 'Cultural Res.ources Publications, Anthrop,oJog,-H.istoiy, Riversi~e.

Woods, Clyde. 1983. Native Ameri~µ Interview No~es on ~~ with Dames & Moore. Denver, Coloi"ado.

62

- ,~- ~-- ~7~ . -... -.... ---"·~-· .:-- 3926

EXHIBITG

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COM1\1{SSION

l\ilITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING Pµ.N

FOR THE

TRANSWESTERN 'INTERCONNECT PIPELINE INITIAL STUDY

INTRODUCTION

this document contains the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (the Plan) for the Transwestem to Topock Interconnect Natural Gas Pipeline Project, a 12,500-foot connecting pipeline and associated facilities on the California/Arizona border east of Needles, California.

Recently adopted California statutory legislation (AB3180, CORTESE) requires public agencies to adqpt monitoring program.s to ensure that mitigation measures contained in :m Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, are effectively implementeq. This document e will be designed to ensure that n:iitigation measures contained in the Trans..;1estem to Topock Interconnect Pipeline Project Initial Study are properly monitored and implemented.

This plan consists of· a narrative text and attachments, and will serve as a part of the California State Lands Commission's Mitigatio~ Monitoring Program for this project.

IMPLEMENTATION

Responsibilities

The Transwestem Pip~line Company (Transwestem), its representative, or successors-in· interest,. remain responsible for full impl~mentation of all mitigation measure~ adopted from the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The California State Lands Commission (SLC) shall be responsible for a~nisteri1_1g and assuring full compliance with the provisions of this Plan. The SLC may delegate monitoring activities to other agencies, consultants, or contractorn. The SLC will also ensure tha~

1- ___ .__.. ____ ,_., --· : I••,~••' Ml"' 377 , "'-..r.• ""t,,- ., ~~ ••.• ,:::,... ... -,.

3927

monitoring reports are received complete, in a timely manner, and that violations are promptly corrected.

~eporting

Verification of Compliance and Non-Compliance Reports shall be prepared by the, project monitors using SLC approved forms. A copy of each report will be mailed to Transwestem or its designated representative, as well as to ail interested federal, state, and local agencies. Progress toward completion of the required mitigation program, or violations thereof, shall be -reported at ~teivals prescribed by the SLC to Transwestcrn and interested agencies.

COMPLIANCE

It is recommended that an SLC or SLC designated site·monitors be present at the site on a continuous basis throughout the construction and restoration phases of the project to ensure continuous complian~. Verification of monitoring-in-progress and verification of completed mitigations will be undertaken on a construction basis (installed increments) and shall be reYiewed by the SI·~ The SLC shall notify the.applicants in writing of successful completion of a mitigation ni~~ure within five working days of receipt ofa repqrt verifying completion.

VIOLATIONS

If a report identifies a violation of the ~tigation program, the SLC, within one war.king day of receipt, shall:

notify the applicant(s), or its desigµated,representative(s)'by telephone and order imm'!dfate compliance;

• prepar~ a written notification to the applicant(s), or its .designated representative(s) of the violaticm ordering compliauce; and

o identify the need for a follow-up field inspection.

If compliance is not achieved, work should be ~!{ij)ped until ctimpliance is achieved-and notification is given by the SLC that work may commence.

2 ,.._,, ----......... .. .. . .... --· 378 ... :. . ,.., · r .1l. • -::.-.,,'<lZL:.

.. ' \: -,. ._,,, 0

If a dispute arises concerning the implementation or success of a mitigation, the dispute may 9 be referred for legal a<:!tion. In such a case, work on the project will be stopped until the dispute is resolved.

FEES

All costs for the administration and implementation of the Plan shall be paid py the applicant(s).

ENFORCEMh"'NT AND PENALTIES

A determination of non~implementation ot non-compliance will result in ·immediate

notification by th~ SLC t.o the applkant(s) as described above. If possible, the SLC or SLC

designated monitors will order and achieve immediate compliance. If the project is not

brought into immediate compliance, a stop-work-order may be prepared. The period of

time the stop-work-order will be enforced will b~ the time required to assure compljan~ has

'reen achieved. Work on the projeC.t may not be resumed until compJiance is· achieved. Violations of an approved mitigati(in measure which are not discoy!!red until after

constructiop has been completed wW result in one or .more ~f the following actions:

written notificatio1 , and demand by the SLC for correction;

• issu.ance of an infraction citation;

.• filing for legal action;

• forfeiture of any bond trust·acco'unt, or·other financial assurance,.~nd/or

• action to recover funds assmed under a line of credit.

3

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

·FOR THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

An abridged version of each mitigation measure included in the Initial Study will be listed in the ~onitoring Plan in sequen~~al order as they occur in the Initfal Study. ~ adc;IJtion, the full text of the mitigation measure from the Initial Stud}' Willog!~ b~ included 1or reference. Fer ea~h mitigation measure, the program table includes specific inforni'ation as to when the measU!cj~- !§.~'applied and specifies who will~ responsible for monitoring the particular mitigation measure. Certain plans or reports require preparation by qualified individuals, and these are specified as needed. If :QOt~;pp¥ent in 'the wording of the mitigation measure, the cliteria to be utilized to determine whether the measure has been implemented satisfactorily is provided. Satisfactory completion of a mitigation measure or weekly compliance with the mitigation measure is indicated by a signature and a date in the app~·.Jpriate spread column.

The procedures fqr monitoring ce~ ac:tiviti~s are discus5.ed below:

The. program is designed to oversee the monitoring operations of the pipeline p1Jject. This will be accompJished by a tjtree-part system of in-field obser\tation of all construe• ;on activities, tracking of ~IJ .. papcnv,prk.-:f!!,ed/by the pipeline company, and post-constnictlon compliance monitoring.

This document presents a compilation of the mitigation measures required within the State of California for all· appropriate resource categories. The preparation of this booklet of mitigatich1 m~a,.sures-forms the basis for the monitoring efforts· of all concerned parti~s.

A. The iii-field monitoripg progrd.m shall'consist of teams of monitors who will track the field efforts of the pipeline environmental monitors. These teams will vaiy in composition d~pendant up?n field conditions. In general, a m9Itjtor will be present during construction and· will be responsible for .observing the construction activities in conjunction with the ~mpany monitors. His or her job will be to assure quality control of th~ company environmental monitors rather than directly participating in the monitoring actfyities. Tasks will inc~ude the following:

4 -·~-----. .... ......

380

=--· ·3930 .1 •

1. Following all activities associated with co~truction to determine that all mitigation measures are adhered to.

2. Observing and assisting the company environmental monitor in the completion of tai;ks. This would include assuring that proper procedures are used durll:tgi the construction:phase.

3; Provide writ~en documentation on the activities carried out g1:!fing th~ field observations as to the techniques used, the success of the techniques and possible solutions to any ~ifficulties identjfied in the field.

The in-field monitors will a~complish this work by having copies )f all construction diagrams for the construction areas they are assigned to. 1 hese construction diagrams should specifically outline the mitigation measures which must be employed. They should provide information on plant and animal species expected to be folind in the area, the cultural resources jdentified within both the construction ROW and a buffer <zone adjacent to the ROW and any general guidelines for construction mitigations and rehabilitation procedures., In addition to these construction draWings, -they should also have a complete package of all mitigation measures which must be 9 enforced. 1 hese gaidelines should adequately address all of the procedures which must be followed during both construction and revegetation and rehabilitation.

In most instances, lne in-field monitor should ·be a generalist who will have some knowledge in the fields of soils, biology, geology and cultural resources. Certain portions of the construction may require a more specialized monitor. Under these conditions, a specific monitor may be sent to an area. This would occur when. sensitive plant or animal species a;:c present, particularly sensitive cultural resources are encounterecj or other sensitive activities are occurring. These areas will be identified prior to initiating field work so that sched~g can be accomplished.

In-field monitors should serve primarily in an observational ~pacity; however, certain conditions may warrant a more active role. If an in-field monitor obseIVes a infraction of the mitigation procedures, that monitor should discuss the infraction with the company ~nvironmental monitor. If no response is given, the in-field monitor should immediately contact the company On-Site Environmental Coordinator (OEC).

5

In-field monitors will report to SLC's Monitoring Program SupeIVisor (~S) as well as other State and Federal agencies within California who wiSh to partiCipate in the program. They will provide weekly summaries of.the activities accomp~he_d during construction monitoring. They will identify any problems, report offenses-and will keep apprised of the progress of the spread so that scheduling for the specialists can be updated.

B. The Monitoring Program Supervisor (MPS) will be the main point of contact between the SLC in-field monitors1 any other State or Federal agency enviromnental compliance supervisors, and the, pipeline company's Field Environmental SupeIVisor (FES). The main responsibility of the ~S will be to supeIVise the work of the ine field monitors and to track the compliance procedures as outlined in the FERC.. ~ and SLC certificate5, iµid the BLM right-0f-way grant. They will be responsible for scheduling and assigning monitors, determining when and where specialist monitors will be required and tracking all of the paperwork filed both by the SLC monitors as well as the weekly paperwork and the monthly summaries filed by the company FES.

The MPS will prepare monthly reports w~ch will be submitted to the SLC and other interested agencies and copies of the report to each company FES. These reports will provide information on the areas under eonstruction, the timing of construction, the amount of time spent from initial blading to firµll-restoration and any problems encountered. Detailed reports on wildlife and plants encountered, cultural resources encountered and other mitigation measures required will be presented. ·These data

will be com~ared to the original .documentation presented on the construction specification ~awings. 'This information coupled with . incident reports on areas where the mi,tigation plan was not followed will be provided. The circumstances of the discrepancies will also be ·in~luded, e.g., the mitigation plan was not adequate to meet th~ needs of a specific situation, mitigation .~easures were inadvertently violated; or measures were intentionally violated. If the mitigation measures were not adequate to meet the needs of certain situations,, strategies to resolve the problem will be discussed. This ~hould include discussions with in-field personnel, discussions with the company FE: and- OEMs, and possibly cliscussion with experts in the particular discipline. When solutions are found, memos should be sent to all company FES to alert them to thii problems and the proposed solutions.

6

c. The ~al phase of the SLC monitoring program will involve conducting post- ft construction inspections. This will be accomplished by examination of the company provided records, examination of state and federal land mana~g agcw:;7 i'ecords, ~d .direct in-field obse~tions. In-field observations will be accomplished by either onground 'inspection and/or helicopter inspection. The goals of the program will be to determine if the mitigation measures.and the restoration plans as implemented by the pipeline company has been successful. This will be accomplished at the end of the fifth year of operation to assess· the approximate acreage for which revegetatiori has been successful and to assess the relative success of keeping vehicle traffic off the ROW and other mitigations applicable ~o the post-construction period.

Final field forms will be specific to construction locatjons, rather than containing information on the entire pipeline. This ~µ allow for space for a signature, date of approval and a space for notes and'comments ooncerning the monitoring program during fieldwork.

.Assumptions for' mitigation monitoring within the State of California consist of the following:

Biological and cultural resources will be the most important aspect of the California monitoring compliance, program. e

• A biologist and an archaeologist will be in the field duririg construction to assure that compliance with all mitigation measures are adhered to.

• Estimated field times for each spread is based on construction progress of approxima~ely one per day, from th~ start of clearing and grading throµgh replacement of topsoil and initiation of reclamation.

• An archaeologist will only be necessary on a fill-time basis for the clearing, grading and ditching operations. Following the ditching phase, the archaeologist will spot check areas with ·known sites to assure tlial iio disturbances to the cultural pJQp~rties liilS occurred.

7 ... -...........:...----..... "-"···-· ..... ,...~ ...... ·-......... ,.~,. 383

-~ .. ,.· 1'······ ·-... .. . . ·~ .. ... ... 93·3 . ... u . .... . '~

e

MITIGATION MEASURE REQUIREMENT TO Ca.IPLY

1. Tep Solt lanltfno I Reviewed during normal biological TopsQll fro11rncnctlaturbed areas will IDCt'lftorln; lnspectf0ns.

· be 1eparated .and atoclc·pfled along ~he pipeline allet'CM!llt. Once htckfflllne and recor.tourlrlQ have bten cocrpleted, thla soil shall be replaced •

. r • . '

I ·• l ., :.""'.) .. l :·:i i ........

I .. ..

' ~ r.:. 1·.,

. , , t Ii WI' ! r./)

~,·~! ,+:il ' Q'jl . ' ,.,_,

i ,....,

9, --rrH --

COMPANY: SPREAD:

MONITOR:·

-DATE/APPROVAL f·· MILEPOSTS COMHENrs

. ,, EARTH , _ _ _ J '

COMPANY: -~------ SPREAD: -----·----··

HITIGATIOll MEASURE REQUIREMENT TO COHPLY KOIHTOR: -------------

, DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS CC»IKENTS ---'

z. l'io)INI? ~t RevleMed during normal blolog{cal lllOflltorlng Inspections~

All areas of the ROIJ containing native vegetation ahall be restored by the replacement of the s~regated topsoil onto the dfsturbed ROU. After r~turn of th£ ·.t~1>fl and tile windrowed vegetation, the disturbed areas shall be fq:irlnted.

No llllllchlng, f~rtlllzation or reseeding shall toke place within the · Mojave Desert beyond tha replacement of the windrowed vegntat!on.

Arca• with a high potential; for either wind or wattr erosion sh&ll bo stabilized by·the use of a tactffler ' such aa J·tac (40·80 ·lbs/acr~).

l ? : ~ (::: 1 ' ' ' ,, \ i I 1· . I•'> i , ' l • 1 -;:,~: ' J ;"':1 E'' 1 ~ -./.:- ~ l J ;,,;.-- --· ' . i ::~ ~~ i .~

,,, ,, ~ . ~

-l I : . • i I CJ . f ~ ' Ci.) CJ

••• C/l CI; e e ~ .

·c ",IF=

I

;

_,

L•ITIGATION MEASURE

~:

3. Grading md Ero3ion Control

In addition to the replacem!!nt of topsoil, rock und natural pfant debris shall also be replaced.to reduce erosion potential.

Erosion control dflvices shell be placed where the pli)l?llne altsr41le!1tS or new access-r06ds are constructed on •lope• or In ot~or locatf~ •uch •• stream crossings-where- .erosion may occur.

)

l t

~ } I

•'

' .. : • >,. ". ,,. :: ....... :

:~·1 g.~ .. ~ .. ~, .. . "

. . - -· ~

l I: I II ~ j I ~ . c.,, G.) er. ~ ~

1 !

' I l ~

EA. -----~' - --

I "

COMPANY: SPREAD:

REQUIREMENT TO CotlPLY MONITOR: -

I " ' -DATE/APPROVAL - MILEPOSTS COMMENTS

Reviewed during normal biological .monitoring Inspections.

'

"

- ; I

' ~

'

~

·- . ~ ·-·

'•

'

'

MiTlGATION HEASURE

4. The ROU s~all be watered to reduce dust.

...... 1 C')

i ~~ ~ I t \:= r!: ; -·.f ~-I fVl ~ :;g :;:t1

oi".> ""I:) .. l"'i'\?. . "

! IJ 11 . '! ,..1 '1 '- ~\4.il f

1 '.~! I '-t~

''lCl:J I -'- t I

'"' l

..

" .. '· _J AIR

., " .

COMPANY: SPREAD:

REOUiREHENT TO Cat4PLY MONITOR:

"

DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COMMENTS

Reviewed during normal cor.struction inspections.

. " ..

. , ,. ''- .. .. " " . " ..

;

" "

. " .

..

.e e ~- .i ''. '''.;. :· •. ·~'. • ·, . :,. • '. .• . :· •• i' .. .• ,.' ·'' ,·:.\~ ~; > ~ . ' .. ·"

I e HIYIGATlOH MEASURE

5. Construction related vehicle emissions shall be reduced by using proper equipment.

:,..>

I ..... _.;

izr-l I"- ~'! .'.{ :z ~ f"i1 f:? ''"'t::: ..... ~ L ')..,; :-... 1 ' ~4-·., ~ ••

- -

r

IC. •• f ~I IQ:!~.1 t ,\.A.J.

• ' f

A9 COMPANY:

REQUIREMENT TO COHPLY MONITOR:

.,

DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS

Reviewed during normal construction inspection.

' '

SPREAD: .

COHHENTS

~· •. I '" _{-' . ,:, ~ : -. -· - . ,, ·- ,:

-.. .,;_

e :J I

] "

\

I

•,

HITIGATIOll HEASURE

6. Construction related vehicle emissions shall be reduced by using proper air·to·fuel ratios.

. j ... ~ i-i. , i :-;;.

'!9".., ..,

,.. ' ~ < t

c,., CJ) CJ

. - .......

c.o c-J er; cp

i '

I

"

,

_ _J AIR

COHPAllY: !.PREAO:

REQUIREHEllT TO COHPLY HO.'llTOft:

DATE/APPROVAL HILEPOSTS COKMi:NTS'

Reviewed during norm.,l construction inspection.

" "

-·

" _J

- e

:1\ 8

HITIGATIOll MEASURE

1. Hydrostatic test water will be purchased from the a-unlcipal water s~ly at the Golden Shores Resort on the Arizona side of the river, less then one mile north of the Interstate Highway 40. The total volune of water to be purchased for the hydrostatic tests is apprcximately 795,000 gallons. The hydrostatic test w'ater for the fol lowing sections of the pipeline will be transported and dischsrged at the propose<fscr~r station site in Section 10, T16N, R21~, Mohave County, Arizona: '

Transwestern to Topock 24 11 Pipeline (Proposed' Project And Project Option)

Transwestern 24 11 Pipe for Colorado River Bore ' (Proposed Project)

Transwestern ,to SOCAL 2011 Pipeline ,(Proposed Project aryJ Project Option)

The hydrostatic test water for the following section of the plj:lellne will be discharged Into a 38·foot x 38·foot x 3·foot deep discharge ~it on the west side of the PG&E C01Tpressor Station. The water will be discharged at a rate of 2500 gallons per 111in:.ite•''4lth a, sp!ash barrel to ::ontrol the flow ra~e and hay bales to trap solids.

Transweste'rn,to PG&E 2011 Pipeline (Proposed Project and'Project Option)

The hydrostatic test water for the following meter stations will be.discharged 'inside the meter ~tation fence at a rate controlled by the1meter'statlon piping valves. Hay bales wll l 'also, be used to ,trap sol ids. The tofl9grephy of the area will eliminate the pq?~i~jli{y for discharge water to run-off Into the otorodo River. J ; . :

Tf;eos~eflt~rn to PG&E and SOCAL Heter Stations ' ' } ·~ I • ·: i····TP

1, ~ ) I'

. 'J CD

. : d c.c J r , ~

' I

REOUIREHENT YO COHPLY

Reviewed during normal construction' inspections.

• e ----- J COMPANY:------------- SPREAD:

HONITOR: -----;----------


,. :r·';

~

~I ', : • •. •· -~ . -~v :·; • '

' • "'· t .... :. " • • •• • .. ... -... , <'(.,. \--~ ;

, ~ ,i;\' •

I . ···--= HYDROLOGY - SURFACE WATER

.r ' ,·~

-:. --- ~l

___ _J COMPANY: SPREAI/:

MITIGATION MEASURE REQU!REHENT TO COHPLY MONITOR: ---------------

tt===""".".==::========::::i::=:t============='=!=-~APPROVAL 8. If required bY s~nte or federal pcrmft, hydrostatic water (will] be tested and treated be'/ore release.

. " ~ -. ~

: l ( ,

; ti I

l d C .. .)' f I ~ii',· j ~ ,'l<N :

f-Ja .c.o ! ...... 9

Revlewe;i during normal construction fns~tfon. Applicable permit .·equlrements must be met.

1---

-r

:9

MILEPOSTS. Ci>KHENTS·

.. --H

~-

" ----

I: l

'' -·

-

I -I .

MITIGATION MEASU~:=.

9. Hydrostatic test water [will] bt-released properly to reduce the potential for scour.

!

:

I I

I i . ' '.

I I ! '

I i I

... .... I

l ~; ·-· .. I ....

• •1 ~·.., • .:I -;, I .· =·:1 ·I .......... '·' .. ¥ '

! 1 •"•I •l ·1 ~

·j :c~. ·1 . :{J) CJ I ~ ib. C,C I u f31tJ1 j N ! I ,, r ~

- '

.HYDROLOGY - .FACE WATER e ~ - -·" . ~

COHPANY: , SPJiEAD:

REQUIREMENT TO COHPLY MONITOR: ,,_ , __ "

. DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COMMENTS "

Reviewed during normal constructlr.•'I inspection. Applicable' i:>crmi t requl rernents rus.t be met.

~

.,

;

!

' .. "

I

' ..

I

I '- .

HITJGATIOll MEASURE

-10. Water discharged in hydrostatic testing CwillJ be done in accordance

I with l::!l, state encl federal permits.

t

.. ' ( .. ' '-~ :~::. l

I ., .. ' . .. .~. ~

I I . I ~ c.c CJ ~~A

.c..,, CJ v

r

_J' "

HYDROLOGY,_ SURFACE WATER ·--

COHPANY: SPREAD: -. REQUIREMENT TO COHPLY HOlllTOR:

DATE/APPROVAL ' MILEPOSTS C®IENTS '

Reviewed during normal constru::tfon inspection. Appl !cable permit miJst be obtained.

" .. "

" "

', .. "

''

,,

- e

-·

HITIGAilON MEASURE

- -11. Chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oil Cwilll not be stored near streem charinels. Any accidental spills shall

. be procrptly cleaned up.

.. . . \ I

,•" I ·- I . I .

I

1 i! I ~~· c~· . , '6~1 ~~: ~~i

: HYDROLOGY - .FACE WATER • J , ,,;;.."'-. ,;::. ·-" - ,, ,,

COMPANY: SPREAD:

REQUIREMENT TO COHPLY HONliOR: , ..

DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COKHENTS

Locations of all chemical, fuel, end 111Sintenance activities shall be identified on construction drawings. Reviewed during normal construction lnsi)e~tions.

.~

".

'

"

.,

'

;

:

' "

J ;

' ., ;

I

I MITIGATION MEASURE

12. Controls on Traific, Ac:cess, and construction Disturbente Aree Project-related activities shall be restricted to establls~ed roads, designated access roads, the constructfon Ro.I, end other designated project areas encl shall be examined during preconstruction surveys. Access roads shall be clearly flagged for use. The construction RO\l shall also be clearly marked at the centerline and outside boundaries.

I. I 'l

C.J I ~ • c.c ' c..,, ~ ·c.c Cit I tit -

- n

I PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE ..

, COHPANY: SPREAO: .. RE~UIREHENT TO COHPtr MONITOR:


Reviewed during normal biological

I I monitoring inspections.

)

I ~ ..

' .. -· '

- -

e -

'

c· -~ HITIGATION HEASURE

13. Clearing, Greding. end Dust eontro! Trees end large shrubs shell be avoided or removed prior to clearing. The upper two to six inches of topsoil from the construction RO'.l requiring grading shall be removed end windrowed with the vegetation-end kept separ~t~ frcm the rl!!llllinini1 Goi ls.

Grading shall be limited to that area necessary to perm It· movement and operation of equi~!llent.

Run-off from project activities into the Colorado River will be avoided.

I

-~. - '

ii I CJ 1 • J (./) .I

~ CJ ~ c.a er.

.. .. .

"

Pt.ANT. AND tlitMAL _LIFE • I " '

COMPANY: SPREAD: '

REQUIREMENT TO COtlPLY MONITOR:

" DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COMMENTS

Reviewed dur!r:g normal biological monitoring in~pections.

: :

{

I -~- '.. , . . . : .. '~ ' ( . .:L ! , . ·'

- - .. ~ • <"' ~·

-

I "

"

111TIGAT 10!1.HEASURE

,,

14. TopsoH St!lvage an:l Hundllng Surface materiel [from undlstur~ areas] ("topsoil"> Cwllll be salvaged from trenching and any gr!j(jing acti~ltles for preservation of top5oll &nd existing seedbanks in natural

, vegetation.

,

ii ' ' '

l:~ '

., I I' •;

CJ c,..,. tC CJ)

~ "'1, 8

.,

"

_J PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE ,, '-

..

COMPANY: SPREAD: "

REQUIREMENT TO COH?LY MONIToR: "

,.

DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COHHENTS

Review during normal biological I monitoring Inspections.

I

)

" "

I ·-

'I

- e ~ - ,_:~ ~~, :· ~),' .. ~:~.-'"~~;x~

-"~-~ f' ';.".'J ~~1 • ,~ • ~ iv.,. < :{'! .,f•,

v

1 _ ·- . -

PLANT AND il1MAL LIFE

COMPANY: SPREAD:

HlT!~~TION HE~SURE REQUIREMENT' TO COMPLY MONITOR: "

" DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COMMENTS

15. Trenching, 9lasting. and Reviewed during rY.lrmal biological Jmpectfons monitoring inspections. The trench rrust be backfilled as quickly as possible following lowering of the pipe. The maxil!'Ull length of open trench at any one time shall not exceed Cone) mile. For trenches not ' filled at the encl of the day. escape i·a1rps for wildlife shall be lnstal led ut distances OO· grea~er than 0.25 mile upart.

"

I

'

(

- . . . ~ ' _L_

" ' • •,.. r

I. . . I 1- •·

C·-' 1

I ~ . ~~ er. ·C.C

Q)

., ...... ' -. ·~ ' ' ': ; .. :~>~'_-,; : -'.; .. ,'~.·~~'.; ,. '. ·~{ ,_ 1';.,. ,, .,.:. ,-1 ·--·;-.~'

\

9, ,__J

"

,, -

--~-- PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE :=J/

L COMPANY: SPREAD:

· IGATIOll MEASURE ~ECUIREHEllT TO CCflPLY HOlllTOf!: ------------

. - -· I DATE/APPROVAL I MILEPOSTS

16. Pets. Cmaping. Fireanm. and llse of Aree. . '

Reviewed during normal biological monftor{ng Inspections.

COMMENTS

No C.tllll>lng sh11ll be permitted on the construction ROU. Only 11uthorh:ed' c~lng arean mey be utilized.

II I To pt'eVent hurassment, mortality, (1r destruction of dens/oorrO\ls of wlldlffq species, pets shall not bCl allowed-on the ROW, staging areas, accesi:: roeds or any other sites required for construction actlvlth:s. Firearms shall also be prohibited fn the same areac. u~uthorfzed workers shall not be permitted at construction

ll a·reas clurl~ non·achedulecl hours. '

, ",.I ===:=J~===::J=..==~==========!! 1 • ~~c!:r::

·1 I c .. n 1 CJ! ' .+a (.) ~ Cf)

CD e e e _'.i.f ;-:::<·;;·+,;~~::- \\, -- . : . ~(.: · _·; -,,-'-;;_ ,· · ·, 1~,.:- -_.~, •. ,- < , l _:, ·· , ;

- -

I - " "

PL.A~nw AND t}tMAL UFI;; _J -"

CGIPANY: SPREl.O:

HITIGAilON MEASURE REQUIREHEHT TO'~OHPLY MON HOR: .,

-''

DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COHHENTS "

'17. Trasl'l Control Reviewed durh'\9· normal biological To avoid attracting species of ccncern me>nftQrfng inspections. and potential predators, al\ food· related trash ~nd litter (wrappers, ' >, cans, bottles, 'food scraps) shall be. ·~ " placed fn !=l9~~(L~ntainers and . disposed ot .:.."!!_.; The ~~ricing RCU of each spread shall be [c~.eckedl dal,ly to remove any trash or litter which

· ll'.llY not.heve ooen disposed of . properly.

-

I

'1 :

'

I

' . t. . ,

,. .. ·t .. ( . ' !

I :... ' .. . ' ' . '

( i I ' I i• " • IJ.J

(~ ~ t:.1 0 0 :0

.. t;.~\:·.-~_'~}l~~~~t ·.·:.-,~ .. ;' '·-,,. "ff· .. ·.:' ·-(~~ ' ~-: i :~: . -~ /~ · .. : .... ~.:.~ <~~. /i . ::~:~ ? :: . ~·. ' ''i ..

c·

I 'jj,

HITIGATiOll HEASIJRE

" ,.

1S, Hnndl ing. end Dispc>Ml of . tia~crdous Kctericls Refueling and storage of hazardous mal:erials shall occur in previously dluturbed areas. ·Areas where · rel'uel Ing or storage of hazardous materials ls prohibited shall be Ol8r·ked by the enviromiental monitors. The storage of these materials rw!ar stre111ro shall be consist1mt with COFG Code 565Q.

I .. ~

'.

l '

i. I . t ,. • l I l..•J t

~~ Cit 0 .A ,_. ~ ..

I

"

I' PLANT ·AND ANIMAL LIFE . '

l COHPANY: SPREAD:

P.EOUIREHENT TO Coi-IPLY MO!HTOR: .. ··~

~ :!_ _} -

·- DATE/AP?ROVAL MILEPOSTS . COfo!t1ENTS .. ' . , Revicwed 1durlng normal bioloeical 'monitorin~ Inspections.

"

'

l '

. .. . ---

e -· .. ~- ·. ·:: ·,,. . . :.~·_._ ~·· ·'.::::' .:.:.'.~ :.:'.J\:.

{[ ,

I I I HITIGATloH MEASURE

--

19. Fire Cootrol Pr-ocecllres llQ tl'ash·burning fires shl'll··bc Permitted In the constructi0n;area. VP.·,fcles used fo thE. ROU with

I 'C<otalytlc COnVert~rs Sh!lll bc;equipPcd with shielding or other accept~ble ff re pr~ventlon features. Construction sprcac!3>111Jst be equipped with fire extin\iui~hers, with workers trained in I their use. Fire resistant 1U1ts and/or

. ·wfnd screen.~ shall be placed.on the ,1 ,;grciood below weldir.9 and grlndi'lg

\

'

operation's whenever dry vegetation is present.

SU?f'.'~~isors shall have the names of lce0l fire fighting agencies. A detailed.fire plan shall, be pr~pared as a standard part of a BAL~ Construction, Operation and Maintenance Plan.

' . "

.. >

! . I t c.; , ~~ r,1to °"' WN

.•

·- -~L4NT.AND,tiJIMAL LJFE .. .e JI _,. \ _____ '

" " .-·- .. --J ·ciilPANY:

/

" -SPREAD:

REOUIREKENT TO COMPLY HONITOR: ,. . -

DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS ' " CGIHENTS

.. ,. " Reviewed during normal biologicsl m0nltorlag ini;pectfons.

"

;

-· I

" ··'

. " I (

I. ~

i I

, . ...... u

~-

Ir=== -

HITIGAflON MEASURE

r-:-20. COllectfon and l_larasSRCnt of Species No intentional killing or collection of either plants or wildl;1e':~all be permitted. No intentional d~ge to trees or other vegetation shall be permitted outside·of· tile".:onetruction llW ~his shall inc.l~e the collection of, ,plants lncludifig cact I wl thout prior authorization.

! , i I · . i I c..r , . ~·~ OT o· c..: ~ e

- -- -- -

REQUIREMENT TO COHPLY '

Reviewed during n01'11al biological , monitorin~ inspecti~p.

;

~

:

,'

,•

.,

.. - 1'

COMPANY: '.SPREAD:

HONITOR: "

._, . - - ,..;:; ~/

DATE/APPROVAL · HllEPCSTS CoMMENTS,, . ,,

' ' - ~ ; "'

I

---'

' ,. '

- -,.· ~ ~~ ";~' " , ~·:·,-. , .... > ,' ~. :;r~· ::· ·,. '" , , .. '.

~ --· ,

L. 1•mGATI0<1 MEASURE

,. "

21. ileon·.:.p Atfer construction is coopleted1 a final R~ cleen·up shall include removal of ell stakes, 'lathis, flagging, barrels, cans, drur.s, accidental spills and any other refuse generated by construction. No shrub

' !118teri al or other plant cover'· shall be. disturbed durin~ this process.

I '

' • i i l I

' I I

. I . l. ,. I f ' ! i I c ,; •' .ii ~'1 CJt·o ~:~i

:

'

I PLANT AND IMAL LIFE -~ . ...:~. ~ ~ •,:<.- -- .. I

I COHPAN':'· SPREAD:

REQUIREMENT TO COHPLY HOHlTOR: - - "

DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSfS COMMENTS ' ' .. ',.

Reviewed during normal biological monitoring inspections.

'· ,

..

·~ . ...

"

,

,., -"

. c MITIGATION MEASURE

" 22. Surfoce Restoration Reeontouring to natural lines and grlldf: rust be eccetrpl ished without disruption to adjacent· un':fisturbcd heblt:at. Sediment collected behind te<ll>C>rary hay bales Shel t be-;~,...,. .. ....i_ Permunent water breakers end/or terraces sholt be constructed across the nou on sloping grOund to prevent erosion. On steep grades, earth· fflled sacks or stone riprap shall be used as deter~ined necessary to stebil ize the ground curface. '

, ' I •

.~-.. !..' J j ~ .. , -~ { 1 ;.-: ' '} l • •lli ,,,,

i , ,\...' ... 'i !; ' ~ ~ ij . ~!. l

I I • • • '

.t "' ' . '~ ,. '~ .

. c~ r+::ii ·CC; -,.,..• . .,; A. 'Ul Cit •

J PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE - -

'COHPAllY: SPREAD: ,,

REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY MONITOR:

DATE/APPROVAL· MILEPOSTS. COKMENTS

Reviewed during normal biological monitoring inspections.

·1

.

'.

" ''

- e

I 9

I HlTIGATIOll HEAS~RE

23. ?f:>Gt-Constru::tim Access Control

The permanent RO'ol may be used to access the pipeline in emergency situation: as defined under conditions stlpulated\~:,the Agencies. Damage to vegetation ~ the RO\J shall be fixed and the ROW restor~ as soon es posslbl<! fol lowing the emergency. The appropriate agencies shall .b;! notified. .. Signs shall be posted indicating the ROW is closed to vehicles.

''

1 ~.:: "" I ) ·.-:: I ' ' . I" : • •

I ; .. :j ~- . ·' • t ~ lJ ._ : I

'l '• .

l I

·c.; ,c.c ·Cll 1~/,:.ll .o . I~

.

PLANT. ANoWiuMAL LIFE .e _ _J CC»1PANY: !.PREAO:

REOUIREHENT TO COMPLY KONITOI!: ..

DATE/APPROVAL HILEPOSTS - " ~~· COHHENTS .

ReviewecLduring normal biologicar ~itoring Inspections. Should be checked In post·cor:~tructlon Inspections.

'

.

..

' "

.. . . ..

I . . ~LANT ANp ANIMAL LIFE • . J COMPANY: SPREAD: __ ·- .._....._

HITIGATJON MEASURE REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY' HOllliOR: --------------

.. , DATE/APPROVAL HILEPOSTS COHllENTS

24. , Post·Construc~ion Environms1tal Reports shal bbe reviewed by SLC ' ) Konitoring and Reporting and other identified agencies.

If habitat c~nsation or specific reclrimatlon 111easures ore required, .. which can be measur<:d, post· • ' .. con$truction MOnltorlng and reporting will· take place.

P~st·construction mtinitcring shall meet two b&sic objective!:\: 1) to .. • assess actual Ir.pacts that oecur - " during construction, and i.'> to snonitor other mitigations. Po~t·i0nstruction Inspection of the project area shall

, -e conducted by thecenvirorrnental monitoring teem ilfter coapletion of, clean-up and'surface restQra~J~n. · · ··

A final construction monittring report . shall be prepare<:!. i>ost··construction

monitoring shall be ur.i:fertllker. at the ,

end of the fifth year of ~ration. ~--~-·~--~-------~------------------~----~!

!

• . .. ;. .. , .. ~.~:!~~ ~ .. ~

':· ~ ,_:-•. ' l ' . ·, ;

i ~ I

(...} ' l'I'\· -.C...~, C/l ~-~ 0 • -

~1 . ' . " . . ~"' -" , ,. I ~ .. • • • -~~ • t.. ) ~,~ ... •' ,\-:;: ; :: .. -l1

\L '9'

MITIGATION MEASURE

.--1 25. Eq.i•pi:ent Operation Inspection and~afnt~ Slnco most operation of facilities is by reaiote cc>ntrol, site visits er~ mainly related to inspection end maintenance. Access to sites shall be lfmlted to access roads, or newly constructed roads approved BS part of the prQJect. All personnel sh~ll attend.regular meetings to be reminded abc.ut safety and envi ronnental concerns.

; I

i .. i •.

I

I

c.~ ,. {J)' I c.n ' .CJ;~·

0 Qj

.. "

"

PLANT AND' 91MAL LIFE \i ' L_J

,. -....~ ~

' COMPANY: SPREAD:

REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY HOlllTOR:

" " -. DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COW!Er.7:>

"

l Plans shell be sul:mltted to SLC ond other ld~rtifled •?encles.

"

' " "

" "

..

-

"

-

,, - -- " ~ '"'

-' ,_.:·,:.·,,< '_/. '"~":

"'

I PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE :J -" ''. '

COHPANY: SPREAD:

HlTlGATION HEASURE REOUl~EHENT TO COHPLY MONITOR: ., " "

" DATE/APPROVAL MILEPOSTS COHHENTS, A -1 26. Rodenticides and Herbfcidc:'I Plans shall be submitted to SLC '

If rodenticfde,~n<l/or herbicide u~e is end other identifi~ agencies. required, the pfi:;~l ine coq>any she-fl contect the USFIJS and CDFG for rev::ew and concurrent with the proposed .. activity.

I. i -. "

I ,_ A -

---

'

i I

1 ~ i .... " . . ... ~ .. . "J ~ ' . •

'; . ' .-

~

I ii It: l J le~ ,

1 ICC>. "-· ,.,..,~

' "''' Cl .r~-:-· c.p .. I, I w e e

I

;, ·

I

l

e ..

HITIGATION MEASURE

27. Corltingency .-.tens Each pipeline coapany shall prepare appropriate con'cingency plans and procr.dures prior to initiation of operations and present them to the Ag~cfes for review. These plans shall outline procedures for contacting the Ageoc:ies under a variety of situations which may occur. The plans 11hal l provi_dc procedures for notiflcoti~Q._.co~~r~r,g emergencies related to'pipelfne leaks or rupture and whet will constitute an emergency; plans for protecting the biological resources during·emergen::y operations; procedures for ecccnplfshing routine nia!ntenence; and plans for consultation with the Agencies for unfores~en circllTl!:tences.

'

'

l . I

' I

~ I .. I i

i ,· ·, i , ,f C)' ~. :J~; . c.c~:

cr;o; o I I

..

~ ~

-PLANT AND AIMAL L!FE ·9 J - --~

. - -· ' ~

·oCOHPANY: SPREAD:

REaulREHENT TO.COMPLY HOHITOR: .

DATE/APPROVAL HILEPOSTS COMMENTS " I - ..

Plans shall be submitted to SLC and other Identified agencies.

I

" -~

' v

~ , . ,

J . . . ..

,

"

' L .. I

< .f • "\. ~· ..... ' ::. ~~~ .. :i:·· .· ... '·

'

I

HITIGATIOH MEASURE

--- ~~

28. Desert Tortoise The area In Cai. i fornla traversed l)y the pipe,l inc route mentioned no sign of desert tortolze during earlier preconstru.:tion surveys for the Mojave Pipeline. Project. Al though the area was classified us non· habitat for tort~!'les (BicSystems 'Analysis, Joe. files), 8 desert tortoise survey wll l be c~tcd prior to construction of this pipeline.

··All are3~ within the projected cOn.1tructlon R!l'l not prevloosly disturbed wfl l be surveyed for·slgn of tortoises, Including lridlvlduels, ~rows, scot, c11~casses, eggshell fragacnts,

other signs. me survey wit l te<l:onducted by experienced tortoise biologists ,following

, Y.S.fUS survey guidel l~s.

If to~toises are observed above·grOIXld, they will nC:t be moved, but their locati0n wilt be rY.>ted a.~ 'made available to the biological 111 nitor·; Tortoise burrows found :w1 l l be exe.'llined to assess occupancy st'atus. Tortoises will be r"emoved from 111:th•e burrows and relocated at least 150 feet nwa)0 from the R U ~o en ~xlstlng, uno<:cupled burrow. If on existing burrow cannot be loceted, un 'artificial burrow will be construetL'cl. Hancll Ing of tortoises wll l follow pl·otocol developed by agency biologists for the ~ern Rlver·Hojeve pipeline project. -

A biological monitor wilt be present during COl}St~tlon activities 'In the California i>ort!orl·~f ,the pipeline route. The monitor will Ot:,11 ~!ologist with prior experience in tortofp&c~onclllng protocol; ,nc1 will be fl.lmlller.wfth constrt.!!:tion monitoring. The sior.ttoi- wi(l be responsible for moving tortoises (n the unlikely.event tho~ eny'ere observed in the P.O\I during construction. Tortoise h'nclling procedures will follow those devetope<I by ogency-biologists for the Kern D;··--.ia_ • ...... ~- nfnt,,·1 ioe ecaiect -- ~- '

I i i Cj ;f {C. ;t

~·~A ,.....~ .. :~

- "

J PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE -

l C0!1PANY: ., SPREAD: -REQUl~~HEllT TO COMPLY HO!llTOR: ..

DATE/A'.'PROVAL MILEPtiSTS ,COOMENTS ,

Revi~wed during normal bioto~lcal monitoring inspections.

' v

,.

' '

'r ~ ~.

; ~

-

;

·~ ~-

'

~ t "

, ;i ,_ . ~--

- ~,

[ ~~ ,- ...

HITIGATION MEASURE

29. Avoidant::e of the water tower adj11cent to the AT&SF line and the historic transmission line, which ,par~llels the r.olorado River on the California sio..,;.

I.

t • ...

I

' .

. ' .1 I

C..} .f -~ ~ ~~ N~·

,l'--j .

.

"'

: ~

,,

~1 "

CULTURAL JlsouRq~s -"

COMPANY: SPREAD~ ' , REQUIREMENT TOlCOHPLY MONITOR:

" DATE/APPROVAL, HI LE POSTS COMMENTS

-- ! Reviewed .. Juring normal constrUc:tion Inspections.

,,

.,

' :

.. "

'-

: I

CULTURAL RESOURCES _J .,

I "

COMPANY: srREAD:

I HIT!PATION MEASURE REOUJ R.EHENT TO COHPL Y MONITOR:

''

DATE/APPP.OVAL MILEPOSTS COHHENTS

!;:•· AddiH~l <~k•Uoo with "1 "''""" dudng M~l )

ocal Nativ~ American c~lty, construction ln~pectlons. I '"''""'"" '~'"'''" ,..,, .... as:-:haeological 'resources potentl.llly affected by the project, as well as ..

: ethnograph,ic resources.

~

J ·-

-

\

I "

. . ,

" ',

\

l "

. ·1

-~·

' z

.: I , • I

Ci) t ! ~~

~~'.. • -- . "' - . _.: ... •/ ~. -... .. ,

. . . . ~ ' ... '.-. ' ' ..

Documents

1...1991/11/05 · AREA, TYPB LAND AND LOCATION: A o.so±-acre parcel of land in the Colorado River near Topock, Arizona, and the Interstate Highway 40 river crossing, San Bernardino