Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report and 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment

Volume I

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

FERC/EIS-0200

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000, -001, -002

CP01-23-003

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC

Cooperating Agencies:

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

California State Lands Commission

Sacramento, CA

JUNE 2007

CSLC EIR No. 739

State Clearinghouse No. 2006081127

BLM Reference No. CACA-42662

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
California State Lands Commission

Sacramento, CA

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC

Cooperating Agencies:

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

FERC/EIS-0200

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 -001, -002

CP01-23-003

CSLC EIR No. 739

State Clearinghouse No. 2006081127

BLM Reference No. CACA-42662

JUNE 2007

Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report and 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment

Volume I

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report and 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment

Volume II - Appendices

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

FERC/EIS-0200

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000, -001, -002

CP01-23-003

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC

Cooperating Agencies:

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

California State Lands Commission

Sacramento, CA

JUNE 2007

CSLC EIR No. 739

State Clearinghouse No. 2006081127

BLM Reference No. CACA-42662

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
California State Lands Commission

Sacramento, CA

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC

Cooperating Agencies:

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

FERC/EIS-0200

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000, -001, -002

CP01-23-003

CSLC EIR No. 739

State Clearinghouse No. 2006081127

BLM Reference No. CACA-42662

Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report and 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment

Volume II - Appendices

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

JUNE 2007

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
In Reply Refer To:

OEP/DG2E/Gas 1 

North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

FERC Docket Nos. CP06-61-000, -001, -002 

 CP01-23-003 

CA State Clearinghouse No. 2006081127 

BLM Reference No. CACA-42662 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

The environmental staffs of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), the 

California State Lands Commission (CSLC), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (collectively 

referred to as the Agency Staffs) have prepared this final environmental impact statement/environmental 

impact report and proposed land use plan amendment (final EIS/EIR/plan amendment) to address North Baja 

Pipeline, LLC’s (North Baja) proposed expansion of its natural gas pipeline system. 

This final EIS/EIR/plan amendment was prepared as required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

The purpose of this document is to inform the public and the permitting agencies about the potential adverse 

and beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project or 

proposed Project) and its alternatives, and recommend mitigation measures that would reduce the significant 

adverse impacts to the maximum extent possible, and, where feasible, to a less than significant level. The 

Agency Staffs have concluded that if the Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable 

laws and regulations, North Baja’s proposed mitigation, and the Agency Staffs’ additional mitigation 

measures, it would be an environmentally acceptable action. 

The FERC is the lead Federal agency and will use the document to consider the environmental 

impacts that could result if it issues North Baja a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a 

Presidential Permit amendment under sections 7 and 3, respectively, of the Natural Gas Act. The CSLC is the 

lead State agency and will use the document to consider North Baja’s application to amend its existing rightof-way lease across the State’s Sovereign and School Lands in conjunction with the environmental impacts 

that could result from any part of the Project in California. 

The BLM is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this document because the 

Project would cross Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Palm Springs-South Coast, El Centro, and 

Yuma Field Offices. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is also a cooperating agency in the preparation of 

this document because lands administered by the BOR would be crossed by the Project. Under section 185(f) 

of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the BLM has the authority to issue Right-of-Way Grants for all affected 

Federal lands. This final EIS/EIR/plan amendment will be used by the BLM to consider whether to amend 

North Baja’s existing Right-of-Way Grant and issue Temporary Use Permits for the installation of 

approximately 67.4 miles of pipeline and ancillary facilities across Federal lands managed by the BLM, the 

BOR, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This final EIS/EIR/plan amendment will also be used 

by the BLM to consider amending the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (as amended), which would 

be necessary for pipeline construction outside of designated utility corridors, as well as amending the Yuma 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2 

District Resource Management Plan, which would be necessary for pipeline construction across the Milpitas 

Wash Special Management Area. 

The BLM proposes to adopt this final EIS/EIR/plan amendment per Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 1506.3 to meet its responsibilities under NEPA and its planning regulations per Title 

43 CFR Part 1610. The BLM will present separate Records of Decision for the Right-of-Way Grant and the 

plan amendments for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project after the issuance of the final EIS/EIR/plan 

amendment. The concurrence or non-concurrence of the BOR and the FWS would be considered in the 

BLM’s decision. 

The existing North Baja system is currently certificated by the FERC to transport 512,500 dekatherms 

per day (Dthd) (500 million standard cubic feet per day [MMscfd]) of natural gas in a southbound direction. 

Once completed, the expanded system would be capable of transporting up to 2,932,000 Dthd (2,753 

MMscfd) of natural gas from planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage and vaporization terminals located 

on the Baja California coast in Mexico in a northbound direction for delivery to customers in California and 

Arizona. In addition to the new volumes from the LNG terminals, North Baja would continue to offer 

southbound gas transportation service for several existing shippers. 

This final EIS/EIR/plan amendment addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction 

and operation of the following facilities proposed by North Baja: 

• up to 79.8 miles of pipeline loop1

 (B-Line) adjacent to North Baja’s existing pipeline (ALine) consisting of 11.7 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending from the existing 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station at milepost (MP) 0.0 in La Paz County, Arizona to the 

existing Rannells Trap at MP 11.7 in Riverside County, California, and 68.1 miles of 48-

inch-diameter pipeline extending from Rannells Trap to an interconnection at the U.S.-

Mexico border at MP 79.8 in Imperial County, California; 

• 2.1 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline lateral2

 (Arrowhead Extension) extending from the 

proposed B-Line at MP 7.4 to Southern California Gas Company’s (SoCalGas) existing 

Blythe Compressor Station in Riverside County; 

• 45.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline lateral (Imperial Irrigation District [IID] Lateral) 

extending from MP 74.5 of the B-Line near the existing Ogilby Meter Station to the existing 

IID El Centro Generating Station in Imperial County; 

• modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station in LaPaz County and the 

existing Ogilby Meter Station in Imperial County to allow northbound flow of natural gas; 

• metering modifications inside the existing El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) Meter 

Station at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site to allow LNG-source gas to be delivered 

into the El Paso system; 

• one meter station (Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station) at SoCalGas’ existing Blythe 

Compressor Station in Riverside County to measure gas delivery from the North Baja system 

to SoCalGas; 

 

1

 A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. The loop allows more gas 

to be moved through the system. 2

 A lateral pipeline typically takes gas from the main system to deliver it to a customer, local distribution system, or another interstate transmission 

system. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3 

• one meter station (El Centro Meter Station) at the IID’s existing El Centro Generating 

Station in Imperial County to measure gas delivery from the North Baja system to the IID; 

• two taps and crossover piping where the Arrowhead Extension would connect with the 

existing A-Line and proposed B-Line in Riverside County; 

• one tap where the IID Lateral would connect with the proposed B-Line in Imperial County; 

• four pig3 launchers; 

• five pig receivers; 

• nine remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the B-Line, adjacent to 

the existing A-Line valve sites; and 

• four remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the IID Lateral. 

The final EIS/EIR/plan amendment has been placed in the public files of the FERC and the CSLC and 

is available for public inspection at: 

Federal Regulatory Energy Commission 

Public Reference Room 

888 First St. NE; Room 2A 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 208-1371 

California State Lands Commission 

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

(916) 574-1938 

The final EIS/EIR/plan amendment is also available for viewing on the FERC and CSLC websites at 

the Internet addresses below. 

www.ferc.gov www.slc.ca.gov

A limited number of copies of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment are available from the FERC’s 

Public Reference Room identified above. These copies may be requested in hard copy or as .pdf files on a 

CD that can be read by a computer with a CD-ROM drive. In addition, copies of the final EIS/EIR/plan 

amendment have been mailed to Federal, State, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native 

American tribes; affected landowners; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors to the FERC’s proceeding; 

and other interested parties. Hard copies of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment can be viewed at the following 

libraries in the Project area: 

Yuma County Library District 

350 3rd Avenue 

Yuma, AZ 85364 

Imperial Public Library 

200 W. 9th Street 

Imperial, CA 92251 

Palo Verde Valley Library 

125 W. Chanslorway 

Blythe, CA 92225 

City of Rancho Mirage Public Library 

42-520 Bob Hope Drive 

Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 

 

3

 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4 

El Centro Public Library 

539 State Street 

El Centro, CA 92243 

Glen Avon Library 

9244 Galena Street 

Riverside, CA 92509 

Hemet Public Library 

510 E. Florida Avenue 

Hemet, CA 92543 

Palo Verde District Library 

701 Silver Spur Road 

Rollins Hills Estates, CA 90274 

Holtville City Library 

101 E. 6th Street 

Holtville, CA 92250 

Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC’s Office of External Affairs at 1-

866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the 

eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the 

Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact 

FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact 

(202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet website also provides access to the texts of formal 

documents issued by the FERC, such as orders, notices, and rule makings. 

 In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of 

all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend 

researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document 

summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription link on the 

FERC Internet website. 

 Information concerning the involvement of the CSLC in the EIS/EIR process may be obtained from 

Tom Filler, Project Manager, at (916) 574-1938, or on the CSLC Internet website at www.slc.ca.gov. 

 Information concerning the proposed land use plan amendments and the involvement of the BLM in 

the EIS/EIR and plan amendment process may be obtained from Lynda Kastoll, Project Manager, at (760) 

337-4421. 

 The CSLC is expected to consider certification of the final EIS/EIR and act on North Baja’s 

application at a regularly scheduled meeting in mid-2007. Interested parties will be notified of the date, time, 

and location of the meeting. If you have any questions regarding the CSLC hearing, or wish to testify, please 

contact Tom Filler at the number above. 

Kimberly D. Bose 

Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Paul D. Thayer 

Executive Officer 

California State Lands Commission 

Elaine Zielinski 

Arizona State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

Mike Pool 

California State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

i 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment 

VOLUME I Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... i 

LIST OF APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................vii 

LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................viii 

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... xi 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................xii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES................ ES-2

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AREAS OF CONCERN ..................................................... ES-4

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES...................................... ES-6

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................................................................... ES-25

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE......................................................... ES-27

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................... ES-27

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES, PURPOSE, AND NEED ......................................................1-2

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS EIS/EIR ..................................................................1-7

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............................................................1-8

1.2.2 California State Lands Commission ...................................................................1-9

1.2.3 Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation...............................1-10

1.2.4 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ...................................................................1-11

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT..........................................................................1-11

1.4 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ........................................................................1-19

1.4.1 Background.......................................................................................................1-19

1.4.2 Conclusions.......................................................................................................1-22

1.5 CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS......................................1-24

1.5.1 Bureau of Land Management ...........................................................................1-24

1.5.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .........................................................................1-27

1.5.3 Southern California Association of Governments ............................................1-27

1.5.4 Counties and Municipalities .............................................................................1-28

1.6 PERMITS, APPROVALS, CONSULTATIONS, AND REGULATORY 

REQUIREMENTS.........................................................................................................1-32

1.7 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS ..............1-37

1.7.1 Regulatory Requirements .................................................................................1-37

1.7.2 Need for Plan Amendments..............................................................................1-37

1.7.3 Identification of Issues......................................................................................1-39

1.7.4 Planning Criteria...............................................................................................1-39

1.7.5 Alternatives Considered in the Analysis...........................................................1-39

1.7.6 Agency Coordination........................................................................................1-40

1.7.7 Public Participation...........................................................................................1-40

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

ii 

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES...............................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities.......................................................................................2-3

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................................................2-4

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities................................................................................................2-7

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities.......................................................................................2-9

2.2.3 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards...................................................................2-10

2.2.4 Access Roads ....................................................................................................2-10

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES..............................................................................2-11

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures .......................................................2-12

2.3.2 Special Construction Techniques......................................................................2-16

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures...............................................2-24

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE...................................................................................2-24

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION 

MONITORING..............................................................................................................2-25

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS.................................2-28

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ................................................................2-29

3.0 ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 FACTORS USED IN THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................3-1

3.1.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process .............................................3-1

3.1.2 Alternatives Screening Methodology .................................................................3-1

3.1.3 Summary of Screening Results...........................................................................3-2

3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................................3-2

3.2.1 No Project Alternative ........................................................................................3-2

3.2.2 System Alternatives ............................................................................................3-5

3.2.2.1 Other Existing Pipeline Systems .........................................................3-6

3.2.2.2 Pipelines From Other Onshore and Offshore LNG Projects 

Proposed in California.........................................................................3-7

3.2.3 Route Alternatives ..............................................................................................3-8

3.2.3.1 B-Line Route Alternatives...................................................................3-8

3.2.3.2 IID Lateral Route Alternatives ..........................................................3-10

3.2.4 Route Variations ...............................................................................................3-24

3.2.4.1 East Mesa North Route Variation......................................................3-24

3.2.4.2 Imperial Valley Route Variations......................................................3-24

3.2.5 Alternative Delivery Points - Arrowhead Alternative ......................................3-28

3.2.6 Aboveground Facility Site Alternatives............................................................3-32

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................4-1

4.1 GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................4-3

4.1.1 Significance Criteria ...........................................................................................4-3

4.1.2 Geologic Setting .................................................................................................4-3

4.1.3 Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................4-8

4.1.4 Geologic Hazards................................................................................................4-9

4.1.5 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................4-23

4.1.6 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................4-27

4.2 SOILS ............................................................................................................................4-28

4.2.1 Significance Criteria .........................................................................................4-28

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

iii 

4.2.2 Existing Soil Resources ....................................................................................4-28

4.2.3 General Impact and Mitigation .........................................................................4-35

4.2.4 Site-specific Impact and Mitigation..................................................................4-38

4.2.5 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................4-41

4.3 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................4-42

4.3.1 Significance Criteria .........................................................................................4-42

4.3.2 Groundwater Resources....................................................................................4-42

4.3.2.1 Existing Groundwater Resources ......................................................4-42

4.3.2.2 General Impact and Mitigation..........................................................4-44

4.3.2.3 Water Supply Wells...........................................................................4-46

4.3.3 Surface Water Resources ..................................................................................4-47

4.3.3.1 Existing Surface Water Resources ....................................................4-47

4.3.3.2 General Impact and Mitigation..........................................................4-51

4.3.3.3 Major and Sensitive Waterbodies......................................................4-54

4.3.3.4 Streambed Alteration Agreement ......................................................4-56

4.3.4 Groundwater and Surface Water Uses During Construction............................4-58

4.3.5 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................4-60

4.4 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................4-61

4.4.1 Significance Criteria .........................................................................................4-61

4.4.2 Existing Wetland Resources .............................................................................4-61

4.4.3 General Impact and Mitigation .........................................................................4-63

4.4.4 Site-specific Impact and Mitigation..................................................................4-66

4.4.5 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................4-67

4.5 VEGETATION..............................................................................................................4-68

4.5.1 Significance Criteria .........................................................................................4-68

4.5.2 Existing Vegetation Resources .........................................................................4-68

4.5.3 General Impact and Mitigation .........................................................................4-70

4.5.4 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value....................................4-78

4.5.5 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants.......................................................4-78

4.5.6 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................4-80

4.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................4-81

4.6.1 Significance Criteria .........................................................................................4-81

4.6.2 Wildlife.............................................................................................................4-81

4.6.2.1 Existing Wildlife Resources ..............................................................4-81

4.6.2.2 General Impact and Mitigation..........................................................4-83

4.6.2.3 Migratory Birds .................................................................................4-85

4.6.2.4 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats and Species........................4-87

4.6.3 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................4-89

4.6.3.1 Existing Aquatic Resources...............................................................4-89

4.6.3.2 General Impact and Mitigation..........................................................4-90

4.6.3.3 Site-specific Impact and Mitigation ..................................................4-91

4.6.4 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................4-92

4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES.......................................................................................4-93

4.7.1 Significance Criteria .........................................................................................4-93

4.7.2 Regulatory Requirements and Species Identification .......................................4-93

4.7.3 General Impact and Mitigation .........................................................................4-94

4.7.4 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................4-101

4.7.4.1 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.....................................................4-101

4.7.4.2 Yuma Clapper Rail ..........................................................................4-103

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

iv 

4.7.4.3 Desert Tortoise ................................................................................4-104

4.7.4.4 Razorback Sucker............................................................................4-107

4.7.4.5 Peirson’s Milk-vetch .......................................................................4-108

4.7.5 State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species ...........................................4-109

4.7.5.1 Arizona Bell’s Vireo........................................................................4-109

4.7.5.2 California Black Rail.......................................................................4-110

4.7.5.3 Gila Woodpecker.............................................................................4-111

4.7.5.4 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo .......................................................4-111

4.7.5.5 Algodones Dune Sunflower ............................................................4-112

4.7.5.6 Wiggins’s Croton.............................................................................4-112

4.7.6 Other Special Status Species...........................................................................4-113

4.7.6.1 Colorado River Cotton Rat..............................................................4-113

4.7.6.2 Desert Bighorn Sheep......................................................................4-113

4.7.6.3 Brown-crested Flycatcher................................................................4-114

4.7.6.4 Burrowing Owl................................................................................4-114

4.7.6.5 Crissal Thrasher...............................................................................4-115

4.7.6.6 Ferruginous Hawk ...........................................................................4-116

4.7.6.7 Le Conte’s Thrasher ........................................................................4-116

4.7.6.8 Summer Tanager .............................................................................4-117

4.7.6.9 Vermilion Flycatcher.......................................................................4-118

4.7.6.10 Yellow-breasted Chat ....................................................................4-118

4.7.6.11 Colorado River Toad .....................................................................4-119

4.7.6.12 Couch’s Spadefoot Toad ...............................................................4-119

4.7.6.13 Flat-tailed Horned Lizard..................................................................4-120

4.7.6.14 Fairyduster.....................................................................................4-122

4.7.6.15 Giant Spanish-needle.....................................................................4-123

4.7.6.16 Sand Food ........................................................................................4-123

4.7.7 Cumulative, Interdependent, and Interrelated Effects ....................................4-124

4.7.8 Summary of Determinations of Effect for Federally Listed Species ..............4-125

4.7.9 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-126

4.8 LAND USE, SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS, RECREATION AND PUBLIC 

INTEREST AREAS, AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES ...........................................4-128

4.8.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................4-128

4.8.2 Land Use and Ownership................................................................................4-129

4.8.3 Existing Residences and Planned Developments ...........................................4-137

4.8.3.1 Existing Residences.........................................................................4-137

4.8.3.2 Planned Developments ....................................................................4-142

4.8.4 Special Management Areas ............................................................................4-143

4.8.4.1 California Desert Conservation Area ..............................................4-143

4.8.4.2 Milpitas Wash Special Management Area ......................................4-145

4.8.4.3 Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area ............................................4-146

4.8.5 Recreation and Public Interest Areas..............................................................4-148

4.8.6 Hazardous Waste Sites....................................................................................4-155

4.8.7 Aesthetic Resources........................................................................................4-156

4.8.8 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-162

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS..................................................................................................4-163

4.9.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................4-163

4.9.2 Population, Economy, and Employment ........................................................4-163

4.9.3 Housing...........................................................................................................4-165

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

v 

4.9.4 Public Services................................................................................................4-167

4.9.5 Property Values...............................................................................................4-169

4.9.6 Tax Revenues..................................................................................................4-170

4.9.7 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-171

4.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC.......................................................................4-172

4.10.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................4-172

4.10.2 Construction Across and Within Roadways and Railroads ............................4-172

4.10.3 Increased Vehicle Traffic................................................................................4-178

4.10.4 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-180

4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................4-182

4.11.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................4-182

4.11.2 Regulatory Requirements ...............................................................................4-182

4.11.3 Cultural Resources Assessment ......................................................................4-183

4.11.4 Unanticipated Discovery Plan ........................................................................4-186

4.11.5 Native American Consultation........................................................................4-186

4.11.6 General Impact and Mitigation .......................................................................4-190

4.11.7 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-192

4.12 AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................4-193

4.12.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................4-193

4.12.2 Existing Air Quality........................................................................................4-193

4.12.3 Regulatory Requirements ...............................................................................4-195

4.12.4 Air Emission Impacts and Mitigation.............................................................4-200

4.12.5 Health Risk Assessment..................................................................................4-205

4.12.6 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-205

4.13 NOISE..........................................................................................................................4-206

4.13.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................4-206

4.13.2 Existing Noise Levels .....................................................................................4-206

4.13.3 Regulatory Requirements ...............................................................................4-207

4.13.4 Noise Level Impacts and Mitigation...............................................................4-208

4.13.5 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-210

4.14 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY...................................................................................4-211

4.14.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................4-211

4.14.2 Safety Standards .............................................................................................4-211

4.14.3 Pipeline Accident Data ...................................................................................4-218

4.14.4 Impact on Public Safety..................................................................................4-220

4.14.5 Terrorism ........................................................................................................4-223

4.14.6 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-223

4.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.........................................................................................4-225

4.15.1 Geology and Soils...........................................................................................4-225

4.15.2 Waterbodies and Wetlands .............................................................................4-227

4.15.3 Vegetation, Wildlife and Habitat, and Aquatic Resources .............................4-227

4.15.4 Land Use, Special Management Areas, Recreation and Public Interest 

Areas, and Aesthetic Resources......................................................................4-229

4.15.5 Socioeconomics ..............................................................................................4-230

4.15.6 Transportation and Traffic..............................................................................4-231

4.15.7 Cultural Resources..........................................................................................4-231

4.15.8 Air Quality ......................................................................................................4-232

4.15.9 Noise...............................................................................................................4-238

4.15.10 Reliability and Safety......................................................................................4-238

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

vi 

4.15.11 Environmental Justice.....................................................................................4-238

4.15.12 Conclusion ......................................................................................................4-238

4.15.13 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-239

4.16 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS.............................................................................4-240

4.17 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................4-243

4.17.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................4-243

4.17.2 Background and Regulatory Setting ...............................................................4-243

4.17.3 Identification of Affected Area for Environmental Justice Analysis..............4-244

4.17.4 Demographic and Economic Data ..................................................................4-247

4.17.4.1 Minority Population..........................................................................4-248

4.17.4.2 Income Distribution in the Project Area ...........................................4-251

4.17.5 Impact Analysis ..............................................................................................4-252

4.17.6 No Project Alternative ....................................................................................4-253

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................5-1

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFFS’ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................5-1

5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................................5-2

5.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE.................................................5-3

5.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS/STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING 

CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................5-4

5.5 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES; SHORTAND LONG-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT ................................................5-4

5.6 FERC AND CSLC STAFFS’ RECOMMENDED MITIGATION .................................5-5 

6.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIR AND RESPONSES...................................................6-1

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

vii 

VOLUME II – APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FINAL EIS/EIR AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

APPENDIX B FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

APPENDIX C TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS 

APPENDIX D TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND ACCESS ROADS 

ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

APPENDIX E CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION AND RESTORATION PLAN 

APPENDIX F SPILL PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT, AND CONTROL PLAN FOR 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

APPENDIX G HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL PLAN 

APPENDIX H TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS 

APPENDIX I BLASTING SPECIFICATIONS 

APPENDIX J GEOLOGIC HAZARDS STUDY 

APPENDIX K PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE MITIGATION AND MONITORING 

PLAN 

APPENDIX L DUST CONTROL PLAN 

APPENDIX M DRY WASHES CROSSED BY THE NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

APPENDIX N FIRE PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION PLAN 

APPENDIX O SITE-SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLANS 

APPENDIX P OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

APPENDIX Q VISUAL RESOURCE STUDY 

APPENDIX R U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

APPENDIX S REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

APPENDIX T LIST OF PREPARERS 

APPENDIX U SUBJECT INDEX 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLES 

Number Title Page

viii 

1.1-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Precedent Agreements.......................................1-6

1.3-1 Issues/Impacts Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping 

Process for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project.................................................1-13

1.5.3-1 Consistency of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project with the Policies of the 

Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Comprehensive Plan 

and Guide.......................................................................................................................1-29

1.6-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project ..........................................................................................................................1-33

2.1.1-1 Pipeline Facilities Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project .............2-3

2.1.2-1 Aboveground Facilities Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project.....2-4

2.2-1 Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project ............................................................................................................................2-5

2.2.1-1 Location of Adjacent Existing Rights-of-Way in Relation to the Proposed Pipeline 

Facilities...........................................................................................................................2-8

2.2.3-1 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Associated with the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project ..........................................................................................................2-10

3.2.1-1 Comparison of Air Emissions from Burning Fossil Fuels...............................................3-5

3.2.2-1 Proposed LNG Import Terminals and Pipelines in California.........................................3-7

3.2.3-1 Environmental Comparison of the 22nd Avenue Alternative with the Proposed 

Route MPs 3.0 to 14.5 ...................................................................................................3-10

3.2.3-2 Environmental Comparison of the Corridor L Alternative with the Proposed Route 

MPs 16.3 to 27.3............................................................................................................3-14

3.2.3-3 Environmental Comparison of the Bonds Corner Alternative with the Proposed 

Route MPs 16.3 to 31.5 .................................................................................................3-16

3.2.3-4 Environmental Comparison of the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line 

Alternative with the Proposed Route MPs 5.6 to 8.2.....................................................3-21 

3.2.5-1 Environmental Comparison of the Arrowhead Alternative with the Corresponding 

Segment of the Proposed Project ...................................................................................3-31

4.1.2-1 Geologic and Physiographic Conditions Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project Facilities.............................................................................................4-6

4.1.3-1 Mineral Resources and Mining Areas in the Vicinity of the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project ............................................................................................................4-9

4.1.4-1 Earthquakes within 62 Miles of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project with 

Magnitudes Greater Than or Equal to 5.0......................................................................4-11

4.1.4-2 Active Faults in the Vicinity of the IID Lateral.............................................................4-13

4.1.4-3 Earthquake Fault Zones in Relation to the Nearest Proposed IID Lateral Valve 

Locations........................................................................................................................4-19

4.1.5-1 Paleontological Sensitivity of Stratigraphic Units Found Along the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project ............................................................................................4-25

4.1.5-2 Paleontological Resources Discovered During Construction of the A-Line .................4-25

4.2.2-1 Soil Characteristics Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project .........4-32

4.2.2-2 Prime Farmland and Farmlands of Statewide and Local Importance Crossed by 

the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project....................................................................4-34

4.3.2-1 Water Wells Within 150 Feet of the Centerline of the Pipeline Facilities Associated 

with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project............................................................4-46

4.3.3-1 Perennial Waterbodies, Canals, and Drains Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project ..........................................................................................................4-49

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLES (cont’d) 

Number Title Page 

ix 

4.3.4-1 Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project.4-59

4.4.2-1 Wetlands Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project ................................4-62

4.5.2-1 Vegetation Communities Affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project.......4-69

4.5.3-1 Acres of Vegetation Communities Affected by the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project ..........................................................................................................4-72

4.5.3-2 Locations Along the B-Line Where the Construction Right-of-Way Would be 

Reduced to 80 Feet to Minimize Tree Clearing.............................................................4-74

4.6.2-1 Wildlife Species by Habitat Type Common in the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project Area .................................................................................................4-82

4.7.2-1 Special Status Species Initially Identified as Potentially Occurring in the 

Vicinity of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project .................................................4-95

4.7.8-1 Summary of Assessment of Project Impacts on Listed Species ..................................4-125

4.8.2-1 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project ..........................................................................................4-130

4.8.2-2 Land Uses Crossed by the Pipeline Facilities Associated with the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project (miles)..............................................................................4-132

4.8.2-3 Summary of Land Ownership Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project (miles)..............................................................................................................4-134

4.8.2-4 Aboveground Facilities Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project ........................................................................................................................4-135

4.8.3-1 Residences and Businesses Within 100 Feet of the Construction Work Area 

Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project .......................................4-138

4.8.5-1 Recreation and Public Interest Areas Crossed by or Adjacent to the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project ..........................................................................................4-148

4.9.2-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Study Area ...................................................................................................................4-164

4.9.2-2 Anticipated Construction Workforce for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project ........................................................................................................................4-165

4.9.3-1 2000 Housing Characteristics in the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Study 

Area ........................................................................................................................4-166

4.9.3-2 2000 Temporary Housing Characteristics in the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project Study Area .......................................................................................................4-166

4.9.6-1 Estimated Property Tax Payments for Facilities Associated with the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project ..........................................................................................4-170

4.9.6-2 Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Generated by the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project ........................................................................................................4-170

4.10.2-1 Named Roads Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project .......................4-173

4.10.3-1 Major Roadways Potentially Affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project ........................................................................................................................4-179

4.10.3-2 Anticipated Construction Traffic Associated with the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project ........................................................................................................4-179

4.11.5-1 North Baja’s Native American Consultations Conducted for the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project ..........................................................................................4-187

4.12.2-1 Federal and State Air Quality Standards and Existing Air Quality in the 

Project Area .................................................................................................................4-194

4.12.3-1 Mobile Source and Fugitive Emissions (Dust) Rules ..................................................4-200

4.12.4-1 Estimated Emissions of Criteria Pollutants from Project Construction by Year .........4-201

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLES (cont’d) 

x 

4.13.3-1 Stationary Source Land Use Noise Standards for Riverside County...........................4-207

4.13.3-2 Noise Standards for Imperial County ..........................................................................4-208

4.13.4-1 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment and Operations .........................4-209

4.14.3-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause......................................................................4-219

4.14.3-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970-1984) .........................................................4-219

4.14.3-3 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984) .................................................4-220

4.14.4-1 Annual Average Fatalities - Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems.........4-221

4.14.4-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths ....................................................................................4-221

4.14.4-3 Preliminary Identification of High Consequence Areas (HCAs) Crossed by the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project........................................................................4-222

4.15-1 Existing or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Affecting Resources of Concern 

for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project ............................................................4-226

4.15.8-1 Phase I Algodones Compressor Station Impacts .........................................................4-233

4.15.8-2 LRPC and TDM Plant Estimated Impacts ...................................................................4-235

4.15.8-3 Cumulative Estimated Emissions by Site ....................................................................4-235

4.15.8-4 Resultant Estimated Impacts at Maximum U.S. Receptor Locations ..........................4-236

4.15.8-5 Existing and Future Potential Risks.............................................................................4-237

4.17.2-1 Major Laws, Regulatory Requirements, Policies, and Plans for Environmental 

Justice ........................................................................................................................4-245

4.17.3-1 Potential Impact Radius Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project ........................................................................................................................4-247

4.17.3-2 Unpopulated Census Blocks within the Potential Impact Radius Associated 

with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project..........................................................4-247

4.17.4-1 Summary of Racial and Ethnic Demographics within the Potential Impact Radius 

Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project ......................................4-248

4.17.4-2 Populated Census Blocks Containing Hispanic or Latino Populations within the 

Potential Impact Radius Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project in Imperial County...........................................................................................4-249

4.17.4-3 Populated Census Blocks Containing American Indian or Alaska Native 

Populations within the Potential Impact Radius Associated with the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project in La Paz County...........................................4-250

4.17.4-4 Populated Census Blocks Containing American Indian, Alaska Native, 

Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander Populations within the Potential 

Impact Radius Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project in Riverside County.........................................................................................4-250

4.17.4-5 Summary of Income Distribution within the Potential Impact Radius 

Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project .......................................4-252

5.1-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project ..........5-12 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
FIGURES 

Number Title Page

xi 

ES-1 Environmentally Superior Alternative and Locations Requiring a BLM Plan 

Amendment................................................................................................................. ES-16

1.4-1 North Baja System and Upstream Mexican Facilities ...................................................1-20

1.7.2-1 Locations Requiring a BLM Plan Amendment..............................................................1-38

2.1-1 Project Overview Map .....................................................................................................2-2

2.3.1-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence .......................................................................2-13

2.3.2-1 Conceptual HDD Waterbody Crossing..........................................................................2-18

2.3.2-2 Typical Canal/Drain Crossings for 18th Avenue............................................................2-20

2.3.2-3 Typical Open-Cut Drain Crossing .................................................................................2-21

3.2.3-1 22nd Avenue Route Alternative........................................................................................3-9

3.2.3-2 IID Lateral U.S. Route Alternatives Overview..............................................................3-11

3.2.3-3 Corridor L and Bonds Corner Route Alternatives .........................................................3-13

3.2.3-4 ISDRA Siting Factors ....................................................................................................3-18

3.2.3-5 ISDRA Route Alternatives ............................................................................................3-19

3.2.3-6 Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline Route Alternative ..........................................................3-23

3.2.4-1 East Mesa North Route Variation..................................................................................3-25

3.2.4-2 Imperial Valley Route Variations ..................................................................................3-26

3.2.5-1 Arrowhead Alternative ..................................................................................................3-29

4.1.2-1 Principal Faults of the Colorado Desert Province and Seismic Activity 

Near the Project Area.......................................................................................................4-4

4.1.4-1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map.................................................................................4-15

4.2.2-1 Map Unit Identifiers Crossed by the B-Line..................................................................4-29

4.2.2-2 Map Unit Identifiers Crossed by the IID Lateral ...........................................................4-30

4.8.4-1 Location of Special Management Areas in Relation to BLM Land and the 

Proposed Pipeline Routes ............................................................................................4-144

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

xii 

°C degrees Celsius 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

ACECs Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Agency Staffs environmental staffs of the FERC, the CSLC, and the BLM 

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department 

amsl above mean sea level 

AQMD Air Quality Management District 

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan 

AQCRs Air Quality Control Regions 

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BEI Blythe Energy Interconnect 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs best management practices 

BO Biological Opinion 

BOR Bureau of Reclamation 

Bscfd billion standard cubic feet per day 

Btu/dscf British thermal units per dry standard cubic foot 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalTrans California Department of Transportation 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CDC California Department of Conservation 

CDCA Plan California Desert Conservation Area Plan 

CDD California Desert District 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology 

CDWR California Department of Water Resources 

CEC California Energy Commission 

CEPA California Environmental Protection Agency 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CESA California Endangered Species Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Chevron Chevron Corporation 

CIPC California Invasive Plant Council 

CM&R Plan Construction Mitigation and Restoration Plan 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 

CNPS California Native Plant Society 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

COE Manual U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d) 

xiii 

CPUC GO 112-E California Public Utilities Commission, General Order 112-E 

CRHR California Register of Historical Resources 

CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin 

Region 

CSLC California State Lands Commission 

CSWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dB Decibel 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DNA Decade of North American Geology 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

draft EIS/EIR draft environmental impact statement/environmental impact report and draft 

land use plan amendment 

DRMP/Draft EIS Notice of Availability of Yuma Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan 

and Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dthd dekatherms per day 

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances and Control 

DWMA Desert Wildlife Management Area 

ECA Energia Costa Azul 

Ecological Analysis An Ecological Analysis of Conservation Priorities in the Sonoran Desert 

Ecoregion 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EI Environmental Inspector 

El Paso El Paso Natural Gas Company 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EQH Earthquake History of the United States 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

final EIS/EIR final environmental impact statement/environmental impact report and 

proposed land use plan amendment 

FIRM Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FWENC Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 

FTHLICC Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GHG greenhouse gas 

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCA high consequence area 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

HDD Plan Horizontal Directional Drill Plan 

HHV high heating value 

HMA Herd Management Area 

ICAPCD Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 

IID Imperial Irrigation District 

INGAA Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 

ISDRA Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 

ISDRA Plan ISDRA Management Plan 

kV Kilovolt 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d) 

xiv 

Ldn day-night equivalent sound level 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

LRPC La Rosita Power Complex 

LUST leaking underground storage tank 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

Mar Adentro Terminal GNL Mar Adentro de Baja California 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities 

mg/l milligrams per liter 

MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity 

MMP mitigation monitoring program 

MMscfd million standard cubic feet per day 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MP Milepost 

MRZ mineral resources zones 

MUCs multiple-use classes 

MUIDs Map Unit Identifiers 

MWD Metropolitan Water District 

NABCI U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NECO Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert 

NECO Plan Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOAA Fisheries U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOI/NOP Notice of Intent/Preparation to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement/Report and Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment for the 

Proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues/Impacts, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

North Baja North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

Notice of Pre-Filing 

Process Review 

Notice of Pre-Filing Process Review for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSAs noise-sensitive areas 

NSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

O3 Ozone 

OEP Office of Energy Projects 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

OHV Plan Off-Highway Vehicle Management Plan 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d) 

xv 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

OSHA U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Pb Lead 

PD Preliminary Determination on Non-Environmental Issues 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PIR potential impact radius 

Plan FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

PM10 particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

PM2.5 particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

POD Plan of Development 

ppm parts per million 

ppmw parts per million by weight 

PRMM Plan Paleontological Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 

Procedures FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

Project or proposed 

Project 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

PTE potential to emit 

PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District 

RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide 

RMPs resource management plans 

ROD Record of Decision 

RTP Regional Transportation Plan 

RV recreational vehicle 

SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement 

SCAB South Coast Air Basin 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SCEDC Southern California Earthquake Data Center 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company 

Secretary Secretary of the Commission 

SEDAB Southeast Desert Air Basin 

Sempra Sempra LNG 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIPs State Implementation Plans 

SMA Special Management Area 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOx sulfur oxides 

SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company 

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan for Hazardous Materials and 

Wastes 

SPPE Small Power Plant Exemption 

SR State Route 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic 

TDM Plant Termoelectrica de Mexicali Power Plant 

TGN Transportadora de Gas Natural de Baja California 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d) 

xvi 

tpy tons per year 

Transwestern Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC 

μg/m3

 micrograms per cubic meter 

UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology 

USC United States Code 

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements 

WECO Western Colorado Desert 

WECO Plan Western Colorado Desert Routes of Travel Designations Plan 

WGCEP Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 

WHA Wildlife Habitat Area 

WHMA Wildlife Habitat Management Area 

WHMP Wildlife Habitat Management Plan 

WI Wobbe Index 

Yuma District Plan Yuma District Resource Management Plan 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
i

VOLUME II – APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FINAL EIS/EIR AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

APPENDIX B FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

APPENDIX C TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS 

APPENDIX D TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND ACCESS ROADS 

ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

APPENDIX E CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION AND RESTORATION PLAN 

APPENDIX F SPILL PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT, AND CONTROL PLAN FOR 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

APPENDIX G HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL PLAN 

APPENDIX H TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS 

APPENDIX I BLASTING SPECIFICATIONS 

APPENDIX J GEOLOGIC HAZARDS STUDY 

APPENDIX K PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE MITIGATION AND MONITORING 

PLAN 

APPENDIX L DUST CONTROL PLAN 

APPENDIX M DRY WASHES CROSSED BY THE NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

APPENDIX N FIRE PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION PLAN 

APPENDIX O SITE-SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLANS 

APPENDIX P OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

APPENDIX Q VISUAL RESOURCE STUDY 

APPENDIX R U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

APPENDIX S REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

APPENDIX T LIST OF PREPARERS 

APPENDIX U SUBJECT INDEX 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The staffs of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC), the California 

State Lands Commission (CSLC), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (collectively referred to 

as the Agency Staffs) prepared this final environmental impact statement/environmental impact report and 

proposed land use plan amendment (final EIS/EIR) for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project 

or proposed Project) to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR], Parts 1500-1508); the FERC’s implementing regulations (Title 18 CFR, section 380); 

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.); the 

CEQA implementing guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 15000 et seq.); and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The purpose of this document is to inform the public and the 

permitting agencies about the potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed 

Project and its alternatives, and recommend mitigation measures that would reduce the significant adverse 

impacts to the maximum extent possible, and, where feasible, to a less than significant level. 

The FERC is the lead Federal agency and will use the document to consider the environmental 

impacts that could result if it issues North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja) a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) and a Presidential Permit amendment under sections 7 and 3, 

respectively, of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The CSLC is the lead State agency and will use the 

document to consider North Baja’s application to amend its existing right-of-way lease across the State’s 

Sovereign and School Lands in conjunction with the environmental impacts that could result from any 

part of the Project in California. 

The BLM is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this document because the 

Project would cross Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Palm Springs-South Coast, El Centro, and 

Yuma Field Offices. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is also a cooperating agency in the preparation 

of this document because lands administered by the BOR would be crossed by the Project. Under section 

185(f) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the BLM has the authority to issue Right-of-Way Grants and 

Temporary Use Permits for all affected Federal lands. This final EIS/EIR will be used by the BLM to 

consider whether to amend North Baja’s existing Right-of-Way Grant and issue Temporary Use Permits 

for the installation of approximately 67.4 miles of pipeline and ancillary facilities across Federal lands 

managed by the BLM, the BOR, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This final EIS/EIR will 

also be used by the BLM to consider amending the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan (as 

amended), which would be necessary for pipeline construction outside of designated utility corridors, as 

well as amending the Yuma District Resource Management Plan (Yuma District Plan), which would be 

necessary for pipeline construction across the Milpitas Wash Special Management Area (SMA). 

The BLM proposes to adopt this final EIS/EIR per Title 40 CFR Part 1506.3 to meet its 

responsibilities under NEPA and its planning regulations per Title 43 CFR Part 1610. The BLM will 

present separate Records of Decision for the amended Right-of-Way Grant and the plan amendments for 

the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project after the issuance of this final EIS/EIR. The concurrence or 

non-concurrence of the BOR and the FWS would be considered in the BLM’s decision. 

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that has been modified in this final EIS/EIR and 

differs from the corresponding text in the draft EIS/EIR. 

 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-2 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

North Baja proposes to expand its existing natural gas transmission pipeline system between 

Ehrenberg, Arizona and an interconnection at the international border between the United States and 

Mexico. North Baja’s existing system extends approximately 79.8 miles from an interconnection with the 

facilities of El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) near Ehrenberg through southeast California to a 

point on the international border between Yuma, Arizona and Mexicali, North Baja Mexico, where the 

pipeline interconnects with the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline. The North Baja system and the Gasoducto 

Bajanorte pipeline were built in 2002 to supply domestic natural gas from the United States primarily to 

gas-fired electric generation facilities in Baja California, Mexico. Since that time, several projects have 

been initiated to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage and vaporization terminals on the Baja 

California coast, near the terminus of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline. This new source of natural gas 

would be stored in tanks as LNG at the terminals in Baja California, and then re-gasified (vaporized) and 

transported as natural gas into the Gasoducto Bajanorte and North Baja systems. 

The first of these terminals, Sempra LNG’s (Sempra) Energia Costa Azul (ECA) terminal, is 

already under construction with an anticipated commercial in-service date of early 2008. Sempra has 

announced its intention to expand the ECA terminal to double its base and peak load capacity and held a 

non-binding open season between April 17 and May 12, 2006 to solicit commercial interest in additional 

LNG processing capacity. Although the open season was non-binding, the results indicated high shipper 

interest in additional processing capacity. Sempra has announced that it will begin working with the 

shippers that submitted bids to develop binding terminal agreements. Pending regulatory approvals and 

successful commercial negotiations, the expansion could become operational as early as 2010. 

At the time of North Baja’s application submittals, Chevron Corporation (Chevron) was 

developing the Terminal GNL Mar Adentro de Baja California (Mar Adentro). In March 2007, Chevron 

announced cancellation of the project. 

The existing North Baja system is currently certificated by the FERC to transport 512,500 

dekatherms per day (Dthd) (500 million standard cubic feet per day [MMscfd]) of natural gas in a 

southbound direction. Once completed, the expanded system would be capable of transporting up to 

2,932,000 Dthd (2,753 MMscfd) of natural gas from the planned LNG terminals in a northbound 

direction for delivery to customers in California and Arizona. In addition to the new volumes from 

Mexico, North Baja would continue to offer southbound gas transportation service for several existing 

shippers. 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project as proposed by North Baja in its application filed with 

the FERC on February 7, 2006 (Docket No. CP06-61-000) was analyzed in a draft environmental impact 

statement/environmental impact report and draft land use plan amendment (draft EIS/EIR) that was issued 

on September 27, 2006. North Baja subsequently amended its application to modify its point for delivery 

of natural gas to the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) system (Docket No. CP06-61-001) 

and to eliminate delivery of natural gas to the Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline (Docket No. CP06-

61-002). North Baja’s amendments did not propose any changes to the transportation capacity of its 

proposed expansion. The facilities needed to deliver natural gas to the modified SoCalGas delivery point 

were referred to in the draft EIS/EIR as the Arrowhead Alternative and were fully analyzed in that 

document. Adoption of the Arrowhead Alternative would modify a small portion of the originally 

proposed Project by exchanging certain aboveground facilities and short segments of pipeline. Adoption 

of the Arrowhead Alternative would also eliminate the need for North Baja to construct an odorant 

facility because the natural gas would be odorized by SoCalGas using its existing odorant facilities. 

Based on North Baja’s amendment to its application and the analysis in the draft EIS/EIR, the Arrowhead 

Alternative has been incorporated into the analysis of the proposed Project in this final EIS/EIR. Based 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-3 

on North Baja’s amendment to eliminate delivery of natural gas to the Blythe Energy Facility I supply 

pipeline, the Blythe Energy Interconnect Lateral has been eliminated from analysis in this final EIS/EIR. 

In addition to delivery to the SoCalGas system in Blythe, California, the delivery points for the 

proposed Project are the Imperial Irrigation District’s (IID’s) existing El Centro Generating Station in El 

Centro, California and the El Paso system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would involve the construction and operation of a 

pipeline loop;1

 two pipeline laterals;2 two meter stations; modifications at North Baja’s existing 

compressor and meter stations; and installation of taps and crossover piping, mainline and lateral valves, 

and pig3 launchers and receivers. Specifically, North Baja proposes to construct and operate: 

• up to 79.8 miles of pipeline loop (B-Line) adjacent to North Baja’s existing pipeline (ALine) consisting of 11.7 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending from the existing 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station at milepost (MP) 0.0 in La Paz County, Arizona to the 

existing Rannells Trap at MP 11.7 in Riverside County, California, and 68.1 miles of 48-

inch-diameter pipeline extending from Rannells Trap to an interconnection at the U.S.-

Mexico border at MP 79.8 in Imperial County, California; 

• 2.1 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline (Arrowhead Extension) extending from the 

proposed B-Line at MP 7.4 to SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station in 

Riverside County; 

• 45.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline (IID Lateral) extending from MP 74.5 of the BLine near the existing Ogilby Meter Station to the existing IID El Centro Generating 

Station in Imperial County; 

• modifications at its existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station and existing Ogilby Meter 

Station to allow northbound flow of natural gas; 

• metering modifications at its existing El Paso Meter Station at the Ehrenberg Compressor 

Station site to allow LNG-source gas to be delivered into the El Paso system; 

• one meter station (Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station) at SoCalGas’ existing Blythe 

Compressor Station in Riverside County to measure gas delivery from the North Baja 

system to SoCalGas; 

• one meter station (El Centro Meter Station) at the IID’s existing El Centro Generating 

Station to measure gas delivery from the North Baja system to the IID; 

• two taps and crossover piping where the Arrowhead Extension would connect with the 

existing A-Line and proposed B-Line in Riverside County; 

• one tap where the IID Lateral would connect with the B-Line in Imperial County; 

 

1

 A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. The loop allows 

more gas to be moved through the system. 2

 A lateral pipeline typically takes gas from the main system to deliver it to a customer, local distribution system, or another interstate 

transmission system. 3

 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-4 

• four pig launchers, one where the Arrowhead Extension would connect with the existing 

A-Line and proposed B-Line, one at Rannells Trap in Riverside County, one at the 

Ogilby Meter Station, and one where the IID Lateral would connect with the proposed BLine; 

• five pig receivers, one at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, one at the end of the 

Arrowhead Extension at the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station, one at Rannells Trap, one 

at the Ogilby Meter Station, and one at the end of the IID Lateral at the IID El Centro 

Generating Station; 

• nine remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the B-Line, adjacent to 

the existing A-Line valve sites; and 

• four remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the IID Lateral. 

The proposed Project would be constructed in three phases beginning in 2007 and ending in 2009. 

Phase I would involve modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station and Ogilby and El 

Paso Meter Stations; construction of the Arrowhead Extension and the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station; 

and installation of a pig launcher, pig receiver, taps, and crossover piping on the Arrowhead Extension. 

Phase I-A would involve the construction of the IID Lateral. Phase II would involve the construction of 

the B-Line adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line between Blythe and the U.S.-Mexico border. At this 

date, it remains uncertain what the final Phase II volumes would be. Therefore, the environmental review 

of the Project has been based on the maximum facility footprint (i.e., full looping of the existing A-Line) 

to ensure a full analysis of the potential environmental impacts. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AREAS OF CONCERN 

On May 19, 2005, North Baja filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s PreFiling Process for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. At that time, North Baja was in the 

preliminary design stage of the Project and no formal application had been filed with the FERC. On June 

2, 2005, the FERC granted North Baja’s request and established a pre-filing docket number (PF05-14-

000) to place information related to the Project into the public record. The purpose of the Pre-Filing 

Process is to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency 

cooperation, and identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. The CSLC, the 

BLM, and the BOR agreed to conduct their environmental reviews of the Project in conjunction with the 

Commission’s Pre-Filing Process. 

As part of the Pre-Filing Process, North Baja mailed notification letters to landowners, 

government and agency officials, and the general public informing them about the Project and inviting 

them to attend open houses on July 6 and 7, 2005 to learn about the Project and to ask questions and 

express their concerns. Notifications of the open houses were also published in local newspapers. The 

open houses were held in Blythe, El Centro, and Calexico, California. The Agency Staffs attended the 

open houses to explain the NEPA/CEQA environmental review process to interested stakeholders and 

take comments about the Project. 

In June and August of 2005, the Agency Staffs issued two separate notices that described the 

proposed Project and invited written comments on the environmental issues to be addressed in the 

EIS/EIR. The June 2005 notice announced the dates and locations of North Baja’s three open houses. 

The August 2005 notice announced two public scoping meetings that were held in Blythe and El Centro 

on September 28 and 29, 2005, respectively. These notices were sent to Federal, State, and local 

agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; affected 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-5 

landowners; local libraries and newspapers; and other stakeholders in the region who had indicated an 

interest in the Project. 

On September 27, 28, and 29, 2005, the FERC and CSLC staffs conducted interagency scoping 

meetings in the Project area to solicit comments and concerns about the Project from other jurisdictional 

agencies. Agencies present at the meetings were the FWS, Carlsbad Office; the FWS, Cibola National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR); the BLM; and the BOR. 

On March 10, 2006, the FERC and the CSLC sent a letter and a copy of the August 2005 notice 

to potentially affected landowners on 18th Avenue in Riverside County that inadvertently had not been 

included on the environmental mailing list. The letter solicited comments about the proposed Project 

from the potentially affected landowners to provide them an opportunity to participate in the 

environmental review process. 

Transcripts of the public scoping meetings, a summary of the interagency scoping meetings, and 

all written scoping comments are part of the public record for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

and are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov).4 The most frequently 

raised issues were related to impacts on air quality in Imperial County as a result of the existing and 

proposed upstream facilities in Mexico and the cumulative impact of the proposed Project when 

considered in association with past, present, and future projects or activities. Other issues of concern 

included impacts on special status species and native vegetation and the development of mitigation 

measures to minimize and compensate for these impacts. Comments relating to safety, protection of 

surface waters, cultural resources, alternatives, and the effects of the Project on off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use were also received. 

On September 27, 2006, the FERC and the CSLC sent a letter to the landowners and tenants 

potentially affected by the Arrowhead Alternative. The purpose of the letter was to inform the recipients 

that North Baja had identified them as a landowner or tenant that would be potentially affected by the 

Arrowhead Alternative and to solicit comments about the proposed Project and the Arrowhead 

Alternative. 

On September 29, 2006, a formal notice announcing that the draft EIS/EIR was available for 

review and comment was published in the Federal Register and filed with the California State 

Clearinghouse. The draft EIS/EIR was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 

submitted to the California State Clearinghouse; and mailed to Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; affected landowners, including landowners and 

tenants potentially affected by the Arrowhead Alternative; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors5 in 

the FERC’s proceeding; and other interested parties (i.e., miscellaneous individuals who provided scoping 

comments or asked to be on the mailing list). The typical NEPA/CEQA comment period for a draft 

EIS/EIR is 45 days. However, because the draft EIS/EIR was also a BLM draft land use plan 

amendment, the public was given 90 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register to review 

and comment on the draft EIS/EIR both in the form of written comments and at two public meetings held 

in the Project area. 

 

4

 Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the 

“Docket Number” field (i.e., PF05-14 and CP06-61). Be sure to select an appropriate date range. 5

 Intervenors are official parties to the proceeding and have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by 

other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide 14 copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy 

of its filings to all other intervenors. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s decision. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-6 

The public meetings held to receive comments on the draft EIS/EIR were in El Centro, California 

on December 5, 2006 and Blythe, California on December 6, 2006. The meetings were announced in the 

draft EIS/EIR, in the notice indicating that the draft EIS/EIR was available, on the FERC Internet website, 

and in several local newspapers. Both meetings were recorded for the public record. The 90-day 

comment period for receiving written comments on the draft EIS/EIR closed on December 28, 2006. 

Written comment letters were received from Federal, State, and local agencies; a Native American tribe; 

companies/organizations; and North Baja. The transcripts from the public meetings and the written 

comment letters are available for viewing on the FERC’s Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov) and are 

included in Section 6.0 of this final EIS/EIR with the Agency Staffs’ response to each comment. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

The environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project are analyzed in this final EIS/EIR using information provided by North Baja and 

further developed from data requests; field investigations; scoping; literature research; alternatives 

analysis; contacts with Federal, State, and local agencies; and input from public groups and organizations. 

The Agency Staffs’ analysis indicates that the Project would result in certain adverse environmental 

impacts. 

North Baja has prepared specific plans that include measures to mitigate potential impacts. These 

plans include: 

• Construction Mitigation and Restoration Plan (CM&R Plan); 

• Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan for Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

(SPCC Plan); 

• Horizontal Directional Drill Plan (HDD Plan); 

• Traffic Management Plans; 

• Blasting Specifications; 

• Paleontological Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMM Plan); 

• Dust Control Plan; 

• Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan; 

• Site-specific Residential Construction Mitigation Plans; 

• Off-highway Vehicle Management Plan (OHV Plan); and 

• Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources. 

Specific mitigation measures that are feasible were identified as part of the environmental 

analysis. When implemented, these measures would reduce most potential adverse impacts of Project 

construction and operation to a less than significant level. A table listing the anticipated impacts of the 

proposed Project and measures that would be implemented to mitigate those impacts is included in 

Section 5. The environmental effects of constructing and operating the proposed Project and North Baja’s 

proposed and the Agency Staffs’ additional mitigation measures are summarized below. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-7 

Geology 

The proposed Project is located within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province, commonly 

referred to as the “low desert” in southern California. Construction and operation of the proposed 

pipeline and aboveground facilities would not materially alter the geologic conditions of the Project area. 

Effects from construction could include disturbances to the natural topography along the right-of-way and 

at aboveground facilities due to grading and trenching activities. After completion of construction, North 

Baja would restore topographic contours and drainage conditions as closely as feasible to their 

preconstruction condition. 

Seismicity includes active faults, ground shaking, and soil liquefaction, and is the primary 

geologic hazard that could affect the proposed Project facilities. Seismic events in the vicinity of the 

Project are centered on fault activity in the Salton Trough. The potential for strong ground accelerations 

in the immediate vicinity of the proposed B-Line and Arrowhead Extension is generally low; however, 

several faults and fault zones are proximal to the proposed IID Lateral and have the potential for 

generating earthquakes that could cause strong ground motions. Damage to buried pipelines is most often 

caused by the differential movements of geologic material as opposed to shaking itself. 

Results from the Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation Study North Baja performed in 

2001 for the A-Line indicate that a major earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater originating on the San 

Andreas or Imperial Faults would create a high probability for soil liquefaction at the Arizona side of the 

Colorado River crossing and on the western portion of the 18th Avenue alignment. The liquefaction 

potential identified along the B-Line along the western portion of 18th Avenue would also be expected 

along the route of the Arrowhead Extension. To mitigate the potential for liquefaction, North Baja 

incorporated the recommendations of the Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation Study into the 

design for the proposed Project. At the Colorado River, liquefiable soils would be avoided by use of the 

horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossing method. 

The liquefaction study included as part of the Geologic Hazards Study conducted for the 

proposed Project concluded that in addition to the areas identified along the B-Line, there are areas of 

locally high liquefaction potential along the IID Lateral. In particular, areas along the East Mesa 

(between MPs 8.0 and 27.0) and in the Imperial Valley (between MPs 27.0 and 45.7) would have a 

locally or generally high potential for liquefaction based on soil type and potential for ground shaking. 

North Baja would design and construct the IID Lateral to be earthquake resistant. 

To further mitigate and reduce potential damage to the proposed facilities from earthquakes, 

North Baja’s facility design would comply with Federal standards outlined in Title 49 CFR Part 192 

Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards. This code 

governs the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines, greatly reducing the potential risk of 

damage. The pipelines and associated facilities would be designed using the Guidelines for the Design of 

Buried Steel Pipe (American Lifelines Alliance 2001), Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment 

of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. 2004), 

applicable building codes, and/or other similar recognized seismological engineering standards. The 

engineering design drawings for the entire Project in California would be certified by a Californiaregistered civil/structural engineer, and would comply with the latest edition of the California Building 

Code. 

North Baja has committed to perform a site-specific seismic evaluation as part of its detailed 

design phase for the Project. This evaluation would determine the engineering/design solutions that are 

appropriate to mitigate against the hazard of seismic displacements along the Imperial Fault. The seismic 

evaluation would determine recommended design fault displacements for the pipeline design 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-8 

specifications. North Baja would develop a computer model to determine the soil-pipe interaction with 

the proposed applied displacement. The model would evaluate various combinations of pipe wall 

thickness and pipe grade to determine which pattern yields the best performance under displacement 

conditions. The design may also incorporate additional mitigation methods if necessary. North Baja 

would provide a copy of the final design for the Imperial Fault crossing, as well as any related 

geotechnical information, to the CSLC and the FERC before construction of the IID Lateral. 

Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts from geologic 

hazards to less than significant levels. 

The stratigraphic units that would be crossed by the Arrowhead Extension and the IID Lateral 

have a low potential to yield paleontological resources; therefore, construction of these facilities is not 

expected to impact paleontological resources. Although the B-Line route crosses several rock formations 

that have the potential to contain significant paleontological resources where construction activities could 

directly and/or indirectly damage, disturb, or result in the loss of these resources, the paleontological 

monitoring conducted during the construction of the A-Line revealed a very limited presence of 

paleontological resources. Only about a 1-mile-long stretch from MPs 28.1 to 29.1 yielded a single 

significant paleontological find during construction of the A-Line. Other areas of older Pleistocene 

alluvium between MPs 35.0 and 75.2 yielded only occasional paleontological materials and no significant 

finds. 

To address potential impacts on paleontological resources resulting from Project construction, 

North Baja developed a PRMM Plan. The PRMM Plan includes a summary of the literature and museum 

archival review, field survey, and assessment of potential impacts on paleontological resources; Projectwide and site-specific mitigation and monitoring measures; and curation and reporting procedures. 

Implementation of North Baja’s PRMM Plan would reduce potential impacts on paleontological 

resources to less than significant levels.

Soils 

About 7 percent of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed Project may exhibit shallow 

depth to bedrock. All of these soils would be crossed by the B-Line. Based on North Baja’s experience 

during construction of the A-line, shallow bedrock would be a concern primarily in the vicinity of MP 

29.5 and would likely require blasting in order to excavate the trench through this area. All blasting 

activities would be conducted in strict compliance with North Baja’s Blasting Specifications and in 

accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations regarding use, storage, and transport of explosives; 

safety; and environmental protection. Implementation of these measures would reduce the impacts of 

blasting on soils to less than significant levels. 

Other soil limitations that would be encountered during construction of the Project include 494.4 

acres of soils with high water erosion potential. The majority of these soils would occur along the B-Line 

(454.4 acres), with 3.6 acres affected along the Arrowhead Extension, and 36.4 acres affected along the 

IID Lateral. In addition, a total of 355.2 acres of soils along the B-Line (162.9 acres), the Arrowhead 

Extension (0.6 acre), and the IID Lateral (191.7 acres) routes exhibit high wind erosion potential. 

Construction of the pipelines and aboveground facilities could expose soils to erosional forces, 

compact soils, affect soil fertility, and facilitate the dispersal and establishment of weeds. North Baja 

proposes to mitigate these potential impacts by implementing a CM&R Plan that was developed in 

consultation with the appropriate land management agencies and addresses the special issues associated 

with construction and restoration in an arid environment; an SPCC Plan to address preventive and 

mitigative measures to minimize the potential for soil contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-9 

lubricants, and coolants used during construction; and a Dust Control Plan to prevent soil loss due to wind 

erosion. Implementation of these plans would reduce impacts on soil resources to less than significant 

levels. 

Modifications at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, including the proposed pig receiver and El 

Paso Meter Station, would be completed within the existing fencelines and would not permanently affect 

additional soil resources. Construction of the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver would be 

completed within the existing fenceline of the SoCalGas Blythe Compressor Station and also would not 

affect additional soil resources. 

The pig launcher and receiver proposed for Rannells Trap would require a permanent expansion 

of the existing site by 0.3 acre. Modifications at the Ogilby Meter Station, including the proposed pig 

launcher and receiver, would permanently affect about 0.2 acre of soils outside the existing fenced 

facility. The tap to the B-line and pig launcher associated with the IID Lateral would permanently affect 

0.2 acre of soils. The El Centro Meter Station and pig receiver would permanently affect about 0.2 acre 

of soils, all located within the existing fenceline of the IID El Centro Power Generating Station. No 

prime farmland or farmlands of Statewide or local importance would be affected by these aboveground 

facility sites. The pig launcher, taps, and crossover piping associated with the Arrowhead Extension 

would permanently affect 0.8 acre of soils. These soils are designated as prime farmland and farmland of 

Statewide importance. 

In total, 71.7 acres of prime farmland and 47.6 acres of farmland of Statewide importance would 

be affected. No farmland of local importance would be affected. These impacts on prime farmland and 

farmland of Statewide importance would be temporary. Temporary impacts on these soils and other 

active farmlands would be mitigated by segregating 1 to 2 feet of topsoil before installation of the 

pipeline and reapplying topsoil over the surface of the right-of-way during restoration as outlined in the 

CM&R Plan. No permanent impacts on designated farmland would occur in association with the 

construction and operation of the pipelines. 

In addition, North Baja would implement a post-construction crop monitoring program to 

maintain the level of production of the affected soils. The program would evaluate crop productivity and 

success for a period of at least 2 years following construction. North Baja would prepare activity reports 

during this period documenting any problems identified by North Baja or the landowner and describing 

corrective actions taken to remedy these problems. These reports would be submitted to the FERC and 

the CSLC on a quarterly basis, as stipulated in the CM&R Plan. The FERC and CSLC staffs would also 

monitor the right-of-way after construction. If after 2 years it is determined that cropland crossed by the 

pipeline has not been restored successfully, North Baja would implement additional restoration measures. 

Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R Plan would reduce impacts on agricultural land to less than 

significant levels. 

Water Resources 

For the majority of the Project, groundwater levels are generally well below the land surface that 

would be affected by construction activities. Shallow aquifers underlying a portion of the construction 

area (e.g., the Palo Verde Valley and portions of the route near the Cibola NWR, and the Imperial Valley) 

could experience minor impacts from clearing, grading, trenching, dewatering, soil mixing, and 

compaction that could temporarily alter overland flow and groundwater recharge. Near-surface soil 

mixing and compaction caused by heavy construction vehicles could also reduce the soil's ability to 

absorb water. These impacts would be temporary and minor and would not significantly affect 

groundwater resources or groundwater quality. In accordance with North Baja’s CM&R Plan, vegetation 

would be cleared only where necessary. Upon completion of construction, North Baja would restore the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-10 

ground surface as closely as practicable to original contours and allow vegetation to regenerate to provide 

restoration of preconstruction overland flow and recharge patterns. North Baja has prepared an SPCC 

Plan to address preventive and mitigative measures that would be used during construction to minimize 

the potential for a hazardous spill to contaminate groundwater resources. Routine operation and 

maintenance of the Project facilities would not result in disturbance or contamination of groundwater 

resources. 

Before construction, North Baja would conduct a field survey to identify public and private water 

supply wells within 150 feet of the proposed construction work area. This is the distance specified in 

Title 18 CFR Part 380.12(d)(9). Potential impacts on wells within 150 feet of the construction work area 

could include: localized decreases in groundwater recharge rates, changes to overland water flow, 

contamination due to hazardous materials spills, decreased well yields, decreased water quality (such as 

an increase in turbidity or odor in the water), interference with well mechanics, or complete disruption of 

the well. These impacts could result from trenching, equipment traffic, or blasting. 

With the landowner’s permission, North Baja would test the water wells identified within 150 

feet of the construction work area before construction to determine baseline flow conditions. Where 

impacts are reported by landowners, North Baja would conduct post-construction water well tests. If it is 

determined that construction activities have impaired a well’s water quality or yield, North Baja would 

either provide bottled water for drinking and arrange for an alternate source of water (such as a water 

truck) for other household uses, temporarily relocate the landowner until the water supply is restored, or 

compensate the landowner for losses. If water quality or yield is permanently impaired as a result of 

construction activities, North Baja would arrange for a new well to be drilled or compensate the 

landowner. 

The proposed Project would cross 2 perennial waterbodies (the Colorado and Alamo Rivers), 73 

man-made irrigation canals and drains, and 265 desert washes. Only the Colorado River has a fisheries 

classification (warmwater). Impacts on the Colorado River and two of the canals (the All-American 

Canal and the East Highline Canal) would be minimized through the use of the HDD crossing method. 

The HDD method involves installation of the pipe under the waterbody and therefore avoids disturbance 

to the bends and banks of the waterbody. The primary impact that could occur as a result of an HDD 

crossing is an inadvertent release of drilling mud directly or indirectly into the waterbody. North Baja has 

prepared an HDD Plan that describes how North Baja would conduct and monitor the drilling operations 

to minimize the potential for inadvertent drilling mud releases and includes procedures for corrective 

action and cleanup of drilling mud releases should one occur to land. The Agency Staffs are 

recommending that North Baja revise its HDD Plan to include specific procedures for corrective action 

and cleanup of drilling mud releases should one occur in the Colorado River or one of the canals. 

Impacts on the Alamo River would be minimized by North Baja’s proposal to install the pipeline 

in the road shoulder over the culverts that carry the water under the road. North Baja would cross all but 

three of the canals and drains either by boring underneath the culverts or by installing the pipeline 

between the drain culverts and a road bed. Rannells Drain along the B-Line and two unnamed canals 

along the Arrowhead Extension would be the only irrigation canals or drains crossed by the use of the 

open-cut crossing technique. The construction and restoration measures in North Baja’s CM&R Plan 

would minimize Project-related disturbances to all waterbodies crossed by the pipeline routes. 

The majority of the waterbodies that would be crossed are dry washes that do not support 

fisheries, provide critical aquatic habitat, provide migratory passage for aquatic organisms, or have 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region- (CRWQCB) designated 

recreation/high quality visual resource values. North Baja would cross these dry washes with typical 

cross-country construction methods using the same techniques that were implemented to construct the ADocument Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-11 

Line. Impacts on dry washes would be limited to the temporary alteration of beds and banks, loss of 

wildlife habitat, and possibly increased sediment load during initial storm events following construction. 

As part of its Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG), North Baja would provide offsite, compensatory mitigation for disturbances to wildlife habitats 

located between the banks of dry desert washes. 

 Implementation of North Baja’s SPCC Plan, revised HDD Plan, and CM&R Plan would reduce 

impacts on water resources to less than significant levels. 

Wetlands 

The proposed pipeline facilities would cross 18 palustrine emergent or palustrine scrub-shrub 

wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). No wetlands would be 

affected by the aboveground facilities. Eight of the 18 wetlands crossed would be left undisturbed by use 

of the HDD method, bore method, or by installing the pipeline in the road shoulder outside the wetland 

boundary. North Baja would use the open-cut method to cross the remaining 10 wetlands implementing 

the construction and restoration procedures outlined in its CM&R Plan. These activities would result in a 

short-term disturbance of 35.7 acres of wetlands. Of this total, about 26.9 acres were previously disturbed 

during construction of the A-Line. Adherence to North Baja’s CM&R Plan and its compliance with the 

COE's section 404 and the CRWQCB’s section 401 permit conditions would reduce impacts on wetland 

resources crossed by the pipeline routes to less than significant levels. 

Vegetation 

Construction activities would result in disturbances of about 1,724.8 acres of vegetation. The 

most common vegetation communities that would be affected are creosote bush scrub (1,049.0 acres) and 

urban/ruderal (447.7 acres), which account for about 87 percent of the vegetation that would be cleared or 

affected by construction. The next most common communities that would be disturbed are agriculture 

(102.9 acres) and desert wash woodland (83.2 acres) accounting for about 11 percent of the affected 

vegetation. The least common vegetation community that would be affected is desert sand dunes (42.0 

acres), which accounts for less than 3 percent of the vegetation that would be disturbed by the 

construction of the pipeline facilities. Areas of riparian vegetation would be avoided by the Project. 

The agricultural community would typically regenerate quickly and impacts on these vegetation 

communities would be short term. Cultivated areas are regularly disturbed, generally receive ample water 

through irrigation if necessary, and would quickly re-establish on the right-of-way following replanting 

by the landowners. The removal of desert vegetation would have a long-term impact. The arid 

environment characteristic of these habitats is not conducive to plant growth and would slow the 

regeneration of vegetation following construction. Moreover, because of the dryness of these areas, 

regeneration by active seeding or planting is typically ineffective. Natural regeneration of these areas 

would take several years and in some cases could take over 50 years. 

Of the vegetation communities that would be disturbed, the most sensitive is the desert wash 

woodland, which would be crossed by the B-Line. Desert wash species growing in microphyll woodland, 

such as ironwood, blue palo verde, and smoke tree, provide structural diversity, cover, and forage for 

many more wildlife species than the creosote bush scrub habitat. Of the total 83.2 acres of desert wash 

woodland that would be cleared, 22.0 acres (about 26 percent) would be new disturbance (i.e., not 

disturbed during construction of the A-Line). 

North Baja would minimize tree clearing by reducing the width of the construction right-of-way 

from 105 feet to 80 feet in 16 woodland areas crossed by the proposed route. Trees that cannot be 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-12 

avoided would be subjected to one of several treatments (prune, limb, or remove) based on proximity to 

the pipeline centerline. By pruning or limbing trees rather than removing them, many trees within the 

right-of-way would be preserved. The reduction of the right-of-way width in these 16 areas would 

preserve 5.6 acres of desert wash woodland trees, which would reduce the amount of new clearing in 

desert wash woodlands by about 20 percent. 

The CM&R Plan is specifically designed for minimizing and restoring disturbances to native 

vegetation and includes a Desert Restoration Plan. The Desert Restoration Plan was developed in 

consultation with the BLM, the FWS, and the CDFG and describes the procedures that were successful 

during construction of the A-Line that would be implemented during construction of the B-Line to 

preserve and restore habitat values affected by pipeline construction in the desert environment. Some of 

these procedures include: preserving the native seed bank by segregating topsoil to a depth of 2 to 8 

inches in non-agricultural areas where grading would be conducted, and redistributing material over the 

right-of-way during cleanup; preserving and redistributing cut vegetation over the right-of-way; 

restricting grading and crushing or cutting of vegetation where possible, leaving rootstock and minimizing 

soil disturbance; and imprinting areas with a sheepsfoot or similar device to provide indentations to catch 

water/seed and anchor native plant material that has been respread over the right-of-way, thereby aiding 

in natural revegetation and erosion control. 

After construction, North Baja would monitor the entire pipeline route to determine the success of 

restoration of desert vegetation. In native desert habitats, restoration would be considered successful if 

the right-of-way is similar in species composition to adjacent undisturbed lands. This post-construction 

monitoring would be conducted annually in areas of desert vegetation disturbed by construction through 

2012. Results of the monitoring would be provided in reports to the FERC, the BLM, the CSLC, and the 

CDFG. 

Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R Plan and post-construction monitoring program would 

reduce potential impacts on vegetation to less than significant levels. 

The removal of existing vegetation and the disturbance of soils during construction could create 

optimal conditions for the invasion and establishment of exotic-nuisance species. Construction 

equipment traveling from invasive weed-infested areas into weed-free areas could also facilitate the 

dispersal of invasive weed seed and propagules and result in the establishment of noxious weeds in weedfree areas. Botanical surveys conducted before construction of the A-Line identified four invasive weed 

species in significant numbers including African mustard, Australian saltbush, fountain grass, and 

tamarisk. North Baja conducted post-construction weed and revegetation surveys for the A-Line, the 

most recent of which occurred in the Spring of 2005. The surveys indicate that although weeds 

(specifically mustard and tamarisk) have reoccurred in areas where they were present before construction 

of the A-Line, they have not spread to new areas along the right-of-way. Additionally, the surveys 

indicate that fountain grass has been eliminated from the right-of-way. No weeds were identified along 

the Arrowhead Extension. North Baja has not yet provided information regarding noxious weed species 

that may occur along the IID Lateral route; however, in accordance with the CM&R Plan, surveys for 

noxious weeds along the IID Lateral would be conducted before construction. 

North Baja’s CM&R Plan includes measures to minimize the spread of invasive exotic species 

that were developed in consultation with the appropriate natural resource agencies. After construction is 

complete, North Baja would conduct surveys for non-native plant species to determine locations of weed 

infestations attributable to the Project. North Baja would conduct these surveys and implement control 

measures (e.g., herbicide application, pulling by hand as permitted by landowner or land management 

agency) at Project-related infestations twice a year for 2 years after construction is complete or until the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-13 

infestations have been controlled. North Baja would also implement weed control measures annually as 

part of routine operation and maintenance. 

Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R Plan and post-construction monitoring program would 

reduce potential impacts associated with the spread of noxious weeds to less than significant levels. 

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

The primary impact of the Project on wildlife habitat, including habitat for migratory birds, would 

be the cutting, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation within the construction work area. 

Construction through agricultural areas would have the least impact. As discussed above, cultivated areas 

are regularly disturbed, receive ample water through irrigation, and would quickly reestablish on the 

right-of-way following replanting by the farmers. The removal of desert vegetation would result in the 

long-term loss of habitat for those species that utilize native vegetation communities. North Baja’s 

CM&R Plan includes measures to avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife habitats as well as facilitate the 

recovery of native vegetation communities. North Baja’s proposed conservation measures to minimize or 

avoid impacts on special status species would also serve to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts 

on general wildlife and their habitats. 

The clearing of vegetation during the nesting season could have direct impacts on individual 

migratory birds. North Baja would attempt to schedule construction in native habitats outside of the 

breeding season for migratory birds. If, however, construction activities are necessary during the bird 

breeding season, in accordance with its CM&R Plan, North Baja would remove vegetation that could 

provide nesting substrate from the right-of-way before the breeding season. The Agency Staffs are 

recommending that North Baja consult with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG to develop Preclearing 

Plans for construction of Phase I-A and Phase II, which are the only phases of construction that have the 

potential to occur in native desert habitats. These plans would include specific details of the preclearing 

methods to be implemented, the specific locations where preclearing would occur, and the dates 

preclearing would be initiated and completed for each phase of construction. Qualified biologists would 

conduct preconstruction surveys to confirm the absence of nesting birds before construction begins. If, in 

spite of vegetation removal, nesting birds are found on the construction right-of-way, the nest would not 

be removed until fledging has occurred or unless authorized after consultation with the FWS, the CDFG, 

and, if the nest is located on Federal lands, the Federal land management agency. 

Fires inadvertently started by construction activities could also affect wildlife in the Project area 

by igniting vegetation along the right-of-way. This habitat loss could cause crowding in adjacent habitats 

reducing productivity and increasing stress-induced mortality. North Baja has developed a Fire 

Prevention and Suppression Plan to minimize the potential for wildfires. 

Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R Plan, the Preclearing Plans to protect nesting migratory 

birds, and the Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan would reduce the impacts of the Project on wildlife to 

less than significant levels. 

Pipeline construction or operation would not directly affect aquatic resources. An inadvertent 

chemical or fuel spill in or near a waterbody could release contaminants, which could affect fish through 

changes in food sources or by contaminating the water resources. North Baja’s adherence to its CM&R 

Plan and SPCC Plan would reduce the potential of a spill and decrease the response time for control and 

cleanup of a spill, should one occur. Therefore, the probability of a spill of hazardous materials would be 

small and the impact on fisheries would be less than significant. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-14 

Special Status Species 

The FWS identified nine federally listed endangered or threatened species that could potentially 

occur in the general vicinity of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. The Agency Staffs have 

determined that, with implementation of North Baja’s proposed minimization and conservation measures, 

its CM&R Plan, and the Agency Staffs’ additional recommendations for the southwestern willow 

flycatcher and the Yuma clapper rail, the Project would have no effect on four species (desert pupfish, 

bonytail chub, brown pelican, bald eagle) and would not likely adversely affect three species (razorback 

sucker, southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail). The proposed Project is likely to adversely 

affect the federally and California-listed threatened desert tortoise and its designated critical habitat and 

the federally listed threatened and California-listed endangered Peirson’s milk-vetch. As such, impacts 

on these species would be considered significant. 

The draft EIS/EIR served as the Biological Assessment that is necessary for compliance with 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Copies of the draft EIS/EIR were sent to the FWS along with a 

letter requesting concurrence with the determinations of effect and initiation of formal consultation. In a 

letter dated November 1, 2006, the FWS concurred with the determinations of effect. In the BO issued on 

April 20, 2007, the FWS concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the desert tortoise and its critical habitat or the continued existence of the Peirson’s milkvetch. The CDFG has not yet issued its conclusions regarding the impact of the Project on the desert 

tortoise and the Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

Forty-two other special status species were identified as potentially occurring within the Project 

area. Based on the results of habitat evaluations and species-specific surveys, 18 of these special status 

species potentially occur in the area that would be impacted by construction of the Project. North Baja’s 

implementation of general and species-specific conservation measures and the Agency Staffs’ additional 

recommendations would allow the Project to avoid, minimize, or compensate for Project impacts on these 

species. Therefore, with one exception, impacts would be less than significant. The Agency Staffs 

believe that impacts on the flat-tailed horned lizard, which is a California-listed special concern species, 

and its habitat would be considered significant. The CDFG has not yet issued its conclusions regarding 

the impact of the Project on the flat-tailed horned lizard. 

Land Use, Special Management Areas, Recreation and Public Interest Areas, and Aesthetic 

Resources 

Approximately 99 percent of the pipeline facilities would be constructed in or adjacent to various 

existing rights-of-way, including about 63 percent (the B-Line) that would be installed generally 25 feet 

from North Baja’s existing A-Line. In most areas, about 80 feet of the construction right-of-way for the 

B-Line would overlap the area previously disturbed during construction of the A-Line. No new 

permanent right-of-way would be required for the B-Line. 

Construction of the pipeline facilities would temporarily affect about 1,569.3 acres of land. 

About 858.5 acres (55 percent) of land is previously disturbed area associated with construction and 

operation of the A-Line. Open land would be the primary land use affected by construction of the 

pipeline facilities totaling about 1,101.8 acres (70 percent). The remaining land uses that would be 

disturbed consist of 374.0 acres (24 percent) of anthropogenic (i.e., transportation and 

industrial/commercial/utility uses) land and 93.5 acres (6 percent) of agricultural land. Most of this land 

would be allowed to return to previous uses after construction is completed; however, about 102.2 acres 

of open land and anthropogenic land would be retained as new permanent right-of-way. Modifications at 

existing and construction of new aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project would affect 

6.2 acres of open and anthropogenic land. Of the 6.2 acres, 1.2 acres would be permanently converted for 

operation of these facilities. A total of 1.0 acre and 0.8 acre of agricultural land would be required for 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-15 

construction and operation of the aboveground facilities, respectively. The permanent conversion of 

open, anthropogenic, and agricultural land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities would not convert 

more than 1 percent of agricultural lands in a county to a non-agricultural use and, therefore, would be 

less than significant. 

There are 37 residences and 6 businesses located within 100 feet of the construction work area for 

the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. All of these establishments are located along 18th Avenue 

and various Imperial County roadways where North Baja proposes to install the pipelines in the paved 

road or abutting road shoulders. There are three residences along the portion of Arrowhead Boulevard 

that would be affected by construction of the Project; however, no residences or businesses are within 100 

feet of the proposed Arrowhead Extension. The closest residence is approximately 126 feet from the edge 

of the construction right-of-way, near MP 1.2. Temporary impacts during construction of the pipeline 

facilities in residential areas could include: inconvenience caused by noise and dust generated by 

construction equipment and traffic, and by trenching of roads or driveways; increased localized traffic; 

ground disturbance of lawns; removal of trees, landscape shrubs, or other vegetative screening between 

residences and adjacent rights-of-way; and potential damage to existing septic systems or wells. North 

Baja has prepared Site-specific Residential Construction Mitigation Plans and proposes additional 

mitigation measures to minimize impacts on residents. North Baja has also prepared Traffic Management 

Plans in consultation with Riverside and Imperial Counties to minimize disruptions to the flow of traffic 

along 18th Avenue and Imperial County roadways and a Dust Control Plan to minimize the nuisance of 

fugitive dust. The Agency Staffs are recommending that North Baja develop a Traffic Management Plan 

for Arrowhead Boulevard in consultation with the County of Riverside Transportation Department to 

detail the specific measures that would be used to control traffic during construction of the Arrowhead 

Extension. 

Implementation of North Baja’s Site-specific Residential Construction Mitigation Plans, Traffic 

Management Plans, and Dust Control Plan would reduce the potential impacts of construction on 

residences to less than significant levels. 

The proposed pipelines would cross three special management areas administered by the BLM: 

the CDCA, the Milpitas Wash SMA, and the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA). A CDCA 

Plan amendment would be needed for approximately 27.6 miles of BLM-managed land that would be 

crossed by the B-Line (20.8 miles) and the IID Lateral (6.8 miles) outside of a designated utility corridor 

within the CDCA. The B-Line would be entirely adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line, which was the 

subject of an amendment to the CDCA Plan and previously approved by the BLM in 2002. The portion 

of the IID Lateral outside of designated utility corridors would be within or adjacent to existing 

transportation (Interstate 8 and Evan Hewes Highway) and transmission line rights-of-way. An 

amendment to the Yuma District Plan would be needed for approximately 2.5 miles of BLM-managed 

land outside a designated utility corridor that would be crossed by the B-Line within the Milpitas Wash 

SMA. The B-Line would be entirely adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line, which was the subject of 

an amendment to the Yuma District Plan and previously approved by the BLM in 2002. The portions of 

the proposed Project requiring a BLM plan amendment are shown on Figure ES-1. The amendments for 

the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would only accommodate the proposed Project and would not 

conflict with the CDCA Plan and the Yuma District Plan. Therefore, the proposed plan amendments 

would not be a significant impact. 

The ISDRA was created in 1977 for the purpose of providing a formal space for OHV use. The 

ISDRA Management Plan was approved and adopted as an amendment to the CDCA Plan in March 2005. 

The B-Line would be in the ISDRA between MPs 71.1 and 74.5 and the IID Lateral would be in the 

ISDRA between MPs 0.0 and 7.9. The majority of the route in these areas would be in a designated 

utility corridor. The amendment to the CDCA Plan discussed above would include the portion of the 

route that deviates from a designated utility corridor on BLM land in the ISDRA. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-16 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure ES-1 Environmentally Superior Alternative and Locations 

Requiring a BLM Plan Amendment 

Page ES-16 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-17 

The proposed pipeline facilities would not cross any national or State forests, National or 

California Wild and Scenic Rivers, registered national natural landmarks, lands designated under a 

Habitat Conservation Plan, golf courses, or areas designated under the National Trails System. However, 

the proposed route crosses 11 recreation or public interest areas and is adjacent to several others. In 

general, impacts on recreation and public interest areas would be temporary and would be limited to the 

period of active construction, which typically would last only several days to several weeks in any one 

area. 

During construction, the Project could have an impact on OHV use in the ISDRA and other areas 

by restricting access to areas designated for OHV use. Conversely, the pipeline rights-of-way could 

increase accessibility for OHV use into previously inaccessible, environmentally sensitive areas. To 

reduce the potential for interference between pipeline construction activities and authorized OHV use as 

well as unauthorized OHV use of the pipeline rights-of-way after construction, North Baja developed an 

OHV Plan that addresses the initial siting, construction, and operation of the proposed facilities. North 

Baja’s OHV Plan was developed in consultation with BLM recreation specialists and biologists in 2001 

and 2002 during planning for the original North Baja Pipeline Project and again in 2005 during planning 

for the proposed Project. The OHV Plan is also based on experience North Baja has gained while 

operating, maintaining, and managing the A-Line right-of-way since 2002. Peak OHV use in the ISDRA 

is especially high in November and December. North Baja has adjusted its construction schedule to avoid 

conflict with the high-use recreational season in the ISDRA. North Baja would also install the pipeline 

deeper in certain portions of the ISDRA to avoid conflict with recreational activities. 

North Baja has no plans to maintain a permanent road on the right-of-way for operation and 

maintenance of the pipeline facilities. However, North Baja would maintain access to all portions of the 

permanent right-of-way by four-wheel drive vehicles in order to conduct emergency and periodic 

maintenance. The level of routine maintenance required by North Baja should not increase the 

accessibility the right-of-way provides for OHV use into previously restricted, inaccessible, or 

environmentally sensitive areas. In accordance with its OHV Plan, North Baja would install blocking 

measures to further reduce the potential for OHV use of the right-of-way. North Baja would also place 

signs and vegetative barriers at various access points along the right-of-way as requested by the BLM. 

The Agency Staffs are recommending that North Baja revise its OHV Plan to include the agency or 

agencies responsible for enforcement of the OHV Plan, the frequency of monitoring that would be 

conducted to ensure that the implemented OHV blocking measures are functioning properly, the 

methodology for reassessing the implemented OHV blocking measures in the future, and enforcement 

measures. Implementation of these measures and North Baja’s revised OHV Plan would reduce the 

potential impacts associated with unauthorized OHV use of the right-of-way to less than significant 

levels. Other recreational activities occurring along the pipeline routes could be impacted by 

construction-induced effects such as traffic, noise, and dust. These effects may affect the quality of some 

users’ recreational experiences, but would be temporary in nature and less than significant. 

Visual impacts of the Project would be greatest at the aboveground facility sites. Modifications at 

the existing aboveground facilities would result in an incremental increase in impacts on visual resources 

but would generally be minor because of the presence of the existing facilities. North Baja would paint 

the new or additional facilities so they would blend with the surrounding landscape. Construction of 

these facilities would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic area or vista, substantially 

damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area or its 

surroundings. North Baja’s proposed mitigation measures would reduce the visual impact of the 

aboveground facilities to less than significant levels. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-18 

Socioeconomics 

No significant adverse socioeconomic impacts associated with the proposed Project were 

identified. The existing regional infrastructure would be able to handle the demand for housing and other 

services created by the temporary influx of construction workers. Personnel from North Baja’s existing 

staff would assume operation and maintenance of the new facilities as part of their existing routine 

workload. Therefore, the Project would not cause a permanent population increase in any of the affected 

counties. The Project would not increase the short- or long-term demand for utilities and public service 

systems. Construction and operation of the Project would have a minor positive effect on local tax 

revenue and economies. 

Transportation and Traffic 

The proposed pipelines would cross several linear transportation and utility rights-of-way, 

including roads and railroads. All railroads and many road crossings would be bored; therefore, there 

would be little or no disruption to traffic. Most smaller, unpaved roads and driveways would be open cut 

where permitted by local authorities or landowners. However, no roads would be closed unless adequate 

detours are provided. If a detour is required, traffic would be rerouted to another nearby road. This 

would not result in a significant change in the level of service of Project-area roadways. If no reasonable 

detour is feasible, North Baja would leave at least one lane of traffic open. Where Project construction 

crosses roads necessary for access to private residences and no alternative entrance exists, North Baja 

would implement measures (e.g., plating over the open portion of the trench) to maintain passage for 

landowners and emergency vehicles. Most open-cut crossings would be completed and the road 

resurfaced in 1 or 2 days; therefore, construction would not cause the closure of a roadway for more than 

48 hours consecutively. 

In addition, construction of the B-Line would take place within the road or road shoulder of 18th 

Avenue for about 7.6 miles, the Arrowhead Extension would be within or adjacent to Arrowhead 

Boulevard, and the IID Lateral would be constructed within several Imperial County roadways. As 

discussed above, North Baja has prepared Traffic Management Plans in consultation with Riverside and 

Imperial Counties to minimize disruptions to the flow of traffic along 18th Avenue and Imperial County 

roadways, and the Agency Staffs are recommending that North Baja develop a Traffic Management Plan 

for Arrowhead Boulevard in consultation with Riverside County. Implementation of these Traffic 

Management Plans would reduce impacts associated with construction of the Project to less than 

significant levels. 

Construction of the Project would result in temporary increases to traffic levels due to the 

commuting of the construction workforce to the Project area as well as the movement of construction 

vehicles and delivery of equipment and materials to the construction work area. Overall, the number and 

frequency of construction vehicle trips would be low on any particular roadway at any one time because 

construction would move sequentially along the Project right-of-way and the Project would not cause an 

increase in traffic that would be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity. Therefore, 

impacts associated with increased traffic levels during construction of the Project would be less than 

significant. 

Cultural Resources 

The FERC is responsible for complying with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), which requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to 

comment. The procedures for complying with section 106 are outlined in the ACHP’s regulations (Title 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-19 

36 CFR Part 800). The effects of the Project on properties of traditional religious and cultural importance 

to Native Americans must also be considered in accordance with section 101 (d)(6) of the NHPA and the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act. North Baja, as a non-Federal party, is assisting the FERC in 

meeting its obligations under section 106 and the implementing regulations in Title 36 CFR Part 800. In 

addition, the BLM must consider Native American religious and cultural concerns for the portion of the 

Project crossing Federal lands in accordance with the Archaeological Resource Protection Act, the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007. 

The CSLC is responsible for complying with all provisions of the CEQA covering cultural 

resources, including the CEQA sections 21083.2 and 21084.1, and section 15064.5 of the Guidelines for 

Implementing the CEQA. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites, 

districts, and objects; standing historic structures, buildings, districts, and objects; and locations of 

important historic events or sites of traditional/cultural importance. The State CEQA Guidelines section 

15064.5 indicates a project may have a significant environmental effect if it causes “substantial adverse 

change” in the significance of an historic resource as defined in section 15064.5(a)(1) through (a)(4). 

Under the CEQA, the CSLC is also required to take into account the effect on properties eligible for 

listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or that meet the definition of a unique 

archaeological resource in the CEQA section 21083.2. 

North Baja surveyed a 220-foot-wide corridor in 2000 and 2001 for the construction of the ALine, which also covers the construction work area for the proposed B-Line. No cultural resources were 

identified in Arizona. Ninety cultural resources were identified along the B-Line route in California. 

Subsequent to its initial surveys, North Baja completed evaluations at 12 sites to determine their 

eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the CRHR. Based on the 

initial surveys and evaluations, six cultural resources are recommended as not eligible for listing on the 

NRHP and the CRHR and no further work is recommended. Thirty-four cultural resources have not been 

evaluated to determine eligibility and 50 sites are recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP and 

the CRHR. Of these, two NRHP-eligible cultural resources (Site CA-IMP-7911/H and the All-American 

Canal) were specifically identified by the BOR as important cultural resources. North Baja currently 

plans to mitigate impacts on Site CA-IMP-7911/H by completing data recovery and monitoring the site 

during construction. North Baja would avoid impacts on the All-American Canal by use of the HDD 

crossing method. Impacts on the other canals and irrigation features would be mitigated by North Baja’s 

proposal to monitor construction activities. North Baja would mitigate impacts on the remaining 

unevaluated and eligible sites by the use of avoidance measures (including installation of exclusion 

fencing), construction monitors, data recovery, and/or narrowing of the construction right-of-way. 

North Baja surveyed a 92- to 100-foot-wide corridor along the Arrowhead Extension route on 

Arrowhead Boulevard. The aboveground facility sites and temporary extra workspaces associated with 

the Arrowhead Extension were also surveyed. North Baja’s surveys identified six historic cultural 

resources, one of which (the C-05 Canal) was previously recorded. The remaining five cultural resources 

consist of two wood pole utility lines and three unnamed canals. All six cultural resources identified are 

unevaluated for eligibility for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR. The wood pole utility lines would not 

be affected by construction. The Arrowhead Extension would cross the C-05 Canal and two of the 

unnamed canals. The unnamed canals are private ditches that are not part of the Palo Verde Irrigation 

District irrigation system. North Baja would cross the two unnamed canals using the open-cut method 

and would restore the canals to their previous condition after construction. North Baja would avoid 

impacts on the C-05 Canal by use of the bore crossing method. 

North Baja surveyed a 100- to 200-foot-wide corridor along about 43.0 miles of the proposed IID 

Lateral route. The remainder of the proposed route was not surveyed due to denied access. North Baja 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-20 

would complete surveys along the remaining portion of the IID Lateral route when landowner permission 

is obtained. 

North Baja’s surveys identified 98 cultural resources along the IID Lateral. Subsequent to its 

initial surveys, North Baja completed evaluations at five sites to determine their eligibility for listing on 

the NRHP and the CRHR. Based on the initial surveys and evaluations, six cultural resources are 

recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR and no further work is 

recommended. Four cultural resources (the All-American Canal and Sites CA-IMP-8314, CA-IMP-8327, 

and CA-IMP-8389) are recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR. North Baja 

would avoid impacts on the All-American Canal by use of the HDD crossing method. North Baja would 

mitigate impacts on Site CA-IMP-8327 by avoiding and monitoring it during construction and on Site 

CA-IMP-8389 by implementing data recovery and monitoring it during construction. Site CA-IMP-8314 

is one of several cultural resources that collectively contribute to an archaeological district being proposed 

by the BOR. The BOR, the Quechan Indian Tribe, and the Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians requested 

that Site CA-IMP-8314 be avoided. The Agency Staffs are recommending that North Baja adopt the 

Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative to avoid impacts on this site. In response to other Native 

American requests, North Baja would have a monitor present during ground-disturbing activities along 

the alternative route south of Site CA-IMP-8314. The remaining 88 cultural resources have not been 

evaluated to determine eligibility for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR. Two of these sites would not 

be within the construction work area. Seventy-two of the unevaluated cultural resources are canals or 

other irrigation features, 13 are transmission/telephone lines or poles, and 1 is a railroad. North Baja 

would mitigate impacts on these features by monitoring them during construction to ensure avoidance. 

North Baja also completed surveys of the 18th Avenue, Ripley, Ogilby, and IID Lateral (El 

Centro) Contractor Yards. No eligible cultural resources were identified at these yards. North Baja has 

indicated it would complete surveys along any access roads that require improvements or modifications. 

North Baja provided its Unanticipated Discovery Plan to be used in the event that cultural 

resources or human remains are discovered during construction. The plan includes contact procedures for 

the FERC, the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), the BLM, the BOR, and Native American 

tribes, as appropriate. The plan provides for the protection in place of any unanticipated discoveries until 

appropriate evaluation and consultation have occurred. In the event that the discovery is determined to be 

of NRHP significance, a treatment plan (such as avoidance, monitoring, and/or scientific data recovery) 

would be developed and implemented in consultation with the appropriate parties. 

North Baja conducted initial and follow-up contacts with Native American tribes whose 

traditional territories are crossed by the Project or who had been identified by the SHPOs or another 

knowledgeable party as having a potential cultural resources concern. Members of the Quechan Indian 

Tribe and the Campo Band of Mission Indians participated in the cultural resources surveys as Native 

American monitors. 

At the time of North Baja’s follow-up consultations, the majority of the tribes indicated they had 

no concerns about the proposed Project or had not yet reviewed the Project materials. Some of these 

tribes also requested to receive future Project updates. North Baja was not able to complete follow up 

contacts with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. The Gila River Indian Community and the Hualapai 

Tribe indicated they would defer comments to the Colorado River Indian Tribe. The Hualapai Tribe and 

the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians identified concerns about existing trails in the Project area. 

North Baja would monitor construction activities to avoid impacts on trails. The Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community indicated it would defer comments to the Tohono O’odham Nation, which 

indicated it would defer comments to the Colorado River and Quechan Indian Tribes and the Mojave and 

Cocopah Tribes. To date, these tribes have provided comments on the Project including requests for 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-21 

survey reports and for monitors to be present during cultural resources surveys. The Hopi Tribe stated it 

would defer comments to the SHPO and other interested parties, that it had an interest in the White Tanks 

area, and that no known traditional cultural properties were in the Project area. The proposed Project 

would not affect the White Tanks area, which is near Phoenix. No Native American religious concerns 

were identified. 

No traditional cultural properties have been identified in the proposed Project’s area of potential 

effect to date. North Baja indicated it would continue consultations with Native American tribes 

throughout the Project. 

In addition to North Baja’s contacts, the Agency Staffs’ August 2005 notice regarding the Project 

was sent to 64 individuals from 33 Native American tribes that were identified by the California Native 

American Heritage Commission. One tribe, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, provided comments in 

response to the notice. 

The Arizona SHPO indicated that previous surveys were adequate for the currently proposed 

Project in Arizona. In order to complete the process of complying with section 106 of the NHPA for the 

proposed facilities, North Baja would need to conduct cultural resources surveys along portions of the 

proposed route in California where landowner permission has not been obtained. Once cultural resources 

surveys and evaluations are complete, the FERC, in consultation with the SHPO(s); the BLM; the BOR; 

the FWS, Cibola NWR; and Native American tribes, as applicable, would make determinations of 

eligibility and Project effects. If historic properties would be adversely affected, the FERC, as the lead 

Federal agency, would notify the ACHP to afford it an opportunity to participate in consultation. The 

CSLC would make the determination of eligibility for the CRHR for CEQA purposes. North Baja has 

prepared a treatment plan that specifies measures to reduce or mitigate impacts. Once the treatment plan 

is approved, a Memorandum of Agreement would be executed by the appropriate parties. North Baja 

would implement the specific treatment measures before Project construction is authorized by the FERC 

and the CSLC in any given area. Implementation of treatment would occur only after certification of the 

proposed Project. Implementation of treatment would ensure that Project-related adverse effects would 

be resolved for purposes of section 106 compliance, and reduced to less than significant levels for the 

purposes of NEPA compliance. 

Air Quality 

As the lead Federal agency responsible for authorizing the proposed Project, the FERC has 

identified emissions that would result from the Project in accordance with the published definitions of 

“direct” and “indirect” emissions in Title 40 CFR Part 51.852/93.152 and the supplementary information 

provided in the EPA’s final rule for Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or 

Federal Implementation Plans contained in 58 Federal Register 63214. Air quality in the Project area is 

regulated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District (AQMD), and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD). La 

Paz County, Arizona is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants. Portions of 

Riverside and Imperial Counties, California that are within the Project area are designated as 

nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 

microns and attainment for all other criteria pollutants. Because there would be no stationary sources or 

operational emissions associated with the proposed Project, the stationary source permitting requirements 

of the ADEQ, the Mojave Desert AQMD, and the ICAPCD do not apply. 

Fugitive dust regulations adopted by the ADEQ, the Mojave Desert AQMD, and the ICAPCD do 

apply to the construction activities associated with the proposed Project. The construction activities that 

would generate emissions include land clearing, ground excavation, and cut and fill operations. These 

construction activities would occur 6 days per week for up to 12 hours per day during the construction 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-22 

periods. The intermittent and short-term emissions generated by these activities would include dust from 

soil disruption and combustion emissions from the construction equipment. Emissions from construction 

of the pipeline and aboveground facilities are not expected to cause or significantly contribute to a 

violation of an applicable ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or 

projected air quality violation because the construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed 

basis during daylight hours only and the emissions from gasoline and diesel engines would be minimized 

because the engines must be built to meet the standards for mobile sources established by the EPA. Most 

of the construction equipment would be powered by diesel engines and would be equipped with typical 

control equipment (e.g., catalytic converters), and Project-related vehicles and construction equipment 

would be required to use the new low sulfur diesel fuel as soon as it is commercially available. In 

addition, North Baja would implement several other measures (e.g., minimize idling time, ensure that 

diesel-powered construction equipment is properly maintained and shut off when not in use, reduce 

construction-related trips as feasible for workers and equipment) to minimize impacts on air resources. 

Fugitive dust generated by construction activities would be minimized by the implementation of 

North Baja’s Dust Control Plan. The Dust Control Plan includes control measures identified as best 

management practices by some of the regulating agencies. Some of these measures include applying 

water to unpaved roads and active construction areas and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads. The 

Agency Staffs are recommending that North Baja file a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan to provide 

more specific information regarding the precautions that would be taken to minimize fugitive dust from 

pipeline construction activities. The Agency Staffs are also recommending that North Baja file an 

Imperial County-specific Dust Control Plan that includes the measures of the revised Project-wide Dust 

Control Plan and meets the requirements of the ICAPCD’s Regulation VIII. As discussed above, the 

Agency Staffs are also recommending that North Baja revise its OHV Plan to address enforcement and 

future monitoring. With the implementation of North Baja’s revised Dust Control and OHV Plans, 

fugitive dust from Project construction activities and OHV use of the right-of-way is not expected to 

result in a violation of Federal or State ambient air quality standards or contribute substantially to an 

existing or projected air quality violation due to the transient and temporary nature of the construction 

activities. 

Noise 

The Project would occur primarily in rural range, desert, and agricultural areas. Noise sources in 

rural areas are predominantly natural, including insects, birds, wind, and weather. Accordingly, existing 

ambient noise levels near most of the pipeline routes are low. The majority of the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities would be located in areas with little to no human population and few noisesensitive areas. The FERC guidelines do not specifically cover operational noise for the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project aboveground facilities such as the meter stations, pig launchers, or pig 

receivers. The proposed modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station would not increase 

operational noise levels at the station. Neither the States of Arizona nor California have Statewide noise 

regulations that would limit noise from these facilities; noise is regulated at the local level in both States. 

Noise would be generated during construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Noise 

associated with construction activities would be both temporary and intermittent because equipment 

would be operated on an as-needed basis during daylight hours. Therefore, the potential for construction 

activities to result in the generation of or exposure of persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or 

ground-borne noise levels would be less than significant. 

Pipeline construction would proceed at rates averaging about 1 mile per day. However, 

construction activities in any one area could last from several weeks to several months on an intermittent 

basis. Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during this period. Although 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-23 

certain noise-generating activities associated with pipeline construction (e.g., HDDs and bore operations) 

would occur at a single location for extended time periods and include nighttime activities, most activities 

would occur for limited lengths of time at a specific location and would occur during daytime hours. 

Additionally, a majority of the activities would occur away from population centers; therefore, the 

potential for the Project to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in 

the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project would be less than significant. 

North Baja would comply with the noise elements included in the Riverside County and Imperial 

County General Plans; therefore, the potential for the Project to result in the exposure of persons to or 

generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, 

or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant. 

Reliability and Safety 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT) Minimum Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192 and other 

applicable Federal and State regulations including the California Public Utilities Commission, General 

Order 112-e. These regulations, which are intended to protect the public and to prevent natural gas 

facility accidents and failures, include specifications for material selection and qualification; odorization 

of gas; minimum design requirements; and protection of the pipeline from internal, external, and 

atmospheric corrosion. To address seismic hazards, the facilities would be designed to meet or exceed the 

latest edition of the Uniform Building Code or International Building Code and to incorporate current 

seismological engineering standards, including the Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas 

Pipeline Systems (American Society of Civil Engineers 1984), Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel 

Pipe (American Lifelines Alliance 2001), and Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment of 

Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. 2004). 

North Baja would prepare and implement an Operation and Maintenance Plan in accordance with 

the requirements in Title 49 CFR Part 192. Within the first 6 months of placing the pipeline into 

operation, North Baja would conduct an internal inspection of the pipeline. This inspection would use an 

in-line magnetic flux leakage inspection tool (i.e., smart pig). The record of this inspection would serve 

as an initial set of data that would be compared to future internal inspections so that changes in pipe 

condition, primarily pipe wall thickness loss, can be readily determined and corrected. Following the 

initial test, internal inspections with a high resolution instrument would be conducted on a periodic basis, 

at a minimum of one inspection every 10 years, or sooner if the evidence suggests that significant 

corrosion or defects exist or if any new Federal or State regulations require more frequent or comparable 

inspections. In locations designated as high consequence areas, the pipeline would be inspected every 7 

years. 

The existing pipeline system is monitored and controlled 24 hours a day for pressure drops in the 

pipeline that could indicate a leak or other operating problem through a Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition (SCADA) system, which is a computer system for gathering and analyzing real-time systems. 

The system is programmed to take appropriate immediate action when alarm conditions are present. The 

SCADA system allows operators located in the Gas Control Center in Portland to monitor pipeline system 

conditions, including any actions that the SCADA system has made or any conditions that require 

immediate operator actions such as shutting down a compressor unit, closing a valve, or initiating 

emergency call-out action. In addition, a crew that conducts on-site operations and maintenance is 

located at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, and is on call 24 hours a day. When completed, the B-Line, 

the Arrowhead Extension, and the IID Lateral would be operated in conjunction with the existing system 

and subject to the same operation and maintenance procedures. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-24 

The pipeline facilities would be clearly marked at line-of-sight intervals and at other key points to 

indicate the presence of the pipeline. The pipeline system would be routinely inspected by air and on the 

ground to observe right-of-way conditions and monitor for encroachments, third-party activities, or 

erosion on or near the right-of-way. All inspections would be conducted in accordance with DOT 

standards. Erosion or unstable conditions would be repaired as appropriate and appurtenant facilities 

would be maintained on a regular basis. 

While the primary focus of these standards is prevention of accidents, North Baja would prepare 

an Emergency Response Plan that would be coordinated and tested (through drills and exercises) with 

local fire/police departments and emergency management agencies. 

Cumulative Impacts 

When the impacts of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project are considered additively with 

the impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, there is some potential for 

cumulative effect on resources such as soils, vegetation and wildlife, land use, recreation, aesthetic 

resources, socioeconomics, transportation and traffic, cultural resources, air quality, and noise. For the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, mitigation has been developed or recommended to minimize, 

avoid, or compensate for adverse impacts on each of these resources. 

Animal and plant species that are federally and/or State-listed threatened and endangered species 

and their critical habitat would be affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. The Agency 

Staffs have determined that the Project is likely to adversely affect the federally and California-listed 

threatened desert tortoise and its designated critical habitat and the federally listed threatened and 

California-listed endangered Peirson’s milk-vetch. The Agency Staffs also believe that impacts on the 

flat-tailed horned lizard, which is a California-listed special concern species, and its habitat would be 

considered significant. As such, impacts on these three species would result in significant cumulative 

impacts if other projects occurring in the vicinity of the proposed Project would also occur within desert 

habitats that support these same species. 

As discussed above, the North Baja system extends from an interconnection with the facilities of 

El Paso near Ehrenberg through southeast California to a point on the international border between Yuma, 

Arizona and Mexicali, North Baja Mexico, where the pipeline interconnects with the Gasoducto 

Bajanorte pipeline. The Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline, which currently takes gas from the North Baja 

system at the U.S.-Mexico border and moves it west, would be reconfigured to move gas in the opposite 

direction, similar to the reconfiguration of the North Baja system that would occur during Phase I. 

Transport of the initial volumes of LNG-source gas would also require a new 45-mile-long pipeline 

lateral from the ECA terminal to connect to the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline and a new compressor 

station (Algodones Compressor Station) on the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline. This compressor station 

would be located 2.5 miles south of the California-Mexico border and 3 miles west of the ArizonaMexico border, in Baja California del Norte just southwest of the border town of Algodones. The 

reconfiguration of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline and the construction of the Algodones Compressor 

Station are planned for completion in late 2007. 

The capacity of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline system would similarly be expanded in 

coordination with North Baja’s Phase II expansion. To accommodate the additional volume of gas, up to 

100 percent looping of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline and additional compression would be required, 

both at the Algodones Compressor Station and at a new compressor station near Mexicali (Mexicali 

Compressor Station). These facilities would be constructed in 2009 to be operational by 2010. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-25 

Because of the proximity of the proposed compressor stations in Mexico, the potential exists for 

operating emissions to affect air quality in the United States, specifically in the Imperial Valley portion of 

Imperial County. The Agency Staffs conducted an analysis of the operating emissions from the Mexicali 

and Algodones Compressor Stations taking into account the emissions from existing power plants west of 

Mexicali (the La Rosita Power Complex [LRPC] and the Termoelectrica de Mexicali Power Plant [TDM 

Plant]). Based on this analysis, the Project’s incremental impact does not exceed the applicable 

Significant Impact Level and is well below 0.5 percent of the applicable Federal and/or State standards. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that emissions from the proposed future compressor stations would result in any 

significant cumulative ambient air quality impacts at receptors in the vicinity of or across the U.S. border. 

A Health Risk Assessment was conducted to determine the potential impacts of the toxic air 

pollutants emitted by the existing power plants and proposed compressor stations. The analysis also 

included the LRPC and TDM Plant. Based on the analysis, the average cancer risks as well as the chronic 

and acute hazard indexes would be well below the established significance thresholds used by California 

air districts. In addition, the future chronic and acute hazard indexes would also be well below the more 

stringent thresholds set by the South Coast AQMD. Therefore, the cumulative risks associated with the 

emissions from the existing power plants and the future compressor stations would be considered less 

than significant. 

Growth-inducing Impacts 

North Baja does not anticipate adding permanent staff to handle Project operations. The potential 

growth-inducing impact of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would be the delivery of an 

alternative or additional source of natural gas to existing natural gas users. Providing an alternate fuel 

supply could lead to a positive economic environment conducive to growth or prevent increases in energy 

costs that might restrict growth. The existing power plant that would be supplied by the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project (i.e., the IID El Centro Generating Station) is not solely dependent on the gas 

supplied by the Project. Potential infrastructure growth might occur with or without the construction of 

the pipeline and thus would not be attributable to the proposed Project. However, to the extent that the 

IID’s Unit 3 Repower Project, which is a proposed expansion at the El Centro Generating Station, would 

diversify its suppliers of natural gas, the additional gas supplied by the proposed Project could be a 

growth-inducing impact.

Environmental Justice 

Some communities within the Potential Impact Radius6

 of the Project have low-income and 

minority populations compared to the affected counties as a whole. However, none of the potential 

impacts of the Project that could affect environmental justice issues are considered significant. Therefore, 

the Project would neither result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect or impact on minority or 

low-income populations nor contribute to a cumulative impact on these populations. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The No Project Alternative was considered. The Agency Staffs concluded that while the No 

Project Alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts identified in this EIS/EIR, North Baja 

would not be able to provide transportation for LNG-source natural gas from the Mexican pipeline system 

into the United States to meet the demand for natural gas in California and other southwestern U.S. 

 

6

 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the maximum allowable operating pressure of the 

pipeline in pounds per square inch multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-26 

markets. This means customers in the southwestern United States would likely have fewer and 

potentially more expensive options for obtaining natural gas supplies in the near future. This might lead 

to alternative proposals to develop natural gas delivery or storage infrastructure, reduced use of natural 

gas, and/or the use of other sources of energy. 

It is possible that the infrastructure currently supplying natural gas to the proposed market area 

could be developed in other ways unforeseen at this point. This might include constructing or expanding 

regional pipelines as well as LNG import and storage systems. Any construction or expansion work 

would result in specific environmental impacts that could be less than, similar to, or greater than those 

associated with the proposed Project. Increased costs could potentially result in customers conserving or 

reducing use of natural gas. Although it is possible that additional conservation may have some effect on 

the demand for natural gas, the level of conservation efforts, as described in the CEC’s 2005 Integrated 

Energy Policy Report (CEC 2005a), is not expected to significantly reduce the long-term requirements for 

natural gas or effectively exert downward pressures on gas prices. 

Denying North Baja’s applications could force potential natural gas customers to seek regulatory 

approval to use other forms of energy. California regulators are promoting renewable energy programs to 

help reduce the demand for fossil fuels. While renewable energy programs can contribute as an energy 

source for electricity, they cannot at this time reliably replace the need for natural gas or provide 

sufficient energy to keep pace with demand. 

Alternatives involving the use of other existing or proposed LNG or natural gas facilities to meet 

the stated objectives of the proposed Project were evaluated. None of these system alternatives could 

meet the Project objectives within the time frame of the proposed Project. Furthermore, each of the 

system alternatives could result in its own set of significant environmental impacts that could be greater 

than those associated with the proposed Project. 

The B-Line deviates from a designated utility corridor on BLM land at five locations in the 

CDCA. As part of the EIS/EIR for the A-Line, the alternative of following designated utility corridors 

was considered. Based on the analysis conducted for that project, the route selected for the A-Line, 

including the deviations from designated utility corridors and the crossing of the Milpitas Wash SMA, 

was determined to be environmentally preferable to a route that remained within designated utility 

corridors. The proposed B-Line would be adjacent to the existing A-Line for the entire route. The 

collocation of facilities is generally preferred by land management agencies, land use planners, and other 

regulatory agencies and has several inherent engineering and environmental advantages. Perhaps the 

most important of these advantages is that new land disturbance is minimized. Because of the advantages 

of collocation, and because the route selected for the A-Line that would be followed for the B-Line was 

previously determined to be environmentally preferable to a route that remains within a designated utility 

corridor, alternatives for the B-Line route that would follow designated utility corridors were not 

considered. One route alternative (22nd Avenue Alternative) in comparison with the corresponding 

segment of the proposed B-Line was evaluated. The 22nd Avenue Alternative would avoid 18th Avenue. 

The 22nd Avenue Alternative was eliminated because it would merely transfer impacts from one or more 

property owners or communities to another without conferring obvious environmental advantages. 

Eight route alternatives were evaluated in comparison with the corresponding segment of the 

proposed IID Lateral. Along the IID Lateral, North Baja proposes to deviate from a designated utility 

corridor at three locations within the CDCA. Two alternatives (Corridor L and Bonds Corner 

Alternatives) were evaluated to stay within a designated utility corridor for a longer distance than the 

proposed route. Four alternatives (CalTrans, ISDRA North, ISDRA Transmission Line, and ISDRA 

Grays Well Road Alternatives) were identified to avoid potential conflicts of the IID Lateral with existing 

and planned recreational use in the ISDRA. One alternative (the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-27 

Alternative) was identified to avoid impacts on a cultural resources site. The eighth alternative 

(Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline Route Alternative) would connect directly from the Gasoducto Bajanorte 

pipeline west of Mexicali to the IID’s El Centro Generating Station. The Agency Staffs determined that 

the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative is environmentally superior to the corresponding 

segment of the IID Lateral and are recommending that it be adopted. The remaining IID Lateral 

alternatives were eliminated because they would not be environmentally preferable to the corresponding 

segment of the IID Lateral, would be infeasible, or would not meet the Project objectives. 

Four route variations (East Mesa Route Variation and Imperial Valley Route Variations A, B, and 

C) in comparison with the corresponding segment of the proposed IID Lateral were evaluated to avoid 

potential conflicts with other projects or address scoping comments. These route variations were 

eliminated because they would not be environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the IID 

Lateral, would be infeasible, or would merely transfer impacts from one or more property owners or 

communities to another without conferring obvious environmental advantages. 

Aboveground facility site alternatives were evaluated. All of the proposed new and modified 

aboveground facilities are designed to meet the purpose and need of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project. The location of these facilities is dictated by the location of the existing and proposed pipelines 

and, in most cases, the proposed facilities would be collocated with existing and/or other proposed 

facilities. No significant impacts have been identified at any of the new or modified facilities; therefore, 

the alternative that would result in the creation of new industrial sites would not be environmentally 

preferable to the proposed Project and thus was eliminated from further consideration. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 

The State CEQA Guidelines (section 15126.6(d)) require that an EIR include sufficient 

information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the 

proposed Project. An analysis of the No Project Alternative in comparison with the proposed Project is 

included in the major resource topics in Section 4. A comparison of the impacts of the proposed Project 

and the No Project Alternative is included in Section 5. Based on the analysis in this EIS/EIR, the No 

Project Alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and, 

therefore, is the environmentally superior alternative. However, as discussed above, under the No Project 

Alternative North Baja would not be able to provide transportation for LNG-source natural gas from the 

Mexican pipeline system into the United States to meet the growing demand for natural gas in California 

and other southwestern U.S. markets. 

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides, in part, “If the environmentally 

superior alternative is the “No Project Alternative,” the EIR shall also identify an environmentally 

superior alternative among the other alternatives.” The Agency Staffs have determined that the proposed 

Project with the incorporation of the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative is the 

environmentally superior alternative. The environmentally superior alternative and the segments 

requiring CDCA and Yuma District Plan amendments are shown on Figure ES-1. The incorporation of 

the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line does not affect the length of the Project that would require a 

BLM plan amendment. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 

The Agency Staffs have concluded that if the Project is constructed in accordance with applicable 

laws and regulations, North Baja’s proposed mitigation, and the Agency Staffs’ additional mitigation 

measures, it would be an environmentally acceptable action. Although many factors were considered in 

this determination, the principal reasons are: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
ES-28 

• 99 percent of the proposed pipeline facilities would be constructed in or adjacent to 

various existing rights-of-way; 

• no new permanent right-of-way would be required for the B-line, and the permanent 

rights-of-way for the Arrowhead Extension and the IID Lateral would be limited to a 

maximum width of 35 feet and 30 feet, respectively; 

• North Baja would implement its CM&R Plan, SPCC Plan, HDD Plan, Traffic 

Management Plans, Blasting Specifications, PRMM Plan, Dust Control Plan, Fire 

Prevention and Suppression Plan, Site-specific Residential Construction Mitigation Plans, 

OHV Plan, Plan of Development, and Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural 

Resources to protect natural resources and residential areas during construction and 

operation of the Project; 

• use of the HDD method would avoid disturbances to the beds and banks of the Colorado 

River, the All-American Canal, and the East Highline Canal and associated 

wetlands/riparian areas; 

• the appropriate consultations with the FWS, the CDFG, the SHPOs, and Native American 

tribes would be completed before North Baja would be allowed to begin construction in 

any given area; and 

• an environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program would ensure 

compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of the FERC Certificate, 

the CSLC’s amended lease, and other approvals. 

The FERC and CSLC staffs are responsible for identifying any significant environmental impacts 

so they can be considered by their respective Commissions in deciding whether to approve the Project. 

As part of the analysis, specific mitigation measures were developed to reduce the environmental impact 

that would result from construction of the Project. With three exceptions, North Baja’s proposed and/or 

the Agency Staffs’ recommended mitigation would reduce potential environmental impacts to less than 

significant levels. The Agency Staffs have determined that the Project is likely to adversely affect the 

Peirson’s milk-vetch and the desert tortoise and its designated critical habitat. The Agency Staffs also 

believe that impacts on the flat-tailed horned lizard and its habitat would be considered significant. As 

such, impacts on these three species would be considered significant. Approval of the Project would be 

subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations under the CEQA due to these significant unavoidable 

impacts that could remain after all available or feasible mitigation is applied. As discussed above, in the 

BO issued on April 20, 2007, the FWS concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the desert tortoise and the Peirson’s milk-vetch or adversely modify critical habitat 

for the desert tortoise. The CDFG has not yet issued its conclusions regarding the impact of the Project 

on the desert tortoise, the Peirson’s milk-vetch, and the flat-tailed horned lizard. 

The FERC and CSLC staffs will recommend that all mitigation measures in this EIS/EIR be 

attached as conditions to any Certificate issued by the FERC and to any approval issued by the CSLC, as 

appropriate. The BLM will present, in its Records of Decision for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project, its own recommendations that incorporate the concurrence or non-concurrence of the BOR and 

the FWS. The FERC, the CSLC, and the BLM would ensure compliance with the mitigation measures 

included in this EIS/EIR through the adoption of an environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring 

program for the Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On February 7, 2006, North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja), an indirect wholly owned 

subsidiary of TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission or FERC) under sections 7 and 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157, 

284, and 153 of the Commission’s regulations. The application was assigned Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 

and CP01-23-003 and was noticed in the Federal Register on March 1, 2006. North Baja is seeking a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) from the FERC to construct, own, and 

operate an expansion of its existing interstate natural gas pipeline system. North Baja is also seeking 

FERC authorization for an amendment to its Presidential Permit to allow construction of additional 

facilities at the U.S.-Mexico border and the importation of vaporized liquefied natural gas (LNG). North 

Baja’s application to the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) for an amendment to its existing 

right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands was received on May 17, 2005. North 

Baja’s proposal, referred to as the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project or proposed Project), 

was analyzed in a draft environmental impact statement/environmental impact report and draft land use 

plan amendment (draft EIS/EIR) that was issued on September 27, 2006. 

On November 21, 2006, North Baja filed an amendment to its application with the FERC in 

Docket No. CP06-61-001 seeking authorization to modify its point for delivery of natural gas to the 

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) system. Modifying the point for delivery to the SoCalGas 

system would also modify the point for delivery to the Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline. The 

facilities needed to deliver natural gas to the modified delivery points are referred to as the Arrowhead 

Alternative. Adoption of the Arrowhead Alternative would modify a small portion of the originally 

proposed Project by exchanging certain aboveground facilities and short segments of pipeline. Adoption 

of the Arrowhead Alternative would also eliminate the need for North Baja to construct an odorant 

facility because the natural gas would be odorized by SoCalGas using its existing odorant facilities. The 

Arrowhead Alternative was fully analyzed in the draft EIS/EIR. North Baja’s amendment did not propose 

any changes to the transportation capacity of its proposed expansion. 

On February 1, 2007, North Baja filed an amendment to its application filed on February 7, 2006, 

as amended on November 21, 2006, in Docket No. CP06-61-002 to eliminate the Blythe Energy 

Interconnect (BEI) Lateral. The amendment addressed only the pipeline extending from the proposed 

Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station to the Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline and did not propose any 

changes to the transportation capacity of North Baja’s proposed expansion. 

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that has been modified in this final environmental 

impact statement/environmental impact report and proposed land use plan amendment (final EIS/EIR) 

and differs from the corresponding text in the draft EIS/EIR. 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would involve the construction and operation of up to 

79.8 miles of 42-inch- and 48-inch-diameter pipeline loop1 adjacent to North Baja’s existing 30-inch- and 

36-inch-diameter pipeline; a 2.1-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter lateral;2

 a 45.7-mile-long, 16-inch-diameter 

lateral; two new meter stations; modifications at North Baja’s existing compressor and meter stations; and 

installation of new taps and crossover piping, mainline and lateral valves, and pig3

 launchers and 

receivers. The existing North Baja system is currently certificated by the FERC to transport 512,500 

 

1

 A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. The loop allows 

more gas to be moved through the system. 2

 A lateral pipeline typically takes gas from the main system to deliver it to a customer, local distribution system, or another interstate 

transmission system. 3

 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-2 

dekatherms per day (Dthd) (500 million standard cubic feet per day [MMscfd]) of natural gas in a 

southbound direction. Once completed, the expanded system would be capable of transporting up to 

2,932,000 Dthd (2,753 MMscfd) of natural gas in a northbound direction. 

A total of 65.3 miles of the proposed pipeline would be on lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) under the jurisdiction of the Palm Springs-South Coast, El Centro, and Yuma Field 

Offices. Because the proposed route deviates from a designated utility corridor on BLM land in several 

locations and would cross the Milpitas Wash Special Management Area (SMA), the BLM would need to 

amend two resource management plans: the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA Plan) (as 

amended) and the Yuma District Resource Management Plan (Yuma District Plan). The environmental 

staffs of the FERC, the CSLC, and the BLM (Agency Staffs) have prepared this final EIS/EIR to assess 

the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the facilities proposed by 

North Baja in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

North Baja proposes a phased construction schedule beginning in 2007 and ending in 2009. The 

proposed Project facilities and schedule are described in detail in Section 2.0. 

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES, PURPOSE, AND NEED 

North Baja’s existing system extends approximately 79.8 miles from an interconnection with the 

facilities of El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) near Ehrenberg, Arizona through southeast 

California to a point on the international border between Yuma, Arizona and Mexicali, North Baja 

Mexico, where the pipeline interconnects with the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline. 

The North Baja system and the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline were built in 2002 to supply 

domestic natural gas from the United States primarily to gas-fired electric generation facilities in Baja 

California, Mexico. Since that time, several projects have been initiated to build LNG storage and 

vaporization terminals on the Baja California coast, near the terminus of the Gasoducto Bajanorte 

pipeline. LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to a temperature of about -260 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 

so that it becomes a liquid. Because LNG is more compact than the gaseous equivalent, it can be 

transported long distances across oceans using specially designed ships. The terminals in Baja California 

would receive LNG imported from southern and western Pacific Rim countries including Russia (the 

Sakhalin Project), Australia (the Gorgon Project, among others), and Indonesia (the Tangguh Project). 

The first of these terminals, Sempra LNG’s (Sempra) Energia Costa Azul (ECA) terminal, is 

already under construction with an anticipated commercial in-service date of early 2008. Sempra has 

announced its intention to expand the ECA terminal to double its base and peak load capacity and held a 

non-binding open season between April 17 and May 12, 2006 to solicit commercial interest in additional 

LNG processing capacity. Although the open season was non-binding, the results indicated high shipper 

interest in additional processing capacity. Sempra has announced that it will begin working with the 

shippers that submitted bids to develop binding terminal agreements. Pending regulatory approvals and 

successful commercial negotiations, the expansion could become operational as early as 2010. 

At the time of North Baja’s application submittals and the issuance of the draft EIS/EIR, Chevron 

Corporation (Chevron) was developing the Terminal GNL Mar Adentro de Baja California (Mar 

Adentro). The Mar Adentro terminal received project approval from the Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y 

Recursos Naturales in 2004 and authorization from the Communication and Transport Secretariat in 

January 2005. In January 2005, several U.S. and Mexican environmental groups filed a challenge to the 

Mar Adentro terminal authorizations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Under 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-3 

NAFTA rules, the environmental commission can hold hearings on disputed issues surrounding the 

project but it cannot stop the project. Front end engineering and design work on the terminal commenced 

in March 2004. In March 2007, Chevron announced cancellation of the project. 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is designed to transport LNG-source natural gas from 

Baja California to California and Arizona. In addition to the new volumes from Baja California, North 

Baja would continue to offer southbound gas transportation service for several existing shippers via 

backhaul.4

 More specifically, the objectives of the proposed Project are to: 

• modify the North Baja pipeline system to allow natural gas entering the continent at LNG 

terminals in Baja California to flow into California and Arizona; 

• expand the current capacity of the North Baja pipeline system to transport up to 

2,932,000 Dthd (2,753 MMscfd) of LNG-source natural gas from Baja California5

 to 

U.S. delivery points; 

• expand the system in a phased manner that would allow flexibility for the capacity to 

become available when market needs warrant; 

• interconnect with the gas transmission systems of SoCalGas at Blythe, California and El 

Paso at Ehrenberg, Arizona, which would allow LNG-source gas to be delivered to 

various users within southern California and other customers in the Southwest, and to 

provide adequate delivery pressures into those systems; and 

• provide the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) direct access to LNG-source gas and to the 

interstate natural gas pipeline network by delivering up to 110,000 Dthd (103 MMscfd) 

of LNG-source gas to a delivery point at IID’s existing El Centro Generating Station in 

El Centro, California. The El Centro Generating Station currently receives its natural gas 

from SoCalGas. The volumes delivered by the North Baja system would be used to serve 

the existing electric generating load at the station and would provide supply and supplier 

diversification for the IID. As stated above, North Baja would continue to offer 

southbound transportation via backhaul. This arrangement would enhance the IID’s 

current access to domestic supplies and provide greater flexibility and reliability for the 

IID. 

According to North Baja, access to natural gas from the southern and western Pacific Rim 

countries would provide an entirely new source of natural gas supply and allow gas consumers in the 

Southwest (including California) to replace North American reserves. This new supply would benefit 

American consumers by increasing gas-on-gas competition and putting downward pressure on prices. 

Any action that can reduce prices will have a significant impact on the total amount spent by consumers, 

because the California gas market is the second largest in the United States. 

 

4

 The American Gas Association defines a backhaul as a transaction that results in the transportation of gas in a direction opposite of the 

aggregate physical flow of gas in the pipeline. This is typically achieved when the transporting pipeline redelivers gas at a point(s) upstream 

from the point(s) of receipt. A backhaul condition will exist as long as the aggregate backhaul transactions total less than the aggregate 

forward haul transactions. An example of how this could occur on North Baja’s expanded system is if a southbound shipper desires to 

deliver domestic gas to the IID Lateral. The gas would be delivered to the interconnection with the North Baja system and the IID Lateral 

and received at the existing interconnection between North Baja and El Paso. The actual physical flow direction of the gas would be 

northbound. Physically, molecules of LNG would be delivered at the IID Lateral while the domestic molecules would be delivered to 

customer(s) at the interconnections at the northern end of the North Baja system or other pipelines. 5

 It is now likely that only the ECA terminal and the expanded ECA terminal would supply gas for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-4 

In 2003, Californians consumed about 2.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. In-State production of natural 

gas satisfies only about 13 percent of Statewide demand (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2005b). 

The remaining natural gas that is consumed in the State comes primarily from five major out-of-State 

production basins: the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (Alberta, Canada), the Rocky Mountain 

Basin (Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado), the San Juan Basin (New Mexico), the Anadarko Basin 

(Oklahoma and Texas), and the Permian Basin (Texas). The natural gas currently transported on the 

SoCalGas system between Blythe and the Los Angeles metropolitan area comes entirely from the San 

Juan and Permian Basins. These basins are in decline or are projected to go into decline in the relatively 

near future. 

The demand for natural gas in California, as in the rest of the United States, is expanding. Recent 

projections estimate that the use of natural gas in California will increase at a rate of 0.7 percent per year 

to about 2.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2013 (CEC 2005a). This is based on the most 

comprehensive information available at the time the final EIS/EIR was prepared. According to the CEC, 

although increases in efficiency and use of renewable energy sources are expected to moderate future 

demand, they are offset by population and business growth. Gas producers across North America are 

struggling to keep pace with the growing demand and while the number of natural gas wells drilled in the 

United States and Canada is at an all-time high, conventional production from most of the mature supply 

basins in North America has declined or only increased modestly since 1990 (CEC 2005a). The amount 

of gas produced per well is also declining, and each well is being drained faster (CEC 2005a). The result 

is that domestic natural gas production is expected to remain almost the same over the next decade and 

will not keep up with the growth in demand. 

The projected shortfall in North American production relative to demand in California is expected 

to be compounded by two factors: California’s position at the western end of the American and Canadian 

pipeline network, which exposes it to supply/demand imbalances that occur in other regions of the United 

States, and the growth in natural gas demand in Canada and Mexico. 

California’s supply of natural gas is affected by rising demand for natural gas in neighboring 

states. Forty-three new power plants totaling more than 8,000 megawatts have come online in Arizona 

since 2001 (CEC 2005a). These plants are intermediate load and peaking power plants, which often ramp 

up quickly to meet changing electricity demand. According to the CEC, this may take more natural gas 

from the pipeline faster than expected. Under normal circumstances, this practice is not troublesome if 

the pipeline can be balanced by taking gas out of storage. In the Phoenix area, however, the nearest 

storage is over 300 miles away, and it is becoming increasingly common for pipeline pressure to drop 

during periods of high demand. If the gas pressure gets low enough, it could cause curtailments that 

could affect natural gas delivery into California (CEC 2005a). 

California’s supply of natural gas could also be affected by the demands for natural gas in Canada 

and Mexico, which are projected to grow at an annual rate of 1.3 and 2.9 percent, respectively (CEC 

2005a). Although the CEC estimates that domestic and Canadian sources could fulfill projected 

California natural gas demand through 2013, as Canada and Mexico increasingly turn to natural gas to 

satisfy their own growing demand for electricity, traditional drilling and exploratory activities are not 

going to be sufficient to meet both their own domestic needs and their export requirements to the United 

States. For these reasons, the CEC has strongly recommended that the State pursue other measures to 

secure supplies (Marks 2004). 

Given the demand for natural gas and the need to reduce potential supply interruptions, the CEC 

has identified the need for California to develop new natural gas infrastructure to gain access to a 

diversity of fuel supply sources and to remove constraints on the delivery of natural gas. In addition to 

efficiency programs and use of renewable power sources, the CEC has identified LNG receiving 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-5 

terminals on the Pacific Coast as a potential future cost-competitive and reliable source (CEC 2005a), 

enabling California gas markets to obtain supplies from producing basins throughout the Pacific and 

Indian Oceans (e.g., Indonesia, Australia, Russia, South America, and Alaska). Moreover, the CEC has 

said that the cost to deliver natural gas to the West Coast via an LNG project could be well below the 

market prices that California pays at its borders. Thus, a potential new supply source close to or in 

California could have a major effect on the market prices for natural gas in California (CEC 2005a). 

However, actual prices to consumers will depend upon contracts signed between suppliers and consumers 

or their representatives. 

The anticipated delivery points for the proposed Project are: the El Centro Generating Station in 

El Centro, California (via the proposed 45.7-mile-long lateral [IID Lateral]); the SoCalGas system in 

Blythe, California; and the El Paso system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. These interconnections would provide 

markets in California and the Southwest with access to LNG-source gas, either physically or through 

displacement. For example, a portion of the LNG-source gas shipped on the North Baja system is 

expected to displace gas currently being supplied by other pipeline systems from other sources. 

Specifically, some of the deliveries to the SoCalGas system would displace deliveries currently received 

from the El Paso system. The displaced gas could be delivered by El Paso to Arizona, while the LNGsource gas delivered to SoCalGas would be delivered to customers throughout southern California, 

including Imperial County. North Baja states that no modifications would be required on the SoCalGas 

system to receive gas from the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project and that the El Paso pipelines 

appear to have the necessary capacity without the need to construct additional pipeline. 

The proposed Project would be constructed in three phases as follows: 

• Phase I would involve modifications at North Baja’s existing Ehrenberg Compressor 

Station and Ogilby Meter Station to allow for natural gas flow from south to north; 

modifications at the existing El Paso Meter Station at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station 

site to allow LNG-source gas to be delivered into the El Paso system; and construction of 

a 2.1-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter lateral (Arrowhead Extension) and new meter station 

(Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station) to connect with the SoCalGas system. 

• Phase I-A would involve the construction of the 45.7-mile-long IID Lateral between the 

North Baja system and the existing IID El Centro Generating Station in El Centro. 

• Phase II would involve the construction of up to 79.8 miles of pipeline loop (B-Line) 

adjacent to North Baja’s existing system (A-Line) between Blythe and the U.S.-Mexico 

border. At this date, it remains uncertain what the final Phase II volumes would be. 

Therefore, the environmental review of the Project has been based on the maximum 

facility footprint (i.e., full looping of the existing A-Line) to ensure a full analysis of the 

potential environmental impacts. 

Once the Phase I, Phase I-A, and Phase II expansions are completed, the total northbound 

capacity of the North Baja system would be 2,932,000 Dthd (2,753 MMscfd). 

North Baja currently has executed precedent agreements6

 for firm natural gas transportation 

service on its expanded system that exceed the estimated size of the proposed ECA terminal expansion. 

The average contract term is 20 years. Table 1.1-1 lists North Baja’s shippers by phase, the contracted 

volumes, and the delivery path. In addition to the new expansion shippers, several of North Baja’s 

 

6

 A precedent agreement is a binding contract under which one or both parties has the ability to terminate the agreement if certain conditions, 

such as receipt of regulatory approvals, are not met. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-6 

existing shippers have elected to reverse the direction of their existing southbound capacity to northbound 

capacity. The initial volumes that these shippers have elected for northbound flow is 302,000 Dthd 

(283.57 MMscfd) in 2007. In 2010, this volume is reduced to 272,000 Dthd (255.40 MMscfd). 

TABLE 1.1-1 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Precedent Agreements

Phase/Shipper 

Quantity (Dthd) 

Annual Delivery Path 

Phase I Northbound 

Coral Energy Resources, LP 212,000 U.S.-Mexico border to El Paso Natural Gas Company a

(El Paso) 

Sempra Energy LNG Marketing Corp. 100,000 U.S.-Mexico border to El Paso a

Existing Shippers b 302,000 U.S.-Mexico border to El Paso a

Total Phase I Northbound 614,000 

Phase I-A IID Lateral 

Imperial Irrigation District 110,000 Ogilby Meter Station to El Centro Generating Station 

Phase II Northbound 

Chevron USA, Inc. 1,070,000 c U.S.-Mexico border to El Paso a

Coral Energy Resources, LP 530,000 c U.S.-Mexico border to El Paso a

Sempra Energy LNG Marketing Corp. 200,000 U.S.-Mexico border to El Paso a

Total Phase II Northbound 1,800,000 

Total Northbound Phases (2010) 2,384,000 d

Unsuscribed Northbound Capacity 548,000 

____________________ 

a

 Deliveries to Southern California Gas Company would fall within the path. 

b

 Several existing shippers reversed the primary path from southbound to northbound for a total 302,000 Dthd (283.57 

MMscfd). In 2010, this volume is reduced to 272,000 Dthd (255.40 MMscfd). c

 Although these volumes were anticipated to be transported from the Mar Adentro terminal, the shippers have not 

terminated their precedent agreements for transportation capacity on Phase II of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project. d

 Reflects the reduction in Phase I volumes described in footnote b. 

Note: All precedent agreement terms are for 20 years. 

The current gas quality and interchangeability standards for delivery into the SoCalGas and San 

Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) local distribution systems were established in September 2006 

by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in its Phase 2 Order Addressing Infrastructure 

Adequacy & Slack Capacity, Interconnection & Operational Balancing Agreements, an Infrastructure 

Working Group, Natural Gas Supply and Infrastructure Adequacy for Electric Generators, Natural Gas 

Quality, and Other Matters (CPUC 2006). In the proceeding, the CPUC specifically adopted new gas 

quality and interchangeability standards for SoCalGas and SDG&E and reduced the upper Wobbe Index7

(WI) limit to 1385 for SoCalGas and SDG&E. The WI measures the heating potential of the gas; the 

higher the WI, the higher the heat value. Combustion of natural gas with higher heating values and a 

higher WI results in increased combustion temperature and, possibly, increased nitrogen oxides (NOx) 

emissions. The limit set by the CPUC is based on the recommendations set forth in the White Paper on 

Natural Gas Interchangeability and Non-Combustion End Use issued by the NGC+ Interchangeability 

Work Group on February 28, 2005 (NGC+ Interchangeability Work Group 2005). In its Policy Statement 

on Provisions Governing Natural Gas Quality and Interchangeability in Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline 

Company Tariffs issued on June 15, 2006 (FERC 2006), the FERC encouraged the use of the White Paper 

 

7

 The Wobbe Index is the main indicator of the interchangeability of fuel gases and is frequently defined in the specifications of gas supply 

and transport utilities. The Wobbe Index is found by dividing the higher heating value of natural gas by the square root of its specific 

gravity with respect to air. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-7 

as a common scientific reference point for resolving gas quality and interchangeability issues. All gas 

delivered to end users in southern California is transported through the SoCalGas/SDG&E system at 

some point before delivery and, therefore, must comply with the new CPUC-approved gas quality 

standards. Before the adoption of the new standards, SoCalGas and SDG&E could accept natural gas 

with a WI as high as 1437. 

Comments on the draft EIS/EIR were received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District (ICAPCD), and the Border Power Plant Working Group expressing concern that the 

supplies of natural gas from the Mexican LNG facilities that would be transported on the North Baja 

system would have a higher WI compared to the gas historically transported through the SoCalGas/

SDG&E system. These parties refer to this LNG-source gas as “hot gas” and assert that the introduction 

of the LNG-source gas would substantially increase emissions of the ozone precursor NOx in the South 

Coast Air Basin (SCAB), directly affecting air quality and making attainment of the Federal air quality 

standards more difficult. Some of the commentors requested that the FERC and the CSLC impose an 

upper limit on the WI for the gas received into North Baja’s system and urged that Project approval be 

conditioned upon the treatment of the gas prior to its delivery into the SCAB. It appears that the 

commentors would prefer the maximum WI to be set at 1360. 

The CPUC is the regulatory agency responsible for setting the appropriate gas quality and 

interchangeability standards for gas on the SoCalGas and SDG&E pipeline systems. The CPUC has 

determined that the appropriate maximum WI for gas received on these systems should be 1385. The 

precedent agreements between North Baja and all of the shippers require that the gas delivered to the 

North Baja system meet the most stringent gas quality standard of any of the pipelines to which the North 

Baja system might ultimately deliver the gas.8 The precedent agreements also state that North Baja 

would file with the FERC to modify its gas quality standards to be consistent with the most stringent 

standards of any directly interconnecting downstream pipeline. These requirements mean that either the 

gas delivered to Baja California would meet the most stringent gas quality standard, or the receiving 

terminal would have to process the gas before delivering it to the pipelines to meet this standard. Thus, 

North Baja would meet the gas quality and interchangeability standards of SoCalGas and SDG&E as 

required by the CPUC. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS EIS/EIR 

The principal purposes for preparing an EIS/EIR and proposed land use plan amendment are to: 

• identify and assess the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the natural 

and human environment that would result from the implementation of the proposed 

Project; 

• describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that would avoid or 

substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the Project on the environment; 

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to avoid or minimize 

significant environmental effects; and 

• encourage and facilitate involvement by the public and interested agencies in the 

environmental review process. 

 

8

 It is noted that the CPUC’s ruling is currently under appeal. Whatever the final outcome of the appeal, the gas quality standards for the 

SoCalGas system would be applicable to shippers on the North Baja system. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-8 

The topics addressed in this EIS/EIR include alternatives, geology (including hazards and mineral 

and paleontological resources); soils; groundwater; surface waters (including water quality); wetlands; 

vegetation; wildlife and aquatic resources; special status species (including federally and State-listed 

threatened and endangered species); land use (including agricultural resources); special management 

areas; recreation and public interest areas; aesthetic resources; socioeconomics (including population, 

housing, and utilities and public service systems); transportation; cultural resources; air quality; noise; 

reliability and safety; cumulative impacts; growth-inducing impacts; and environmental justice. The 

EIS/EIR describes the affected environment as it currently exists, discusses the environmental 

consequences of the proposed Project, and compares the Project’s potential impact to that of a reasonable 

range of alternatives as discussed in Section 3. The EIS/EIR also presents recommended mitigation 

measures. 

The FERC and the CSLC are the lead agencies for the preparation of this EIS/EIR. The BLM 

and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) are Federal cooperating agencies. A cooperating agency has 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts involved with the proposal 

and is involved in the NEPA analysis. The roles of the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, and the BOR in the 

Project review process are described below. Several other agencies (i.e., the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers [COE], the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], and the California Department of Fish and 

Game [CDFG]) were asked to participate in the environmental review process as cooperating agencies but 

declined to be formal cooperating agencies. These agencies and several other agencies participated in the 

process by providing scoping comments, comments on the draft EIS/EIR, and/or additional information. 

The agency and public participation process for the proposed Project is discussed in Section 1.3. The 

major Federal, State, and local permits, approvals, and consultations for the Project are discussed in 

Section 1.6. 

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

The FERC is the Federal agency responsible for evaluating applications filed for authorization to 

construct and operate interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. As such, the FERC is the lead Federal 

agency for the preparation of this EIS/EIR in compliance with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (Title 40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and the FERC’s regulations implementing NEPA 

(Title 18 CFR Part 380). 

As the lead Federal agency for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, the FERC is required 

to comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Both of these statutes have been taken into account in the preparation 

of this EIS/EIR. The FERC will use the document to consider the environmental impacts that could result 

if it issues North Baja a Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment under sections 7 and 3, 

respectively, of the NGA. 

The FERC will also consider non-environmental issues in its review of North Baja’s application. 

Authorization will be granted only if the FERC finds that the evidence produced on financing, rates, 

market demand, gas supply, existing facilities and service, environmental impacts, long-term feasibility, 

and other issues demonstrates that a project is required by the public convenience and necessity. 

Environmental impact assessment and mitigation development are important factors in the overall public 

interest determination. 

North Baja’s siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed pipeline facilities at 

the international border between the United States and Mexico for the purpose of importing and exporting 

natural gas are subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC under section 3 of the NGA. Section 3 states that 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-9 

“the Commission shall issue such order upon application, unless, after opportunity for hearing, it finds 

that the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent with the public interest.” Section 3 

further provides that “...the exportation of natural gas to a nation with which there is in effect a free trade 

agreement requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, shall be deemed to be consistent with the 

public interest, and applications for such importation and exportation shall be granted without 

modification or delay.” 

The NAFTA established an international trade agreement among the governments of the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. The NAFTA was ratified by the three countries' national legislatures in 

1993 and went into effect on January 1, 1994. 

Executive Order 10485 requires that the FERC obtain the favorable recommendations of the 

Secretaries of Defense and State before issuing a Presidential Permit. On April 25, 2006, the FERC 

issued letters to the Secretaries of Defense and State informing them of North Baja’s application, 

providing copies of a draft Presidential Permit amendment, and soliciting their views. The designees of 

the Secretaries of Defense and State responded in letters dated August 15 and 18, 2006, respectively, 

indicating concurrence with the issuance of the amendment to the Presidential Permit pending approval 

and validation of any COE permit process. 

For some of the projects under its review, the FERC issues a Preliminary Determination on NonEnvironmental Issues (PD) before completing its review of the project’s environmental aspects. 

Consistent with the Policy Statement issued by the FERC in September 1999,9 the PD typically considers 

such issues as the need for a project and its economic effect on existing customers of the Applicant, on 

other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the FERC considers the 

extent to which the Applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain a right-of-way for a 

proposed project and balances that against the benefits to be provided by the project. 

The FERC issued a PD for the proposed Project on October 6, 2006. The PD indicates that the 

issuance of a Certificate to North Baja under section 7(c) of the NGA authorizing the construction and 

operation of the natural gas facilities would, on the basis of all pertinent non-environmental issues, be 

required by the public convenience and necessity. The PD further indicates that the requested 

modification of North Baja’s Presidential Permit and authorization pursuant to NGA section 3 would, on 

the basis of pertinent non-environmental issues, be consistent with the public interest. The issuance of a 

PD does not prejudice any further actions by the FERC. Final action regarding issuance of a Certificate 

would not occur until after the environmental review is completed, all environmental issues have been 

appropriately addressed, and a final Order is issued by the FERC. The issuance of a PD also does not 

prejudice actions by other jurisdictional agencies. 

1.2.2 California State Lands Commission 

The CSLC is the State agency that has jurisdiction and management control over California’s 

Sovereign and School Lands.10 As such, the CSLC has the principal responsibility for carrying out and 

approving the Project in California, and is thus the lead agency in California for preparing the EIS/EIR, 

 

9

 On September 15, 1999, the FERC issued a Policy Statement that established criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed 

project and whether the proposed project would serve the public interest. The Policy Statement explains that in deciding whether to 

authorize the construction of major new pipeline facilities, the FERC balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences. 

In evaluating new pipeline construction, the FERC’s goal is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement of competitive

transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by existing customers, the Applicant’s responsibility for 

unsubscribed capacity, the avoidance of unnecessary disruptions of the environment, and the unneeded exercise of eminent domain. 10 Generally, Sovereign Lands include all ungranted tidelands and submerged lands, beds of navigable rivers, streams, sloughs, lakes, bays, 

estuaries, inlets, and straits. School Lands are what remain of the nearly 5.5 million acres throughout the state originally granted to California 

by Congress in March of 1853 to benefit public education.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-10 

complying with the CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), following the guidelines for 

the implementation of the CEQA (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 15000 et seq.), and 

coordinating the review of the EIS/EIR by State and local responsible and trustee agencies (see Section 

1.2.4). 

The CSLC will use the document to consider North Baja’s application to amend its existing rightof-way lease across the State’s Sovereign and School Lands in conjunction with the environmental 

impacts that could result from any part of the Project in California. When the EIS/EIR is completed, the 

CSLC must certify that: 

• the final EIS/EIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA; 

• the final EIS/EIR was presented to the CSLC in a public meeting, and the CSLC 

reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIS/EIR prior to 

considering the proposed Project; and 

• the final EIS/EIR reflects the CSLC’s independent judgment and analysis (State CEQA 

Guidelines section 15090[a]). 

In conjunction with its consideration of North Baja’s application, the CSLC must prepare one or 

more written findings of fact for each significant environmental impact identified in the document. These 

findings must either state that: 

• the Project has been changed (including adoption of mitigation measures) to avoid or 

substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; 

• changes to the Project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and have been or should 

be adopted; or 

• specific considerations make mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible. 

If any of the impacts identified in the EIS/EIR cannot be reduced to a level that is less than 

significant, the CSLC may issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the Project if 

specific social, economic, or other factors justify a project’s unavoidable adverse environmental effects. 

If the CSLC decides to approve North Baja’s application to amend its lease for crossing California’s 

Sovereign and School Lands, it will subsequently file a Notice of Determination. 

1.2.3 Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation 

The BLM and the BOR are Federal land management agencies affected by North Baja’s proposal. 

Because these agencies must comply with the requirements of NEPA before granting or amending rightsof-way across lands under their management, these agencies have elected to act as cooperating agencies 

in preparing this EIS/EIR. 

The BLM will use the EIS/EIR to meet its NEPA responsibilities in considering North Baja’s 

application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use Permit for the portion 

of the Project on Federal lands. The BLM will also use the EIS/EIR to consider amending the CDCA 

Plan (as amended), which would be necessary for any pipeline construction outside of designated utility 

corridors, as well as amending the Yuma District Plan, which would be necessary for pipeline 

construction across the Milpitas Wash SMA. The BLM would adopt the EIS/EIR per Title 40 CFR Part 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-11 

1506.3 if, after an independent review of the document, it concludes that its comments and suggestions 

have been satisfied. 

Under section 185(f) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the BLM has the authority to issue 

Right-of-Way Grants and Temporary Use Permits for all affected Federal lands. This would be in 

accordance with Title 43 CFR Parts 2800 and 2880, subsequent 2800 and 2880 Manuals, and Handbook 

2801-1. For the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, the BLM would consider the issuance of an 

amended Right-of-Way Grant and associated Temporary Use Permits that would apply to all BLMmanaged and BOR-administered lands. The BLM would also issue the Right-of-Way Grant and 

Temporary Use Permit for the crossing of the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is managed 

by the FWS. The BLM would consider conformance with land use plans and impacts on resources and 

programs to determine whether to issue an amended Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit. 

The BOR and the FWS would issue letters to the BLM that would concur or not concur with 

issuance of an amended Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit across their lands. The BLM 

would consider the concurrence or non-concurrence of the BOR and the FWS, as well as FERC approval 

or denial, in making its decision whether to amend the Right-of-Way Grant and issue a Temporary Use 

Permit. The BLM’s decision would be documented in a Record of Decision (ROD). If the BLM decides 

to approve the Project, it would issue an amended Right-of-Way Grant, Temporary Use Permit, and a 

Notice to Proceed that would allow construction on Federal lands. The Right-of-Way Grant would 

include standard and site-specific stipulations of the BLM, the BOR, and the FWS; conditions imposed on 

the Project as the result of the NEPA and the CEQA review; and a complete Plan of Development (POD). 

The POD is described in more detail in Section 2.3. Details of land ownership are presented in Sections 

2.2 and 4.8.2. Consistency with land management plans is discussed in Section 1.5. 

1.2.4 Responsible and Trustee Agencies 

Under the CEQA, the CSLC is responsible for providing the EIS/EIR to the California State 

Clearinghouse for it to coordinate the review of the document with State and local responsible and trustee 

agencies. A responsible agency is an agency other than the lead agency that also has a legal responsibility 

for carrying out or approving a project. A responsible agency must actively participate in the lead 

agency’s CEQA review process, review the EIS/EIR, and use the document when making a decision on 

the Project. A trustee agency has jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of 

California. Responsible and trustee agencies for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project include the 

CDFG; the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans); the California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region (CRWQCB); the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management 

District (AQMD); and the ICAPCD. 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On May 19, 2005, North Baja filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s PreFiling Process for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. At that time, North Baja was in the 

preliminary design stage of the Project and no formal application had been filed with the FERC. On June 

2, 2005, the FERC granted North Baja’s request and established a pre-filing docket number (PF05-14-

000) to place information related to the Project into the public record. The purpose of the Pre-Filing 

Process is to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency 

cooperation, and identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. The CSLC, the 

BLM, and the BOR agreed to conduct their environmental reviews of the Project in conjunction with the 

Commission’s Pre-Filing Process. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-12 

As part of the Pre-Filing Process, North Baja mailed notification letters to landowners, 

government and agency officials, and the general public informing them about the Project and inviting 

them to attend open houses on July 6 and 7, 2005 to learn about the Project and to ask questions and 

express their concerns. Notifications of the open houses were also published in local newspapers. The 

open houses were held in Blythe, El Centro, and Calexico, California. The Agency Staffs attended the 

open houses to explain the NEPA/CEQA environmental review process to interested stakeholders and 

take comments about the Project. The questions and concerns raised by the public at the open houses are 

addressed in this EIS/EIR as indicated in Table 1.3-1. 

Additional contacts North Baja has had with landowners regarding the proposed Project include 

establishing a single point of contact within North Baja to answer questions and provide information, 

distributing direct mailings, posting information in local newspapers and at local libraries, and sending 

notification to all landowners that its Certificate application was filed with the FERC. In addition, North 

Baja notified landowners and tenants potentially affected by the Arrowhead Alternative that it had 

amended its Certificate application seeking authorization to adopt the alternative. 

In June 2005, the FERC mailed out a Notice of Pre-Filing Process Review for the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project (Notice of Pre-Filing Process Review) that briefly described the Project, the 

Pre-Filing Process, and the agencies involved. The notice also announced the dates and locations of 

North Baja’s open houses; invited comments from the public; and provided information on how to obtain 

additional information about the Project. The notice was sent to Federal, State, and local agencies; 

elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; affected landowners; 

local libraries and newspapers; and other stakeholders in the region who had indicated an interest in the 

Project. 

On August 30, 2005, a Notice of Intent/Preparation to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement/Report and Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment for the Proposed North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues/Impacts, and Notice of Public 

Scoping Meetings (NOI/NOP) was issued. The NOI/NOP was published in the Federal Register and 

briefly described the Project, announced that the BLM would be using the EIS/EIR to consider an 

amendment to the CDCA Plan and the Yuma District Plan, and described the EIS/EIR process and the 

BLM’s plan amendment process. The NOI/NOP also provided a preliminary list of EIS/EIR 

issues/impacts identified by the Agency Staffs, invited written comments on the environmental 

issues/impacts to be addressed in the EIS/EIR, listed the date and location of two public scoping meetings 

to be held in the Project area, and established a closing date for receipt of comments of October 10, 2005. 

The Agency Staffs mailed the NOI/NOP to the same parties that were sent the Notice of Pre-Filing 

Process Review. In accordance with the CEQA, all parties in California were sent the NOI/NOP via 

certified mail. Seventeen written comment letters or e-mails were received. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-13 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Issues/Impacts Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Issue/Summary of Comment 

EIS/EIR Section 

Addressing Comment 

GENERAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Explanation of the Project’s purpose and need, discussion of the term “precedent agreement,” description 

of the potential sources of imported gas, recipients of the gas delivered by the Imperial Irrigation District 

(IID) Lateral 

1.1 

Route and schedule for the IID Lateral 1.1, 2.4, 4.8.4.3, 

Appendix B 

Communication with landowners 1.3, 4.2.4, 4.5.3, 4.9.5 

Consideration of Mexican facilities as connected actions; applicability of Executive Order 12114, 

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, to the proposed action 

1.4 

Evaluation of the feasibility of locating the loop closer to the existing pipeline than the proposed 25-foot 

offset 

2.2.1 

Coordination with the U.S. Border Patrol, evaluation of the potential for open trenches to be used for illegal 

activities 

2.3.1 

Hydrostatic testing procedures 2.3.1, 4.3.4 

Post-construction monitoring 2.5, 4.5.3, Appendix E 

Pipeline abandonment procedures 2.7 

Number of pipelines within the Bureau of Land Management right-of-way 2.0, Appendix B 

Evaluation of alternatives 3.0 

Evaluation of mitigation measures 4.0 

ALTERNATIVES 

Consideration of an alternative route along the Arizona side of the Colorado River 3.2.3.1 

Consideration of alternative routes for the IID Lateral; alternatives to avoid the need to revise the 

management plans for the California Desert Conservation Area and the Milpitas Wash Special 

Management Area; routing through the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA), including use of a 

designated utility corridor 

3.2.3.2 

Locate the proposed Mexican compressor station in the United States; locate the IID El Centro Power 

Generating Station on the old Brock Research facility property 

3.2.5 

GEOLOGY 

Description of seismic studies 4.1, Appendix J 

Evaluation of mitigation to prevent a pipeline rupture due to seismic events 4.1.4, Appendix J 

SOILS

Description of compaction levels considering the high water table and clay soils 4.2.3 

Installation of culverts where dry washes cross Stallard Road 4.2.4 

WATER QUALITY/AQUATIC RESOURCES/WETLANDS 

Description of required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permits, coordination with the COE, potential 

requirement for a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game 

4.3.3.2, 4.3.3.4, 4.4.2 

Description (including acreage and channel lengths, habitat types, values, and functions) and maps of all 

waters of the United States within the Project area 

4.3.2, 4.4, Appendix B 

Description of impaired waters in the Project area and mitigation measures to avoid further degradation of 

impaired waters 

4.3.2 

Impacts on the East Highline Canal 4.3.3.3 

Evaluation of discharges to waters of the United States, description of measures to minimize or mitigate 

proposed discharges, evaluation of discharges as the least environmentally damaging alternative 

4.3.4, 4.4.3 

VEGETATION

Reduction of impacts on productive agricultural lands 4.2.4, 4.5.3 

Evaluation of restoration methods for microphyll woodlands; post-construction restoration efforts; 

concentrate mitigation efforts in microphyll woodlands; conduct maintenance beyond the right-of-way in 

microphyll woodlands; protection of trees; impact on native vegetation; lack of revegetation from the 

previous project; plans for invasive plant management; use of native plants for restoration 

4.5.3 

Consideration of exotics removal from areas of mesquite; seed mixes; noxious weed concerns 4.5.5 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-14 

TABLE 1.3-1 (cont’d) 

Issues/Impacts Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Issue/Summary of Comment 

EIS/EIR Section 

Addressing Comment 

WILDLIFE

Evaluation of impact on birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 4.6.2.3 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Identification of all petitioned and listed threatened and endangered species and critical habitat, inclusion of 

the Biological Assessment in the draft environmental impact statement/environmental impact report 

4.7.2 

Mitigation required only for new impacts; evaluation of crossing of desert tortoise critical habitat and 

mitigation measures; use of adaptive responses to field issues 

4.7.4.3 

Status of and impacts on the flat-tailed horned lizard; implementation of the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard 

Rangewide Management Strategy and other mitigation measures 

4.7.4.4 

Impacts on Peirson's milk-vetch 4.7.4.6 

Evaluation of mitigation measures, including buffer zones, for burrowing owls 4.7.6.3 

LAND USE

Consistency with Federal, State, tribal, and local land use plans, policies, and controls; compatibility with 

the management plan for the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge; need for an Environmental Assessment 

1.5, 2.2 

Crossings of Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) withdrawn lands in the Palo Verde area, concurrence of the 

BOR for crossings of BOR-withdrawn land, clarification of land ownership for the IID Lateral 

4.8.2 

Location of the A-Line and distance from another existing pipeline; space restriction within county 

easement; allowable distance from residences; discussion of compensation and easement issues; 

workspace requirements associated with the A-Line’s crossing of the Colorado River; indemnification for 

agricultural damages 

4.8.2 

Effect of the pipeline right-of-way on the development of private property and public access to the riverfront 4.8.2, 4.8.5 

Potential effect on a future border fence 4.8.3.2 

Evaluation of location, impacts on facilities, sand movement, and designated open areas in association 

with the IID Lateral; timing of construction of the IID Lateral to avoid potential conflicts with recreational 

users; depth of cover in the ISDRA 

4.8.4.3 

Potential for increased off-highway vehicle use, including that caused by tamarisk removal; installation of 

fencing as a mitigation measure; adherence to the Right-of-Way Agreement for Metropolitan Water District 

fee-owned property 

4.8.5 

Evaluation of visual impacts 4.8.7 

Impacts of hazardous waste from construction and operation; evaluation of storage, disposal, and 

management plans; applicability of Federal and State requirements 

4.2.3, 4.3.2.2, 

4.3.3.2, 4.5.3, 

4.6.3.2, 4.8.6 

SOCIOECONOMICS/TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 

Impact of new right-of-way on public roads and a bridge to Riviera Drive and the Riviera subdivision; effect 

on residences and school bus routes; notification of landowners 

4.8.3, 4.10.2 

Effect of new right-of-way on public utilities (i.e., water and sewer lines) and schools 4.9.4 

Impacts of open-cut road crossings; U.S. Border Patrol access requirements; consideration of repairs to 

the road membrane and the potential for future settling 

4.10.2, 4.10.3 

Impact on rental revenue 4.9.5 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potential effect of the IID Lateral on the historical Plank Road Area of Critical Environmental Concern 4.8.5, 4.10.3 

Potential of the B-Line to adversely affect the integrity of the buried cultural strata at Site CA-IMP-791 I/H; 

potential effects on the All-American Canal and the Coachella Canal; discussion of survey methodology 

4.11.3 

Evaluation and treatment of prehistoric sites on BOR lands along the All-American Canal 4.11.3, 4.11.6 

Impact on Native American cultural artifacts; use of a Native American monitor and a certified 

archaeologist; implementation of mitigation; effect on the traditional use area of the Cahuilla People and 

Native American sites; description of consultation between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

and tribal governments 

4.11.5 

Discussion of Executive Order 13007, including avoidance of adverse effects on the physical integrity of 

sacred sites; cooperating agency status in regards to consultation with section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

4.11.6 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-15 

TABLE 1.3-1 (cont’d) 

Issues/Impacts Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Issue/Summary of Comment 

EIS/EIR Section 

Addressing Comment 

AIR QUALITY 

Evaluation of gas quality and the potential for large nitrogen oxides (NOx) increases due to high British 

thermal units liquefied natural gas (LNG), evaluation of the adequacy of U.S. standards and the Wobbe 

Index to protect air quality, comparison of U.S. and Mexican gas quality standards 

1.1, 4.12.4 

Evaluation of construction and operation emissions for facilities associated with the IID Lateral, specifically 

the IID El Centro Generating Station, as well as mitigation measures to control and minimize emissions 

1.4, 4.12.4 

Discussion of baseline conditions and impact of the additional supply of natural gas on Imperial County’s 

air quality 

4.12.2, 4.12.4 

Coordination with State and local air pollution control districts in evaluating permitting requirements 4.12.3 

Applicability of Clean Air Act section 176 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s general 

conformity regulations at Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93 and conformance 

with an approved State Implementation Plan 

4.12.3 

Identification of air quality impacts related to the proposed modifications at the Ogilby Meter Station 4.12.3, 4.12.4 

Evaluation of mitigation measures to control emissions during construction and operation 4.12.4 

Evaluation of particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) emissions 

associated with fugitive dust emissions 

4.12.4 

Consideration of associated and/or connected equipment in Mexico 4.15.6 

RELIABILITY AND SAFETY

Depth of cover, including in the ISDRA 2.3.2, 4.2.4, 4.8.4.3, 

4.14.2 

Public safety concerns 4.14 

Potential for the aboveground portions of cathodic protection systems to be targets for vandalism 4.14.2 

Identification of Federal, county, and Mexican emergency response procedures to be implemented if a 

seismic event ruptures the pipeline 

4.14.2 

Conformance with Occupational Safety and Health Act, Subpart P, 29 CFR 1926.650, .651, and .652 

during trenching and excavation; monitoring requirements during field activities; consistency with the 

standards of the California Public Utilities Commission, General Order 112-E (CPUC GO 112-E) 

4.14.2 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Secure offsets in Imperial County for excess emissions from the Sempra and Intergen and any new 

facilities, install Best Available Control Technology emission controls on new facilities utilizing gas supplied 

from the proposed Project 

1.1, 1.4, 4.15.8 

Evaluation of transport of criteria pollutants from any new heavy industrial, commercial, and economic 

development projects resulting from the construction of the B-Line 

1.4 

Requirement to include a comprehensive evaluation and disclosure of environmental impacts from the 

Project and all connected actions on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border 

1.4 

Evaluation of potential conflicts between the IID Lateral, the All-American Canal Relining Project, and the 

BOR's canal and reservoir construction projects, including the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project 

4.8.3.2 

Evaluation of standards applicable to the construction of additional power plants and other industry south of 

the U.S.-Mexico border resulting from additional gas supplies and the impact on Imperial Valley's airshed 

4.12.4 

Include the specifics (size, rating, expected emissions, etc.) of the proposed compressor station to be built 

south of Algodones, Mexico, evaluate its NOx emissions 

4.15.8 

Identification of the Federal and State air quality mitigation and offsets for future long-term health risks 

proposed for Imperial County and Mexicali residents 

4.15.8 

Identification of air impacts resulting from the total number of power plants and future development projects 

that could be constructed within the Southeast Desert Air Basin and evaluation of the potential long-term 

air quality deterioration and possible human health impacts 

4.15.8 

Evaluation of PM10 emissions due to fugitive dust emissions generated by vehicles traveling on both 

Mexican and Imperial Valley unpaved roads 

4.15.8 

Requirement for a cumulative health risk assessment of potential toxic emissions, identification of offsets 4.15.8 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-16 

TABLE 1.3-1 (cont’d) 

Issues/Impacts Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Issue/Summary of Comment 

EIS/EIR Section 

Addressing Comment 

GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

Description of the reasonably foreseeable future land use and associated impacts that would result from 

the additional power supply provided by the IID Lateral, including an estimate of the amount of growth, its 

likely location, and the biological and environmental resources at risk 

4.16 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Evaluation of environmental justice populations within the Project area, the potential for disproportionate 

adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations, and the approaches used to foster public 

participation by these populations 

4.17 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-17 

The two public scoping meetings were held to provide an opportunity for agencies and the 

general public to learn more about the proposed Project and participate in the environmental analysis by 

commenting on the issues/impacts to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. The first meeting was held in Blythe, 

California on September 28, 2005; the second meeting was in El Centro, California on September 29, 

2005. These meetings were announced in the NOI/NOP and in five local newspapers. The newspaper 

notifications were placed in both English and Spanish. Two people commented at the meeting in Blythe 

and six people, including a representative from the ICAPCD, commented at the meeting in El Centro. 

The proceedings of each meeting were recorded, and the transcripts were placed into the public record for 

the Project. 

On September 27, 28, and 29, 2005, the FERC and CSLC staff conducted interagency scoping 

meetings in the Project area to solicit comments and concerns about the Project from other jurisdictional 

agencies. Agencies present at the meetings were the FWS, Carlsbad Office; the FWS, Cibola NWR; the 

BLM; and the BOR. 

On March 10, 2006, the FERC and the CSLC sent a letter and a copy of the August 30, 2005 

NOI/NOP to potentially affected landowners on 18th Avenue in Riverside County that inadvertently had 

not been included on the environmental mailing list for the NOI/NOP. The purpose of the letter was to 

provide these landowners an opportunity to participate in the environmental review process. The letter 

solicited comments about the proposed Project from the potentially affected landowners and established a 

closing date for receipt of comments of April 10, 2006. In accordance with the CEQA, these parties were 

sent the letter and NOI/NOP via certified mail. No comments were received. 

The transcripts of the public scoping meetings, a summary of the interagency scoping meetings, 

and all written scoping comments are part of the public record for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project and are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov).11 The most 

frequently raised issues were related to impacts on air quality in Imperial County as a result of the 

existing and proposed upstream facilities in Mexico and the cumulative impact of the proposed Project 

when considered in association with past, present, and future projects or activities. Other issues of 

concern included impacts on special status species and native vegetation and the development of 

mitigation measures to minimize and compensate for these impacts. Comments relating to safety, 

protection of surface waters, cultural resources, alternatives, and the effects of the Project on off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) use were also received. As previously stated, Table 1.3-1 lists the environmental 

issues/impacts that were identified during the scoping process described above and indicates the section 

of the EIS/EIR in which each issue/impact is addressed. Additional issues/impacts independently 

identified by the Agency Staffs are also addressed in the EIS/EIR. 

On September 27, 2006, the FERC and the CSLC sent a letter to landowners and tenants 

potentially affected by the Arrowhead Alternative. The purpose of the letter was to inform the recipients 

that North Baja had identified them as a landowner or tenant that would be potentially affected by the 

Arrowhead Alternative and to solicit comments about the proposed Project and the Arrowhead 

Alternative. In accordance with the CEQA, these parties were sent the letter via certified mail. No 

comments were received. 

On September 29, 2006, a formal notice announcing that the draft EIS/EIR was available for 

review and comment was published in the Federal Register and filed with the California State 

Clearinghouse. The draft EIS/EIR was filed with the EPA; submitted to the California State 

Clearinghouse; and mailed to Federal, State, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native 

American tribes; affected landowners, including landowners and tenants potentially affected by the 

 

11 Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the 

“Docket Number” field (i.e., PF05-14 and CP06-61). Be sure to select an appropriate date range. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-18 

Arrowhead Alternative; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors12 in the FERC’s proceeding; and other 

interested parties (i.e., miscellaneous individuals who provided scoping comments or asked to be on the 

mailing list). The typical NEPA/CEQA comment period for a draft EIS/EIR is 45 days. However, 

because the draft EIS/EIR was also a BLM draft land use plan amendment, the public was given 90 days 

after the date of publication in the Federal Register to review and comment on the draft EIS/EIR both in 

the form of written comments and at two public meetings held in the Project area. 

The public meetings held to receive comments on the draft EIS/EIR were in El Centro, California 

on December 5, 2006 and Blythe, California on December 6, 2006. The meetings were announced in the 

draft EIS/EIR, in the notice indicating that the draft EIS/EIR was available, on the FERC Internet website, 

and in several local newspapers. One speaker made oral statements at the El Centro meeting and two 

speakers made oral statements at the Blythe meeting. Both meetings were recorded for the public record. 

The 90-day comment period for receiving written comments on the draft EIS/EIR closed on December 

28, 2006. Written comment letters were received from Federal agencies (6), State agencies (9), local 

agencies (14), Native American tribes (1), companies/organizations (9), and North Baja (2). The 

transcripts from the public meetings and the written comment letters are available for viewing on the 

FERC’s Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov)

13 and are included in Section 6.0 of this final EIS/EIR 

with the Agency Staffs’ response to each comment. 

This final EIS/EIR has been filed with the EPA for its formal Notice of Availability and was 

mailed to Federal, State, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; 

affected landowners and tenants; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors to the FERC’s proceeding; 

and other interested parties (i.e., miscellaneous individuals and environmental groups who provided 

scoping comments, commented on the draft EIS/EIR, or wrote to the FERC or one of the cooperating 

agencies asking to receive a copy of the document). The distribution list for the final EIS/EIR is in 

Appendix A. 

In accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on the proposed 

action may be made until 30 days after the EPA publishes a Notice of Availability of the final EIS/EIR in 

the Federal Register. However, the CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an agency 

decision is subject to a formal internal appeal process that allows other agencies or the public to make 

their views known. This is the case at the FERC, where any Commission decision on the proposed action 

would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the FERC decision may be made at the same 

time that notice of the final EIS/EIR is published by the EPA, allowing the appeal periods to run 

concurrently. 

Under the CEQA, if the CSLC decides to approve a project for which an EIS/EIR has been 

prepared, the CSLC will file a Notice of Determination with the California State Clearinghouse (Office of 

Planning and Research) within 5 working days after project approval. The Notice of Determination 

would be available for public inspection, and posted for a period of at least 30 days. The Office of 

Planning and Research would retain the notice for not less than 12 months. The filing of the Notice of 

Determination starts a 30-day statute of limitations period for parties wanting to challenge the CSLC’s 

decision under the CEQA. 

For the BLM, the implementation decision (Right-of-Way Grant) is separated from the land use 

plan decision (plan amendment) at this stage. The date the EPA’s Notice of Availability appears in the 

 

12 Intervenors are official parties to the proceeding and have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by 

other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide 14 copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy 

of its filings to all other intervenors. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s decision. 13 Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the 

“Docket Number” field (i.e., PF05-14 and CP06-61). Be sure to select an appropriate date range. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-19 

Federal Register initiates a 30-day availability period before the implementation decision is made. 

Comments received on the final EIS/EIR during the 30-day period will be reviewed to determine whether 

they have merit (e.g., identify significant issues not previously addressed or introduce significant new 

information). If no changes are warranted, a ROD is prepared that documents the selected alternative as 

well as mitigation measures. No action concerning a proposal may be taken on BLM land until the ROD 

for the EIS/EIR has been signed and the Right-of-Way Grant has been issued. Details of the land use plan 

decision process are presented in Section 1.7.7. 

1.4 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

1.4.1 Background 

Under section 7 of the NGA, the FERC is required to consider, as part of its decision to certificate 

interstate natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. The facilities 

for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project that would be under the FERC’s jurisdiction include 

modifications at the existing compressor and meter stations, approximately 127.6 miles of new pipeline 

loop and laterals, two new meter stations, new taps and crossover piping, new valves, and new pig 

launchers and receivers. The proposed facilities are described in detail in Section 2.1. 

Occasionally, proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction 

of the FERC. These “nonjurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed Project 

(e.g., a new or expanded power plant at the end of a pipeline that is not under the jurisdiction of the 

FERC) or they may be merely associated as a minor, non-integral component of the jurisdictional 

facilities that would be constructed and operated as a result of the proposed facilities. 

The nonjurisdictional facilities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project include 

the upstream facilities in Mexico associated with bringing the LNG-source gas to the North Baja system. 

Among these are the ECA LNG terminal project in Baja California del Norte and the Gasoducto 

Bajanorte pipeline in Baja California. 

As discussed in Section 1.1, Sempra’s ECA terminal is currently under construction and an 

expansion is being planned that would, at a minimum, double the LNG processing capacity. The LNG 

from this terminal would be vaporized and then transported on Sempra’s existing Gasoducto Bajanorte 

pipeline. 

The Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline, which currently takes gas from the North Baja system at the 

U.S.-Mexico border and moves it west, would be reconfigured to move gas in the opposite direction, 

similar to the reconfiguration of the North Baja system that would occur during Phase I. Transport of the 

initial volumes of LNG-source gas would also require a new 45-mile-long pipeline lateral from the ECA 

terminal to connect to the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline and a new compressor station (Algodones 

Compressor Station) on the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline. This compressor station would be located 2.5 

miles south of the California-Mexico border and 3 miles west of the Arizona-Mexico border, in Baja 

California del Norte just southwest of the border town of Algodones. All of the permits have been 

obtained for the construction of the lateral, the reconfiguration of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline, and 

the construction of the Algodones Compressor Station, which are planned for completion in late 2007. 

The capacity of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline system would similarly be expanded in 

coordination with North Baja’s Phase II expansion to transport the volumes that would originate from the 

ECA terminal expansion. Up to 100 percent looping of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline and additional 

compression would be required, both at the Algodones Compressor Station and at a new compressor 

station near Mexicali (Mexicali Compressor Station). These facilities would be constructed in 2009 to be 

operational by 2010. These facilities are shown on Figure 1.4-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-20 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 1.4-1 North Baja System and Upstream Mexican Facilities 

Page 1-20 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-21 

In addition to the upstream Mexican facilities, an expansion proposed by IID at the El Centro 

Generating Station to serve the growing electrical load demands of the region could be considered a 

Project-related nonjurisdictional facility. The IID is proposing to replace an existing boiler with a low 

NOx combustion turbine generator and heat recovery steam generator to supply steam to the existing Unit 

3 steam turbine generator. The expansion is referred to as the Unit 3 Repower or the El Centro Repower 

Project. The Unit 3 Repower would increase the existing Unit 3 generating capacity from 44 megawatts 

to 128 megawatts (an increase of 84 megawatts). The Unit 3 Repower would interconnect with the 

existing SoCalGas meter station located on the generating station property. 

The Unit 3 Repower is under the jurisdiction of the CEC, which is responsible for reviewing all 

thermal electric power plants 50 megawatts or greater proposed for construction in California. The 

CEC’s Small Power Plant Exemption (SPPE) process allows projects between 50 and 100 megawatts an 

exemption from the licensing process if the CEC finds that the project would not create a substantial 

adverse impact on the environment or energy resources. The CEC is the lead agency under the CEQA. 

On May 19, 2006, the IID filed an application for an SPPE for the Unit 3 Repower with the CEC. 

On June 29, 2006, the CEC deemed the application adequate and began the formal proceeding. The 

committee assigned to the project conducted an Evidentiary Hearing on December 19, 2006, and on the 

basis of the uncontested record, which includes the CEC staff’s Final Initial Study and Proposed Negative 

Declaration, released its Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision on December 20, 2006. That decision 

determined that the project would cause no unmitigated significant environmental impacts or adverse 

impact on energy resources and recommended granting an SPPE to the IID for the Unit 3 Repower. On 

January 3, 2007, the CEC granted the project an SPPE under Public Resources Code section 25541. 

The FERC has adopted a four-factor procedure to determine the appropriate scope of its 

environmental review when Project-related nonjurisdictional facilities are involved. These factors are: 

• whether the regulated activity comprises “merely a link” in a corridor-type project (e.g., a 

transportation or utility transmission project); 

• whether there are aspects of the nonjurisdictional facility in the immediate vicinity of the 

regulated activity that affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity; 

• the extent to which the entire Project will be within the FERC’s jurisdiction; and 

• the extent of cumulative Federal control and responsibility. 

Under the CEQA, the State lead agency (in this case the CSLC) may not divide a larger project 

into pieces (i.e., piecemeal or segment a project). This rule arises from the definition of project in CEQA 

section 21065, which includes the phrase “whole of the activity.” Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 

section 15165, the CSLC must ensure that the EIS/EIR meets the following standards: 

• where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total 

undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the lead agency 

shall prepare a single program document for the ultimate project as described in State 

CEQA Guidelines section 15168; 

• where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or 

commits the lead agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, the 

document must address the scope of the larger project; and 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-22 

• where one project is one of several similar projects of a public agency, but is not deemed 

a part of a larger undertaking or a larger project, the agency may prepare one document 

for all projects, or one for each project, but shall in either case comment upon the 

cumulative effect. 

For example, activities related to a proposed project must be included in a single CEQA 

document: (1) when they are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project; (2) when the activity is 

a future expansion of the proposed project and will be significant because it will likely change the scope, 

nature, and impacts of the project; (3) when the proposed project cannot proceed without essential public 

services that would be provided by the related activity; or (4) when the proposed project and related 

activity are integral parts of the same project. 

1.4.2 Conclusions 

After applying the FERC’s four-factor procedure to the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

and reviewing the Project for consistency with the CEQA, the Agency Staffs have concluded: 

• The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is more than a mere link in a larger corridortype project. 

• The location of the LNG terminal in Baja California and planned facilities on the 

Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline does not affect the location of the proposed looping on the 

North Baja system or the location of the IID Lateral. The locations of North Baja’s 

proposed expansion facilities and laterals are affected by the location of the existing 

pipeline facilities and the proposed delivery points. 

• The FERC’s control and responsibility is not sufficient to extend its environmental 

review to include the associated upstream facilities. 

• The associated upstream facilities are subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of another 

nation and there is no jurisdictional basis for the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, or the BOR 

to approve, mitigate, or reject such facilities. 

• The environmental review for the IID’s Unit 3 Repower has already been completed by 

the CEC and it would be duplicative to conduct an environmental review of the IID’s 

project in this EIS/EIR. In addition, the CEC determined that the project would cause no 

unmitigated significant environmental impacts or adverse impact on energy resources. 

In summary, the Agency Staffs have concluded that they have no jurisdiction over the associated 

upstream facilities to require their environmental analysis in connection with the analysis of the North 

Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. These upstream facilities are subject to the Mexican environmental 

regulatory review process and standards. However, in response to scoping comments, the air quality 

impacts on the United States from the associated upstream facilities are addressed in the cumulative 

impact analysis in Section 4.15 of this EIS/EIR. The impacts of the expansion at the El Centro 

Generating Station as well as the impacts of other projects in the proposed Project area that are not 

considered Project-related nonjurisdictional facilities are also addressed in the cumulative impact analysis 

in Section 4.15 of this EIS/EIR. 

In their comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the EPA, the ICAPCD, and the Border Power Plant 

Working Group, among others, disagreed with the conclusion regarding the associated upstream facilities 

and indicated that the EIS/EIR should address emissions from these upstream facilities (i.e., the Mexican 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-23 

compressor stations). These commentors asked that the Agency Staffs require Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), including Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for NOx reduction, to be installed 

and maintained at the Mexican compressor stations as well as require that emissions from the stations be 

offset as would be required in the United States. As noted above, the emissions from the Mexican 

facilities are addressed in the cumulative impact analysis in Section 4.15. The FERC, the CSLC, the 

BLM, and the BOR do not have legal authority to control the construction and operation of facilities 

located in Mexico. Therefore, mitigation measures, such as the requirement to use SCR or offset 

emissions, cannot be imposed on those facilities. For the original North Baja Pipeline Project EIS/EIR, 

there was a litigation challenge14 concerning this issue that failed. 

Various commentors on the draft EIS/EIR, including the EPA, the SCAQMD, the ICAPCD, and 

the Border Power Plant Working Group, indicated that the definition of the proposed Project is too 

limited in focus. As discussed in Section 1.1, these commentors assert that the supplies of LNG-source 

gas that would be transported on the North Baja system would have a higher WI compared to existing 

supplies and, therefore, the introduction of the LNG-source gas would increase emissions of NOx in the 

SCAB. These commentors stated that the end use of the natural gas that would be transported on the 

North Baja system is a “connected action” and that the EIS/EIR should describe, analyze, and mitigate the 

air quality impacts that would result from the end use of the gas in the SCAB. Furthermore, these 

commentors stated that a full General Conformity analysis should be conducted that considers the air 

quality impacts of the end use of the gas. 

The end use of the natural gas that would be transported by the proposed Project is not considered 

part of the Project and, consequently, is outside the scope of the EIS/EIR. A detailed discussion of the 

definition of the proposed Project in regards to the General Conformity Rule is presented in Section 

4.12.3. 

During the scoping process, the EPA commented that the EIS/EIR should address the 

applicability of Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, to the 

proposed action. This Executive Order was signed by President Carter on January 4, 1979, and requires 

that responsible officials of Federal agencies be informed of environmental considerations and take those 

considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have 

environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States, including Antarctica. 

Executive Order 12114 defined the environment to mean only the natural and physical environment and is 

applicable to the following categories of major Federal actions abroad: 

• actions significantly affecting the environment of the global commons outside the 

jurisdiction of any nation (e.g., the oceans and the upper atmosphere); 

• actions significantly affecting the environment of a foreign nation not participating with 

the United States and not otherwise involved in the action (e.g., the reentry of a 

spacecraft and impact on such nation's environment); and 

• actions significantly affecting the environment of a foreign nation that provide to that 

nation: 

o a product or physical project producing a principal product or an emission or 

effluent, which is prohibited or strictly regulated by Federal law, in the United 

 

14 Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, No. 02CS00327, filed November 8, 2002 and Court of Appeal of California, Third 

Appellate District, No. CO43219, filed July 27, 2004. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-24 

States because its toxic effects on the environment create a serious public health 

risk; 

o a physical project that is prohibited in the United States or strictly regulated by 

Federal law to protect the environment against radioactive substances; and 

o actions significantly affecting natural or ecological resources of global 

importance, either designated for protection by the President or protected by a 

binding international agreement (e.g., protection of whales or migratory species, 

or binational transboundary agreements such as those between the United States 

and Canada). 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would not be included in one of the categories of 

Major Federal Actions described above and would not have significant environmental impacts outside the 

United States; therefore, Executive Order 12114 is not applicable to the proposed Project. 

In its comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the EPA stated that it would be within the FERC’s control 

and responsibility to extend its environmental review to include the associated facilities in Mexico in 

accordance with the CEQ’s Guidance on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts. As discussed 

above, Executive Order 12114 directs Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on the 

environment outside of the United States. The FERC and the BLM actions on the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project are the issuance of a Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment and an amended 

Right-of-Way Grant and plan amendment, respectively. The construction and operation of North Baja’s 

proposed facilities in the United States would be localized and would not have a significant effect on the 

environment of Mexico. The upstream facilities in Mexico must comply with the Mexican environmental 

regulatory review process and standards. 

1.5 CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS 

The proposed Project must be consistent or in conformance with the guidelines, management 

objectives, and/or designated uses set forth in regional and local plans for the Project area, or a plan 

amendment would be required. Plans that were reviewed for consistency include BLM resource 

management plans (RMPs), FWS RMPs, and local land management plans. A summary of the applicable 

plans and consistency information is presented below. 

1.5.1 Bureau of Land Management 

The proposed Project would cross BLM-administered lands under the jurisdiction of three field 

offices in Arizona and California and one district office in California. These include the California Desert 

District (CDD) Office, the Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, the El Centro Field Office, and the 

Yuma Field Office. 

A review by the Agency Staffs of the RMPs for each of the listed field or district offices indicates 

that the proposed Project would not conform with some of these plans in their current forms, but that 

amendments to these plans would bring the proposed Project into conformance. At that time, the 

proposed Project would conform to BLM plans and programs, subject to site-specific conditions that may 

be implemented as a result of this analysis. The RMPs analyzed are summarized below. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-25 

California Desert Conservation Area Plan 

The proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is not consistent with the BLM’s CDCA 

Plan. The BLM is considering amending this plan to the extent necessary to allow the Project. The 

majority of the proposed B-Line and IID Lateral fall within the CDCA. The BLM administers a 

comprehensive land use management plan for this area, which is referred to in this EIS/EIR as the CDCA 

Plan. The goal of the CDCA Plan is to provide for the educational, scientific, and recreational uses of 

public lands and resources within the CDCA in a manner that enhances and does not diminish the 

environmental, cultural, and aesthetic values of the desert and its productivity. According to the CDCA 

Plan, this goal is to be achieved through the direction given for management actions and resolution of 

conflicts. Direction is stated first on a geographic basis in guidelines set forth in each of four multiple-use 

classes (MUCs). Within those guidelines, further refinement of direction is expressed in the goals for 

each CDCA Plan element (e.g., cultural resources, wildlife, vegetation, wilderness, recreation, motorizedvehicle access, geology, and energy production and utility corridors). Direction is also expressed in 

certain site-specific CDCA Plan decisions such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

The CDCA Plan, when approved, established four general MUCs: Controlled (Class C); Limited 

(Class L); Moderate (Class M); and Intensive (Class I). The four MUCs have been used to describe a 

different type and level or degree of use that is permitted within a particular area. However, certain uses 

of public lands, such as for utilities, may reach across all MUCs except Class C. Therefore, individual 

plan elements were created to further address issues specific to each MUC. One of those elements is the 

“Energy Production and Utility Corridor Element” which, among other things, establishes a network of 

joint-use planning corridors capable of meeting projected utility service needs. 

The CDCA Plan states that: “Applications for utility rights-of-way will be encouraged by BLM 

management to use designated corridors.” The proposed Project is not consistent with the CDCA Plan 

where portions of the proposed B-Line and IID Lateral deviate from designated utility corridors on BLMmanaged land. This EIS/EIR proposes to modify those utility corridor decisions to the extent needed to 

allow the BLM to issue North Baja a permit for the proposed Project. The CDCA Plan amendment 

process is discussed in Section 1.7. Additional discussion of the CDCA Plan and the proposed pipeline 

routes and designated utility corridors is presented in Sections 3.2.3.2 and 4.8.4. 

Although the proposed Project is not consistent with the current CDCA Plan, it would be 

consistent with previous projects and the goal of grouping similar land uses. The proposed B-Line would 

be entirely adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line, which was the subject of an amendment to the 

CDCA Plan and previously approved by the BLM in 2002. On BLM land within the CDCA, the B-Line 

includes 29.9 miles inside designated utility corridors and 20.8 miles outside of the utility corridors but 

within the previously approved A-Line right-of-way. The IID Lateral would be on BLM land within the 

CDCA for a total of 25.7 miles, of which 18.9 miles would be located within designated utility corridors. 

The remainder of the route outside of designated utility corridors would be within or adjacent to existing 

transportation (Interstate 8 and Evan Hewes Highway) and transmission line rights-of-way. 

Within the CDCA, the proposed facilities would be within three planning areas, each with its own 

approved management plan that was adopted as an amendment to the CDCA Plan. These three plans are 

described below. 

Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan

The Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert (NECO) Coordinated Management Plan (NECO Plan) 

was approved and adopted as an amendment to the CDCA Plan in December 2002. The NECO Plan 

amends or creates land use plans and specific management prescriptions for species and habitats on 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-26 

Federal lands. The entire portion of the proposed B-Line within the CDCA would be in the NECO 

planning area except for the portion of the route between mileposts (MPs) 71.1 and 74.5. This portion of 

the route would be in the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA), which is discussed in greater 

detail below. 

The NECO Plan establishes an 820,077-acre Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) in the 

Chuckwalla area, which is an area designated by the FWS as critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Of the 

820,077 acres, about 465,300 acres are managed by the BLM. The NECO Plan eliminated the Milpitas 

Wash Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (WHMP) and Chuckwalla Bench ACEC for incorporation into 

the Chuckwalla DWMA. The proposed B-Line would not cross the Chuckwalla DWMA but would be 

immediately adjacent to the DWMA’s eastern boundary, which is on the west side of State Route (SR) 

78, between about MPs 35.0 and 46.0. 

The proposed Project is subject to section 7 consultation in accordance with the ESA, as 

amended, to address potential impacts on the desert tortoise, including cumulative impacts (see Section 

4.7). Although recovery of the desert tortoise is an important aspect of the NECO Plan, the plan also 

addresses the conservation of other species. For example, special mitigation measures avoiding 

disturbance of Couch’s spadefoot toad habitat should be strongly considered on all projects. North Baja 

has, through consultation with the CDFG, established avoidance and monitoring measures for the 

Couch’s spadefoot toad (see Section 4.7). The NECO Plan’s consideration of other desert endemic 

species and their habitats is reflected in this EIS/EIR. 

Western Colorado Desert Routes of Travel Designations Plan

The Western Colorado Desert (WECO) Routes of Travel Designations Plan (WECO Plan) was 

approved and adopted as an amendment to the CDCA Plan in January 2003. The WECO Plan allows the 

BLM to manage the area in a way that balances OHV use on a designated trail system with the 

maintenance or improvement of special status species populations and other natural and cultural 

resources. The IID Lateral would be in the WECO planning area between MPs 7.9 and 27.6. The 

majority of this portion of the IID Lateral would be in a designated utility corridor. An amendment to the 

CDCA Plan would be required for the portion of the route that deviates from a designated utility corridor 

on BLM land. A detailed discussion regarding OHV use in the Project area is provided in Section 4.8.5. 

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan

The ISDRA was created in 1977 for the purpose of providing a formal space for OHV use. The 

ISDRA Management Plan (ISDRA Plan) was approved and adopted as an amendment to the CDCA Plan 

in March 2005. Like the WECO, which is west of and adjacent to the ISDRA, the ISDRA is primarily 

managed for OHV use in a way that is consistent with principles of multiple use and resource 

conservation. The B-Line would be in the ISDRA between MPs 71.1 and 74.5 and the IID Lateral would 

be in the ISDRA between MPs 0.0 and 7.9. The majority of the route in these areas would be in a 

designated utility corridor. An amendment to the CDCA Plan would be required for the portion of the 

route that deviates from a designated utility corridor on BLM land. Additional discussion of the ISDRA 

is presented in Section 4.8.4. 

Yuma District Resource Management Plan 

The proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is not consistent with the BLM’s current 

Yuma District Plan. The Yuma District Plan identifies special management areas in the vicinity of the 

Milpitas Wash. In general, the management objectives of the Yuma District Plan include consolidation, 

protection, and enhancement of wildlife habitat and habitat for plants of special management concern. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-27 

North Baja proposes a number of conservation measures protecting wildlife and special status plants that 

are generally consistent with objectives of the management plans addressing the proposed activities in the 

Milpitas Wash area. The Yuma District Plan, however, prohibits new utilities or rights-of-way across the 

Milpitas Wash SMA. 

This EIS/EIR proposes to modify the land use plan decisions to the extent needed to allow the 

BLM to issue North Baja a permit to cross the Milpitas Wash SMA. In this location, the proposed B-Line 

would be adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line, which was the subject of an amendment to the Yuma 

District Plan and previously approved by the BLM in 2002. The Yuma District is currently in the process 

of revising its plan and is considering a proposal that would reroute the designated utility corridor to 

follow SR 78 through the Milpitas Wash SMA. The revision to the Yuma District Plan is a separate 

action from the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. On December 15, 2006, the EPA 

published a Notice of Availability of Yuma Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register.15 The existing A-Line and proposed B-Line 

would be within the newly designated corridor; therefore, adoption of this revision would eliminate the 

need for a plan amendment for the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. The revised plan, 

however, is not expected to be completed before the environmental review process for the proposed 

Project is completed. Therefore, for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, the EIS/EIR will be used 

by the BLM to consider amending the current Yuma District Plan, which would be necessary for any 

pipeline construction outside of a designated utility corridor. The Yuma District Plan amendment process 

is discussed in Section 1.7. Additional discussion of the Milpitas Wash SMA and North Baja’s proposed 

conservation measures is presented in Sections 4.6.2.4 and 4.8.4.2. 

1.5.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Approximately 1.2 miles of the proposed B-Line would cross the Cibola NWR administered by 

the FWS. A decision that allows a crossing of the Cibola NWR must be compatible with the FWS 

Refuge Management Regulations in Part 603 FW 2.10(D). In approving a proposed utility right-of-way 

across the Cibola NWR, the Refuge Manager must find that none of the conditions listed in Part 603 FW 

2.10(D) exist with regards to the proposed Project. The existing A-Line complied with these conditions 

and a favorable Compatibility Determination was issued for the installation of that pipeline. The 

proposed B-Line would be adjacent to the existing A-Line through the Cibola NWR; therefore, a 

favorable Compatibility Determination is expected to be issued for the proposed B-Line. 

1.5.3 Southern California Association of Governments 

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a metropolitan planning 

organization for the six-county southern California region (i.e., Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San 

Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties). The SCAG was established under California Government 

Code 6502 et seq. and is designated a Council of Governments, a Regional Transportation Planning 

Agency, and a Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

The SCAG’s responsibilities include development of solutions to the region’s common problems 

including transportation management, growth, land use, housing, air quality, waste management, and 

other regional issues. The SCAG also acts as an information clearinghouse and provides counties and 

cities with data on demographics, forecasting, mapping, and other regional statistics. The SCAG has 

developed a Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) as well as a Regional Transportation Plan 

(RTP), which include individual plans that address specific issues such as growth management, regional 

 

15 The Yuma Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for viewing on the Internet 

at http://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/planning.htm or at the Yuma Field Office. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-28 

housing needs, regional mobility, water quality, and air quality. The SCAG has also developed a 

Compass Growth Vision to encourage better relationships between housing, transportation, and 

employment. 

In its comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the SCAG outlined several policies of its RCPG that may 

apply to the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. A summary of these policies and the Project’s 

consistency with these policies is presented in Table 1.5.3-1. 

According to the SCAG, the 2004 RTP also has goals and policies that are pertinent to the 

proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. The RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the 

goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, 

promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to 

residents affected by socioeconomic, geographic, and commercial limitations. In its comments on the 

draft EIS/EIR, the SCAG acknowledged that because most roadways in the Project area currently operate 

at a level of service of A or B, the relatively minor increase in traffic associated with the Project would 

not result in a significant change in the level of service on any roadway (see Section 4.10.3). In addition, 

North Baja would implement traffic management plans for work in or adjacent to area roadways (see 

Section 4.10.2). For these reasons, the SCAG determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the 

RTP. 

The fundamental goal of the Compass Growth Visioning effort is to make the SCAG region a 

better place to live, work, and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class. 

According to the SCAG, decisions regarding growth, transportation, land use, and economic development 

should be made to promote and sustain for future generations the region’s mobility, livability, and 

prosperity. Several principles provide a framework for local and regional decision making that improves 

the quality of life for all SCAG residents. These principles include: 

• improve mobility for all residents; 

• foster livability in all communities; 

• enable prosperity for all people; and 

• promote sustainability for future generations. 

The Project would not interfere with efforts to develop sustainable communities or to provide 

public services because the majority of the facilities (99 percent) would be located in or adjacent to 

existing rights-of-way. The Project would, however, provide a new source of tax revenues to the area that 

could help facilitate the implementation of this effort. 

1.5.4 Counties and Municipalities 

Every city and county in California has adopted a general plan to set forth policies guiding local 

land use and development. Each general plan contains a map that identifies the location of allowable land 

uses. These designated land use maps not only identify existing land uses, but also future potential uses 

of lands. The Project’s consistency with local land management plans was evaluated by consulting these 

land use plans and maps, as well as with officials from each county and municipality crossed by the 

Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-29 

TABLE 1.5.3-1 

Consistency of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project with the Policies of the 

Southern California Association of Governments’ 

Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide

Policy 

Group/ 

Policy No. Policy Description 

Project 

Consistent

(Yes/No) Comments 

Consistency with Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) Policies 

3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts 

that are adopted by the Southern California 

Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 

Regional Council and that reflect local plans 

and policies shall be used by the SCAG in all 

phases of implementation and review. 

Yes The most current SCAG forecasts show increases 

in population, households, and employment 

across the region, subregions, counties, and cities 

that would be affected by the Project. The Project 

would not detract from the achievement of this 

policy. The Project would temporarily increase 

population, households, and employment during 

construction. The Project would not add any 

permanent staff but would also not cause a 

decrease in population, households, or 

employment (see Section 4.9.2). 

3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public 

facilities, utility systems, and transportation 

systems shall be used by the SCAG to 

implement the region’s growth policies. 

Yes Some of the Project facilities could be in service 

by late 2007/early 2008; the remainder could be in 

service by early 2010. The Project would be 

privately financed. The Project would not affect 

regional growth because no new permanent staff 

would be required to operate the facilities (see 

Section 4.9.2). 

Growth Management Chapter Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Standard of Living 

3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development 

and land use, which reduce costs on 

infrastructure construction and make better 

use of existing facilities. 

Yes a About 99 percent of the proposed pipeline 

facilities would be in or adjacent to existing rightsof-way and would require the construction of 

minimal new infrastructure (see Section 2.1). 

3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic 

strategy to maintain the economic vitality of 

the subregion, including the development and 

use of marketing programs, and other 

economic incentives that support attainment 

of subregional goals and policies. 

Yes As described in Section 4.9.6, the Project would 

have a beneficial impact on tax revenues. How 

the government entities use the tax revenues is 

outside North Baja Pipeline, LLC’s (North Baja) 

control but it is assumed that the revenues could 

support the achievement of this policy. 

3.09 Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to minimize 

the cost of infrastructure and public service 

delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of 

funding for development and the provision of 

services. 

Yes The Project would require the construction of 

minimal new infrastructure (see Section 2.1) and 

would not interfere with local jurisdictions’ efforts 

to provide public services (see Section 4.9.4). In 

addition, the Project would provide a new source 

of tax revenues in the area (see Section 4.9.6). 

3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such 

as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, 

woodlands, production lands, and land 

containing unique and endangered plants and 

animals. 

Yes a North Baja would implement general and speciesspecific conservation measures as well as the 

recommendations of the environmental staffs of 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the 

California State Lands Commission, and the 

Bureau of Land Management (Agency Staffs) to 

avoid, minimize, or compensate for Project-related 

impacts on protected species. North Baja would 

also implement a Construction Mitigation and 

Restoration Plan to minimize and restore 

disturbances to native vegetation, reduce impacts 

on water resources, prevent the invasion and 

establishment of exotic-nuisance species, and 

protect nesting migratory birds (see Sections 

4.3.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-30 

TABLE 1.5.3-1 (cont’d) 

Consistency of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project with the Policies of the 

Southern California Association of Governments’ 

Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide

Policy 

Group/ 

Policy No. Policy Description 

Project 

Consistent

(Yes/No) Comments 

3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures 

aimed at the preservation and protection of 

recorded and unrecorded cultural resources 

and archaeological sites. 

Yes a North Baja is coordinating with the appropriate 

agencies regarding potential impacts on cultural 

resources and has developed an Unanticipated 

Discovery Plan that would be followed in the event 

that sites are found during construction (see 

Section 4.11). 

3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the 

use of special design requirements, in areas 

with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and 

seismic hazards. 

Yes a North Baja would prepare and implement an 

Operation and Maintenance Plan and an 

Emergency Response Plan in accordance with 

the requirements in Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 192 (see Section 4.14.2). 

North Baja has also developed a Fire Prevention 

and Suppression Plan to minimize the potential for 

wildfires (see Section 4.6.2.2). 

3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce 

noise in certain locations, measures aimed at 

preservation of biological and ecological 

resources, measures that would reduce 

exposure to seismic hazards, minimize 

earthquake damage, and to develop 

emergency response and recovery plans. 

Yes a Impacts on noise levels associated with 

construction and operation of the proposed 

facilities would be less than significant (see 

Section 4.13). North Baja would implement both 

general and species-specific conservation 

measures as well as the Agency Staffs’ 

recommendations to avoid, minimize, or 

compensate for Project-related impacts on 

biological and ecological resources (see Sections 

4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7). To minimize potential impacts 

associated with seismic hazards, the pipelines 

and associated facilities would be designed using 

Title 49 CFR Part 192, the Guidelines for the 

Design of Buried Steel Pipe, Guidelines for the 

Seismic Design and Assessment of Natural Gas 

and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines, applicable 

building codes, and/or other similar recognized 

seismological engineering standards (see Section 

4.1.4). North Baja would also develop an 

Emergency Response Plan (see Section 4.14.2). 

Growth Management Chapter Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Provide Social, Political, and Cultural Equity 

3.25 Encourage the efforts of local jurisdictions, 

employers, and service agencies to provide 

adequate training and retraining of workers, 

and prepare the labor force to meet the future 

challenges of the regional economy. 

Yes North Baja constructed its existing A-Line in 2002 

and did not encounter shortages in the supply of 

local workers. Based on this experience, North 

Baja does not anticipate a deficiency in the 

number of skilled local workers needed for the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. 

3.26 Encourage employment development in jobpoor localities through support of labor force 

retraining programs and other economic 

development measures. 

Yes North Baja constructed its existing A-Line in 2002 

and did not encounter shortages in the supply of 

local workers. Based on this experience, North 

Baja does not anticipate a deficiency in the 

number of skilled local workers needed for the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-31 

TABLE 1.5.3-1 (cont’d) 

Consistency of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project with the Policies of the 

Southern California Association of Governments’ 

Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide

Policy 

Group/ 

Policy No. Policy Description 

Project 

Consistent

(Yes/No) Comments 

3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service 

providers in their efforts to develop 

sustainable communities and provide, equally 

to all members of society, accessible and 

effective services such as: public education, 

housing, health care, social services, 

recreational facilities, law enforcement, and 

fire protection. 

Yes The Project would not interfere with efforts to 

develop sustainable communities or to provide 

public services because the majority of the 

facilities (99 percent) would be in or adjacent to 

existing rights-of-way (see Section 2.2.1). The 

Project would, however, provide a new source of 

tax revenues to the area (see Section 4.9.6). 

Air Quality Chapter Core Actions 

5.11 Through the environmental document review 

process, ensure that plans at all levels of 

government (regional air basin, county, 

subregional and local) consider air quality, 

land use, transportation, and economic 

relationships to ensure consistency and 

minimize conflicts. 

Yes a This environmental impact 

statement/environmental impact report for the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project will be 

used by several agencies at various levels of 

government to determine their respective actions 

on the Project (see Section 1.2). Section 1.5 

presents an overview of applicable plans and 

policies and the Project’s consistency with those 

plans and policies. 

____________________ 

a

 The SCAG concurred with this determination in its December 28, 2006 letter providing comments on the draft EIS/EIR. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-32 

Riverside County, California 

The proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would not conflict with the Riverside 

County General Plan. The proposed B-Line and Arrowhead Extension would cross county lands that the 

Riverside County Land Use Ordinance designates as being for agricultural use. After construction, the 

buried pipeline would not interfere with agricultural land uses. A detailed discussion of agricultural lands 

affected by the Project is presented in Section 4.8.2. 

The Riverside County Board of Commissioners is considering the adoption of a new Land Use 

and Development Code. A review of the draft code has indicated that the proposed Project would not 

conflict with the code if it were to be adopted. 

City of Blythe, California 

The City of Blythe General Plan includes a public utilities element that urges the sharing of utility 

corridors and the burial of utility lines whenever possible. Because the proposed B-Line would be 

adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line, and the B-Line and the Arrowhead Extension pipeline would be 

buried, the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Blythe General Plan. 

Imperial County, California 

The proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would not conflict with the Imperial County 

General Plan or existing land use designations. The proposed B-Line and IID Lateral would both be 

located primarily in areas that are designated for Recreation/Open Space uses. After construction, the 

buried pipelines would not interfere with such land uses. The Imperial County Land Use Ordinance does 

not include guidelines for utility installation. A detailed discussion of recreation and public interest areas 

affected by the Project is presented in Section 4.8.5. 

1.6 PERMITS, APPROVALS, CONSULTATIONS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Table 1.6-1 lists the major Federal, State, and local permits, approvals, and consultations 

identified for the construction and operation of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. North Baja 

would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals required to implement the proposed Project 

regardless of whether they appear in this table. 

For the BLM, the proposed Federal actions are whether to amend the CDCA Plan, as amended 

(1980), and the Yuma District Plan, as amended (1985), allowing for a one-time exemption to the plans, 

and whether to grant rights-of-way to North Baja for the installation of the B-Line and IID Lateral, plus 

ancillary facilities, across Federal lands managed by the BLM, the BOR, and the FWS. 

The proposed B-Line and IID Lateral pipeline alignments and ancillary facilities are located 

within and outside BLM-designated utility corridors. In addition, portions of the pipelines would cross 

the Milpitas Wash SMA and the NECO, WECO, and ISDRA planning areas. As discussed in Section 

1.5, before any rights-of-way may be issued, plan amendments must be approved to allow for an 

exemption to the utility corridor element of the CDCA Plan and the special management areas element of 

the Yuma District Plan. The proposed amendments are under consideration to accommodate the North 

Baja Pipeline Expansion Project only, and would not create a new corridor or modify existing corridors. 

The BLM plan amendment process is described in detail in Section 1.7. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-33 

TABLE 1.6-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Regulatory Agency Required Permit or Approval Agency Action 

FEDERAL 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Section 106 Consultation, National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

Has the opportunity to comment if the 

Project may affect cultural resources 

that are either listed on or eligible for 

listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) 

Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity 

Determine whether the construction and 

operation of a natural gas pipeline 

project is in the public interest. 

 Presidential Permit Consider issuance of an amendment of 

North Baja’s permit for interconnection 

of natural gas transmission facilities at 

the international border of the United 

States and Mexico. 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 

Compliance with International Treaties 

and Conventions 

Review and approve Project 

components as they relate to the 

international boundary, boundary 

monuments, and potential changes to 

surface runoff characteristics at the 

international border. 

U.S. Department of the Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) 

Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a section 10 

permit for construction across the 

Colorado River. 

 Section 404, Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a section 404 

permit for the placement of dredge or fill 

material into all waters of the United 

States, including jurisdictional wetlands. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Antiquities and Cultural Resource Use 

Permit 

Consider issuance of antiquities and 

cultural resources use permit to conduct 

surveys and to excavate or remove 

cultural resources on Federal lands. 

 California Desert Conservation Area 

(CDCA) Plan Amendment 

Consider amending the CDCA Plan. 

 Yuma District Resource Management 

Plan (Yuma District Plan) Amendment 

Consider amending the Yuma District 

Plan. 

 Right-of-Way Grant Consider granting rights-of-way and 

temporary use permits for portions of 

the Project that would encroach on 

Federal lands, including easements 

across federally owned waterways. 

 Temporary Use Permit Consider issuance of a temporary use 

permit for temporary activities in a 

construction right-of-way. 

 Plan of Development Consider approval of detailed 

Construction, Operation, and 

Maintenance Plan. 

 Notice to Proceed Following issuance of the right-of-way 

grant and approval of the Construction, 

Operation, and Maintenance Plan, 

consider issuance of a Notice to 

Proceed with Project development and 

mitigation activities. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-34 

TABLE 1.6-1 (cont’d) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Regulatory Agency Required Permit or Approval Agency Action 

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Right-of-Way Grant Provide concurrence for BLM to issue 

amended Right-of-Way Grant covering 

BOR lands. 

 Hydrostatic Test Coordination In conjunction with the Imperial Irrigation 

District, consult with North Baja 

regarding the withdrawal and discharge 

of hydrostatic test water from and to the 

All-American Canal. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives 

Explosive User’s Permit Consider issuance of permit to 

purchase, store, and use explosives for 

site preparation during pipeline 

construction. 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

 Federal Highway Administration 

Encroachment Permit Consider issuance of permit for pipeline 

crossing of federally funded highways. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX 

Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

In conjunction with states, consider 

issuance of water use and crossing 

permits. 

 Section 402, CWA, National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

In conjunction with states, review and 

issue NPDES permit for discharge of 

hydrostatic test water. 

 Section 404, CWA Review CWA, section 404 applications 

for wetland dredge-and-fill applications 

for the COE with 404(c) veto power for 

wetland permits issued by the COE. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Section 7 Consultation, Biological 

Opinion (Endangered Species Act) 

Consider lead agency finding of impact 

on federally listed or proposed species. 

Provide Biological Opinion if the Project 

is likely to adversely affect federally 

listed or proposed species or their 

habitats. 

 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Provide comments to prevent loss of 

and damage to wildlife resources. 

 Compatibility Determination Provide concurrence for BLM to issue 

amended Right-of-Way Grant covering 

FWS lands. 

ARIZONA 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, Division of Water Quality 

Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

Consider approval of certification of 

activities related to dredge and fill 

materials. 

 Construction Dewatering Permit (if 

necessary) 

Consider issuance of permit regulating 

discharge of intruded or stormwater 

from construction excavation to land or 

waters of the United States. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department Threatened and Endangered Species 

Clearance 

Consider issuance of biological 

clearance for State-listed species. 

Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Office 

Section 106 Consultation, NHPA Consult with the FERC, Project 

Applicant, appropriate land 

management agencies, and others 

regarding activities potentially affecting 

cultural resources. 

Arizona State Lands Department, 

Natural Resources Division 

Soil Erosion, Sedimentation Control, 

and Spill Plan Approval 

Consider approval of Soil Erosion, 

Sedimentation Control, and Spill Plans 

in coordination with local conservation 

districts. 

 Easement Consider authorization of an easement 

for the pipeline crossing of State lands. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-35 

TABLE 1.6-1 (cont’d) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Regulatory Agency Required Permit or Approval Agency Action 

 Temporary Use Permit Consider issuance of a temporary use 

permit for extra workspace associated 

with the Colorado River horizontal 

directional drill. 

CALIFORNIA 

California Department of Fish and Game California Endangered Species Act Consider issuance of a section 2081 

Incidental Take Permit and/or a section 

2080.1 consistency determination for 

effects on species that are both Stateand federally listed. 

 California Native Plant Protection Act Review of mitigation agreement and 

mitigation plan for plants listed as rare. 

 Streambed Alteration Agreement 

(section 1603 of the California Fish and 

Game Code) 

Consider issuance of section 1603 

Streambed Alteration Agreement. 

California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit Consider issuance of permit to cross or 

bore under State highways or be within 

a State highway right-of-way. 

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board, Colorado River Basin 

Region 

Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

Consider approval of certification of 

activities related to dredge and fill 

materials. 

 NPDES Hydrostatic Test Permit Consider issuance of permit for 

discharge of hydrostatic test water. 

 Construction Dewatering Permit (if 

necessary) 

Consider issuance of permit regulating 

discharge of intruded or stormwater 

from construction excavation to land or 

waters of the United States. 

California State Historic Preservation 

Office 

Section 106 Consultation, NHPA Consult with the FERC, Project 

Applicant, appropriate land 

management agencies, and others 

regarding activities potentially affecting 

cultural resources. 

California State Lands Commission Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) 

Consider certification of the EIS/EIR. 

 Statement of Overriding Considerations Consider issuance of a Statement of 

Overriding Considerations for impacts 

identified in the EIS/EIR that cannot be 

reduced to a level that is less than 

significant. 

 Amendment to Lease of State Lands Consider amendment to Lease of State 

Lands. 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District 

Dust Control Plan Consider dust control plan for 

construction. 

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management 

District 

Dust Control Plan Consider dust control plan for 

construction. 

IMPERIAL COUNTY 

Board of Supervisors Franchise Agreement Consider issuance of franchise 

agreement. 

Planning Department Temporary Use Permit Consider issuance of temporary use 

permit for pipe storage and contractor 

yards. 

Public Works Department Encroachment Permit Consider issuance of an encroachment 

permit. 

 Road Crossing Permit Consider issuance of road crossing 

permit. 

Sheriff’s Department Explosives Permit Consider issuance of a license to store 

flammable explosives. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-36 

TABLE 1.6-1 (cont’d) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Regulatory Agency Required Permit or Approval Agency Action 

IMPERIAL VALLEY IRRIGATION 

DISTRICT 

Encroachment Permit Consider issuance of an encroachment 

permit. 

 Trench Dewatering Permit Consider issuance of trench dewatering 

permit. 

PALO VERDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Crossing Agreement Consider issuance of a crossing 

agreement. 

 Trench Dewatering Permit Consider issuance of trench dewatering 

permit. 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY 

Board of Supervisors Franchise Agreement Consider issuance of franchise 

agreement. 

Transportation Department Encroachment Permit Consider issuance of encroachment 

permit. 

Planning Department Temporary Use Permit Consider issuance of temporary use 

permit for pipe storage and contractor 

staging yards. 

Encroachment Permit Consider issuance of an encroachment 

permit. 

CITY OF BLYTHE 

Grading Permit Consider issuance of a grading permit. 

CITY OF EL CENTRO Encroachment Permit Consider issuance of an encroachment 

permit. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-37 

As a cooperating agency, the BLM proposes to adopt this EIS/EIR per Title 40 CFR Part 1506.3 

to meet its responsibilities under NEPA and its planning regulations per Title 43 CFR Part 1610. As a 

BLM NEPA document, this EIS/EIR includes an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

of granting the aforementioned rights-of-way and alternatives on BLM-managed public lands. This 

EIS/EIR includes all the required elements per Title 43 CFR Part 1610, such as public participation, 

consistency review, issue identification, development of planning criteria, formulation of alternatives, 

environmental impact analysis, and protest procedures. 

1.7 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 

1.7.1 Regulatory Requirements 

Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) states: “The Secretary 

shall, with public involvement ... develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans which 

provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands” (43 United States Code [USC] 1712). The 

regulations for making and modifying land use plans and planning decisions are found in Title 43 CFR 

Part 1600. The proposed land use plan amendments shall follow the regulations as set forth in Title 43 

CFR Part 1610, Resource Management Planning. In short, an interdisciplinary approach shall be used in 

amending resource plans. The disciplines of the preparers shall be appropriate to the values involved and 

the issues identified for the amendment. The amendment shall be analyzed through the NEPA process. 

Through the NEPA process the public and other Federal, State, and local governments shall be provided 

opportunities to meaningfully participate in and comment on the preparation of amendments and be given 

early notice of planning activities. The analysis and public involvement for the proposed land use plan 

amendments shall coincide, to the extent possible, with the public notices, hearings, and comment periods 

of this EIS/EIR for the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. 

1.7.2 Need for Plan Amendments 

An amendment to the CDCA Plan is required because the proposed B-Line deviates from a 

designated utility corridor on BLM land at five locations in the CDCA for a total length of approximately 

20.8 miles (MPs 34.2 to 36.5, MPs 53.8 to 65.2, MPs 68.3 to 70.4, MPs 71.7 to 74.3, and MPs 77.4 to 

79.8). In addition, the IID Lateral deviates from a designated utility corridor on BLM land at three 

locations in the CDCA for a total length of approximately 6.8 miles (MPs 18.9 to 24.5, MPs 24.9 to 26.0, 

and MPs 27.5 to 27.6). The locations requiring a CDCA Plan amendment are shown on Figure 1.7.2-1. 

An amendment to the Yuma District Plan is required because a portion of the proposed B-Line 

that deviates from a designated utility corridor on BLM land crosses the Milpitas Wash SMA for 

approximately 2.5 miles (MPs 29.8 to 30.3, MPs 30.4 to 30.6, MPs 32.2 to 32.7, and MPs 32.9 to 34.2) 

(see Figure 1.7.2-1). The Yuma District Plan prohibits the location of new utility facilities in SMAs. 

Although the B-Line deviates from designated utility corridors within the CDCA and within the 

Milpitas Wash SMA, it would be collocated with North Baja’s existing A-Line. The BLM approved plan 

amendments to both the CDCA and Yuma District Plans to accommodate the A-Line in 2002. Where the 

IID Lateral is outside of a designated utility corridor, the route would primarily follow or abut other 

previously disturbed corridors established by roads (rather than utilities) such as Interstate 8 and Evan 

Hewes Highway. 

If the plan(s) are not amended, the BLM may authorize installation of the Project within existing 

corridors only, or the BLM may deny the Project if the existing corridor option does not prove feasible. 

Section 1.7.5 summarizes the alternative routes considered and Section 3 provides a comparison of the 

alternatives. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-38 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 1.7.2-1 Locations Requiring a BLM Plan Amendment 

Page 1-38 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-39 

1.7.3 Identification of Issues 

Major issues raised by the BLM and other agencies include: potential impact on special status 

species, including the desert tortoise; potential impact on desert wildlife habitat; potential for OHV route 

proliferation; timing of construction; and visual impacts. These issues are addressed in Section 4. 

1.7.4 Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria (Title 43 CFR Part 1610.4-2) are parameters that guide development of the land 

use plan amendment to ensure the planning process is tailored to the issues and that unnecessary data 

collection is avoided. Planning criteria are based on standards prescribed by applicable laws and 

regulations; agency guidance; and the result of coordination with the public, tribes, and other Federal, 

State, and local government agencies. The BLM has prepared the planning criteria for the proposed land 

use plan amendments as presented below. 

Planning and NEPA 

The proposed land use plan amendments shall not amend the majority of the decisions, goals, and 

objectives established in the CDCA Plan or the Yuma District Plan and these decisions shall remain in 

effect. The plan amendment process shall be conducted in compliance with the FLPMA, planning 

regulations at Title 43 CFR Part 1600, BLM manual guidance, and all applicable Federal laws affecting 

BLM land use decisions. The planning process shall include an environmental analysis prepared in 

compliance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations at Title 40 CFR Part 1500, and BLM guidance. 

Consistency with Other Land Use Plans and Ongoing BLM Planning Efforts 

The BLM’s land use plans and amendments must be consistent with officially approved or 

adopted resource-related plans of Native American tribes, other Federal agencies, and State and local 

governments to the maximum extent practical, given that the BLM’s land use plans must also be 

consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of the FLPMA, as well as other Federal laws and 

regulations applicable to pubic lands (Title 43 CFR Part 1610.3-2[a]). Consistency with current land use 

plans is discussed in Section 1.5. 

1.7.5 Alternatives Considered in the Analysis 

An alternative this EIS/EIR must consider is that North Baja use existing corridors, as designated 

in the CDCA Plan (BLM 1980 as amended) for its entire route across public land in California. In 1980 

when the CDCA Plan was issued, utility corridors 2 to 5 miles wide were designated, mostly along 

existing pipelines and transmission lines (BLM 1980). Several additional corridors were subsequently 

designated. The intent of the CDCA Plan was to limit future disturbance and land use designation for 

utilities to previously disturbed areas already carrying utilities. By the legislation enabling the CDCA 

Plan, a plan amendment is required to allow an exception to the plan’s designated utility corridors. 

As part of the EIS/EIR for the original North Baja Pipeline Project (referred to in this EIS/EIR as 

the A-Line), the alternative of following designated utility corridors was considered. Based on the 

analysis conducted for that Project, the route selected for the A-Line, including the deviations from 

designated utility corridors and the crossing of the Milpitas Wash SMA, was determined to be 

environmentally preferable to a route that remained within designated utility corridors. The proposed BLine would be adjacent to the existing A-Line for the entire route. The collocation of facilities is 

generally preferred by land management agencies, land use planners, and other regulatory agencies and 

has several inherent engineering and environmental advantages. Perhaps the most important of these 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
1-40 

advantages is that new land disturbance is minimized. Because of the advantages of collocation, and 

because the route selected for the A-Line that would be followed for the B-Line was previously 

determined to be environmentally preferable to a route that remains within a designated utility corridor, 

alternatives for the B-Line route that would follow designated utility corridors are not considered in this 

EIS/EIR. 

Along the IID Lateral, North Baja proposes to deviate from a designated utility corridor at three 

locations within the CDCA. Two alternative routes were examined to stay within a designated utility 

corridor for a longer distance than the proposed route. These alternatives are referred to as the Corridor L 

Alternative and the Bond’s Corner Alternative. A detailed discussion of these alternatives is presented in 

Section 3.2.3.2. 

1.7.6 Agency Coordination 

The BLM and the FWS have worked closely with North Baja representatives throughout the 

process of collecting information for this environmental analysis. Additionally, BLM and FWS personnel 

have consulted informally on the impacts of the corridor exception, on North Baja’s proposed restoration 

plan, and on the potential impacts on desert wildlife habitat and the desert tortoise. 

1.7.7 Public Participation 

BLM planning regulations (Title 40 CFR Part 1601-1610) provide for specific points of public 

involvement in environmental analysis and land use planning decisions including plan amendments. The 

review and analysis of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project follows the BLM guidelines for public 

participation and opportunity to comment, as well as those of the FERC and the CSLC. The opportunities 

for the public to review and comment on the EIS/EIR and plan amendment are described in Section 1.3. 

The EPA’s publication of the Notice of Availability of the final EIS/EIR and proposed plan 

amendment in the Federal Register initiates a 30-day protest period on the plan amendment. Any 

participant in the planning process who has an interest that is or may be adversely affected may file a 

protest (Title 43 CFR Part 1610.5-2(a)). A letter of protest must be filed with the BLM Director within 

30 days of the EPA notice. The Director may dismiss or uphold a protest in whole or in part. The BLM 

will withhold approval and implementation on any protested portion of a plan amendment until the protest 

process has been completed. Portions of the plan amendment not being protested may be approved and 

implemented. 

The EPA’s notice simultaneously initiates the Governor’s consistency review. The Governor has 

a maximum of 60 days to identify inconsistencies between the proposed plan and State and local plans 

and provide written comments to the BLM California State Director. The BLM and the State may 

mutually agree upon a shorter review period satisfactory to both. 

Once protests have been resolved and the Governor’s consistency review has been completed, the 

BLM State Director(s) may approve the plan amendment by signing a ROD. The plan amendment 

decision of the BLM Director is the final decision of the Department of the Interior and therefore cannot 

be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-1 

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

North Baja proposes to expand its existing natural gas transmission pipeline system between 

Ehrenberg, Arizona and an interconnection at the international border between the United States and 

Mexico. The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would involve the construction and operation of a 

pipeline loop; two pipeline laterals; two meter stations; modifications at North Baja’s existing compressor 

and meter stations; and installation of taps and crossover piping, mainline and lateral valves, and pig 

launchers and receivers. An overview map of the Project location and facilities is provided on Figure 

2.1-1. Detailed maps showing the pipeline routes, aboveground facilities, contractor yards, and access 

roads are in Appendix B. 

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities 

North Baja’s existing system between Ehrenberg, Arizona and the U.S.-Mexico border consists of 

79.8 miles of 30-inch- and 36-inch-diameter pipeline (referred to in this EIS/EIR as the A-Line). The ALine was installed in 2002 as part of the North Baja Pipeline Project (Docket Nos. CP01-22-000, et al.). 

The pipeline facilities proposed by North Baja to expand its existing system would consist of 

approximately 127.6 miles of pipeline loop and laterals of various diameters. Table 2.1.1-1 lists the 

proposed pipeline facilities by name, pipe diameter, milepost range, length, and location. The proposed 

pipeline facilities include: 

• B-Line – up to 79.8 miles of pipeline loop consisting of 11.7 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

pipeline extending from the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station at MP 0.0 in La Paz 

County, Arizona to the existing Rannells Trap at MP 11.7 in Riverside County, California 

and 68.1 miles of 48-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Rannells Trap to an 

interconnection at the U.S.-Mexico border at MP 79.8 in Imperial County, California; 

• Arrowhead Extension – 2.1 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from the 

proposed B-Line at MP 7.4 to SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station in 

Riverside County; and 

• IID Lateral – 45.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline extending from MP 74.5 of the BLine near the existing Ogilby Meter Station in Imperial County to the existing IID El 

Centro Generating Station in Imperial County. 

The design pressure and maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the pipeline facilities 

would be 1,150 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). The normal operating pressure would be 1,050 psig. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-2 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 2.1-1 Project Overview Map 

Page 2-2 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-3 

TABLE 2.1.1-1 

Pipeline Facilities Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility Pipe Diameter (inches) Milepost Range Length (miles) County, State 

B-Line 42 0.0 – 0.2 0.2 La Paz, Arizona 

 0.2 – 11.7 11.5 Riverside, California 

Subtotal 11.7 

 48 11.7 – 22.3 10.6 Riverside, California 

 22.3 – 79.8 57.5 Imperial, California 

Subtotal 68.1 

B-Line Total 79.8 

Arrowhead Extension 36 0.0 – 2.1a 2.1 Riverside, California 

IID Lateral 16 0.0 – 45.7b 45.7 Imperial, California 

Project Total 127.6 

____________________ 

a

 The Arrowhead Extension connects to the B-Line at MP 7.4. 

b

 The IID Lateral connects to the B-Line at MP 74.5. 

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Associated aboveground facilities proposed by North Baja include (see Table 2.1.2-1): 

• modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station in La Paz County and the 

existing Ogilby Meter Station in Imperial County to allow northbound flow of natural 

gas; 

• metering modifications inside the existing El Paso Meter Station at the Ehrenberg 

Compressor Station site to allow LNG-source gas to be delivered into the El Paso system; 

• installation of one meter station (Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station) at SoCalGas’ existing 

Blythe Compressor Station in Riverside County to measure gas delivery from the North 

Baja system to SoCalGas; 

• installation of one meter station (El Centro Meter Station) at the IID’s existing El Centro 

Generating Station in Imperial County to measure gas delivery from the North Baja 

system to the IID; 

• installation of two taps and crossover piping where the Arrowhead Extension would 

connect with the existing A-Line and proposed B-Line in Riverside County; 

• installation of one tap where the IID Lateral would connect with the proposed B-Line in 

Imperial County; 

• installation of four pig launchers, one where the Arrowhead Extension would connect 

with the existing A-Line and proposed B-Line, one at Rannells Trap in Riverside County, 

one at the Ogilby Meter Station, and one where the IID Lateral would connect with the 

proposed B-Line; 

• installation of five pig receivers, one at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, one at the end 

of the Arrowhead Extension at the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station, one at Rannells 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-4 

Trap, one at the Ogilby Meter Station, and one at the end of the IID Lateral at the IID El 

Centro Generating Station; 

• installation of nine remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the BLine, adjacent to the existing A-Line valve sites; and 

• installation of four remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the IID 

Lateral. 

TABLE 2.1.2-1 

Aboveground Facilities Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility 

Approximate 

Milepost 

Diameter 

(inches) County, State 

B-Line 

 Ehrenberg Compressor Station Modifications and Pig Receiver 0.0 42 La Paz, AZ 

 El Paso Meter Station Modifications 0.0 -- La Paz, AZ 

 Rannells Trap Pig Launcher and Receiver 11.7 42/48 Riverside, CA 

 Valve #1 0.0 48 Riverside, CA 

 Valve #2 5.7 48 Riverside, CA 

 Valve #3 11.7 48 Riverside, CA 

 Valve #4 11.7 48 Riverside, CA 

 Valve #5 28.0 48 Imperial, CA 

 Valve #6 41.6 48 Imperial, CA 

 Valve #7 60.3 48 Imperial, CA 

 Valve #8 75.2 48 Imperial, CA 

 Valve #9 75.2 48 Imperial, CA 

 Ogilby Meter Station Modifications and Pig Launcher and 

Receiver 

75.2 48 Imperial, CA 

Arrowhead Extension 

Two Taps at the A-Line and B-Line, Crossover Piping, and Pig 

Launcher 

0.0 36 Riverside, CA 

 Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and Pig Receiver 2.1 36 Riverside, CA 

IID Lateral 

 Tap at the B-Line and Pig Launcher 0.0 16 Imperial, CA 

 Valve #1 0.0 16 Imperial, CA 

 Valve #2 7.6 16 Imperial, CA 

 Valve #3 27.2 16 Imperial, CA 

 Valve #4 38.7 16 Imperial, CA 

 El Centro Meter Station and Pig Receiver 45.7 16 Imperial, CA 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

Table 2.2-1 summarizes the land requirements for the Project. A detailed description and 

breakdown of land requirements and use is presented in Section 4.8.2. Construction of the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project would disturb approximately 1,760.5 acres of land, including the pipeline 

facilities, aboveground facilities, pipe storage and contractor yards, and access roads. Approximately 

109.0 acres of the 1,760.5 acres used for construction would be required for operation of the Project. Of 

this total, about 106.9 acres would be for the pipeline facilities, 2.0 acres would be for the aboveground 

facilities, and 0.1 acre would be for permanent access roads associated with the proposed facilities. The 

remaining 1,651.5 acres of land would be restored and allowed to revert to former use. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-5 

TABLE 2.2-1 

Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility 

Land Affected During 

Construction (acres) 

Land Affected During 

Operation (acres) 

Pipeline Facilities 

 Pipeline Right-of-Way 

 B-Line a

 1,015.5 0.0 

 Arrowhead Extension b 20.6 4.7 

 IID Lateral c 360.2 102.2

 Pipeline Right-of-Way Total 1,396.3 106.9 

 Temporary Extra Workspace 

 B-Line 128.2 0.0 

 Arrowhead Extension 1.7 0.0 

 IID Lateral 43.1 0.0

 Temporary Extra Workspace Total 173.0 0.0 

Pipeline Facilities Total 1,569.3 106.9 

 

Aboveground Facilities 

B-Line 

 Ehrenberg Compressor Station Modifications and 

Pig Receiver 

0.7 0.0 

 El Paso Meter Station Modifications 0.0 0.0 

 Rannells Trap Pig Launcher and Receiver 0.3 0.3 

 Ogilby Meter Station Modifications and Pig Launcher 

and Receiver 

0.2 0.2 

 Valves 1.0 <0.1

B-Line Subtotal 2.3 0.5 

Arrowhead Extension 

 Two Taps at the A-Line and B-Line, Crossover 

 Piping, and Pig Launcher 

1.0 0.8 

 Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and Pig Receiver 1.0 0.3

Arrowhead Extension Subtotal 2.0 1.1 

IID Lateral 

 Tap at the B-Line and Pig Launcher 0.2 0.2 

 El Centro Meter Station and Pig Receiver 2.5 0.2 

 Valves 0.2 0.0

 IID Lateral Subtotal 2.9 0.4 

Aboveground Facilities Total 7.2 2.0 

 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 73.1 0.0 

 

Access Roads 

 B-Line 99.7 0.0 

 Arrowhead Extension <0.1 <0.1 

 IID Lateral 11.2 0.1

Access Roads Total 110.9 0.1 

Project Total 1,760.5 109.0 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-6 

TABLE 2.2-1 (cont’d) 

Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility 

Land Affected During 

Construction (acres) 

Land Affected During 

Operation (acres) 

____________________ 

a

 Based on a 105-foot-wide construction right-of-way in all areas except along 18th Avenue where a 60-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way would be used. No additional permanent right-of-way would be required because the B-Line 

would be installed in North Baja’s existing 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way using a standard 25-foot offset from the 

existing A-Line. 

b Based on a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way in all areas except when in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or 

road shoulder where a 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way would be used. Based on a 35-foot-wide permanent 

right-of-way in all areas except when in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder. The width of the 

permanent right-of-way within Arrowhead Boulevard would be determined under an agreement between North Baja 

and Riverside County. 

C Based on an 80-foot-wide construction right-of-way where the route would parallel existing powerlines and a 60-footwide construction right-of-way where the route would be installed between a powerline and a road and within or 

abutting the traveled portion of county roads. Based on a 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in all areas except 

along Evan Hewes Highway and other county roads where a 2-foot-wide permanent right-of-way was assumed. The 

actual width of the permanent right-of-way along Imperial County roads would be determined under an agreement 

between North Baja and Imperial County. 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-7 

Construction and operation activities on approximately 89 percent of the lands affected by the 

Project would be authorized by various governmental entities including: the BLM (for Federal lands 

managed by the BLM, the BOR, and the FWS [53 percent]), California counties (36 percent), the States 

of Arizona or California or cities (less than 1 percent), or the CSLC (less than 1 percent). The remainder 

of the land that would be affected (11 percent) is privately owned. No tribal land would be crossed. A 

detailed description of land ownership is presented in Section 4.8.2. 

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities 

Of the approximately 1,569.3 acres of land that would be disturbed during construction of the 

pipeline facilities, about 1,396.3 acres would be disturbed by the pipeline right-of-way and 173.0 acres 

would be disturbed by temporary extra workspace. About 858.5 acres or 55 percent is previously 

disturbed area associated with construction and operation of North Baja’s existing A-Line. Operation of 

the pipeline facilities would require about 106.9 acres of land. 

Of the 127.6 miles of proposed pipeline facilities, approximately 126.9 miles (99 percent) would 

be constructed in or adjacent to various existing rights-of-way (see Table 2.2.1-1). The B-Line and 

Arrowhead Extension would be entirely in or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. Of the 45.7 miles 

associated with the IID Lateral, 0.7 mile (2 percent) would be constructed on newly created right-of-way 

that does not parallel existing rights-of-way. 

North Baja proposes to generally use a 105-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the B-Line, 

consisting of North Baja’s existing 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way and 55 feet of temporary 

workspace. In most areas, about 80 feet of the construction right-of-way would overlap the previously 

disturbed right-of-way. The B-Line would be installed within North Baja’s existing 50-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way using a standard 25-foot offset from the existing A-Line. No new permanent 

right-of-way would be required for operation of the B-Line. In the Palo Verde Valley, the B-Line would 

generally be installed to the south or east of the existing A-Line. For the remainder of the route, the BLine would typically be west of the existing A-Line. 

Where the B-Line would be installed within or abutting the paved portion of 18th Avenue (a 

distance of about 7.6 miles), rights to build and operate the pipeline within the county road right-of-way 

would be authorized under a franchise agreement with Riverside County. Franchise agreements do not 

typically grant a specific strip of land, but simply allow the pipeline to be installed and operated within 

the road right-of-way. North Baja proposes to use a 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way to install the 

B-Line in the paved portion of 18th Avenue. North Baja’s typical right-of-way cross sections along the 

proposed B-Line are in Appendix C. 

During the scoping process, one commentor suggested that North Baja install the B-Line closer to 

the existing A-Line than its proposed 25-foot separation. Twenty-five feet is a standard separation 

distance used by many looped pipelines. This distance ensures a margin of safety during construction and 

operation of the pipeline and it maintains a symmetrical distance between the pipelines and the easement 

boundaries, which can help avoid future encroachment issues. However, some looped systems do employ 

a 20-foot separation or less where site-specific conditions require that the pipelines be closer together 

(e.g., heavily urbanized areas). In the case of the proposed Project, nothing would be gained by 

decreasing the separation between the proposed B-Line and the existing A-Line because North Baja 

already proposes to utilize the full width of the previously disturbed right-of-way and the workspace 

requirements would not be reduced by placing the B-Line closer to the A-Line. In other words, placing 

the proposed B-Line closer to the existing A-Line would not result in a reduction in disturbance to 

previously undisturbed land. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-8 

TABLE 2.2.1-1 

Location of Adjacent Existing Rights-of-Way in Relation to the Proposed Pipeline Facilities 

Facility 

Beginning 

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

Segment 

Length 

(miles) Existing Right-of-Way 

Relationship to 

Existing Rights-ofWay 

B-Line 0.0 0.5 0.5 A-Line South 

 0.5 2.3 1.8 A-Line East 

 2.3 2.9 0.6 A-Line/18th Avenue a

 North 

 2.9 10.5 7.6 A-Line/18th Avenue b

 South 

 10.5 12.1 1.6 A-Line South 

 12.1 79.8 67.7 A-Line c

 West 

Arrowhead 

Extension 

0.0 1.0 1.0 Arrowhead Boulevard d East 

 1.0 1.5 0.5 Arrowhead Boulevard East 

1.5 2.1 0.6 Arrowhead Boulevard West 

IID Lateral 0.0 0.1 0.1 Ogilby Road West 

 0.1 2.6 2.5 SDG&E Powerline d

 North 

 2.6 3.5 0.9 Interstate 8 South 

 3.5 4.4 0.9 IID Powerlines e 

 4.4 5.1 0.7 SDG&E Powerline South 

 5.1 5.6 0.5 IID Powerlines e 

 5.6 6.1 0.5 Interstate 8 West 

 6.1 8.1 2.0 Interstate 8 North 

 8.1 8.5 0.4 Evan Hewes Highway North 

 8.5 13.6 5.1 Evan Hewes Highway South 

 13.6 16.2 2.6 IID Powerline North 

 16.2 26.0 9.8 Evan Hewes Highway North 

 26.0 27.1 1.1 Evan Hewes Highway South 

 27.1 27.6 0.5 None, new right-of-way Not Applicable f

 27.6 27.8 0.2 None, new right-of-way NA 

 27.8 34.9 7.1 Hunt Road North 

 34.9 35.9 1.0 Hunt Road South 

 35.9 36.9 1.0 Hunt Road North 

 36.9 38.7 1.8 East Chick Road North 

 38.7 38.9 0.2 McGrew Road East 

 38.9 39.7 0.8 Private Field Road East 

 39.7 40.4 0.7 East Ross Road South 

 40.4 41.4 1.0 East Ross Road North 

 41.4 42.1 0.7 Parker Road East 

 42.1 42.9 0.8 Parker Road South 

 42.9 43.4 0.5 Holton Road South 

 43.4 43.6 0.2 State Route 111 and IID 

Powerline 

g 

 43.6 45.7 2.1 IID Powerline North 

____________________ 

a

 The B-Line would be adjacent to 18th Avenue along this segment of the route but would not be within the actual road 

or road shoulder. 

b

 The B-Line would be installed within the road or road shoulder of 18th Avenue along this segment of the route. 

c

 The B-Line would also be adjacent to State Route 78 and Ogilby Road for portions of this pipeline segment. 

d

 The Arrowhead Extension would be installed within the roadway or road shoulder of Arrowhead Boulevard along this 

segment of the route. 

e

 The IID Lateral would be installed beneath Interstate 8 and the All-American Canal between MPs 2.3 and 2.6. 

f

 The IID Lateral would be between IID powerlines “A” and “C” in this location. 

g

 The IID Lateral would be installed beneath Interstate 8 in this location. 

h

 The IID Lateral would be between Old State Highway 111 and an IID powerline in this location. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-9 

North Baja proposes to generally use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the 

Arrowhead Extension except when in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder where a 60-

foot-wide construction right-of-way would be used. The permanent right-of-way in all areas except when 

in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder would be 35 feet wide. Rights to build and 

operate the pipeline within the Arrowhead Boulevard right-of-way would be authorized under an 

agreement between North Baja and Riverside County. North Baja’s typical right-of-way cross sections 

along the proposed Arrowhead Extension are in Appendix C. 

Where the IID Lateral parallels existing powerlines, North Baja proposes to generally use an 80-

foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. North Baja proposes to 

use a 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way where the lateral 

would be installed between a powerline and a road. A 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way would also 

be used where the IID Lateral would be installed within or abutting the traveled portion of county roads. 

Rights to build and operate the IID Lateral within county road rights-of-way would be authorized under a 

franchise agreement between North Baja and Imperial County. For the portion of the IID Lateral located 

in Evan Hewes Highway and other county roads, a 2-foot-wide permanent right-of-way has been 

assumed. In some cases, where the road right-of-way has not been expressly dedicated to the county, 

North Baja may acquire additional easement from private landowners. In these areas, a 30-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way has been assumed. North Baja’s typical right-of-way cross sections along the 

proposed IID Lateral are in Appendix C. 

In addition to the construction right-of-way, North Baja has identified temporary extra 

workspaces that would be required for staging areas and construction at waterbodies, roads, and railroads, 

and in areas of steep slopes and rugged terrain. The approximate locations and sizes of temporary extra 

workspaces identified by North Baja are listed in Table D-1 in Appendix D. 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Modifications at existing and construction of new aboveground facilities associated with the 

proposed Project would affect 7.2 acres of land. Of the 7.2 acres, 2.0 acres would be permanently 

converted for operation of these facilities. 

The installation of a new pig receiver at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station would take place 

within the existing fenceline of the facility and would not require any additional land for construction or 

operation; however, a header pipe associated with the new pig receiver would be outside of the fenceline 

of the facility and would require 0.7 acre for construction (no permanent right-of-way would be required 

because the line would be installed on North Baja fee property). The aboveground modifications at the 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station and the adjacent El Paso Meter Station to allow for northbound flow of 

gas would occur within the existing fencelines of the facilities. 

The addition of a pig launcher and receiver at Rannells Trap would require an expansion of the 

facility by 0.3 acre for both construction and operation. The modifications and additional pig launcher 

and receiver at the Ogilby Meter Station would require an expansion of the facility by 0.2 acre for both 

construction and operation. 

Four new valves associated with the B-Line would be collocated with existing valves along the 

A-Line and would require an expansion of the existing 50-foot by 50-foot sites to 75-foot by 150-foot 

sites during construction. No new permanent right-of-way would be required for the new valves, except 

for valve #2 along 18th Avenue. This valve would require a 12-foot by 24-foot expansion of the existing 

fenced site. The other five valves associated with the B-Line would be within the sites of the Ehrenberg 

Compressor Station, Rannells Trap, and Ogilby Meter Station and would not require any additional land 

for construction or operation. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-10 

The two taps at the A-Line and B-Line, crossover piping, and pig launcher associated with the 

Arrowhead Extension would require a 150-foot by 225-foot site on the northeast corner of the intersection 

of 18th Avenue and Arrowhead Boulevard for operation. A 115-foot by 110-foot site within the fenced 

yard of SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station would be required for operation of the BlytheArrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver. 

The tap at the B-Line and pig launcher associated with the IID Lateral would require an 80-foot 

by 100-foot site for construction and operation. The proposed El Centro Meter Station and pig receiver 

would be installed within the existing fenceline of the El Centro Generating Station but would require 2.5 

acres of land for construction and would also require North Baja to obtain a 0.2-acre easement from the 

IID within the generating station yard. One of the four new valves would be collocated with the tap at the 

B-Line and pig launcher. The acreage of disturbance associated with this valve is included in the acreage 

of disturbance associated with the tap and pig launcher. The three remaining valves along the IID Lateral 

would each require 10-foot by 25-foot fenced sites. 

2.2.3 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

To support construction activities, North Baja proposes to use four pipe storage and contractor 

yards on a temporary basis. These yards would temporarily affect about 73.1 acres of land. The sizes and 

locations of the yards identified by North Baja are listed in Table 2.2.3-1. 

TABLE 2.2.3-1 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility 

Size 

(acres) 

Previously 

Disturbed County a Section/Township/Range 

18th Avenue Contractor Yard 15.2 Yes b Riverside Sec. 18, T7S, R23E 

Ripley Contractor Yard 30.2 Yes b Riverside Sec. 34, T7S, R22E 

Ogilby Contractor Yard 5.0 Yes b Imperial Sec. 23, T16S, R20E 

IID Lateral (El Centro) Contractor Yard 22.7 Yes c Imperial Sec. 38, T15S, R14E 

Total 73.1 

____________________ 

a

 All of the proposed pipe storage and contractor yards are in California. 

b

 These sites were used for temporary construction purposes during construction of North Baja’s existing A-Line. 

c

 This site is currently an auto parts salvage yard. The site would be temporarily cleared for use for the proposed 

Project. 

2.2.4 Access Roads 

North Baja proposes to use several existing roads for temporary right-of-way access during 

construction. These access roads primarily exist as paved or dirt roads and/or jeep trails that would be 

graded or otherwise improved as needed to move equipment and materials to the construction right-ofway. An additional 485 feet of new temporary access roads would be required for the Project, of which 

about 60 feet would be retained as permanent access to the proposed Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station at 

the end of the Arrowhead Extension and 160 feet would be retained as permanent access to the proposed 

tap at the B-Line and pig launcher at the beginning of the IID Lateral. A permanent access road would 

also be required to proposed valve #2 at MP 7.6 of the IID Lateral, but North Baja would utilize existing 

roads with some modification and would not need to construct a new road. The locations, conditions, 

lengths, and acres of the proposed access roads are listed in Table D-2 in Appendix D. 

North Baja has no plans to maintain a permanent road on the right-of-way for operation and 

maintenance of the pipeline facilities. However, North Baja would maintain access to all portions of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-11 

permanent right-of-way by four-wheel drive vehicles in order to conduct emergency and periodic 

maintenance. In addition, North Baja would use existing access roads for “like-use” activities where 

access is needed for specialized purposes such as water-draw sites adjacent to Palo Verde Irrigation 

District (PVID) or IID canals and drains, or construction inspection adjacent to powerlines. In these 

locations, North Baja would use the roads in a manner similar to their current use. Roads would be used 

by rubber-tired vehicles (water trucks and pickups), pumps on roads (with adequate spill kits and 

containment for refueling), and foot traffic. All locations would be selected so no new ground 

disturbance would be necessary for their use or maintenance. The specific like-use roads would be 

identified by North Baja before the time of required access. 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

The proposed Project would be designed, constructed, tested, and operated in accordance with all 

applicable requirements included in the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in Title 49 

CFR Part 192,1 Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards; and other applicable Federal and State regulations, including U.S. Department of Labor, 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. These regulations are intended to 

ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural gas pipeline accidents and failures. 

Among other design standards, Part 192 specifies pipeline material and qualification, minimum design 

requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

To reduce construction impacts, North Baja would implement a Project-specific Construction 

Mitigation and Restoration Plan (CM&R Plan) (see Appendix E) that includes the portions of the FERC’s 

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody 

Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) that are relevant to the Project area.2

 North Baja’s 

CM&R Plan also includes Project-specific measures associated with restoration in an arid environment as 

well as biological and cultural resources protection measures. 

To avoid or minimize the potential for harmful spills and leaks during construction, North Baja 

has developed a Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan for Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

(SPCC Plan) (see Appendix F). North Baja’s SPCC Plan describes spill prevention practices, procedures 

for emergency preparedness and incident response, and training requirements. 

North Baja has also prepared a Horizontal Directional Drill Plan (HDD Plan) (see Appendix G) 

that describes the horizontal directional drill (HDD) process and how it would be monitored. The HDD 

Plan also describes the agency notification procedures and the corrective action and cleanup procedures 

that would be followed in the event of an inadvertent release of drilling fluid and the abandonment 

procedures that would be followed if it is necessary to abandon the drill hole. 

These plans were used during construction of the A-Line and have been modified to reflect the 

experience gained during its construction. These plans as well as other resource-specific plans (e.g., 

Traffic Management Plans, Blasting Specifications, Paleontological Resource Mitigation and Monitoring 

Plan, Dust Control Plan, Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan, Site-specific Residential Construction 

 

1

 Pipe design regulations for steel pipe are contained in subpart C, Part 192. Section 192.105 contains a design formula for the pipeline’s 

design pressure. Sections 192.107 through 192.115 contain the components of the design formula, including yield strength, wall thickness, 

design factor, longitudinal joint factor, and temperature derating factor, which are adjusted according to the project design conditions, such as 

pipe manufacturing specifications, steel specifications, class location, and operating conditions. Pipeline operating regulations are contained 

in subpart L, Part 192. 2

 The FERC’s Plan and Procedures are a set of construction and mitigation measures that were developed in collaboration with other Federal 

and State agencies and the natural gas pipeline industry to minimize the potential environmental impacts of the construction of pipeline 

projects in general. The Plan can be viewed on the FERC Internet website at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/uplndctl.pdf. The 

Procedures can be viewed on the FERC Internet website at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/wetland.pdf. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-12 

Mitigation Plans, and OHV Management Plan) that have been developed for the proposed Project are 

discussed in detail in Section 4. 

All of North Baja’s mitigation plans are important components of the POD for the Project, which 

is a document required by the BLM before issuance of its ROD or amended Right-of-Way Grant for the 

crossing of Federal lands (see Section 1.2.3). The POD would include all of the measures that are 

described in this EIS/EIR as well as additional site-specific stipulations that are determined by the BLM, 

the BOR, and the FWS to be necessary on Federal lands under their jurisdiction. Any additional sitespecific measures included in the POD would not contradict the mitigation measures in this EIS/EIR. 

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

This section describes the general procedures proposed by North Baja for the construction of the 

pipeline facilities. Figure 2.3.1-1 shows the typical steps of cross-country pipeline construction. As 

discussed in Section 1.1, North Baja would build the Project in three phases. For Phase I, North Baja 

plans to use one general construction crew “spread” and one or more specialty crews for a total of 

approximately 50 workers. For Phase I-A, North Baja plans to use one general construction spread but 

may use two spread mobilizations to build the cross-country portions and roadways portions. Between 

100 and 150 workers would be used to construct Phase I-A. For Phase II, North Baja plans to use one 

general construction spread to build the cross-country portions and a separate mini-spread to construct the 

roadway portion. In total, the peak workforce for Phase II would consist of 300 to 400 workers. The 

anticipated dates and duration of construction for each phase are described in Section 2.4. 

Standard pipeline construction is composed of specific activities that make up the linear 

construction sequence. These operations collectively include survey and staking of the right-of-way; 

clearing and grading; trenching; pipe stringing, bending, and welding; lowering the pipeline into the 

trench; backfilling the trench; hydrostatic testing; and cleanup and restoration. The procedures North 

Baja would follow to conduct these activities are described below. In addition, North Baja would use 

special construction techniques when constructing across roads, highways, railroads, waterbodies, 

wetlands, residential areas, and sand dunes; when constructing within paved roads; and when blasting 

through rock (see Section 2.3.2). 

Survey and Staking 

Before the start of construction, North Baja would complete land or easement acquisition. North 

Baja would then mark the limits of the approved work area (i.e., the construction right-of-way boundaries 

and temporary extra workspaces) and the pipeline centerline, and flag the location of approved access 

roads. Existing utility lines and other sensitive resources would be located and marked to prevent 

accidental damage during pipeline construction. 

Clearing and Grading 

The construction work area would be cleared and graded (where necessary) to provide a relatively 

level surface for trench excavating equipment and a sufficiently wide workspace for the passage of heavy 

construction equipment. Except along certain washes where dense stands of small trees cannot be 

avoided, North Baja does not anticipate the need to clear trees. In areas where grading is not required, 

vegetation would be cut off at ground level (leaving the root systems intact) and cleared to the edge of the 

work area for subsequent respreading during cleanup and restoration. In areas requiring grading where no 

bedrock is at the surface, approximately 2 to 8 inches of soil across the entire width of the work area 

would be stockpiled for restoration purposes. In agricultural areas, topsoil would be stripped to its actual 

depth up to 2 feet and stockpiled separately from the trench spoil. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure 2.3.1-1

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence

1) Survey and Staking2) Clearing3) Front-End Grading4) ROW Topsoil Stripping5) Restaking Centerline of Trench6) Trenching (wheel ditcher)7) Trenching (rock)8) Padding Trench Bottom

 9) Stringing Pipe10) Field Bending Pipe11) Line-Up, Initial Weld12) Fill & Cap, Final Weld

13) As-Built Footage14) X-Ray Inspection, Weld Repair15) Coating Field Welds16) Inspection & Repair of Coating17) Lowering Pipe into Trench18) As-Built Survey19) Pad, Backfill, Rough Grade20) Hydrostatic Testing, Final Tie-In21) Replace Topsoil, Final Clean-Up, Full Restoration 

2-13

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-14 

Trenching 

The trench would be excavated to a depth sufficient to provide the minimum cover required by 

DOT specifications. Typically, the trench would be sufficiently deep to allow for about 3 feet of cover 

and wide enough to allow for about 4 to 6 feet of stable soils and rock. In sandy soils, the trench could be 

up to 12 feet wide at the top. In agricultural areas, the depth of cover over the pipeline would be 

increased so that the top of the pipe would be 1 foot below expected deep tilling practices. Between MPs 

2.7 and 5.7, the pipeline would be buried with 6 feet of cover to ensure pipeline integrity in the Buttercup 

Campground, which is heavily used for OHV recreation. North Baja would also install the pipeline deep 

enough to maintain at least 1 foot of clearance when crossing beneath existing utilities or irrigation and 

drainage systems. Spoil from the trench would be spread on the working side of the right-of-way and 

worked over by equipment, or temporarily stored in piles next to the trench. The spoil piles would be 

kept separate from the topsoil piles. In areas where mechanical equipment cannot break up and loosen the 

bedrock, blasting may be required (see Section 2.3.2). 

Generally, excavated rock would be used to backfill the trench to the top of the existing bedrock 

profile. Large rock not suitable for use as backfill material would be either scattered across the work area 

(with the landowner’s permission) or hauled off the right-of-way and disposed of in an area approved by 

the appropriate agency. 

During the scoping process, the BLM and the BOR commented that the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) Border Patrol may have a concern about the trench being used for illegal 

activities and that the construction contractor would need to coordinate with the Border Patrol. North 

Baja consulted with the Border Patrol about any concerns it may have and the Border Patrol stated that it 

has not identified any concerns about the Project (Whipple 2006). Therefore, North Baja does not 

propose to place restrictions on the length of trench that would be allowed to be open at any one time as a 

measure to prevent illegal activities. North Baja would, however, restrict the length of trench that would 

be allowed to remain open at any one time to 2 miles as a measure to protect the flat-tailed horned lizard 

in designated flat-tailed horned lizard habitat (see Section 4.7.4.4). This designated habitat occurs 

between MPs 75.2 and 79.6 of the B-Line and between MPs 8.0 and 28.0 of the IID Lateral. These 

milepost locations are the portions of the pipeline routes that are closest to the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding 

Steel pipe would be procured in 60- or 80-foot lengths (also referred to as joints), protected with 

an epoxy coating applied at the factory, and shipped to the pipe storage and contractor yards. The 

individual joints would be transported to the right-of-way by stringing truck and placed along the 

excavated trench in a single, continuous line or “strung.” 

Individual sections of pipe would be bent where necessary to fit the contours of the trench, 

aligned, welded together into long strings, and placed on temporary supports along the edge of the trench. 

Welds would be x-rayed to ensure structural integrity and compliance with the applicable DOT 

regulations. North Baja would conduct x-ray inspection of 100 percent of all welds over 6 inches in 

diameter where possible. Other means of non-destructive inspection would be conducted where x-ray 

inspection is impossible or impractical. Those welds that do not meet established specifications would be 

repaired or removed. Once the welds are approved, the welded joints would be coated with a protective 

coating and the entire pipeline would be visually inspected for any faults, scratches, or other coating 

defects. Any damage or other faults would be repaired before the pipeline is lowered in. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-15 

Lowering-in and Backfilling 

Before the pipeline is lowered in, the trench would be dewatered as necessary in accordance with 

applicable permits and cleaned of debris. In areas of rock, padding material such as sand, sandbags, or 

screened soil would be placed in the bottom of the trench. The pipeline would be lowered into the trench, 

and trench breakers would be installed at specified intervals to prevent water movement along the 

pipeline. The trench would then be backfilled using the excavated materials. If the excavated material is 

rocky, the pipeline would be protected with a rock shield to prevent damage to the pipe and pipe coating, 

and/or covered with more suitable fill obtained either from commercial borrow areas or by separating 

suitable material from the existing trench spoil. Topsoil would not be used as padding material. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

After burial, the pipeline would be tested to ensure that the system is capable of withstanding the 

operating pressure for which it was designed. This procedure is called hydrostatic testing and is 

accomplished using pressurized water in the pipeline. The testing would be done in pipeline sections 

according to North Baja’s permits and DOT specifications (Title 49 CFR Part 192). The exact sequence 

and timing of hydrostatic testing would depend on the final schedule for phased construction (see Section 

2.4). 

Water for testing the piping within the Ehrenberg Compressor Station would be obtained from an 

existing irrigation canal adjacent to the compressor station property or an existing well located on the 

compressor station site. Both sources are hydrologically connected to the Colorado River. After testing, 

the water would be discharged into lined irrigation canals at the site or into the D-10 Canal. 

North Baja would hydrostatically test the B-Line with water obtained either from the same water 

sources at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site or directly from the All-American Canal at the location 

of the pipeline crossing. The water would be discharged to the All-American Canal when testing is 

complete. 

The Arrowhead Extension and piping within the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station would be 

tested with water obtained from the PVID, local wells, or a commercial water source. After testing, the 

water would be discharged into the C-05 Canal. 

North Baja would hydrostatically test the IID Lateral in sections with water obtained from the 

All-American Canal through an agreement with the IID. The water would be discharged directly back 

into the All-American Canal or into other IID irrigation facilities. 

Test water would contact only new pipe and no chemicals would be added. Test water would be 

pumped into the first test section, pressurized to design test pressure (90 to 100 percent of the specified 

minimum yield strength of the pipe being tested), and maintained at that pressure for about 8 hours. If 

leaks are found, the leaks would be repaired, and the section of pipe would be retested until specifications 

are met. After testing, the water would be pumped into the next test section until the entire pipeline is 

tested. When completed, the test water would be filtered and discharged directly back into the canals or 

other irrigation facilities described above. Energy dissipation devices would be employed as necessary to 

minimize channel erosion. To accomplish the testing requirements per DOT and industry standards, the 

testing would be conducted over a 24-hour period. 

Additional discussion of hydrostatic testing, including the specific water volumes that would be 

used, is included in Section 4.3.4. The applicable permits are listed in Table 1.6-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-16 

Cleanup and Restoration 

Within 20 days of backfilling the trench (10 days in residential areas), all work areas would be 

final graded and restored to preconstruction contours and natural drainage patterns as closely as possible. 

Slopes, such as those found east of SR 78, would be reestablished as near as practicable to 

preconstruction contours. To minimize future settling, the trench would be compacted with construction 

equipment. Topsoil and subsoil would be tested for compaction at regular intervals in agricultural and 

residential areas disturbed by construction activities. Severely compacted agricultural areas would be 

plowed with a paraplow or other deep tillage implement, and appropriate soil compaction mitigation 

would be conducted in severely compacted residential areas. 

North Baja states that compaction testing conducted in native desert habitats after construction of 

the A-Line indicated that the soils crossed by the A-Line did not compact; therefore, North Baja does not 

propose to test for soil compaction in native desert habitats after construction of the B-Line. North Baja 

proposes to conduct soil testing for compaction only in fine-textured soils along the IID Lateral in native 

desert habitats. Additional discussion of soil compaction and mitigation is presented in Section 4.2.3 and 

in the CM&R Plan in Appendix E. Surplus construction material and debris would be removed and 

disposed of at commercial landfills. Access roads would be regraded and restored to original condition 

unless the landowner requests otherwise. 

North Baja would conduct restoration activities in accordance with its CM&R Plan (see 

Appendix E). The native vegetation that had been removed during clearing and windrowed along the 

right-of-way would be respread over the disturbed areas. Areas of soil disturbance would be imprinted 

with a “sheep’s-foot” roller or other methods to provide micro-catchment areas for seed retention and 

improve water infiltration. North Baja would replant desert wash woodland species at specified locations 

along the right-of-way to provide a visual barrier to deter OHV traffic on the right-of-way. Additional 

discussion of restoration activities is presented in Section 4.5.3. 

After completion of construction and hydrostatic testing, the pipeline would be cleaned and dried 

using internal tools (pigs) that are propelled through the pipeline. Once cleaned, dried, and purged of air, 

the pipeline would be packed with natural gas. Pipeline markers and/or warning signs would be installed 

along the pipeline centerline at intervals to identify the location of the pipe. 

2.3.2 Special Construction Techniques 

Construction across roads, highways, railroads, waterbodies, wetlands, residential areas, and sand 

dunes; construction within paved roads; and blasting through rock may require special construction 

techniques. These are briefly described below. Applicable permits are listed in Table 1.6-1. 

Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings 

Construction across paved and unpaved roads, highways, and railroads would be in accordance 

with requirements of applicable road and railroad crossing permits and approvals. These features would 

either be bored or open cut. Boring requires the excavation of pits on both sides of the feature to be 

crossed to the depth of the pipeline, the installation of boring equipment, and the boring of a hole under 

the road equal to the diameter of the pipe. The uncased pipe section would then be pushed through the 

borehole. For long crossings, additional pipe sections may be required. These additional sections usually 

would be welded to the first section of pipe in the bore pit before being pushed through the borehole. In 

some cases, 24-hour operations are required during difficult boring operations when ground conditions 

and ambient daytime temperatures could cause overheating of the equipment or heat injury to operators. 

North Baja would design all railroad crossings in accordance with the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association’s (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering, Part 5 

Pipeline and Title 49 CFR Part 192 Transportation of Natural Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-17 

Standards. The AREMA specifications require a minimum distance of 10 feet from the bottom of the rail 

to the top of the pipe. All road crossings would be designed to comply with Title 49 CFR Part 192 

Transportation of Natural Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, which specifies a 

minimum depth of cover of 3 feet in road ditches. In addition, all roadway and highway crossings would 

be designed to meet the applicable State and local agency permit requirements and the latest edition of 

American Petroleum Institute 1102 requirements. 

For open-cut road crossings, North Baja would prepare construction specifications that are 

designed to avoid settling of the finished grade but would require the contractor to repair any settling, 

should it occur. Where Federal land management agencies or local agencies having jurisdiction over the 

roads include related specifications in their permits, those too would be incorporated into the construction 

contractor’s requirements. Finally, if road settlement attributed to pipeline construction occurs after the 

pipeline is in operation, North Baja would make the necessary repairs as required by the jurisdictional 

agency. 

There would be little or no disruption to traffic at road or railroad crossings that are bored. North 

Baja would implement measures at open-cut crossings to ensure safety and minimize traffic disruptions. 

No roads would be closed unless adequate detours are provided. North Baja has developed a Traffic 

Management Plan for 18th Avenue and a Traffic Management Plan for Imperial County Roads where the 

pipe would be installed longitudinally in the roadway. These plans detail the specific measures that 

would be used to control traffic during construction in these areas (see Section 4.10.2 and Appendix H). 

The Agency Staffs have recommended in Section 4.10.2 that North Baja develop a Traffic Management 

Plan for Arrowhead Boulevard to detail the specific measures that would be used to control traffic during 

construction of the Arrowhead Extension. 

Waterbody and Wetland Crossings 

The proposed Project would cross 2 perennial waterbodies, 73 man-made irrigation canals and 

drains, and 2653 desert washes. Only one waterbody, the Colorado River, has a fisheries classification 

(warmwater). The waterbody crossings would be constructed in accordance with Federal, State, and local 

permits (see Table 1.6-1). 

North Baja proposes to cross one of the perennial waterbodies (the Colorado River) and two of 

the canals (the All-American Canal [three times] and the East Highline Canal [once]) using the HDD 

method. This technique involves drilling a pilot hole under the waterbody and banks, then enlarging that 

hole through successive reamings until the hole is large enough to accommodate the pipe. Throughout 

the process of drilling and enlarging the hole, a slurry made of naturally occurring non-toxic materials, 

such as bentonite clay and water, would be circulated through the drilling tools to lubricate the drill bit, 

remove drill cuttings, and hold the hole open. This slurry is referred to as drilling mud. Pipe sections 

long enough to span the entire crossing would be staged and welded along the construction work area on 

the opposite side of the waterbody and then pulled through the drilled hole. At the Colorado River, the 

pipeline would be installed about 60 feet below the riverbed. In response to comments received during 

the scoping process, North Baja relocated the proposed alignment of the Colorado River crossing to be 

south of the existing A-Line and between the A-Line and El Paso’s Line 1903. At the All-American and 

East Highline Canals, the pipeline would be installed about 30 feet below the canal beds. The HDD at 

each location is anticipated to take 4 to 6 weeks. Figure 2.3.2-1 shows a conceptual HDD waterbody 

crossing. 

 

3

 The EIS/EIR for the original North Baja Pipeline Project reported that 579 desert washes would be crossed by the A-Line. During the survey 

for the A-Line, North Baja counted washes less than 6 inches wide. In 2005, North Baja conducted a survey of the proposed B-Line route 

and counted only washes that had a defined bed and bank and an ordinary high water mark to be more consistent with terminology used by 

the CDFG and the COE. The majority of the washes counted in 2005 were at least 24 inches wide. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
For environmental review purposes only.

K:\947\2004\T500\DRILL CONFIGURATION.VSD

TOP OF

BANK

TOP OF

BANK

WATERBODY

Figure 2.3.2-1

 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

 Conceptual Horizontal Directional Drill

Waterbody Crossing

2-18

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007 Public
2-19 

The potential for an inadvertent release of drilling mud (also referred to as a frac-out) is generally 

greatest during drilling of the pilot hole when the pressurized drilling mud is seeking the path of least 

resistance. The path of least resistance is typically back along the path of the drilled pilot hole. However, 

if the drill path becomes temporarily blocked or encounters other areas such as large fractures or fissures 

that lead to the ground surface or waterbody, an inadvertent release could occur. North Baja would 

monitor the pipeline route and the circulation of drilling mud throughout drilling for indications of an 

inadvertent release and would immediately implement corrective actions if a release is observed or 

suspected to be occurring. The corrective actions North Baja would implement are outlined in its HDD 

Plan (see Appendix G). 

The second perennial waterbody, the Alamo River, would be crossed by the IID Lateral. North 

Baja proposes to cross the Alamo River by installing the pipeline in the road shoulder over the culverts 

that carry the water under Hunt Road. 

The B-Line would cross 31 canals and drains, most of which are operated and maintained by the 

PVID. The majority of the canals and drains cross roadways through culverts designed to be 1 foot below 

future winter water elevation. The pipeline would be bored under these culverts using techniques similar 

to road bores described above, or installed between the drain culverts and the road (see Figure 2.3.2-2). A 

minimum of 2 feet would be maintained under canals and 5 feet over drains. 

The Arrowhead Extension would cross the PVID’s C-05 Canal and two unnamed canals. The 

unnamed canals are private drains that are not part of the PVID irrigation system. North Baja would cross 

the C-05 Canal using the bore method. A minimum of 5 feet would be maintained between the pipeline 

and the canal. The two unnamed canals would be crossed using the conventional open-cut crossing 

technique (see Figure 2.3.2-3). North Baja would install the pipeline at a minimum depth of 5 feet below 

these unnamed canals. 

Although plans are not finalized, North Baja expects to cross the 39 drains and canals that would 

be crossed by the IID Lateral using methods similar to those used to install the B-Line. Most of the drains 

and canals that would be crossed are operated and maintained by the IID. North Baja plans to develop 

construction techniques in conjunction with the IID that would provide adequate separation and 

protection for the facilities and future maintenance activities of both parties while minimizing 

construction impacts. The IID Lateral would also cross two canals (MP 13) planned by the BOR as part 

of the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project. The Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project is discussed in Section 

4.15. In each case, the IID Lateral would be designed such that the canals can be installed above the 

pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure 2.3.2-2 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Canal/Drain Crossings for 18th Avenue 

2-20

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure 2.3.2-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Open-Cut Drain Crossing 

2-21 2-21

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-22 

Rannells Drain, which would be crossed by the B-Line, is the only other canal or drain that would 

be crossed using the open-cut crossing method (see Figure 2.3.2-3). Rannells Drain is an agricultural 

drain in the Palo Verde Valley that is periodically cleared of vegetation by the PVID. Pipe segments for 

the crossing would be fabricated adjacent to the drain. Backhoes generally operating from one or both 

banks would excavate the trench within the streambed while water continues to flow across the 

construction work area. Sediment booms would be installed downstream of the trenching to restrict 

sedimentation to the localized area. Trench plugs (stacked, compacted sand bags) would be left in place 

to prevent the flow of water into the upland portions of the trench. Trench spoil excavated from the 

streambed would be generally placed at least 10 feet away from the water’s edge. Sediment barriers 

would be installed where necessary to control sediments and prevent excavated spoil from entering the 

water. After the trench is dug, the prefabricated pipeline segment would be carried, pushed, or pulled 

across Rannells Drain and positioned in the trench. The pipeline would be installed approximately 25 feet 

from the A-Line with 5 feet of cover. The trench would then be backfilled with native material or with 

imported material if required by applicable permits. Following backfilling, the banks would be restored 

and stabilized. In accordance with the CM&R Plan, North Baja would attempt to complete actual instream trenching within 72 hours. 

The proposed Project would also cross approximately 265 desert (dry) washes. All of these 

washes would be crossed by the B-Line. North Baja proposes to use conventional cross-country 

construction techniques to cross these desert washes. North Baja states that it would manage spoil piles 

in accordance with the provisions of the CDFG’s Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA). For the ALine, these provisions required that materials placed in seasonally dry portions of a stream that could be 

washed downstream or could be deleterious to aquatic life must be removed before inundation by high 

flows. Dry washes are also regulated by the CRWQCB, which may impose additional stipulations 

regarding spoil pile management such as requiring North Baja to leave gaps in the spoil piles in dry 

washes so the washes remain open during construction. In accordance with its CM&R Plan (see 

Appendix E), North Baja would prepare and submit an updated CM&R Plan before construction if 

necessary to incorporate any additional requirements of Federal, State, and local permits. The depth of 

cover over the pipeline would range from 3 to 5 feet. In instances where the pipeline would run laterally 

within a wash, concrete coating would be added to the pipe to provide additional protection and negative 

buoyancy. 

The Project would cross 18 wetlands under the jurisdiction of the COE. Thirteen wetlands would 

occur along the B-Line and 5 wetlands would occur along the IID Lateral. Eight of the 18 wetlands 

would be left undisturbed by use of the HDD method, bore method, or by installing the pipeline in the 

road shoulder outside the wetland boundary. North Baja would open cut the remaining 10 wetlands 

implementing the construction and restoration procedures outlined in its CM&R Plan (see Appendix E). 

The pipeline would be installed with a minimum depth of cover of 3 feet in these 10 wetlands. 

Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4 provide additional discussion of waterbodies and wetlands crossed by the 

Project and include an analysis of North Baja’s crossing plans. 

Residential Areas 

There are 55 residences and 8 businesses along the proposed construction work area. Of these, 37 

residences and 6 businesses are within 100 feet of the proposed construction work area (18 residences and 

2 businesses along the B-Line and 19 residences and 4 businesses along the IID Lateral). There are no 

residences or businesses located within 100 feet of the Arrowhead Extension. All of the residences and 

businesses adjacent to the B-Line are along 18th Avenue in Riverside County. North Baja proposes to 

construct the B-Line within the road or road shoulder of 18th Avenue between MPs 2.9 and 10.5. North 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-23 

Baja proposes to install the IID Lateral within several Imperial County roadways (see Table 2.2.1-1). The 

residences and businesses adjacent to the IID Lateral are located along these various roadways. 

North Baja would seek encroachment permits from Riverside and Imperial Counties. 

Preconstruction activities would include preliminary examination of the work areas and identification of 

the exact location of subsurface utilities, either through visual inspection or by digging potholes at 

intervals along the pipeline trench. If potholing identifies a conflict between existing utilities and the 

pipeline centerline, the centerline would be horizontally and/or vertically realigned to eliminate the 

conflict. 

In general, construction in the paved segments of 18th Avenue and Arrowhead Boulevard in 

Riverside County and in the various Imperial County roadways would be accomplished using urban 

construction techniques. All construction activities within the roadways would be confined to the width 

of the roadways, including the paved roadway and road shoulders. Excavated materials would be used as 

a temporary road base for construction traffic to reduce wear on the existing road surface. Through traffic 

would be routed around segments of road where construction is active; however, North Baja would 

maintain access for residents, farm workers, and emergency response vehicles throughout the period of 

construction (estimated to be about 2 weeks in any given location). North Baja has developed Traffic 

Management Plans for 18th Avenue and Imperial County Roads (see Section 4.10.2 and Appendix H). As 

discussed above, the Agency Staffs have recommended that North Baja develop a Traffic Management 

Plan for Arrowhead Boulevard. 

During construction, the edge of the construction work area within 100 feet of residences would 

be fenced. The fencing would extend 100 feet on either side of the residences. During non-working 

hours, the trench would be covered with steel plates where necessary to allow traffic passage and reduce 

safety hazards. The construction areas would also be patrolled during non-work hours to minimize safety 

issues associated with open trenches. Equipment would be maintained in good operating condition to 

minimize noise, and dust generated by construction activities would be controlled with the use of water 

trucks and regular spraying. 

After the pipeline has been installed, the trench would be backfilled and compacted, and the road 

surface graded, restored to original contours, and paved. The pipeline would be installed with a minimum 

of 3 feet of cover and with a minimum of 1 foot of vertical separation from other utilities, or as otherwise 

required. 

In addition to these general measures, North Baja has prepared site-specific residential 

construction mitigation plans that detail the specific measures that would be used when construction 

occurs near residences. These site-specific plans are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.3. 

Sand Dunes 

The alignment of the proposed IID Lateral crosses sand areas across the ISDRA between MPs 0.0 

and 7.9, but avoids the higher relief sand hills that constitute the dunes proper. Consequently, North Baja 

proposes to use conventional pipeline construction techniques in this area, with the exception of HDDs on 

either end of the route through the ISDRA. Although the ditch would be deeper and wider than normal, 

(i.e., 6 feet of cover in the high-use OHV areas between MPs 2.7 and 5.7), the 80-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way is expected to be sufficient for the trench, spoil storage, and workspace. No separation of 

surficial soil is proposed through the ISDRA. 

Although the construction is proposed during the off-peak recreational use season, North Baja 

would work with the BLM to develop appropriate communication methods for the public who may use 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-24 

the recreational area during this time. North Baja would post signs, erect exclusion fencing, and, if 

deemed necessary, provide security to ensure the safety of the public during construction through this 

area. 

Blasting 

During construction of the A-Line, blasting was necessary only at MP 29.5. Therefore, blasting 

to excavate the trench for the B-Line is not anticipated to be widespread and would be only likely to occur 

in the same area as the A-Line construction. There are no structures near this milepost location. 

Conditions along the IID Lateral are generally flat or hilly with no known locations of near surface rock 

that would require blasting. Should blasting be necessary, pre- and post-blasting inspections would be 

conducted at all residential or commercial structures or utilities within 150 feet of blasting, with the 

landowner’s approval. All blasting activities would be conducted only during daylight hours and in strict 

compliance with North Baja’s construction specifications for blasting (see Appendix I). These 

specifications contain procedures for complying with applicable Federal, State, and local safety and 

environmental regulations, codes, and standards for the use, storage, and transport of explosives. 

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures 

The proposed Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver; the pig launcher, taps, and 

crossover piping at the beginning of the Arrowhead Extension; and the El Centro Meter Station would be 

on flat ground, and site clearing and grading to establish level areas for facility construction would be 

minimal. North Baja proposes to fence these areas for security. The nine proposed B-Line valves would 

be installed adjacent to the nine existing A-Line valves, and the four proposed IID valves would be 

installed at intervals specified by DOT regulations and in areas easily accessible to maintenance 

personnel. Valve assemblies would be fenced to protect them from damage or vandalism. 

North Baja would maintain fences around its valve sites, taps, pig launchers and receivers, meter 

stations, and the Ehrenberg Compressor Station. These facilities would be graveled to facilitate vehicle 

and equipment operation within the facilities. Solar panels would be installed at the new valve sites for 

power needs. The Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station would utilize power available at the existing Blythe 

Compressor Station. A 60-foot-long permanent access road would be required for this facility. No new 

permanent access road would be required for the pig launcher, taps, and crossover piping at the beginning 

of the Arrowhead Extension. A 160-foot-long permanent access road would be required for the proposed 

tap at the B-Line and pig launcher at the beginning of the IID Lateral. A permanent access road would 

also be required to proposed valve #2 at MP 7.6 of the IID Lateral, but North Baja would utilize existing 

roads with some modification and would not need to construct a new road. The El Centro Meter Station 

would utilize power available at the El Centro Generating Station; no new access road would be necessary 

for this facility, which would be within the yard of the station. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

As discussed in Section 1.1, the proposed Project would be constructed in three phases. Phase I 

would involve the modifications at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, the El Paso Meter Station at the 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station site, and the Ogilby Meter Station. Phase I would also involve 

construction of the Arrowhead Extension and the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and installation of a 

pig launcher, pig receiver, taps, and crossover piping on the Arrowhead Extension. Construction of the 

majority of the facilities in Phase I is expected to take 2 months and would occur in 2007. Construction 

of the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station may take an additional 2 months in 2007. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-25 

Phase I-A would involve the construction of the IID Lateral, including the tap, pig launcher and 

receiver, valves, and El Centro Meter Station. Phase I-A would also include one of the HDDs of the AllAmerican Canal and the HDD of the Eastline Canal. North Baja estimates that Phase I-A would be 

constructed between mid-June and mid-September of 2008 between MPs 0.0 and 13.7, which includes the 

crossing of the dunes. The remaining 32 miles would be constructed in the latter part of 2008, likely 

extending into early 2009. Construction is expected to take approximately 2 to 3 months in the dunes and 

3 to 4 months for the remaining area. Construction may take place as one or two mobilizations. 

Phase II would involve the construction of the B-Line, including the valves along the pipeline 

route and the pig launcher and receiver at the Ogilby Meter Station. Phase II would also include the HDD 

of the Colorado River and the second HDD of the All-American Canal. North Baja plans to construct 

Phase II in the latter part of 2009, and expects that construction activities would last 4 to 6 months. 

Additional details of North Baja’s construction plans and workforce are provided in Section 4.9.2. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION MONITORING 

As the lead Federal agency for the Project, the FERC may impose conditions on any Certificate 

granted for the Project. These conditions could include additional requirements and mitigation measures 

identified in this EIS/EIR to minimize the environmental impact that would result from the construction 

of the Project (see Sections 4 and 5). The FERC staff will recommend to its Commission that these 

additional requirements and mitigation measures (offset with bold type in the text) be included as specific 

conditions to any approving Certificate issued for North Baja’s Project. If it approves the Project, the 

FERC will require North Baja to implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures that 

North Baja has proposed as part of the Project unless specifically modified by other Certificate 

conditions. 

As the California State lead agency, the CSLC would adopt a mitigation monitoring program 

(MMP) for the Project pursuant to the CEQA. In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act, the BLM 

would require North Baja to furnish a bond, or other security, to ensure that North Baja would comply 

with the terms and conditions of the BLM’s amended Right-of-Way Grant. The environmental inspection 

and MMP for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would address requirements placed on the 

Project by the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, and other applicable agencies. Third-party Compliance 

Monitors representing the FERC, the CSLC, and the BLM would be present on each construction spread 

to monitor compliance with Project mitigation measures and requirements. Other Federal and State 

agencies would conduct oversight of inspection and monitoring to the extent determined necessary by the 

individual agency. 

To ensure that construction of the proposed facilities would comply with mitigation measures 

identified in North Baja’s applications, the FERC Certificate, the CSLC’s MMP, the BLM’s Plan of 

Development, and other permits, North Baja would include in its construction work scope and 

specifications all relevant environmental-related requirements known at the time of execution of the 

construction contracts. North Baja would incorporate relevant requirements identified after execution of 

construction contracts via change orders or other contractual mechanisms. In this manner, compliance 

with the terms of the construction contract would ensure compliance with the applicable environmental 

requirements. Contractors would receive and be required to comply with relevant permits, mitigation 

plans, North Baja’s CM&R Plan, and a Construction Drawing Package containing pipeline, plant, and 

equipment drawings designated as being approved for construction. 

North Baja would employ a tracking system based on the system developed during construction 

of the A-Line to ensure that relevant preconstruction surveys/clearances are completed before releasing 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-26 

the construction contractor(s) to begin construction activities. For purposes of quality assurance and 

compliance with mitigation measures, other applicable regulatory requirements, and Project 

specifications, North Baja would be represented on each pipeline spread by a Chief Inspector. The Chief 

Inspector would be assisted by one or more craft inspectors, and at least two Environmental Inspectors 

(EIs). North Baja’s EIs would have access to the relevant compliance specifications and other documents 

contained in the construction contract(s). At a minimum, the EIs would be responsible for: 

• ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CM&R Plan, the environmental 

conditions of the FERC Certificate, the mitigation measures proposed by North Baja in 

its application submitted to the FERC, other environmental permits and approvals, and 

environmental requirements in private landowner easement agreements; 

• identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions, as necessary to bring an 

activity back into compliance; 

• verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and locations of access 

roads are properly marked before clearing; 

• verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the boundaries of 

sensitive resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, or areas with special requirements along 

the construction work area; 

• identifying erosion/sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all areas; 

• locating dewatering structures and slope breakers to ensure they will not direct water into 

known cultural resources sites or locations of sensitive species; 

• verifying that trench dewatering activities do not result in the deposition of sand, silt, 

and/or sediment near the point of discharge into a wetland or waterbody or cause 

scouring as a result of excessive water volumes and/or pump velocities. If such 

deposition or scouring is occurring, the dewatering activity would be stopped and the 

design of the discharge would be changed to prevent recurrence of the relevant problem; 

• testing subsoil and topsoil in agricultural and residential areas to measure compaction and 

determine the need for corrective action; 

• advising the Chief Inspector when conditions (such as wet weather) make it advisable to 

restrict construction activities in agricultural areas; 

• ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil; 

• verifying that the soils imported for agricultural or residential use have been certified as 

free of noxious weeds and soil pests; 

• determining the need for and ensuring that temporary erosion controls are properly 

installed as necessary to prevent sediment flow into Rannells Drain and the two unnamed 

canals along the Arrowhead Extension and/or as required by regulatory agencies; 

• inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control measures at 

Rannells Drain and the two unnamed canals along the Arrowhead Extension at least: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-27 

o on a daily basis in areas of active construction or equipment operation; 

o on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment operation; and 

o within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall; 

• ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control measures at Rannells 

Drain and the two unnamed canals along the Arrowhead Extension within 24 hours of 

identification; 

• keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of the FERC 

Certificate, and the mitigation measures proposed by North Baja in the application 

submitted to the FERC and other Federal and State environmental permits during active 

construction and restoration; and 

• identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure stabilization and 

restoration after the construction phase. Implementation of this program may be 

transferred to the company's operating section upon completion of construction and 

restoration activities. 

The EIs would have authority to stop work or require other corrective action to achieve 

environmental compliance. In addition to monitoring compliance, the EIs’ duties would include training 

Project personnel and reporting compliance status to the contractor(s); North Baja; FERC, CSLC, and 

BLM staff; and other agencies as required. In addition to North Baja’s EIs, specialized biological, 

paleontological, and cultural resource monitors would be employed on each construction spread where 

appropriate and as required. 

North Baja would develop an environmental training program based on the program used during 

construction of the A-Line and tailored to the proposed Project and its requirements. The program would 

be designed to ensure that: (1) qualified environmental training personnel provide thorough and wellfocused training sessions regarding the environmental requirements applicable to the trainees’ activities; 

(2) all individuals receive environmental training before they begin work on the right-of-way; (3) 

adequate training records are kept; and (4) refresher training is provided as needed to maintain high 

awareness of environmental requirements. 

During construction, third-party Compliance Monitors representing the FERC, the CSLC, and the 

BLM as discussed above would be present on each construction spread to conduct daily ongoing 

inspections of construction activities and mitigation measures and provide regular feedback on 

compliance issues to the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, North Baja, and North Baja’s environmental 

inspection team. Construction progress and environmental compliance would be tracked and documented 

by the Compliance Monitors in daily reports. The Compliance Monitors would report directly to a 

Compliance Manager who would report directly to the FERC, CSLC, and BLM Project Managers. 

Other objectives of the MMP would be to: 

• facilitate the timely resolution of compliance-related issues in the field; 

• provide continuous information to the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, and other agencies 

regarding noncompliance issues and their resolution; and 

• review, process, and track construction-related variance requests. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-28 

It is expected that these variance requests would be necessary because during construction, 

unforeseen or unavoidable site conditions can result in the need for changes from approved mitigation 

measures and construction procedures. Additionally, the need for route realignments, extra workspaces, 

or access roads outside of the previously approved construction work area may arise. Changes to 

previously approved mitigation measures, construction procedures, and construction work areas would 

require some level of regulatory approval and would be handled in the form of variance requests to be 

submitted by North Baja and reviewed and approved or denied by the agencies with the delegation of 

some authority to the third-party Compliance Monitors to the extent determined appropriate by the 

agencies. 

After construction, North Baja would conduct follow-up inspections of all agricultural areas after 

the first and second growing seasons to determine the success of restoration. Restoration would be 

considered successful in agricultural areas if crop yields are similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of 

the same field. During this period, North Baja would submit quarterly reports to the FERC and the CSLC 

that document any problems identified by North Baja or landowners and describe the corrective actions 

taken to remedy those problems. 

North Baja would also monitor the entire pipeline route to determine the success of restoration of 

desert vegetation. In native desert habitats, restoration would be considered successful if the right-of-way 

is similar in species composition to adjacent undisturbed lands. This post-construction monitoring would 

be conducted annually in areas of desert vegetation disturbed by construction through 2012. Results of 

the monitoring would be provided in reports to the FERC, the BLM, the CSLC, and the CDFG. 

Additionally, North Baja would conduct surveys for non-native invasive plant species. The 

results would be compared to the preconstruction survey conducted to determine locations of weed 

infestations attributable to the Project. North Baja would be responsible for weed survey and control two 

times a year for 2 years, then once a year thereafter as part of its routine operation and maintenance of the 

pipelines. 

After construction, the lead, cooperating, and/or other agencies would continue to conduct 

oversight inspection and monitoring. If it is determined that any of the proposed monitoring time frames 

are not adequate to assess the success of restoration, North Baja would be required to extend its postconstruction monitoring programs. The BLM would retain North Baja’s bond or other security until the 

BLM is satisfied with North Baja’s reclamation efforts. 

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS 

North Baja currently operates and maintains the A-Line in accordance with all applicable Federal 

and State regulations. The existing pipeline system is monitored and controlled 24 hours a day for 

pressure drops in the pipeline that could indicate a leak or other operating problem by full-time staff at the 

North Baja/Gas Transmission Northwest Gas Control Center in Portland, Oregon. North Baja’s roundthe-clock monitoring of the pipeline system is accomplished principally through a Supervisory Control 

and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, which is a computer system for gathering and analyzing realtime systems. The SCADA system gathers information from locations along the pipeline, such as 

compressor stations, meter stations, or mainline valves, transfers the information back to a central site, 

compares collected data to pre-set safe operating data points, and organizes and displays the data 

including alarm displays for actual operating points that do not meet pre-set operating criteria. 

The system is programmed to take appropriate immediate action when alarm conditions are 

present. These actions include unilateral control or shutdown functions without operator influence in 

some cases, and delayed control or shutdown functions in other cases to allow operator influence. The 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-29 

SCADA system allows operators located in the Gas Control Center in Portland to monitor pipeline system 

conditions, including any actions that the SCADA system has made or any conditions that require 

immediate operator actions such as shutting down a compressor unit, closing a valve, or initiating 

emergency call-out action. Procedures are currently in place to staff call centers immediately in Spokane, 

Washington, or TransCanada’s corporate headquarters in Calgary, Alberta, in the event of a catastrophic 

condition. The call center in Spokane is currently in the process of being changed to Redmond, Oregon. 

By the time the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would be in operation, the Redmond center would 

likely be operational. 

In addition, a crew that conducts on-site operations and maintenance is located at the Ehrenberg 

Compressor Station, and is on call 24 hours a day. When completed, the B-Line, the Arrowhead 

Extension, and the IID Lateral would be operated in conjunction with the existing system and subject to 

the same operation and maintenance procedures. 

The pipeline facilities would be clearly marked at line-of-sight intervals and at other key points to 

indicate the presence of the pipeline. The pipeline system would be routinely inspected by air and on the 

ground to observe right-of-way conditions and monitor for encroachments, third-party activities, or 

erosion on or near the right-of-way. All inspections would be conducted in accordance with DOT 

standards. Erosion or unstable conditions would be repaired as appropriate. Appurtenant facilities would 

be maintained on a regular basis. 

North Baja would continue to implement environmental protection programs during operation of 

the expanded facilities. Those relevant to the proposed facilities include an environmental awareness 

program regarding desert tortoises. As discussed in Sections 2.5 and 4.5.5, North Baja also implements 

an ongoing weed monitoring program, targeted at eliminating invasive weeds caused by pipeline-related 

factors. 

Section 4.14 presents a more detailed discussion of North Baja’s operation and maintenance 

procedures and safety controls for the proposed Project, including the corrosion protection and detection 

systems, pipe wall classifications, and emergency response procedures. 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

North Baja has not identified plans for additional future expansion of its system beyond the 

phases of expansion discussed in this EIS/EIR or plans for abandonment of the Project facilities. Properly 

maintained, and assuming adequate gas supplies and markets, the proposed system expansion could 

operate for 50 or more years. If and when North Baja abandons any of the proposed facilities, the 

abandonment would be subject to separate approvals by the FERC, the CSLC, and the BLM. The FERC 

review would be conducted under section 7(b) of the NGA. The CSLC review would be conducted under 

the CEQA. For the Federal lands involved, the BLM would require North Baja to submit an 

abandonment plan that would be reviewed by the BLM and the other affected Federal land management 

agencies (e.g., the BOR and the FWS [Cibola NWR]). The BLM would be responsible for approving the 

plan after receipt of concurrence from the other affected Federal land management agencies. 

The FERC typically allows a buried pipeline that has reached the end of its service life to be 

abandoned in place when it has been internally cleaned, purged free of gas, isolated from interconnections 

with other pipelines, and sealed without removing the pipe from the trench. The FERC believes that this 

approach generally minimizes surface disturbance and other potential environmental impact. The 

aboveground pipeline at compressor and meter stations would be completely removed, including all 

related aboveground equipment and foundations, and the station sites would be restored to as near original 

condition as possible. The CSLC’s policy is to require complete removal of abandoned facilities unless it 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
2-30 

can be demonstrated that there would be more long-term impacts from removal than abandonment. 

Disposition of the North Baja facilities on Federal lands would depend on decisions made in the 

abandonment plan discussed above. 

Upon abandonment of the pipeline, in part or in whole, the rights-of-way associated with the 

abandoned facilities would normally be returned to the landowners/land management agencies according 

to the specific easement agreements between the pipeline company and the landowners/land management 

agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-1 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES 

3.1 FACTORS USED IN THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

3.1.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process 

One of the most important aspects of the environmental review process is the identification and 

assessment of reasonable alternatives that could potentially avoid or minimize the impacts of a proposed 

project. 

Both the NEPA and the State CEQA Guidelines emphasize the need for an evaluation of a range 

of alternatives. NEPA requires that Federal agencies rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives to a proposed action in order to provide a clear basis for choice among options by 

the decision-makers and the public (Title 40 CFR Part 15012.14). The State CEQA Guidelines (section 

15126.6[d]) emphasize the selection of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives and adequate 

assessment of these alternatives to allow for a comparative analysis for consideration by decision-makers. 

Consistent with the CEQ and the CEQA requirements and Guidelines, the Agency Staffs 

considered a range of alternatives to the Project or Project location that: (1) could feasibly attain most of 

the basic Project objectives; and (2) would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of 

the proposed Project.1

 

3.1.2 Alternatives Screening Methodology 

The stated objectives of the proposed Project are described in Section 1.1. The main objectives 

include providing transportation capacity of up to 2,932,000 Dthd (2,753 MMscfd) of LNG-source gas 

entering the continent in Baja California to delivery points in California and Arizona, and providing up to 

110,000 Dthd (103 MMscfd) of LNG-source gas to the IID. 

Alternatives to the proposed Project were identified and selected based on information from 

North Baja and other sources, and through analyses conducted by the EIS/EIR preparers. The screening 

process that was followed for each alternative consisted of three steps: 

1. Defining alternatives to allow comparative evaluation. 

2. Evaluating each alternative in the context of one or more of the following criteria: 

• the extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic goals and 

objectives of the Project; 

• the extent to which the alternative would avoid or lessen one or more of the 

identified significant environmental impacts of the Project; 

• the potential feasibility of the alternative, taking into account site suitability, 

economic viability, availability of infrastructure, and consistency with applicable 

plans and regulatory limitations; 

 

1

 The review of alternatives in this EIS/EIR does not include alternatives that cannot be reasonably ascertained or alternatives for which 

potential implementation is remote or speculative because a review of these types of alternatives is not required by Federal and State 

Guidelines. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-2 

• the appropriateness of the alternative in contributing to a “reasonable range” of 

alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice; 

• the requirement of the CEQ and the State CEQA Guidelines to consider a “No 

Project” alternative; 

• and the requirement of the State CEQA Guidelines to identify an 

“Environmentally Superior” alternative (section 15126.6[e]). 

3. Determining the suitability of the proposed alternative for full analysis in the EIS/EIR. If 

the alternative was unsuitable, it was eliminated, with appropriate justification, from 

further consideration. 

In the final phase of the screening analysis, the environmental advantages and disadvantages of 

the reasonable alternatives were carefully weighed with respect to potential for overall environmental 

advantage, technical feasibility, and consistency with Project and public objectives. The ability of an 

alternative to provide the proposed volumes in the same general time frame as the proposed Project was 

included in this consideration. 

For the screening analysis, the technical and regulatory feasibility of various potential alternatives 

was assessed at a general level. At the screening stage, it is not possible to evaluate potential impacts of 

the alternatives or the proposed Project with absolute certainty. However, it is possible to identify 

elements of the proposed Project that are likely to be the sources of impact. The assessment of feasibility 

was directed toward reverse reason, that is, the Agency Staffs attempted to identify anything about the 

alternative that would be infeasible on technical or regulatory grounds. If during the screening analysis 

an alternative proved to be infeasible or clearly did not provide any environmental advantages compared 

to the proposed Project, it was eliminated from further consideration. 

3.1.3 Summary of Screening Results 

Several potential alternatives including the No Project Alternative, system alternatives, route 

alternatives, route variations, alternative delivery points, and aboveground facility site alternatives were 

evaluated using the screening criteria listed above. A number of these alternatives were eliminated 

because they did not provide any clear environmental advantage. Other alternatives were eliminated 

because they did not meet the stated Project objectives of transporting LNG-source gas from Baja 

California to U.S. delivery points, specifically to customers in southern California and the Southwest. 

The following sections discuss and analyze each of the alternatives evaluated in sufficient detail to 

explain why they were eliminated from further consideration or recommended by the Agency Staffs to be 

adopted as part of the proposed route. 

3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

3.2.1 No Project Alternative 

The actions triggering this environmental review were North Baja’s applications to the FERC for 

a Certificate and to the CSLC for an amendment to its permit to cross State lands. This environmental 

review will also satisfy the NEPA responsibilities of the BLM in considering North Baja’s application to 

amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use Permit for the portion of the Project 

on Federal lands, including lands managed by the BOR and the FWS. The FERC, the CSLC, and the 

BLM have two courses of action in considering the proposed Project. They may: (1) deny the respective 

applications; or (2) approve the Project with or without conditions. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-3 

If the Project is denied, none of the potential environmental impacts (both positive and negative) 

identified in this EIS/EIR would occur. However, the objectives of the Project as described in Section 1.1 

would not be met. Specifically, this means that North Baja would not be able to provide transportation 

for LNG-source natural gas from the Mexican pipeline system into the United States to meet the demand 

for natural gas in California and other southwestern U.S. markets. 

To understand the potential effects of the No Project Alternative, it is important to understand the 

source and use of natural gas in California. As discussed in detail in Section 1.1, the State of California is 

the second largest natural gas consumer in the nation. In 2003, Californians consumed about 2.2 trillion 

cubic feet of gas. In-State production of natural gas satisfies only about 13 percent of Statewide demand 

(CEC 2005b). The remaining natural gas that is consumed in the State comes primarily from five major 

out-of-State production basins. 

The demand for natural gas in California, as in the rest of the United States, is expanding, and gas 

producers across North America are struggling to keep pace with the growing demand. Production from 

most of the mature supply basins in North America has declined or only increased modestly since 1990. 

The amount of gas produced per well is also declining, and each well is being drained faster (CEC 

2005a). The result is that domestic natural gas production is not projected to keep up with the growth in 

demand. 

California’s supply of natural gas is also affected by rising demand for natural gas in neighboring 

states. Forty-three new power plants have come online in Arizona since 2001. These plants are 

intermediate load and peaking power plants, which often ramp up quickly to meet changing electricity 

demand. This may take more natural gas from the pipeline system faster than expected. Under normal 

circumstances, this practice is not troublesome if the pipeline system can be balanced by taking gas out of 

storage. In the Phoenix area, however, the nearest storage is hundreds of miles away, and it is becoming 

increasingly common for pipeline pressure to drop during periods of high demand. If the gas pressure 

gets low enough, it could cause curtailments that could affect natural gas delivery into California (CEC 

2005a). 

Although it is speculative to predict the actions that could be taken by other suppliers or users of 

natural gas in the region as well as the resulting effects of those actions if the proposed Project 

applications are denied, southern Californian customers would likely have fewer and potentially more 

expensive options for obtaining natural gas supplies in the near future. This might lead to alternative 

proposals to develop natural gas delivery or storage infrastructure, reduced use of natural gas, and/or the 

use of other hydrocarbon-related sources of energy. 

It is possible that the infrastructure currently supplying natural gas to the proposed market area 

could be developed in other ways unforeseen at this point. This might include constructing or expanding 

regional pipelines as well as LNG import and storage systems. Any construction or expansion work 

would result in specific environmental impacts that could be less than, similar to, or greater than those 

associated with the proposed Project. An analysis of the most reasonably foreseeable natural gas system 

alternatives has been included in Section 3.2. 

Higher natural gas prices is another potential outcome of denying North Baja’s applications. 

Higher natural gas prices could potentially adversely influence the regional economy by reducing realized 

household incomes and business profits (Greenspan 2003). Natural gas prices were recently assessed by 

the CEC in its Transmittal of 2005 Energy Report, Range of Need and Policy Recommendations to the 

California Public Utilities Commission (CEC 2005b). The CEC’s report indicates that since the energy 

crisis of 2001, natural gas prices have remained high. The CEC attributes this to global crude oil markets, 

a decreasing rate in finding new natural gas supplies, and events related to weather including Hurricanes 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-4 

Katrina and Rita. According to the CEC’s 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (CEC 2005a), 

California currently has little influence over national gas market prices. Thus, even when California’s 

own demand is moderate, in-State prices can spike in response to extreme weather conditions in other 

parts of the country. 

According to the CEC, the cost to deliver natural gas to the West Coast via an LNG project could 

be well below the market prices that California pays at its borders. Thus, a potential new supply source 

close to or in California could have the effect of lowering the market price for natural gas in California. 

However, actual prices to consumers will depend upon contracts signed between suppliers and consumers 

or their representatives. 

Denying the applications may also result in the growing reliance on increased energy efficiency 

and renewable energies. Energy efficiency has historically been highly effective as a means to reduce 

demand, and an increase in natural gas efficiency programs could further reduce demand and directly 

benefit customers (CEC 2005a). This conclusion is corroborated by analyses in two reports recently 

issued by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). These reports found that 

increased energy efficiency and the installation of renewable energy generation could reduce the demand 

for natural gas and result in lower natural gas prices (Elliot et al. 2003, Elliot and Shipley 2005). 

California in particular has made significant efforts to develop and implement conservation and 

efficiency measures to reduce the use of natural gas and other fossil fuels and has strongly promoted the 

development of renewable energies, which are required to provide 20 percent of the State’s energy needs 

by 2017. One of these programs provides funding for emerging technologies such as photovoltaic (direct 

conversion of sunlight to electricity), solar thermal electric (the conversion of sunlight to heat and its 

concentration and use to power a generator to produce electricity), fuel cell (the conversion of hydrogen 

or hydrogen rich gases into electricity by a direct chemical process), and small wind turbines (small 

electricity-producing, wind-driven generating systems with a rated output of 50 kilowatts or less). 

Another program, the Geothermal Program, promotes the research, development, demonstration, and 

commercialization of California’s enormous earth heat energy sources. Thus, it seems likely that 

additional conservation measures and renewable energy development, but only above the levels deemed 

feasible now and in the foreseeable future (CEC 2005a), could have some effect on the demand for 

natural gas. 

However, it seems unlikely based on energy demand projections that either increased 

conservation or increased development of renewable energies could reliably replace the need for natural 

gas or provide sufficient energy to keep pace with demand at this time. Work by the ACEEE and the 

CEC seems to support this conclusion. The ACEEE report, for example, recognized that energy 

efficiency and renewable energy are not the only policy solutions required to address the future natural 

gas needs of the country and that additional sources of natural gas will be required from either domestic 

sources or through the importation of gas in the form of LNG (Elliot et al. 2003). 

Denying North Baja’s applications and the continuing high cost of natural gas could force 

potential natural gas customers to seek regulatory approval to use other forms of energy and increase the 

use of other fossil fuels. The effect of high natural gas prices on the demand for other fuels was noted in 

the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2004 Report. According to the 

EIA, the projections for the national growth of total coal consumption increased 0.3 percent from 2003 to 

2004, primarily due to higher natural gas prices (EIA 2004). 

The use of other fossil fuels instead of natural gas could increase emissions of regulated 

pollutants (e.g., NOx, sulfur dioxide [SO2], particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 

microns or less [PM10], particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter equal to of 2.5 microns or less 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-5 

[PM2.5) or unregulated greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide [CO2]). Compared to other fossil fuels 

such as coal or oil, natural gas is a relatively clean and efficient fuel. Given that there are emissions 

associated with producing, processing, transmitting, and distributing natural gas and other fossil fuels, it 

is difficult to exactly quantify the impact of denying the Project on local and regional air quality. 

However, credible estimates of air emissions can be developed based upon reasonable assumptions 

regarding burning natural gas delivered by the Project compared to burning fossil fuels that would likely 

be utilized if the gas from the Project were not available. 

Table 3.2.1-1 lists the emissions that would result from the combustion of approximately 2.7 

billion standard cubic feet per day (Bscfd) of natural gas in southern California markets and the 

corresponding emissions that would result if an equivalent amount of energy were generated using fuel oil 

or coal in lieu of natural gas (inside or outside of California). It is clear from the table that the use of 

either fuel oil or coal would increase emissions significantly. To comply with current air emission 

regulations, emission control technologies could be required that could limit the economic viability and/or 

affect the location of any new oil- or coal-fired facility. For example, it is conceivable that California’s 

demand for electricity would increasingly be met by oil- or coal-fired facilities outside of California (e.g., 

Nevada or Mexico) if new sources of natural gas are not developed. 

TABLE 3.2.1-1 

Comparison of Air Emissions from Burning Fossil Fuels a

 Emission Rate (tons per year) 

Fossil Fuel SO2 NOx PM10 /PM2.5 CO CO2 C 

Natural Gas 297 44,698 3,577 44,401 49,499,999 13,500,000 

Fuel Oil 233,936 89,405 5,070 47,088 71,774,999 19,575,000 

Coal 625,819 312,911 13,859 9,768 94,049,999 25,650,000 

____________________ 

a The emissions generated by coal, fuel oil, and natural gas were estimated using the most recent Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) Analyses found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/BACT/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse for boilers with heat input ratings between 100 

and 250 million British thermal units per hour. The emissions from each fuel source are estimated based on a total 

annual fuel use of 2.7 billion standard cubic feet per day, 365 days per year. These emissions may be underestimated 

if natural gas were to be curtailed to power plants rather than industrial boilers. 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

NOX = nitrogen oxides 

PM10 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns or less 

PM.2.5 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns 

CO = carbon monoxide 

CO2 = carbon dioxide 

C = carbon 

3.2.2 System Alternatives 

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of other existing, 

modified, or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the proposed Project. A system 

alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed Project, although some 

modifications or additions to another existing pipeline system may be required to increase its capacity, or 

another entirely new system may need to be constructed. Such modifications or additions would result in 

environmental impact; however, the impact could be less than, similar to, or greater than that associated 

with construction of the proposed Project. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives 

is to determine whether potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of 

the proposed facilities could be avoided or reduced while still allowing the stated basic objectives of the 

Project to be met. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-6 

3.2.2.1 Other Existing Pipeline Systems 

Existing pipeline systems currently operating in the Project area were evaluated to determine if 

they could possibly deliver the proposed volumes of natural gas to the U.S.-Mexico border. Existing 

interstate pipeline systems deliver about 5.7 Bscfd of natural gas to markets in southern California (EIA 

2003). A majority of this natural gas comes from production areas in the Rocky Mountains or central 

United States via pipeline systems owned by the Mohave Pipeline Company, Kern River Gas 

Transmission Company, Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC (Transwestern), and El Paso. The Kern 

River Pipeline, which connects southern California with the Rocky Mountain supply basin, is operating at 

or near capacity and is not capable of delivering significant additional gas to southern California without 

looping at least part of its 926-mile length and adding compression facilities. The Mojave Pipeline 

Company, Transwestern, and El Paso pipeline systems, in contrast, are not currently operating at capacity 

much of the time. However, as discussed previously, the gas supply from the basins that supply these 

pipelines is declining. Additionally, none of these pipeline systems, with the exception of the North Baja 

system, has a connection with the Mexican natural gas pipeline system. Thus, these companies would 

have to build new pipelines to connect to Mexican LNG-source supplies, which none have proposed to 

do. For these reasons, no further consideration was given to these pipeline system alternatives in this 

EIS/EIR 

The existing natural gas pipelines in the same area that could serve the markets of the proposed 

facilities include the SDG&E and SoCalGas pipelines. These pipelines are discussed below. 

San Diego Gas & Electric Alternative 

SDG&E is a major wholesale customer of SoCalGas. The SDG&E system was designed to flow 

natural gas south from SoCalGas to the San Diego area. For this pipeline to be used to transport LNGsource gas in Mexico, a project proponent could utilize a currently inactive pipeline that runs from the 

Transportadora de Gas Natural de Baja California (TGN) system near Tijuana, Mexico, north into the 

United States, and connects with the SDG&E pipeline. This system alternative would involve 

construction of a receipt lateral from the LNG terminal(s) to the TGN pipeline, modification of the 

inactive pipeline and the interconnect with the SDG&E pipeline, upgrading of the SDG&E system in 

order to reverse the flow, and modification of the interconnection between the SDG&E and SoCalGas 

systems. 

Currently, the SDG&E system is at or near capacity on peak days; therefore, facility 

improvements would be required to accommodate any new natural gas volumes between 300 and 700 

MMscfd (Sempra Energy Utilities 2003). To deliver the 2.7 Bscfd volume that could be transported by 

the proposed Project, it would also be necessary to loop all or part of the 23-mile-long TGN pipeline. 

Larger volumes would require looping the existing pipeline from Santee to Escondido, as well as from 

Escondido to Rainbow, with associated environmental impacts. To bring gas north from LNG import 

terminals in Baja California through San Diego County, an entirely new pipeline would have to be 

constructed through steep terrain containing sensitive habitats and densely populated and commercial 

areas. No such pipeline expansion has been proposed. Moreover, the environmental impact of such a 

pipeline would be at least as great if not greater than the impact of the proposed Project. This alternative 

would also not serve the needs of the IID. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further 

consideration. 

SoCalGas Alternative 

Currently, the IID receives natural gas from SoCalGas’ existing intrastate pipelines that extend 

south through the Chocolate Mountains to the Imperial Valley. At present, this system provides neither 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-7 

the supply diversity (i.e., direct access to LNG-source gas) nor direct access to an interstate pipeline 

system. In comments on the draft EIS/EIR, SoCalGas and SDG&E stated that their customers would be 

able to nominate LNG supplies at Blythe and Otay Mesa when supplies from Mexico become available 

(see Section 1.1). While the SoCalGas Alternative would provide the IID with indirect access to LNGsource gas through the SoCalGas system, it would not provide direct access to LNG supplies nor direct 

access to an interstate pipeline system, which are objectives of the proposed Project. Therefore, this 

alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

3.2.2.2 Pipelines From Other Onshore and Offshore LNG Projects Proposed in California 

There are several LNG import terminals that have been proposed in southern California. If any of 

these terminals are built, some combination of new and existing pipelines would be used to provide LNGsource gas to southern California via the existing SoCalGas infrastructure. Table 3.2.2-1 shows LNG 

import terminals proposed in southern California that have applied for Federal licensing either from the 

U.S. Coast Guard (offshore) or the FERC (onshore). 

TABLE 3.2.2-1 

Proposed LNG Import Terminals and Pipelines in California 

Proponent Project Name Location/Type 

Proposed 

Capacity in 

MMscfd 

(average/peak)

Anticipated 

In-Service 

Date a Needed Pipeline Construction 

BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port LNG 

Deepwater Port 

Project 

Offshore Oxnard, 

CA/New Facility 

800/1,500 2010 b two 21.5-mile-long, 24-inchdiameter offshore pipelines; 

14.3-mile-long, 36-inchdiameter pipeline; and 7.7-

mile-long, 30-inch-diameter 

onshore pipeline 

North Star Natural Gas Clearwater Port 

Project 

Offshore Oxnard, 

CA/Conversion of 

Oil Platform Grace 

800/1,200 2009 12.6-mile-long, 32-inchdiameter offshore pipeline and 

12-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter 

onshore pipeline 

SES Terminal LLC Long Beach LNG 

Import Project 

Long Beach, 

CA/New Facility 

700/800 2010 2.3-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter 

onshore pipeline and 4.6-milelong, 10-inch-diameter onshore 

pipeline 

____________________ 

a

 All projects are undergoing delays in the environmental review process and the in-service dates, if the projects were 

approved, potentially would be later. 

b

 In April 2007, the CSLC did not certify the final EIS/EIR for the Cabrillo Port LNG Deepwater Port Project and denied a 

lease for the subsea pipelines across State lands. 

Source: CEC 2004, FERC and POLB 2005. 

Each of these projects, if built, could provide southern California with access to LNG-source gas. 

However, the purposes of the proposed Project of providing an additional/alternate source of natural gas 

(LNG-source gas) to the IID and other regions of the southwestern United States would not specifically 

be met. While it would not be infeasible for SoCalGas to transport gas from these projects to the 

southwestern United States, none of these terminals has yet to receive regulatory approval; therefore, it is 

unlikely that any of these projects would be in service before 2010. Furthermore, in April 2007, the 

CSLC did not certify the final EIS/EIR for the Cabrillo Port LNG Deepwater Port Project and denied a 

lease for the subsea pipelines across State lands. The proposed Project could allow LNG-source gas to 

flow into California and southwestern U.S. markets by early 2008. The environmental impacts of the 

above proposed California LNG projects are not analyzed in this EIS/EIR because such analyses would 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-8 

duplicate the analyses performed in the EIS/EIRs that have been or are expected to be prepared for the 

projects. 

3.2.3 Route Alternatives 

Route alternatives, within the context of the proposed Project, are identified to determine if 

impacts could be avoided or reduced on environmentally sensitive resources, such as large population 

centers, scenic areas, and wildlife and natural habitat management areas that would be crossed by the 

proposed route. While the origin and delivery points of route alternatives are generally the same as for 

the corresponding segment of a proposed pipeline route, the alternatives could follow significantly 

different alignments. One route alternative was evaluated for the B-Line, and eight route alternatives 

were evaluated for the IID Lateral as discussed below. 

3.2.3.1 B-Line Route Alternatives 

A factor generally considered in the evaluation of route alternatives for a looping project is 

whether it is possible to install the majority of the proposed pipeline 25 feet from the existing pipeline. 

The collocation of facilities is generally preferred by land management agencies, land use planners, and 

other regulatory agencies and has several inherent engineering and environmental advantages. Perhaps 

the most important of these advantages is that new land disturbance is minimized. By overlapping the 

construction right-of-way with other previously disturbed existing rights-of-way, the amount of new land 

disturbance can be reduced significantly. This is particularly important in arid environments where 

revegetation is slow and evidence of construction often persists for years. Because of these advantages, 

alternatives that deviate from the existing right-of-way are generally driven by issues such as the 

engineering impracticality of remaining adjacent to the existing right-of-way, or reducing environmental 

impact. These advantages also explain why this EIS/EIR does not address an alternative route along the 

Arizona side of the Colorado River that was suggested during the scoping process. Route alternatives are 

generally not adopted if they would merely transfer impacts from one or more property owners or 

communities to another without conferring obvious environmental advantages. 

22nd Avenue Alternative 

Although not mentioned during the public scoping process for the proposed Project, safety 

concerns regarding the placement of a large natural gas pipeline near several residences along 18th

Avenue were raised during the planning for the A-Line. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, North Baja 

proposes to install the B-Line within its existing 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for the A-Line 

using a standard 25-foot offset. The 22nd Avenue Alternative was evaluated to avoid potential impacts on 

residents along 18th Avenue from construction and operation of the B-Line (see Figure 3.2.3-1). 

The 22nd Avenue Alternative deviates from North Baja’s existing A-Line at MP 14.5, due west of 

22nd Avenue. At this point, the route extends due east for approximately 0.8 mile across BLM lands 

before descending into the Palo Verde Valley and continuing east across open desert and agricultural 

fields for approximately 1 mile. The alternative then continues east in the roadway of 22nd Avenue for the 

next 8 miles until reaching Intake Boulevard. The route then turns north for approximately 1 mile, turns 

east on 20th Avenue for 0.5 mile, and then turns north along the D-10 Canal for approximately 1 mile. 

The alternative rejoins the proposed B-Line route at MP 3.0 on 18th Avenue. An environmental 

comparison of the 22nd Avenue Alternative with the corresponding segment of the proposed route is 

presented in Table 3.2.3-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-9 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.3-1 22nd Avenue Route Alternative 

Page 3-9 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-10 

TABLE 3.2.3-1 

Environmental Comparison of the 22nd Avenue Alternative with the Proposed Route 

MPs 3.0 to 14.5 

Environmental Factor Unit 22nd Avenue Alternative Proposed Route 

Length of route miles 12.4 11.5 

Adjacent to existing road or pipeline right-of-way miles 11.6 11.5 

Canals, drains, and ditches crossed number 26 20 

Wetlands crossed number 3 0 

Residences within 100 feet number 11 17 

New aboveground facility sites required number 2 0 

The 22nd Avenue Alternative would be 12.4 miles long compared to the 11.5-mile-long 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. Both routes would cross several canals and drains, but 

construction methods would avoid impacts on those features. Construction of the 22nd Avenue 

Alternative would require new aboveground facility sites for the installation of a valve at the deviation 

point, as well as a valve and pig launcher and receiver facilities to be located on BLM land on the Palo 

Verde Mesa. In comparison, the proposed B-Line route would only require the expansion of existing 

aboveground facility sites to accommodate new valves and pigging facilities. Additionally, the 

alternative would require 18.3 acres of new right-of-way, while the proposed route would encumber less 

than 1 acre of land because it would be within the permanent easement of the existing A-Line. Operation 

and maintenance activities would be more difficult with the 22nd Avenue Alternative due to the 2-mile 

separation of the A- and B-Lines and associated aboveground sites. The alternative, however, would 

affect six fewer residences. 

Although the alternative would avoid potential impacts on the residents along 18th Avenue, it 

would introduce similar potential impacts on residents along 22nd Avenue and Intake Boulevard. As 

discussed above, route alternatives are generally not adopted if they would merely transfer impacts from 

one or more property owners or communities to another without conferring obvious environmental 

advantages. Furthermore, the advantage gained by temporarily inconveniencing six fewer residences 

along the 22nd Avenue Alternative is not sufficient to offset the disadvantages of separating the A-Line 

from the B-Line, requiring new aboveground facility sites on previously undisturbed land, encumbering 

more land, impacting more agricultural land, and increasing operation and maintenance work. Therefore, 

the 22nd Avenue Alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

3.2.3.2 IID Lateral Route Alternatives 

The process of assessing routes from the existing North Baja system to the IID’s El Centro 

Generating Station involved the consideration of two key components: (1) the stipulations in the BLM’s 

CDCA Plan; and (2) the crossing of the ISDRA. Figure 3.2.3-2 provides an overview of the routes 

considered in the United States for the IID Lateral. Seven of these routes are considered route alternatives 

and are discussed below; the remaining four routes are considered route variations and are discussed in 

Section 3.2.4. Additionally, a route alternative that runs directly from the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline 

in Mexico to the IID’s El Centro Generating Station was briefly considered as discussed later in this 

subsection. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-11 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.3-2 IID Lateral U.S. Route Alternatives Overview 

Page 3-11 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-12 

California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Crossing Alternatives 

The CDCA Plan stipulates that new gas transmission facilities located in multiple-use classes 

“L,” “M,” and “I” lands should be located within designated utility corridors. Under the Energy 

Production and Utility Corridors Element of the CDCA Plan, 16 planning corridors have been identified 

to address utility facilities, including all pipelines with diameters greater than 12 inches. 

Utility corridor “L” is a 2-mile-wide corridor that runs east-west through the southeastern portion 

of the CDCA following the All-American Canal, then turns north for 2 miles to rejoin Interstate 8. The 

corridor then follows Interstate 8 for approximately 2 miles to the edge of the BLM’s jurisdiction. The 

proposed route is located within Utility Corridor “L” between MPs 0.0 and 19.0 and MPs 26.0 and 27.5, 

which is through a portion of the NECO Planning Area and the ISDRA. The section of the proposed 

route between MPs 19.0 and 26.0 and MPs 27.5 and 27.6, although lying within a corridor occupied by 

Interstate 8, Evan Hewes Highway, and electric transmission lines, is just north of the designated Utility 

Corridor “L.” Consequently, these sections of the proposed IID Lateral route, where it crosses BLM land, 

would require a CDCA Plan amendment. 

Two alternative routes were examined that would stay within the designated Utility Corridor “L” 

for a longer distance than the proposed route: the Corridor L Alternative and the Bonds Corner 

Alternative (see Figure 3.2.3-3) as discussed below. 

Corridor L Alternative – The Corridor L Alternative deviates from the proposed route at MP 16.3 

and follows SR 98 just north of the CalTrans right-of-way for about 7.5 miles. The alternative then turns 

due north and follows just to the east of the existing transmission lines for 2.5 miles before turning 

northeast and following the southern edge of the CalTrans right-of-way for Interstate 8 for 3.0 miles. The 

alternative rejoins the proposed route at MP 27.3. An environmental comparison of the Corridor L 

Alternative with the corresponding segment of the proposed route is presented in Table 3.2.3-2. 

The Corridor L Alternative would be 2.0 miles longer than the proposed route and would require 

15.1 more acres of construction right-of-way. The Corridor L Alternative would also require significantly 

more permanent right-of-way compared to the proposed route (76.1 acres) because the majority of the 

proposed route in this area would be installed within the county road right-of-way associated with Evan 

Hewes Highway. Because it would be located within the road right-of-way, only a 2-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way would be retained. Although the Corridor L Alternative would be adjacent to 

existing road rights-of-way for about 81 percent of the route, the pipeline would not be within the actual 

road rights-of-way associated with SR 98 and Interstate 8 because CalTrans’ regulations prohibit the 

installation of high-pressure natural gas pipelines within any State highway right-of-way except by 

special exception as discussed below for the CalTrans Alternative. In addition, the 2.5 miles where the 

Corridor L Alternative parallels existing transmission lines would create new ground disturbance in an 

area where no current ground-disturbing right-of-way is maintained. Overall, the Corridor L Alternative 

shows substantially more habitat diversity than the proposed route, with three subtypes of creosote scrub 

and several locations of tamarisk present. The proposed route has only the Larrea – Ambrosia habitat 

type along its entire length. No residences would be within 100 feet of the Corridor L Alternative or the 

proposed route and no canals or drains would be crossed by either route. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-13 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.3-3 Corridor L and Bonds Corner Route Alternatives 

Page 3-13 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-14 

TABLE 3.2.3-2 

Environmental Comparison of the Corridor L Alternative with the Proposed Route 

MPs 16.3 to 27.3 

Environmental Factor Unit Corridor L Alternative Proposed Route 

Length of route Miles 13.0 11.0 

Construction right-of-way a Acres 96.4 81.3 

Permanent right-of-way b Acres 78.8 2.7 

Adjacent to/within road right-of-way and easements Miles 10.5 10.8 

Vegetation Type 

Larrea tridentata – Ambrosia dumosa alone or with 

other species 

Percentage 48 100 

Larrea tridentata – Atriplex canescens and other 

species 

Percentage 19 0 

Larrea tridentata with tamarisk and other species Percentage 34 0 

Larrea tridentata with Prosopis or Acacia Percentage 12 0 

Residences within 100 feet Number 0 0 

Canals crossed Number 0 0 

Drains crossed Number 0 0 

Lake Cahuilla Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) affected 

Acres 24.0 0.1 

East Mesa ACEC affected Acres 0.1 7.1 

Poor flat-tailed horned lizard habitat affected Acres 93.7 79.0 

Fair flat-tailed horned lizard habitat affected Acres 2.7 2.2 

Known archaeological sites within 400 meters c Number 17 10 

BLM-managed land crossed within designated utility 

corridor 

Miles 12.0 3.9 

BLM-managed land crossed outside designated utility 

corridor that would require a CDCA Plan amendment 

Miles 0.0 6.6 

____________________ 

a

 Based on an approximately 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

b

 Based on a 2-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for the proposed route because the majority of the pipeline in this area 

would be installed within the county road right-of-way associated with Evan Hewes Highway. Based on a 50-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way for the Corridor L Alternative because the pipeline would not be installed within road rights-ofway. 

c

 Based on a literature search. 

The Corridor L Alternative would affect 24.0 acres of the Lake Cahuilla ACEC compared to 0.1 

acre for the proposed route. The Lake Cahuilla ACEC is mapped with its eastern edge defined by the 

electric transmission lines. Because Corridor L is defined as 1 mile on either side of the transmission 

lines, it overlaps the Lake Cahuilla ACEC by 1 mile for the 2.5 miles between SR 98 and Interstate 8. 

The Corridor L Alternative would cross the Lake Cahuilla ACEC for the entire 2.5 miles. The Lake 

Cahuilla ACEC was designated to recognize and protect the significant cultural resources found along the 

eastern edge of the ancient shoreline of Lake Cahuilla (now largely occupied by the irrigated Imperial 

Valley). 

North Baja’s literature review identified 17 cultural resources within a 400-meter-wide Corridor 

L Alternative records search corridor. These resources consist of 2 isolated finds and 15 archaeological 

sites. The sites include lithic scatters, ceramic scatters, temporary campsites, a habitation area, and 

possible cores. The historic sites are refuse and tin can scatters. These sites are not known to have been 

evaluated and may potentially be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In comparison, a literature review of the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route identified 10 cultural resources within a 400-meter-wide 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-15 

records search corridor. No cultural resources were identified during North Baja’s field surveys of a 100-

foot-wide corridor for the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Although a quantitative 

comparison of the Corridor L Alternative with the corresponding segment of the proposed route cannot be 

made because cultural resources field surveys have not been conducted for the Corridor L Alternative, the 

Corridor L Alternative’s greater impact on previously undisturbed land and 2.5-mile-long crossing of the 

Lake Cahuilla ACEC elevates the chance of unanticipated significant cultural resources discovery and 

disturbance. 

The proposed route would affect 7.1 acres of the East Mesa ACEC compared to 0.1 acre for the 

Corridor L Alternative. The East Mesa ACEC was primarily designated for flat-tailed horned lizard 

protection and management. The proposed route would be within the road right-of-way associated with 

Evan Hewes Highway for the entire length it crosses the East Mesa ACEC. 

North Baja conducted biological resources surveys of the Corridor L Alternative and the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route to compare the extent of flat-tailed horned lizard habitat 

available on each route and to determine the presence or absence of this species. About 97 percent of the 

Corridor L Alternative (93.7 acres) would affect habitat classified as “poor” while 3 percent (2.7 acres) 

would affect habitat classified as “fair.” Similarly, about 97 percent of the proposed route (79.0 acres) 

would affect habitat classified as “poor” while 3 percent (2.2 acres) would affect habitat classified as 

“fair.” For both routes, the habitat classified as “poor” includes sandy silt substrate with pebbles and a 

small portion of desert pavement, and habitat classified as “fair” includes partially stabilized sand dunes 

with some ant presence although the proposed route also crosses a few patches of blow sand. 

A disadvantage of the proposed route is that 6.6 miles would be on BLM-managed land outside 

of a designated utility corridor. Therefore, the proposed route would require an amendment to the CDCA 

Plan. In contrast, the Corridor L Alternative would be entirely within a designated utility corridor and 

would not require a CDCA Plan amendment. However, the Corridor L Alternative would be longer and 

would disturb more land during construction compared to the proposed route. The alternative would also 

require significantly more permanent right-of-way compared to the proposed route because of its location 

adjacent to but not within road rights-of-way. The vegetation that would be disturbed along the Corridor 

L Alternative is also more diverse than the vegetation that would be affected by the proposed route. It 

also appears that the Corridor L Alternative could affect more archaeological sites compared to the 

proposed route. For these reasons, the Agency Staffs believe the advantage of being within a designated 

utility corridor is not sufficient to offset the disadvantages of the greater amount of land disturbance and 

permanent right-of-way required for the Corridor L Alternative and potentially greater impact on 

vegetation and cultural resources. Therefore, the Corridor L Alternative was eliminated from further 

consideration. 

Bonds Corner Alternative – The Bonds Corner Alternative deviates from the proposed route at 

MP 16.3 and follows the same route as the Corridor L Alternative for the first 7.5 miles (see Figure 

3.2.3-3). The Bonds Corner Alternative then continues west along SR 98 and the All-American Canal. 

The alternative would cross the East Highline Canal (using the HDD method) and continue to the west for 

approximately 3 miles across the Imperial Valley until turning north and following Bonds Corner Road 

for approximately 5.5 miles. The alternative rejoins the proposed route at MP 31.5. An environmental 

comparison of the Bonds Corner Alternative with the corresponding segment of the proposed route is 

presented in Table 3.2.3-3. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-16 

TABLE 3.2.3-3 

Environmental Comparison of the Bonds Corner Alternative with the Proposed Route 

MPs 16.3 to 31.5 

Environmental Factor Unit Bonds Corner Alternative Proposed Route 

Length of route Miles 20.0 15.2 

Construction right-of-way a Acres 145.5 110.5 

Permanent right-of-way b Acres 121.2 3.7 

Canals crossed Number 10 1 

Drains crossed Number 7 3 

Residences within 100 feet Number 8 6 

Lake Cahuilla Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) crossed 

Miles 2.2 0.3 

BLM-managed land crossed within designated utility 

corridor 

Miles 1.0 4.1 

BOR-withdrawn land crossed within designated utility 

corridor 

Miles 0.0 0.0 

BLM-managed land crossed outside designated utility 

corridor that would require a CDCA Plan amendment 

Miles 2.4 6.8 

BOR-withdrawn land crossed outside designated utility 

corridor 

Miles 1.8 0.0 

Adjacent to/within road right-of-way and easements Miles 20.0 14.5 

East Mesa ACEC crossed Miles 0.0 2.2 

____________________ 

a

 Based on a 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

b

 Based on a 2-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for the proposed route because the majority of the pipeline in this area 

would be installed within the county road right-of-way associated with Evan Hewes Highway and Hunt Road. Based on 

a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for the Bonds Corner Alternative because the pipeline would not be installed 

within road rights-of-way. 

The Bonds Corner Alternative would be 4.8 miles longer than the proposed route and would 

require 35.0 more acres of construction right-of-way. The Bonds Corner Alternative would also require 

significantly more permanent right-of-way compared to the proposed route (117.5 acres) because the 

majority of the proposed route in this area would be installed within the county road right-of-way 

associated with Evan Hewes Highway and Hunt Road. Because the proposed pipeline would be located 

within the road right-of-way, only a 2-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be retained. Although the 

Bonds Corner Alternative would be adjacent to existing road rights-of-way for its entire length, the 

pipeline would not be within the actual road rights-of-way because CalTrans’ regulations prohibit the 

installation of high-pressure natural gas pipelines within any State highway right-of-way except by 

special exception as discussed below for the CalTrans Alternative. The alternative would be within 100 

feet of more residences and require more canal and drain crossings than the proposed route. The new 

right-of-way crossed by the alternative would be adjacent to SR 98 in relatively undisturbed habitat across 

BLM lands. An additional disadvantage of the alternative is that it would cross 2.2 miles of the Lake 

Cahuilla ACEC compared to 0.3 mile of the ACEC that would be crossed by the proposed route. As 

discussed above, the Lake Cahuilla ACEC was designated to recognize and protect the significant cultural 

resources found along the eastern edge of the ancient shoreline of Lake Cahuilla. North Baja states that 

the crossing of the Lake Cahuilla ACEC for 2.2 miles elevates the chance of unanticipated significant 

cultural resources discovery and disturbance. A disadvantage of the proposed route is that it would cross 

2.2 miles of the East Mesa ACEC; the Bonds Corner Alternative would not cross the East Mesa ACEC. 

Both the proposed route and the alternative would be outside a designated utility corridor on BLMmanaged land (6.8 and 2.4 miles, respectively) and would require an amendment to the CDCA Plan. The 

Agency Staffs believe the greater amount of land disturbance and permanent right-of-way required for the 

Bonds Corridor Alternative outweigh its advantages and eliminated it from further consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-17 

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) Crossing Alternatives 

The ISDRA is an important and intensively utilized OHV and camping area. To address the 

concerns of commentors concerning potential conflicts with existing and planned recreational use in the 

ISDRA, four alternatives were considered for crossing the ISDRA: (1) the CalTrans Alternative, (2) the 

ISDRA North Alternative, (3) the ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative, and (4) the ISDRA Grays Well 

Road Alternative. Figures 3.2.3-4 and 3.2.3-5 illustrate the ISDRA route siting factors and alternatives. 

Concerns considered during the evaluation of these alternatives included sensitive biological and cultural 

resources as well as technical issues such as pipeline construction through sand dunes, the crossings of the 

All-American Canal and Interstate 8, and the avoidance of conflicts with other linear facilities (e.g., the 

freeway, several electrical transmission lines, and buried communication facilities). Additionally, another 

major construction effort planned in the same general location, the lining of the All-American Canal, 

needed to be considered. 

CalTrans Alternative – During North Baja’s public outreach efforts, the Off-Road Business 

Association suggested that North Baja consider routing the IID Lateral entirely within the CalTrans rightof-way where it crosses the ISDRA because the right-of-way is off-limits to OHV use. However, 

CalTrans acquires and manages its easements for road transportation purposes only. Section 606.4 of the 

CalTrans Encroachment Permits Manual states “Placement of longitudinal utilities encroachments within 

freeway and expressway right-of way is prohibited under Department policy.” Section 607.3 states “High 

risk pipelines conveying gas, oil or other flammable fluid are not permitted unless they are dedicated to a 

public use.” High risk pipelines are defined in the CalTrans Manual on High & Low Risk Underground 

Facilities within Highway Rights of Way to include natural gas pipelines greater than 6 inches in diameter, 

or pipelines operating at a pressure greater than 60 psig. 

The Encroachment Permits Manual also states that under unusual circumstances, requests for 

longitudinal placement can be reviewed under the exception process for State highways, and the approval 

of both the State and Federal Highway Administration is required. Based on past experience with 

CalTrans, the time frame for it to review and potentially consider an exception would be lengthy and 

CalTrans would be unlikely to approve a parallel encroachment when a feasible alternative exists as is the 

case for the proposed Project. Consequently, the CalTrans Alternative is not considered to be feasible and 

was eliminated from further consideration. 

ISDRA North Alternative – The ISDRA North Alternative stays north of the All-American Canal 

between MPs 2.0 and 8.2 of the proposed route. This alternative takes advantage of relatively level 

terrain immediately north of the All-American Canal and would avoid two crossings of the All-American 

Canal and Interstate 8. The alternative would provide a feasible location to stage a long HDD to the west 

under the sand dunes and would emerge in Dune Buggy Flats, which would avoid difficult construction in 

the dunes. However, consultation with IID staff revealed that the All-American Canal Lining Project 

conflicts with this route alternative. The IID intends to utilize the level area north of the existing canal for 

a temporary canal and construction work area (Hocking 2006). 

The ISDRA North Alternative would avoid the high OHV-use Buttercup Management Area; 

however, it would place the pipeline in two other high OHV-use areas. One of these areas lies at the base 

of Test Hill, which is an area heavily used in the fall and winter. The other area is at Dune Buggy Flats, 

an area occupied from late November through March of each year by thousands of OHV users and 

campers. Because of the locational conflict with the All-American Canal Lining Project and the fact that 

the alternative only shifts, rather than avoids, potential conflicts with recreational land uses, this 

alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-18 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.3-4 ISDRA Siting Factors 

Page 3-18 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-19 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.3-5 ISDRA Route Alternatives 

Page 3-19 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-20 

ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative – The ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative was 

considered in an effort to minimize new impacts through the ISDRA. This alternative would be south of 

the All-American Canal and Interstate 8 and would parallel the transmission line corridor through the 

ISDRA area. This alternative deviates from the proposed route at MP 3.5 (southwest of the HDD of the 

All-American Canal and Interstate 8) and continues southwest and follows the existing transmission line 

for approximately 3 miles. The alternative then turns west and would cross Interstate 8 and the AllAmerican Canal (using the HDD method) before rejoining the proposed route at approximate MP 8.2. 

Although both routes would cross Interstate 8 and the All-American Canal, the proposed route would 

require two separate crossings (a conventional bore at MP 5.7 for Interstate 8 and an HDD at MP 8.1 for 

the All-American Canal). The alternative route would only require one HDD that would cross both 

Interstate 8 and the All-American Canal near MP 8.0 of the proposed route. 

This alternative follows existing utilities and stays immediately south of the more intensive 

camping uses at Midway and Grays Well camping areas, but would be installed in an area used by OHVs. 

Specifically, the ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative would be installed south of Grays Well Road that 

provides access to the Midway Campground and the Plank Road monument, and would stay south of that 

road until crossing under the freeway. The area crossed by the first half of the alternative is also presently 

subject to a vehicle closure to protect desert plant species, including the Peirson’s milk-vetch. The BLM 

has indicated that it plans to maintain the vehicle closure for the foreseeable future (Kastoll 2007). 

Although the ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative parallels existing linear facilities, according 

to BLM staff it crosses both the Buttercup Management Area and adjacent land that is more highly 

trafficked by OHV users than the proposed route. Additionally, the alternative crosses dunes with greater 

relief, which would entail more difficult construction and may potentially require measures to protect the 

integrity of the transmission tower footings, depending on site-specific conditions. Because of the heavier 

OHV use, construction constraints, and plan of the BLM to maintain the vehicle closure for the 

foreseeable future, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative – After the issuance of the draft EIS/EIR, a 

modified version of the ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative was evaluated to address concerns 

regarding a cultural resources site located along the proposed route (Site CA-IMP-8314) while also 

avoiding the BLM’s vehicle closure area that would be affected by the original ISDRA Transmission Line 

Alternative. The Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative deviates from the proposed route at 

MP 5.6 and continues southwest and follows the existing transmission line for approximately 1.1 miles. 

The alternative then turns west and would cross Interstate 8 and the All-American Canal (using the HDD 

method) before rejoining the proposed route at approximate MP 8.2 (see Figure 3.2.3-5). An 

environmental comparison of the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative with the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route is presented in Table 3.2.3-4. 

The Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative would be longer and would affect more land 

during construction and operation compared to the proposed route. Both routes would be located adjacent 

to existing rights-of-way for their entire lengths and both would affect only BLM/BOR-managed lands 

within Utility Corridor L. Therefore, a CDCA Plan amendment would not be required for the Modified 

ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative or the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Although 

both routes would cross Interstate 8 and the All-American Canal, the proposed route would require two 

separate crossings (a conventional bore at MP 5.7 for Interstate 8 and an HDD at MP 8.1 for the AllAmerican Canal). The alternative route would only require one HDD that would cross both Interstate 8 

and the All-American Canal near MP 8.0 of the proposed route. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-21 

TABLE 3.2.3-4 

Environmental Comparison of the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative with the Proposed Route 

MPs 5.6 to 8.2

Environmental Factor Unit 

Modified ISDRA 

Transmission Line 

Alternative Proposed Route 

Length of route Miles 3.1 2.6 

Construction right-of-way a Acres 30.1 25.2 

Permanent right-of-way b Acres 11.3 9.5 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way Miles 3.1 2.6 

Canals crossed Number 1 1 

Roads crossed Number 1 1 

BLM/BOR-managed land crossed within designated 

utility corridor 

Miles 3.1 2.6 

BLM/BOR-managed land crossed outside designated 

utility corridor that would require a CDCA Plan 

amendment 

Miles 0.0 0.0 

Eligible cultural resources sites Number 1 1 

____________________ 

a

 Based on an 80-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

b

 Based on a 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. 

On February 2, 2007, North Baja met with members of the Quechan Indian Tribe, the BLM, and 

the BOR to discuss measures to reduce or avoid impacts on Site CA-IMP-8314. The site is on BOR land 

and both the BOR and the Quechan Indian Tribe requested that North Baja avoid the site. In addition, in 

a letter dated February 9, 2007, the Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians asked that the site be avoided. 

Although the original ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative avoided the site, it crossed an area closed by 

the BLM to protect the Peirson’s milk-vetch. This was one of the reasons the ISDRA Transmission Line 

Alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

During a meeting on March 13, 2007 to address issues presented in the Kwaaymii Laguna Band 

of Indians’ February 9, 2007 letter, North Baja suggested a realignment utilizing only the western portion 

of the original ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative to avoid Site CA-IMP-8314. By utilizing only the 

western portion of the ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative (beginning at MP 5.6 of the proposed 

route), the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative would also avoid the BLM’s vehicle closure 

area. Although the Modified ISDRA Alternative would avoid Site CA-IMP-8314, a portion of another 

cultural resources site (the Plank Road) was identified during surveys along the alternative alignment. 

North Baja would avoid impacts on this portion of the Plank Road by installing exclusion fencing and 

monitoring during construction (see Section 4.11.3). The BLM has indicated that avoidance of the Plank 

Road would not be difficult and supports the alternative route because it avoids Site CA-IMP-8314 

(Simmons 2007). In addition, the BLM has no biological resources concerns along the Modified ISDRA 

Transmission Line Alternative (Steward 2007). 

The Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative is longer and affects more land compared to 

the proposed route. Like the original ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative, it crosses both the Buttercup 

Management Area and adjacent land that is more highly trafficked by OHV users than the proposed route. 

However, the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative avoids a cultural resources site that the 

Quechan Indian Tribe, the Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians, and the BOR requested that North Baja 

avoid. This alternative also avoids an area closed by the BLM to protect the Peirson’s milk-vetch and 

does not affect any other sensitive biological resources. The Modified ISDRA Transmission Line 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-22 

Alternative would be located entirely on BLM-managed lands and the BLM finds the alternative route 

acceptable. Therefore, the Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall adopt the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative between 

MPs 5.6 and 8.2 of the IID Lateral. 

ISDRA Grays Well Road Alternative – During Project planning, the BLM suggested that the area 

west of the Buttercup Campground between Grays Well Road and Interstate 8 is less intensively used 

than the area to the south of Grays Well Road. The ISDRA Grays Well Road Alternative considers a 

route in the strip between Interstate 8 and Grays Well Road. This area currently contains a wood pole 

line, a fiber optic line (Level 3), and is constricted by a relatively wide (400-foot) CalTrans right-of-way. 

Early investigations suggested that there may be room within this strip for the proposed 16-inch-diameter 

IID Lateral; however, a recent field survey to locate the Level 3 fiber optic line concluded that there is not 

sufficient space within this strip for the pipeline. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible and was 

eliminated from further consideration. 

Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline Route Alternative 

A route alternative between the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline and the IID’s El Centro Generating 

Station was evaluated (see Figure 3.2.3-6). The alternative interconnects with the Gasoducto Bajanorte 

pipeline west of Mexicali in the vicinity of La Rosita, Mexico. From there it proceeds north and crosses 

the Mexico-U.S. border into California near the junction of the Westside Main Drain and the AllAmerican Canal. Once in the United States, the alternative proceeds north adjacent to Brockman Road 

until it crosses the New River 5 miles west of Heber. It then turns and proceeds east following McCabe 

Road to a point about 0.5 mile east of Dogwood Road. At this point, the alternative proceeds north across 

Interstate 8 and a congested area surrounding Evan Hewes Highway until it joins the proposed route just 

east of the IID’s El Centro Generating Station. 

This alternative would be approximately 23 miles in length and thus would be substantially 

shorter than the proposed IID Lateral. About 18 miles of the alternative would be within the United 

States. Nearly all of the pipeline route in the United States (about 17.5 miles) would cross irrigated 

agricultural land; the remaining 0.5 mile would cross urban land uses. 

Although the alternative would have less environmental impact than the IID Lateral based on its 

shorter length, it would not meet the Project objective of providing the IID with a connection to the U.S. 

interstate pipeline systems. As currently configured, the IID Lateral would provide the IID with direct 

access to U.S. gas supplies via the existing interconnection between North Baja and El Paso. As 

discussed in Section 1.1, the El Centro Generating Station currently receives its natural gas from 

SoCalGas. The volumes delivered by the North Baja system would be used to serve the existing 

generating load at the station and would provide supply and supplier diversification for the IID. North 

Baja would continue to provide southbound natural gas transportation of domestic supplies on its system 

via backhaul. In this way the IID Lateral would enable the IID to gain access to domestic supplies as well 

as the LNG sources in Mexico providing it with greater flexibility and reliability in choosing its gas 

supplies. The alternative would restrict the IID to LNG-source gas solely and would not provide the IID 

with the expanded access to the domestic supplies that it needs. For this reason, the Gasoducto Bajanorte 

Pipeline Route Alternative is not considered to be a viable alternative to the proposed IID Lateral and was 

eliminated from further consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-23 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.3-6 Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline Route Alternative 

Page 3-23 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-24 

3.2.4 Route Variations 

Route variations differ from system alternatives or route alternatives in that they are identified to 

reduce impact on specific localized resource issues such as residences, cultural resources sites, biological 

resources, and areas of steep terrain. Additionally, route variations may be examined to avoid conflicts 

with other projects. The four route variations evaluated for the proposed Project are described below. 

3.2.4.1 East Mesa North Route Variation 

North Baja initially planned to locate the IID Lateral in the northern road shoulder of Evan Hewes 

Highway from MPs 8.5 to 26.0; however, the BOR’s plans for the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir would 

interfere with this route. Therefore, North Baja adjusted its proposed route. The proposed route between 

MPs 8.1 and 8.5 is on the north side of Evan Hewes Highway. It then crosses the highway to the south 

side to avoid the BOR’s planned supply canal location and continues on the south side of the highway for 

5.1 miles. The proposed route then crosses back to the north side of the highway at MP 13.6. 

The East Mesa North Route Variation depicted on Figure 3.2.4-1 deviates from the proposed 

route for 4.1 miles (from MPs 9.5 to 13.6) where it would stay on the north side of Evan Hewes Highway 

(as initially planned) instead of crossing to the south side of the road. This variation was originally 

developed because the BOR indicated it would pursue discussions with Imperial County regarding the 

abandonment of the Evan Hewes Highway right-of-way for a distance of 3 miles between the BOR lands 

and the private lands near Gordon’s Well. The BOR’s intent was to locate the canal and associated access 

roads in the middle of the highway. If this were the case, there would not be room for the IID Lateral on 

the south side of the new canal access road without conflicting with the CalTrans right-of-way for 

Interstate 8 and North Baja would need to adopt the East Mesa North Variation on the north side of Evan 

Hewes Highway. 

As of January 3, 2006, however, the BOR has stated that there is a 98 percent chance that the 

Drop 2 Canal centerline would be just north of Evan Hewes Highway (Wahl 2006). Because the East 

Mesa North Variation would conflict with the BOR’s Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project, this alternative 

was considered infeasible and eliminated from further consideration. 

3.2.4.2 Imperial Valley Route Variations 

The proposed route through the Imperial Valley includes the area from the west side of the East 

Highline Canal at MP 27.8 to the terminus of the IID Lateral at the El Centro Generating Station. From 

MP 27.8, the proposed route stays on Hunt Road and East Chick Road until MP 38.7 where it turns north 

on McGrew Road for 0.2 mile before crossing Interstate 8 (using the bore method). The proposed route 

then continues adjacent to a private field road to MP 39.7. At this point, the proposed route turns west 

along East Ross Road to MP 41.4 and then turns north along Parker Road for 1.5 miles. The proposed 

route would then be located in field roads on the north side of Interstate 8 for 0.5 mile until turning north 

along SR 111 for 0.2 mile where it would then turn west along the IID powerlines to MP 45.7. 

The number of residences near the route, right-of-way encumbrances on private property, amount 

of farmland crossed, conflicts with other utilities, and scoping comments were considered in developing 

three variations to the proposed route. All three of these variations would be located primarily within 

existing Imperial County road rights-of-way. The three Imperial Valley variations are depicted on Figure 

3.2.4-2. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-25 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.4-1 East Mesa North Route Variation 

Page 3-25 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-26 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.4-2 Imperial Valley Route Variations 

Page 3-26 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-27 

Variation A 

Variation A deviates from the proposed route at MP 36.9 and turns north along Barbara Worth 

Road, which crosses over Interstate 8. The pipeline would be bored under Interstate 8, and the workspace 

would be located in a field adjacent to the road right-of-way. North of Interstate 8, the variation continues 

north along Barbara Worth Road for approximately 0.5 mile before turning west along East Ross Road 

and rejoining the proposed route at MP 39.7. 

Variation A would avoid the open field crossing north of McGrew Road, but it would be located 

for a longer distance in East Ross Road, which is a busier road with more utility encumbrances than the 

proposed route. The proposed route follows Hunt Road, which is unpaved, has fewer utilities, fewer 

obstructions, and fewer residences. Variation A, which follows East Ross Road, would impact a greater 

number of immediately adjacent residences, and potentially would have to be routed around underground 

pipe structures associated with irrigation. Any route variations around these pipe structures would require 

the pipeline to be placed in the adjacent agricultural fields. Because of these disadvantages, Variation A 

was eliminated from further consideration. 

Variation B 

Variation B deviates from the proposed route at MP 34.9 and turns north on Mets Road for 0.4 

mile before crossing Interstate 8 and continuing north on Mets Road for 0.6 mile to East Ross Road. At 

East Ross Road it turns west and continues for 4.5 miles until it rejoins the proposed route at MP 39.7. 

Similar to Variation A, Variation B would avoid the open field crossing north of McGrew Road. 

However, it would be located for a longer distance in East Ross Road, which is a busier road with more 

utility encumbrances than the proposed route. Because of these disadvantages, Variation B was 

eliminated from further consideration. 

Variation C 

During the scoping process, landowners along the proposed route on Parker Road expressed 

concerns about impacts on their water delivery system, fences, and landscaping, as well as the possibility 

of losing rental income during construction. Variation C attempts to address this concern by continuing 

west along East Ross Road beyond Parker Road for an additional 0.7 mile. The variation then turns north 

along SR 111, which is a freeway at this location. The pipeline would be installed in agricultural lands 

for approximately 0.2 mile and would then follow an existing transmission line corridor with many other 

utilities adjacent to the freeway until rejoining the proposed route at MP 43.4. 

Both Variation C and the corresponding segment of the proposed route are in areas where 

multiple utilities are already buried adjacent to the road. During field investigations, North Baja 

determined that the utility congestion along the proposed route did not preclude space for the pipeline. 

However, North Baja has not been able to confirm that space is available for Variation C because SR 111, 

a frontage road, a steel tower electric transmission line, and a canal are existing linear features within the 

corridor. North Baja states that it is likely Variation C would, at a minimum, require parallel 

encroachments within electric transmission facility and/or canal easements. A scoping comment was 

received from the owner of a business along the Variation C route expressing concern regarding potential 

negative impacts and disruptions to his business and the proximity of the pipe to the electrical 

transmission lines. Constructing or operating a pipeline in proximity to an electric transmission line is not 

generally considered to pose a safety risk; however, there could be some temporary inconvenience or 

disruption to the business during construction if Variation C were adopted. 

To address the concerns of the landowners along the proposed route on Parker Road, North Baja 

has agreed to install the pipeline on the opposite side of Parker Road from the cluster of homes on the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-28 

west side. North Baja would avoid water delivery systems, including both canals and pipes, by drilling or 

digging beneath them; therefore, no disruption of water service is expected. However, in the unlikely 

event of damage to a water system, North Baja would repair the system and provide an alternative water 

source until the repair is made. North Baja has provided site-specific residential construction mitigation 

plans for all residences and businesses within 100 feet of the construction work area, including the portion 

of the route on Parker Road (see site-specific plan numbers 4200-E-209 through 216 in Appendix O). 

These plans show that the fences, trees, and other landscaping along Parker Road would be avoided 

during construction. As shown in Table 4.8.3-1, the only residential features that would be potentially 

affected by construction along Parker Road are one gravel driveway and two mailboxes. North Baja has 

stated that it does not believe construction of the Project would result in loss of rental income because the 

residents/tenants would still have access to their homes. North Baja would, however, make every effort 

to accommodate special needs on a case-by-case basis, including reimbursing an owner who is unable to 

rent a property because of North Baja’s construction activities. 

Because North Baja has been able to address the specific concerns of the landowners along 

Parker Road, it is uncertain whether there is adequate space to install the pipeline along Variation C, and 

Variation C would merely transfer impacts from one or more property owners or communities to another 

without conferring obvious environmental advantages, Variation C was eliminated from further 

consideration. 

3.2.5 Alternative Delivery Points - Arrowhead Alternative 

In its February 7, 2006 FERC application, North Baja proposed to deliver gas to the SoCalGas 

system and Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline at a meter station located along Riviera Drive. On 

May 24, 2006, North Baja filed an alternative to these delivery points. This alternative, referred to in the 

draft EIS/EIR as the Arrowhead Alternative, would deliver natural gas to the SoCalGas system at 

SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station at the intersection of 14th Avenue and Arrowhead 

Boulevard in Riverside County. The compressor station is approximately 2 miles north of the location on 

18th Avenue where the existing A-Line and proposed B-Line cross Arrowhead Boulevard. The alternative 

delivery point to the Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline would be immediately adjacent to the 

Blythe Compressor Station. Metering for the alternative delivery points would occur at a new meter 

station located within the fenceline of the Blythe Compressor Station. 

At the time of its May 24, 2006 filing and as analyzed in the draft EIS/EIR, the facilities 

associated with the Arrowhead Alternative included (see Figure 3.2.5-1): 

• Arrowhead Extension – 2.1 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from MP 7.4 of 

the proposed B-Line to SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station. 

• Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and Pig Receiver – these facilities would occupy a 160-

foot by 200-foot site within the fenced yard of the existing Blythe Compressor Station. 

The gas would be odorized before delivery into the SoCalGas system at the existing 

odorant facilities within the Blythe Compressor Station. 

• BEI Piping and Tap – 40 feet of 8-inch-diameter pipeline from the proposed BlytheArrowhead Meter Station to the existing Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline and a 

tap into the existing pipeline. 

• Pig Launcher, Taps, and Crossover Piping to the Existing A-Line and Proposed B-Line – 

these facilities would be located in a 150-foot by 225-foot fenced yard in the northeast 

corner of the intersection of 18th Avenue and Arrowhead Boulevard. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-29 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 3.2.5-1 Arrowhead Alternative 

Page 3-29 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-30 

The facilities that would be eliminated by the Arrowhead Alternative included: 

• the Blythe Meter Station on Riviera Drive; 

• 20 feet of interconnect piping with SoCalGas at the originally proposed Blythe Meter 

Station; 

• 0.6 mile of 10-inch-diameter pipeline (BEI Lateral) extending from the originally 

proposed Blythe Meter Station site to an interconnection with the existing Blythe Energy 

Facility I supply pipeline; and 

• an odorant facility at the Ogilby Meter Station. 

Although the above facilities would be eliminated, adoption of the Arrowhead Alternative would 

result in a net gain in the amount of facilities that would be constructed because the new modified 

connection point into the SoCalGas system would not eliminate the need to connect with the existing 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station to allow for deliveries to El Paso and other markets outside of California, 

which is currently North Baja’s contractual requirement. 

Table 3.2.5-1 provides a comparison of the Arrowhead Alternative with the originally proposed 

Project facilities that would be eliminated if the Arrowhead Alternative were adopted (referred to in this 

analysis as the corresponding segment of the proposed Project). 

As shown in Table 3.2.5-1, the Arrowhead Alternative would disturb 24.3 acres of land during 

construction (20.6 acres for the pipeline right-of-way, 2.0 acres for aboveground facilities, and 1.7 acres 

for temporary extra workspaces). Of this total, 6.2 acres of land would be permanently retained for the 

pipeline right-of-way (4.7 acres) and aboveground facilities (1.5 acres). In comparison, the corresponding 

segment of the proposed Project would disturb 9.0 acres of land during construction (4.4 acres for the 

pipeline right-of-way, 4.5 acres for aboveground facilities, and 0.1 acre for temporary extra workspaces), 

of which 5.2 acres of land would be permanently retained (0.7 acre for the pipeline right-of-way and 4.5 

acres for aboveground facilities). The Arrowhead Alternative would impact 16.1 acres of agricultural 

land during construction; no agricultural land would be affected by construction of the corresponding 

segment of the proposed Project. 

The Arrowhead Alternative would permanently convert 0.8 acre of agricultural land to utility use, 

whereas the corresponding segment of the proposed Project would permanently convert 4.5 acres of open 

land to utility use. Except for the new odorant facility at the existing Ogilby Meter Station, the 

corresponding segment of the proposed Project would be within the City of Blythe near existing and 

proposed residential development, while the Arrowhead Alternative would be in an agricultural area with 

only a few scattered residences and no proposed residential development. There would be 7 residences 

within the potential impact radius (PIR)2

 of the Arrowhead Alternative compared to 36 residences within 

the potential impact radius of the corresponding segment of the proposed Project. The minor visual 

impact associated with the Blythe Meter Station would be avoided by adoption of the Arrowhead 

Alternative. 

 

2

 The potential impact radius is the radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have considerable impact on people 

or property. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-31 

TABLE 3.2.5-1 

Environmental Comparison of the Arrowhead Alternative with the Corresponding Segment of the Proposed Project

Environmental Factor Unit 

Arrowhead 

Alternative 

Corresponding Segment 

of the Proposed Project 

Land Requirements 

Length of pipeline Miles 2.1 0.6 

Area disturbed during construction 

Pipeline right-of-way Acres 20.6 4.4 

Aboveground facilities Acres 2.0 4.5 a

Temporary extra workspaces Acres 1.7 0.1

Total Acres 24.3 9.0 

Area permanently retained 

Pipeline right-of-way Acres 4.7 0.7 

Aboveground facilities Acres 1.5 4.5 a

Total Acres 6.2 5.2 

Biological resources 

Habitat types affected 

Creosote scrub Acres 0.0 6.1 

Agricultural Acres 16.1 0.0 

Urban (transportation) Acres 8.2 2.9 

Cultural resources 

Number of sites in area of potential effect Number 6 0 

Number of sites likely to be potentially eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places 

Number 0 b 0 

Land use and other resources 

Within existing rights-of-way Miles 1.0 0.3 

Within new right-of-way Miles 1.1 0.3 

Active agricultural land Acres 16.1 0.0 

Homes and businesses within 100 feet of construction 

work area 

Number 0 2 

Residential structures within potential impact radius Number 7 36 

Drains and canals crossed Number 3c 0 

Other Factors Associated with Aboveground facilities 

New odorant facility Yes/No No Yes 

Converted to utility use Acres 0.8 4.5 

Distance from meter station to nearest residences Feet 1,200 1,000 

Distance to proposed residential development Feet 0 d 300 

Zoned agricultural Acres 0.0 0.0 

Zoned rural residential Acres 0.8 4.3 

____________________ 

a

 Includes 4.3 acres for the Blythe Meter Station and 0.2 acre for the expansion of the site at the existing Ogilby Meter 

Station needed to install the odorant facility. b

 Without testing complete. 

c

 The C-05 Canal and two unnamed canals would be crossed. The C-05 Canal would be bored; the two unnamed 

canals would be open cut. d

 There are no known proposed residential developments. 

Based on North Baja’s cultural resources surveys, there are six cultural resources along the 

Arrowhead Alternative compared to no cultural resources in the area of potential effect for the 

corresponding segment of the proposed Project. The six cultural resources along the Arrowhead 

Alternative have not been evaluated to determine eligibility for listing on the NRHP; however, North Baja 

would avoid impacts on these six cultural resources. Neither the Arrowhead Alternative nor the 

corresponding segment of the proposed Project would affect wetlands, riparian resources, or native 

habitats. Impacts on special status species would be similar. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-32 

Additional analysis of the Arrowhead Alternative was included in the applicable resource 

discussions in Section 4 of the draft EIS/EIR that was issued on September 27, 2006. 

On November 21, 2006, North Baja filed an amendment to its February 7, 2006 application. The 

amendment requested authorization to adopt the Arrowhead Alternative as part of the proposed Project. 

North Baja’s application for an amendment stated that SoCalGas has indicated that the alternative would 

serve its operational needs better than the originally proposed delivery point at Riviera Drive near the 

Colorado River. At the December 6, 2006 public meeting held in Blythe, California to receive comments 

on the draft EIS/EIR, comments were received from the developer of a planned residential community 

(Edgewater Lane Planned Residential Community) that consists of 45 home sites along Riviera Drive that 

has already been approved by the Blythe Planning Commission and City Council. The developer 

commented that the Blythe Meter Station would impact the residential community, and he expressed a 

preference for the Arrowhead Alternative, which would site the meter station within the yard of 

SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station. Furthermore, locating the meter station within an 

existing compressor station yard would reduce its visual impact. 

Other advantages of the Arrowhead Alternative include the elimination of 0.6 mile of pipeline 

lateral and the odorant facility at the Ogilby Meter Station. In addition, there would be 29 fewer 

residences within the PIR of the Arrowhead Alternative, compared to the corresponding segment of the 

originally proposed Project. Although adoption of the Arrowhead Alternative would result in a net gain 

in the amount of facilities that would be constructed, based on the detailed analysis in the draft EIS/EIR, 

the Arrowhead Alternative would create no significant impacts. Because of the advantages of the 

Arrowhead Alternative, further consideration of the corresponding segment of the originally proposed 

Project was eliminated and the Arrowhead Alternative has been incorporated into the analysis of the 

proposed Project in this final EIS.3 

3.2.6 Aboveground Facility Site Alternatives 

As described in Section 2.1.2, the proposed Project would require new and modified aboveground 

facilities. The B-Line would require modifications at North Baja’s existing Ehrenberg Compressor 

Station and an expansion of its existing Ogilby Meter Station to allow northbound flow of gas. 

Additionally, metering modifications inside the existing El Paso Meter Station at the Ehrenberg 

Compressor Station site would be necessary to allow LNG-source gas to be delivered into the El Paso 

system. North Baja would also construct two pig launchers, three pig receivers, and nine valves along the 

B-Line. The Arrowhead Extension would require the construction of one pig launcher, two taps, and 

crossover piping at the tie-in with the A-Line and B-Line; one meter station; and one pig receiver. The 

IID Lateral would require the construction of one tap and pig launcher at the tie-in with the B-Line, one 

meter station, one pig receiver, and four valves. 

All of the proposed new and modified facilities are necessary to meet the purpose and need of the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. If the modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor 

Station and El Paso and Ogilby Meter Stations are not made, the facilities would not be able to 

accommodate northbound flow of gas or deliver LNG-source gas to El Paso. Construction of these 

facilities other than at the existing facilities would require disturbance of previously undisturbed land and 

construction of additional pipeline facilities to connect them to the proposed pipeline. The alternative of 

creating new industrial sites would not be environmentally preferable to the proposed Project and thus 

was eliminated from further consideration. 

 

3

 North Baja’s November 21, 2006 filing requesting authorization to adopt the Arrowhead Alternative made minor revisions to the acreage 

affected by temporary extra workspaces and aboveground facility sites associated with the alternative, which have been incorporated into the 

analysis in this final EIS. In addition, on February 1, 2007, North Baja filed an amendment to its application filed on February 7, 2006, as 

amended on November 21, 2006, eliminating the BEI Lateral that would supply natural gas to the Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline. 

Therefore, the BEI piping and tap originally referred to as part of the Arrowhead Alternative have been eliminated from analysis in this final 

EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
3-33 

The Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station would be constructed and operated at the terminus of the 

Arrowhead Extension within the yard of SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station. This facility is 

needed to measure gas volumes delivered from the North Baja system into the SoCalGas system. In the 

draft EIS/EIR, the originally proposed Blythe Meter Station, which would be on a 4.3-acre site along 

Riviera Drive in Blythe at MP 0.5, was analyzed. As discussed in Section 3.2.5, the Arrowhead 

Alternative, which includes the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station, is considered to be environmentally 

preferable and the Blythe Meter Station was eliminated from further consideration. 

The taps and crossover piping needed to connect the Arrowhead Extension with the existing ALine and proposed B-Line as well as the associated pig launcher would be located in a fenced yard in the 

northeast corner of the intersection of 18th Avenue and Arrowhead Boulevard. Because the location of 

these facilities is dictated by the location of the existing and proposed pipelines, and no significant 

impacts were identified at the site of these facilities, an alternative location for the taps, crossover piping, 

and pig launcher associated with the Arrowhead Alternative was not evaluated. 

The adoption of the Arrowhead Alternative would eliminate the need for North Baja to install an 

odorant facility at the Ogilby Meter Station because the gas would be odorized by SoCalGas at its 

existing odorant facilities within the Blythe Compressor Station. As discussed in the draft EIS/EIR, 

construction of the odorant facility at the Ogilby Meter Station would require an approximate 0.2-acre 

expansion of the Ogilby Meter Station yard and approximately 400 feet of a new permanent 22-foot-wide 

access road to allow odorant supply trucks ingress and egress to the yard. As discussed in Section 3.2.5, 

the Arrowhead Alternative is considered to be environmentally preferable and the odorant facility at the 

Ogilby Meter Station was eliminated further consideration. 

Five of the nine valves along the B-Line would be collocated with existing valves at the existing 

aboveground facility sites; the remaining four valves would be collocated with the four existing valves 

along the A-Line. One of the valves associated with the IID Lateral would be collocated with the tap and 

pig launcher at the tie-in to the B-Line and the remaining three valves would be located along the pipeline 

route. The locations of these valves are dictated, in a general sense, by the class location of the area 

through which the pipeline passes, as required in Title 49 CFR Part 192. Although the specific location 

of a valve could be adjusted slightly, the valves cannot be eliminated or moved significantly. None of the 

proposed valve sites would be located in prime farmland or would affect wetlands, unique vegetation 

communities, critical wildlife habitat, or cultural resources. The alternative of relocating the valves to 

other sites would create new disturbance without providing any apparent environmental advantages and, 

therefore, was eliminated from further consideration. 

Pig launchers and receivers would be collocated with other aboveground facilities; therefore, the 

alternative of relocating these facilities would create new disturbance without providing any apparent 

environmental advantages. For this reason, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

During the scoping process, comments were received from the ICAPCD and the Imperial County 

Board of Supervisors that the compressor station associated with the upstream facilities in Mexico should 

be located in the United States so that emissions can be mitigated appropriately. As discussed in Section 

1.4, the upstream facilities are subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of another nation and there is no 

jurisdictional basis for the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, or the BOR to approve, mitigate, or reject such 

facilities. 

A scoping comment was also received suggesting that the impacts associated with the IID Lateral 

could be avoided by siting the IID El Centro Generating Station on the old Brock Research facility 

property in Imperial County. As discussed in Sections 1.1 and 2.1, the El Centro Generating Station is an 

existing facility that would be the delivery point for the IID Lateral. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

This section describes the affected environment as it currently exists (baseline conditions) and 

discusses the environmental consequences of the proposed Project. This section also discusses the 

environmental consequences of amending the BLM’s CDCA Plan to allow for an exemption to the 

Energy Production and Utility Corridors Element of the plan as well as the environmental consequences 

of amending the Yuma District Plan to allow North Baja to cross the Milpitas Wash SMA. The 

discussion is organized by the following major resource topics: geology; soils; water resources; wetlands; 

vegetation; wildlife and aquatic resources; special status species; land use, special management areas, 

recreation and public interest areas, and aesthetic resources; socioeconomics; transportation and traffic; 

cultural resources; air quality; noise; reliability and safety; cumulative impacts; growth-inducing impacts; 

and environmental justice. The No Project Alternative has also been analyzed in this section for each of 

these major resource topics. 

In accordance with BLM Manual guidance (H-1790-1), the major resource sections address the 

following “critical elements of the human environment:” air quality; ACECs; cultural resources; Native 

American religious concerns; prime or unique farmlands; floodplains; rangeland health; threatened and 

endangered species; hazardous or solid wastes; drinking and groundwater quality; wetlands and riparian 

zones; Wild and Scenic Rivers; Wilderness Areas; socioeconomics; environmental justice; health and 

safety risks to children; and invasive, non-native species. These critical elements are based on 

requirements specified in statute, regulation, or executive order. 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project would vary in duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were 

considered: temporary, short term, long term, and permanent. Temporary impact generally occurs during 

construction with the resource returning to preconstruction condition almost immediately afterward. 

Short-term impact could continue for up to 3 years following construction. Impact was considered long 

term if the resource would require more than 3 years to recover. A permanent impact could occur as a 

result of any activity that modifies a resource to the extent that it would not return to preconstruction 

conditions during the life of the Project. 

The specific criteria used to determine the significance of an impact are presented at the 

beginning of each major resource section. Unless otherwise noted, all identified impacts are considered 

to be potentially significant adverse impacts before applying North Baja’s proposed mitigation. If any 

impacts remain significant (i.e., continue to exceed the significance criteria) after North Baja implements 

its proposed mitigation measures, the FERC and CSLC staffs developed additional mitigation in an effort 

to reduce any significant impact to a less than significant level. In some cases, although an impact would 

not be considered significant, the FERC and CSLC staffs developed additional mitigation in an effort to 

further reduce impacts. These recommended mitigation measures appear offset with bold type in the text. 

The FERC and CSLC staffs will recommend to their respective Commissions that these additional 

mitigation measures be included as specific conditions to any approvals issued by the FERC and the 

CSLC, as appropriate, for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. 

The potential environmental impacts identified in this section and the mitigation measures 

proposed by North Baja and recommended by the FERC and CSLC staffs are summarized in tabular form 

in Section 5. The summary table classifies each impact as either Class I (significant adverse impact that 

remains significant after mitigation); Class II (significant adverse impact that can be eliminated or 

reduced below an issue’s significance criteria); Class III (adverse impact that does not meet or exceed an 

issue’s significance criteria); or Class IV (beneficial impact). This table forms the basis for the detailed 

MMP that would be implemented during construction and operation of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project (see Section 2.5). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-2 

The conclusions in this EIS/EIR are based on the analysis of the environmental impacts and the 

following assumptions: 

• North Baja would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 

• the proposed facilities would be constructed as described in Section 2 of this EIS/EIR; 

and 

• North Baja would implement the mitigation measures included in its applications and 

supplemental submittals to the FERC and the CSLC. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-3 

4.1 GEOLOGY 

4.1.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on geologic, mineral, or paleontological resources would be considered 

significant and would require mitigation if: 

• construction activities or the siting of facilities would worsen existing unfavorable 

geologic conditions; 

• Project construction or operation would preclude or disrupt the development of mineral 

resources; 

• geologic hazards could cause a rupture or failure of the pipeline or cause damage to 

related facilities that would present a significant threat to public safety; or 

• Project construction would result in damage or loss of vertebrate or invertebrate fossils 

that are considered important by paleontologists and land management agency staff. 

4.1.2 Geologic Setting 

Pipeline Facilities 

The proposed Project is located within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province, commonly 

referred to as the “low desert” in southern California. The Colorado Desert Province is bounded on the 

east by the Colorado River, on the south by the Mexican border, and on the west by the Transverse 

Ranges (Norris and Webb 1990). The northern border lies along the southern edge of the eastern 

Transverse Ranges, approximately at the San Bernardino-Riverside County line. The Colorado Desert 

Province is characterized by its arid climate, broad valleys, and low elevation, approximately 250 feet 

above mean sea level at the Riverside-Imperial County line (Norris and Webb 1990). 

The northwesterly structural trends characteristic of most geologic provinces of California are 

evident in the Colorado Desert Province. The dominant feature of the area is the Salton Trough, located 

in the southeastern portion of the desert (California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG] 1992a). 

The Salton Trough is a tensional feature that has been seismically active in recent time (less than 11,000 

years ago), and is marked by several right-lateral strike-slip faults as illustrated on Figure 4.1.2-1. The 

Salton Trough is a rift valley that is a northwesterly extension of the Gulf of California, which is formed 

by the East Pacific Rise spreading center. Segments of this spreading center extend up the Gulf and are 

offset by a series of northwest-trending transform faults, the most northerly of which is the San Andreas. 

Geologic and geophysical evidence strongly suggests the presence of spreading centers beneath the 

alluvial blanket within the Salton Trough (CDMG 1977). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-4 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 4.1.2-1 Principal Faults of the Colorado Desert Province and 

Seismic Activity Near the Project Area 

Page 4-4 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-5 

A review of existing documents (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1973), including North Baja’s 

construction reports for the A-Line, indicates that bedrock would not likely be encountered along the BLine and Arrowhead Extension routes except in the vicinity of MP 29.5 of the B-Line, where blasting is 

anticipated in exposed bedrock comprising intrusive volcanic material overlain by pyroclastic rocks. 

Other than this isolated area of exposed bedrock, the proposed B-Line route is typically underlain by 

Quaternary (1.6 million years ago to present) alluvium, colluvium, and terrace deposits, which consist of 

unconsolidated to poorly consolidated gravel, sand, and silt (CDMG 1977, 1999b). Further details are 

found in the Geologic Hazards Study (see Appendix J). 

The eastern portion of the proposed IID Lateral in the vicinity of the Algodones Dunes is 

underlain by wind-blown/aeolian deposits consisting of unconsolidated to poorly consolidated sand and 

silt size material (CDMG 1977). The entire dune chain is migrating southeast in response to strong 

northwesterly winds that occur in the area, especially in the late winter and spring (Norris and Webb 

1990). The East Mesa and Imperial Valley are underlain by Tertiary (66 to 1.6 million years ago) and 

Quaternary sedimentary rocks composed mainly of sandstones, clays, and lake deposits. Alluvial and 

terrace deposits form deep soils above these rock features (Morton 1977). 

The geologic and physiographic conditions likely to be encountered during construction of the 

proposed Project are identified by milepost in Table 4.1.2-1. 

Aboveground Facilities 

All aboveground facilities associated with the B-Line and Arrowhead Extension would be in 

areas where the surficial geology comprises Quaternary unconsolidated alluvium, colluvium, and terrace 

deposits. The facilities associated with the IID Lateral would be underlain by similar materials, along 

with recent aeolian sand deposits of the Algodones Dunes. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

The four proposed pipe storage and contractor yards would be on unconsolidated Quaternary 

alluvial and colluvial materials. Three of these yards were used during construction of the A-Line; the 

remaining yard located near MP 43.5 of the IID Lateral was used for similar purposes in the past. 

Impact and Mitigation 

Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities would not 

materially alter the geologic conditions of the Project area. Effects from construction could include 

disturbances to the natural topography along the right-of-way and at aboveground facilities due to grading 

and trenching activities. Along small portions of the right-of-way, natural topographic slope and contours 

would be temporarily altered by the small-scale grading of the construction right-of-way that is necessary 

to provide a level and safe work surface for equipment. After completion of construction, North Baja 

would restore topographic contours and drainage conditions as closely as feasible to their preconstruction 

condition. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-6 

TABLE 4.1.2-1 

Geologic and Physiographic Conditions Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Facilities

Mileposts 

Geologic Formation or Stratigraphic Unit 

(Geologic Age) 

Blasting 

Anticipated a Topography and Elevation Range b

B-Line 

0.0 to 

12.0 

Younger alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits 

(Quaternary) consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, 

and silt. 

No Broad flat urbanized area, elevation 

ranges from 250 to 340 feet above mean 

sea level (amsl). 

12.0 to 

26.2 

Younger and older alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits 

(Quaternary and Tertiary). The older deposits consist of 

poorly consolidated silts, sands, and gravels. 

No Generally flat terrain with some badlands, 

elevation ranges from 240 to 340 feet 

amsl. 

26.2 to 

26.7 

Sedimentary clastic rocks (Tertiary) consisting of nonmarine clastic rocks and volcanic conglomerates. No Uneven terrain along the base of the Palo 

Verde Mountains, elevation ranges from 

230 to 250 feet amsl. 

26.7 to 

28.5 

Alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits (Quaternary) 

consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, and silt. 

No Uneven terrain along the base of the Palo 

Verde Mountains, elevation ranges from 

230 to 300 feet amsl. 

28.5 to 

31.0 

Alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits (Quaternary) 

consisting of unconsolidated or moderately consolidated 

sand, gravel, and silt; near MP 29.0, intrusive volcanic 

bodies (Tertiary) composed of andesite, dacite, or latite 

porphyry, which may be overlain by pyroclastic rocks 

and flows of acidic to intermediate composition in 

isolated locations. 

Yes Uneven terrain along the base of the Palo 

Verde Mountains, elevation ranges from 

230 to 300 feet amsl. 

31.0 to 

31.2 

Alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits (Quaternary) 

consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, and silt. 

No Uneven terrain along the base of the Palo 

Verde Mountains, elevation ranges from 

235 to 300 feet amsl. 

31.2 to 

31.6 

Bouse Formation consisting of sedimentary and 

Volcanic rocks (Tertiary). Sedimentary rocks consist of 

brackish water limestone, siltstone, and sandstone. A 

1-foot-thick layer of volcanic tuff may be present at the 

surface, masking the underlying sedimentary rocks. 

No Uneven terrain along the base of the Palo 

Verde Mountains, elevation ranges from 

250 to 300 feet amsl. 

31.6 to 

33.5 

Sedimentary rocks that alternate between clastic rocks 

(Tertiary) and younger alluvial/colluvial deposits 

(Quaternary). Clastic rocks consist of non-marine 

clastic rocks and volcanic conglomerates. Alluvial and 

colluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated sand, 

gravel, and silt. 

No Uneven terrain with some badlands near 

the base of the Palo Verde Mountains, 

elevation ranges from 250 to 340 feet 

amsl. 

33.5 to 

36.2 

Younger alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits 

(Quaternary) consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, 

and silt. 

No Generally flat area crossing Milpitas 

Wash, elevation ranges from 360 to 400 

feet amsl. 

36.2 to 

57.5 

Younger and older alluvial deposits (Quaternary and 

Tertiary) consisting of unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, 

and gravels occurring primarily as valley fill and 

streamwash deposits. 

No Generally flat ascending terrain at the 

base of the Chocolate Mountains, 

elevation ranges between 400 to 1,230 

feet amsl. 

57.5 to 

71.0 

Older Alluvium (Tertiary) partly dissected largely 

unconsolidated poorly sorted silt, and gravel of alluvial 

fans, and desert pavement areas. 

No Generally flat descending terrain with 

some badlands, elevation ranges 

between 350 to 700 feet amsl. 

71.0 to 

79.8 

Younger alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits 

(Quaternary) consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, 

and silt. 

No Broad flat alluvial valley in the Salton 

Trough, sand dunes present from MPs 

75.5 to 79.8, elevation ranges from 200 to 

700 feet amsl. 

Arrowhead Extension 

0.0 to 2.1 Younger alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits 

(Quaternary) consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, 

and silt. 

No Broad flat urbanized area, elevation 

ranges from 250 to 340 feet amsl. 

IID Lateral 

0.0 to 0.5 Younger alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits 

(Quaternary) consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, 

and silt. 

No Broad flat alluvial valley, elevation ranges 

from 200 to 700 feet amsl. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-7 

TABLE 4.1.2-1 (cont’d) 

Geologic and Physiographic Conditions Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Facilities

Mileposts 

Geologic Formation or Stratigraphic Unit 

(Geologic Age) 

Blasting 

Anticipated a Topography and Elevation Range b

0.5 to 7.6 Extensive sand dune deposits (Quaternary) consisting 

of unconsolidated to poorly consolidated sand and silt. 

No Wind-blown sand dunes, elevation 

ranges from 50 to 300 feet amsl. 

7.6 to 

27.0 

Younger alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits 

(Quaternary) consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, 

and silt. 

No Broad flat alluvial valley, elevation ranges 

from 200 to 700 feet amsl. 

27.0 to 

45.7 

Younger alluvial, colluvial, and wash deposits 

(Quaternary) consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, 

and silt. 

No Broad flat alluvial valley in the Salton 

Trough, elevation ranges from 0 to 50 

feet amsl. 

____________________ 

a

 May change based on conditions encountered in the field. 

b

 Elevation range limited to specific area of proposed modifications. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-8 

Blasting is only anticipated to be necessary along the B-Line near MP 29.5 because that was the 

only area requiring blasting during construction of the A-Line. The area surrounding MP 29.5 is 

uninhabited desert, with no nearby residences or other development. However, cultural resources features 

are nearby. The blast would be limited to the trenchline and blasting mats would be employed to keep 

fly-rock from leaving the construction work area. All blasting activities would be conducted in strict 

compliance with North Baja’s Blasting Specifications (see Appendix I). To avoid injury to personnel and 

damage to structures or other features like existing pipelines, North Baja’s Blasting Specifications 

stipulates that the blasting contractor must prepare site-specific blasting plans and procedures for review 

and approval by North Baja. All blasting activities would be conducted under the supervision of a 

California Licensed Blasting Technician. Blasting procedures would be in accordance with Federal, 

State, and local regulations regarding use, storage, and transport of explosives; safety; and environmental 

protection. Blasting would not be required in other areas because most of the pipeline route is underlain 

by unconsolidated to poorly consolidated alluvial deposits or soft, weathered sedimentary clastic rocks. 

Because three of the proposed pipe storage and contractor yards were previously disturbed during 

construction of the A-Line, and the remaining yard along the IID lateral was previously used for similar 

purposes, any improvements at these sites would be minimal. Activities at the yards would consist of 

minor grading and surfacing, and would not materially alter the existing geologic conditions of the Project 

area or subject the facilities to an increased threat from geologic hazards. 

Construction of the pipeline and associated aboveground facilities would minimally disturb 

shallow geologic deposits; therefore, the potential for construction activities or the siting of facilities to 

worsen existing unfavorable geologic conditions would be less than significant. 

4.1.3 Mineral Resources 

Pipeline Facilities 

The B-Line would cross within approximately 2 miles of known mineral resources such as gold, 

manganese, copper, and sand and gravel deposits (CDMG 1977). Mineral resources zones (MRZ), 

assigned by the CDMG classify the portion of the B-Line in Riverside County as MRZ-4, which is 

defined as having no known mineral occurrences. The CDMG has not classified MRZs within Imperial 

County (California Department of Conservation [CDC] 2004). 

Gold deposits have been found in the southeastern area of Imperial County. The Potholes and 

Picacho Mining Districts are in the southeastern part of Imperial County, about 50 miles east of El 

Centro, California and 20 miles north of Yuma, Arizona. The CDC has identified Principal MineralProducing Localities (clay and gypsum) in southern Imperial County, although neither is in the immediate 

vicinity of the proposed Project (CDMG 1999). 

The BOR operates a rock quarry between the Cibola NWR and SR 78. The A-Line was rerouted 

to avoid the quarry and lies 0.2 mile to the east outside of the formation that supplies quarry material. 

The B-Line would follow the same alignment. According to the BOR, the quarry is used intermittently to 

supply material for erosion control. 

Other mineral resource/mining areas within the Project area include the Hodge Mine, the Mule 

Mountains Mining District, two California mineral estates, the Old Channel Mine shaft, the Mesquite 

Gold District, and the Cargo Muchacho Gold Mining District. The B-Line would cross the northwestern 

corner of the mineral estate located in Township 12S, Range 20E, Section 16, and west of the Old 

Channel Mine shaft near MP 49.7. Neither of these resources is active. The other mineral estate, located 

in Township 11S, Range 20E, Section 16, is 3,000 feet west of MP 42.5. Table 4.1.3-1 summarizes these 

mineral resources in relation to the B-Line. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-9 

TABLE 4.1.3-1 

Mineral Resources and Mining Areas in the Vicinity of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility Nearest B-Line Milepost a 

Distance from Pipeline 

(miles) 

Hodge Mine 7.0 1.6 

Mule Mountains Mining District 21.0 5.8 

Bureau of Reclamation Quarry 30.0 0.2 

California Mineral Estate 42.5 0.6 

California Mineral Estate 49.7 0.0 

Old Channel Mine Shaft 49.7 0.3 

Mesquite Gold District 53.0 4.4 

Cargo Muchacho Gold Mining District 71.0 3.9 

____________________ 

a

 No mineral resources or mining areas were identified within the vicinity of the Arrowhead Extension or the IID Lateral. 

Aboveground Facilities 

None of the aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project would be within 1 mile 

of identified mineral or quarry resources. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

None of the proposed pipe storage or contractor yards associated with the proposed Project would 

be within 1 mile of the identified active mineral resources. 

Impact and Mitigation 

Pipeline projects have the potential to affect the production of mineral resources by restricting 

mineral production activities in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline right-of-way or precluding future 

expansion. However, because the Project would not be near any active mines, impacts on mining 

activities are not expected. The Project would not affect the BOR’s quarry integrity or operation, nor 

would quarry operations have negative effects on the pipeline, given the distance the pipeline is located 

from current and future quarry operations. The potential for the pipeline to be affected by the weight of 

loaded quarry trucks crossing the pipeline would be minimal because the trucks travel from the quarry 

west to SR 78 and do not cross the pipeline to the east. Additionally, the pipeline would be designed to 

accommodate the same loads that SR 78 is designed to accommodate according to CalTrans 

specifications. North Baja would notify the BOR before construction in the vicinity of the quarry. 

Because of the proximity of the BOR quarry to SR 78 and the presence of unsuitable material to the north 

and south of current quarrying activities, future expansion would not be affected by the pipeline. 

Moreover, because no additional active mines or quarries would be within 1,000 feet of the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project, the potential for construction and operation of the Project to preclude or 

disrupt the development of mineral resources would be less than significant. 

4.1.4 Geologic Hazards 

Pipeline Facilities 

Geologic hazards are natural physical conditions that may result in damage to the land and 

structures, or injury to people. Such hazards typically include seismicity (active faults, earthquakes, and 

soil liquefaction), landslides, subsidence, and karst terrain (sinkholes and other water-formed/solution 

features). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-10 

Active Faults – Several active faults or seismic zones lie within the Project area. The primary 

seismic hazard to the proposed pipeline facilities would be moderate ground shaking from earthquakes 

associated with the San Andreas Fault System. Major elements of the San Andreas Fault System in the 

vicinity of the Project include the San Jacinto and Imperial Fault Zones (USGS 2006). The Brawley Fault 

Zone lies between the Coachella section of the San Andreas Fault Zone and the Imperial Fault Zone, and 

transfers slip movements to the Imperial Fault Zones. According to the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the 

seismic hazard potential along the B-Line increases from north to south from a seismic zone rating of 3 

from MP 0.0 to approximately MP 45.0, to a seismic zone rating of 4 throughout the Imperial Valley. 

The Arrowhead Extension, which connects with the B-Line at MP 7.4, has a seismic zone rating of 3. 

The IID Lateral has a seismic zone rating of 4 for its entire length (International Conference of Building 

Officials 1998). The increase in seismic hazard in the Imperial Valley is attributable to seismic activity in 

the Salton Trough. Consequently, the southern portion of the B-Line route would be in a region that is 

more seismically active than the northern portion. 

Seismic events greater than or equal to a magnitude of 5.0 in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline 

routes that have been historically recorded are listed in Table 4.1.4-1 and shown on Figure 4.1.2-1. The 

largest recorded magnitude earthquake occurred in 1979, with a reported magnitude of 7.0. This 

earthquake occurred approximately 9.4 miles from MP 31.0 of the IID Lateral. As shown on Figure 

4.1.2-1, seismic activity predominantly occurs along the Imperial and Brawley Fault Zones. 

Regionally, seismicity has been attributed to active faulting along various fault zones and/or 

faults. Active faults in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline facilities include the southern portion of the 

San Andreas Fault Zone, the Brawley Fault Zone, and the Imperial Fault Zone. The B-Line, Arrowhead 

Extension, and associated aboveground facilities would not cross or be near any faults or Alquist-Priolo 

Earthquake Fault Zones (Hart 1997). However, the IID Lateral would cross the Imperial Fault and 

Imperial Fault Zone. The active faults near the IID Lateral are listed in Table 4.1.4-2; the fault locations 

are shown on Figure 4.1.2-1. The Geologic Hazards Study presents details of the probability of seismic 

activity for relevant faults and areas (see Appendix J). 

The Imperial Fault is a right-lateral strike-slip fault that stretches roughly from north to south. 

The IID Lateral would cross this fault at approximately MP 40.0. This fault is very active, with several 

instances of surface rupture and trigger slips on record. The largest of the events to date include surface 

ruptures during a 6.4 magnitude event in 1979 and a 6.9 magnitude event in 1940. The 1940 event caused 

the All-American Canal to shift more than 14 lateral feet, while the 1979 event caused a lateral shift of 22 

inches (Southern California Earthquake Data Center [SCEDC] 2005). Events similar to the 1979 event 

are likely to occur every 30 to 40 years. Events similar to the 1940 event have an average return interval 

of about 700 years. Surface rupture is common along this fault, even during smaller events (SCEDC 

2005). 

The Superstition Hills and Superstition Mountain sections of the San Jacinto Fault Zone lie 

northwest of the western end of the proposed IID Lateral. They represent the most seismically active 

faults in southern California, with significant earthquakes (greater than Magnitude 5.5) and a slip rate 

between 1.0 and 5.0 millimeters per year (USGS 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-11 

TABLE 4.1.4-1 

Earthquakes within 62 Miles of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project with Magnitudes Greater Than or Equal to 5.0

Source a

Shortest Distance from 

Pipeline (miles) b, c Milepost Year Magnitude 

Maximum 

Intensity d Latitude Longitude 

B-Line and Arrowhead Extension 

EQH 18.6 0.0 1906 6.0 VIII 33.000 115.000 

IID Lateral 

EQH 0.4 43.0 1915 6.25 VIII 32.800 115.500 

SCEDC 1.8 27.0 1935 5.3 32.79 115.26 

USGS 1.8 45.0 1979 5.5 32.93 115.54 

DNA 1.9 43.0 1977 5.0 32.820 115.470 

SCEDC 1.9 44.0 1940 5.15 32.83 115.5 

SCEDC 1.9 44.0 1940 5.18 32.83 115.5 

USGS 1.9 43.0 1977 5.0 32.82 115.47 

USGS-C 1.9 43.0 1915 6.2 32.8 115.5 

USGS-C 1.9 27.0 1935 5.0 32.9 115.22 

SCEDC 2.1 13.0 1951 5.94 32.74 115.03 

USGS-C 2.1 26.0 1935 5.0 32.9 115.2 

CDMG 2.3 29.0 1917 5.5 VII 32.800 115.300 

SCEDC 2.5 45.0 1953 5.5 32.77 115.54 

USGS-C 2.5 27.0 1938 5.0 32.9 115.22 

SCEDC 3.2 44.0 1940 6.9 32.85 115.5 

USGS 3.2 45.0 1979 5.2 32.9 115.55 

SCEDC 3.9 44.0 1940 5.41 32.86 115.5 

USGS-C 3.9 29.0 1917 5.5 32.8 115.3 

USN 4.6 35.0 1940 5.5 VII 32.700 115.400 

SCEDC 5.0 45.0 1934 5.9 32.77 115.6 

USGS 5.0 45.0 1979 5.1 32.91 115.53 

SIG 5.4 39.0 1940 6.7 32.700 115.500 

ROT 8.7 45.0 1953 5.7 32.833 115.667 

USGS 9.4 31.0 1979 7.0 32.63 115.33 

PAS 9.7 27.0 1935 5.0 32.900 115.217 

PAS 9.7 27.0 1935 5.0 32.900 115.217 

PAS 9.7 27.0 1938 5.0 32.900 115.217 

PAS 10.8 30.0 1979 6.6 32.614 115.318 

CDMG 12.2 45.0 1928 5.0 32.900 115.700 

EQH 13.5 44.0 1930 5.0 VIII 33.000 115.500 

USN 13.5 44.0 1955 5.4 VII 33.000 115.500 

ROT 13.6 38.0 1961 5.1 32.567 115.450 

DNA 14.3 45.0 1979 6.1 33.013 115.555 

PAS 17.0 45.0 1951 5.6 32.983 115.733 

CDMG 18.7 38.0 1918 5.0 VI 32.500 115.500 

CDMG 18.7 38.0 1921 5.0 IV 32.500 115.500 

DNA 18.7 38.0 1927 5.75 32.500 115.500 

PDE 20.5 45.0 1979 5.0 33.100 115.550 

PAS 22.0 45.0 1950 5.4 33.117 115.567 

PAS 22.0 45.0 1950 5.5 33.117 115.567 

PAS 22.3 45.0 1946 5.4 33.000 115.833 

PAS 23.2 45.0 1971 5.1 33.034 115.821 

PDE 23.2 45.0 1987 6.7 33.010 115.840 

PDE 24.2 45.0 1987 6.5 VI 33.083 115.775 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-12 

TABLE 4.1.4-1 (cont’d) 

Earthquakes within 62 Miles of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project with Magnitudes Greater Than or Equal to 5.0

Source a

Shortest Distance from 

Pipeline (miles) b, c Milepost Year Magnitude 

Maximum 

Intensity d Latitude Longitude 

PDE 24.6 21.0 1987 5.4 V 32.390 115.310 

GS 24.8 17.0 1999 4.9 32.369 115.224 

USN 27.3 44.0 1935 5.0 VI 33.200 115.500 

SIG 28.2 11.0 1980 6.4 V 32.300 115.000 

PDE 28.2 15.0 1978 5.0 VI 32.290 115.081 

PDE 30.5 15.0 1999 5.2 32.269 115.138 

USN 30.9 18.0 1954 5.1 VI 32.300 115.300 

PAS 31.3 45.0 1942 5.5 33.233 115.717 

USN 31.7 45.0 1957 5.0 VI 33.200 115.800 

____________________ 

a

 Sources were identified by a query search conducted by the National Geophysical Data Center, a division of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

b

 The approximate midpoint of the B-Line was used as the center of the radial search. The latitude and longitude 

coordinates for this location are north 33°07’30” and west 114°52’52”, respectively. 

c

 “Shortest Distance from Pipeline” is equal to the shortest distance between the earthquake epicenter and the pipeline in 

miles. 

d

 “Maximum Intensity” indicates the maximum Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) value associated with the earthquake, 

which is another measurement of perceptible ground movement. MMI indicates the effects actually experienced by 

people in terms of 12 levels of intensity (USGS 1989). Intensity level V is “felt by nearly everyone; many awakened; some 

dishes windows broken; unstable objects overturned; pendulum clocks may stop.” Intensity level VI is “felt by all, many 

frightened; some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster; damage slight.” However, magnitude using the 

Richter scale was used whenever possible. 

CDMG = California Division of Mines and Geology; DNA = Decade of North American Geology; EQH = Earthquake History of the 

United States, Gutenberg and Richter; GS = U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado; PAS = Pasadena, California; PDE = 

Preliminary Determination of Epicentres; ROT = Rothe, J.P; SIG = Catalog of Significant Earthquakes; USN = U.S. Network 

Catalog; SCEDC = Southern California Earthquake Data Center (USGS and CalTech) www.data.scec.org; USGS = Earthquake 

Hazards Program, 1973-2005 Database Search (http://neic.usgs.gov); USGS-C = Earthquake Hazards Program, 1735-1974 CA 

Database Search (http://neic.usgs.gov) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-13 

TABLE 4.1.4-2 

Active Faults in the Vicinity of the IID Lateral

Name and Geometry a

Distance 

from 

Pipeline 

(miles) Milepost 

Length 

(miles) 

Slip Rate 

(in/yr) Rank b

Mmax

c

Maximum 

Fault 

Displacement (feet) 

Peak 

Horizontal 

Acceleration 

(% gravity; g) 

U S. 

Department of 

Transportation 

Classification R.I. d

Endpt. N 

e

Endpt. S f 

Imperial Fault Zone (rl-ss) 

0.0 40.0 38.5 0.31 M 7.0 15 0.84 A 79 -115.57:

32.91 

-115.17

32.47 

Brawley Fault Zone (rl-ss) 

10.8 44.0 26.0 0.39 P 6.4 0.6 0.55 B 24 -115.71; 

33.35 

-115.51

32.96 

Superstition Hills Section of the San Jacinto Fault Zone (rl-ss) 

9.0 45.0 13.5 0.06 P 6.6 2.1 0.71 A 250 -115.84;

33.01 

-115.64

32.89 

Superstition Mountain Section of the San Jacinto Fault Zone (rl-ss) 

11.8 45.0 14.0 0.08 M 6.6 1.2 0.64 A 500 -115.92; 

33.99 

-115.70

32.89 

_________________ 

a (rl-ss) = right-lateral strike-slip. b M = moderately constrained slip rate; P = poorly constrained slip rate. c Maximum moment magnitude calculated from relationships (rupture area) derived by Wells and Coppersmith (1994). d R.I. = recurrence interval. e Endpt. N = North endpoint of the fault in latitude and longitude. f Endpt. S = South endpoint of the fault in latitude and longitude. 

Source: Petersen et al. 1996. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-14 

The Brawley Fault Zone is a right-lateral strike-slip fault trending in a north-south direction. The 

IID Lateral would not cross this fault; the nearest distance to the fault in proximity to the lateral would be 

10.8 miles at MP 44.0. This fault complex appears to be connected with the Imperial Fault Zone, and 

ruptures seem to have occurred synchronously between the two systems during previous earthquakes. 

The area is characterized by high heat flow due to the local thinness of the crust. Because of the high heat 

flow and the rapid rate of slip, faults in the area are probably prone to aseismic creep, which is relatively 

slow movement along a fault that does not trigger seismic events greater than micro-earthquakes. 

Because of the complexity of the fault system at work, this area is also prone to earthquake 

swarms, such as those that coincided with the ground movement in 1975, breaking the surface trace for a 

distance of 6 miles with a vertical displacement of almost 8 inches (SCEDC 2005). 

Earthquakes – The pipeline facilities would be located in a seismically active region. The 

potential for strong ground accelerations in the immediate vicinity of the proposed B-Line and Arrowhead 

Extension is generally low; however, the potential increases along the IID Lateral as it approaches El 

Centro. To quantify seismic hazards in any given region, the USGS developed maps of earthquake 

shaking hazards under the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (updated 1996). These maps are 

used to assess probabilistic seismicity and provide information used to create and update design 

provisions of building codes in the United States. These codes provide design standards for buildings, 

bridges, highways, and utilities such as natural gas pipelines. Values on these seismic hazard maps are 

expressed as a percentage of gravity (acceleration of a falling object due to gravity) - the higher the value, 

the greater the potential hazard. 

As shown on Figure 4.1.4-1, there is only a 10 percent chance that the peak ground acceleration 

along the B-Line or Arrowhead Extension would exceed 10 to 20 percent of gravity in 50 years. The IID 

Lateral would cross through areas of 20 to 30 percent of gravity in the Algodones Dunes, with steep 

increases up to greater than 80 percent of gravity at the terminus of the pipeline in El Centro (see Figure 

4.1.4-1) (CDMG 1996, USGS 1996). 

Soil Liquefaction – Secondary seismic effects triggered by strong ground shaking are often more 

serious than the shaking itself. The most damaging secondary seismic effect is commonly soil 

liquefaction, a physical process in which saturated, non-cohesive soils temporarily lose their bearing 

strength when subjected to strong and prolonged shaking. As loose granular soils are shaken, they tend to 

contract, which may lead to positive pore pressures that can result in a loss of shear strength. 

Liquefaction typically occurs when the water table is less than 50 feet below ground surface and the soils 

are predominantly unconsolidated. Soils most prone to liquefaction are poorly graded, or in other words 

have a uniform grain size. Sand boils and fissures are a common sign of liquefaction. Sand boils and 

fissures form when saturated sediment below the surface is pushed to the surface by elevated pore water 

pressure. Soil liquefaction can also lead to other ground failures, including settlement and lateral 

spreading. 

Within the Palo Verde Valley, which would include the B-Line between MPs 0.0 to 12.0 and the 

entire Arrowhead Extension, the depth to groundwater ranges between 9 and 23 feet below ground 

surface due to the proximity to the Colorado River. This area has been identified as having liquefaction 

hazard potential by Riverside County. Although groundwater is less than 50 feet from the surface in the 

vicinity of the Cibola NWR in Imperial County, seismicity is minimal. Where the proposed pipeline 

route crosses the Milpitas Wash at MP 36.0, two nearby monitoring wells indicate the depth to 

groundwater is between 43 and 50 feet. Further south (at about MP 79.0 of the B-Line), the depth to 

groundwater typically exceeds 50 feet. In the vicinity of the All-American Canal (MP 79.8), the depth to 

groundwater has been recorded as shallow as 35 feet below ground surface. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-15 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 4.1.4-1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map 

Page 4-15

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-16 

To determine the potential for liquefaction hazards, North Baja conducted a Liquefaction Hazard 

Evaluation and Mitigation Study before construction of the A-Line. The report provides the results of 

geotechnical exploration at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site and along 18th Avenue; analysis of 

soil borings that were previously placed at the Colorado River and the All-American Canal; identification 

of seismic sources, Maximum Magnitude Earthquake values, and site acceleration; Uniform Building 

Code seismic coefficients based on design basis earthquake(s) for the study area; the probability of soil 

liquefaction; and an estimate of permanent ground subsidence induced from liquefaction. The results are 

discussed below. In addition, the Geologic Hazards Study (see Appendix J) includes a seismic hazards 

study and a study of liquefaction potential that were conducted for the proposed Project including the IID 

Lateral. The liquefaction potential study concluded that in addition to the areas identified along the BLine, there are areas of locally high liquefaction potential along the IID Lateral. In particular, areas along 

the East Mesa (between MPs 8.0 and 27.0) and in the Imperial Valley (between MPs 27.0 and 45.7) 

would have a locally or generally high potential for liquefaction based on soil type and potential for 

ground shaking (see Appendix J). The liquefaction potential identified for the B-Line along the western 

portion of 18th Avenue would also be expected along the route of the Arrowhead Extension. 

Along the route of the IID Lateral, one well has been identified where the groundwater level was 

within 50 feet of the surface. The well is located in the Algodones Dunes, near MP 9.0, where soils are 

primarily unconsolidated sand and silt. Although groundwater is not near the surface in the Imperial 

Valley, liquefaction and sand boils were observed during earthquakes of the late 1970s and early 1980s 

(Bennett et al. 1979, 1984). 

Landslides – Landslides involve the downslope movement, under gravity, of masses of soil and 

rock material. Landslides can be triggered by ground shaking, such as earthquakes, or heavy precipitation 

events. Generally, landslides occur on slopes composed of sedimentary or unconsolidated materials. 

Sedimentary rocks are particularly susceptible to landslides because they commonly contain relatively 

less competent beds of clays and other fine-grained rocks interbedded with more competent beds of sand 

and gravel. 

Slumping is another slope instability hazard that involves the downward and outward sliding of a 

large mass of more consolidated material along a curved, usually concave upward, shearing plane. The 

slump block, or the main block that has broken off, often breaks into smaller mini-slump blocks as it 

slides downslope. Landslide hazards, like earthquake hazards, are more concentrated in California. No 

significant landslides were observed during a site reconnaissance North Baja conducted to evaluate 

geologic hazards along the pipeline route. According to information obtained using the USGS hazard 

mapping and analysis tools, the B-line, Arrowhead Extension, and IID Lateral routes generally do not 

cross steep terrain prone to landslides or slumping (USGS 1996). With the exception of the edge of the 

Palo Verde Mesa (MPs 11.6 to 11.8) discussed below, the slopes that would be crossed do not exceed 25 

percent gradient and have negligible potential for slope instability. 

The banks of the Colorado River at the B-Line crossing location may be susceptible to failure 

during an earthquake or flooding. The B-Line would cross numerous drainages containing alluvial 

material. These drainages are subject to debris flow and flash flood occurrence during sporadic heavy 

rainfall for the region. The Palo Verde Peak area contains moderate to steep slopes that contain blocky, 

volcanic rock outcrops and boulders on the surface. These outcrops are a potential source of falling and 

rolling boulders. Rock falls are most likely to occur during strong earthquakes or large storms that may 

loosen boulders on the surface. However, the proposed pipeline does not appear to be at risk from rock 

falls because the route does not traverse sloping terrain exceeding 25 percent gradient, nor is the route 

immediately at the foot of steep slopes. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-17 

From MPs 11.6 to 11.8, the B-Line would cross the terrace edge of the Palo Verde Mesa. The 

terrace slope is generally at a 25 percent gradient, but slopes of 30 to 35 percent gradient are locally 

present along the edge of the mesa. This terrace slope is susceptible to water erosion if significant runoff 

occurs down the slope. The base of the terrace is densely vegetated. The terrace slope to the south 

appears to have been eroded by several small washes that formerly drained a larger drainage basin to the 

west. The drainage is now generally directed to a gulley cutting through the lower terrace about 4,000 

feet to the south of MP 11.7. There are several sand dunes at the base of the mesa to the south, giving the 

appearance of a hummocky topography. The IID Lateral would cross the Salton Trough, where 

topographic relief is generally low. Because the majority of the terrain that would be crossed by the 

Project is relatively flat, significant landslides or associated hazards are not anticipated. 

Subsidence – Subsidence, the loss of surface elevation due to removal of subsurface support, is 

one of the most diverse forms of ground failure ranging from small or local collapses to broad regional 

lowering of the earth's surface. Excessive groundwater withdrawal can lead to subsidence. Within the 

agricultural areas of the Palo Verde and Imperial Valleys, canal water (and not groundwater) is the 

primary source of irrigation water. Therefore, the potential for future subsidence associated with 

groundwater withdrawal would be minimal. Additionally, because of the relationship to water table 

decline, this type of subsidence is generally a slow process occurring over broad areas and would not be 

likely to damage the pipeline. 

Karst Terrain – Features such as sinkholes, fissures, caves, and underground drainage that form 

by dissolution of limestone, dolomite, gypsum, or other soluble rocks are considered karst terrain. These 

features can be hazardous due to associated ground failures. The geologic conditions required for karst 

development generally are not present within the areas that would be crossed by the Project. One 

segment of the B-Line that would cross the southern portion of the Palo Verde Mountains (MPs 31.2 to 

31.6) would likely encounter rock types from the upper section of the Bouse Formation. The Bouse 

Formation is identified as containing a basal limestone unit that is overlain by several hundred feet of 

thinly interbedded clay, silt, and sand. However, the presence of karst features in this area is not likely, 

and associated hazards are not anticipated. There are no karst features in the vicinity of the Arrowhead 

Extension or the IID Lateral. 

Active Sand Dunes – While not considered a geologic hazard, active sand dunes can either 

expose or bury pipelines as the dunes laterally migrate. The Algodones Sand Dunes would be crossed by 

the IID Lateral between MPs 0.0 and 7.9. The dunes were formed from lake bottom deposits from Lake 

Cahuilla and are an active feature that moves at a rate of approximately 6 to 25 centimeters per year 

(BLM 2003). Winter winds are from the northwest, but often reverse to the southeast in summer. The 

stronger winter winds are slowly pushing the dune system southeastward. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Unlike buried pipelines, aboveground structures are more likely to be damaged by ground 

shaking rather than surface displacement. Results from the Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and 

Mitigation Study North Baja performed in 2001 for the A-Line indicate that a major earthquake of 

magnitude 7 or greater originating on the San Andreas or Imperial Faults would create a high probability 

for soil liquefaction at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site. However, underlying ground 

improvements were implemented at the site by densification of liquefiable soil using compaction grouting 

or stone columns. 

The only aboveground facility in the sand dunes area would be a valve located along the IID 

Lateral at MP 7.6 between the All-American Canal and Interstate 8 in an area of relatively stable sands 

and away from actively moving dunes. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-18 

The Imperial Fault Zone is the nearest fault zone to any valve and is approximately 11 miles from 

valve #3 on the IID Lateral. Table 4.1.4-3 summarizes the fault zones in relation to the nearest proposed 

valve locations, identifies the nearest upstream and downstream valves, lists the distance to the nearest 

home or business and town or city, and provides the estimated response time for valve closure. 

The estimated response time for valve closure is complicated by the fact that the IID Lateral is a 

single-purpose pipeline that would serve only the El Centro Generating Station. When the IID chooses to 

use the gas transported by the IID Lateral, it would make a sudden large demand on gas volume, which 

would temporarily substantially drop the gas pressure in the pipeline. Like the existing North Baja 

system, a precipitous pressure drop would trigger an alarm at North Baja’s Gas Control Center, which is 

staffed 24 hours a day. The operator would have 10 minutes in which to determine whether the pressure 

drop is caused by something other than a rupture and either override the alarm or initiate a shutdown. If 

neither of these actions is taken by the operator within 10 minutes, or if line pressure decreases to a predetermined threshold before 10 minutes, the valve would close automatically. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

The yards proposed for pipe storage and contractor use would be in relatively flat areas. With the 

possible exception of minor grading and surface disturbance, the topography and soils at these sites would 

not be disturbed. In addition, these facilities would be temporary and operated only as long as needed for 

construction. Therefore, no significant impact on geologic resources associated with the use of pipe 

storage and contractor yards would be anticipated. Furthermore, none of the activities at these facilities 

would be likely to trigger geologic hazards. 

Impact and Mitigation 

Seismicity includes active faults, ground shaking, and soil liquefaction, and is the primary 

geologic hazard that could affect the proposed Project facilities. Seismic events in the vicinity of the 

Project are centered on fault activity in the Salton Trough. Several faults and fault zones are proximal to 

the proposed IID Lateral, the most significant of which is the Imperial Fault Zone (CDMG 1992b), which 

would be crossed at approximately MP 40.0. 

In addition to surface displacement, ground shaking and resulting soil liquefaction can also occur 

with fault activity and could be a potential hazard to the pipeline facilities. Several faults in the vicinity 

of the Project area have the potential for generating earthquakes that could cause strong ground motions. 

A major earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater originating on the San Andreas or Imperial Faults could 

affect the Project area within the design life of the proposed facilities. Damage to buried pipelines is most 

often caused by the differential movements of geologic material as opposed to shaking itself. 

Results from the Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation Study North Baja performed for 

the A-Line indicate that a major earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater originating on the San Andreas or 

Imperial Faults would create a high probability for soil liquefaction at the Arizona side of the Colorado 

River crossing and on the western portion of the 18th Avenue alignment. The liquefaction potential 

identified for the B-Line along the western portion of 18th Avenue would also be expected along the route 

of the Arrowhead Extension. 

Permanent ground subsidence induced from liquefaction was estimated to be 0 to 4.8 inches, and 

surface ground disruption, cracking, or sand boil formation is not likely to occur. The potential for lateral 

spreading is low, except for the Arizona side of the Colorado River, where about 1 inch of permanent 

lateral displacement could occur in addition to vertical ground subsidence. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-19 

TABLE 4.1.4-3 

Earthquake Fault Zones in Relation to the Nearest Proposed IID Lateral Valve Locations

Name Milepost 

Distance 

from 

Pipeline 

(miles) 

Nearest 

Upstream 

Valve

Nearest 

Downstream 

Valve 

Distance 

Between 

Valves (miles) a

Distance to 

Nearest Home 

or Business 

(feet) 

Distance to 

Nearest 

Town/City 

(miles) Town/City 

P

Superstition Hills Section of the San Jacinto Fault Zone 

11.7 13.5 Valve #3 Valve #4 11.5 2,000 3.8 El Centro 

Superstition Mountain Section of the San Jacinto Fault Zone 

11.7 16.4 Valve #3 Valve #4 11.5 2,000 9.5 Brawley 

Brawley Fault Zone 

11.7 13.6 Valve #3 Valve #4 11.5 0 0 Brawley 

Imperial Fault Zone 

11.7 11.3 Valve #3 Valve #4 11.5 50 2.3 El Centro 

____________________ a Distances are measured between the upstream and downstream valves except for valves near the end of the pipeline, where distances are bet

and the nearest upstream or downstream valve. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-20 

To mitigate the potential for liquefaction, North Baja incorporated the recommendations of the 

Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation Study conducted for the A-Line into the design for the 

proposed Project. At the Colorado River, liquefiable soils would be avoided by use of the HDD crossing 

method. As discussed above, the liquefaction study included as part of the Geologic Hazards Study 

conducted for the proposed Project concluded that in addition to the areas identified along the B-Line, 

there are areas of locally high liquefaction potential along the IID Lateral (see Appendix J). In particular, 

areas along the East Mesa (between MPs 8.0 and 27.0) and in the Imperial Valley (between MPs 27.0 and 

45.7) would have a locally or generally high potential for liquefaction based on soil type and potential for 

ground shaking (see Appendix J). Lateral spreading near the Alamo River and at canal banks may exceed 

the 0 to 6 inches estimated for other areas. As recommended in the study, North Baja would design and 

construct the IID Lateral to be earthquake resistant using the estimated Peak Ground Velocity and 

Permanent Ground Displacement values given in Appendix J. 

To further mitigate and reduce potential damage to the proposed facilities from earthquakes, 

North Baja’s facility design would comply with Federal standards outlined in Title 49 CFR Part 192. 

This code governs the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines, greatly reducing the potential 

risk of damage. The pipelines and associated facilities would be designed using the Guidelines for the 

Design of Buried Steel Pipe (American Lifelines Alliance 2001), Guidelines for the Seismic Design and 

Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Pipeline Research Council International, 

Inc. 2004), applicable building codes, and/or other similar recognized seismological engineering 

standards. The engineering design drawings for the entire Project in California would be certified by a 

California-registered civil/structural engineer, and would comply with the latest edition of the California 

Building Code. 

Empirical reviews of historical earthquakes demonstrate that pipelines are not prone to failure due 

to earthquakes. A 1996 study of earthquake performance data for steel transmission lines and distribution 

supply lines operated by SoCalGas over a 61-year period found that post-1945 arc-welded transmission 

pipelines in good repair have never experienced a break or leak during a southern California earthquake. 

These pipelines are the most resistant type of piping, vulnerable only to very large and abrupt ground 

displacement (e.g., severe landslides), and are generally highly resistant to traveling ground wave effects 

and moderate amounts of permanent deformation (O’Rourke and Palmer 1996). 

North Baja has committed to perform a site-specific seismic evaluation as part of its detailed 

design phase for the Project. This evaluation would determine the engineering/design solutions that are 

appropriate to mitigate against the hazard of seismic displacements along the Imperial Fault. The seismic 

evaluation would determine recommended design fault displacements for the pipeline design 

specifications. North Baja would develop a computer model to determine the soil-pipe interaction with 

the proposed applied displacement. The model would evaluate various combinations of pipe wall 

thickness and pipe grade to determine which pattern yields the best performance under displacement 

conditions. The design may also incorporate additional mitigation methods if necessary. Examples of 

additional design features that have been employed on pipelines in earthquake-prone regions include: 

• trapezoidal trench design using loose granular backfill (most common); 

• trapezoidal trench design using geofoam as backfill; 

• installation of the pipe within a culvert; 

• increasing the wall thickness or pipe grade; 

• specialty in-line fittings to accommodate pipe movement; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-21 

• installation of the pipe above ground on elevated supports or pipe hangers; 

• modification of the pipeline configuration; 

• installation of isolation/automatic shutdown valves on either side of the fault crossing; 

and 

• modification of emergency response procedures. 

North Baja would provide a copy of the final design for the Imperial Fault crossing, as well as 

any related geotechnical information, to the CSLC and the FERC before construction of the IID Lateral. 

The final design would also address any measures necessary to mitigate for liquefaction hazards. 

The strength and ductility of the pipeline facilities would further reduce the potential impacts 

associated with displacement caused by surface faulting, liquefaction, and mass wasting. In the unlikely 

event of a pipeline rupture caused by a seismic event (or any other cause), North Baja would implement 

its emergency response procedures, as described in Section 4.14.2. All facilities would be designed with 

remote manual pipeline block valves with automatic shutdown capability that are programmed to sense 

pipeline ruptures and to isolate a specific pipeline valve section in the case of a catastrophic rupture in 

that valve section. As shown in Table 4.1.4-3, the estimated response time for valve closure is 10 

minutes. In the event of an emergency, North Baja currently has a procedure in place to utilize the 

Spokane, Washington operations center as an emergency call center. However, the call center in Spokane 

is currently in the process of being changed to Redmond, Oregon. By the time the proposed Project 

would be in operation, the Redmond center would likely be operational. There would also be a corporate 

call center in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The purpose of the call centers in the first few minutes following 

a rupture is to mobilize company resources to secure the incident site and notify local first responders of 

the incident. The incident site is surrendered to local first responders upon their arrival. Procedures are 

also in place to notify Sempra of any incident occurring on the North Baja facilities so that it can respond 

appropriately with regard to its facilities and jurisdictions in Mexico. Further discussion of North Baja’s 

proposed operation, maintenance, and safety controls is presented in Sections 2.6 and 4.14. 

Because North Baja would design and construct the pipelines and associated facilities in 

accordance with the guidelines, Federal standards, and building codes described above, and the empirical 

studies as cited above indicate that the ductility of pipelines makes them highly resistant to rupturing as a 

result of earthquakes or moderate displacement, the potential for seismic-related events to cause a rupture 

or failure of the pipeline or cause damage to related facilities would not present a significant threat to 

public safety except in the case of the most severe earthquake displacement across the pipeline route. In 

case of severe earthquake displacement across the pipeline route, the threat to public safety would be 

minimized through the use of remote manual block valves with automatic shutdown capability that would 

isolate the rupture, and automated detection and notification of first responders of the incident; therefore, 

the potential for a seismic event to cause a rupture or failure of the pipeline or cause damage to related 

facilities that would present a significant threat to public safety would be less than significant. 

As previously discussed, a review of USGS documents indicates that the majority of the Project 

does not cross landslide-prone areas. The B-Line would parallel the A-Line, which was rerouted to avoid 

the Palo Verde Mountain foothills, eliminating a landslide hazard identified at that location. With the 

exception of the Palo Verde Mesa that would be crossed by the B-Line between MPs 11.6 and 11.8, 

neither the B-Line, the Arrowhead Extension, nor the IID Lateral cross steep terrain that was identified as 

having a high potential for landslides or slumping. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-22 

In areas of steep terrain, the potential hazard can be reduced by creating a stable and/or level 

right-of-way work area during the grading operation and implementing restoration practices in the CM&R 

Plan (see Appendix E). To prevent a potential instability of the B-Line at the Palo Verde Mesa, the 

pipeline and the grade immediately to each side of the pipeline would be laid back to no more than 30 

percent gradient for the estimated 60-foot-high lower terrace slope. North Baja anticipates minor cuts 

would be needed to accommodate this grade transition. In other areas of steep terrain, North Baja would: 

• restore damaged slope breakers on the existing permanent easement where the B-Line 

parallels the existing A-Line; 

• install slope breakers to control surface water on the new construction right-of-way; 

• install trench breakers to control groundwater flow in the pipe trench; 

• route discharge of surface water away from the slope breakers, and divert or collect 

surface water coming onto the construction right-of-way to pipes in an outflow below the 

slope; 

• adhere strictly to erosion control and revegetation measures required by Federal, State, 

and local authorities; 

• bury the pipeline in a deeper trench than normal or place armor above it in areas of 

potential debris flow hazards; and 

• monitor geotechnical conditions for signs of mass wasting, and respond appropriately to 

any indications of instability. 

If these measures are followed, the potential for impacts from slope stability hazards to cause a 

rupture or failure of the pipeline or cause damage to related facilities that would present a significant 

threat to public safety would be less than significant. 

Although the banks of the Colorado River may be susceptible to failure during an earthquake or 

flooding, use of the HDD method to install the pipeline crossing would place the pipeline well below and 

away from the potential areas of bank instability. Therefore, mass wasting of the banks would not affect 

the pipeline. 

The IID Lateral would cross the Algodones Sand Dunes. As previously discussed, active sand 

dunes can either expose or bury pipelines as the dunes laterally migrate. CalTrans has stabilized a 

segment of the dunes and actively manages the area to keep Interstate 8 open to vehicle traffic. The IID 

Lateral would be just south of the CalTrans-managed area and is, therefore, somewhat protected from 

sand dune migration. North Baja would bury the IID Lateral 6 feet deep between MPs 2.7 and 5.7, which 

includes the area most susceptible to blowing/shifting sands and pipeline exposure. If sand depth were to 

increase slightly over the pipeline, this would increase its protection from the elements and from 

vandalism. Therefore, the potential for sand dunes to cause a rupture or failure of the pipeline or cause 

damage to related facilities that would present a significant threat to public safety would be less than 

significant. 

As discussed in Section 4.14, North Baja would prepare and implement an Operation and 

Maintenance Plan and an Emergency Response Plan in accordance with the requirements in Title 49 CFR 

Part 192. Implementation of North Baja’s Operation and Maintenance Plan would further reduce the 

potential threat from the facilities to public safety during their operation. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-23 

4.1.5 Paleontological Resources 

The significance of paleontological remains can be determined by the types of fossils, the 

geologic age of the remains, the assemblage association (the unique biological association or organisms), 

the lithology and age of the rock units, and feature rarity or uniqueness. A paleontological resource can 

be considered to have scientific or educational value if it: 

• provides important information on the evolutionary trends among organisms, relating 

living inhabitants of the earth to extinct organisms; 

• provides important information regarding development of biological communities or the 

interaction between botanical and zoological biota; 

• demonstrates unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; 

• is in short supply and in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, 

vandalism, or commercial exploitation and is not found in other geographic locations; 

• is recognized as a natural aspect of our national heritage; 

• lived before the Holocene (less than 11,000 years ago); and 

• is not associated with an archaeological resource, as defined in Section 3(1) of the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC § 470bb[1]). 

A fossil specimen would be significant if it is: (1) identifiable; (2) complete; (3) well preserved; 

(4) age diagnostic; (5) useful in environmental reconstruction; (6) a type or topotypic specimen; (7) a rare 

taxon; or (8) part of a diverse assemblage. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Before construction of the A-Line, paleontological literature and museum archival reviews for 

previously recorded fossil sites in the vicinity of the A-Line were undertaken. All known geological and 

paleontological literature was reviewed for references to fossils. In addition, museum archival reviews 

were conducted at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) at Berkeley, the San 

Diego Natural History Museum, and the San Bernardino County Museum. The UCMP at Berkeley is 

considered the primary repository for fossils in the State of California, and the UCMP collections are 

considered the most comprehensive of all California institution collections. 

Detailed information on the stratigraphy of the area was obtained from numerous geological 

publications. The geology in the vicinity of the proposed right-of-way has been mapped or described 

extensively, including Brown (1923), Dibblee (1954), Strand (1962), Jennings (1967), Metzger et al. 

(1973), Loeltz et al. (1975), Morton (1977), and Stone (1990). Dibblee (1954), Metzger et al. (1973), and 

Morton (1977) provided the most comprehensive and detailed accounts. 

A field survey was then undertaken by North Baja to supplement the literature and museum 

archival reviews. The objective of the field survey was to verify that sensitive rock units occurred at 

mapped points, to document the condition of recorded fossil sites, to identify potentially unrecorded fossil 

sites, and to determine if special mitigation measures need to be implemented. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-24 

With the exception of the Colorado River and All-American Canal crossings, the B-Line would 

be 25 feet from the A-Line for its entire length and cross the same rock types/formations that have the 

potential to contain significant paleontological resources. While most geologic formations have the 

potential to contain fossils, those containing vertebrate fossils are considered to be the most significant. 

Vertebrate fossils tend to be rare and fragmentary, and thus have greater scientific importance than the 

more common invertebrate and plant fossils. 

The B-Line would cross stratigraphic units that could contain paleontological resources, including 

Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial sediments, Pliocene marine sediments of the Bouse Formation, 

Miocene fanglomerates, and Early Tertiary volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks. Rock formations older than 

the Early Tertiary volcanics typically consist of igneous and metamorphic type rocks not known to 

contain fossils. The Arrowhead Extension would extend from MP 7.4 of the B-Line north for 2.1 miles 

and cross the same stratigraphy as found in the first 11 miles of the A-Line. 

The regional stratigraphy along the IID Lateral route can be summarized into four sedimentary 

units proceeding from east to west between MPs 0.0 and 45.7. The oldest of these, between MPs 0 and 

2.0, consists of Pleistocene non-marine sedimentary deposits locally derived from the flanks of the 

Mesozoic crystalline (granitic) rocks of the Cargo Muchacho Mountains. Between MPs 2.0 and 7.6 west 

of these arkosic sediments, are aeolian (windblown) sands designated “Qs” on the State geologic maps. 

West of the dune fields between MPs 7.6 and 27.6 is a 20-mile-long stretch of alluvial deposits that 

include fluvial as well as some aeolian/fluvial deposits (dune sands redeposited by streams). This 

heterogeneous unit denoted as “Qal” or Quaternary alluvium is mapped as “Recent,” but Pleistocene 

intervals are present at about 4 to 6 feet below the surface. 

The most remarkable unit identified along the proposed IID Lateral is the lacustrine sands and 

silts of ancient Lake Cahuilla between MPs 27.6 and 45.7. In addition to these fine-grained arenites there 

are some intervals rich in clay and even occasional beach sands marking the gradual retreat of this large 

lake occupying the center of the Salton Trough. Mapped as “Pleistocene and Recent,” Lake Cahuilla 

sediments date back as far as the Pliocene epoch up to 4 million years in the past in the deeper parts of the 

trough. A thick rich soil profile sits atop these predominantly fine-grained arenites and the entire interval 

is nearly completely unconsolidated. 

Based on the literature and museum archival review, field survey, the paleontological sensitivity 

for the stratigraphic units crossed by the proposed pipeline facilities was determined. The potential for 

fossils to occur based on paleontological sensitivity along the B-Line, Arrowhead Extension, and IID 

Lateral is summarized by milepost in Table 4.1.5-1. 

As shown in Table 4.1.5-1, Pleistocene older alluvium and the Pliocene Bouse Formation units 

both have a moderate potential to contain fossils. These units would be crossed only by the B-Line. The 

remaining stratigraphic units that would be crossed by the pipelines have a low potential for fossils. 

The paleontological monitoring conducted by qualified personnel during the construction of the 

A-Line revealed a very limited presence of paleontological resources (see Table 4.1.5-2). Of the several 

areas identified during preconstruction analysis as moderate sensitivity along the A-Line, only about a 1-

mile-long stretch from MPs 28.1 to 29.1 yielded a single significant paleontological find. Areas of older 

Pleistocene alluvium, and potentially of moderate sensitivity identified from MPs 11.5 to 22.3 yielded no 

paleontological materials. Other areas of older Pleistocene alluvium between MPs 35.0 and 75.2 yielded 

only occasional paleontological materials and no significant finds. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-25 

TABLE 4.1.5-1 

Paleontological Sensitivity of Stratigraphic Units Found Along the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mileposts Stratigraphic Unit Potential for Fossils 

B-Line 

0.0 – 11.5 Holocene alluvium low 

11.5 – 22.3 Pleistocene older alluvium moderate 

22.3 – 25.2 Holocene alluvium low 

25.2 – 25.8 Pleistocene older alluvium moderate 

25.8 – 26.0 Holocene alluvium low 

26.0 – 26.6 Miocene fanglomerate low 

26.6 – 27.0 Holocene alluvium low 

27.0 – 27.3 Miocene fanglomerate low 

27.3 – 27.6 Holocene alluvium low 

27.6 – 28.2 Pliocene Bouse Formation moderate 

28.2 – 28.5 Holocene alluvium low 

28.5 – 29.2 Pliocene Bouse Formation moderate 

29.2 – 29.9 Early Tertiary volcanic rocks low 

29.9 – 30.2 Pliocene Bouse Formation moderate 

30.2 – 31.2 Early Tertiary volcanic rocks low 

31.2 – 31.6 Pliocene Bouse Formation moderate 

31.6 – 32.6 Miocene fanglomerate low 

32.6 – 32.8 Holocene alluvium low 

32.8 – 35.8 Miocene fanglomerate low 

35.8 – 36.3 Holocene alluvium low 

36.3 – 75.2 Pleistocene older alluvium moderate 

75.2 – 79.8 Holocene alluvium low 

Arrowhead Extension 

0.0 – 2.1 Holocene alluvium low 

IID Lateral 

0.0 – 2.0 Pleistocene alluvium low 

2.0 – 7.6 Dune sands low 

7.6 – 27.6 Quaternary alluvium low 

27.6 – 45.7 Quaternary lacustrine sands low 

TABLE 4.1.5-2 

Paleontological Resources Discovered During Construction of the A-Line

Mileposts Results of Paleontological Monitoring 

Significant 

Paleontological Find

25.7 Unidentified Holocene specimen (bone fragment) No 

27.2 Corals and calcareous algae in Bouse limestone No 

27.7-28.1 Turritelidae fossils, brachiopods, ostracods, foraminifera amphistegina, echinoids, and algae No 

27.7-28.8 Slabs of chert hosting marine invertebrates No 

27.9 Large fossil log in Bouse Formation limestone spoil pile No 

28.1 Slabs of Bouse Formation limestone hosting kummel form echinoids No 

28.1-28.2 Echinoid (sea urchin) fossils of probably Miocene age (14 to 15 million years before present) Yes 

28.1-28.2 Small echinoid crowns, barnacles plates, and shark teeth No 

28.6 Chert/limestone pebbles; crinoids, corals, bryozoans, and sand shark teeth No 

28.5-29.0 Brachiopod in Bouse Formation No 

29.1 Paleozoic brachiopod No 

33.1 Petrified wood specimen No 

33.2 Paleozoic fossiliferous crinoidal limestone No 

32.1-35.0 Limestone nodule with Paleozoic fossil corrals No 

41.5 Two petrified wood specimens in Pleistocene older alluvium No 

45.2-45.8 Marine fossils in carbonate pod (coral, bryozoa, crinoid ossicles) No 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-26 

Aboveground Facilities 

Construction of valve #5 at MP 28.0 on the proposed B-Line would have the potential to affect 

paleontological resources because it would occur in close proximity to where a significant paleontological 

find was discovered during construction of the A-Line. No other aboveground facility sites would be in 

areas anticipated to have significant paleontological resources. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

The four pipe storage and contractor yards would not be located in areas anticipated to have 

significant paleontological resources. 

Impact and Mitigation 

Paleontological resources could be affected by construction of the pipeline and associated 

aboveground facilities as well as by the resulting increased public access to these resources. Without 

mitigation, ground disturbance during construction could cause adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources. The FLPMA of 1976 and NEPA mandate the protection of significant paleontological 

resources on federally owned or controlled lands. The CEQA also requires the protection of 

paleontological resources in California. Direct physical modifications of paleontological resources could 

occur during Project construction by activities such as grading or trenching. Indirect impacts on fossil 

beds could result from erosion caused by slope regrading, vegetation clearing, and unauthorized 

collection. Avoidance of significant fossil localities is the most effective mitigation method. If avoidance 

is not possible, scientific excavation to recover fossil materials would reduce the impacts to an acceptable 

level. 

Based on the archival research and monitoring undertaken during the construction of the A-Line, 

monitoring of the B-Line construction by a paleontologist would be warranted between MPs 27.0 and 

29.1, where the outer edge of the Bouse Formation would be crossed. This milepost range includes the 

location of valve #5. Because the stratigraphic unit that would be crossed by the Arrowhead Extension 

has a low potential to yield paleontological resources, construction impacts on paleontological resources 

would not be expected. 

The four stratigraphic units that would be crossed by the IID Lateral (Pleistocene alluvial fan 

deposits, dune sands, Quaternary alluvium, and Quaternary lake deposits) have low potential to yield 

paleontological resources. Therefore, the construction of the IID Lateral is unlikely to impact such 

resources. 

To address potential impacts on paleontological resources resulting from pipeline construction, 

North Baja developed a Paleontological Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMM Plan) for the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (see Appendix K). The PRMM Plan includes a summary of the 

literature and museum archival review, field survey results, and assessment of potential impacts on 

paleontological resources. The PRMM Plan also includes Project-wide and site-specific mitigation and 

monitoring measures and curation and reporting procedures that would be implemented during 

construction. Some pertinent measures contained in North Baja’s PRMM Plan include: 

• availability of a qualified Project paleontologist to be called to the Project area to respond 

to construction-related issues; 

• training of construction personnel and EIs regarding the possibility that fossil resources 

may be encountered during construction; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-27 

• granting of authority for the EI to temporarily halt construction to allow for assessment 

by the Project paleontologist and implementation of mitigation procedures if warranted; 

• salvage of significant fossils as determined necessary by the Project paleontologist; and 

• protocol for curation and repository storage of fossils. 

Following construction, North Baja’s Project paleontologist would prepare a final paleontological 

report. The final report would be distributed to the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, the BOR, the Cibola 

NWR, and other interested parties. 

In summary, the overall potential to recover salvageable paleontological resources from the 

surficial units along the proposed B-Line is low, with the exception of the area between MPs 27.0 and 

29.1. During construction, North Baja would conduct paleontological monitoring within this area, which 

includes the proposed site of valve #5. Similarly, the overall potential to recover salvageable 

paleontological resources from the surficial units along the proposed IID Lateral route is low. North Baja 

would conduct spot monitoring between MPs 27.6 and 46.0 of the IID Lateral unless excavation unearths 

coarse beach intervals or thicker sand/gravel lenses. If these characteristics are exposed, continuous 

monitoring would be conducted. Because the potential for paleontological resources to occur within the 

Project area is low, and North Baja would implement its PRMM Plan, which specifies paleontological 

monitoring in areas identified as having moderate potential for paleontological resources, the potential 

that construction of the Project would result in damage or loss of vertebrate or invertebrate fossils that are 

considered important by paleontologists and land management agency staff would be less than significant. 

4.1.6 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on geologic, mineral, or paleontological resources identified for the construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-28 

4.2 SOILS 

4.2.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on soils would be considered significant and would require mitigation if 

Project construction or operation would: 

• increase erosion rates or reduce soil productivity by compaction or soil mixing to a level 

that would prevent successful rehabilitation and eventual re-establishment of vegetative 

cover to the recommended or preconstruction composition and density; 

• reduce agricultural productivity for longer than 3 years as a result of soil mixing, 

structural damage, or compaction; 

• increase exposure of human or ecological receptors to potentially hazardous levels of 

chemicals or explosives due to the disturbance of contaminated soils or to the discharge 

or disposal into soils of hazardous materials; or 

• result in the need for a significantly wider construction right-of-way and/or the increased 

potential for pipe exposure during operations due to the presence of unconsolidated and 

unstable soils. 

4.2.2 Existing Soil Resources 

The soils crossed by the proposed Project were analyzed using the State Soil Geographic 

(STATSGO) database developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) for use in regional, multi-state, river basin, State, and multi-county resource planning. 

STATSGO spatial data are compiled by combining geologically and topographically related soil series 

found in county soil surveys into larger map units called Map Unit Identifiers (MUIDs). The B-Line 

would cross 7 MUIDs comprising 42 soil components (see Figure 4.2.2-1), while the Arrowhead 

Extension would cross only 1 MUID comprising 14 soil components. The IID Lateral would cross 5 

MUIDs comprising 79 soil components (see Figure 4.2.2-2). The characteristics of soils that would be 

crossed by the small segment of pipeline route in Arizona and at the sites of the Ehrenberg Compressor 

Station, El Paso Meter Station, Blythe Meter Station, Rannells Trap, Ogilby Meter Station, and El Centro 

Meter Station were further assessed using county soil surveys. 

Pipeline Facilities 

The soils that would be crossed by the B-Line in La Paz County, Arizona consist of silt and sandy 

loams and sands. The soils that would be crossed by the B-Line and Arrowhead Extension in the northern 

portion of Riverside County, California include sandy loams, silty clay loams, and silty clays. Soils in the 

southern portion of Riverside County that would be crossed by the B-Line include silty clays, sandy 

loams, gravelly loamy sands, gravelly sands, sand, dune land, and badlands. In the Palo Verde Valley, the 

soils are primarily formed in sediments deposited by the Colorado River. These soils are highly 

productive and are ideal for agricultural use if irrigated due to mineral content. Soil types are diverse 

along the B-Line in Imperial County, California, with loamy and fine sands; sandy, gravelly, and clay 

loams; and clay and silty clays, with badland and rock outcrops. Many areas along the southern portion 

of the B-Line route in Imperial County have a gravelly desert pavement present over the surface soils. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-29 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 4.2.2-1 Map Unit Identifiers Crossed by the B-Line 

Page 4-29

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-30 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 4.2.2-2 Map Unit Identifiers Crossed by the IID Lateral 

Page 4-30

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-31 

Soils that would be crossed by the eastern portion of the IID Lateral, including the area of the 

Imperial Sand Dunes, are typically loose, sandy, excessively drained soils. West of the dunes area into 

the East Mesa area, the soils are typically sandy, loamy, and well drained to excessively drained. Many 

areas within the East Mesa area have a gravelly desert pavement present over the surface soils. West of 

the East Mesa area through the Imperial Valley, the soils are predominantly fine, silty loamy soils that are 

well to moderately well drained with patches of coarse loamy, coarse silty, and sandy well- to moderately 

well-drained soils interspersed. The soils in the Imperial Valley are primarily mineral-rich sediments 

historically deposited by Lake Cahuilla. These soils are highly productive due to their mineral content, 

and are ideal for agricultural use if irrigated. 

The agricultural land in the Palo Verde and Imperial Valleys is irrigated with systems using water 

from irrigation drains and canals. 

The soils along the B-Line, the Arrowhead Extension, and the IID Lateral were evaluated to 

identify prime farmland and major soil characteristics that could affect construction or increase the 

potential for construction-related soil impacts. The primary limiting characteristics include high water 

erosion potential, high wind erosion potential, and shallow depth to bedrock. Each soil component was 

evaluated for these limitations, and then the percentage of each MUID with these limitations was 

summarized. The percentage, along with the length of pipeline route in each MUID, was used to estimate 

the acreage of soils with limitations that would be crossed by the B-Line, the Arrowhead Extension, and 

the IID Lateral. Table 4.2.2-1 summarizes by MUID and milepost the acres of soil limitations that would 

be affected by the proposed pipeline facilities. The nature and prevalence of each major characteristic are 

discussed below. 

Erosion Potential from Water – Erosion is an ongoing, natural process that can be accelerated by 

human disturbance. Factors such as soil texture, structure, slope, vegetative cover, rainfall intensity, and 

wind intensity can influence the severity of erosion. Soils most susceptible to erosion by water are 

typified by bare or sparse vegetative cover, non-cohesive soil particles, and moderate to steep slopes. 

Soils typically more resistant to erosion include those that occupy low relief areas, are well vegetated, and 

have high infiltration capacity and internal permeability. Approximately 36 percent of all soils that would 

be affected by the Project are highly susceptible to erosion by water. 

Of the soils along the B-Line, about 45 percent (454.4 acres) would be susceptible to erosion by 

water. Along the Arrowhead Extension, about 16 percent (3.6 acres) of the soils would be susceptible to 

erosion by water. Along the IID Lateral, 10 percent (36.4 acres) of the soils would be susceptible to 

erosion by water. Because the majority of the terrain in the areas that exhibit a high potential for water 

erosion is relatively flat, erosion by water is not expected to be a significant concern. 

Erosion Potential from Wind – Wind erosion processes are less affected by slope angles. Windinduced erosion often occurs on dry, fine-textured soil where vegetative cover is sparse and strong winds 

are prevalent. About 26 percent of all soils that would be affected by the Project are susceptible to wind 

erosion. 

Sixteen percent (162.9 acres) of the soils that would be affected by the B-Line would be 

susceptible to wind erosion, while less than 0.1 percent (0.6 acre) along the Arrowhead Extension would 

be susceptible. About 53 percent (191.7 acres) of the soils along the IID Lateral route exhibit a high 

potential for erosion by wind. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-32 

TABLE 4.2.2-1 

Soil Characteristics Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility/Mileposts 

Map Unit 

Identifiers (MUID) 

Affected 

Acres a

High Water Erosion 

Potential (acres) b

High Wind Erosion 

Potential (acres) b

Potential for Shallow 

Bedrock (acres) b

B-Line 

0.0 – 11.4 CA653 145.1 20.4 c 5.1 c 0.0 c

11.4 – 22.3 CA654 138.7 19.1 24.2 11.5 

22.3 – 24.1 CA927 22.9 19.1 0.0 1.3 

24.1 – 26.6 CA653 31.8 25.5 6.4 0.0 

26.6 – 26.9 CA911 3.8 2.5 1.3 2.5 

26.9 – 27.7 CA927 10.2 8.9 0.0 0.0 

27.7 – 28.2 CA653 6.4 2.5 0.0 6.4 

28.2 – 28.5 CA909 3.8 2.5 1.3 0.0 

28.5 – 31.0 CA653 33.1 11.5 1.3 29.3 

31.0 – 32.0 CA653 11.5 10.2 2.5 0.0 

32.0 – 57.8 CA927 328.4 292.7 0.0 16.5 

57.8 – 79.8 CA601 280.0 39.5 120.9 0.0 

B-Line Subtotal 1,015.6 454.4 162.9 67.5 

Arrowhead Extension 

0.0 – 2.1 CA653 22.4 3.6 c 0.6 c 0.0 c

IID Lateral 

0.0 – 0.6 CA601 5.6 d

 0.8 2.4 0.0 

0.6 – 6.9 CA921 61.3 d

 0.0 61.3 0.0 

6.9 – 11.7 CA604 46.5 d

 0.0 0.0 0.0 

11.7 – 12.1 CA921 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 

12.1 – 19.7 CA604 55.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

19.7 – 23.0 CA921 24.1 0.0 24.1 0.0 

23.0 – 26.1 CA604 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

26.1 – 26.6 CA921 3.6 0.0 3.5 0.0 

26.6 – 27.8 CA604 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

27.8 – 28.3 CA606 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0 

28.3 – 32.9 CA603 33.5 0.0 33.5 0.0 

32.9 – 34.9 CA606 14.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 

34.9 – 37.3 CA603 17.5 0.0 17.7 0.0 

37.3 – 39.3 CA606 14.5 14.4 0.0 0.0 

39.3 – 41.7 CA603 17.5 0.0 17.6 0.0 

41.7 – 42.1 CA606 2.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 

42.1 – 45.7 CA603 26.2 0.0 28.5 0.0 

IID Lateral Subtotal 360.7 36.4 191.7 0.0 

 

Total Acres 1,398.7 494.4 355.2 67.5 

____________________ 

a

 Affected acres were calculated using a 105-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the B-Line, a 60-foot-wide and 100-footwide construction right-of-way for the Arrowhead Extension, and a 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the IID Lateral 

unless otherwise noted. Aboveground facilities, extra workspaces, and access roads are not included. 

b

 It was assumed that the frequency of occurrence of each individual component soil series along the pipeline route within 

each MUID is the same as its percent composition within the MUID. 

c

 Does not include soils in that portion of the route where the pipeline would be within the road or road shoulder. 

d

 Based on an 80-foot-wide construction right-of-way. 

Sources: STATSGO Database; Imperial Irrigation District 1967; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1974; 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1980. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-33 

Shallow Bedrock – Soils were evaluated to identify areas as containing shallow bedrock (hard 

bedrock within 5 feet of the soil surface). The presence of shallow bedrock could indicate the need for 

blasting. About 5 percent of all soils that would be affected by the Project have the potential for shallow 

bedrock. All of these areas occur along the B-Line route. There is the potential for about 7 percent (67.5 

acres) of the soils along the B-Line route to exhibit bedrock at a depth of less than 5 feet; however, based 

on past construction activity associated with the A-Line, shallow bedrock that would require blasting is 

expected to be encountered only at about MP 29.5. None of the soils along the Arrowhead Extension or 

the IID Lateral have the potential for shallow bedrock. 

Prime Farmland – The NRCS (2003) defines prime farmland as “land that has the best 

combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, and oilseed crops.” 

This designation includes cultivated land, pasture, woodland, or other lands that are either used for food 

or fiber crops, or are available for these uses. Urbanized land, built-up land, and open water cannot be 

designated as prime farmland. Prime farmland typically contains few or no rocks, has an adequate and 

dependable water supply, is permeable to water and air, is not excessively erodible or saturated with water 

for long periods, and is not subject to frequent, prolonged flooding during the growing season. Soils that 

do not meet the above criteria may be considered prime farmland if the limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., 

by draining or irrigating). Additionally, the CDC designates farmlands of Statewide and local 

importance. Farmland of Statewide importance is similar to prime farmland but with minor 

shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for 

production of irrigated crops at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date. Farmland of local 

importance is designated as land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each 

county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. Areas of prime farmland and farmlands of 

Statewide and local importance that would be crossed by the B-Line, the Arrowhead Extension, and the 

IID Lateral are listed in Table 4.2.2-2 by milepost. In total, 71.7 acres of prime farmland and 47.6 acres 

of farmland of Statewide importance would be affected. No farmland of local importance would be 

affected by the pipeline facilities. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Modifications at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, including the proposed pig receiver, would 

be completed within the existing fenceline and would not require additional land. Extra workspace, 

however, would be required outside of the fenceline to install a header pipe associated with the pig 

receiver. Use of this extra workspace would temporarily affect about 0.7 acre of soils. Modifications at 

the adjacent El Paso Meter Station would be completed within the fenceline and would not affect 

additional soil resources. The soils associated with these sites are silt loams, sandy loams, and sands that 

may exhibit a slight potential for erosion. The majority of these soils are classified as prime farmland. 

Construction of the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver would be completed within the 

existing fenceline of the SoCalGas Blythe Compressor Station and would not affect additional soil 

resources. 

The pig launcher and receiver proposed for Rannells Trap would require an expansion of the 

existing site by 0.3 acre during construction and operation. Soils at this location consist of moderately 

level well-drained sands and loams. These soils are not designated as prime farmland or farmlands of 

Statewide or local importance. The pig launcher, taps, and crossover piping associated with the 

Arrowhead Extension would affect 1.0 acre of soils during construction and 0.8 acre of soils during 

operation. The soils at this location consist of sandy loams, silty clay loams, and silty clays that are 

designated as prime farmland and farmland of Statewide importance. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-34 

TABLE 4.2.2-2 

Prime Farmland and Farmlands of Statewide and Local Importance Crossed by the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

La Paz County Riverside County Imperial County 

Facility/Designation Mileposts Mileposts Mileposts Total Acres a

B-Line 

Prime Farmland 0.0-0.2 0.8-5.4, 5.5-11.4 47.0 

Farmland of Statewide 

Importance 

 2.2-5.4, 5.5-11.6 18.4 

Farmland of Local 

Importance 

 0.3-0.8, 11.7-16.8, 17.0-

19.8, 20.2-21.6, 22.1-22.2 b,

22.3-22.5, 23.4-23.5, 

23.9-24.4, 24.5-25.0 b,

0.0 

Arrowhead Extension 

Prime Farmland 0.0-2.1 16.1 

Farmland of Statewide 

Importance 

0.0-2.1 16.1 

Farmland of Local 

Importance 

-None- 0.0 

IID Lateral 

Prime Farmland 27.9-28.2, 28.9-29.9, 

30.1-30.5, 30.9-31.1, 

32.3-33.0, 33.3-34.2, 

34.9-35.1, 37.2-38.7, 

39.1-39.3, 39.5-39.8, 

40.5-41.1, 42.3-43.3 

8.6 

Farmland of Statewide 

Importance 

 28.2-28.9, 29.9-30.1, 

30.5-30.9, 31.1-32.3, 

33.0-33.3, 34.2-34.9, 

35.1-37.2, 38.7-39.1, 

39.3-39.5, 39.8-40.5, 

41.1-42.3, 43.3-46.0 

13.1 

Farmland of Local 

Importance 

 9.3-9.7 b, c, 12.9-13.9 b, c 0.0 

Total Pipeline Facilities 

Prime Farmland 71.7 

Farmland of Statewide Importance 47.6 

Farmland of Local Importance 0.0 

___________________ 

a

 Acreage includes pipeline construction right-of-way, extra workspaces, and access roads. Actual rights-of-way widths 

were used to calculate acres. 

b

 Although mapped as "farmland of local importance," this area is not farmed land and is open desert. 

c

 Located on the north side of Evan Hewes Highway. 

Source: California Department of Conservation 1995a,b. 

Modifications at the Ogilby Meter Station, including the proposed pig launcher and receiver, 

would affect about 0.2 acre of soils outside the existing fenced facility during construction and operation. 

The tap to the B-line and pig launcher associated with the IID Lateral would affect 0.2 acre of soils for the 

construction and operation of these facilities. The soils in the vicinity of the Ogilby Meter Station and the 

B-Line tap and pig launcher sites consist of desert pavement, clay loams, loams, sandy clay loams, and 

sandy loams. These soils may be limited by a slight potential for erosion. No prime farmland or 

farmlands of Statewide or local importance would be affected at these sites. 

The El Centro Meter Station and pig receiver would affect about 2.5 acres of soils during 

construction and about 0.2 acre of soils during operation, all located within the existing fenceline of the 

IID El Centro Power Generating Station. The soils associated with these facility sites consist of fine silty 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-35 

to coarse loamy soils. No prime farmland or farmlands of Statewide or local importance would be 

affected by these facilities. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

All four proposed pipe storage and contractor yards have been previously disturbed for 

industrial/commercial activities and some have been graveled and/or paved. 

4.2.3 General Impact and Mitigation 

Pipeline construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, backfilling, and the 

movement of construction equipment along the right-of-way may affect soil resources. Clearing removes 

protective vegetative cover and exposes the soil to the effects of wind, rain, and runoff, which increases 

the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation of sensitive areas. Grading, spoil storage, and equipment 

traffic can compact soil, reducing porosity and percolation rates and increasing runoff potential. 

Construction activities can also affect soil fertility and facilitate the dispersal and establishment of weeds. 

Erosion is a continuing, natural process that can be accelerated by human activities. Clearing, 

grading, and the movement of equipment on the right-of-way can accelerate the erosion process and, 

without adequate protection, result in discharges of sediment to wetlands and waterbodies and lower soil 

fertility. Factors that influence the rate of erosion include soil texture and structure, the length and 

percent of slope, vegetative cover, and rainfall or wind intensity. The most erosion-prone soils are 

generally bare or sparsely vegetated, non-cohesive, fine textured, and situated on moderate to steep 

slopes. Soils more resistant to erosion include those that are well vegetated, well structured with high 

percolation rates, and located on flat to nearly level terrain. 

Construction equipment operating and traveling on the construction right-of-way, especially 

during wet periods and on poorly drained soils, can compact the soil. Soil compaction can also result 

from the storage of heavy spoil piles on certain types of soil for extended periods of time. Soil 

compaction destroys soil structure, reduces pore space and the moisture holding capacity of the soil, and 

increases runoff potential. If unmitigated, compaction results in soils with a reduced revegetation 

potential and an increased erosion hazard. The degree of compaction depends on the moisture content 

and texture of the soil. Wet soils with fine clay textures are the most susceptible to compaction. 

Compaction of fine-grained sediments such as clays is of particular concern in areas where clay soils are 

accompanied by a high water table because it may contribute to subsidence or the loss of surface 

elevation due to removal of subsurface support. Although clay soils occur in the Imperial Valley, the 

water table is generally low along the B-Line and IID Lateral routes, ranging from 9 to more than 400 feet 

below ground along the B-Line and 20 to 310 feet below ground along the IID Lateral route. Therefore, 

increases in compaction levels or the occurrence of subsidence that could damage the pipeline are not 

anticipated. 

Construction activities such as grading, trenching, and backfilling can also cause mixing of soil 

horizons. Mixing of topsoil with subsoil, particularly in agricultural lands, dilutes the superior chemical 

and physical properties of the topsoil and lowers soil fertility and the ability of disturbed areas to 

revegetate successfully. Trenching of stony or shallow-depth-to-bedrock soils can bring stones or rock 

fragments to the surface. Soils with bedrock present at depths of 5 feet or less may require blasting, 

which also often results in excess rock being brought to the soil surface. Excess rocks on or near the soil 

surface could interfere with agricultural practices and hinder restoration of the right-of-way. 

During the scoping process, a commentor expressed concern that the use of screened subsoil for 

padding material during pipeline installation could cause negative impacts on the soil’s revegetation 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-36 

potential. Screening subsoil for padding material would result in a backfill material with less soil fines, 

and the resultant coarser textured soil would likely have less nutrient and water holding capacity, which 

could affect the revegetation potential of the soil. However, screened subsoil is only one option for 

padding material; imported sand or sandbags could also be used. For the A-line, North Baja used a 

combination of screened subsoil and sandbags as pipe padding material. Although North Baja did not 

provide the specific locations where pipe padding was required or where each method was used during 

construction of the A-Line, the B-line would cross about 5.3 miles of soils with the potential for shallow 

bedrock or rocky soils to be encountered where it is likely that pipe padding would be necessary. Soils 

with these characteristics are not anticipated along the IID Lateral. The pipe padding methods proposed 

for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project are the same as those used during the A-Line construction, 

and the results of revegetation monitoring for the A-Line do not indicate a reduction in the recruitment of 

native species over the trenchline. Moreover, native seedling recruitment was in some locations higher 

over the disturbed right-of-way than in the control plots off of the right-of-way. Revegetation of the ALine is discussed in Section 4.5.3 and in North Baja’s CM&R Plan (see Appendix E). 

Construction can also facilitate the establishment of noxious weeds where none or few existed. 

The clearing of existing perennial vegetation provides an opportunity for weed species to invade the rightof-way, and the movement of equipment along the right-of-way could transport weed seed and plant parts 

from one location to another (see Section 4.5.5). The seriousness of these effects would depend on the 

prevalence of weeds in the area of the pipeline route, the type of weed and its method of reproduction and 

dispersal, and the weed’s effect on current or future land use. 

No areas of contaminated soils are expected to be crossed by the Project; however, all of the soils 

crossed by the Project would be susceptible to contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and 

coolants from construction equipment. Although these impacts would typically be minor because of the 

low frequency and volumes of these occurrences, the introduction of these contaminants to soils can 

adversely affect productivity. 

The impact of construction on soils can be effectively minimized through the use of erosion 

control and revegetation plans such as the FERC’s Plan. To minimize impacts on soils associated with 

this Project, North Baja developed its CM&R Plan that includes the portions of the FERC’s Plan that are 

relevant to the Project area and Project-specific measures developed in consultation with the BLM, the 

FWS, and the CDFG that address the special issues associated with construction and restoration in an arid 

environment. The CM&R Plan is included in Appendix E and consists of three parts as discussed below. 

Desert Restoration Plan – This plan identifies the unique natural characteristics of the Project area 

and describes the procedures that were successful during construction of the A-Line that would be 

implemented during construction of the B-Line to preserve and restore habitat values affected by pipeline 

construction in the desert environment. The Desert Restoration Plan also summarizes the results of North 

Baja’s post-construction revegetation and weed control monitoring that was conducted for the A-Line. 

Upland Erosion and Sediment Control – This includes portions of the FERC’s Plan that are 

relevant to the Project area and that are designed to minimize Project-related construction impacts on soils 

and minimize erosion. 

Wetlands and Waterbodies – This includes portions of the FERC’s Procedures that are relevant to 

the Project area and are designed to minimize Project-related disturbance to waterbodies and wetlands. 

The Desert Restoration Plan and the Upland Erosion and Sediment Control sections of the 

CM&R Plan pertain to construction-related impacts on soils and provide mitigation measures that North 

Baja would implement to reduce these impacts during construction. These measures include: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-37 

• restricting the construction right-of-way width for the B-Line to 105 feet and further 

reducing the width of the right-of-way in areas with high concentrations of native trees; 

• restricting the construction right-of-way width for the IID Lateral to 80 feet where the 

lateral would be parallel to existing powerlines and to 60 feet where the lateral would be 

installed between a powerline and a road or within or abutting the traveled portion of 

county roads; 

• preserving the native seed bank by segregating topsoil to a depth of 2 to 8 inches in nonagricultural areas where grading would be conducted and redistributing material over the 

right-of-way during cleanup; 

• preserving and redistributing cut vegetation over the right-of-way; 

• restricting grading and crushing or cutting of vegetation where possible, leaving rootstock 

and minimizing soil disturbance; 

• imprinting areas with a sheepsfoot or similar device to provide indentations to catch 

water/seed and anchor native plant material that has been respread over the right-of-way, 

thereby aiding in natural revegetation and erosion control; 

• segregating and redistributing topsoil to its actual depth up to 2 feet in agricultural areas; 

• maintaining water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff is coordinated with 

affected parties; 

• testing for and alleviating compacted soils in agricultural and residential areas (details 

regarding North Baja’s compaction testing plans are included in its CM&R Plan [see 

Appendix E] and discussed below); 

• implementing procedures to prevent or minimize the spread of noxious weeds or other 

undesirable species by limiting disposal of plant materials to suitable areas and cleaning 

of clearing and grading equipment before entering native species areas; and 

• placing intact salvaged plant materials or rock at specific locations where visual blocking 

would be employed to discourage use of the pipeline right-of-way by unauthorized 

vehicles. 

The CM&R Plan modifies or omits several measures of the FERC’s Plan because portions of the 

FERC’s Plan are not applicable due to the arid climate crossed by the pipeline route. North Baja states 

that the arid climatic conditions in the Project area would limit the use or decrease the practical 

effectiveness of many traditional erosion control measures. For example, North Baja does not propose to 

install temporary erosion controls because of the level topography along most of the route and the stony 

soil where slopes are somewhat steeper along portions of the B-Line route east of SR 78. In the Project 

area, rainfall amounts average less than 5 inches annually. The infrequent rain events often occur in 

intense cloudbursts that result in flash flooding, which renders typical erosion controls (silt fence, hay 

bales, etc.) ineffective. 

The Agency Staffs have reviewed North Baja’s CM&R Plan and generally agree with the level of 

mitigation proposed and the appropriateness of the differences between the CM&R Plan and the FERC’s 

Plan. Additionally, while the BLM, the FWS, and the CDFG were consulted during development of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-38 

CM&R Plan for the A-Line, it is possible that these agencies may include additional construction or 

mitigation measures when issuing permits and agreements for the proposed Project, including the 

CDFG’s SAA (see Section 4.3.3.4). In accordance with its CM&R Plan, North Baja would prepare and 

submit an updated CM&R Plan before construction if necessary to incorporate any additional 

requirements of Federal, State, and local permits. 

Although revegetation of the disturbed areas in native desert habitats would be slow, the rate of 

revegetation would be primarily attributable to the arid climate. Artificial revegetation is not practical on 

a large scale due to the extremely arid conditions. If North Baja implements its CM&R Plan, the Project 

would not result in significantly increased erosion rates and a reduction of soil productivity by 

compaction or soil mixing to a level that would prevent successful rehabilitation and eventual reestablishment of vegetative cover to the recommended or preconstruction composition and density. 

Further, if the mitigation measures in the CM&R Plan that pertain to agricultural areas are implemented, 

the Project would not result in a significant reduction in agricultural productivity for longer than 3 years 

as a result of soil mixing, structural damage, or compaction. 

The CM&R Plan includes the measures of the FERC’s Plan to mitigate potential soil compaction 

in residential and agricultural areas, and also includes a measure to conduct compaction testing and 

alleviate compaction along the IID Lateral if fine-textured soils, as identified by the EI or the BLM, are 

encountered. Additional measures to mitigate construction-related impacts on soils are included in North 

Baja’s Dust Control Plan, which is described in Section 4.12.4 and provided in Appendix L. Fugitive 

dust disturbed by construction is a visible indication of soil loss through wind erosion. The Dust Control 

Plan outlines measures that would be implemented to control fugitive dust during construction. 

North Baja’s SPCC Plan specifies cleanup procedures to minimize the potential for soil 

contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolants used during construction (see 

Appendix F). Implementation of North Baja’s SPCC Plan would effectively reduce the potential impact 

on soils from spills of the hazardous materials used during construction and would not significantly 

increase the exposure of human or ecological receptors to potentially hazardous levels of chemicals. 

North Baja would employ full-time EIs to ensure compliance with the CM&R Plan, the SPCC 

Plan, the Dust Control Plan, and other Project-specific plans and specifications during construction and 

restoration. At least two EIs would be assigned to each construction spread. The EIs would have peer 

status with other activity inspectors and would have the authority to stop and order corrective actions for 

activities that violate the environmental conditions of the FERC Certificate or other authorizations. 

Implementation of North Baja’s proposed mitigation measures would reduce impacts on soil resources to 

less than significant levels. 

4.2.4 Site-specific Impact and Mitigation 

Pipeline Facilities 

As indicated in Table 4.2.2-1, about 7 percent of the soils that would be crossed by the B-Line 

may exhibit shallow depth to bedrock. Based on North Baja’s experience during construction of the Aline, shallow bedrock would be a concern primarily in the vicinity of MP 29.5 and would likely require 

blasting in order to excavate the trench through this area. Specific construction procedures would be used 

to minimize impact on soils. Excess rock would be removed from the upper 12 inches of soil to the 

extent practicable in cropland, hayfields, pastures, residential areas, and other areas at the landowner’s 

request. Excess rock would not be windrowed along the right-of-way unless written approval was 

obtained from landowners or land management agencies. All blasting would be done according to North 

Baja’s construction specifications for blasting (see Sections 2.3.2 and 4.1.2, and Appendix I). North 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-39 

Baja’s blasting specifications include detailed requirements for the use, storage, transportation, and 

handling of explosives; therefore, the Project would not significantly increase the exposure of human or 

ecological receptors to explosives. 

Other soil limitations that would be encountered during construction of the Project would include 

494.4 acres of soils with high water erosion potential. The majority of these soils would occur along the 

B-Line (454.4 acres), with 3.6 acres affected along the Arrowhead Extension, and 36.4 acres affected 

along the IID Lateral. In addition, a total of 355.2 acres of soils along the B-Line (162.9 acres), the 

Arrowhead Extension (0.6 acre), and the IID Lateral (191.7 acres) routes exhibit high wind erosion 

potential. As discussed in Section 4.2.3, implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in North 

Baja’s CM&R Plan and Dust Control Plan would satisfactorily minimize and mitigate constructionrelated effects on these soils to less than significant levels. 

Comments were received during the scoping process that reported increased erosion along the 

restored A-Line right-of-way and requested that culverts be installed where dry washes cross Stallard 

Road. A review of the affected areas indicates that the specific erosion events were not related to the 

pipeline right-of-way but rather were the result of high intensity runoff in wash areas due to storm-related 

events. The installation of culverts where washes are crossed by Stallard Road would be an issue to be 

addressed with Riverside County, which is the agency that has jurisdiction over the road. However, the 

BLM recently identified various degrees of erosion along the A-line in steeply sloped areas south of 

Stallard Road. North Baja would work with the BLM to correct these areas. 

The IID Lateral would cross the ISDRA between MPs 0.0 and 7.0. The sand dunes consist of 

loose wind-blown sand. North Baja would cross portions of this area in association with the HDDs of the 

two All-American Canal crossings; however, the portion of this area between the two canals would be 

crossed using conventional overland construction methods. Crossing this area would require a wider 

trench to be excavated because trench walls in unconsolidated, unstable soils tend to collapse. Despite the 

need for a wider trench, North Baja anticipates that it would be able to construct through this area within 

its proposed 80-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Therefore, the presence of unconsolidated and 

unstable soils would not result in the need for a significantly wider construction right-of-way. 

The loose sandy soil conditions in this area could increase the potential for pipe exposure. North 

Baja proposes to bury the IID Lateral 6 feet deep between MPs 2.7 and 5.7, which includes the area most 

susceptible to blowing/shifting sands. This added depth of cover would reduce the potential for pipe 

exposure; therefore, the presence of unconsolidated and unstable soils would not result in an increased 

potential for pipe exposure during operations. 

Because a significantly wider construction right-of-way would not be required and North Baja’s 

proposal to increase the pipeline depth would reduce the potential for pipeline exposure, impacts related 

to the unconsolidated and unstable soils crossed would be less than significant. 

A significant impact on irrigation systems is not anticipated. The majority of irrigation drains and 

canals would not be affected by construction because they would be crossed either by boring underneath 

the culverts along 18th Avenue or by installing the pipeline between the drain culvert and the road. 

Additionally, North Baja would contact landowners in the Palo Verde and Imperial Valleys regarding the 

location of other irrigation systems that could be affected during construction and would maintain water 

flow in these systems or coordinate disruption of irrigation flow or any shutoff times with the affected 

landowners. However, Rannells Drain along the B-Line and two unnamed canals along the Arrowhead 

Extension would be crossed using the open-cut method (see Section 2.3.2). The impact on Rannells 

Drain and the two unnamed canals would be temporary and mitigated by restoring the banks and bed to 

their original configurations. Because of the steepness of the banks at the Rannells Drain crossing, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-40 

erosion control fabric would be used for bank stabilization purposes upon completion of pipeline 

construction at this crossing. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on 

irrigation systems, Rannells Drain, and the two unnamed canals to less than significant levels. 

Between MPs 0.0 and 0.2 and MPs 0.8 and 11.6, the B-Line would cross soils designated as 

prime farmland and farmland of Statewide importance. In total, 65.4 acres of designated farmland would 

be temporarily affected along the B-Line. No permanent impacts on prime farmland or farmlands of 

Statewide or local importance would occur in association with the construction and operation of facilities 

associated with the B-Line. 

The Arrowhead Extension would cross about 1.1 miles of agricultural land between MPs 1.0 and 

2.1 that would result in temporary impacts on about 16.1 acres of soils designated as prime farmland and 

farmland of Statewide importance. Construction of the pig launcher, taps, and crossover piping would 

permanently affect 0.8 acre of prime farmland and farmland of Statewide importance. The BlytheArrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver would be within the fenceline of the existing SoCalGas Blythe 

Compressor Station site and would not affect farmland soils. This loss would be much less than 0.1 

percent of the agricultural lands in the Palo Verde Valley and would be less than significant. 

Soils designated as prime farmland and farmland of Statewide importance would be crossed at 

numerous locations along the IID Lateral between MPs 27.9 and 46.0. In total, about 21.7 acres of 

designated farmland would be temporarily affected along the IID Lateral. No permanent impacts on 

prime farmland or farmlands of Statewide or local importance would occur in association with the 

construction and operation of facilities associated with the IID Lateral. 

North Baja would avoid significant impact on prime farmland or farmlands of Statewide or local 

importance by locating the B-Line, portions of the Arrowhead Extension, and the IID Lateral facilities in 

road shoulders adjacent to agricultural areas. Impacts that would occur on these soils and other active 

farmlands would be mitigated by segregating 1 to 2 feet of topsoil before installation of the pipeline and 

reapplying topsoil over the surface of the right-of-way during restoration as outlined in the CM&R Plan 

(see Appendix E). In addition, North Baja would implement a post-construction crop monitoring 

program to maintain the level of production of the affected soils. The program would evaluate crop 

productivity and success for a period of at least 2 years following construction. North Baja would prepare 

activity reports during this period documenting any problems identified by North Baja or the landowner 

and describing corrective actions taken to remedy these problems. These reports would be submitted to 

the FERC and the CSLC on a quarterly basis, as stipulated in the CM&R Plan. The FERC and CSLC 

staffs would also monitor the right-of-way after construction. If after 2 years it is determined that 

cropland crossed by the pipeline has not been restored successfully, North Baja would implement 

additional restoration measures. Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R Plan would reduce impacts on 

agricultural land to less than significant levels. 

For the portions of the Project that cross BLM lands, the BLM would need to assess potential 

impacts on rangeland health resulting from construction of the Project. One of the attributes included in 

the rangeland health assessment is soil/site stability (i.e., the capacity of the site to limit redistribution and 

loss of soil resources by wind and water [Pellant et al. 2005]). As discussed above, soil disturbance 

during pipeline construction could expose the soils to the erosional forces of wind and water thus 

affecting soil stability. Implementation of erosion control measures and the revegetation plan contained 

in North Baja’s CM&R Plan (see Section 4.2.3 and Appendix E) would effectively mitigate impacts on 

soil and avoid impacts on rangeland health. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-41 

4.2.5 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on soils identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-42 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES 

4.3.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on groundwater would be considered significant and would require mitigation 

if Project construction or operation would: 

• alter the flow of groundwater to local springs or wetland areas; 

• interrupt or degrade groundwater used for private or municipal purposes; or 

• result in either short- or long-term violation of Federal, tribal, or State agency numerical 

water quality standards or water quality objectives. 

An adverse impact on surface waters would be considered significant and would require 

mitigation if Project construction or operation would: 

• result in either short- or long-term violation of Federal, tribal, or State agency numerical 

water quality standards or water quality objectives; 

• alter channel bed armoring, bank composition, or stream hydraulic characteristics such 

that it results in short- or long-term erosion or so that the banks of a waterway must be 

armored to reduce short- or long-term erosion; 

• cause the resuspension of contaminated bottom sediments that would degrade the quality 

of water downstream in violation of Federal, tribal, or State agency water quality 

standards; 

• result in increased sedimentation that adversely affects the operation of irrigation water 

control structures, gates, or valves or the quality of municipal water supply reservoirs; 

• reduce streamflow quantity where such a flow change would significantly damage either 

beneficial uses or aquatic life; 

• increase the potential for flooding outside the stream channel; 

• place permanent structures within the 100-year floodplain that would be damaged by 

flooding; 

• increase soil or wind erosion rates or sedimentation such that degradation of water quality 

standards would result; or 

• degrade the integrity of structures, such as (bridges, pipelines, and utilities) due to erosion 

and improper conveyance of stormwater during construction and operation. 

4.3.2 Groundwater Resources 

4.3.2.1 Existing Groundwater Resources 

Groundwater in the vicinity of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is primarily derived 

from unconsolidated to poorly consolidated alluvial sediments consisting of gravel, silt, sand, and clay 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-43 

associated with a complex system of basin-fill deposits (FERC and CSLC 2002, Planert and Williams 

1995, Robson and Banta 1995). Many desert basins are characterized by broad alluvial fans and plains 

sloping to playas, creating closed drainage basins that are usually dry. Hydrologic characteristics within 

these desert basins can differ considerably from basin to basin and within basins. The majority of the 

groundwater underlying the proposed facilities is derived from imported water from the Colorado River 

that is used for irrigation. Other local uses of groundwater in the Project area include industrial and 

commercial processes and municipal and domestic water supplies. Small amounts of groundwater may 

also be found in the underlying bedrock where it collects in fractures or weathered areas, but this 

groundwater is not considered a primary source. 

No EPA-designated sole-source aquifers would be crossed by the proposed Project (EPA 2005, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2005). The nearest sole-source aquifer is the OcotilloCoyote Aquifer, which is approximately 42 miles west of the terminus of the IID Lateral. No known 

municipal/public water supply sources, wellhead protection areas, or springs would be crossed (Langer et 

al. 1984). 

B-Line and Arrowhead Extension 

The Colorado River Aquifer underlies the majority of the B-Line, the Arrowhead Extension, and 

associated aboveground facilities, including all of those portions within La Paz County, Arizona and 

Riverside County, California, and the northern portion of Imperial County, California. The B-Line would 

cross a watershed described as the Amos Ogilby and Imperial Hydrological Units in the southern portion 

of Imperial County from about MP 49.5 south to the All-American Canal. Groundwater recharge in these 

watersheds occurs within Colorado River floodplain alluvial deposits and is hydraulically connected to 

the river (FERC and CSLC 2002). Other minor sources of groundwater recharge include groundwater 

inflow from adjacent areas, infiltration of precipitation that falls to the ground surface, infiltration from 

irrigation ditches and canals, and local runoff from surrounding mountains. 

Groundwater depth in the vicinity of the B-Line and the Arrowhead Extension is variable 

depending on the proximity of the area to the Colorado River or on drainage from irrigated lands (FERC 

and CSLC 2002). Depths to groundwater were derived from a combination of databases prepared by the 

USGS (2005) and a series of maps prepared by Langer et al. (1984). Groundwater levels ranging from 9 

to 23 feet below the surface have been recorded in the vicinity of the B-Line in the Palo Verde Valley 

(approximately MPs 0.0 to 12.0), which is close to the Colorado River. Groundwater in the Palo Verde 

Valley is artificially augmented by irrigation water diverted from the Colorado River. Further south along 

the B-Line, depth to groundwater tends to increase. Groundwater levels have been recorded at depths 

greater than 130 feet beneath the Palo Verde Mesa (approximately MPs 12.7 to 20.5), and depths of more 

than 400 feet below the land surface have been recorded near the Cargo Muchacho Mountains 

(approximately MP 66.8) and surrounding areas. Even further south along the B-Line, depths to 

groundwater gradually decrease and have been recorded as shallow as approximately 35 feet below the 

ground surface in the vicinity of the All-American Canal near MP 79.8 (USGS 2000). 

Groundwater quality is influenced by local geology, the effects of agricultural irrigation, and the 

chemical characteristics of the Colorado River (FERC and CSLC 2002). High concentrations of total 

dissolved solids ranging from 400 to 3,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) cause the chemical quality of 

groundwater in the areas affected by the B-Line and the Arrowhead Extension facilities to be relatively 

poor (EPA 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-44 

IID Lateral 

The IID Lateral would cross a terminal sink basin called the Salton Trough, which is a 

topographic and structural trough that extends from southeastern California into Mexico (Planert and 

Williams 1995). The Salton Trough is approximately 130 miles long and 70 miles wide and is a landward 

extension of the depression that is partially filled by the Gulf of California. The Salton Trough is further 

divided in California into two parts by the Salton Sea: the Imperial Valley to the south and the Coachella 

Valley to the north. The IID Lateral would pass entirely through the southern Imperial Valley, which is 

the largest area of desert irrigation in the United States. 

The most important source of groundwater recharge to the Imperial Valley is the Colorado River, 

with minor recharge resulting from groundwater inflow from adjacent areas (especially canal seepage), 

infiltration of runoff from surrounding mountains, and local runoff (Planert and Williams 1995). The 

salinity of the Colorado River is the most important water quality issue in the basin, with concentrations 

as high as 900 milligrams per liter (mg/l); major ionic constituents are calcium, sulfate, and chloride 

(USGS 2005). Groundwater within the Imperial Valley generally flows north toward the Salton Sea. 

Depths to groundwater range between 20 and 310 feet below the ground surface and generally tend to 

decrease moving from east to west (USGS 2005, California Department of Water Resources [CDWR] 

2005). 

4.3.2.2 General Impact and Mitigation 

Although activities associated with construction of the Project could affect groundwater 

resources, most potential impacts on groundwater resources would be avoided or minimized by the use of 

both standard and specialized construction techniques as described in Section 2.3. For the majority of the 

Project, groundwater levels are generally well below the land surface that would be affected by 

construction activities. However, shallow aquifers underlying certain construction areas (e.g., the Palo 

Verde Valley, portions of the route in the Cibola NWR, and the Imperial Valley) could experience minor 

impacts from clearing, grading, trenching, dewatering, soil mixing, and compaction that could 

temporarily alter overland flow and groundwater recharge. Near-surface soil mixing and compaction 

caused by heavy construction vehicles could also reduce the soil's ability to absorb water. These impacts 

would be temporary and minor and would not significantly affect groundwater resources or groundwater 

quality. In accordance with North Baja’s CM&R Plan, vegetation would be cleared only where 

necessary. After completion of construction, North Baja would restore the ground surface as closely as 

practicable to original contours and allow vegetation to regenerate to provide restoration of 

preconstruction overland flow and recharge patterns. Routine operation and maintenance of the Project 

facilities would not result in disturbance or contamination of groundwater resources. 

Unconfined aquifers and shallow groundwater areas could be vulnerable to contamination caused 

by inadvertent surface spills of petroleum or hazardous materials used during construction. Accidental 

spills and leaks of hazardous materials associated with equipment trailers; the refueling or maintenance of 

vehicles; and the storage of fuel, oil, and other fluids pose the greatest risk to groundwater resources. If 

not cleaned up, contaminated soils would continue to leach and add pollutants to groundwater long after a 

spill has occurred. Impacts associated with spills or leaks of hazardous liquids could be avoided or 

minimized by restricting the location of refueling and storage facilities and by requiring cleanup in the 

event of a spill or leak. 

North Baja’s SPCC Plan addresses preventive and mitigative measures that would be used to 

avoid or minimize the potential impact of petroleum or hazardous material spills during pipeline 

construction. Some pertinent measures in North Baja’s SPCC Plan include: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-45 

• proper storage and handling of containers and tanks, including storage of containers with 

hazardous liquids in secondary containment structures; 

• restricting liquid transfer, vehicle and equipment washing, and refueling within 100 feet 

of wetlands and waterbodies, 200 feet of water supply wells, and 400 feet of municipal or 

community water wells or protected wellhead or watershed areas; 

• training of all employees on the contents of the SPCC Plan; 

• maintaining emergency spill kits in all service vehicles; 

• periodic inspection of vehicles and equipment for leaks; 

• established release notification and emergency response procedures; and 

• proper disposal of contaminated materials and soils and replacement of excavated 

contaminated soil with clean soil. 

Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R and SPCC Plans would reduce the potential for 

construction or operation of the Project to result in either short- or long-term violation of Federal, tribal, 

or State agency numerical water quality standards or water quality objectives to less than significant 

levels. 

In locations where groundwater is close to the land surface (6 to 8 feet deep), the trench 

excavation could intersect the water table. In these areas, trench dewatering may be required. The 

potential effect on users of the aquifer would depend on the rate and duration of pumping and the location 

of the activity, but is expected to be minor. Pipeline construction activities within a particular location are 

typically completed within several days; consequently, potential impacts would be localized and 

temporary and water levels would be quickly re-established when backfilling is complete. However, 

alteration of the natural soil strata could potentially result in new groundwater migration pathways away 

from surface waterbodies. Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R Plan, which requires the use of trench 

breakers or installation of trench plugs at the edges of waterbodies, would eliminate these potential 

impacts; therefore, the potential for the Project to alter the flow of groundwater to local springs or wetland 

areas would be less than significant. 

During construction of the B-Line, the Arrowhead Extension, and the IID Lateral, substantial 

amounts of groundwater may be encountered in the vicinity of the Colorado River and near canal 

crossings. Additionally, substantial amounts of groundwater may be encountered along the IID Lateral in 

the agricultural areas from MPs 28 to 46 near canal and drain crossings. To control the influx of 

groundwater into bore pits, the use of well points in addition to standard sump pump dewatering may be 

necessary. The water from these dewatering operations would be discharged to dewatering structures 

and/or otherwise filtered and discharged into field drains or canals. North Baja would obtain the 

necessary permits to perform these operations. Minor fluctuations in local groundwater levels may occur, 

but would be temporary and minor. 

Although no areas of known groundwater contamination would be affected by construction of the 

Project facilities, unanticipated, pre-existing contaminated groundwater could be encountered during 

construction. In the event contaminated groundwater or contaminated soils are encountered as evidenced 

by refuse and/or other debris in the trench, discoloration, odor, or other signs at these locations or other 

locations along the pipeline routes, additional observations for the presence of a chemical sheen, free 

product, and chemical odor would be made and recorded before any further construction activity. Field 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-46 

observations would be conducted to determine the nature of the contamination, appropriate 

disposal/treatment options, and the need for sampling. If contaminated groundwater and/or soils are 

encountered, North Baja would stop work and consult with the appropriate agencies, including the 

CRWQCB and the Riverside and Imperial Counties Departments of Health on a plan to proceed. The 

plan would include provisions for characterizing the contaminants, appropriate health and safety measures 

for workers, and proper discharge of the groundwater. North Baja would notify the appropriate agencies 

of any discoveries of pre-existing contamination and would perform evaluations on the amount and 

composition of the contamination. Once the evaluations are completed, North Baja would coordinate 

with the appropriate agencies to determine appropriate actions and disposal of affected materials. 

4.3.2.3 Water Supply Wells 

Before construction, North Baja would conduct a field survey to identify public and private water 

supply wells within 150 feet of the proposed construction work area. This is the distance specified in 

Title 18 CFR Part 380.12(d)(9). However, a preliminary identification of water supply wells in the 

vicinity of the Project was conducted by contacting State agency staff and reviewing well location maps 

and databases at the CDWR and the USGS. Based on this review, 10 water supply wells would be within 

150 feet of the centerline of the pipeline facilities (USGS 2005, CDWR 2005). All of these wells would 

be along the B-Line. Nine of the 10 wells have no records of groundwater data after 2001 and are likely 

non-operational wells. The exception is well ID #007S023E14C019S at MP 2.5. Table 4.3.2-1 lists the 

wells within 150 feet of the B-Line by milepost and depicts the distance from the centerline and depth to 

groundwater. 

TABLE 4.3.2-1 

Water Wells Within 150 Feet of the Centerline of the Pipeline Facilities Associated 

with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility/Well ID# a Milepost Distance from Centerline (feet) b Groundwater Depth (feet) 

B-Line 

007S023E14C019S 2.5 74 12.4 

007S023E15A001S 2.6 116 ND c

007S023E08R001S 4.5 131 ND 

007S023E17D002S 5.4 11 ND 

007S022E12R001S 6.5 17 ND 

007S022E14A001S 7.4 23 ND 

007S022E10R001S 8.5 147 ND 

007S022E15D001S 9.4 7 ND 

007S022E17C001S 11.0 92 ND 

007S022E18A001S 11.6 27 ND 

Arrowhead Extension -NoneIID Lateral -None- 

____________________ 

a

 Uses township-range-section nomenclature based on the San Bernardino Base and Meridian. 

b

 Accuracy of global positioning system data may be as high as +/- 30 meters depending on satellite coverage and 

geographic information system resolution. 

c

 ND = No current groundwater data available for the period 2001 through 2006. 

During construction of the A-Line, only one well was identified within 150 feet of the proposed 

construction work area. This well, probably inactive based on lack of groundwater data since 2001, is 

north of 18th Avenue near MP 7.9 and is assumed to be associated with an existing residence. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-47 

Potential impacts on wells within 150 feet of the construction work area could include: localized 

decreases in groundwater recharge rates, changes to overland water flow, contamination due to hazardous 

materials spills, decreased well yields, decreased water quality (such as an increase in turbidity or odor in 

the water), interference with well mechanics, or complete disruption of the well. These impacts could 

result from trenching, equipment traffic, or blasting. Many variables such as well depth, well age, 

surficial geologic material type, and aquifer characteristics would factor into whether a well would 

actually be impacted by the Project. The primary variable, however, would be the distance between the 

construction activity and the well. Wells further than 150 feet from the construction work area would be 

unaffected by the Project under most conditions. 

With the landowner’s permission, North Baja would test water wells within 150 feet of the 

construction work area before construction to determine baseline flow conditions as a means of 

determining any potential construction-related impacts. Where impacts are reported by landowners, 

North Baja would conduct post-construction water well tests. If it is determined that construction 

activities have impaired a well’s water quality or yield, North Baja would either provide bottled water for 

drinking and arrange for an alternate source of water (such as a water truck) for other household uses, 

temporarily relocate the landowner until the water supply is restored, or compensate the landowner for 

losses. If water quality or yield is permanently impaired as a result of construction activities, North Baja 

would arrange for a new well to be drilled or compensate the landowner. 

The potential for contaminating wells due to spills of petroleum or hazardous materials is 

generally low because of the relatively small volume of such materials present during construction. 

Refueling and the storage of hazardous substances would be prohibited within 200 feet of a private well 

and 400 feet of a community or municipal well. The potential for impacts due to spills would be further 

reduced by implementation of North Baja’s SPCC Plan as described in Section 4.3.2.2. 

As discussed previously, blasting is only anticipated near MP 29.5. No water wells have been 

identified within 0.5 mile of this location. Should additional water wells be identified in the vicinity of a 

location requiring blasting, North Baja’s use of proper blasting techniques, which would fracture bedrock 

only to the point necessary for removal, would limit the effect of the blast to a local area above the aquifer 

in the proximity of the trenchline (see Appendix I). Consequently, it is unlikely groundwater quality 

would be affected. 

In summary, no municipal uses of groundwater were identified within the vicinity of the North 

Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, and only 10 private wells have been identified within 150 feet of the 

proposed facilities. Because North Baja would implement the measures contained in its CM&R and 

SPCC Plans and would identify and monitor any water wells within 150 feet of the construction work 

area, the potential for the Project to interrupt or degrade groundwater used for private or municipal 

purposes is less than significant. 

4.3.3 Surface Water Resources 

4.3.3.1 Existing Surface Water Resources 

Pipeline Facilities 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would cross two watersheds: the Imperial Reservoir 

Watershed and the Salton Sea Watershed. The B-Line would cross the Imperial Reservoir Watershed 

between MPs 0.0 and 49.5 and the Salton Sea Watershed between MPs 49.5 and 79.8, the Arrowhead 

Extension would lie entirely within the Imperial Reservoir Watershed, and the IID Lateral would lie 

entirely within the Salton Sea Watershed. Both watersheds have been classified as Category I watersheds 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-48 

in California’s Unified Watershed Assessment (NRCS 2005), which is part of the Clean Water Action 

Plan. Category I watersheds are high priority candidates for restoration activities to improve impaired 

water quality or other impaired natural resource goals, with an emphasis on aquatic systems. 

Surface waters are classified by the States by the identification of beneficial uses of surface 

waters. This identification is based strictly on documentation of the existence of those uses, which can 

also include potential future and intermittent uses. Such uses are protected by the States through the 

development of water quality objectives for those uses. The beneficial uses of surface waters in the 

Project area include agricultural irrigation; municipal and domestic water supply; industrial service 

supply; groundwater recharge; contact (e.g., swimming, wading, waterskiing) and non-contact (e.g., 

boating, beachcombing, hiking) recreation; freshwater fish habitat; wildlife habitat; and preservation of 

rare, threatened, or endangered species (CRWQCB 1994, NRCS 2005). The water quality of the surface 

waters in the Project area is generally poor; these waters are highly saline or alkaline because of the 

predominance of sedimentary rocks, high evaporation rates, and low precipitation. The primary purpose 

of the agricultural drains in the Project area is for the collection, transport, and storage of drainage waters 

from irrigated cropland to maintain adequate soil salinity balance for agriculture (CRWQCB 1994). 

All of the waterbodies within the Imperial Reservoir and Salton Sea Watersheds, including 

agricultural canals and drains, are listed by the California State Water Resources Control Board 

(CSWRCB) as impaired (California Environmental Protection Agency [CEPA] 2005). This impairment 

is due to elevated pesticide and selenium levels in fish tissues and toxic bioassay results that identified 

high pesticide levels in other aquatic organisms. Agricultural runoff from irrigation practices has been 

identified as the primary source of impairment (CEPA 2005), and contaminated sediments may exist in 

agricultural canals and drains from extensive pesticide use on irrigated croplands (CRWQCB 1999). 

Surface waters in the Project area consist of perennial rivers, man-made irrigation canals and 

ditches/drains, and desert dry washes. Occasional high-intensity rainfalls contribute to the highly turbid 

flows that are observed in streams and rivers in the region. Dry washes flow primarily during these 

precipitation events. Flash floods can be caused by intense, short periods of rainfall and can move large 

loads of sediment, gravel, and larger debris over wide areas of drainage canals and desert washes. 

A total of 2 perennial waterbodies, 73 irrigation canals and drains, and 265 dry desert washes 

would be crossed by the proposed pipeline facilities. Of these, the B-Line would cross 1 perennial 

waterbody (the Colorado River) and 31 irrigation canals and drains (including the All-American Canal). 

All 265 dry washes that would be crossed by the Project occur along the B-Line. The Arrowhead 

Extension would cross the C-05 Canal and two unnamed canals. The IID Lateral would cross 1 perennial 

waterbody (the Alamo River) and 39 irrigation canals and drains, including the All-American Canal (two 

crossings) and the East Highline Canal. Table 4.3.3-1 lists the perennial waterbodies and irrigation canals 

and drains by milepost, type, crossing width, fishery classification, and proposed crossing method. The 

dry washes that would be crossed by the B-Line are listed in Appendix M. 

No potable water intake sources are within 3 miles downstream of the proposed waterbody 

crossings (Taylor 2005). However, the East Highline Canal delivers municipal water to the City of 

Holtville via an intake on Pear Canal (Mendez 2005), which is approximately 6 miles from where the IID 

Lateral would cross the East Highline Canal. 

Neither of the two perennial rivers (the Colorado River and the Alamo River) that would be 

crossed by the Project are listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory or recognized as State-designated 

scenic rivers (NRCS 2005). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-49 

TABLE 4.3.3-1 

Perennial Waterbodies, Canals, and Drains Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility/

Approximate 

Milepost Waterbody Type 

Crossing Width 

(feet) Fishery Type Proposed Crossing Method

B-Line 

0.2 Colorado River Perennial 790 Warmwater HDD a

1.3 D-10-13-42E Delivery Canal 9 NC b

 Dry c

1.7 D-10-13-45E Delivery Canal 15 NC Dry 

1.9 D-10-13-47E Delivery Canal 15 NC Dry 

2.2 D-10-13-49E Delivery Canal 15 NC Dry 

2.3 D-10-13 (F) Canal 40 NC Dry 

2.7 D-10-11-2N Delivery Canal 2 NC Dry 

2.9 D-10-Siphon 48 Canal 15 NC Dry 

3.2 East Side Drain Drain 2 NC Dry 

3.4 Goodman Drain Drain 50 NC Dry 

3.6 D-Siphon-89 Canal 40 NC Dry 

3.9 Private Canal 2 NC Dry 

4.4 D-19 Canal 15 NC Dry 

4.7 D-19-4N Delivery Canal 2 NC Dry 

5.2 Lovekin Drain Drain 30 NC Dry 

5.4 Private Canal 2 NC Dry 

5.9 C-Siphon-56 Canal 42 NC Dry 

6.9 Central Drain Drain 35 NC Dry 

7.9 C-05 Canal Canal 17 NC Dry 

8.2 Private Canal 9 NC Dry 

8.9 West Side Drain Drain 40 NC Dry 

9.5 C-03 Canal Canal 35 NC Dry 

9.9 C-03-64N Delivery Canal 35 NC Dry 

10.3 C-03-16-3N Canal Delivery Canal 40 NC Dry 

10.5 C-03-16 Canal Canal 2 NC Dry 

10.7 C-03-16-6S Delivery Canal 15 NC Dry 

10.9 C-03-16-1 Canal Heading 6 NC Dry 

10.9 C-03-16-8W Delivery Canal 6 NC Dry 

11.2 Private Canal 15 NC Dry 

11.4 Rannells Drain Drain 60 NC Open Cut 

11.4 Private West Side of Drain Canal 15 NC Dry 

79.8 All-American Canal Canal 200 NC HDD 

Arrowhead Extension 

0.5 Unnamed Canal Canal 10 NC Open Cut 

1.5 Unnamed Canal Canal 10 NC Open Cut 

1.5 C-05 Canal Canal 53 NC Dry 

IID Lateral 

2.4 All-American Canal Canal 200 NC HDD 

8.1 All-American Canal Canal 200 NC HDD 

12.5 All-American Canal Lateral 7 Canal 17 NC Dry 

27.5 East Highline Canal 190 NC HDD 

28.4 Warren 2E Drain 4 NC Dry 

28.5 Lateral 7 / Gate 183 Canal 3 NC Dry 

29.1 Lateral 7 / Gate 183A Canal 2 NC Dry 

29.4 Warren 2C Drain 3 NC Dry 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-50 

TABLE 4.3.3-1 (cont’d) 

Perennial Waterbodies, Canals, and Drains Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility/

Approximate 

Milepost Waterbody Type 

Crossing Width 

(feet) Fishery Type Proposed Crossing Method

31.4 Warren 1 Drain 4 NC Dry 

32.3 Alamo Canal 7 NC Dry 

32.3 Alamo River Perennial 52 NC Dry 

33.6 Barbara Worth Drain 3 NC Dry 

33.9 Lateral 12 Canal 6 NC Dry 

34.5 Ash Main Canal 6 NC Dry 

34.9 Ash Lateral 30 Canal 6 NC Dry 

35.9 Ash Lateral 39 Canal 4 NC Dry 

36.4 Ash Lateral 39 (30A) Canal 6 NC Dry 

36.9 Ash Lateral 34 Canal 6 NC Dry 

37.2 South Central Drain 6 NC Dry 

38.0 Ash Lateral 33 Canal 6 NC Dry 

38.2 Ash Lateral 36/Gate 151 Canal 3 NC Dry 

38.4 Central 2A Drain 3 NC Dry 

38.4 Ash Lateral 36/Gate 151C Canal 3 NC Dry 

38.9 Central 2C Drain 4 NC Dry 

38.9 Ash Lateral 15 Canal 6 NC Dry 

38.9 Unnamed Drain 8 NC Dry 

39.2 Unnamed Drain 7 NC Dry 

39.2 Ash Lateral 37 Canal 8 NC Dry 

39.4 Unnamed Drain 12 NC Dry 

39.4 Ash 157 Drain 14 NC Dry 

40.3 Acacia Drain 4 NC Dry 

40.4 Acacia Canal 7 NC Dry 

41.9 Acacia Lateral 6A Canal 3 NC Dry 

42.2 Unnamed Drain 4 NC Dry 

42.5 Acacia Lateral 8 Canal 3 NC Dry 

43.4 Acacia 6A Drain 6 NC Dry 

44.1 Alder Lateral 7 Canal 17 NC Dry 

44.6 Alder Canal 11 NC Dry 

44.8 Central 3 Drain 6 NC Dry 

45.6 Dogwood Canal 12 NC Dry 

____________________ 

a HDD = Horizontal directional drill. b NC = No fisheries classification. c Dry crossings would include boring beneath the existing canals and drains that are enclosed inside drain culverts or 

installing the pipeline between the drain culvert and the road. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-51 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would cross floodplains at numerous locations along 

the B-Line and at a single location along the IID Lateral. No floodplains would be crossed by the 

Arrowhead Extension. The B-Line would cross 4.3 miles of FEMA-designated floodplains at 27 separate 

locations scattered between MPs 24.0 and 79.6. Seventeen of these locations coincide with dry wash 

crossings. The floodplain crossings vary in length from 0.02 mile to 0.77 mile with the majority of 

floodplain crossings less than 0.25 mile long. The IID Lateral would cross one FEMA-designated 100-

year flood hazard area at the Alamo River crossing (ESRI & FEMA 2005, FEMA 2005). The only 

aboveground facility that would be in a floodplain is valve #7 on the B-Line. 

Aboveground Facilities 

There are no waterbodies at any of the proposed aboveground facility sites, and none of the 

aboveground facilities would be within a 100-year flood hazard area designated by the FEMA (ESRI & 

FEMA 2005). 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

Use of the proposed pipe storage and contractor yards would not affect surface waters. 

Access Roads 

Use of the access roads would not affect surface waters. 

4.3.3.2 General Impact and Mitigation 

Pipeline construction could affect surface waters in several ways. Clearing and grading of 

streambanks, in-stream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could affect waterbodies through 

modification of aquatic habitat, increased sedimentation, increased turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen 

concentrations, stream warming, or introduction of chemical contamination from fuels or lubricants. The 

crossing of irrigation canals could interrupt the flow of irrigation water, which could damage crops and 

reduce crop yields. 

Spoil placed in floodplains during pipeline construction could cause an increase in flood levels or 

could be washed downstream or be deleterious to aquatic life. The removal of floodplain vegetation 

could reduce the ability of the floodplain to slow flood flows and filter pollutants and suspended 

sediment, resulting in increased erosion. Occasional high-intensity rainfalls can result in flash flooding 

within the Project area and can move large loads of sediment, gravel, and larger debris. This flash 

flooding is typically confined to natural desert washes and manmade drainage canals within the Project 

area. All construction within floodplains would be temporary, lasting only a few months during clearing, 

grading, trenching, pipe stringing, welding, lowering in, backfilling, and restoration operations. North 

Baja states that it would manage spoil piles in accordance with the provisions of the CDFG’s SAA. For 

the A-Line, these provisions required that materials placed in seasonally dry portions of a stream that 

could be washed downstream or could be deleterious to aquatic life must be removed before inundation 

by high flows. Dry washes are also regulated by the CRWQCB, which may impose additional 

stipulations regarding spoil pile management such as requiring North Baja to leave gaps in the spoil piles 

in dry washes so the washes remain open during construction. In accordance with its CM&R Plan (see 

Appendix E), North Baja would prepare and submit an updated CM&R Plan before construction if 

necessary to incorporate any additional requirements of Federal, State, and local permits. 

Drainage canals would not be disturbed by construction. All trench spoil would be returned to 

the trench, and all disturbed areas would be restored to preconstruction contours. Additionally, North 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-52 

Baja would stabilize the right-of-way following construction. Because the Project would not add 

permanent fill in the floodplains, potential flood flows would not be displaced and long-term impacts are 

not anticipated. Valve #7 on the B-Line would be designed according to DOT standards outlined in Title 

40 CFR Part 192, which requires valves to be built on a concrete pad that protects the valves from 

potential flood or erosion damage. 

The greatest potential impact of pipeline construction on surface waters would result from the 

temporary suspension of sediments caused by in-stream construction or by erosion of cleared streambanks 

and rights-of-way. The extent of the impact would depend on sediment loads, stream velocity, turbidity, 

bank composition, and sediment particle size. These factors would determine the density and downstream 

extent of sediment migration. In-stream construction, particularly under flowing conditions, could cause 

the dislodging and transport of channel bed sediments, which could cause changes in downstream bottom 

contours and streamflow dynamics that could cause additional erosion and downstream sedimentation. 

Turbidity resulting from resuspension of sediments from in-stream construction or erosion of cleared 

right-of-way areas would reduce light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production. In-stream work 

could also introduce chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments if pollutants are present in the 

sediments at the crossing location and result in the movement of these pollutants to new locations 

downstream. Resuspension of deposited organic material and inorganic sediments could cause an 

increase in biological and chemical use of oxygen, resulting in reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations 

in the affected area. Lower dissolved oxygen concentrations could cause temporary displacement of 

motile organisms and may kill non-motile organisms within the affected area. Implementation of the 

measures described in North Baja’s CM&R Plan, such as placement of extra work areas, general crossing 

procedures, spoil pile placement and control, and trench dewatering, would reduce the potential for 

degradation of downstream water quality as a result of suspension of sediments to less than significant 

levels. 

Clearing and grading of streambanks would expose large areas of soil to erosional forces and 

would reduce the riparian vegetation along the cleared section of the stream. The use of heavy equipment 

for construction could cause compaction of near-surface soils, which could result in increased runoff into 

surface waterbodies. The increased runoff could transport additional sediment into the waterbodies, 

resulting in increased turbidity levels and sedimentation rates in the receiving waterbody. Erosion prior to 

right-of-way restoration and revegetation would be controlled through various procedures as described in 

North Baja’s CM&R Plan. These procedures would reduce the potential for erosion, via either wind or 

water, to less than significant levels. 

No alteration of existing drainage patterns would occur during construction that would result in 

significant erosion or flooding. The capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, 

irrigation water control structures, and municipal water supply reservoirs would not be affected. 

Adherence to the measures and best management practices in North Baja’s CM&R Plan would ensure 

that the Project would not violate narrative and numerical water quality standards or result in polluted 

runoff. 

Refueling of vehicles and storage of fuel, oil, or other hazardous materials near surface waters 

and spills from equipment working in waterbodies could also create a potential for contamination in 

waterbodies. If a spill were to occur, immediate downstream users of the water could experience 

degradation in water quality. Acute and chronic toxic effects on aquatic organisms could also result from 

such a spill. Implementation of the measures in North Baja’s SPCC Plan (see Appendix F) would 

minimize the potential impact of a spill into surface waters during construction to less than significant 

levels. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-53 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

As discussed in Section 2.3, North Baja’s CM&R Plan includes the portions of the FERC’s 

Procedures that are relevant to protect waterbodies in the Project area. These measures include: 

• locating all extra work areas at least 50 feet away from waterbody boundaries, where 

topographic conditions permit; 

• limiting clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the edge of the waterbody to 

the certificated construction right-of-way; 

• maintaining adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life and prevent the interruption of 

existing downstream uses; 

• restricting storage and refueling activities near surface waters; 

• restricting spoil placement and control near surface waters; 

• limiting use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed to construct the 

crossing; 

• adhering to timing restrictions on in-stream work; 

• requiring temporary erosion and sediment control at Rannells Drain and the two unnamed 

canals along the Arrowhead Extension and/or as required by regulatory agencies; 

• requiring bank stabilization and recontouring after construction; and 

• limiting use of herbicides or pesticides for right-of-way maintenance in or within 100 feet 

of a waterbody except as specified by the appropriate land management or State agency. 

North Baja would obtain waterbody crossing permits from the COE under section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of the CWA. North Baja would also obtain a section 401 

Water Quality Certification from the CRWQCB. In addition, North Baja would obtain an SAA (section 

1600 seq. of the California Fish and Game Code) from the CDFG (see Section 4.3.3.4). All construction 

activities at waterbody crossings would be in accordance with Federal, State, and local permit 

requirements. North Baja’s implementation of its CM&R Plan and these mitigation measures would 

reduce impacts on surface waters to less than significant levels. 

The majority of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the B-Line are dry washes that do not 

support fisheries, provide critical aquatic habitat, provide migratory passage for aquatic organisms, or 

have CRWQCB-designated recreation/high quality visual resource values. North Baja would cross these 

dry washes with typical cross-country construction methods using the same techniques that were 

implemented to construct the A-Line. As discussed above, the spoil piles would be managed in 

accordance with the provisions of the CDFG’s SAA, which are expected to require that materials placed 

in seasonally dry portions of a stream that could be washed downstream or could be deleterious to aquatic 

life must be removed before inundation by high flows. Impacts on dry washes would be limited to the 

temporary alteration of beds and banks, loss of wildlife habitat, and possibly increased sediment load 

during initial storm events following construction. Discussions of impacts on the vegetation, wildlife, and 

special status species associated with these washes are included in Sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7, respectively. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-54 

With three exceptions, North Baja would cross all flowing waterbodies using the HDD or bore 

method, or the pipeline would be installed between the drain culverts and a road bed. Specifically, North 

Baja proposes to cross the Colorado River, the All-American Canal, and the East Highline Canal using 

the HDD method, which is described in Section 2.3.2. These three waterbodies are greater than 100 feet 

wide at the crossing location and are discussed in Section 4.3.3.3. 

The only flowing waterbody proposed to be crossed using the open-cut method is Rannells Drain, 

which would be crossed by the B-Line at MP 11.4. Two unnamed canals that would be crossed by the 

Arrowhead Extension at MPs 0.5 and 1.5 would also be crossed using the open-cut method. The open-cut 

method is described in Section 2.3.2. Rannells Drain is an agricultural drain in the Palo Verde Valley that 

is periodically cleared of vegetation by the PVID. North Baja installed the A-Line in 2002 using the 

open-cut crossing method and the vegetation in the drain has fully recovered. The PVID has indicated it 

would be willing to perform maintenance clearing/dredging at the Rannells Drain crossing before 

construction of the B-Line in 2009, as long as it is done between August 2 and March 14 as agreed with 

the CDFG. Although Rannells Drain is shallow and stagnant, North Baja proposes to use sediment 

booms downstream of the trenching, which would contain sedimentation to the localized area. In 

accordance with the CM&R Plan, North Baja would attempt to complete actual in-stream trenching 

within 48 hours. Any sediment potentially released during construction would be removed the next time 

the PVID dredges the drain for agricultural purposes (expected to occur 1 year after construction) and 

would not be a permanent addition to the aquatic environment. Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R 

Plan and the use of sediment booms would reduce the potential for degradation of downstream water 

quality as a result of suspension of sediments, including contaminated sediments, and any impact on 

water quality would be temporary. 

With the exception of Rannells Drain and the two unnamed canals along the Arrowhead 

Extension, all other canals and drains along the B-Line are constrained within culverts under 18th Avenue 

and would either be crossed by locating the pipeline over the culverts and/or by boring underneath them; 

therefore, construction would avoid disturbance to the beds and banks of these waterbodies. Erosion 

control devices would be installed in accordance with the CM&R Plan to protect these waterbodies from 

sedimentation resulting from adjacent construction activities. Construction across canals and drains in the 

Palo Verde Valley would be completed in accordance with the PVID permit conditions and site-specific 

agreements with private landowners. Similar construction techniques were used to construct the A-Line 

resulting in no impact on canals and drains. 

All canals and drains that would be crossed by the IID Lateral also flow through culverts. North 

Baja would cross these canals and drains using the same techniques and mitigation measures as proposed 

for the canals and drains that would be crossed by the B-Line. The IID Lateral would also cross the 

Alamo River (MP 32.3), which would be crossed by installing the pipeline in the road shoulder over the 

culverts that carry the water under Hunt Road. Use of this method would avoid impacts on the Alamo 

River. 

Impacts on the integrity of structures, such as bridges, pipelines, utilities, or culverts due to 

erosion or conveyance of stormwater during construction or operation would be less than significant 

through the implementation of the measures proposed in North Baja’s CM&R Plan. Additionally, no 

structures would be placed within waterbodies that could affect normal flow or increase the potential for 

flooding outside of the waterbody channel. 

4.3.3.3 Major and Sensitive Waterbodies 

Waterbodies may be considered sensitive to pipeline construction for a number of reasons, 

including, but not limited to, the width of the crossing; the presence of coldwater aquatic habitat, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-55 

fisheries, and imported or special status species; the presence of high-quality recreational, visual resource, 

or historic value; or the presence of impaired water or contaminated sediments. Waterbodies may also be 

considered sensitive if they are of special interest to a land management agency, resource agency, or 

Native American tribe. 

Two major waterbodies (greater than 100 feet wide) would be crossed by the B-Line: the 

Colorado River (MP 0.2, 790 feet wide) and the All-American Canal (MP 79.8, 200 feet wide). The 

Colorado River is the primary source for most of the irrigation water in the Project area and is regulated 

by the COE under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for navigable waters. The Colorado 

River is also considered sensitive because it provides potential habitat for the razorback sucker, a Federal 

and State-listed endangered fish species (see Section 4.7.4.4). The All-American Canal is under the 

jurisdiction of the BOR as part of a Federal irrigation system that diverts water from the Colorado River 

at the Imperial Dam near Yuma, Arizona, and takes it across the Colorado Desert to provide water 

through a series of smaller canals into the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. The canal is managed by the 

IID and is scheduled to have a lining installed between 2006 and 2007, before the proposed construction 

of the IID Lateral (BOR 1994, Remington 2005). 

The IID Lateral would cross two waterbodies greater than 100 feet wide: the All-American Canal 

(MPs 2.4 and 8.1, 200 feet wide) and the East Highline Canal (MP 27.5, 190 feet wide). The East 

Highline Canal delivers municipal water to the City of Holtville via an intake on Pear Canal (Mendez 

2005). This municipal water intake is located at gate 30L, approximately 6 miles downstream from the 

East Highline Canal crossing. 

North Baja proposes to cross the Colorado River, All-American Canal (three crossings), and the 

East Highline Canal using the HDD method. As discussed in Section 2.3, this technique involves drilling 

a pilot hole under the waterbody and banks, then enlarging that hole through successive reamings until the 

hole is large enough to accommodate the pipe. Throughout the process of drilling and enlarging the hole, 

a slurry made of naturally occurring non-toxic materials, such as bentonite clay and water, would be 

circulated through the drilling tools to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill cuttings, and hold the hole open. 

This slurry is referred to as drilling mud. Pipe sections long enough to span the entire crossing would be 

staged and welded along the construction work area on the opposite side of the waterbody and then pulled 

through the drilled hole. 

Unlike a conventional open-cut crossing, the HDD method would not alter or remove streambed 

or streambank habitat, cause in-stream sedimentation, or interfere with fish movement. The primary 

impact that could occur as a result of an HDD is an inadvertent release of drilling mud (frac-out) directly 

or indirectly into the waterbody. Drilling mud may leak through previously unidentified fractures in the 

material underlying the river or canal bed, in the area of the mud pits or tanks, or along the path of the 

drill due to unfavorable ground conditions. Although drilling mud consists of naturally occurring 

nontoxic materials, such as bentonite clay and water, in larger quantities the release of drilling mud into a 

waterbody could affect fisheries or other aquatic organisms by settling and temporarily inundating the 

habitats used by these species. This impact is less likely in fast-moving water, which can disperse the 

drilling mud over a large area. Moreover, the impact of a frac-out is substantially less than the impact 

associated with an open-cut crossing. 

The Colorado River and the All-American Canal were crossed by the A-Line in 2002 using the 

HDD method. One minor frac-out occurred on land near the HDD entry point at the Colorado River; no 

frac-outs occurred in the water. Geotechnical investigations conducted at these crossing locations 

indicate that stiff cohesive soils are present that are conducive for the HDD crossing method. Preliminary 

geotechnical investigations conducted at the IID Lateral crossing locations of the All-American and East 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-56 

Highline Canals indicate that the HDD crossing method would be appropriate at these locations, although 

North Baja would conduct additional geotechnical investigations to confirm this preliminary assessment. 

North Baja has submitted site-specific HDD crossing plans for the Colorado River, All-American 

Canal, and East Highline Canal that show the drill entry and exit workspaces, the pipe fabrication and 

stringout areas, and the drill profiles. North Baja has also submitted an HDD Plan (see Appendix G) that 

describes the HDD process and how it would be monitored. The HDD Plan describes the agency 

notification procedures and the corrective action and cleanup procedures that would be followed in the 

event of a frac-out to land and the abandonment procedures that would be followed if it is necessary to 

abandon the drill hole. Although the HDD Plan addresses corrective action and cleanup procedures for a 

frac-out to land, it does not provide this information for a frac-out that occurs in the water. Therefore, the 

Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall prepare a revised HDD Plan that specifies the corrective action 

and cleanup procedures that would be followed in the event a frac-out occurs in the 

water during an HDD operation. North Baja shall file the revised plan with the 

FERC and the CSLC for the review and written approval of the Director of the 

Office of Energy Projects (OEP) and the Executive Officer of the CSLC before 

commencement of any HDD operation. 

With the implementation of the Agency Staffs’ recommendation, North Baja’s site-specific 

crossing plans and HDD Plan would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. 

4.3.3.4 Streambed Alteration Agreement 

The Colorado River, the Alamo River, 73 irrigation drains and canals, and 265 dry desert washes 

would be crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project in California. The CDFG requires project 

Applicants to notify the CDFG of any activity that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of 

the bed, channel, or bank (including associated riparian habitat) of a river, stream, or lake; or use material 

from a streambed prior to the Applicant’s commencement of the activity. Streams include, but are not 

limited to, intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams, and 

watercourses with subsurface flow. The irrigation drains and canals that would be crossed by the Project 

are not under the jurisdiction of the CDFG. The issuance of an SAA (section 1600 seq. of the California 

Fish and Game Code) for projects subject to the CEQA requires CEQA compliance actions by the CDFG 

as a responsible agency. For the CDFG to process an SAA, the EIS/EIR document must incorporate 

information regarding impacts on lakes, streams, and associated habitat, including but not limited to the 

following items: 

• a delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that would be directly or indirectly 

impacted by the proposed Project; 

• details on the biological resources (flora and fauna) associated with the lands and/or 

streams; 

• identification of the presence or absence of sensitive plants, animals, or natural 

communities; 

• a discussion of environmental alternatives; 

• a discussion of avoidance measures to reduce Project impacts; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-57 

• a discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce Project impacts to less 

than significant levels; and 

• a discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil 

erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the Project site, 

with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts. 

The CDFG, as a responsible agency under the CEQA, may consider the local jurisdiction’s (lead 

State agency) Negative Declaration or EIS/EIR for the Project. If the EIS/EIR does not fully identify 

potential impacts on lakes, streams, and associated resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting commitments, additional CEQA documentation would be required before 

execution (signing) of the SAA. 

Existing Biological Resources 

Biological resources, including wetlands, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and special status species 

present in streambeds along the proposed pipeline routes are discussed in detail in Sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 

and 4.7. These discussions include descriptions of habitat types crossed, aquatic and terrestrial species 

occurring or potentially occurring along the routes, and detailed reviews of protected species and their 

habitats. 

The Colorado River is the prominent surface water feature in the region. This waterbody is a 

warmwater fishery that provides habitat for several special status species. The riparian vegetation 

adjacent to the river also provides habitat for a variety of wildlife. Additionally, the Colorado River is an 

important contributor to the region’s biodiversity. 

Two vegetative types are generally found along the desert washes crossed by the Project: 

Sonoran creosote bush scrub and desert wash woodland. Desert wash woodland is the dominant 

community along well-defined washes. Although not the most common vegetation type crossed by the 

pipeline routes, desert wash woodland provides greater structural diversity than the Sonoran creosote bush 

scrub due to its taller vegetation and higher density of vegetation. These characteristics increase wildlife 

value of the desert wash woodland habitat type. 

Biological Studies Conducted 

In accordance with the requirements of the SAA, a field-based habitat assessment of the proposed 

B-Line route was conducted before construction of the A-Line in 2000, and similar habitat assessments of 

the IID Lateral and the Arrowhead Extension were conducted in 2005 and 2006, respectively, to 

determine the potential for the occurrence of protected species or their habitats and to ascertain 

information on vegetative communities within the Project area. Species-specific surveys were conducted 

for protected species identified by agencies as potentially occurring along the route throughout 2005 and 

in the Spring of 2006. North Baja’s survey methods were designed in consultation with appropriate 

Federal and State agencies. Additional discussion of surveys for protected species is included in Section 

4.7. 

Impact Analysis 

The evaluation of potential impacts of the Project on streambeds focuses on biological resources 

associated with the feature, including wetlands, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and special status species. In 

general, impacts on biological resources within the Project area would be minor and temporary. Direct 

impacts would be limited to increased erosion and potential sedimentation of the dry washes during initial 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-58 

storm events following construction. Clearing of riparian vegetation would remove some available 

habitat and would temporarily displace wildlife species to available adjacent habitats. Some individuals 

of less mobile species may be killed or injured by construction activities. 

No impact on the Colorado River and associated riparian corridor is expected because the river 

and associated riparian vegetation would be crossed using the HDD method (see Sections 2.3.2 and 

4.3.3.3) and the drill entry and exit points would be outside of the riparian zone. 

Detailed discussions of potential impact on biological resources resulting from the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project are included throughout Section 4. Impacts on waterbodies that would be 

crossed by the Project are discussed in Section 4.3.3, impacts on vegetation are discussed in Section 4.5, 

impacts on wildlife and aquatic resources are discussed in Section 4.6, and impacts on special status 

species are discussed in Section 4.7. 

Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

Specific mitigation measures to minimize impact on biological resources are discussed in the 

respective subsections of Section 4. Additionally, North Baja has developed its CM&R Plan (see 

Appendix E) to minimize impacts on the Project area during construction. The CM&R Plan includes a 

discussion of proposed restoration activities and other mitigation measures. 

4.3.4 Groundwater and Surface Water Uses During Construction 

Hydrostatic Test Water 

Pipeline integrity would be verified through hydrostatic testing, which is conducted by filling the 

pipeline with water, pressurizing it, and then checking for pressure loss resulting from leakage. North 

Baja would use both groundwater and surface water sources for hydrostatic testing. 

Water for testing the piping within the Ehrenberg Compressor Station would be obtained from an 

existing irrigation canal adjacent to the compressor station property or an existing well located on the 

compressor station site. Both sources are hydrologically connected to the Colorado River. After testing, 

the water would be discharged into lined irrigation canals at the site or into the D-10 Canal. 

North Baja would hydrostatically test the B-Line with water obtained either from the same water 

sources at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site or directly from the All-American Canal at the location 

of the pipeline crossing. The water would be discharged to the All-American Canal when testing is 

complete. 

The Arrowhead Extension and piping within the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station would be 

tested with water obtained from the PVID, local wells, or a commercial water source. After testing, the 

water would be discharged into the C-05 Canal. 

North Baja would hydrostatically test the IID Lateral with water obtained from the All-American 

Canal through an agreement with the IID to use approximately 7 acre-feet of water and discharge it 

directly back into the All-American Canal or into other IID irrigation facilities. The quantities of 

hydrostatic test water required for each facility and the water sources are listed in Table 4.3.4-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-59 

TABLE 4.3.4-1 

Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility 

Water Withdrawn 

(gallons) Source 

B-Line; Ehrenberg Compressor Station 11,201,000 a Existing well at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site, 

existing irrigation canal adjacent to the Ehrenberg 

Compressor Station Site, or the All-American Canal 

Arrowhead Extension; Blythe-Arrowhead 

Meter Station 

586,256 Palo Verde Irrigation District, local wells, or commercial 

water source 

IID Lateral 2,366,000 All-American Canal 

____________________ 

a The water would be withdrawn in phases coinciding with North Baja’s proposed construction schedule (see Section 

2.4). 

The withdrawal of large volumes of water from surface water sources could temporarily affect the 

recreational and biological uses of the resource if the diversions constitute a large percentage of the 

source’s total flow or volume. Hydrostatic test water withdrawals could also result in the temporary loss 

of habitat, changes in water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, and entrainment or impingement of 

fish or other aquatic organisms. The withdrawal of large volumes of water from private or public water 

supply wells could exceed the delivery capacity of the system or well. 

North Baja would minimize the potential for these effects by adhering to the hydrostatic testing 

measures included in its CM&R Plan (see Appendix E). These measures include screening intake hoses 

and regulating the withdrawal of hydrostatic test water at a rate that would not adversely affect aquatic 

resources or downstream flows. The fill volume would be limited to 1,500 gallons per minute or 10 

percent of streamflow, whichever is less. Maintaining the prescribed withdrawal rate would avoid a 

reduction in streamflow quantity such that there would not be a flow change that would significantly 

damage either beneficial uses or aquatic life within the source waters. The rate of water withdrawal from 

private sources would be limited so as not to exceed the delivery capacity of the system or well. Water 

would be filtered before entering the pipe and no chemicals would be added to the test water. North Baja 

would conduct all hydrostatic test activities in accordance with its applicable permits (including 

coordination with the BOR) and DOT pipeline safety regulations as set forth in Title 49 CFR Part 192. 

Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts on groundwater and surface waters resulting 

from hydrostatic testing to less than significant levels. Sections 4.6.3 and 4.7 describe potential impacts 

of hydrostatic testing on aquatic resources and special status species, respectively. 

The potential impacts resulting from the discharge of hydrostatic test water include soil erosion 

and stream scour and subsequent degradation of water quality. North Baja would discharge hydrostatic 

test water in accordance with the requirements of its NPDES permit. The discharge rate would be 

regulated, and water would be discharged through energy dissipation devices and sediment barriers, as 

necessary, to prevent erosion or excessive flow. The use of such devices would prevent adverse effects 

on the operation of irrigation water control structures, gates, or valves. No municipal water supply 

reservoirs would be affected by the proposed Project. 

Dust Control Water 

Water would also be needed to control fugitive dust generated during construction activities (see 

Sections 4.2 and 4.11 and Appendix L). The water would likely be obtained from the same sources that 

would provide water for hydrostatic testing activities (see Table 4.3.4-1). The impacts on water resources 

due to water withdrawals for dust control would be the same as those discussed above for hydrostatic test 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-60 

water withdrawals. The rate of water withdrawal for dust control would be limited so as not to exceed the 

delivery capacity of the system or affect downstream uses. 

Because North Baja did not provide estimates of the quantities of water that would be required for 

dust control or specify the water sources or measures to protect aquatic resources during dust control 

water withdrawals, the Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall prepare a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan that specifies the 

following: 

a. the sources of water that would be used for dust control; 

b. the anticipated quantities of water that would be required; and 

c. the measures that would be implemented to prevent fish and fish egg 

entrainment during dust control water withdrawals. 

The revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan shall be filed with the FERC and the 

CSLC for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive 

Officer of the CSLC before construction. 

4.3.5 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on groundwater and surface water resources identified for the construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-61 

4.4 WETLANDS 

4.4.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on wetlands would be considered significant and would require mitigation if 

Project construction or operation would: 

• fill or alter a wetland resulting in an adverse change in its hydrology or soils, or the 

composition of vegetation of a unique, rare, or special concern wetland community; or 

• cause short- or long-term violations of Federal, tribal, or State water quality standards for 

streams that lead to wetlands, measured as in-stream elevated turbidity readings or 

decreased dissolved oxygen levels. 

4.4.2 Existing Wetland Resources 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support a prevalence of wetland vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions (COE 1987). Wetlands can be a source of substantial biodiversity and serve a variety of 

functions that include providing wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, flood control, and naturally 

improving water quality. 

Wetlands in the Project area are regulated at the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level, 

the COE has authority under section 404 of the CWA to review and issue permits for activities that would 

result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

Section 401 of the CWA requires that proposed dredge and fill activities under section 404 be reviewed 

and certified by the designated State agency, in this case the CRWQCB, so that the proposed Project 

would meet State water quality standards. 

For the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, wetlands were delineated using the methodology 

described in the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE Manual), Technical Report Y-87-1. The 

delineations were conducted during July through October 2000 for the wetlands that would be crossed by 

the B-Line and during September 2005 for the wetlands that would be crossed by the IID Lateral. On 

September 23, 2005, North Baja met with representatives from the COE who approved of North Baja’s 

wetland delineation methods after reviewing selected wetlands along the B-Line and IID Lateral. A total 

of 18 COE jurisdictional wetlands (2.7 miles) would be crossed by the proposed Project. No isolated, 

non-COE jurisdictional wetlands would be crossed by the Project. The location, wetland identifier, FWS 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification, crossing length, and approximate acreage that would 

be affected by construction and operation of each wetland are listed in Table 4.4.2-1. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Based on North Baja’s field surveys, the proposed pipeline facilities would cross 18 wetlands for 

a total distance of approximately 2.7 miles. The B-Line would cross 13 of these wetlands for a total 

crossing length of 13,995 feet (2.7 miles). Ten of these would be palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands and 

three would be palustrine emergent wetlands. Two of the scrub-shrub wetlands are adjacent to the 

Colorado River between MPs 0.1 and 0.2. Vegetation in these wetlands includes arrow weed, tamarisk, 

and willow, as well as a few other species. Eight other scrub-shrub wetlands are between MPs 28.2 and 

31.3. All of these wetlands are sodic seasonal wetlands with visible efflorescence (salt) covering the 

surface. The vegetation in these wetlands is dominated by tamarisk, iodine bush, and greasewood. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-62 

TABLE 4.4.2-1 

Wetlands Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project a

Approximate 

Milepost County, State 

Wetland 

Identifier 

National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) 

Classification b

Crossing 

Length (feet) 

Temporary 

Construction 

Impact (acres) c

Permanent Impact 

(acres) d

B-Line 

0.1 La Paz, AZ P26-WE-1 PSS/PEM 250 d 0.0 0.0 

0.2 La Paz, AZ P24-WE-1 PSS 50 d

 0.0 0.0 

2.7 Riverside, CA N55-WE-3 PEM 70 0.2 0.0 

28.2 Imperial, CA N68-WE-29 PSS 360 1.0 0.1 

28.3 Imperial, CA N69-WE-29 PSS 970 2.5 0.2 

28.5 Imperial, CA N70-WE-29 PSS 515 1.7 0.1 

28.8 Imperial, CA CWE-1 PSS 194 0.5 <0.1 

29.1 Imperial, CA CWE-2 PSS 151 0.4 <0.1 

29.1 Imperial, CA CWE-3 PSS 287 0.7 0.1 

29.7 Imperial, CA CWE-4 PSS 9,630 23.2 2.2 

31.3 Imperial, CA CWE-5 PSS 1,483 5.4 0.3 

79.8 Imperial, CA D18-WE-81C PEM 15 e 0.0 0.0 

79.8 Imperial, CA P1-WE-80 PEM 20 e 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal B-Line 13,995 35.6 3.0 

 

Arrowhead Extension -NoneSubtotal Arrowhead Extension 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 

IID Lateral 

27.5 Imperial, CA East Highline 

Canal – East 

PSS 50 e 0.1 0.0 

27.6 Imperial, CA East Highline 

Canal – West 

PSS 50 e 0.0 0.0 

32.3 Imperial, CA Alamo River PSS 340 r 0.0 0.0 

43.4 Imperial, CA Acacia Lateral 

Canal 

PSS 40 g 0.0 0.0 

44.1 Imperial, CA Alder Lateral 

Canal 

PSS 18 g 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal IID Lateral 498 0.0 0.0 

 

Project Total 14,493 35.7 3.0 

____________________ 

a Does not include dry wash crossings (see Section 4.3.3.2). 

b NWI Wetland Classification (Cowardin et al. 1979): 

 PSS = Palustrine scrub-shrub 

 PEM = Palustrine emergent 

c

 Acres include the construction right-of-way and extra workspaces. 

d

 Permanent wetland vegetation type conversion impacts are associated with scrub-shrub wetlands. Operational 

requirements (corrosion/leak surveys) allow a 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline to be maintained in an 

herbaceous state; however, North Baja does not plan to conduct regular vegetation maintenance. 

e

 Would be crossed by horizontal directional drill. 

f

 Would not be affected because the pipeline would be installed in the road shoulder outside the wetland boundary. 

g

 Would be crossed by the bore method. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-63 

Of the three palustrine emergent wetlands that would be crossed by the B-Line, one wetland is in 

a topographic depression between an irrigation canal levee road and an adjacent agricultural field at MP 

2.7. Dominant species in this wetland include nut sedge, Bermuda grass, and barnyard grass. The other 

two emergent wetlands are on the north and south banks of the All-American Canal at MP 79.8. 

The drains that would be crossed in the Palo Verde Valley contain vegetation typical of the 

wetland communities in the area. However, these drains are not considered jurisdictional by the COE and 

are occasionally dredged. 

No wetlands would be crossed by the Arrowhead Extension. 

The IID Lateral would cross five palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands for a total crossing length of 

498 feet (less than 0.1 mile). Of these, two wetlands are adjacent to the East Highline Canal between 

MPs 27.5 and 27.6. Vegetation in these wetlands includes arrow weed, tamarisk, and salt bush. A scrubshrub wetland dominated by tamarisk is adjacent to the Alamo River at MP 32.3. At the Acacia Lateral 

Canal crossing at MP 43.4, a tamarisk-dominated scrub-shrub wetland would be crossed. A scrub-shrub 

wetland associated with the Alder Lateral Canal that is dominated by tamarisk, salt bush, and arrow weed 

would be crossed at MP 44.1. 

Aboveground Facilities 

No wetlands are present at any of the aboveground facility sites. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

No wetlands are at the four proposed pipe storage and contractor yards. 

Access Roads 

No wetlands are along the proposed access roads. 

4.4.3 General Impact and Mitigation 

Although wetlands occur along both the B-Line and the IID Lateral, construction impacts would 

primarily occur on wetlands along the B-Line. Construction of the B-Line would affect a total of 35.6 

acres of wetlands, including 0.2 acre of emergent wetland and 35.4 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands (see 

Table 4.4.2-1). Of the total 35.6 acres of disturbance along the B-Line, about 26.9 acres were previously 

disturbed during construction of the A-Line. About 8.7 acres of new wetland disturbance would result 

from construction of the B-Line. Four wetlands, two associated with the Colorado River crossing and 

two associated with the All-American Canal crossing, would be avoided by the use of the HDD crossing 

method at these river and canal crossings (see Table 4.4.2-1). 

Wetland impacts along the IID Lateral would be avoided by use of the HDD crossing method at 

the East Highline Canal, constructing in the road shoulder outside of the wetland boundary at the Alamo 

River, or by use of the bore crossing method at the Acacia Lateral and Alder Lateral Canals. However, 

about 0.1 acre of scrub-shrub wetlands would be affected by North Baja’s request to locate extra 

workspace within the wetland that would be crossed on the east side of the Highline Canal at MP 27.5. 

The primary impact of pipeline construction and right-of-way maintenance activities on wetlands 

would be the temporary and permanent alteration of wetland vegetation. These effects would be greatest 

during and immediately following construction. Generally, the wetland vegetation community would 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-64 

eventually transition back into a community with functionality similar to that of the wetland before 

construction. In emergent wetlands, the herbaceous vegetation would regenerate quickly (typically within 

1 to 3 years). Scrub-shrub wetlands could take several years to reach functionality similar to 

preconstruction conditions depending on the age and complexity of the system. However, given the fast 

growing species (primarily tamarisk) that dominate the scrub-shrub wetlands that would be affected and 

the results of North Baja’s revegetation monitoring for the A-Line, regeneration is expected to occur 

within a shorter time frame. 

Following revegetation, there would be little permanent impact on emergent wetland vegetation 

in the maintained right-of-way because these areas naturally consist of and would remain as open and 

herbaceous communities. Herbaceous wetland vegetation in the pipeline right-of-way is not generally 

mowed or otherwise maintained, although the FERC’s Procedures allows annual maintenance of a 10-

foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline. A 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline could 

potentially be maintained in an herbaceous condition to facilitate corrosion/leak surveys. Permanent 

impacts would occur on scrub-shrub wetlands if annual maintenance were conducted within this 10-footwide strip preventing the scrub-shrub species in this area from reaching mature size. Approximately 3.0 

acres of scrub-shrub wetlands along the B-Line could be permanently affected by vegetation type 

conversions that would be primarily impacts on the structure of the wetlands (i.e., result in more 

herbaceous vegetation and fewer shrubs), but would not greatly reduce the existing wetland functions or 

amount of wetlands in the Project area. However, North Baja does not routinely conduct vegetation 

maintenance along its right-of-way; therefore, permanent impacts on wetlands would not be expected to 

occur. 

Of the 13 wetlands along the B-Line route, 9 were affected during construction of the A-Line, and 

4 were previously avoided by HDD crossings. North Baja conducted post-construction monitoring of the 

nine previously affected wetlands and reports that the wetlands have rapidly revegetated to their 

preconstruction condition with both native (salt bush) and non-native (tamarisk) species. Because of the 

high concentration of salts within these wetlands, few native species are able to colonize these areas, and 

the presence of tamarisk propagules in the wetland topsoil and in adjacent areas favors recolonization and 

dominance by this non-native species. 

Other types of impacts associated with construction of the pipeline could include temporary 

changes in wetland hydrology and water quality. During construction, failure to segregate topsoil over 

the trenchline in non-saturated wetlands could result in the mixing of the topsoil with the subsoil. This 

disturbance could result in altered biological activities and chemical conditions in wetland soils and could 

affect the re-establishment and natural recruitment of native wetland vegetation after restoration. In 

addition, inadvertent compaction and rutting of soils during construction could result from the movement 

of heavy machinery and the transport of pipe sections. The resulting alteration of the natural hydrologic 

patterns of the wetlands could inhibit seed germination or increase the potential for siltation. The 

discharge of stormwater, trench water, or hydrostatic test water could result in silt-laden water entering a 

wetland and cause the release of chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments. Construction clearing 

activities and disturbance of wetland vegetation could also temporarily affect the wetland’s capacity to 

buffer flood flows and/or control erosion. The procedures that North Baja would implement to avoid or 

minimize these impacts are discussed below. 

Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

In general, wetland impacts would be minimized by avoidance, mitigation of impacts, and 

compensation in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-65 

North Baja would avoid impacts on wetlands by implementing the HDD crossing method at six 

wetland crossings, and implementing the bore crossing method at two wetland crossings. North Baja 

would further avoid impacts on wetlands by locating the IID Lateral within existing road shoulders. 

Additionally, North Baja would avoid and minimize impacts on wetlands by its proposal to install the BLine 25 feet south and west of North Baja’s existing A-Line and work over the existing pipeline. 

North Baja would mitigate construction-related impacts by implementing its CM&R Plan as 

discussed below and by complying with the COE's section 404 and the CRWQCB’s section 401 permit 

conditions. The COE has determined that the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would qualify for a 

nationwide permit under the COE’s section 404 permit program. Nationwide permits are a type of 

general permit issued by the COE for certain activities having minimal impacts. Projects that qualify for 

a nationwide permit are not required to demonstrate compliance with the section 404(b)(1) guidelines that 

restrict discharges of dredged or fill material where a less environmentally damaging alternative exists. 

Should the COE later determine that an individual section 404 permit is necessary, as part of its section 

404 permit application North Baja would be expected to demonstrate that it has taken appropriate and 

practicable steps to minimize wetland impacts in compliance with the section 404(b)(1) guidelines that 

restrict discharges of dredged or fill material where a less environmentally damaging alternative exists. In 

order for the COE to determine whether practicable alternatives have been taken, North Baja is required 

to avoid wetland impacts to the maximum extent possible. When unavoidable wetland impacts are 

proposed, the COE and the CRWQCB would require that all practicable actions be taken to mitigate those 

impacts. This is consistent with the CEQ’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (Title 40 CFR Part 1508.20), which defines mitigation to include 

the following criteria: 

• avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

• minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; 

• rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

• reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; and 

• compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

North Baja would implement the wetland construction and restoration measures contained in its 

CM&R Plan (see Appendix E). The CM&R Plan incorporates many of the measures of the FERC’s 

Procedures that are relevant to protect wetlands within the Project area. Some of the measures pertaining 

to wetland crossings specified in the FERC’s Procedures and/or to which North Baja has committed, 

include: 

• prohibiting storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils within a 

wetland or within 100 feet of a wetland boundary; 

• requiring that native vegetation on the right-of-way within wetlands be cut at ground 

level, leaving existing root systems in place to promote regrowth; 

• requiring segregation of the uppermost 1 foot of wetland topsoil from the underlying 

subsoil in areas disturbed by trenching; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-66 

• limiting the operation of construction equipment within wetlands to that equipment 

essential for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration activities; 

• requiring all nonessential equipment to traverse around wetlands using upland access 

roads where wetland soils are prone to rutting and/or cannot be appropriately stabilized; 

and 

• minimizing duration of construction-related disturbance within wetlands. 

One measure of the FERC’s Procedures that North Baja did not incorporate into its CM&R Plan 

is the provision to limit the width of the construction right-of-way in wetlands to 75 feet or less. North 

Baja did not incorporate this requirement because, of the 18 wetlands that would be affected by the 

Project, 6 would be avoided by HDD crossings, 2 would be avoided by bore crossings, and 1 would be 

avoided by constructing within the road shoulder adjacent to the Alamo River. The one emergent wetland 

that would be affected would be crossed within the 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way along 18th

Avenue. The remaining eight wetlands that would be crossed are scrub-shrub wetlands that contain a 

high percentage of tamarisk, which is considered a noxious weed species. 

Additionally, North Baja is requesting approval to locate extra workspaces within five wetlands, 

four along the B-Line and one along the IID Lateral. The FERC’s Procedures requires that all extra 

workspaces (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage areas) be located at least 50 feet away from 

wetland boundaries, except where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland 

or other disturbed land. North Baja states that use of these extra workspaces would affect 2.7 acres of 

tamarisk-dominated scrub-shrub wetlands (2.6 acres along the B-Line and 0.1 acre along the IID Lateral). 

Of the total 2.7 acres that would be affected, 1.8 acres were previously disturbed during construction of 

the A-Line. Table E-2 in the CM&R Plan (see Appendix E) lists the specific wetlands and workspace 

requirements. 

The Agency Staffs agree that it would not be necessary for North Baja to reduce the width of its 

construction right-of-way to 75 feet in wetlands that are predominantly tamarisk. The Agency Staffs 

approve North Baja’s request to locate extra workspaces in the five wetlands specified in Table E-2 of its 

CM&R Plan, and also agree that the other measures of the FERC’s Procedures that are omitted from the 

CM&R Plan (e.g., do not cut trees outside of the approved construction work area to obtain timber for 

riprap or equipment mats; use no more than two layers of timber riprap to support equipment on the 

construction right-of-way) are not necessary in the arid climate that would be crossed or are not directly 

applicable to the Project. 

North Baja indicated that it has initiated consultation with the CRWQCB. In its review of the 

Project to determine whether to issue a section 401 permit, the CRWQCB may impose permit conditions 

requiring mitigation measures in addition to those described above. In accordance with the CM&R Plan, 

North Baja would prepare and submit an updated CM&R Plan before construction if necessary to 

incorporate any additional requirements of Federal, State, and local permits. North Baja’s adherence to 

its CM&R Plan and compliance with the COE’s section 404 and the CRWQCB’s section 401 permit 

conditions would adequately protect wetland resources crossed by the pipeline route and reduce impacts 

to less than significant levels. 

4.4.4 Site-specific Impact and Mitigation 

The two wetlands associated with the Colorado River, two wetlands associated with the AllAmerican Canal, and two wetlands associated with the East Highline Canal would be avoided by the 

HDDs of these waterbodies. Two wetlands associated with the Acacia Lateral and Alder Lateral Canals 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-67 

would be avoided by North Baja’s proposal to bore beneath these features. In addition, the wetland 

associated with the Alamo River would be avoided by constructing the pipeline within the road shoulder 

outside of the wetland boundaries. 

North Baja’s clearing of a 105-foot-wide construction right-of-way through the eight scrub-shrub 

wetlands located between MPs 28.2 and 31.3 would reduce the amount of tamarisk occurring along the 

pipeline route. The CM&R Plan contains a measure to remove all tamarisk trees and shrubs including 

stumps and root systems. North Baja has the right to maintain a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the 

pipeline if necessary for periodic corrosion/leak surveys. A 10-foot-wide maintained corridor would 

result in the permanent conversion of about 3.0 acres of scrub-shrub wetland to emergent wetland. 

However, as previously discussed, North Baja has not conducted vegetation maintenance along the ALine and does not propose to conduct annual vegetation maintenance in the areas associated with the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. As documented in North Baja’s post-construction monitoring 

reports, wetlands affected by construction of the A-Line have largely revegetated to a state similar to 

preconstruction conditions. Therefore, no long-term or significant adverse impact on wetlands is 

expected to result from the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. 

The emergent wetland at MP 2.7 would be within the 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way 

along 18th Avenue. Impacts on this wetland would be temporary and minor, and the wetland would be 

expected to revegetate quickly. 

The Project would not result in the placement of fill within wetlands, and wetland topsoil and 

hydrology would be restored at the affected wetlands. No streams run through the affected wetlands, 

therefore, construction through wetlands would not result in significant water quality impacts on streams. 

4.4.5 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on wetlands identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-68 

4.5 VEGETATION 

4.5.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on vegetation would be considered significant and would require mitigation if 

Project construction or operation would: 

• disturb a substantial portion of the vegetation type within a local region to the point 

where natural or enhanced regeneration could not restore the vegetation to its 

preconstruction condition within 3 years; 

• result in the long-term (more than 5 years) reduction or alteration of unique, rare, or 

special concern vegetation types; riparian vegetation; or natural communities; 

• introduce new, or lead to the expanded range of existing, invasive noxious weed species 

or soil pests, so that they interfere with crop production or successful revegetation of 

natural communities; or

• cause a spill or leak that would contaminate the soil to the extent of eradicating the 

existing vegetation, inhibiting revegetation, or migrating to other areas and affecting soil 

and water ecology via erosion and sedimentation.

4.5.2 Existing Vegetation Resources 

The proposed pipeline route is entirely within the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision of 

the Sonoran Desert, and vegetation communities found in the Project vicinity are typical of that 

subdivision. The characterization of vegetation communities presented in this EIS/EIR is based on the 

published and unpublished literature (Holland 1986, Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) as well as 

information from field surveys. 

Distinct vegetation communities have been identified that occur within the Project area as 

discussed below. Table 4.5.2-1 lists these communities; provides general descriptions, including common 

vegetative species typical of each community; and identifies the facility and milepost ranges where each 

community occurs. Wetland vegetation communities that would be affected by the Project are discussed 

in Section 4.4. Areas of riparian vegetation would be avoided by the Project. 

Pipeline Facilities 

The B-Line would cross three native desert vegetation communities as well as agricultural and 

urban/ruderal lands that have been significantly altered by human settlement. 

The primary vegetation community that would be crossed by the B-Line is creosote scrub. This 

community comprises about 78 percent of the vegetation communities crossed by the B-Line. The next 

two most prevalent vegetation communities crossed are urban/ruderal and desert wash woodland, 

comprising about 12 and 10 percent, respectively, of the vegetation communities crossed by the B-Line. 

The remaining upland vegetation community that would be crossed by the B-Line is the agricultural 

community, which would account for less than 1 percent of the vegetation crossed. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-69 

Along the Arrowhead Extension, 52 percent of the vegetation communities that would be crossed 

are agricultural and 48 percent are urban/ruderal. 

The primary vegetation community that would be crossed by the IID Lateral is urban/ruderal, 

which accounts for about 74 percent of the vegetation communities crossed. The next most prevalent 

vegetation community that would be crossed is creosote bush scrub, which accounts for 16 percent of the 

vegetation communities crossed. The desert sand dune and agricultural communities account for 9 

percent and less than 1 percent, respectively, of the vegetation communities crossed by the IID Lateral. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The modifications proposed at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station would take place primarily 

within the fenceline; however, the installation of about 400 feet of header piping outside the fenced site 

would affect the urban/ruderal community. The Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver would 

be within the existing SoCalGas Blythe Compressor Station site and would not affect additional 

vegetation resources. Modifications at the Ogilby Meter Station (including the pig launcher and receiver) 

would affect the creosote bush scrub community. Construction of the El Centro Meter Station would 

affect the urban/ruderal community. 

Nine valves would be constructed along the B-Line, all of which would be collocated with 

existing aboveground facilities. Four of the B-Line valves (#s 2, 5, 6, and 7) would be collocated with 

existing valves along the A-Line; however, the permanently maintained area at the existing valve sites 

TABLE 4.5.2-1 

Vegetation Communities Affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Vegetation Community General Description Common Species 

Location of Occurrence 

(Facility/Milepost Range) 

Creosote bush scrub Generally less than 10 feet tall and 

widely spaced, usually with bare ground 

between plants. Perennial vegetation is 

less than 25 percent of the landscape. 

Also included are non-wetland tamarisk 

scrub, rocky slopes, stabilized sand 

dunes, and desert saltbush scrub 

communities. 

White bursage, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, saltbushes, desertholly, mesquites, tamarisk 

B-Line, MPs 11.7-28.2, 

28.6-29.7, 31.7-79.8 

IID Lateral, MPs 0.0-3.5, 

7.7-27.5 

Desert wash woodland Open to dense, drought deciduous, 

microphyllous riparian thorn scrub 

woodlands, less than 60 feet tall. 

Cat-claw acacia, desert 

broom, fairy duster, 

burrobrush, Anderson’s 

thornbush, tamarisk 

B-Line, MPs 11.7-28.2, 

28.6-29.7, 31.7-79.8 

Desert sand dune Sparsely vegetated, actively moving, 

sand dunes. 

Creosote bush, mesquite, 

dune buckwheat, dune 

sunflower, Peirson’s milkvetch

IID Lateral, MPs 0.0-7.7 

Agricultural Consists of commercial agricultural crops 

dependent on irrigation. 

Cotton, alfalfa, wheat, melons B-Line, MPs 0.4-2.9, 

10.5-11.7 

Arrowhead Extension, 

MPs 1.0-2.1 

IID Lateral, MPs 27.6-

42.8, 44.1-45.6 

Urban/ruderal Sparsely vegetated, previously disturbed 

areas. May include improved 

landscaped areas. 

Wild oats, mustard, thistle, 

landscape species 

B-Line, MPs 0.0-0.2, 

2.9-10.5 

Arrowhead Extension, 

MPs 0.0-1.0 

IID Lateral, MPs 42.8-

44.1, 45.6-45.7 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-70 

would need to be expanded in order to accommodate these new valves. Expansion of these existing sites 

would affect the following vegetation communities: urban/ruderal (valve #2) and creosote bush scrub 

(valve #s 5, 6, and 7). Construction of the remaining five valves (#s 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9) would take place 

within currently maintained aboveground facility sites and would not affect additional vegetation 

resources. 

Four valves would be constructed in association with the IID Lateral. Valve #1 would be within 

the Ogilby Meter Station site and would not require any additional land. Valve #2 would affect the desert 

sand dune community, valve #3 would affect the creosote bush scrub community, and valve #4 would 

affect the agricultural community. 

The pig launcher, taps, and related crossover piping associated with the Arrowhead Extension 

would affect the agricultural community. The creosote bush scrub community would be affected by 

construction of the pig launcher and receiver at the Rannells Trap, as well as the construction of the tap at 

the B-Line and the pig launcher associated with the IID Lateral. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

North Baja identified four pipe storage and contractor yards to be used during construction, three 

of which were used during construction of the A-Line. All four of these sites are previously disturbed 

sites used for industrial/commercial purposes and occur primarily within the urban/ruderal community 

although the creosote bush scrub community would also be affected. 

Access Roads 

Improvements or modifications to 44 existing access roads and construction of 1 new permanent 

access road (less than 0.1 mile long) associated with the B-Line would affect the creosote bush scrub, 

agricultural, and desert wash woodland communities. The construction of one permanent access road 

(less than 0.1 mile long) associated with the Arrowhead Extension would affect the urban/ruderal 

community. Construction of the IID Lateral would require improvements or modifications to six existing 

access roads and the construction of one new permanent access road (less than 0.1 mile long) that would 

affect the creosote bush scrub, urban/ruderal, agricultural, and desert sand dune communities. 

4.5.3 General Impact and Mitigation 

Pipeline Facilities 

The primary impact of the pipeline facilities on vegetation would be the cutting, clearing, and/or 

removal of existing vegetation within the construction work area. The degree of impact would depend on 

the type and amount of vegetation affected, the rate at which the vegetation would regenerate after 

construction, and the frequency of vegetation maintenance conducted during operation. Existing 

vegetation would be disturbed everywhere along the construction right-of-way. In general, the swath of 

vegetation that would be disturbed during construction would be 105 feet wide for the length of the BLine, between 60 and 100 feet wide for the Arrowhead Extension, and between 60 and 80 feet wide for 

the IID Lateral. Because North Baja would work over its existing pipeline to construct the B-Line, it 

would minimize the area of new disturbance and, therefore, would minimize impacts on vegetation. 

About 75 percent of the vegetation disturbance associated with the B-Line would be within North Baja’s 

existing, previously disturbed right-of-way. 

Secondary effects associated with disturbances to vegetation could include increased soil erosion 

(see Section 4.2), increased potential for the introduction and establishment of invasive weedy species 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-71 

(see Section 4.5.5), and a local reduction in available wildlife habitat (see Section 4.6.1). Other potential 

effects on vegetation could include the contamination of soils from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and 

coolants from construction equipment that would restrict the ability of vegetation to become reestablished. 

North Baja’s proposed construction right-of-way and temporary extra workspaces would disturb a 

total of about 1,533.6 acres of vegetation. Table 4.5.3-1 lists the amount of each vegetation community 

that would be affected by construction and operation of the pipeline facilities. 

The most common vegetation communities that would be affected are creosote bush scrub (942.1 

acres) and urban/ruderal (374.0 acres), which account for about 86 percent of the vegetation that would be 

cleared or affected by construction. The next most common communities that would be disturbed are 

agriculture (93.5 acres) and desert wash woodland (82.9 acres) accounting for about 12 percent of the 

affected vegetation. The least common vegetation community that would be affected is desert sand dunes 

(41.1 acres), which accounts for less than 3 percent of the vegetation that would be disturbed by the 

construction of the pipeline facilities. 

After cleanup and reseeding of the right-of-way, the agricultural community would typically 

regenerate quickly and impacts on these vegetation communities would be short term. Cultivated areas 

are regularly disturbed, generally receive ample water through irrigation if necessary, and would quickly 

re-establish on the right-of-way following replanting by the landowners. 

The removal of desert vegetation would have a long-term impact. The arid environment 

characteristic of these habitats is not conducive to plant growth and would slow the regeneration of 

vegetation following construction. Moreover, because of the dryness of these areas, regeneration by 

active seeding or planting is typically ineffective. Natural regeneration of these areas would take several 

years and in some cases could take over 50 years. 

Of the vegetation communities that would be disturbed, the most sensitive is the desert wash 

woodland, which would be crossed by the B-Line. Desert wash species growing in microphyll woodland, 

such as ironwood, blue palo verde, and smoke tree, provide structural diversity, cover, and forage for 

many more wildlife species than the creosote bush scrub habitat. Although this vegetation type provides 

important habitat, it has not been officially designated as a vegetation community of special concern or 

value. 

Of the total 82.9 acres of desert wash woodland that would be cleared, 22.0 acres (about 26 

percent) would be new disturbance (i.e., not disturbed during construction of the A-Line). Because of the 

importance of microphyll woodland, North Baja proposes to minimize tree clearing in woodland areas by 

reducing the width of the construction right-of-way in certain locations. Based on field surveys, North 

Baja adopted a selection criteria that identified areas of vegetation with at least 20 percent crown cover 

within the non-construction or “passing lane” portion of the construction right-of-way where it proposes 

to minimize tree clearing by reducing the width of the right-of-way from 105 feet to 80 feet. The BLM 

and the CDFG approved this approach to identify tree groupings to be preserved during construction of 

North Baja’s A-Line. For the B-Line, North Baja identified 16 woodland areas of native trees (about 24.1 

acres) along the proposed route where the right-of-way width would be reduced. The reduction of the 

right-of-way width from 105 feet to 80 feet at these 16 areas would preserve 5.6 acres of desert wash 

woodland trees, which would reduce the amount new clearing in desert wash woodlands by about 20 

percent. Table 4.5.3-2 identifies the location and extent of these areas. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-72 

TABLE 4.5.3-1 

Acres of Vegetation Communities Affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Creosote Bush Scrub Urban/Ruderal Agriculture Desert Wash Woodland a Desert Sand Du

Facility Const. Oper. New Const. Oper. New Const. Oper. New Const. Oper. New Const. Oper. B-Line  Pipeline Facilities  Pipeline Right-ofWay 761.2 0.0 198.0 117.7 0.0 0.5 28.0 0.0 8.5 75.6 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0  Temporary Extra 

Workspace 83.6 0.0 36.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 11.4 7.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 

 Pipeline Facilities 

Subtotal 844.8 0.0 234.1 117.7 0.0 0.5 62.7 0.0 19.9 82.9 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 

 Aboveground 

Facilities 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Pipe Storage and 

Contractor Yards 5.0 0.0 0.0 45.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Access Roads 97.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B-Line Subtotal 948.4 0.5 235.6 163.9 0.0 1.3 65.0 0.0 19.9 83.2 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 Arrowhead Extension  Pipeline Facilities  Pipeline Right-ofWay 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 7.2 13.4 4.7 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Temporary Extra 

Workspace 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Pipeline Facilities 

Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 7.2 15.1 4.7 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Aboveground 

Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Pipe Storage and 

Contractor Yards 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Access Roads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arrowhead Extension Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.3 8.2 16.1 5.5 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-73 

TABLE 4.5.3-1 (cont’d) 

Acres of Vegetation Communities Affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Creosote Bush Scrub Urban/Ruderal Agriculture Desert Wash Woodland 

a

Desert Sand Dun

Facility Const. Oper. New Const. Oper. New Const. Oper. New Const. Oper. New Const. Oper. NIID Lateral  Pipeline Facilities  Pipeline Right-ofWay 72.8 42.5 72.8 245.7 59.7 245.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.7 0.0 4 Temporary Extra 

Workspace 24.5 0.0 24.5 3.4 0.0 3.4 14.7 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 

 Pipeline Facilities 

Subtotal 97.3 42.5 97.3 249.1 59.7 249.1 15.7 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.1 0.0 4

 Aboveground 

Facilities 0.4 0.2 0.4 2.5 0.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Pipe Storage and 

Contractor Yards 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Access Roads 2.9 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 IID Lateral Subtotal 100.6 42.8 97.9 275.6 59.9 274.3 21.8 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 0.0 4Project Total  Pipeline Facilities  Pipeline Right-ofWay 834.0 42.5 270.8 370.6 59.7 253.4 42.4 4.7 22.9 75.6 0.0 19.6 40.7 0.0 4 Temporary Extra 

Workspace 108.1 0.0 60.6 3.4 0.0 3.4 51.1 0.0 27.8 7.3 0.0 2.4 0.4 0.0 

 Pipeline Facilities 

Subtotal 942.1 42.5 331.4 374.0 59.7 256.8 93.5 4.7 50.7 82.9 0.0 22.0 41.1 0.0 4

 Aboveground 

Facilities 1.9 0.7 1.9 4.3 0.5 4.3 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Pipe Storage and 

Contractor Yards 5.0 0.0 0.0 68.1 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Access Roads 100.0 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Project Total 1,049.0 43.3 333.5 447.7 60.2 283.8 102.9 5.5 51.7 83.2 0.0 22.0 42.0 0.0 4Percent of Total 60.8 39.6 45.5 26.0 55.1 38.7 6.0 5.0 7.1 4.8 0.0 3.0 2.4 0.0 

____________________ 

a Acres include areas with at least 20 percent tree cover where the right-of-way width was reduced (see Table 4.5.3-2). 

Const. = Construction. Oper. = Operation. New = New disturbance (i.e., not disturbed during construction of the A-Line). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-74 

TABLE 4.5.3-2 

Locations Along the B-Line Where the Construction Right-of-Way 

Would be Reduced to 80 Feet to Minimize Tree Clearing

Starting Milepost Length (feet) Crown Cover (percent) Previous Disturbance (A-Line) (acres) New Disturbance (acres) 

16.9 345 25 0.4 0.2 

17.9 270 31 0.3 0.2 

20.0 700 30 0.8 0.5 

22.3 480 20 0.6 0.3 

22.5 250 43 0.3 0.2 

22.6 1,000 33 1.1 0.7 

22.8 180 42 0.2 0.1 

23.3 340 50 0.4 0.2 

23.4 250 63 0.3 0.2 

23.5 590 41 0.7 0.4 

25.8 850 35 1.0 0.6 

34.5 860 25 1.0 0.6 

45.1 500 48 0.6 0.3 

51.1 1,800 30 2.1 1.2 

51.7 1,100 30 1.3 0.8 

64.5 500 31 0.6 0.3 

Total 10,015 11.7 6.8 

As proposed in the CM&R Plan, trees that cannot be avoided would be subjected to one of 

several treatments (prune, limb, or remove) based on proximity to the pipeline centerline. By pruning or 

limbing trees rather than removing them, many trees within the right-of-way would be preserved. 

During the scoping process, the FWS identified impacts on desert wash woodland as a significant 

concern and requested that mitigation/restoration efforts be concentrated in the desert wash woodlands 

that would be crossed by the B-Line north and adjacent to the Cibola NWR and the Milpitas Wash. 

Additionally, the FWS suggested that North Baja consider conducting vegetation maintenance (i.e., 

noxious weed control) beyond the limits of the construction right-of-way in areas of microphyll woodland 

as part of off-site mitigation. As noted in North Baja’s CM&R Plan, tree and shrub seedling recruitment 

was generally higher in areas of desert wash woodlands than in areas of creosote bush scrub. Moreover, 

seedling recruitment within the disturbed right-of-way was generally higher than in control plots located 

off of the right-of-way. Noxious weeds (e.g., African mustard and tamarisk), while present, were found 

in areas where weeds were present before construction. North Baja proposes to conduct the same 

restoration and maintenance activities for desert wash woodland that were conducted for the A-Line, 

which, as evidenced by the results of North Baja’s mitigation and monitoring reports, were successful. 

As was required by the CDFG to construct the A-Line, North Baja proposes compensatory 

mitigation for the loss of desert wash woodland vegetation. North Baja proposes an assessed financial 

contribution at a 2:1 ratio for the clearing of the 22.0 acres (new disturbance) of desert wash woodland in 

addition to the 1:1 compensation ratio it proposes to offset impacts on desert tortoise habitat. North Baja 

would negotiate off-site mitigation requirements with the FWS and the CDFG (see Section 4.7). 

The BLM identified the Milpitas Wash SMA as a significant concern, noting that it consists of 

relatively unfragmented native vegetation communities. Further detail regarding the potential effects of 

the Project on managed wildlife habitats, including the Milpitas Wash SMA, is included in Section 

4.6.2.4. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-75 

No impact on the riparian corridor adjacent to the Colorado River is anticipated because the 

crossing would be completed using the HDD method. The HDD would pass 60 feet below the bed of the 

Colorado River. Because the root zones of the vegetation adjacent to the Colorado River are primarily 

less than 15 feet deep, the adjacent riparian vegetation would not be affected by the HDD and removal of 

riparian vegetation along the Colorado River would not occur during construction or maintenance of the 

pipeline. Therefore, the habitat diversity added to the region by the Colorado River and its adjacent 

vegetation would not be compromised by the proposed Project. Similarly, implementation of the HDDs 

at the All-American Canal would avoid impacts on the riparian vegetation at these crossing locations. 

Open-cut trenching through Rannells Drain (MP 11.4) would have a short-term impact on both 

wetland (cattails and bulrush) and upland (arrow weed, quailbush, and tamarisk) vegetation growing in 

and on the steep banks of the drain. This vegetation is routinely removed during drain maintenance by 

the PVID. The banks of the drain would be restored and stabilized following construction (see Section 

4.2.4). Because vegetation has re-established following the construction of the A-Line in 2002, it is 

expected that the vegetation in Rannells Drain would regenerate on its own from existing seed and 

vegetative propagules within 2 years after construction. 

Construction of the B-Line (primarily along 18th Avenue) and the IID Lateral (primarily along 

Hunt Road and East Ross Road) could affect mature landscaping associated with residential development. 

In many cases this mature vegetation provides shade and helps attenuate the effects of ambient dust. A 

total of 11 residences along the B-Line were identified where construction would affect landscaping. 

Impacts on landscaping along the Arrowhead Extension and the IID Lateral would largely be avoided. 

Based on North Baja’s evaluation, no trees on residential properties are proposed for removal. Mitigation 

measures such as tree protection fencing would be employed to protect existing trees during construction. 

North Baja would restore landscaping following construction as part of site-specific plans. If mature trees 

or shrubs need to be removed during construction, landowners would be compensated for the loss of 

irreplaceable vegetation as part of agreements between North Baja and the landowners. Additional 

information about impacts on and potential mitigation measures for residential areas, including 

landscaping, is presented in Section 4.8.3. 

To reduce impacts on vegetation within the construction and permanent rights-of-way and 

improve revegetation potential, North Baja would implement its CM&R Plan (see Appendix E). 

Specifically, North Baja would implement the following measures that were found to be successful for the 

A-Line: 

• Segregate topsoil in all agricultural areas and in native habitats where grading is required. 

This measure would preserve the superior chemical and biological qualities of the topsoil 

and, in nonagricultural habitats, would preserve the native seed bank contained in the 

soil. 

• Crush or skim vegetation within the construction right-of-way in areas where grading is 

not required, which would result in less soil disturbance. The remaining root crowns 

would aid in soil stabilization, help retain organic matter in the soil, aid in moisture 

retention, and have the potential to resprout following construction. 

• Preserve native vegetation removed during clearing operations. The cut vegetation would 

be windrowed along the right-of-way during construction and then respread over the 

disturbed areas as part of restoration activities. This measure would be considered 

“vertical mulch” and would aid in seedling recruitment by trapping seeds, providing 

shade, and improving water infiltration. Additionally, this cut vegetation would add to 

the organic matter in the topsoil layer as it decomposes. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-76 

• Replant desert wash woodland species at specified locations along the right-of-way 

providing a visual barrier to the right-of-way to deter OHV traffic on the right-of-way 

(see Section 4.8.5). Although this vegetation would not be expected to survive, it would 

provide many of the benefits of vertical mulch described above in addition to preventing 

vegetation damage by OHV use on the right-of-way. 

• Recontour disturbed areas as needed. The contours would be reshaped after backfilling 

the trench and replacing the topsoil to restore preconstruction contours and natural 

drainage patterns. This treatment would reduce erosion and the loss of topsoil, which 

would improve revegetation potential. 

• Imprint areas of soil disturbance using a “sheep’s-foot” roller or other methods. 

Imprinting would provide micro-catchment areas for seed retention and would improve 

water infiltration. 

• Maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff is coordinated with 

affected parties. 

• Test for and alleviate compacted soils in agricultural and residential areas. 

• Implement procedures to prevent or minimize the spread of noxious weeds or other 

undesirable species by limiting disposal of plant materials to suitable areas and the 

cleaning of clearing and grading equipment before beginning work on the Project (see 

Section 4.5.5). 

• Monitor the revegetation of the right-of-way the year following construction and again 

during the second growing season. In agricultural areas, crop monitoring would be 

conducted to determine if additional restoration is required. Additional revegetation 

efforts would be conducted until revegetation is deemed successful. In non-agricultural 

lands, revegetation monitoring would be conducted until 2012 and would be considered 

successful if upon visual survey, the density and cover are similar to adjacent undisturbed 

lands. 

Although construction of the pipeline facilities would result in long-term impacts on about 

1,066.1 acres of native desert vegetation (i.e., creosote bush scrub, desert wash woodland, and desert sand 

dunes), North Baja’s plan to overlap its construction right-of-way onto its existing pipeline right-of-way 

would reduce new impacts on undisturbed desert vegetation by about 63 percent. North Baja’s plan to 

reduce its construction right-of-way through areas of desert wash woodland would further reduce impact 

on desert vegetation types and the implementation of its CM&R Plan would improve the success of 

natural restoration. The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would not represent a significant impact 

on vegetation because the Sonoran Desert encompasses more than 5.4 million acres in southeast 

California alone (Ceres 2006), and the Project would affect less than 0.01 percent of the regional desert 

vegetation type. Therefore, impacts on vegetation would be considered less than significant. 

During the scoping process, several landowners expressed concern about the removal of native 

desert vegetation. As discussed above, the revegetation of desert areas could take from 5 to 50 years. A 

review of North Baja’s post-construction monitoring reports for the A-Line indicates that following 

construction in 2002, natural seedling recruitment along the construction right-of-way has occurred within 

creosote bush scrub and desert wash woodlands. Seedlings of both annual species and perennial shrubs 

and trees were found growing on the right-of-way during annual vegetation monitoring. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-77 

As discussed in Section 4.2.4, the BLM would need to assess potential impacts on rangeland 

health on BLM lands attributable to the Project. One of the attributes that would be assessed is the 

integrity of the biotic community (i.e., the capacity of the area to support characteristic functional and 

structural communities, to resist loss of this function and structure due to disturbance, and to recover 

following disturbance [Pellant et al. 2005]). The removal of desert vegetation and disturbance of soils 

could affect the ability of the Project area to support vegetation and wildlife communities. However, 

North Baja’s CM&R Plan, which includes measures to control erosion and preserve topsoil and scarce 

organic matter, would minimize impacts on the revegetation potential of the Project area. Similar 

measures were implemented during construction and restoration of the A-Line, and the results of 

revegetation monitoring indicate that revegetation is occurring within the disturbed areas. 

All of the vegetation communities affected by the Project would be susceptible to secondary 

impacts related to soil contamination by materials used during construction activities. While these 

impacts would typically be minor because of the low frequency and volumes of these occurrences, the 

introduction of contaminants to soils could adversely affect the potential for revegetation. North Baja’s 

SPCC Plan specifies cleanup procedures to minimize the potential for soil contamination from spills or 

leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolants (see Appendix F). Adherence to North Baja’s SPCC Plan would 

reduce the potential for a spill or leak to contaminate the soil to the extent of eradicating existing 

vegetation, inhibiting revegetation, or migrating to other areas and affecting soil and water ecology via 

erosion and sedimentation to a less than significant level. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The modifications proposed at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station would not permanently affect 

additional vegetation resources, although about 0.7 acre of the urban/ruderal community would be 

temporarily affected by the installation of header piping. At the Ogilby Meter Station, 0.2 acre of the 

creosote bush scrub community would be permanently affected by construction of a pig launcher and 

receiver. Construction of the El Centro Meter Station would temporarily affect 2.5 acres and permanently 

affect 0.2 acre of the urban/ruderal community, all of which occurs within the existing fenceline of the 

IID El Centro Generating Station. 

The four valves along the B-Line that would require an expansion of existing valve sites (valve #s 

2, 5, 6, and 7) would permanently affect 0.3 acre of urban/ruderal and 0.8 acre of creosote bush scrub 

communities. The three valves to be constructed along the IID Lateral would each affect less than 0.1 

acre of the desert sand dune (valve #2), creosote bush scrub (valve #3), and agricultural (valve #4) 

communities. 

Construction and operation of the pig launcher and receiver proposed at Rannells Trap would 

affect 0.3 acre of the creosote bush scrub community. Construction of the pig launcher, taps, and 

crossover piping associated with the Arrowhead Extension would permanently affect about 0.8 acre of the 

agricultural community. Permanent impacts on about 0.2 acre of the creosote bush scrub community 

would result from the construction of the tap to the B-Line and the pig launcher associated with the IID 

Lateral. 

Access Roads 

The construction, modification, and improvement to access roads used during construction of the 

proposed Project would primarily have temporary impacts on vegetation resources. Access road 

disturbance associated with the B-Line would temporarily affect 97.1 acres of the creosote bush scrub 

community, 2.3 acres of the agricultural community, and 0.3 acre of desert wash woodland. For the 

Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station, a new permanent access road would be constructed, affecting less than 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-78 

0.1 acre of the urban/ruderal community. Access roads associated with the IID Lateral would temporarily 

affect 6.1 acres of agricultural, 2.9 acres of creosote bush scrub, 1.3 acres of urban/ruderal, and 0.9 acre of 

desert sand dunes communities. About 0.1 acre of the creosote bush scrub community would be 

permanently affected by construction of the permanent access road to the tap facility. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

The temporary use of four pipe storage and contractor yards would temporarily affect 68.1 acres 

of the urban/ruderal community and 5.0 acres of the creosote bush scrub community. No permanent 

impacts on vegetation would result from the use of these sites. 

4.5.4 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value 

No designated vegetation communities of special concern or value were identified along the 

proposed pipeline routes or at aboveground facility sites. 

Because no vegetation communities of special concern or value would be affected and any 

riparian vegetation crossed would be largely avoided, the potential for the Project to result in the longterm (more than 5 years) reduction or alteration of unique, rare, or special concern vegetation types; 

riparian vegetation; or natural communities would be less than significant. 

4.5.5 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants 

Noxious weeds and other invasive plants are non-native, undesirable native, or introduced species 

that are able to exclude and outcompete desirable native species, and thereby decrease overall species 

diversity. Noxious weeds often invade and persist in areas after disturbance (e.g., after construction of a 

pipeline) and can hinder restoration. Other aggressive plant species, both native and introduced, may also 

outcompete desirable native and other beneficial species. Noxious weeds are addressed by Executive 

Order 13112 (February 1999), which directs Federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive 

species; provide for their control; and minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that 

invasive species cause. The order further specifies that a Federal agency shall not authorize, fund, or 

carry out actions likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United 

States or elsewhere unless it has determined that the benefits of such actions outweigh the potential harm 

caused by invasive species and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm would be 

taken in conjunction with the actions. 

The removal of existing vegetation and the disturbance of soils during construction could create 

conditions for the invasion and establishment of exotic-nuisance species. Construction equipment 

traveling from invasive weed-infested areas into weed-free areas could also facilitate the dispersal of 

invasive weed seed and propagules and result in the establishment of noxious weeds in weed-free areas. 

The spread of exotic or noxious weeds has been identified as one of the most harmful threats to the 

biodiversity of the Sonoran Desert area (Marshall et al. 2000). The potential severity of the noxious weed 

impacts depends upon the species, the prevalence in the area before construction, and the intensity of the 

construction-induced dispersal. 

Botanical surveys for the A-Line were conducted using the California Invasive Plant Council’s 

(CIPC) List A and Red Alert lists to identify invasive weed species. Four invasive species were identified 

in significant numbers; African mustard, Australian saltbush, fountain grass, and tamarisk. No Red Alert 

species were found. North Baja conducted post-construction weed and revegetation surveys for the ALine, the most recent of which occurred in the Spring of 2005. The surveys indicate that although weeds 

(specifically mustard and tamarisk) have reoccurred in areas where they were present before construction 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-79 

of the A-Line, they have not spread to new areas along the right-of-way. Additionally, the surveys 

indicate that fountain grass has been eliminated from the right-of-way. Because there has been no 

spreading of noxious weeds as a result of construction of the A-Line, North Baja has not conducted postconstruction noxious weed control measures with the exception of manual removal of tamarisk during 

revegetation surveys. 

North Baja has not yet provided information regarding noxious weed species that may occur 

along the IID Lateral route; however, in accordance with the CM&R Plan (see Appendix E), surveys for 

noxious weeds along the IID Lateral would be conducted before construction. 

The use of construction equipment and the importation of Project materials from areas outside the 

local region could introduce weed or soil pests that could interfere with crop production or successful 

revegetation of natural communities. North Baja would reduce the potential to spread noxious weeds and 

soil pests by implementing the measures that were successful during construction of the A-Line. These 

measures include: 

• In accordance with Executive Order 13112, the construction area within lands 

administered by the BLM would be surveyed by a qualified noxious weed authority that 

would identify all noxious weeds present and provide a list to the authorized officer. A 

determination would be made by the authorized officer of any noxious weeds that require 

flagging for treatment before construction. Treatment would be according to the 

instructions of the authorized officer. Only BLM-approved herbicides would be used on 

BLM lands, and North Baja would coordinate with the appropriate BLM office prior to 

use of herbicides. Any use of herbicides in California would be handled by properly 

licensed county agricultural agents. 

• Before construction, populations of plants listed as invasive exotics by the CIPC in its 

most recent invasive plant List A ( including lists A-1 and A-2) and Red Alert list, as well 

as any other species listed on the BLM National List of Invasive Weed Species of 

Concern would be identified on the ground and on maps through a preconstruction 

survey. This would establish a baseline from which to evaluate post-construction 

monitoring surveys. 

• Disposal of soil and plant materials from non-native areas would not be allowed in native 

areas. Weed propagules or soil pests that could occur in excess spoils or plant materials 

from non-native areas would not be allowed to be transferred to or disposed of within 

areas comprising native vegetation communities. 

• All construction equipment would be washed before beginning work on the Project, 

equipment working in Arizona would be cleaned before beginning work in California, 

and equipment used to clear tamarisk would be washed before working elsewhere on the 

Project to prevent the spread of invasive weeds from other areas. Equipment would be 

washed at existing commercial wash stations. 

• Construction personnel would be educated on weed identification and the importance of 

controlling and preventing the spread of invasive non-native species. 

• Gravel and/or fill material to be placed in relatively weed-free areas would come from 

weed-free sources. Certified weed-free hay bales would be used. Post-construction 

monitoring and treatment of invasive weeds would be implemented. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-80 

• Tamarisk trees would be removed from all portions of the right-of-way in native areas. 

In non-native areas, tamarisk trees would be removed as necessary as part of clearing 

operations. To prevent dispersal of tamarisk propagules, debris would either be burned 

onsite under an appropriate burning permit or hauled offsite. All loads hauled offsite 

would be properly covered to prevent the spread of propagules by wind. On federally 

administered lands, tamarisk debris would be hauled offsite and disposed of at an 

approved disposal site. Burning on Federal lands would require the approval of the 

authorized officer. 

The portion of the Cibola NWR that would be crossed is dominated by a tamarisk monoculture 

both within the proposed right-of-way and areas adjacent to the right-of-way; therefore, attempting to 

control tamarisk in these areas would not be practical. During the scoping process, representatives from 

the Cibola NWR suggested that North Baja offset Project-related impacts on vegetation in the Cibola 

NWR by conducting tamarisk control outside the Project area in native stands of mesquite for a period of 

3 to 4 years. Specific restoration measures conducted within the Cibola NWR would be determined 

during easement negotiations with the NWR. 

North Baja would continue to conduct surveys for non-native plant species after construction is 

complete. The results of these surveys would be compared to the preconstruction surveys and to surveys 

from prior years to determine locations of weed infestations attributable to the Project. North Baja would 

conduct surveys and implement control measures (e.g., herbicide application, pulling by hand as 

permitted by landowner or land management agency) at Project-related infestations twice a year for 2 

years after construction is complete or until the infestations have been controlled. North Baja would also 

implement weed control measures annually as part of routine operation and maintenance of the pipeline. 

Implementation of the mitigation measures proposed by North Baja would reduce the potential 

for the Project to introduce new, or lead to the expanded range of existing, invasive noxious weed species 

or soil pests, so that they interfere with crop production or successful revegetation of natural communities 

to a less than significant level. 

4.5.6 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on vegetation identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-81 

4.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

4.6.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on wildlife and aquatic resources would be considered significant and would 

require mitigation if Project construction or operation would: 

• change the diversity or substantially alter the numbers of a local population of any 

wildlife or aquatic species, or interfere with the survival, growth, or reproduction of 

affected wildlife and fish populations; 

• substantially interfere with the movement or range of migratory birds and other wildlife, 

or the movement, range, or spawning of any resident or anadromous fish; 

• substantially reduce the abundance of species under the protection of the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act; 

• result in a substantial long-term loss of existing wildlife or aquatic habitat; 

• cause substantial deterioration of existing fish habitat; or 

• create a potential health hazard or involve the use, production, or disposal of materials 

that pose a hazard to wildlife or fish populations in the Project area. 

4.6.2 Wildlife 

4.6.2.1 Existing Wildlife Resources 

In general, large mammals, except for the coyote, are unusual in the Project area (Brown 1982). 

However, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and wild horses and burros could occur as 

transients. Most of the mammals common to the general Project area have adapted to high diurnal 

temperatures by spending much of the day underground or aestivating. Consequently, the area may host 

large populations of burrowing rodents. 

With the exception of microphyll woodlands, the open, sparsely vegetated habitats of the Project 

area do not typically support diverse avifauna that are usually associated with structurally taller and 

denser habitats found in areas receiving more annual rainfall (Brown 1982). The Project area’s avian 

inhabitants are largely arid-adapted desert species. 

Rock outcrops, bajadas,1

 washes, and gravel plains each support a varied and often different 

herpetofauna; however, certain species are common across most habitats (Brown 1982). 

Pipeline Facilities 

As described in Section 4.5, the proposed pipeline facilities would cross five distinct upland 

vegetation communities. Each of these communities provides nesting, cover, and foraging habitat for a 

variety of wildlife. Other resources including open water and wetland habitats also provide these same 

functions for wildlife species. Impacts on these resources are described and quantified in Sections 4.3.2, 

4.4, and 4.5, respectively. Table 4.6.2-1 identifies some of the wildlife species that are common to these 

 

1

 Bajadas generally consist of shallow slopes at the base of rocky hills, typically exhibiting deep soils and a more complex soil structure that 

retains water and supports a diverse vegetation community. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-82 

habitats. The most prevalent habitat is creosote bush scrub, accounting for about 60 percent of the 

wildlife habitat that would be affected. Although creosote bush scrub is the most common habitat type 

affected by the Project, many more wildlife species depend on desert wash woodland and wetland areas 

for their sources of water, cover, and forage. Desert wash woodlands account for about 5 percent and 

wetlands account for about 2 percent of the habitat affected. The urban/ruderal community, which 

provides the least favorable wildlife habitat, is the next most prevalent community accounting for about 

24 percent of the habitat affected. Other habitats that would be affected are agricultural (6 percent) and 

desert sand dunes (3 percent).

TABLE 4.6.2-1 

Wildlife Species by Habitat Type Common in the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Area

Species Habitat Type 

Mammals Creosote bush scrub/desert wash woodland/wetland/riparian: mountain lion, coyote, mule (burro) deer, 

desert bighorn sheep, feral burro, coyote, striped skunk, desert shrew, white-tailed antelope, squirrel 

desert pocket mouse, desert kangaroo rat, Merriam kangaroo rat, white-throated woodrat, long-tailed 

pocket mouse, round-tailed ground squirrel, desert cottontail rabbit, kit fox, southwestern yellow bat, little 

brown myotis, western mastiff bat, western pipistrelle, pallid bat, cave myotis, and California myotis. 

Dune areas: Coyote, mule deer, rabbit, ground squirrels, desert kangaroo rat. 

Agricultural/urban/Ruderal: Opossum. 

Birds Sonoran creosote bush scrub/desert wash woodland/wetland/riparian: Burrowing owl, red-tailed hawk, 

Gambel’s quail, cactus wren, Anna’s hummingbird, Gila woodpecker, white-winged dove, mourning dove, 

white-winged dove, greater roadrunner, lesser nighthawk, common raven, verdin, black-tailed 

gnatcatcher, black-throated sparrow, Say’s phoebe, ash-throated flycatcher, and loggerhead shrike. 

Agricultural/Urban/Ruderal Land: European starling, American crow, mockingbird, house finch, and great 

egret. 

Reptiles Sonoran creosote bush scrub/desert wash woodland/wetland/riparian: Desert glossy snake, western 

whiptail, sidewinder, southern desert whiptail, gopher snake, chuckwalla, Mojave fringe-toed lizard, 

Colorado fringe-toed lizard, side-blotched lizard, desert night lizard, zebra-tailed lizard, side-blotched 

lizard. 

Dune areas: banded gecko, flat-tailed horned lizard (edges of sand dune area). 

___________________ 

Sources: Holland and Keil 1995; BLM 2006. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Wildlife use of the areas of the proposed aboveground facility sites is similar to adjacent habitats. 

Limited wildlife habitat exists in the agricultural land adjacent to the Ehrenberg Compressor Station and 

the El Paso Meter Station. The Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver site consists of the 

urban/ruderal community within an existing, fenced compressor station site; consequently, wildlife 

habitat is minimal. Wildlife use of the Rannells Trap site is similar to that described above for creosote 

bush scrub habitats. Wildlife use of the Ogilby Meter Station location is limited due to the disturbed 

nature of the area and its proximity to Interstate 8. The El Centro Meter Station occurs within the 

urban/ruderal community and would be located within a previously developed area with minimal habitat 

value. 

Valve sites along the B-Line are generally collocated with existing facilities, although four valve 

sites would be expanded and would permanently affect agricultural and creosote bush scrub habitats. 

Construction of the three valves along the IID Lateral that would be outside of existing facility sites 

would affect creosote bush scrub, desert sand dune, and agricultural habitat. 

Agricultural habitat would be affected by the construction of the pig launcher, taps, and crossover 

piping associated with the Arrowhead Extension. Creosote bush scrub habitat would be affected by the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-83 

pig launcher and receiver that would be constructed at Rannells Trap and the tap to the B-Line and pig 

launcher associated with the IID Lateral. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

The proposed pipe storage and contractor yards would all be located in urban/ruderal and creosote 

bush scrub habitat types at previously disturbed sites. 

Access Roads 

The construction of new temporary and permanent access roads would primarily affect creosote 

bush scrub habitat, although agricultural, urban/ruderal, and desert sand dune habitats would also be 

affected. 

4.6.2.2 General Impact and Mitigation 

Pipeline Facilities 

The impact of the Project on wildlife species and their habitats would vary depending on the 

requirements of each species and the existing habitat present in the areas crossed by the pipeline facilities. 

Direct impacts of construction on wildlife would include the displacement of wildlife on the right-of-way 

and direct mortality of some individuals. Wildlife, such as birds and larger mammals, would leave the 

vicinity of the right-of-way as construction activities approach. Depending on the season, construction 

could also disrupt bird courting or nesting and breeding of other wildlife on and adjacent to the right-ofway. Many of these animals may relocate into similar habitats nearby; however, a lack of adequate 

territorial space could force some animals into suboptimal habitats. This could increase inter- and intraspecific competition and lower reproductive success and survival. The influx and increased density of 

animals in some undisturbed areas caused by these dislocations could also reduce the reproductive 

success of animals that are not displaced by construction. Additionally, some smaller, less mobile 

wildlife, such as small mammals and burrowing species (e.g., burrowing owl, opossums, shrew, rats, 

mice) and reptiles, could be crushed by construction equipment or trapped in trenches. Bird nests located 

within the construction work area could be destroyed by clearing activities. The loss of these species 

could result in a decrease in the food stock available for predators of these species. These effects, 

however, would cease after construction, and wildlife would return to the newly disturbed areas and 

adjacent, undisturbed habitats after right-of-way restoration is completed. Additionally, the majority of 

impacts on native desert vegetation (about 63 percent) would occur over North Baja’s previously 

disturbed existing pipeline right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to 

substantially alter the local wildlife populations. 

The cutting, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation would also affect wildlife by 

reducing the amount of available habitat. The degree of impact would depend on the type of habitat 

affected and the rate at which vegetation regenerates after construction. The impact on urban/ruderal 

habitats (374.0 acres) would be minor because they provide minimal habitat value and would be restored 

to near original condition following construction. The impact on agricultural habitats (93.5 acres) would 

be relatively minor because these areas receive regular disturbance (e.g., crop planting, harvesting,) and 

would be replanted either immediately following, or during the next growing season following 

construction. 

However, native desert upland habitats could take up to 50 years to become re-established. 

About 942.1 acres of creosote bush scrub, 82.9 acres of desert wash woodland, and about 41.1 acres of 

desert sand dune habitats would be affected by the Project. The effect on these areas would be much 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-84 

greater because these native desert habitats would take the longest amount of time to regenerate. The 

impact on dune habitat would be less than on other desert habitats because wildlife has adapted to the 

existing minimal vegetative cover that is common to these areas. In general, the effects on native desert 

habitats are not expected to have a significant impact on wildlife populations because the amounts of the 

habitats that would be affected are relatively minor compared to the amounts present in the surrounding 

areas. The majority of the right-of-way through desert habitats (96 percent) would be only temporarily 

expanded and would affect a 25-foot-wide swath of land that is adjacent to the existing previously 

disturbed construction right-of-way used for the A-Line. In addition, approximately 99 percent of the 

right-of-way would be adjacent to existing utility or transportation corridors. Furthermore, North Baja’s 

implementation of its CM&R Plan would improve the potential for successful revegetation of the rightof-way in the long term (see Section 4.5.3 and Appendix E). Although the loss of native desert habitats 

would be long term, the loss would amount to less than 0.01 percent of the regionally available habitat; 

therefore, the potential for the Project to change the diversity or substantially alter the numbers of a local 

population of any wildlife species, or interfere with the survival, growth, or reproduction of affected 

wildlife, or result in a substantial long-term loss of existing wildlife habitat is less than significant. 

Construction of the B-Line would result in a 105-foot-wide cleared right-of-way for a majority of 

its length that could contribute to habitat fragmentation and affect the movement of wildlife species. 

However, this impact would be minimized because North Baja would overlap the majority of its 

construction right-of-way (80 feet) onto the previously cleared right-of-way used to construct the A-Line. 

Because, in general, construction of the B-Line would result in about 25 feet of new disturbance adjacent 

to an existing disturbed right-of-way, the potential for the Project to substantially interfere with the 

movement or range of wildlife species would be less than significant. 

The B-Line and IID Lateral would cross several areas of wetland and numerous open water 

systems (rivers, canals, and drains). The only undisturbed riparian areas that would be crossed are 

adjacent to the Colorado River and would be effectively avoided by the use of the HDD crossing method. 

These areas are important habitats for a number of resident wildlife species although only the Colorado 

River supports fishery resources. Additionally, North Baja plans to implement the HDD crossing method 

at four other waterbody crossings and would avoid in-stream impacts at most other canals and drains by 

crossing at locations where these features are constrained within culverts. These crossing plans would 

minimize impacts on open water habitats. The only open water habitat that would be disturbed would be 

Rannells Drain. Rannells Drain is an agricultural drain that is subject to the clearing of vegetation 

periodically by the PVID. Disturbance to this habitat would be minimized through implementation of 

North Baja’s CM&R Plan (see Appendix E). 

Following construction and restoration, North Baja would monitor the revegetation of the rightof-way in areas of desert vegetation through the year 2012. Post-construction monitoring would be 

conducted in all other areas for a period of 2 years following construction. 

Fires inadvertently started by construction activities (e.g., welding), equipment, or personnel 

could also affect wildlife in the Project area by igniting vegetation along the right-of-way. This habitat 

loss could cause crowding in adjacent habitats reducing productivity and increasing stress-induced 

mortality. Fire would likely have temporary impacts on urban/ruderal and agricultural communities and 

longer-term impacts on native desert communities. North Baja has developed a Fire Prevention and 

Suppression Plan to minimize the potential for wildfires (see Appendix N). Some of the measures 

contained in the plan include: requiring the contractor to train all personnel on fire prevention measures, 

restricting smoking and parking to cleared areas, requiring all combustion engines to be equipped with a 

spark arrestor, and requiring vehicles and equipment to maintain a supply of fire suppression equipment 

(e.g., shovels and fire extinguishers). A Fire Guard would be assigned to each construction spread that 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-85 

would be responsible for maintaining contact with local fire control agencies. North Baja would restrict 

activities on Federal lands during conditions of high fire danger in coordination with the BLM. 

Aboveground Facilities 

At the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, 0.7 acre of urban/ruderal habitat would be temporarily 

disturbed; however, there would be no permanent impacts on habitat. At the Ogilby Meter Station, 0.2 

acre of the urban/ruderal cover type would be permanently affected by the construction of a pig launcher 

and receiver. Construction of the El Centro Meter Station would occur within an existing industrial 

facility site and would temporarily affect 2.5 acres of urban/ruderal habitat, while 0.2 acre would be 

affected permanently. 

Valve sites along the B-Line are generally collocated with existing facilities, although four would 

permanently affect 0.3 acre of urban/ruderal habitat and 0.8 acre of creosote bush scrub habitat. The 

installation of three valves along the IID Lateral would affect less than 0.1 acre each of desert sand dune, 

creosote bush scrub, and agricultural habitats. 

Construction of the pig launcher, taps, and crossover piping associated with the Arrowhead 

Extension would permanently affect about 0.8 acre of agricultural habitat. Permanent impacts on creosote 

bush scrub habitat would result from the construction of a pig launcher at Rannells Trap (0.3 acre), and 

the construction of a tap and pig launcher for the IID Lateral (0.2 acre). 

The construction, improvement, and modification of access roads would affect a total of 110.9 

acres, primarily creosote bush scrub habitat, although agricultural (8.4 acres), urban/ruderal (1.3 acres), 

desert sand dune (0.9 acre), and desert wash woodland (0.3 acre) habitats would also be affected. About 

0.1 acre of creosote bush scrub and less than 0.1 acre of urban/ruderal habitat would be permanently 

affected by the construction of two permanent access roads. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

The temporary use of four pipe storage and contractor yards would affect 68.1 acres of 

urban/ruderal habitat and 5.0 acres creosote bush scrub habitat. As previously discussed, the 

urban/ruderal community provides minimal habitat values. The area of creosote bush scrub has been 

previously disturbed. No permanent impacts on wildlife would result from the use of these sites. 

4.6.2.3 Migratory Birds 

A variety of migratory bird species, including both songbirds and raptors, utilize the vegetation 

communities identified within the Project area. Migratory birds are species that nest in the United States 

and Canada during the summer, and then migrate south to the tropical regions of Mexico, Central and 

South America, and the Caribbean for the non-breeding season. The North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project lies within the Sonoran/Mohave bird conservation region as identified by the U.S. North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Committee.2

 Of the 61 migratory bird species likely to 

occur within the Project area, 28 species are considered by the FWS to be birds of conservation concern 

including but not limited to: the burrowing owl, Crissal thrasher, Le Conte's thrasher, and Gila 

woodpecker (FWS 2002a). General impacts on migratory birds are discussed below; specific impacts on 

many of these species are discussed in Section 4.7. 

 

2

 The NABCI Committee is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives in the United States working to 

advance integrated bird conservation (NABCI 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-86 

Executive Order 13186 (January 2001) directs Federal agencies to consider the effects of agency 

actions and plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. The California Species 

Preservation Act of 1970 (California Fish and Game Code, sections 900 to 903), which is administered by 

the CDFG, prohibits the taking or possessing of any bird egg or nest. Native desert habitats, including 

desert wash woodland habitat, provide some of the most significant habitat for migratory birds within the 

Project area. The majority of this habitat occurs along the portion of the B-Line that would be 

constructed over a 4- to 6-month period in the latter part of 2009 (see Section 2.4). This proposed 

construction schedule would partially overlap the nesting season (February through September) for a 

majority of the migratory birds in the Project area, which could result in the mortality of eggs and young 

birds that have not yet fledged. 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would also result in short-term and long-term losses 

of habitat available to migratory birds. Short-term losses of habitat available for use by migratory birds 

would include 86.8 acres of agricultural habitat, and 35.7 acres of wetland/riparian vegetation. Because 

these habitats would quickly recover following construction, they would be available for use by migratory 

birds during the next nesting season following construction. 

Construction of the Project would disturb a total of 1,174.2 acres of desert habitat including 

1,049.0 acres of creosote bush scrub, 83.2 acres of desert wash woodland, and 42.0 acres of desert sand 

dune habitat, which would result in long-term losses of habitat available for use by migratory birds 

because these habitats would require many years to recover following construction. Along the B-Line, 

this loss of habitat would be minimized by North Baja’s proposal to overlap its construction right-of-way 

over the previously disturbed right-of-way reducing new long-term habitat loss by 671.6 acres. 

Additionally, North Baja would reduce the right-of-way width from 105 feet to 80 feet in 16 areas of 

microphyll woodlands, which would reduce impacts on this desert wash woodland habitat by 5.6 acres. 

North Baja would also preserve individual trees within the construction right-of-way where possible. 

Construction along the IID Lateral would not result in a significant loss of habitat as only 142.6 acres of 

native desert habitats would be disturbed of which about 42 acres would occur in the dunes area. Because 

the existing vegetation resources in the dunes area are sparse, the long-term loss of vegetation would have 

a minimal effect on migratory bird habitat in this area. Of the remaining 100.6 acres of desert habitat 

affected by the IID Lateral, 98 percent would occur within or immediately adjacent to existing disturbed 

utility and transportation rights-of-way. The measures contained in North Baja’s CM&R Plan would 

promote revegetation of disturbed areas by restoring original contours, segregating topsoil where grading 

is required, and respreading cut vegetation over the restored areas. 

Although the loss of native desert habitats that would be utilized by migratory birds would be 

long term, 66 percent of the habitat would be previously disturbed, and a majority of the affected habitat 

would occur within or immediately adjacent to existing disturbed utility and transportation rights-of-way. 

In addition, the loss would amount to less than 0.01 percent of the regionally available Sonoran desert 

habitat; therefore, the potential for the Project to substantially interfere with the movement or range of 

migratory birds would be less than significant. 

North Baja would attempt to schedule construction in native habitats outside of the breeding 

season for migratory birds. If, however, construction activities are necessary during the bird breeding 

season, in accordance with its CM&R Plan, North Baja would remove vegetation that could provide 

nesting substrate from the right-of-way before the breeding season, thus eliminating the possibility that 

birds could nest on the right-of-way. Qualified biologists would conduct preconstruction surveys to 

confirm the absence of nesting birds before construction begins. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-87 

If, in spite of vegetation removal, nesting birds are found on the construction right-of-way, the 

nest would not be removed until fledging has occurred or unless authorized after consultation with the 

FWS, the CDFG, and, if the nest is located on Federal lands, the Federal land management agency. 

Although North Baja states that it would preclear vegetation, no details of the preclearing 

proposal have been provided. Therefore, the Agency Staffs recommend that:

• North Baja shall, in consultation with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG, develop 

Preclearing Plans to protect migratory bird species during construction. These 

plans shall include specific details of the preclearing methods to be implemented, the 

specific locations where preclearing would occur, and the dates preclearing would 

be initiated and completed. North Baja shall file these plans with the FERC and the 

CSLC for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive 

Officer of the CSLC before initiation of Phase I-A and Phase II construction 

activities. 

With the implementation of North Baja’s proposed measures and the Agency Staffs’ 

recommendation, the Project would not substantially reduce the abundance of species under the protection 

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and, therefore, the impact of the Project on migratory bird species would 

be less than significant. 

4.6.2.4 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats and Species 

The B-Line would cross the Cibola NWR, located about 20 miles south of Blythe along the lower 

Colorado River, between MPs 29.5 to 33.0. The Cibola NWR encompasses about 16,630 acres of land 

bisected by the Colorado River and provides habitat for over 240 species of birds, and numerous 

mammals, including several protected species. The B-Line would cross only a small portion of the NWR, 

on the western edge of the refuge through monotypic tamarisk stands that provide very low quality 

wildlife habitat. 

On BLM lands between MPs 29.2 and 52.0, the B-Line would cross two SMAs in the vicinity of 

the Milpitas Wash. Between MPs 29.2 and 33.8, the area is managed by the BLM Yuma Field Office as 

an SMA under the Yuma District Plan. The Yuma District Plan designates the 4,760-acre area as an 

SMA for its undisturbed desert vegetation, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources (BLM 1985). Between 

MPs 33.8 and 52.0, the area is managed by the BLM El Centro Field Office as a Wildlife Habitat Area 

under the Milpitas Wash Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (BLM 1986). Management objectives for 

this 180,800-acre area include consolidation, protection, and enhancement of wildlife habitat and habitat 

for plants of special management concern; expansion of habitat used by burro deer and other native 

wildlife species; consideration of wildlife species in development and management decisions; and 

obtaining good ecological condition of 70 percent of the area covered by the habitat management plan. 

The Project would cross a Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA) established under the 

NECO Plan. The NECO Plan is an amendment to the BLM’s CDCA Plan and includes most of the 

California portion of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem. The B-Line would cross a WHMA for 14.8 miles 

between approximate MPs 35.2 and 50.0. The WHMA is designated as a multi-species WHMA and 

includes two corridor portions of proposed WHMAs for bighorn sheep between MPs 35.2 and 42.0 and 

MPs 49.0 and 50.0, although no bighorn sheep habitat is included. The management goals for this area 

include the maintenance of naturally occurring distributions of 28 special status animal species and 30 

special status plant species in the planning area; the maintenance of proper functioning condition in all 

natural communities with special emphasis on communities that: (a) are present in small quantity, (b) 

have a high species richness, and (c) support many special status species; and the maintenance of 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-88 

ecological processes by maintaining naturally occurring interrelationships among various biotic and 

abiotic elements of the environment (BLM 2002). 

As described in Section 4.7, North Baja proposes a number of conservation measures protecting 

wildlife and special status plants that are generally consistent with objectives of the management plans 

addressing activities in the Milpitas Wash SMA and the multi-species WHMA. Although much of the 

Cibola NWR near the proposed pipeline route is dominated by relatively poor quality habitat (tamarisk 

monoculture), overall the refuge is inhabited by a diverse species community. Construction of the North 

Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would not directly affect sensitive wildlife habitat within the refuge. 

Noise associated with construction activities could, however, indirectly impact wildlife by temporarily 

displacing wildlife from areas within the refuge that would be near the construction right-of-way. The 

impact would be greater if construction activities coincide with the breeding season of wildlife that use 

the refuge. Because of the year-round vehicle and boat traffic associated with SR 78 and the Colorado 

River, wildlife in the area is expected to be somewhat acclimated to noise. 

The BLM manages wild horse and burro herds in accordance with the Wild and Free Roaming 

Horses and Burros Act, which was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1971 to protect, manage, and control 

wild horses and burros on the public lands. Through the BLM planning process, the areas where wild 

horses and burros can be managed as a component of the public land have been designated as Herd 

Management Areas (HMAs). In Arizona, the Project would cross a small portion of the Cibola-Trigo 

HMA where there is a slight potential that wild horses and/or burros could be found watering at the 

Colorado River crossing. In California, the B-Line would cross the Chocolate-Mules HMA between 

approximate MPs 34.9 and 75.3 where there is a slight potential for wild burros to occur. Precipitation 

within the Project area would increase the potential for wild horses or burros to occur. Construction of 

the pipeline could affect wild horses or burros if the animals were to fall into the open trench. The BLM 

commented that mitigation measures to prevent animals from being trapped in the open trench, 

specifically measures to be implemented to minimize impact on desert tortoise, would be sufficient to 

minimize impacts on wild horse and burro herds. As discussed in Section 4.7.4.3, North Baja would 

install tortoise escape ramps in the excavated trench at 1-mile intervals. 

The Nature Conservancy, with assistance from others, completed An Ecological Analysis of 

Conservation Priorities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion (Ecological Analysis) (Marshall et al. 2000). 

The objective of the Ecological Analysis was to identify landscape-scale conservation sites that, with 

proper management, would help ensure the long-term persistence of the biodiversity in the Sonoran 

Desert. Generally, these conservation sites are areas containing sensitive vegetative communities or rare 

species at a density considered ecologically significant by regional experts. One of the 100 landscapescale conservation sites identified by the Ecological Analysis would be crossed by the B-Line at MP 0.2. 

This 434,141-acre conservation site includes the Colorado River and adjacent riparian areas. The 

Ecological Analysis reports 31 sensitive species or biotic communities associated with the river, including 

18 species with protected status under Federal or State laws. The Colorado River and adjacent riparian 

habitat would be avoided by the HDD crossing of the river. 

The IID Lateral would be adjacent to the East Mesa ACEC and flat-tailed horned lizard 

management area, which was designated to protect wildlife species (especially the flat-tailed horned 

lizard). Evan Hewes Highway, an unmaintained frontage road for the adjacent Interstate 8, is the 

southern border for this ACEC. The IID Lateral would be within the road right-of-way, just outside of the 

management area (Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee [FTHLICC] 2003). 

The management area reaches to the road right-of-way just north of MPs 8.5 to 8.8, 9.8 to 14.8, and 15.8 

to 21.0. All construction activities would occur within the road right-of-way for Evan Hewes Highway. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-89 

Impacts on sensitive or managed wildlife habitats and species are not expected to substantially 

affect local wildlife populations or adversely affect biological diversity in the region. 

4.6.3 Aquatic Resources 

4.6.3.1 Existing Aquatic Resources 

Pipeline Facilities 

Fishery resources in the waterbodies that would be crossed by the B-Line are limited to the 

Colorado River (MP 0.2), the All-American Canal (MP 79.8), and the 33 irrigation canals and drains in 

the PVID near Blythe, California (MPs 0.2 to 11.7 of the B-Line and MPs 0.0 to 2.1 of the Arrowhead 

Extension). Fishery resources in the waterbodies that would be crossed by the IID Lateral are limited to 

the All-American Canal (MPs 2.4 and 8.1), the East Highline Canal (MP 27.5), the Alamo River (MP 

32.3), and 36 other irrigation canals and drains. 

The CDFG classifies the Colorado River as a warmwater fishery (CDFG 2000). Representative 

fish species in the Colorado River include bass, bluegill, crappie, catfish, carp, sunfish, and sucker. The 

CDFG has indicated that the fish species found in some reaches of the larger irrigation canals associated 

with the Colorado River are similar to those in the Colorado River (Hayes 2000). However, the irrigation 

canals and the Alamo River do not have a classified fishery.

In the Project area, the Colorado River flows have been reduced and confined behind a series of 

dams, forming large reservoirs. The normal heavy silt load has been reduced with reservoirs acting as 

settling basins. This change in the flow of the river has led to a deposition of salts, fertilizers, and other 

products of irrigation and agriculture in the sediments of the river and has altered fish fauna composition 

over the last 100 years. 

The B-Line would also cross 265 dry desert washes. Because flow in these washes is minimal 

and limited to the time period following rain events, aquatic ecosystems have not developed in these 

washes. However, as discussed in Section 4.6.2, the washes provide habitat for terrestrial wildlife 

species. 

Potential habitat for the razorback sucker, a Federal- and State-listed endangered fish species, 

occurs in the Colorado River. Details regarding this species are found in Section 4.7.3. No other Federal 

or State-listed special status fish species are known to occur in the surface waters crossed by the proposed 

pipeline routes. 

There is no designated Essential Fish Habitat in the Project area. 

Aboveground Facilities 

There are no surface waters within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the aboveground 

facility sites; therefore, no fishery resources would be affected by the construction or operation of the 

aboveground facilities. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

There are no surface waters within or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipe storage and 

contractor yards; therefore, no fishery resources would be affected by use of the yards. 

Access Roads 

No surface waters or fishery resources would be affected by use of the access roads. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-90 

4.6.3.2 General Impact and Mitigation 

Construction of the pipeline across waterbodies would increase the sedimentation and turbidity of 

the water, the potential for streambank erosion, and the potential for fuel and chemical spills. These 

effects could impact aquatic resources. Construction-related impacts on aquatic resources could also 

result from in-stream blasting, hydrostatic testing, and water withdrawals for dust control. No in-stream 

blasting would be required. The remaining impacts are discussed in more detail below. The degree of 

impact would depend on the proposed crossing method, the existing conditions at each crossing location, 

the mitigation measures employed, and the timing of construction. 

Sedimentation and Turbidity 

Sedimentation can adversely affect fish eggs and juvenile fish survival, benthic community 

diversity and health, and spawning habitat. The B-Line and the IID Lateral would cross several flowing 

waterbodies, mostly irrigation canals and ditches in the PVID and the IID that would be crossed by boring 

or installing the pipeline between drain culverts and roads. The Colorado River, All-American Canal, and 

East Highline Canal would be crossed using the HDD method. Only one flowing waterbody, Rannells 

Drain, would be crossed using the open-cut crossing method. Two unnamed canals along the Arrowhead 

Extension would also be crossed using the open-cut crossing method. 

The open-cut crossing method is a wet trench method and has a higher potential for sedimentation 

and turbidity than the other crossing methods. However, the open-cut method is also the quickest 

crossing method. Because the effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity are generally limited to the 

period of in-stream work, the duration of these effects would be relatively short. Additional discussion on 

the potential impacts associated with the proposed open-cut crossing of Rannells Drain is provided in 

Section 4.6.3.3. 

Streambank Erosion 

Waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project facilities that would be susceptible to streambank 

erosion are primarily limited to perennial rivers and major canals. Crossing these features using the HDD 

method would avoid disturbance of the streambank vegetation. Retaining the existing bank composition 

at these waterbodies would prevent the need for bank armoring following construction. Irrigation canals 

and drains would be crossed at locations where these waterbodies are constrained within culverts, which 

would avoid any bank disturbance. Clearing of vegetation at intermittent waterbodies (dry washes) would 

not be expected to increase the susceptibility of those features to streambank erosion due to the limited 

flow in each waterbody. Further, adherence to North Baja’s CM&R Plan would facilitate revegetation of 

the banks following construction. Therefore, impacts on streambank erosion from the proposed Project 

would be less than significant.

Fuel and Chemical Spills 

A chemical or fuel spill in or near a waterbody could release contaminants, which could affect 

fish directly or indirectly through changes in food sources or by contaminating the water resources. North 

Baja would adhere to the measures detailed in its CM&R Plan (Appendix E) and the SPCC Plan 

(Appendix F) to prevent a large spill from occurring near surface waters. Hazardous materials storage 

and vehicle or equipment refueling would be restricted within 100 feet of surface waters. Should a spill 

occur, the implementation of the measures in the SPCC Plan, such as maintaining adequate emergency 

response equipment, would decrease the response time for control and cleanup of the spill and minimize 

exposure of aquatic resources to hazardous materials released into a waterbody. Although some 

individual fish or invertebrates could be harmed by a spill of hazardous materials into a waterbody, these 

impacts would not change the numbers of a local population or cause a substantial deterioration of 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-91 

existing fish habitat. Therefore, the overall impact on aquatic resources from a spill would be less than 

significant. 

Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control Water Withdrawals 

Potential impacts associated with hydrostatic testing and dust control water withdrawals include 

entrainment of fish, reduced downstream flows, impaired downstream uses associated with water 

withdrawals, erosion, scouring, and a release of chemical additives associated with hydrostatic test water 

discharges. North Baja proposes to obtain test water for the B-Line and piping within the Ehrenberg 

Compressor Station from an existing irrigation canal that withdraws water from the Colorado River just 

south of North Baja’s Ehrenberg Compressor Station property, a well on the Ehrenberg Compressor 

Station site, or the All-American Canal. Groundwater associated with the well at the compressor station 

site is hydrologically connected to the Colorado River. The Arrowhead Extension and piping within the 

Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station would be tested with water obtained from the PVID, local wells, or a 

commercial water source. The IID Lateral would be tested in sections with water obtained directly from 

the All-American Canal. These same sources of water are expected to be used for dust control. North 

Baja would screen intake piping to prevent fish and fish egg entrainment during hydrostatic test water 

withdrawal. In Section 4.3.4, the Agency Staffs have recommended that North Baja file a revised Dust 

Control Plan that specifies the sources of water that would be used for dust control, the anticipated 

quantities of water that would be required, and measures to minimize fish and fish egg entrainment during 

dust control water withdrawals. Because water withdrawals would occur from existing wells, irrigation 

canals, or commercial water sources and would not affect current flow levels in the Colorado River or 

other waterbodies containing fishery resources, and fish and fish egg entrainment would be minimized 

during water withdrawals, the effects of the proposed Project on the movement, range, or spawning of 

resident fish would be less than significant. 

After hydrostatic testing, the water would be discharged into irrigation canals or returned to the 

All-American Canal. No chemicals would be added to the test water, and energy dissipation devices 

would be employed to minimize channel erosion. Dust control water would be sprayed directly on the 

ground surface. Therefore, changes in water quality would not be expected from hydrostatic testing or 

dust control activities. Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts on fishery resources to 

less than significant levels. 

Timing of Construction 

The degree of impact associated with in-stream activities can be affected by the season of 

construction. Construction during periods of sensitive fish activities (i.e., spawning and migration) can 

have a greater impact on fish than construction during other periods. Because in-stream activities would 

only occur at Rannells Drain and two unnamed canals that do not support fisheries resources, there would 

be no impact on fish spawning and migration from construction of the proposed Project. 

4.6.3.3 Site-specific Impact and Mitigation 

The proposed open-cut trenching through Rannells Drain would create a temporary increase in 

sediment load in the drain. The PVID cleared and dredged the drain in 2002 before the construction of 

the A-Line, but the drain has subsequently revegetated with tamarisk, Arundo sp., and native vegetation, 

and has limited free water. The PVID has indicated it would be willing to perform maintenance 

clearing/dredging at the Rannells Drain crossing before construction of the B-Line in 2009, as long as it is 

done between August 2 and March 14 as agreed with the CDFG. 

Rannells Drain is connected to the Colorado River through the Palo Verde Lagoon and a series of 

other drainage structures, but is generally unsuitable as fish habitat because of its shallow depth and 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-92 

stagnant conditions. As such, Rannells Drain does not have a classified fishery and no fisheries habitat 

would be lost as a result of construction across Rannells Drain. Nonetheless, North Baja proposes to use 

sediment booms downstream of the trenching, which would contain sedimentation to the localized area. 

Any sediment potentially released during construction would be removed the next time the PVID dredges 

the drain for agricultural purposes (expected to occur 1 year after construction) and would not be a 

permanent addition to the aquatic environment. 

North Baja proposes to cross the Colorado River, the All-American Canal, and the East Highline 

Canal using the HDD method. Although the HDD method avoids in-stream impacts because it eliminates 

the need for in-stream excavation, it does not completely eliminate the possibility of impacts on aquatic 

resources due to the possibility of a frac-out into the waterbody (see Section 4.3.3.3). Drilling mud 

primarily consists of water mixed with bentonite, which is a naturally occurring clay material. A frac-out 

could occur if the drilling head hits a subterranean fracture in the substrate. When the drilling mud 

reaches the fracture, it can follow the fracture up or otherwise be forced to the surface or into the water if 

drilling is occurring under a waterbody. If drilling mud is released into the water, the settling bentonite 

could cover fish or amphibian eggs and cut off their oxygen supply. Bentonite has not been shown to 

adversely affect gills or feeding of fish or invertebrates. 

During construction of the A-Line, there were no inadvertent releases of drilling mud into the 

Colorado River or the All-American Canal, and none is expected during construction of the B-Line and 

IID Lateral. However, North Baja has prepared an HDD Plan (see Appendix G) that requires North Baja 

to continuously monitor the drilling operations. If monitoring indicates an in-stream release, the EIs 

would immediately notify North Baja’s construction management personnel. North Baja would notify the 

appropriate Federal and State agencies as soon as possible of an in-stream release event, detailing the 

nature of the release and corrective actions being taken. The notified agencies would determine whether 

additional measures need to be implemented. If it is determined that the release cannot be remedied 

without causing additional environmental impact, North Baja would request agency approval to continue 

the drilling operations. If a release occurs that may migrate downstream and affect water quality, 

downstream water users would be contacted by North Baja. The contacts and telephone numbers of 

downstream users would be assembled before commencement of construction, and maintained on site. 

Implementation of these measures would minimize adverse impacts of a frac-out in or near these waters 

on the aquatic communities to less than significant levels. Minimizing the effects of a frac-out in 

accordance with North Baja’s HDD Plan would also prevent the substantial deterioration of existing fish 

habitat. 

4.6.4 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on wildlife and aquatic resources identified for the construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-93 

4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

4.7.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on federally or State-listed or other special status species would be considered 

significant and would require mitigation if Project construction or operation would: 

• reduce the abundance of sensitive species that occur within the Project area; 

• result in the loss or alteration of designated or proposed critical habitat for one or more 

listed species; 

• cause a temporary loss or alteration of habitat important for one or more listed species 

that could cause increased mortality or lowered reproductive success of the species (i.e., 

avoidance for greater than one breeding season); 

• result in direct or indirect impacts on candidate or sensitive species populations, or 

habitat, that would contribute to or result in the Federal or State listing of the species 

(e.g., by substantially reducing species numbers or by resulting in the permanent loss of 

habitat essential for the continued existence of a species); or 

• create a potential health hazard or involve the use, production, or disposal of materials 

that pose a hazard to special status species populations in the Project area. 

4.7.2 Regulatory Requirements and Species Identification 

Federal agencies are required by section 7 of the ESA (Title 19 USC Part 1536[c]), as amended 

(1978, 1979, and 1982), to ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of a federally listed species. The action 

agency (e.g., the FERC) is required to consult with the FWS and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) 

to determine whether federally listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are 

found in the vicinity of the proposed Project, and to determine the proposed action’s potential effects on 

those species or critical habitats. For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to 

affect listed species or designated critical habitat, the Federal agency must submit its Biological 

Assessment (BA) to the FWS and/or NOAA Fisheries and, if it is determined that the action may 

adversely affect a listed species, the Federal agency must submit a request for formal consultation to 

comply with section 7 of the ESA. In response, the FWS and/or the NOAA Fisheries would issue a 

Biological Opinion (BO) as to whether or not the Federal action would likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 

habitat. 

In compliance with section 7 of the ESA, the FERC requested that the FWS consider the draft 

EIS/EIR, along with various survey reports prepared by North Baja, as the BA for the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project. No species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction would be affected by the proposed 

Project. On April 20, 2007, the FWS issued the BO (see Appendix R). 

Under the CEQA, the CSLC must take into account the impacts on special status species. 

Additionally, California has its own Endangered Species Act (CESA) that requires State agencies to 

protect and promote the recovery of State-listed endangered or threatened species. Similar to the ESA, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-94 

the CESA requires that State lead agencies consult with the CDFG to ensure that actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of essential habitat. In addition to species listed as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA and CESA, agencies and organizations such as the FWS, the BLM, the CDFG, and the 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintain lists of special concern, sensitive, or rare species that 

are also appropriate to consider in this NEPA and CEQA analysis. 

For purposes of this environmental analysis, special status plants and animals include the 

following: 

• species officially listed by California or the Federal government as endangered, 

threatened, or rare; 

• species that are proposed for Federal listing as threatened or endangered or considered 

candidates for listing; 

• species noted as sensitive or of special concern by the FWS, the BLM, the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department (AGFD), or the CDFG; and 

• plants occurring on Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 4 of the CNPS’ Inventory of Rare and 

Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). 

North Baja participated in extensive coordination efforts with the FWS, the BLM, the CDFG, and 

the AGFD before and during construction of the A-Line. Those efforts were summarized in the final 

Biological Report for that project and submitted to the agencies in 2002 (North Baja 2002). Building on 

that information base, and using data from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), AGFD 

Heritage Data Management System, and through discussions with plant and wildlife specialists with 

knowledge of the Project area, North Baja prepared a list of threatened, endangered, and special status 

species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. In addition to those 

communications, meetings were held with representatives of the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG to 

present an overview of the Project and solicit issues of concern from the agencies. 

A total of 51 special status species were identified as potentially occurring within the Project area 

(see Table 4.7.2-1). Following focused habitat evaluations and species-specific surveys in 2005, 24 of the 

51 species were eliminated from consideration due to lack of habitat, lack of potential impact, or both (see 

Table 4.7.2-1). The remaining 27 species are discussed below. 

4.7.3 General Impact and Mitigation 

In general, the impacts of the Project on special status species would be the same as described for 

vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic resources. However, the magnitude and duration of these impacts could 

be greater for special status species because their distribution and relative abundance usually are more 

limited. Construction could remove special status plants living within the construction right-of-way and 

could disturb, displace, or harm special status animals on and adjacent to construction work areas. 

Construction could also affect special status plants and wildlife by temporarily altering the habitat along 

the pipeline right-of-way and permanently altering the habitat at aboveground facility sites. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-95 

TABLE 4.7.2-1 

Special Status Species Initially Identified as Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity 

of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Status a

Species Federal State Other 

Eliminated from Further 

Consideration 

Facility/General Milepost 

Range Where Species May 

Occur 

Mammals 

American badger (Taxidea 

taxus) 

 SC Yes. Suitable habitat not 

present in Project area. 

Arizona myotis (Myotis 

occultus) 

 SC Yes. Occasional transient 

only in Project area. 

Big free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops macrotis) 

 SC Yes. Occasional transient 

only in Project area. 

California leaf-nosed bat 

(Macrotus californicus) 

 SC BLM-S Yes. Occasional transient 

only in Project area. 

Cave myotis (Myotis velifer) SC BLM-S Yes. Suitable habitat not 

present in Project area. 

Colorado River cotton rat 

(Sigmodon arizonae plenus) 

 SC No B-Line: MP 0.2 

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis nelsoni)

 BLM-S No B-Line: MP 31.0 

Pale big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii 

pallescens) 

 SC Yes. Occasional transient 

only in Project area. 

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) SC BLM-S Yes. Occasional transient 

only in Project area. 

Pallid San Diego pocket 

mouse (Chaetodipus fallax 

pallidus) 

 SC Yes. Limited range of 

species does not include 

Project area. 

Western mastiff bat (Eumops 

perotis californicus) 

 SC BLM-S Yes. Occasional transient 

only in Project area. 

Yuma mountain lion (Puma 

concolor browni) 

 SC Yes. Suitable habitat not 

present in Project area. 

Birds 

Arizona Bell’s vireo (Vireo 

bellii arizonae) 

 SE No B-Line: MPs 0.0 to 3.0 and 

31.0 to 33.0 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

FT SE Yes. No suitable 

nesting/roosting sites in 

Project area. Occasional 

transient only. 

Brown-crested flycatcher 

(Myiarchus tyrannulus) 

 SC No B-Line: MPs 22.0 to 23.0, 

35.0 to 36.0, 41.0 to 46.0, 

50.0 to 53.0, and 59.0 to 

66.0 

Brown pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis) 

FT SE Yes. Suitable habitat not 

present in Project area. 

Burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularia) 

 SC BLM-S No B-Line: MPs 0.0 to 12.0 

Arrowhead Extension: MPs 

0.0 to 2.1 

IID Lateral: MPs 28.0 to 

46.0 

California black rail (Laterallus 

jamaicensis coturniculus) 

 ST No B-Line: MPs 0.0 to 12.0 and 

31.0 to 33.0 

IID Lateral: MP 33.0 

Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma 

crissale) 

 SC No B-Line: MPs 0.0 to 3.0, 24.0 

to 29.0, and 31.0 to 33.0 

Elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi) SE Yes. Suitable habitat not 

present in Project area. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-96 

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (cont’d) 

Special Status Species Initially Identified as Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity 

of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Status a

Species Federal State Other 

Eliminated from Further 

Consideration 

Facility/General Milepost 

Range Where Species May 

Occur 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo 

regalis) 

 SC No Occasional migrant in the 

Project area 

Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes 

uropygialis) 

 SE No B-Line: MPs 0.2, 17.6, 21.8, 

22.2 to 25.3, 35.6 to 36.4, 

46.4, 50.2 to 52.4, 55.5, 

59.5, and 64.8 to 65.2 

Le Conte’s thrasher 

(Toxostoma lecontei) 

 SC BLM-S No B-Line: MPs 12.0 to 79.8 

IID Lateral: MPs 8.0 to 28.0 

Sonoran yellow warbler 

(Dendroica petechia 

sonorana) 

 SC Yes. Occasional transient 

only in Project area. 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax trailii 

extimus)

FE SE No B-Line: MPs 0.0, 25.0, and 

33.0 

Summer tanager (Piranga 

rubra) 

 SC No B-Line: MPs 22.0 to 23.0, 

35.0 to 36.0, 41.0 to 46.0, 

50.0 to 53.0, and 59.0 to 

66.0 

Vermilion flycatcher 

(Pyrocephalus rubinus) 

 SC No B-Line: MPs 0.0 to 12.0, 

22.0 to 29.0, 31.0 to 33.0, 

35.0 to 53.0, 59.0 to 66.0, 

and 79.0 to 79.8 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis) 

FC SE No B-Line: MP 0.2 

Yellow breasted chat (Icteria 

virens) 

 SC No B-Line: MPs 0.0 to 3.0, 22.0 

to 23.0, and 31.0 to 33.0 

Yuma clapper rail (Rallus 

longirostris yumanensis) 

FE ST No B-Line: MPs 0.0 to 12.0 and 

31.0 to 33.0 

IID Lateral: MP 32.3 

Amphibians/Reptiles 

Colorado River toad (Bufo 

alvarius) 

 SC No B-Line: MP 0.2 

Couch’s spadefoot toad 

(Scaphiopus couchii) 

 SC No B-Line: MPs 25.0 and 35.3 

Desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii) 

FT ST No B-Line: MPs 17.0 to 75.2 

Flat-tailed horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma mcallii) 

 SC BLM-S No B-Line: MPs 71.0 to 79.8 

IID Lateral: MPs 8.0 to 28.0 

Fish 

Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) FE SR Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. 

Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon 

macularius) 

FE SE Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. 

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 

texanus) 

FE SE No B-Line: MPs 0.2 and 24.0 to 

31.0 

Plants 

Algodones Dune sunflower 

(Helianthus niveus tephrodes) 

 SE 1B No IID Lateral: MPs 0.5 to 7.9 

Crucifixion thorn (Castela 

emoryi) 

 2 Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. Not 

identified during previous 

surveys. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-97 

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (cont’d) 

Special Status Species Initially Identified as Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity 

of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Status a

Species Federal State Other 

Eliminated from Further 

Consideration 

Facility/General Milepost 

Range Where Species May 

Occur 

Fairyduster (Calliandra 

eriophylla) 

 2 No B-Line: MPs 45.1 to 49.8, 

53.6 to 57.4, and 65.1 to 

66.6 

IID Lateral: MPs 0.5 to 7.9 

Giant Spanish-needle 

(Palafoxia arida var.

gigantean) 

 1B/BLMS No IID Lateral: MPs 0.5 to 7.9 

Glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis 

clariana) 

 2 Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. Not 

identified during previous 

surveys. 

Harwoods milk-vetch 

(Astragalus insularis var. 

harwoodii) 

 2 Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. Not 

identified during previous 

surveys. 

Las Animas colubrina 

(Colubrina californica) 

 2 Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. Not 

identified during previous 

surveys. 

Munz’s cholla (Opuntia 

munzii) 

 1B/BLMS Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. Not 

identified during previous 

surveys. 

Peirson’s milk-vetch 

(Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii) 

FT SE 1B No B-Line: MPs 72.0 to 79.8 

IID Lateral: MPs 0.5 to 7.5 

Saguaro (Carnegiea 

gigantean) 

 2 Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. Not 

identified during previous 

surveys. 

Sand food (Pholisma sonorae) 1B No IID Lateral: MPs 0.5 to 7.9 

Slender woolly-heads 

(Nemacaulis denudata var. 

gracilis) 

 2 Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. Not 

identified during previous 

surveys. 

Wiggins’s cholla (Opuntia 

wigginsii) 

 3 Yes. Not expected to 

occur in Project area. Not 

identified during previous 

surveys. 

Wiggins’s croton (Croton 

wigginsii) 

 SR 2 No IID Lateral: MPs 0.5 to 7.9 

____________________ 

a

 Status: 

 FE = Federally listed as endangered 

 FT = Federally listed as threatened 

 FC = Candidate for Federal listing as endangered or threatened 

 SE = California State-listed as endangered 

 ST = California State-listed as threatened 

 SR = California State-listed as rare (California Native Plant Protection Act) 

 SC = Federally/California State-listed as special concern 

 1B = CNPS list of plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 

 2 = CNPS list of plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 

 3 = CNPS list of plants about which more information is needed to determine their status 

 BLM-S = Bureau of Land Management lists as sensitive 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-98 

North Baja has proposed to implement the following general minimization and conservation 

measures to reduce the impact of the Project on special status species: 

• North Baja would use its environmental training program, successfully implemented for 

the A-Line construction, as a basis for a site-specific environmental training program to 

be implemented before the start of work. All employees and contractors working in the 

field would be required to complete an environmental training session before beginning 

work on the right-of-way. The program would include discussions of the biology, 

distribution, and ecology of special status species within the geographic area of 

construction; protection afforded such species under applicable Federal and State laws 

and regulations; all protection measures that must be followed to protect such species 

during Project activities; penalties for noncompliance; reporting requirements; and the 

importance of compliance with all protection measures. To ensure proper focus, 

emphasis would be placed on the specific aspects of compliance applicable to the 

particular audience’s activities on the Project. 

• Employees and contractors would be informed during one or more training sessions that 

they are not authorized to handle or otherwise move listed species at any time, including 

while commuting to work sites or at a work site. 

• North Baja would hire and designate at least two EIs per construction spread who would 

be responsible for overseeing Project environmental protection measures, including those 

for special status species. Environmental inspection procedures would be in compliance 

with the relevant provisions of North Baja’s CM&R Plan. North Baja would also hire 

and designate at least one authorized biologist who would be responsible for 

identification of habitat and individuals of special status species and for implementation 

of all measures requiring an authorized biologist’s intervention. The biologist would, if 

needed, hold the required permits or formal agreements with appropriate Federal and 

State agencies for the survey or handling of any special status species. 

• An authorized biologist would conduct species-specific surveys of each Project facility 

located within areas identified during North Baja’s surveys as listed species habitat no 

more than 7 days before the onset of activities. 

• Project personnel would exercise caution when commuting to the construction area to 

minimize any chance for the inadvertent injury or mortality of species encountered on 

roads leading to and from the construction area. North Baja’s contractors and employees 

would report all such incidents directly to an EI. 

• Only existing routes of travel and approved access roads would be used to and from 

construction areas. Cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment would be prohibited. 

Except on county- or State-maintained roads, vehicle and equipment speeds would not 

exceed 25 miles per hour within potential habitat of a listed species. On the B-Line, 

between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 (an area of relatively high tortoise density), North Baja states 

that it would limit vehicle and equipment speeds to 10 miles per hour except for stringing 

trucks, which North Baja proposes to allow to travel at 25 miles per hour. 

• Authorized biologists would monitor all work where prior North Baja surveys have 

documented the occurrence of one or more listed species and where construction 

activities can reasonably be expected to adversely affect those species. In conjunction 

with North Baja’s EIs, the biologists would have the authority to halt all non-emergency 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-99 

actions that might result in harm to a listed species, and would assist in the overall 

implementation of protection measures for listed species during Project activities. 

• All trash and food items generated by construction and maintenance activities would be 

promptly placed in a closed container and regularly removed from the Project site to 

reduce the attractiveness of the area to common ravens and other desert predators. 

• Firearms and domestic pets would be prohibited from work sites. 

• In the construction work area and along access roads, employees and contractors would 

look under vehicles and equipment for the presence of special status species before 

movement. If a special status species is observed, no vehicles or equipment would be 

moved until the animal has left voluntarily or is removed by an authorized biologist. 

• Pipeline construction activities between dusk and dawn would be limited to emergencies 

only (i.e., issues involving human health and safety) with the exception of the HDD 

operations (including those at the Colorado River, the All-American Canal, Interstate 8, 

the East Highline Canal) and the open-cut crossing of Rannells Drain. 

• Open pipeline trenches, auger holes, or other excavations that could entrap wildlife would 

be inspected by an authorized biologist a minimum of three times per day, and 

immediately before backfilling. In habitats supporting special status species, pipe 

segments would either be capped or taped closed each night or raised on supports of 

sufficient height to prevent the entry and entrapment of special status species. Such pipe 

segments would be inspected regularly before sealing and before using in the morning. 

For open trenches, earthen escape ramps would be maintained at 1-mile intervals. Other 

excavations that remain open overnight would be covered, ramped, or fenced to prevent 

entrapment of wildlife. 

• If a listed species is located during construction, and a contingency for avoidance, 

removal, or transplant has not been approved by the FWS or appropriate agency, North 

Baja would not proceed with Project activities in that location until specific consultation 

with the FERC, the FWS, the BLM, and/or other appropriate agency is completed. 

• All encounters with listed species would be reported to the biologist, who would record 

the following information: 

o species; 

o location (narrative and maps) and dates of observations; 

o general condition and health, including injuries and state of healing; 

o diagnostic markings, including identification numbers or markers; and 

o locations moved from and to. 

• Upon locating a dead or injured listed species, North Baja would notify the FWS and the 

CDFG in California or the AGFD in Arizona. Written notification would be made within 

15 days of the date and time of the finding or incident (if known) and would include: 

location of the carcass, a photograph, cause of death (if known), and other pertinent 

information. 

• As described in Section 2.2.1, in general, the construction right-of-way would be limited 

to a width of 105 feet along the B-Line. North Baja proposes to generally use a 100-footDocument Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-100 

wide construction right-of-way for the Arrowhead Extension except when in the 

Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder where a 60-foot-wide construction rightof-way would be used. The construction right-of-way for the IID Lateral would be 

limited to a width of 60 feet for the majority of its length and 80 feet where it parallels 

existing utility corridors. The construction right-of-way would be clearly staked and 

flagged in advance of construction. The construction work area includes approved work 

areas for the pipelines, compressor station, and meter stations; the facilities at Rannells 

Trap; the taps, crossover piping, and pig launcher associated with the Arrowhead 

Extension; access roads; the tap to the B-line and pig launcher associated with the IID 

Lateral; and staging and pipe storage areas. 

• As described in Section 4.6.2.3, North Baja would attempt to schedule construction in 

native habitats outside of the breeding season for migratory birds. If, however, 

construction activities are necessary in native habitats during the bird breeding season, 

North Baja would remove vegetation that could provide nesting substrate from the rightof-way before the breeding season, thus eliminating the possibility that birds could nest 

on the right-of-way. In accordance with the Agency Staffs’ recommendation in Section 

4.6.2.3, specific plans relating to preclearing of vegetation would be coordinated with the 

FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. Qualified biologists would conduct preconstruction 

surveys to confirm the absence of nesting birds before construction begins. 

• If, in spite of vegetation removal, nesting birds are found on the construction right-ofway, the nest would not be removed until fledging has occurred or unless authorized after 

consultation with the FWS, the CDFG, and, if the nest is located on Federal lands, the 

Federal land management agency. 

• At specified locations in areas of high-density microphyll woodland (see Table 4.5.3-2), 

North Baja would narrow the construction right-of-way width to 80 feet. Areas of this 

narrower construction width would be identified in the field, staked, and flagged in 

advance of construction. 

• At the conclusion of work, all trenches and holes would be completely filled, surfaces 

cleaned and smoothed, and each site recontoured to match the original profiles as closely 

as possible. 

• With the exception of fenced facilities, all materials and equipment would be removed 

from the area upon completion of work. All stakes, flagging, and fencing used to 

delineate and protect any environmental or cultural feature in the construction area would 

be removed no later than 30 days after construction and restoration are complete. 

• Upon completion of Project activities, North Baja would submit a final report to the 

FERC for distribution to other agencies, including the FWS. The report would document 

the effectiveness and practicality of the conservation measures, the number of individuals 

of each species excavated from their burrows or removed from the site, the number of 

individuals killed or injured, and other pertinent information. The report would also 

recommend modifications of the Project stipulations in order to enhance the protection of 

species in the future. In addition, the final report would provide the actual acreage 

disturbed by Project activities by habitat type. 

These measures would be applied Project-wide and would reduce most impacts on special status 

species to less than significant levels. The Agency Staffs believe, however, that North Baja’s proposal to 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-101 

allow stringing trucks to travel at 25 miles per hour between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 of the B-Line would not 

adequately protect special status species. North Baja has indicated that limiting vehicles, other than 

stringing trucks, to 10 miles per hour would provide maximum protection to special status species due to 

the increased frequency of non-stringing truck traffic along the right-of-way. North Baja further indicated 

that stringing trucks would enter and exit the right-of-way at locations that minimized the time the trucks 

were operating along the right-of-way, and that decreasing the allowed speed of the stringing trucks could 

have schedule and associated cost implications. However, the Agency Staffs continue to have concerns 

about allowing these large, generally heavily loaded, trucks to operate at an increased speed along the 

right-of-way in areas of known special status species occurrence given the longer required stop time for 

these vehicles. Because the speed restriction would only occur along a 20-mile stretch and the restriction 

would be known well before the construction bids would be prepared, it does not appear that this 

restriction should significantly impact the construction schedule or costs. Furthermore, limiting the speed 

of the stringing trucks would aid in dust control, which is a concern of the BLM. Therefore, the Agency 

Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall restrict stringing trucks to a 10-mile-per-hour speed limit on the 

right-of-way between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 of the B-Line. 

As discussed in Section 2.5, North Baja would employ EIs who would be responsible for 

overseeing the implementation of environmental protection measures; full-time third-party Compliance 

Monitors would be present on the construction spreads to monitor compliance with the Project mitigation 

measures and requirements; and the FERC, CSLC, and BLM staff would conduct periodic inspections of 

the Project for compliance with the Project’s environmental conditions. Other Federal, State, and local 

agencies would conduct oversight of inspection and monitoring to the extent determined necessary by the 

individual agency. 

Site-specific impacts and species-specific conservation measures are discussed below. 

4.7.4 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Based on consultations with the Arizona and Carlsbad Field Offices of the FWS as well as the 

CDFG and a search of the CNDDB, nine federally listed endangered or threatened species or species 

proposed for listing as endangered or threatened were identified as potentially occurring in the Project 

area (see Table 4.7.2-1). Following preliminary field surveys and further consultations with the FWS 

offices, four species were eliminated from further consideration: the bald eagle, brown pelican, bonytail 

chub, and desert pupfish. These species are only known from sites well away from the proposed Project 

area. Therefore, the Agency Staffs have determined that there would be no effect on these species from 

construction or operation of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. The Agency Staffs have 

determined that the proposed Project has the potential to affect the remaining five federally listed species 

that are known or suspected to occur within the Project area. A discussion of these five species is 

presented below. 

4.7.4.1 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The southwestern willow flycatcher is federally and California-listed as endangered. This species 

breeds in riparian habitats along rivers, streams, or other wetlands where dense growths of willows or 

other shrubs and medium-sized trees are present. Similar habitats are used during migration. All willow 

flycatcher subspecies winter in Mexico, Central America, and possibly northern South America, but 

specific wintering grounds and migration routes for the southwestern subspecies are unknown. 

Southwestern willow flycatchers are late migrants and typically arrive on their breeding grounds in midMay where they remain until late-August (Tibbitts et al. 1994). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-102 

Surveys for southwestern willow flycatchers were conducted in accordance with FWS survey 

protocols during May, June, and July 2005 in known areas of habitat along the B-Line as identified during 

surveys for the A-Line. These areas include the Ehrenberg area (MP 0.0), the Stallard Road area (MP 

25.0), and near the Cibola NWR Davis Lake Area (MP 33.0). No breeding southwestern willow 

flycatchers were identified at any of the habitat locations surveyed along the B-Line in 2005. However, 

migrants were identified between May 17 and June 12, 2005 at Ehrenberg and between May 16 and June 

11, 2005 at Stallard Road. No southwestern willow flycatchers were identified at the Cibola NWR, or 

during a June 29, 2005 survey or two July 2005 surveys. These results are consistent with the 2001 

surveys and the 2002 monitoring efforts conducted at the same locations for the A-Line. There is no 

suitable habitat for this species along the proposed Arrowhead Extension or the IID Lateral. 

Southwestern willow flycatchers are known to migrate through the area that would be crossed by 

the B-Line, specifically near the Colorado River and in the vicinity of Stallard Road, but there is no 

evidence of these birds nesting in the area. Although the removal of desert wash woodland trees during 

the installation of the B-Line would reduce habitat for this species, in accordance with its general 

conservation measures, North Baja proposes to clear vegetation outside of the breeding season, thereby 

avoiding impacts on potential breeding individuals. Also, because the habitat loss would occur adjacent 

to an existing pipeline in the area, clearing would not fragment suitable habitat, but rather would be a 

minor, incremental loss of desert wash woodland. Nonetheless, if suitable habitat was occupied during 

clearing, construction could increase stress on migrating flycatchers and increase their susceptibility to 

predators or reduce their physical condition during the critical migrating period. These potential impacts, 

however, would not ultimately be expected to occur as there is sufficient desert wash woodland 

throughout the Project vicinity along the Colorado River and in the Cibola NWR. It is expected that 

migrating individuals would use these adjacent areas for foraging and cover. Thus, there would be no 

direct adverse impacts from Project construction on individual birds or bird populations aside from a 

temporary relocation from one area of suitable habitat to another similar and nearby area. North Baja’s 

implementation of measures included in its CM&R Plan would facilitate the long-term restoration and 

revegetation of desert wash woodlands affected by construction such that these areas would be suitable 

for use by migrating flycatchers in the future. 

Southwestern willow flycatchers potentially using habitat along the Colorado River could be 

disturbed by activities associated with the HDD of that waterbody. Specifically, noise and light 

associated with HDD equipment and activities could dissuade individuals from using habitat in the 

vicinity of the HDD and/or could interrupt resting individuals. However, because migrating individuals 

could easily relocate to other nearby areas of suitable resting habitat, adverse impacts on migrants are not 

expected. To minimize the potential for construction activities to affect southwestern willow flycatchers 

at the Colorado River crossing, the Agency Staffs recommend that:

• North Baja shall implement the following measures at the Colorado River during 

activities associated with the HDD: 

a. all individuals working within or adjacent to southwestern willow flycatcher 

habitat shall complete southwestern willow flycatcher training before

working within the construction right-of-way in those areas; and 

b. dust shall be strictly controlled by watering construction areas within 1,000 

feet of potential habitat at the Colorado River. 

As a result of North Baja’s proposed measures as well as the Agency Staffs’ recommendation 

above and in Section 4.6.2.3, although the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project may affect habitat used 

by the southwestern willow flycatcher, the Project is not likely to adversely affect the species. Further, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-103 

although construction-related disturbances could cause individuals to avoid suitable habitats, with 

implementation of the measures outlined above, the Agency Staffs believe that disturbances of individuals 

are unlikely and impacts on the southwestern willow flycatcher associated with the Project would be less 

than significant. 

4.7.4.2 Yuma Clapper Rail 

The Yuma clapper rail is federally listed as endangered and California-listed as threatened. In 

California, the Yuma clapper rail is found between February and August in freshwater and brackish 

emergent wetlands along the Colorado River and around the Salton Sea. Although this species requires 

mature stands of cattails and bulrushes for cover, it can be found foraging in adjacent areas of shallow 

water and mudflats for crayfish, clams, and insects. 

Preliminary evaluations along the B-Line indicated that potential habitat for this species is found 

in freshwater marshes, wetlands, and drains near the Colorado River, the Palo Verde Valley, and the 

Davis Lake areas (MPs 0.0 to 12.0 and MPs 31.0 to 33.0). A focused survey was conducted at each 

location of identified potential habitat in 2001 and again in May 2005. The survey was conducted to 

determine the number and location, if any, of the Yuma clapper rail. Surveys were conducted following a 

modified survey protocol (survey window extended to May 30, 2005), as discussed with and approved by 

the FWS on May 10, 2005. Each area of potential habitat was surveyed twice between May 16 and May 

25, 2005. No Yuma clapper rails were detected during these survey efforts, consistent with survey and 

monitoring results from 2001 and 2002 and species records in the area. No potential habitat for the Yuma 

clapper rail was identified along the proposed Arrowhead Extension. 

Preliminary evaluations along the IID Lateral indicated that potential habitat for this species may 

occur near the Alamo River (MP 32.3). North Baja has not yet conducted surveys for this species at this 

river crossing. 

Although this species was not identified along other areas of the B-Line during previous surveys, 

in order to avoid impacts on the species during construction of the A-Line, the FWS required that 

vegetation be cleared before construction in the areas of direct impacts along Rannells Drain as well as an 

area extending 150 feet on either side of the direct zone of impact. Further, the CDFG has recommended 

that if Rannells Drain is not cleared before construction, North Baja would be required to conduct surveys 

for the Yuma clapper rail at this location. North Baja has agreed to conduct these surveys, if necessary. 

However, North Baja has not proposed conservation measures to avoid impacts on individual Yuma 

clapper rails if identified during such surveys, nor has North Baja proposed to conduct surveys for the 

Yuma clapper rail at the Alamo River. Therefore, the Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall implement the following measures to minimize impact on the 

Yuma clapper rail unless North Baja provides documentation from the FWS and 

the CDFG that such measures are not necessary or if site-specific surveys fail to 

identify individuals at the Alamo River or Rannells Drain:

a. ensure vegetation at the proposed crossing location of Rannells Drain, 

extending 150 feet on either side of the proposed construction work area, is 

cleared before February 1, 2009; 

b. ensure vegetation at the proposed crossing location of the Alamo River is 

cleared before February 1, 2009; and

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-104 

c. initiate all construction activities at Rannells Drain and the Alamo River 

between the hours of 8:30 AM and 3:30 PM to avoid periods of peak Yuma 

clapper rail vocalizations.

Direct impacts on Yuma clapper rail and/or rail habitat along the Colorado River would be 

avoided through North Baja’s proposed HDD crossing of this waterbody and the adjacent habitat. 

Additionally, the measures recommended by the Agency Staffs to avoid impacts on the southwestern 

willow flycatcher at the Colorado River would also avoid impacts on the Yuma clapper rail at the 

Colorado River. 

Disturbance of wetlands and drains during Project construction would reduce available foraging 

and nesting habitat for the species. The reduction in this habitat type could reduce the ability of the area 

to support clapper rails or affect the overall suitability of habitat in the region. However, impacts on 

wetland and drain habitat would be temporary because these vegetation communities typically revegetate 

within 1 year following construction. As a result of the Agency Staffs’ recommendations and given that 

impacts on Yuma clapper rail habitat would be minor and temporary, the proposed Project is not likely to 

adversely affect the species. 

4.7.4.3 Desert Tortoise 

The desert tortoise, a federally and California-listed threatened species, is widely distributed 

throughout the Mojave and Colorado deserts from below sea level to elevations of about 4,130 feet or 

higher. It is most common in desert scrub, desert wash, and Joshua tree habitats, but occurs in almost 

every desert habitat except on the most precipitous slopes. Highest tortoise densities are found in 

creosote bush communities with extensive annual wildflower blooms. This species requires friable soil 

for burrow and nest construction, but does not occupy areas of blown sand or very sandy soils due to 

burrow collapse. 

The BLM’s CDCA Plan, completed in 1980, has been amended by the NECO Plan. The NECO 

planning area is in the southeastern CDCA, primarily in the Sonoran Desert, and provides a landscape 

approach to managing desert ecosystems. The CDCA includes a system of large DWMAs for the desert 

tortoise. Specific DWMA prescriptions include standardization of BLM management classes, tortoise 

categories, and critical habitat; 5:1 ratio for surface disturbance compensation; and an overall 1 percent 

disturbance limit for any development within a DWMA. 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would be outside the designated DWMAs. All of the 

land defined in BLM records as tortoise habitat that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline and lateral 

routes was previously defined as Category II lands, which recognize that the desert tortoise habitat is of 

lesser quality than that classified as Category I lands (most of which were incorporated into a DWMA). 

All categories of desert tortoise habitat outside the DWMAs were defined under the NECO Plan to be 

Category III for the purposes of compensation for disturbance, and have been assigned a compensation 

ratio of 1:1. 

In the vicinity of the proposed B-Line, the creosote bush scrub habitats east of the Mule 

Mountains extending south to Interstate 8 (MPs 16.0 to 75.2) are potentially suitable habitat for the desert 

tortoise. A portion of this, MPs 34.0 to 58.4, is part of the Chuckwalla Unit, an area designated by the 

FWS as critical habitat for the desert tortoise. The Chuckwalla Unit includes privately owned land as 

well as land managed by the BLM. 

Surveys for desert tortoise were conducted along the A-Line in 2001 and for the proposed B-Line 

between April 18 and April 27, 2005. The purpose of the surveys was to determine the number and 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-105 

location of desert tortoise sign, including live and dead tortoise, burrows, scat, and tracks. Although one 

potential tortoise burrow was found in Riverside County at MP 11.8 in 2001, tortoise sign reliably 

associated with active tortoise use was noted only along the proposed B-Line route from MPs 17.0 to 

69.0. In general, tortoise sign found in the 2001 survey, tortoise encounters documented during 

construction in 2002, and tortoise sign found in 2005 were closely correlated. The highest density of 

tortoise sign was found between MPs 41.0 and 67.0, with very high concentrations in the area of Indian 

Wash between MPs 62.5 and 65.5. 

Construction of the B-Line would impact a total of 832 acres of desert tortoise habitat; however, 

only 237 acres would be new disturbance and 595 acres would overlap the previously disturbed (and 

compensated for) A-Line construction right-of-way. A total of 358 acres of critical habitat would be 

impacted, of which 106 acres would be new disturbance. The FWS has stated that only new disturbance 

would require compensation (Robleck 2005). The primary impact on critical habitat would occur during 

the construction phase of the Project. During construction, critical habitat would be temporarily disturbed 

at work areas, temporary access roads, and along the construction right-of-way. Although these areas 

would be restored and not used again during routine operation or maintenance, recovery in the arid 

climate is expected to take more than 10 years. Through desert tortoise critical habitat, the B-Line would 

be immediately adjacent to the existing A-Line, as well as portions of Stallard Road, SR 78, and Ogilby 

Road, which would minimize habitat fragmentation. The proposed Project would use existing access 

roads to the extent practicable with new access road construction limited to 0.25 mile as permanent access 

to the Blythe Meter Station. Thus, while the area of the right-of-way is within critical habitat, North Baja 

would limit disturbance of previously unaffected areas to the narrowest extent practicable. The proposed 

Project would not cross public lands within the DWMA that are managed for the conservation of the 

desert tortoise. 

To compensate for the loss of desert tortoise habitat not previously compensated for during 

construction of the A-Line, North Baja would implement the following measures: 

• Compensation rates for new impacts on desert tortoise habitat of 1:1 would be calculated 

and an assessed financial contribution would be paid to the BLM. In accordance with 

accepted guidelines previously implemented by the FERC, the FWS, and the BLM, areas 

of new impacts would include only those areas not previously affected by construction of 

the A-Line. 

• North Baja would provide funding to the CDFG to manage acquired lands in addition to 

an enhancement fee based on the same compensation rate, which would be based on the 

CDFG published or calculated rates per acre at the time of issuance of the final EIS/EIR 

for the proposed Project. 

In addition to the loss of potential desert tortoise habitat, construction-related impacts on the 

desert tortoise could include direct mortality or injury as a result of being crushed by vehicles, movement 

of soils, and entrapment in burrows and open trenches. North Baja would minimize the potential for 

impacts on the desert tortoise by implementing the following measures: 

• North Baja would submit the names, permit numbers, and relevant tortoise experience 

resumes of all individuals who might need to handle desert tortoises to the FWS for 

approval at least 15 days before the initiation of clearance surveys. North Baja would 

also submit the list to the BLM for its records. Project activities would not begin until an 

authorized biologist has been approved. Although other biologists may be employed as 

biological monitors, only those approved by the FWS as authorized biologists would be 

permitted to handle tortoises. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-106 

• All persons authorized by the FWS to handle desert tortoises would follow the guidelines 

established in the Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises During Construction 

Projects (Desert Tortoise Council 1999). 

• A clearance survey for the desert tortoise would be conducted by an authorized biologist 

within 24 hours before ground disturbance. 

• Burrows outside of the limits of the construction right-of-way would be flagged so that 

the biological monitor would be able to more easily locate them during construction. 

• All desert tortoise burrows or pallets in the construction area would be excavated by an 

authorized biologist. All desert tortoise handling and burrow excavation would be in 

accordance with the handling procedures developed by the FWS and would be conducted 

by authorized biologists. 

• Desert tortoises that are found above ground and need to be moved from potential harm 

would be placed in the shade of a shrub by the authorized biologist. All desert tortoises 

removed from burrows would be placed in an unoccupied burrow of approximately the 

same size as the one from which it was removed. 

• If an existing burrow is unavailable, the authorized biologist would construct or direct the 

construction of a burrow of similar size, shape, depth, and orientation as the original 

burrow. Desert tortoises moved during inactive periods would be monitored for at least 2 

days after placement in the new burrows to ensure their safety. The authorized biologist 

would be allowed some judgment and discretion to ensure that the survival of the desert 

tortoise is likely. 

• Should a tortoise wander into the construction area during construction, adjacent 

activities would be halted until the tortoise is moved out of the construction work area 

and out of harm’s way. 

• North Baja would install exclusion fencing along the right-of-way in areas where tortoise 

density is sufficiently high to warrant fencing, in the opinion of the authorized biologist 

in charge of tortoise surveys and in consultation with the FWS and the CDFG, to prevent 

tortoises from entering the construction work area and getting in harm’s way. 

• A worker bonus program would be implemented that would reward construction staff 

who spot a tortoise within the construction work area and, without touching or disturbing 

the animal, notify the authorized biologist for action. 

• If a tortoise is located in the construction work area and is not moving, adjacent activities 

would be halted until an authorized biologist is able to move it out of harm’s way. 

• All pipeline marker signs within desert tortoise habitat would be fitted with “bird-begone” or similar bird repellent devices. 

• Only approved access roads would be used. Only approved areas would be used for 

temporary storage areas, laydown sites, and any other surface-disturbing activities. Any 

routes of travel that require construction or modification, or any additional work areas, 

would be surveyed for tortoises by an authorized biologist(s) before modification or 

construction of the route or construction or use of a new work area. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-107 

• Trench segments or other excavations would be provided with tortoise escape ramps at 1-

mile intervals. All excavations would be inspected for tortoises three times daily and 

before backfilling. 

• Any time a vehicle is parked, the ground around and under the vehicle would be 

inspected for desert tortoises before the vehicle is moved. If a desert tortoise is observed, 

it would be left to move on its own. If this does not occur within 15 minutes, an 

authorized biologist would remove and relocate the tortoise. 

• Within desert tortoise habitat, construction pipe, culverts, or similar structures with a 

diameter of 3 inches or greater that are stored on the construction site for one or more 

nights would be inspected for tortoises before the material is moved, buried, or capped. 

As an alternative, all such structures may be capped before being stored on the 

construction site. 

• All construction-related activities in desert tortoise habitat would be conducted between 

dawn and dusk. 

Although these measures would substantially reduce impacts on the desert tortoise, the 

construction of the proposed Project is likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise and its critical habitat 

and, as such, impacts on this species would be considered significant. Therefore, approval of the Project 

would be subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations under the CEQA. As part of the section 7 

formal consultation process, the FWS included non-discretionary terms and conditions in the BO to 

ensure that the Project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise (see Appendix 

R). North Baja would not be authorized to make any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would foreclose formulation or implementation of any reasonable or prudent alternatives 

needed to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species and adverse modification of its 

critical habitat. 

4.7.4.4 Razorback Sucker 

The razorback sucker is a federally and California-listed endangered fish species found only in 

large rivers of western North America’s Colorado River basin (Mueller 2000). Both a riverine and 

lacustrine species, razorback suckers are found in low-velocity main channel backwaters or off-channel 

wetlands. This fish spawns in areas of sand, gravel, or rocks in shallow water. 

The razorback sucker may occur along the proposed B-Line at the Colorado River crossing (MP 

0.2). The razorback sucker is also known to occur throughout the Palo Verde Outfall Drain. The 

proposed B-Line route would parallel, but would not affect, the Palo Verde Outfall Drain from MPs 24.0 

to 31.0. 

The FWS has designated a portion of the Colorado River crossed by the B-Line as critical habitat 

for the species. As currently proposed, North Baja would install the pipeline under the Colorado River 

using the HDD method. Unlike a conventional open-cut crossing, an HDD crossing would not alter or 

remove streambed or streambank habitat, cause in-stream sedimentation, or interfere with fish movement. 

This method would avoid effects on the razorback sucker during the crossing of the Colorado River. 

North Baja may withdraw water from sources hydrologically connected to the Colorado River for 

use in dust control activities and hydrostatic testing of the pipeline (see Section 4.3.3.4). Pursuant with its 

CM&R Plan, North Baja would screen intake piping to prevent fish and fish egg entrainment during 

hydrostatic test water withdrawals. In Section 4.3.4, the Agency Staffs have recommended that North 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-108 

Baja file a revised Dust Control Plan that includes measures to prevent fish and fish egg entrainment 

during dust control water withdrawal. 

It is possible that geologic irregularities could be encountered during the HDD crossing of the 

Colorado River that could result in the inadvertent release of drilling mud (frac-out) or the inability to 

complete the crossing using the HDD method. North Baja has prepared an HDD Plan (see Appendix G) 

that would minimize the adverse impact of a frac-out on aquatic resources. During construction of the ALine, there were no frac-outs into the Colorado River and, based on geotechnical studies, none are 

expected to occur during the B-Line crossing of the river. Therefore, although the potential exists for the 

Project to affect the species in the event of a frac-out during the HDD crossing of the Colorado River, the 

potential for this to occur is low. Because of the low likelihood of a frac-out and the measures that would 

be implemented during water withdrawals from the Colorado River, the Agency Staffs have determined 

that construction of the proposed Project is not likely to adversely affect the razorback sucker or its critical 

habitat and, as such, impacts on this species would be less than significant. 

4.7.4.5 Peirson’s Milk-vetch 

The Peirson’s milk-vetch is a federally listed threatened and California-listed endangered plant 

found in southern California, Arizona, and Baja California. In California, the Peirson’s milk-vetch occurs 

on sand dunes in the Algodones Dunes system of Imperial County. Historically, the plant was known 

from Borrego Valley in San Diego County and at a site southwest of the Salton Sea in Imperial County, 

but it has not been identified at those locations in recent years (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). It is 

thought that the species responds positively to substrate disturbance, due in part to the redistribution of 

sandy substrate and nutrients to the ground surface. 

Critical habitat for the Peirson’s milk-vetch was designated by the FWS in 2004. Critical habitat 

in the Project area consists of Subunits A and B of the Algodones Dunes Critical Habitat Unit, which 

includes both Federal and private land. Subunit A is north of SR 78 and encompasses portions of the 

Mammoth and North Algodones Dunes Wilderness. Subunit B lies south of SR 78 and north of Interstate 

8 and encompasses the Ogilby Management Area. The proposed Project does not cross Subunits A or B 

and, therefore, would be outside designated critical habitat. 

North Baja conducted a focused survey for the portion of the proposed B-Line route south of the 

intersection with Interstate 8 (MPs 72.0 to 79.8) on May 14, 2005, and a supplemental survey on the west 

side of the right-of-way on September 4, 2005. Individuals and small populations of the Peirson’s milkvetch were found along the proposed B-Line route in areas of sandy substrate off the existing A-Line 

right-of-way, while the three larger populations (greater than 100 plants each) were found on the A-Line 

right-of-way. Plant populations varied in density, generally occurring as single plants or relatively 

isolated populations of several dozen plants. The survey extended up to 30 feet west of the existing rightof-way, but only one plant was seen west of the previously disturbed right-of-way, approximately 5 feet 

off of the existing right-of-way. The remainder of the plants occurred within the disturbed right-of-way. 

North Baja did not conduct a focused survey for the Peirson’s milk-vetch along the proposed IID 

Lateral. However, the BLM conducted an annual focused survey for the Peirson’s milk-vetch in 2005 in 

the ISDRA, which included the area that would be crossed by the IID Lateral. The results of this survey 

showed populations of the Peirson’s milk-vetch close to the proposed IID Lateral route between MPs 0.5 

and 7.5. Therefore, the presence of the Peirson’s milk-vetch is assumed between MPs 0.5 and 7.5 of the 

IID Lateral. 

Although no Peirson’s milk-vetch were identified during preconstruction monitoring for the ALine, after the heavy rains of 2004 and 2005 large numbers of Peirson’s milk-vetch were found in the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-109 

disturbed post-construction right-of-way. Based on the survey results of the proposed B-Line and 

existing A-Line rights-of-way, it appears that there is a substantial seed bank of Peirson’s milk-vetch 

available that was not adversely affected by construction of the A-Line. Additionally, it appears as if the 

topsoil and seed bank conservation measures implemented during construction of the A-Line in 2002 

successfully preserved and distributed Peirson’s milk-vetch seeds and provided for the quick reestablishment of this species. North Baja would utilize the same techniques used during construction and 

restoration of the A-Line for the proposed B-Line, including topsoil segregation to conserve the existing 

seed bank, respreading of topsoil upon completion of construction, and imprinting the right-of-way during 

restoration with equipment (e.g., sheepsfoot roller) to provide micro-catchment areas for seed retention. 

Clearing could result in the loss of the current season’s seed production depending on construction 

timing; however, Peirson’s milk-vetch seed is able to remain viable for several years (FWS 2002b). 

Therefore, re-establishment would not be dependent upon construction occurring after a single season’s 

seed-production period. 

North Baja would similarly segregate topsoil along the IID Lateral, but would not use a 

sheepsfoot roller in the area of the dunes along the lateral because this equipment is ineffective in sand. 

Construction of the IID Lateral through potential Peirson’s milk-vetch habitat would be conducted in the 

summer months after adult plants (if present) have already set seed, which should allow for the reestablishment in the next growing season after construction is completed. 

Proposed mitigation measures, including topsoil segregation and timing of construction, would 

substantially reduce impacts on the Peirson’s milk-vetch. Additionally, construction through previously 

undisturbed areas adjacent to the existing right-of-way could actually benefit the species by providing 

open areas for the species to develop. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would result in direct impacts on 

the species, including crushing and cutting of individuals and populations. Thus, although construction in 

locations adjacent to populations of this species may increase habitat suitability or otherwise make the 

area suitable for proliferation of the species, the likelihood of overall positive benefits is uncertain. The 

clearing and grading of areas currently containing individuals and populations of this species would result 

in direct and adverse impacts on existing populations. Therefore, the Agency Staffs believe that the North 

Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is likely to adversely affect the Peirson’s milk-vetch and, as such, 

impacts on this species would be considered significant and approval of the Project would be subject to a 

Statement of Overriding Considerations under the CEQA. As part of the section 7 formal consultation 

process, the FWS concluded in the BO that the Project would not jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Peirson’s milk-vetch (see Appendix R). 

4.7.5 State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Based on consultations with the AGFD and the CDFG and a search of the CNDDB, 16 Statelisted or proposed listed rare, threatened, or endangered species were identified as potentially occurring 

within the proposed Project area. The Agency Staffs have determined that due to lack of habitat, the 

proposed Project would not affect the bald eagle, the brown pelican, the elf owl, or the desert pupfish, and 

they have been eliminated from further consideration. Based on habitat evaluations and species-specific 

surveys, the Agency Staffs have determined that the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project has the 

potential to affect the remaining 11 species. Five of these species are also federally listed (southwestern 

willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, desert tortoise, razorback sucker, Peirson’s milk-vetch) and are 

discussed in Section 4.7.4. The remaining six species are discussed below. 

4.7.5.1 Arizona Bell’s Vireo 

The Arizona bell’s vireo is a California-listed endangered bird that inhabits desert riparian 

communities where thickets of willow and other low shrubs are found along water and intermittent 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-110 

streams. In California, the Arizona bell’s vireo is limited in distribution to a few locations along the 

Colorado River. 

Habitat evaluation surveys along the proposed B-Line identified potential habitat for this species 

at the Colorado River (MPs 0.0 to 3.0) and the Davis Lake area (MPs 31.0 to 33.0). As discussed 

previously, the use of the HDD method to cross the Colorado River and implementation of North Baja’s 

general conservation measures would serve to avoid or minimize potential impact on areas adjacent to the 

Colorado River, including habitat for the Arizona bell’s vireo. The proposed B-Line would cross no 

closer than 1,300 feet to Davis Lake between MPs 31.0 and 33.0 and, therefore, would not be considered 

a noise impact. In addition, riparian habitat would not be affected at this location. Therefore, 

construction of the pipeline would have no adverse effect on the Arizona Bell’s vireo or its habitat. As 

such, the Project is not expected to reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area or cause a 

temporary loss or alteration of important habitat for the species. As a result, impacts on this species 

would be less than significant. 

4.7.5.2 California Black Rail 

The California black rail is a California-listed threatened species. This freshwater marsh bird 

requires mature stands of cattails and bulrushes for cover, and it can be found foraging in adjacent areas 

of shallow water and mudflats for crayfish, clams, and insects. 

Preliminary habitat evaluations indicate that potential habitat for the California black rail is found 

in freshwater marshes, wetlands, and drains along the B-Line route near the Colorado River (MPs 0.0 to 

3.0), the Palo Verde Valley (MPs 0.0 to 12.0), and the Davis Lake area (MPs 31.0 to 33.0). Habitat for 

this species may also occur near the Alamo River (MP 32.3) along the IID Lateral. 

North Baja conducted a focused survey at each location of potential rail habitat along the A-Line 

in 2001 and along the proposed B-Line in May 2005. No California black rails were detected at any of 

the survey locations. 

Because this species was not identified during surveys along the B-Line, no special mitigation 

measures are proposed besides North Baja’s general conservation measures. However, areas of suitable 

habitat could become occupied prior to construction beginning in 2009, if the Project is approved. As 

recommended by the CDFG, North Baja has agreed to conduct preconstruction surveys for the California 

black rail if habitat for this species is not cleared before construction. Habitat for this species is similar to 

the Yuma clapper rail, previously discussed in Section 4.7.4.2. Per the Agency Staffs’ recommendation 

for the Yuma clapper rail (see Section 4.7.4.2), suitable habitat for both the Yuma clapper rail and the 

California black rail at both Rannells Drain and the Alamo River would be cleared before construction. 

This measure would avoid direct impacts on the California black rail during construction of the B-Line. 

Disturbance of wetlands and drains during Project construction would reduce available foraging 

and nesting habitat for the species. Impacts on wetland and drain habitat would be temporary because 

these vegetation communities typically revegetate within 1 year following construction. Given that no 

individuals were found to be using the areas along the proposed Project corridor during several recent 

surveys and that impacts on California black rail habitat would be minor and temporary, construction of 

the proposed Project would have no adverse effect on the California black rail and impacts on this species 

would be less than significant. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-111 

4.7.5.3 Gila Woodpecker 

The Gila woodpecker is a California-listed endangered species. This species is common in 

Arizona, but is limited to a few scattered locations in the Colorado River Valley in California. The Gila 

woodpecker inhabits areas of desert riparian, mesquite, saguaro, or Joshua tree woodlands. It may 

sometimes be found in trees, palms, and even wooden utility poles in urban and suburban areas. 

Before construction of the A-Line, 10 areas were identified as potential Gila woodpecker nesting 

habitat. These areas include the Colorado River crossing (MP 0.2) and areas at MPs 17.6, 21.8, 22.2 to 

25.3 (Stallard Road Wash), MPs 35.6 to 36.4 (Milpitas Wash), MPs 46.4, 50.2 to 52.4, 55.5, 59.5, and 

64.8 to 65.2 (Gold Rock Ranch). A focused survey and preconstruction surveys were conducted before 

construction of the A-Line in 2002. 

The 2002 surveys identified two occupied cavities at MPs 50.7 and 51.7. One active nest cavity 

was identified in a power pole approximately 54 feet from the right-of-way. The other active nest cavity 

was located in a Palo Verde tree with a single male woodpecker within 16 feet of the right-of-way. The 

birds persisted during and after construction, and appeared unaffected by the pipeline installation process 

(Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation [FWENC] 2002). 

The CDFG recommended that North Baja conduct preconstruction surveys to determine the 

presence of the Gila woodpecker in the vicinity of the proposed B-Line in areas of suitable nesting 

habitat. North Baja has agreed to conduct surveys for Gila woodpeckers in areas of suitable nesting 

habitat before initiation of construction of the B-Line if construction is scheduled to occur during the 

breeding season. If active Gila woodpecker nest cavities are identified within 100 feet of the right-of-way 

during preconstruction surveys, North Baja would monitor cavities during construction to determine if 

nesting individuals are being disturbed by construction activities. If disturbance (e.g., avoidance of the 

cavity by individuals) is noted, and young are present in the cavity, North Baja would cease construction 

within 200 feet of the nest cavity until the young have fledged. 

With implementation of North Baja’s proposed surveys and conservation measures, if necessary, 

no direct adverse effect on the Gila woodpecker is expected from construction of the proposed B-Line. 

As a result, impacts on this species would be less than significant. 

4.7.5.4 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a California-listed endangered species and is also a 

candidate for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. This bird is an uncommon to rare summer 

resident of valley foothill and desert riparian habitats in scattered locations in California. Habitat loss has 

resulted in drastically reduced numbers of this species. Western yellow-billed cuckoos are most 

frequently found along perennial streams, wetlands, and other riparian areas with large stands of 

cottonwood and willow trees and an understory of mesquite, tamarisk, and cattail marshes. 

Marginal habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo is present along some areas of the 

Colorado River near MP 0.2 of the proposed B-Line. North Baja’s biologists conducted protocol surveys 

for this species before construction of the A-Line in June and July 2001. No individuals were identified 

during these surveys (FWENC 2002). Due to the highly degraded nature of the habitat in the Colorado 

River vicinity of the Project, this species is not expected to occur. Additionally, the Agency Staffs have 

determined that through implementation of North Baja’s general conservation measures, the proposed 

Project would have no adverse effect on the western yellow-billed cuckoo. As such, Project-related 

impacts that would reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area or cause a temporary loss or 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-112 

alteration of important habitat for the species are not expected. As a result, impacts on the western 

yellow-billed cuckoo would be less than significant. 

4.7.5.5 Algodones Dune Sunflower 

The Algodones Dune sunflower is a Federal species of concern, a California-listed endangered 

species, and is designated 1B (rare throughout all or portions of its range) by the CNPS. The Algodones 

Dune sunflower is a perennial herb found in partially stabilized desert dunes in the lee of prevailing winds 

in the southern Sonoran Desert in Imperial County and in southwestern Arizona and New Mexico. The 

species blooms from September to May, and is threatened primarily by OHV traffic (Skinner and Pavlik 

1994, CDFG 2000). 

Suitable habitat for this species is found along the IID Lateral route in the southern Algodones 

Dunes within the ISDRA (MPs 0.5 to 7.9). The IID Lateral would cross approximately 76 acres of 

Algodones Dune sunflower habitat in the ISDRA. In lieu of conducting species-specific surveys, North 

Baja has indicated that it is assuming that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. 

North Baja would segregate topsoil along the IID Lateral, but would not use a sheepsfoot roller in the area 

of the dunes along the lateral because this equipment is ineffective in sand. Construction of the IID 

Lateral through potential Algodones Dune sunflower habitat would be conducted in the summer months 

after adult plants (if present) have already set seed, which should allow for the re-establishment in the 

next growing season after construction is completed. Although North Baja’s general conservation 

measures would substantially reduce impact on this species, construction of the IID Lateral may result in 

the removal of individual plants. However, the reproduction potential of the local population would not 

be affected; therefore, construction of the IID Lateral would not have an adverse impact on the population 

of Algodones Dune sunflower. As a result, with the implementation of North Baja’s general conservation 

measures, including the efforts to minimize the spread of non-native species, the Project is not expected to 

reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area or cause a temporary loss or alteration of important 

habitat for the species. Therefore, impacts on the Algodones Dune sunflower would be less than 

significant. 

4.7.5.6 Wiggins’s Croton 

The Wiggins’s croton is a California-listed rare plant species and is designated 2 (rare throughout 

all or portions of its range in California, but common beyond the boundaries of California) by the CNPS. 

This species occurs in the southeastern Sonoran Desert in southeastern Imperial County in California. It 

can be found on desert dunes and Sonoran desert scrub habitats, and is commonly associated with sand 

dunes and sandy arroyos. The Wiggins’s croton blooms from March to May and is threatened by OHV 

traffic (Skinner and Pavlik 1994, CDFG 2000). 

Suitable habitat for the Wiggins’s croton is found along the IID Lateral route in the southern 

Algodones Dunes within the ISDRA (MPs 0.5 to 7.9). The IID Lateral would cross approximately 76 

acres of Wiggins’s croton habitat in the ISDRA. In lieu of conducting species-specific surveys, North 

Baja has indicated that it is assuming that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. 

North Baja would segregate topsoil along the IID Lateral, but would not use a sheepsfoot roller in the area 

of the dunes along the lateral because this equipment is ineffective in sand. Construction of the IID 

Lateral through potential Wiggins’s croton habitat would be conducted in the summer months after adult 

plants (if present) have already set seed, which should allow for the re-establishment in the next growing 

season after construction is completed. Although North Baja’s general conservation measures would 

substantially reduce impact on this species, construction of the IID Lateral may result in the removal of 

individual plants. However, the reproduction potential of the local population would not be affected; 

therefore, construction of the IID Lateral would not have an adverse impact on the population of 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-113 

Wiggins’s croton. As a result, with the implementation of North Baja’s general conservation measures, 

including the efforts to minimize the spread of non-native species, the Project is not expected to reduce 

the overall abundance of the species in the area or cause a temporary loss or alteration of important 

habitat for the species. Therefore, impacts on the Wiggins’s croton would be less than significant. 

4.7.6 Other Special Status Species 

Based on consultations with the FWS, the BLM, the AGFD, and the CDFG and a search of the 

CNDDB, 35 special status species (i.e., those not federally or State-listed or proposed listed endangered 

or threatened) were identified as potentially occurring within the Project area. Based on habitat 

evaluations and species-specific surveys, the proposed Project has the potential to affect 16 of these 

species. A discussion of potential impacts and measures to avoid or minimize impacts on these species is 

presented below. 

4.7.6.1 Colorado River Cotton Rat 

The Colorado River cotton rat is a California species of special concern. This species is limited 

to the marshes of the Colorado River. The B-Line would cross the Colorado River and associated riparian 

areas at about MP 0.2 using the HDD method. This method would not require surface disturbance within 

the river or in the adjacent banks or wetlands. If a frac-out occurred during the HDD of the river, drilling 

mud could be released into areas adjacent to the river, and North Baja’s efforts to contain the drilling mud 

could further affect potential habitat for the Colorado River cotton rat. However, successful HDDs of the 

Colorado River have been completed in the vicinity of the B-Line crossing and North Baja does not 

anticipate difficulties with the crossing for the proposed Project. The Agency Staffs anticipate that the 

proposed HDD is likely to be successful; therefore, the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is not 

expected to reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of 

important habitat for the species, or result in other direct or indirect impacts on the Colorado River cotton 

rat that could contribute to a trend towards Federal or State listing. As a result, impacts on the Colorado 

River cotton rat would be less than significant. 

4.7.6.2 Desert Bighorn Sheep 

The desert bighorn sheep is listed as a sensitive species by the BLM. Desert bighorn sheep 

usually occur in small herds of about 10 animals in open, rocky, steep areas with available water and 

herbaceous forage. The sheep generally have two distinct, separate ranges in summer and winter, with 

corresponding spring and fall migrations. The summer ranges for desert bighorn sheep are typically 

smaller than winter ranges due to the sheep’s dependence on water sources in the summer. The BLM 

reported that the proposed Project could encounter desert bighorn sheep near the Palo Verde Wilderness 

Area, which is approximately 1 mile west of the B-Line near MP 31.0. As discussed in Section 4.6.2.4, 

the multi-species WHMA that would be crossed by the B-Line between approximate MPs 35.2 and 50.0 

includes two corridor portions of proposed WHMAs for bighorn sheep between MPs 35.2 and 42.0 and 

MPs 49.0 and 50.0. 

Impacts on desert bighorn sheep are likely to be indirect in nature, resulting from noise-related 

disturbance during construction. All construction activities would occur within the approved construction 

work area and North Baja would inform workers that bighorn sheep may occur in the area. 

Based on the distance of the Project from the Palo Verde Wilderness Area and because desert 

bighorn sheep are highly mobile and wide ranging and would likely avoid construction activities, impacts 

on the desert bighorn sheep would be less than significant. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-114 

4.7.6.3 Brown-crested Flycatcher 

The brown-crested flycatcher is a California species of special concern. It inhabits desert riparian 

habitat along the lower Colorado River and requires thickets, trees, snags, and shrubs for foraging and 

perching, as well as nesting cavities and appropriate cover (CDFG 2000). This species breeds from May 

through September along the Colorado River south to Yuma; however, excessive clearing of the riparian 

forest along the lower Colorado River south to Yuma has made this species a rare breeder in the area 

(Small 1994). 

Suitable riparian and desert wash woodland habitat for the brown-crested flycatcher occurs along 

the proposed B-Line in the lower Colorado River basin between MPs 22.0 to 23.0, 35.0 to 36.0, 41.0 to 

46.0, 50.0 to 53.0, and 59.0 to 66.0 (Konecny 2000). Clearing of suitable habitat during construction of 

the proposed Project during the breeding season could result in injury or death of adults and young, if still 

in the nest, or abandonment of nests if they are located near the right-of-way. North Baja currently 

proposes to complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. Per its general conservation 

measures, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line if the schedule was modified such that 

construction would be necessary during the breeding season, thereby preventing individuals from nesting 

in areas that would be disturbed during construction. Additionally, per the Agency Staffs’ 

recommendation in Section 4.6.2.3, preconstruction clearing would be conducted in accordance with 

recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. The minor, incremental loss of unoccupied 

habitat would not be expected to have direct or indirect impacts on individuals or reduce the abundance of 

brown-crested flycatchers in the area because the proposed Project would be adjacent to an existing 

cleared right-of-way. Thus, fragmentation of undisturbed suitable habitat would not occur. With 

implementation of North Baja’s general mitigation measures, the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

is not expected to reduce the abundance of or alter habitat important for the brown-crested flycatcher that 

could contribute to a trend towards Federal or State listing. As a result, impacts on this species would be 

less than significant.

4.7.6.4 Burrowing Owl 

The burrowing owl is a California species of special concern and a BLM sensitive species. This 

species is found in parts of the western United States, and inhabits open, dry grasslands, deserts, 

agricultural areas, and scrublands with low-growing vegetation. Burrowing owls are subterranean nesters 

and are typically found using burrows made by small mammals, such as ground squirrels or badgers. 

Burrowing owls are known to occur in the irrigated desert agricultural areas along the proposed 

B-Line and along the IID Lateral in the Imperial Valley, showing that burrowing owl populations have 

adapted to agricultural activities in these areas. The B-Line would cross suitable burrowing owl habitat 

from MPs 0.0 to 12.0 (which includes 18th Avenue), and the IID Lateral would cross suitable burrowing 

owl habitat from MPs 28.0 to 46.0. FERC staff observed several burrowing owls adjacent to the road 

shoulders along 18th Avenue in summer 2005. North Baja conducted a survey for special status species 

along the proposed Arrowhead Extension in the Spring of 2006. North Baja identified one probable 

burrowing owl burrow and an individual burrowing owl adjacent to a burrow at approximate MP 1.5. 

Burrowing owls are also occasionally seen in the open desert. One pair was noted south of Interstate 8 in 

an OHV area during construction of the A-Line in 2002. 

A primary component of North Baja’s impact minimization efforts would include identification 

of active burrows before construction. Owls occupying burrows within 250 feet of the construction work 

area would be left alone and monitored or passively or actively relocated to appropriate and previously 

installed artificial or available alternate natural burrows. Only biologists approved by the CDFG in 

advance would handle owls or install one-way doors during relocation activities. The management 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-115 

strategy utilized would be determined on a case-by-case basis. In addition to relocation or monitoring 

efforts, North Baja would implement the following measures to minimize impacts on the burrowing owl: 

• Direct impacts on burrowing owl habitat would be minimized by constructing in the road 

pavement or road shoulder in agricultural areas or by boring/drilling beneath habitat areas 

(e.g., canals and drains). 

• Preconstruction surveys during the breeding season would be conducted by biologists 

who would visually check all potential habitat within 250 feet of both sides of the 

proposed construction work area within 1 week before construction. 

• Unoccupied burrows discovered within the construction right-of-way during 

preconstruction surveys would be collapsed or excavated before construction activities to 

prevent occupancy by burrowing owls. 

• Artificial burrows, installed to minimize the effect of burrow loss, would be placed 

within the home range of individual owls that would be affected before burrow 

excavation or installation of one-way doors. 

In addition to these avoidance and minimization efforts, if any active burrows are damaged by 

construction activities, North Baja would provide compensation at the equivalency rate of 6.5 acres of 

foraging habitat for burrowing owls for each active burrow damaged. 

North Baja has indicated that implementation of these measures through an adaptive management 

plan during construction of the A-Line effectively avoided or minimized impacts on burrowing owls. 

Although individual burrowing owls could be affected by construction activities, with implementation of 

North Baja’s proposed measures, the Project is not expected to reduce the overall abundance of the 

species in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of important habitat for the species, or result in 

other direct or indirect impacts that could contribute to or result in Federal or State listing of the 

burrowing owl. As a result, impacts on this species would be less than significant. 

4.7.6.5 Crissal Thrasher 

The Crissal thrasher is a species of special concern in California. This migratory bird species is 

generally intolerant of human disturbance and occurs in the southwestern deserts of the United States, 

including along the lower Colorado River in California. This species inhabits brushy thickets or dense 

understories of desert riparian and desert wash habitats. Loose soils (not too firm or sandy) suitable for 

digging up insect prey are a strong habitat indicator for this species. 

Potential habitat for the Crissal thrasher occurs along the B-Line near the Colorado River and the 

town of Blythe (MPs 0.0 to 3.0), the town of Palo Verde (MPs 24.0 to 29.0), and the Davis Lake area 

(MPs 31.0 to 33.0). One individual was observed near the pipeline route along 18th Avenue in Blythe 

during construction of the A-Line in 2002. Additionally, a Crissal thrasher was reported in the area of 

Stallard Road (MP 25.0) during the southwestern willow flycatcher surveys in 2005. No potential habitat 

for the Crissal thrasher was identified along the Arrowhead Extension or the IID Lateral. 

Because habitat for this species would recover slowly after construction, any impacts would result 

in a long-term reduction of available habitat. If Crissal thrashers are present during the breeding season 

(early February to June), the noise from construction could indirectly affect these birds. Birds disturbed 

by construction of the proposed Project would most likely be displaced into adjacent habitats, potentially 

disrupting breeding activities and annual production for one season. North Baja currently proposes to 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-116 

complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. Per its general conservation measures, 

North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line if the schedule was modified such that 

construction would be necessary during the breeding season, thereby preventing individuals from nesting 

in areas that would be disturbed during construction. Additionally, per the Agency Staffs’ 

recommendation in Section 4.6.2.3, preconstruction clearing would be conducted in accordance with 

recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. The minor, incremental loss of unoccupied 

habitat would not be expected to have direct or indirect impacts on individuals or reduce the abundance of 

the Crissal thrasher in the area because the proposed Project would be adjacent to an existing cleared 

right-of-way. Thus, fragmentation of undisturbed suitable habitat would not occur. 

Further, North Baja would minimize the potential for long-term impacts on the Crissal thrasher 

by compensating for loss of microphyll woodland habitat through payment of an assessed financial 

contribution at a ratio approved by the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG for those areas not already covered 

by desert tortoise habitat compensation. 

With the implementation of North Baja’s conservation measures and compensatory mitigation 

proposal, the Project is not expected to reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area, cause a 

temporary loss or alteration of important habitat for the species, or result in other direct or indirect 

impacts that could contribute to or result in Federal or State listing of the Crissal thrasher. As a result, 

impacts on this species would be less than significant. 

4.7.6.6 Ferruginous Hawk 

The ferruginous hawk is a California species of special concern. This hawk is a migratory, nonbreeding winter resident of California from September through April. Ferruginous hawks prefer open 

grasslands, desert scrub, and low foothills surrounding valleys where they hunt for small mammals, birds, 

reptiles, and amphibians. They are considered uncommon migrants in the Colorado River area and in 

grasslands and agricultural areas in southern California. 

The ferruginous hawk is an occasional migrant within the Project area. Construction of the 

proposed Project would have no impact on this species.

4.7.6.7 Le Conte’s Thrasher 

The Le Conte’s thrasher is a migratory California species of special concern and a BLM sensitive 

species. This species lives mainly in the lowest, most barren and hottest desert plains of southwestern and 

western Arizona and southeastern California. The Le Conte’s thrasher occupies desert scrub, open 

washes, and Joshua tree habitats. 

Potential habitat for the Le Conte’s thrasher occurs along the proposed B-Line from MPs 12.0 to 

79.8. This species may also be present along the proposed IID Lateral in the scattered creosote bush 

scrub habitat between the ISDRA and the Imperial Valley from MPs 8.0 to 28.0. In lieu of conducting 

species-specific surveys, North Baja has indicated that it is assuming that the species is present 

throughout the area of suitable habitat. 

Because the habitat for this species would recover slowly after construction, any impacts would 

result in a long-term reduction of available habitat. If Le Conte’s thrashers are present during the 

breeding season (early February to June), the noise from construction could indirectly affect these birds. 

Birds disturbed by construction of the proposed Project would most likely be displaced into adjacent 

habitats, potentially disrupting breeding activities and annual production for one season. However, North 

Baja currently proposes to complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. Per its general 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-117 

conservation measures, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line if the schedule was 

modified such that construction would be necessary during the breeding season, thereby preventing 

individuals from nesting in areas that would be disturbed during construction. Additionally, per the 

Agency Staffs’ recommendation in Section 4.6.2.3, preconstruction clearing would be conducted in 

accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. The minor, incremental loss 

of unoccupied habitat would not be expected to have direct or indirect impacts on individuals or reduce 

the abundance of the Le Conte’s thrasher in the area because the proposed Project would be adjacent to an 

existing cleared right-of-way. Thus, fragmentation of undisturbed suitable habitat would not occur. 

Further, North Baja would minimize the potential for long-term impacts on the Le Conte’s 

thrasher by compensating for loss of microphyll woodland habitat through payment of an assessed 

financial contribution at a ratio approved by the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG for those areas not 

already covered by desert tortoise habitat compensation. 

With the implementation of North Baja’s general conservation measures and compensatory 

mitigation proposal, the Project is not expected to reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area, 

cause a temporary loss or alteration of important habitat for the species, or result in other direct or indirect 

impacts that could contribute to or result in Federal or State listing of the Le Conte’s thrasher. As a result, 

impacts on this species would be less than significant.

4.7.6.8 Summer Tanager 

The summer tanager is a California species of special concern that has historically utilized 

southern California as a major breeding area along the lower Colorado River and the Imperial Valley. 

This species is a rare fall and winter visitor and a late spring transient (Small 1994). The summer tanager 

inhabits desert riparian habitat along the lower Colorado River and requires cottonwood-willow riparian 

areas for nesting and foraging (CDFG 2000). Deforestation along the lower Colorado River has 

destroyed much of the available habitat, and the population has been much reduced (Small 1994). 

Suitable habitat for the summer tanager is present along the proposed B-Line along the lower 

Colorado River basin (MPs 22.0 to 23.0, 35.0 to 36.0, 41.0 to 46.0, 50.0 to 53.0, and 59.0 to 66.0) 

(Konecny 2000). Because habitat for this species would recover slowly after construction, any impacts 

would result in a long-term reduction of available habitat. If summer tanagers are present during the 

breeding season (early February to June), the noise from construction could indirectly affect these birds. 

Birds disturbed by construction of the proposed Project would most likely be displaced into adjacent 

habitats, potentially disrupting breeding activities and annual production for one season. However, North 

Baja currently proposes to complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. Per its general 

conservation measures, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line if the schedule was 

modified such that construction would be necessary during the breeding season, thereby preventing 

individuals from nesting in areas that would be disturbed during construction. Additionally, per the 

Agency Staffs’ recommendation in Section 4.6.2.3, preconstruction clearing would be conducted in 

accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. The minor, incremental loss 

of unoccupied habitat would not be expected to have direct or indirect impacts on individuals or reduce 

the abundance of the summer tanager in the area because the proposed Project would be adjacent to an 

existing cleared right-of-way. Thus, fragmentation of undisturbed suitable habitat would not occur. 

With the implementation of North Baja’s general conservation measures, Project-related impacts 

that would reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of 

important habitat for the species, or result in other direct or indirect impacts that could contribute to or 

result in Federal or State listing of the summer tanager are not expected. As a result, impacts on this 

species would be less than significant. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-118 

4.7.6.9 Vermilion Flycatcher 

The vermilion flycatcher is a species of special concern in California, and is a common and 

widespread breeder along the lower Colorado River and in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys. The 

vermilion flycatcher occurs in desert riparian habitat adjacent to irrigated fields, irrigation ditches, 

pastures, and other open mesic sites. 

Suitable habitat for the vermilion flycatcher occurs along the proposed B-Line in the desert 

riparian areas of the lower Colorado River basin (MPs 0.0 to 12.0, 22.0 to 29.0, 31.0 to 33.0, 35.0 to 53.0, 

59.0 to 66.0, and 79.0 to 79.8). The vermilion flycatcher is not known to occur in the area of the 

proposed Arrowhead Extension or the IID Lateral. Because habitat for this species would recover slowly 

after construction, any impacts would result in a long-term reduction of available habitat. If vermillion 

flycatchers are present during the breeding season (early February to June), the noise from construction 

could indirectly affect these birds. Birds disturbed by construction of the proposed Project would most 

likely be displaced into adjacent habitats, potentially disrupting breeding activities and annual production 

for one season. However, North Baja currently proposes to complete construction of the B-Line after the 

breeding season. Per its general conservation measures, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the 

B-Line if the schedule was modified such that construction would be necessary during the breeding 

season, thereby preventing individuals from nesting in areas that would be disturbed during construction. 

Additionally, per the Agency Staffs’ recommendation in Section 4.6.2.3, preconstruction clearing would 

be conducted in accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. The minor, 

incremental loss of unoccupied habitat would not be expected to have direct or indirect impacts on 

individuals or reduce the abundance of the vermillion flycatcher in the area because the proposed Project 

would be adjacent to an existing cleared right-of-way. Thus, fragmentation of undisturbed suitable 

habitat would not occur. 

Potential habitat for the vermilion flycatcher at the B-Line Colorado River crossing location is 

substantially degraded. Additionally, the use of the HDD method to install the pipeline beneath the river 

would serve to avoid impacts on this already degraded habitat. The implementation of the HDD method 

in addition to North Baja’s general conservation measures would serve to substantially reduce the 

potential impacts of the Project on the vermilion flycatcher. As such, Project-related impacts that would 

reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of important 

habitat for the species, or result in other direct or indirect impacts that could contribute to or result in 

Federal or State listing of the vermillion flycatcher are not expected. As a result, impacts on this species 

would be less than significant. 

4.7.6.10 Yellow-breasted Chat 

The yellow-breasted chat is a California species of special concern. This species is a fairly 

common breeder and is local to the lower Colorado River extending south to Yuma (Small 1994). The 

yellow-breasted chat inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other bushy tangles near watercourses 

(CDFG 2000). Widespread habitat deterioration and elimination, coupled with brood parasitism by 

brown-headed cowbirds, has diminished its status to an uncommon spring migrant from early-April to 

mid-May. 

Suitable habitat for the yellow-breasted chat was identified along the proposed B-Line along the 

Colorado River in Blythe (MPs 0.0 to 3.0), the town of Palo Verde (MPs 22.0 to 23.0), and the Davis 

Lake area (MPs 31.0 to 33.0) (Konecny 2000). There is no suitable habitat for this species along the 

proposed Arrowhead Extension or the IID Lateral. Because habitat for this species would recover slowly 

after construction, any impacts would result in a long-term reduction of available habitat. If yellowbreasted chats are present during the breeding season (early February to June), the noise from 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-119 

construction could indirectly affect these birds. Birds disturbed by construction of the proposed Project 

would most likely be displaced into adjacent habitats, potentially disrupting breeding activities and annual 

production for one season. However, North Baja currently proposes to complete construction of the BLine after the breeding season. Per its general conservation measures, North Baja would preclear 

vegetation along the B-Line if the schedule was modified such that construction would be necessary 

during the breeding season, thereby preventing individuals from nesting in areas that would be disturbed 

during construction. Additionally, per the Agency Staffs’ recommendation in Section 4.6.2.3, 

preconstruction clearing would be conducted in accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the 

BLM, and the CDFG. The minor, incremental loss of unoccupied habitat would not be expected to have 

direct or indirect impacts on individuals or reduce the abundance of the yellow-breasted chat in the area 

because the proposed Project would be adjacent to an existing cleared right-of-way. Thus, fragmentation 

of undisturbed suitable habitat would not occur. 

With the implementation of North Baja’s general conservation measures, Project-related impacts 

that would reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of 

important habitat for the species, or result in other direct or indirect impacts that could contribute to or 

result in Federal or State listing of the yellow-breasted chat are not expected. As a result, impacts on this 

species would be less than significant. 

4.7.6.11 Colorado River Toad 

The Colorado River toad, also called the Sonoran Desert toad, is a California species of special 

concern. This species is closely associated with permanent or semi-permanent water sources, usually 

flowing water, and was historically present in California along the channel of the lower Colorado River 

and in the southern Imperial Valley. These toads are documented to occur up the Colorado River from 

Fort Yuma to the Blythe-Ehrenberg area. Severe habitat alteration in the lower Colorado River region has 

impacted this species. 

The proposed B-Line would cross the Colorado River and associated riparian areas at about MP 

0.2 using the HDD method. This method would not require surface disturbance within the river or in the 

adjacent banks or wetlands. If a frac-out occurred during the HDD of the river, drilling mud could be 

released into areas adjacent to the river and North Baja’s efforts to contain those drilling mud could 

further affect potential habitat for the Colorado River toad. However, successful HDDs of the Colorado 

River have been completed in the vicinity of the B-Line crossing and North Baja does not anticipate 

difficulties with the crossing for the proposed Project. The Agency Staffs agree that the proposed HDD 

crossing is likely to be successful; therefore, the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is not expected to 

reduce the abundance of the species in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of important habitat 

for the species, or result in other direct or indirect impacts on the Colorado River toad that could 

contribute to a trend towards Federal or State listing. As a result, impacts on this species would be less 

than significant. 

4.7.6.12 Couch’s Spadefoot Toad 

The Couch’s spadefoot toad is a California species of special concern that can be found in a 

variety of vegetation types, including desert dry wash woodland, creosote bush scrub, and alkali sink 

scrub. This species is adapted to an arid environment and spends up to 11 months a year in underground 

burrows surviving off stored fat reserves. During wet conditions, spadefoot toads breed in temporary rain 

pools or temporary overflow areas. 

The CDFG has indicated that a population of spadefoot toads is historically known to occur along 

one of the dry washes crossed by the proposed B-Line (the Milpitas Wash [MP 35.3]). Additionally, one 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-120 

Couch’s spadefoot toad was found during construction of the A-Line in the Stallard Road wash area (MP 

25.0) in 2002 (North Baja 2002). There are no recorded occurrences of this species in the CNDDB 

database quadrangles of the IID Lateral. 

Construction of the proposed Project in areas of occupied habitat could result in mortality or 

injury to individual Couch’s spadefoot toads due to entrapment in open trenches or as a result of being 

crushed by vehicles and displaced soil. Construction disturbances to rain pools or temporary overflow 

areas could disrupt breeding activities and annual production for one season, which could potentially 

significantly affect local populations of Couch’s spadefoot toad. 

To minimize impacts on individuals and populations of the Couch’s spadefoot toad, North Baja 

has proposed the following mitigation measures: 

• If local thunderstorms occur in the habitat identified by the CDFG and provide 

substantial moisture under warm conditions (temperatures over 90 °F) in July, August, or 

September, and if construction has not already been completed in that area, North Baja 

biologists would examine potential Couch’s spadefoot toad habitat for persistent pools. 

The CDFG would notify North Baja if appropriate conditions prevail, and North Baja 

would coordinate with the CDFG to complete the surveys. 

• Authorized biologists would monitor temporary pools for persistence and would examine 

them daily for eggs, tadpoles, or toadlets. 

• Construction activities would not be conducted within 150 feet of temporary pools. If 

water fails to persist within shallow pools for 10 days, or if no Couch’s spadefoot toad 

eggs, tadpoles, or toadlets are found within 10 days, then construction would resume in 

the area. 

• If any Couch’s spadefoot toads are found, the CDFG would be immediately notified. A 

report on the findings would be submitted to the CDFG within 30 days of completion of 

the construction activities within the area. 

With implementation of North Baja’s general conservation measures as well as the specific 

measures detailed above, Project-related impacts that would reduce the overall abundance of the species 

in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of important habitat for the species, or result in other 

direct or indirect impacts that could contribute to or result in Federal or State listing of the Couch’s 

spadefoot toads are not expected. As a result, impacts on this species would be less than significant. 

4.7.6.13 Flat-tailed Horned Lizard 

The flat-tailed horned lizard is a California species of special concern and a BLM sensitive 

species. The proposal to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a federally threatened species under the ESA 

was withdrawn by the FWS on June 20, 2006 (Federal Register 71:36745). The range of the flat-tailed 

horned lizard includes the Salton Sea and the Imperial Sand Dunes of California, as well as the low 

deserts of southwestern Arizona, northern Baja California, and the northwestern Sonoran Desert. This 

species is most abundant in areas of creosote bush, but may also be found in desert scrub, desert wash, 

succulent scrub, and alkali scrub habitats. Vegetation is usually scant in occupied areas, consisting of 

creosote bush or other scrubby growth. The present range of this species, and abundance in that range, 

has been greatly reduced over recent years by human activities such as development and recreational use 

of prime habitat. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-121 

Suitable habitat for the flat-tailed horned lizard occurs along the proposed B-Line route from 

Ogilby extending south to the All-American Canal (MPs 71.0 to 79.8). North Baja’s biologists conducted 

surveys in the suitable habitat area in 2001 and categorized habitats as favorable (0.4 mile), transitional 

(4.1 miles), or unfavorable (4.3 miles) according to the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Range Management 

Strategy (FTHLICC 2003). Flat-tailed horned lizards were observed between MPs 77.0 and 78.0 during 

surveys in 2000 and 2001, and were abundant between MPs 75.2 and 79.6 during construction of the ALine. They are assumed to still be present in that area and are expected to occur in the same general 

locations during construction of the B-Line. 

Suitable habitat for the flat-tailed horned lizard is present along the IID Lateral from MPs 8.0 to 

28.0, and the presence of the flat-tailed horned lizard is assumed within this milepost range. The IID 

Lateral would be adjacent to the East Mesa Management Area, which is set aside primarily for protection 

of flat-tailed horned lizard habitat (BLM 2004). However, the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Range 

Management Strategy, Revision 2003 specifies that areas within the road right-of-way of Evan Hughes 

Highway are not considered flat-tailed horned lizard habitat, and that the management area stops at the 

north edge of the road right-of-way (FTHLICC 2003). The IID Lateral would be entirely within the road 

right-of-way and, in some places, would be in the road shoulder. From MPs 13.6 to 16.2, the IID Lateral 

would be north of the existing transmission lines within the road right-of-way. A total of 25.2 acres of 

suitable flat-tailed horned lizard habitat would be disturbed during construction of the IID Lateral. 

Construction of the pipeline through habitat occupied by the flat-tailed horned lizard could result 

in direct mortality or injury of individual lizards as a result of being crushed by vehicles, movement of 

soil, and entrapment in open trenches. If construction occurs during extremely hot summer months, 

lizards can die if entrapped in open trenches. Ten lizards were known to have died and 15 were 

successfully relocated during construction of the A-Line in 2002. Construction noise and activity could 

also indirectly affect lizards by pushing them into similar adjacent habitat farther away from the 

construction work area; however, flat-tailed horned lizards would likely return to the habitat in the 

immediate vicinity of the right-of-way upon completion of construction activities. 

Based on the experience gained during construction of the A-Line, North Baja would implement 

the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts on flat-tailed horned lizards during construction of 

the B-Line (MPs 75.2 to 79.6) and the IID Lateral (MPs 8.0 to 28.0): 

• Authorized biologists would conduct preconstruction surveys to verify all flat-tailed 

horned lizard habitat in the construction area. Within 7 days before construction, 

biologists would identify habitat areas subject to direct construction-related ground 

disturbance. 

• Biologists would conduct a final clearance survey 1 to 2 days before construction 

activities, which would include excavating potential burrows and relocating lizards to 

nearby suitable habitat. North Baja would implement the management strategy 

guidelines for relocation of flat-tailed horned lizards described in the Flat-tailed Horned 

Lizard Range Management Strategy (FTHLICC 2003). 

• A field contact representative would initiate a worker education program and would have 

the authority to ensure compliance with protective measures for flat-tailed horned lizards. 

• A biological monitor would be present in each area of active construction within flattailed horned lizard habitat throughout the work day from initial clearing through habitat 

restoration. The biological monitors would have sufficient education, field experience, 

and training with this species to understand its biology and behavior. The monitors 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-122 

would ensure that all activities are in compliance with the management strategy 

guidelines for relocation of flat-tailed horned lizards. The biological monitors would also 

have the authority and responsibility to halt activities that are in violation of the 

management strategy guidelines. 

• In areas of suitable habitat (MPs 75.2 to 79.6 of the B-Line and MPs 8.0 to 28.0 of the 

IID Lateral), North Baja would restrict the amount of trench open at any one time to 2 

miles. Trench walkers would be employed in those areas such that each portion of open 

trench would be observed every 30 minutes when ground temperatures exceed 85°F (29.5 

°C). Each trench walker can cover 2 miles per hour; therefore, the open portion of trench 

(2 miles) would require two trench walkers during hot weather to provide the desired 

coverage. Trench walkers would be construction workers with no other duties than to 

walk along the side of the open trench and look for flat-tailed horned lizards. These 

workers would receive specialized flat-tailed horned lizard training under the supervision 

of the BLM biologist and would be directly supervised by a qualified biologist who has 

also received flat-tailed horned lizard training. Additionally, all hazardous sites, such as 

open pipes, trenches, holes, or deep excavations would be inspected for the presence of 

lizards before backfilling. 

• If lizards are found trapped in an excavation, the authorized biologist would capture by 

hand and relocate the affected lizard. The management strategy guidelines for relocation 

of flat-tailed horned lizards described in the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Range 

Management Strategy (FTHLICC 2003) would be used. 

The Agency Staffs recognize that individual lizards may be harmed or killed, reducing abundance 

of the species in the area, and that occupied habitat would be adversely impacted by construction. 

However, based on the mitigation measures described above (e.g., preconstruction clearance surveys, 

biological monitors present during construction, lizard relocation as necessary, restricted open trench 

lengths), the Project is not expected to reduce the overall population of the species in the area or result in 

other direct or indirect impacts that could contribute to or result in Federal or State listing of the flat-tailed 

horned lizard. 

Nonetheless, based on impacts expected during construction of the proposed Project, including 

direct impacts temporarily lowering abundance of the species in the area, impacts on this species and its 

habitat would be considered significant. Therefore, approval of the Project would be subject to a 

Statement of Overriding Considerations under the CEQA. 

4.7.6.14 Fairyduster 

The fairyduster has been listed as a category 2 species (rare throughout all or portions of its range 

in California, but common beyond the boundaries of California) by the CNPS. This species is a 

deciduous shrub known to occur in Imperial and San Diego Counties in California, and is found in 

Sonoran Desert scrub, creosote bush scrub, and desert dry wash woodland habitats, as well as along desert 

washes (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). 

North Baja’s botanists surveyed the proposed B-Line route and identified fairyduster plants from 

a series of locations between MPs 45.1 to 49.8, 53.6 to 57.4, and 65.1 to 66.6. Marginal habitat for this 

species may occur along the IID Lateral. In lieu of conducting species-specific surveys, North Baja has 

indicated that it is assuming that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat along the 

IID Lateral. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-123 

Pipeline construction activities (e.g., clearing, grading, trenching, backfilling, excavation) would 

directly affect plants found within the construction work area. However, the loss of individual plants is 

not anticipated to affect the local or regional population of the species due to the relative abundance in the 

area. Construction would temporarily affect suitable habitat for the fairyduster. However, postconstruction surveys of the A-Line right-of-way have shown that restoration of the pipeline right-of-way 

allows native plants to re-establish in areas disturbed by construction. 

Although North Baja’s general conservation measures, including topsoil segregation, would 

substantially reduce impact on this species, construction of the B-Line and the IID Lateral may result in 

the removal of individual plants. However, the reproduction potential of the local population would not 

be affected; therefore, construction of the B-Line and IID Lateral would not have an adverse impact on 

the population of fairyduster. As such, the Project is not expected to reduce the overall abundance of the 

species in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of important habitat for the species, or result in 

other direct or indirect impacts that could contribute to or result in Federal or State listing of the 

fairyduster. Therefore, impacts on this species would be less than significant. 

4.7.6.15 Giant Spanish-needle 

The giant Spanish-needle is a Federal species of concern, has been designated category 1B by the 

CNPS, and is a BLM sensitive species. This plant is an annual herb that occurs in the Sonoran Desert of 

southeastern Imperial County within active and stable sand dunes (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). The giant 

Spanish-needle blooms from February to May, and its main threat is OHV traffic (CDFG 2000). 

Suitable habitat for the giant Spanish-needle is found along the IID Lateral in the southern 

Algodones Dunes within the ISDRA (MPs 0.5 to 7.9). In lieu of conducting species-specific surveys, 

North Baja has indicated that it is assuming that the species is present throughout the area of suitable 

habitat. Although the general mitigation measures, including topsoil segregation, would substantially 

reduce impact on this species, construction of the IID Lateral may result in the removal of individual 

plants. However, construction of the IID Lateral would not adversely impact the reproduction potential of 

the local population of the giant Spanish-needle. As a result, with the implementation of North Baja’s 

general conservation measures, including the efforts to minimize the spread of non-native species, the 

Project is not expected to reduce the overall abundance of the species in the area, cause a temporary loss 

or alteration of important habitat for the species, or result in other direct or indirect impacts that could 

contribute to or result in Federal or State listing of the giant Spanish-needle. Therefore, impacts on this 

species would be less than significant. 

4.7.6.16 Sand Food 

The sand food is a category 1B species as designated by the CNPS. This plant is a perennial herb 

that occurs in the Sonoran Desert of southeastern Imperial County, western Arizona, and northwestern 

New Mexico (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), and occurs on the lee side of stabilized and partially stabilized 

desert dunes (CDFG 2000). The sand food blooms from April to June and is primarily threatened by 

OHV traffic and military activities (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). 

Suitable habitat for the sand food is found along the proposed IID Lateral in the southern 

Algodones Dunes within the ISDRA (MPs 0.5 to 7.9). In lieu of conducting species-specific surveys, 

North Baja has indicated that it is assuming that the species is present throughout the area of suitable 

habitat. Although North Baja’s general conservation measures, including topsoil segregation, would 

substantially reduce impact on this species, construction of the IID Lateral may result in the removal of 

individual plants. However, the reproduction potential of the local population would not be affected; 

therefore, construction of the IID Lateral would not adversely impact the population of the sand food. As 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-124 

a result, with the implementation of North Baja’s general conservation measures, including the efforts to 

minimize the spread of non-native species, the Project is not expected to reduce the overall abundance of 

the species in the area, cause a temporary loss or alteration of important habitat for the species, or result in 

other direct or indirect impacts that could contribute to or result in Federal or State listing of the sand 

food. Therefore, impacts on this species would be less than significant. 

4.7.7 Cumulative, Interdependent, and Interrelated Effects 

Section 7 of the ESA requires the Federal action agency to provide an analysis of cumulative 

effects when it requests initiation of formal consultation. Under the ESA, cumulative effects include the 

effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action 

area. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered because they 

would require a separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions 

taking place over a period of time. Several other existing or planned activities in the general area of the 

proposed Project could have a cumulative impact with North Baja’s proposed Project. Table 4.15-1 lists 

the projects that the Agency Staffs are aware of through the scoping process and additional research. In 

general, the projects listed that have the potential to impact wildlife and vegetation are those most likely 

to have a cumulative impact on special status species. 

The geographic area considered in determining past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

that could also have impacts on wildlife and vegetation includes the planning areas as designated by the 

BLM, the Palo Verde Valley, and the Imperial Valley. To determine non-Federal projects that are 

reasonably foreseeable, the Agency Staffs included those that have made formal proposals or engaged in a 

permitting process, and those that are included in agency plans or forecasts. A detailed discussion of 

projects considered for this cumulative impact analysis is included in Section 4.15. 

When projects are constructed at the same time or are timed closely together, they could have a 

cumulative impact on vegetation and wildlife living in the area where the projects are built, even if the 

impacts are temporary. The removal of desert vegetation could have long-term consequences because the 

regeneration of vegetation in arid desert environments is slow. This effect is more severe in desert wash 

woodlands, which are less prevalent locally and provide more diverse wildlife habitat than creosote bush 

scrub. In addition to the proposed Project, the transmission line projects, the landfill, and the Mesquite 

Mine expansion would all adversely impact desert wash woodlands. Each of these projects is required to 

provide compensatory payments or land purchases equivalent to at least 3 acres for each acre disturbed. 

This, and the minimization of construction in desert wash woodlands, as required in each project by the 

terms of the section 1603 permit issued by the CDFG would reduce or mitigate the individual and 

cumulative impacts of these projects on desert wash woodlands. Further, none of the pipeline facilities 

would result in permanent impacts on vegetation or habitat, although regrowth would be slow. 

The amount of desert wash woodland, desert dunes, and creosote bush scrub habitat that may be 

affected by these projects is relatively small compared to the abundance of habitat in the area. These 

projects would not fragment vegetation/habitat in addition to the fragmentation already existing due to the 

A-Line right-of-way, Interstate 8, the existing canal, and the existing recreation and Border Patrol access 

roads. All of the projects in California would involve mitigation measures designed to minimize the 

potential for long-term chronic erosion, increase the stabilization of site conditions, control the spread of 

noxious weeds, minimize the potential for accidental spills of materials into surface waters, and minimize 

the impact on special status species. This mitigation would minimize the degree and duration of the 

cumulative impacts of these projects. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-125 

4.7.8 Summary of Determinations of Effect for Federally Listed Species 

Based on informal consultation with the FWS, 9 federally listed species were identified as 

potentially occurring in the general vicinity of (within the counties crossed by) the Project. After further 

consultations with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG, and completion of field surveys, a determination 

of effect for each of these species was developed. Two of the 9 species (desert tortoise and Peirson’s 

milk-vetch) were identified as likely to be adversely affected by the proposed Project. Critical habitat for 

the desert tortoise was also identified as likely to be adversely affected. Table 4.7.8-1 provides a 

summary of the impact evaluation for federally listed species (and critical habitat, if present in the Project 

area) and for State-listed species with the potential to occur in the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

area. Despite the potential for direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Project on listed species, the 

proposed Project would not restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species. 

In compliance with section 7 of the ESA, the Agency Staffs submitted the draft EIS/EIR to the 

FWS with a request for concurrence with the determinations of effect and to initiate formal consultation 

for the desert tortoise and the Peirson’s milk-vetch. In a letter dated November 1, 2006, the FWS 

concurred with the determinations of effect. In the BO issued on April 20, 2007, the FWS concluded that 

the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise and its critical 

habitat and the continued existence of the Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

TABLE 4.7.8-1 

Summary of Assessment of Project Impacts on Listed Species

Species or Critical Habitat Federal Status State Status Project Impact 

Species listed under both Federal and California Endangered Species Acts 

Peirson’s milk-vetch Threatened Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect 

Razorback sucker Endangered Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

Razorback sucker critical habitat May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

Desert pupfish Endangered Endangered No effect 

Bonytail chub Endangered Rare No effect 

Desert tortoise Threatened Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect 

Desert tortoise critical habitat May affect, likely to adversely affect 

Brown pelican Threatened Endangered No effect 

Bald eagle Threatened Endangered No effect 

Southwestern willow flycatcher Endangered Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

Yuma clapper rail Endangered Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

Species listed only under the California Endangered Species Act 

Algodones Dune sunflower Endangered May affect individuals, unlikely to adversely 

affect population 

Wiggins’s croton Rare May affect individuals, unlikely to adversely 

affect population 

Arizona Bell’s vireo Endangered No adverse effect 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate Endangered No adverse effect 

Elf owl Endangered No effect 

California black rail Threatened No adverse effect 

Gila woodpecker Endangered No adverse effect 

As required by the CESA, consultation has occurred with the CDFG to determine the proposed 

Project's effect on California-listed species. As described above, it is expected that the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project would avoid adverse impacts on individuals or populations of the following 

California-listed threatened or endangered species: razorback sucker, desert pupfish, brown pelican, bald 

eagle, southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, Algodones dune sunflower, Arizona bell’s 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-126 

vireo, western yellow-billed cuckoo, elf owl, California black rail, and Gila woodpecker. However, the 

Federal and California-listed threatened desert tortoise and the federally listed threatened and Californialisted endangered Peirson’s milk-vetch would likely be adversely affected by construction of the Project. 

Because these species are California-listed as well as federally listed, the CDFG would review the BO 

prepared by the FWS and consider the issuance of a consistency determination pursuant to section 2080.1 

of the California Fish and Game Code. Alternatively, the CDFG may issue an Incidental Take Permit 

under section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, approval of the Project would 

require the CSLC to prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations under the CEQA if, after 

mitigation is applied, the CSLC finds that the impacts of the Project would not be reduced to a level that 

is less than significant. 

Because the CDFG has not yet issued its conclusions regarding the impact of the Project on 

California-listed species, the Agency Staffs recommend that:

• North Baja shall not begin Phase I-A or Phase II construction activities until: 

a. the CDFG makes a consistency determination on the FWS’ BO pursuant to 

section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code or issues an Incidental 

Take Permit that covers both federally and State-listed species that may be 

affected; 

b. North Baja obtains an Incidental Take Permit under section 2081 of the 

California Fish and Game Code for all State-listed species that may be 

affected, or receives concurrence from the CDFG that an Incidental Take 

Permit is not required; and

c. North Baja has received written notification from the Executive Officer of 

the CSLC that construction or use of conservation measures may begin.

Construction of the proposed Project is currently scheduled to be completed in three phases, with 

construction of the last phase beginning in late summer of 2009. Due to the potential inhabitation of 

suitable habitats found to be lacking individuals during surveys in 2005, and the potential for new species 

to become listed under State or Federal law in the future, the Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• For those portions of the Project facilities where construction would occur more 

than 1 year from the date of issuance of the FERC and CSLC approvals for the 

Project, North Baja shall consult with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG to update 

the species list and to verify that previous consultations and determinations of effect 

are still current. Documentation of these consultations, and the need for additional 

surveys and survey reports (if required), and FWS, BLM, and CDFG comments on 

the surveys and survey reports and their conclusions (as applicable), shall be filed 

with the FERC and the CSLC before construction begins on those facilities. 

4.7.9 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-127 

potential impacts on federally and State-listed or other special status species identified for the 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-128 

4.8 LAND USE, SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS, RECREATION AND PUBLIC 

INTEREST AREAS, AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 

4.8.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on land use, special management areas, recreation and public interest areas, 

and aesthetic resources would be considered significant and would require mitigation if Project 

construction or operation would: 

• conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations established by a jurisdiction 

directly affected by the Project (see Section 1.5); 

• convert more than 1 percent of agricultural lands in a county to a non-agricultural use or 

impair the productivity of more than 1 percent of agricultural land in a county; 

• result in the loss of more than 1 percent of the acreage planted in a county’s most 

valuable crop; 

• displace a business or permanent residence from its established location, or disrupt access 

to a business or permanent residence for more than 14 days; 

• conflict with any approved residential or commercial development plans;

• cause long-term property damage and create construction-related hazards to residents of 

dwellings within 100 feet of the pipeline; 

• physically divide an established community; 

• prevent access to an established recreation area during its peak use periods or for more 

than 1 year; 

• result in the loss of 10 percent or more of an established or planned recreation site, or 

prevent access to the site, during its peak use periods or for more than 1 year; 

• adversely affect ACECs, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or other areas of 

special environmental concern; 

• provide access to previously inaccessible, environmentally sensitive areas; 

• result in reductions in the quality of the recreation experience for more than one visitor 

use season (such as from increased noise and dust, reduced visual quality from landscape 

modifications and night illumination, reduced visibility, and reduced water quality); 

• cause inconsistency with adopted Visual Resource Management (VRM) Plans or local 

ordinances. In those areas where no VRM Plans exist, significant impacts are determined 

by examining the study area for sensitive viewsheds, areas of high user volumes, and 

areas of unique visual resources. Sensitive resources are then examined on a case-bycase basis to determine level of impact. Significant impacts are those that dominate the 

viewshed from sensitive locations and change the character of the landscape both in 

terms of physical characteristics and land uses; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-129 

• result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic area or vista; 

• substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock 

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic area or highway; 

• substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its 

surroundings; or 

• create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or 

nighttime views in the area. 

4.8.2 Land Use and Ownership 

Construction of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would disturb approximately 1,760.5 

acres of land, including the pipeline facilities, aboveground facilities, pipe storage and contractor yards, 

and access roads. Approximately 109.0 acres of the 1,760.5 acres used for construction would be 

required for operation of the Project. Of this total, about 106.9 acres would be for the pipeline facilities, 

2.0 acres would be for the aboveground facilities, and 0.1 acre would be for permanent access roads 

associated with the proposed facilities. The remaining 1,651.5 acres of land would be restored and 

allowed to revert to former use. Table 4.8.2-1 summarizes the acres of each land use that would be 

affected by construction and operation of the Project. 

Pipeline Facilities 

The Project would involve the construction of 127.6 miles of pipeline facilities of various 

diameters in La Paz County, Arizona and Riverside and Imperial Counties, California (see Table 2.1.1-1). 

Of the 127.6 miles of proposed pipeline route, approximately 126.9 miles (99 percent) would be 

constructed in or adjacent to various existing rights-of-way (see Table 2.2.1-1). The B-Line and the 

Arrowhead Extension would be entirely in or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. Of the 45.7 miles 

associated with the IID Lateral, 0.7 mile (2 percent) would be constructed on newly created right-of-way 

that does not parallel existing rights-of-way. 

Table 4.8.2-2 lists the land uses that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline facilities. The 

predominant land use that would be crossed is open land, comprising about 80.1 miles (63 percent) of the 

pipeline routes. Anthropogenic (i.e., industrial/commercial/utility) uses are the second most prevalent 

land use, comprising 43.9 miles (34 percent) of the proposed pipeline routes. Other land uses that would 

be crossed by the pipeline facilities include 3.3 miles (3 percent) of agricultural land and 0.4 mile (less 

than 1 percent) of open water. 

Land use impacts associated with the Project would include the disturbance of existing land uses 

within the construction right-of-way during construction and retention of a new permanent right-of-way 

for operation of the pipeline facilities. North Baja proposes to generally use a 105-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way for the B-Line, consisting of North Baja’s existing 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way and 

55 feet of temporary workspace. In most areas, about 80 feet of the construction right-of-way would 

overlap the previously disturbed right-of-way. The B-Line would be installed within North Baja’s 

existing 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way using a standard 25-foot offset from the existing A-Line. 

No new permanent right-of-way would be required for operation of the B-Line. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-130 

TABLE 4.8.2-1 

Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Open Land a Anthropogenic b Agriculture c Open Water d 

Facility Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. CoB-Line  Pipeline Facilities  Pipeline Right-of-Way 869.8 0.0 117.7 0.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,0 Temporary Extra Workspace 93.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1

 Pipeline Facilities Subtotal 963.3 0.0 117.7 0.0 62.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,1 Aboveground Facilities 1.5 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 5.0 0.0 45.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Access Roads 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 B-Line Subtotal 1,067.2 0.5 163.9 0.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,2Arrowhead Extension 

 Pipeline Facilities  Pipeline Right-of-Way 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 13.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 

 Temporary Extra Workspace 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Pipeline Facilities Subtotal 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 15.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 

 Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0  Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Access Roads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arrowhead Extension Subtotal 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.3 16.1 5.5 0.0 0.0 IID Lateral  Pipeline Facilities  Pipeline Right-of-Way 113.5 42.5 245.7 59.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Temporary Extra Workspace 25.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Pipeline Facilities Subtotal 138.5 42.5 249.1 59.7 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 Aboveground Facilities 0.4 0.2 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Access Roads 3.8 0.1 1.3 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 IID Lateral Subtotal 142.7 42.8 275.6 59.9 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-131 

TABLE 4.8.2-1 (cont’d) 

Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Open Land a Anthropogenic b Agriculture c Open Water d 

Facility Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. CoProject Subtotal  Pipeline Facilities  Pipeline Right-of-Way 983.3 42.5 370.6 59.7 42.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 1,3 Temporary Extra Workspace 118.5 0.0 3.4 0.0 51.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1

 Pipeline Facilities Subtotal 1,101.8 42.5 374.0 59.7 93.5 4.7 0.0 0.0 1,5

Aboveground Facilities 1.9 0.7 4.3 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 5.0 0.0 68.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Access Roads 101.2 0.1 1.3 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1Project Total 1,209.9 43.3 447.7 60.2 102.9 5.5 0.0 0.0 1,7____________________ a Open land includes undeveloped, desert scrub-shrub lands, and wetlands. b Anthropogenic land includes paved or unpaved roadways (e.g., 18th Avenue and Imperial County roadways) as well as road crossings and othe

uses. 

c Agricultural land includes cropland, which typically consists of alfalfa, wheat, cotton, and irrigated pasture, and, to a lesser extent, vegetable trucd Open water includes open expanses of water such as the Colorado River, All-American Canal, and Highline Canal crossings. Because these w

using the horizontal directional drill method, no open water would be affected by construction or operation of the Project. 

Const. = Construction. Oper. = Operation. New Dist. = New disturbance (i.e., not disturbed during construction of the A-Line). Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-132 

TABLE 4.8.2-2 

Land Uses Crossed by the Pipeline Facilities Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (miles)

Facility Open Land a Anthropogenic Land b Agricultural Land c Open Water d Total 

B-Line 68.3 9.1 2.2 0.3 79.8 

Arrowhead 

Extension 

0.0 1.0 1.1 0.0 2.1 

IID Lateral 11.8 33.8 0.0 0.1 45.7 

Project Total 80.1 

(63%) 

43.9 

(34%) 

3.3 

(3%) 

0.4 

(<1%) 

127.6 

(100%) 

____________________ 

a

 Open land includes undeveloped, desert scrub-shrub lands, and wetlands. 

b

 Anthropogenic land includes paved or unpaved roadways (e.g., 18th Avenue and Imperial County roadways) as well as 

road crossings and other industrial/commercial/utility uses. 

c

 Agricultural land includes cropland, which typically consists of alfalfa, wheat, cotton, and irrigated pasture, and, to a 

lesser extent, vegetable truck crops. 

d

 Open water includes open expanses of water such as the Colorado River, All-American Canal, and Highline Canal 

crossings. Because these waterbodies would be crossed using the horizontal directional drill method, no open water 

would be affected by construction or operation of the Project. 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding.

Where the B-Line would be installed within or abutting the paved portion of 18th Avenue (a 

distance of about 7.6 miles), rights to build and operate the pipeline within the county road right-of-way 

would be authorized under a franchise agreement with Riverside County. Franchise agreements do not 

typically grant a specific strip of land, but simply allow the pipeline to be installed and operated within 

the road right-of-way. North Baja proposes to use a 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way to install the 

B-Line in the paved portion of 18th Avenue. 

North Baja proposes to generally use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the 

Arrowhead Extension except when in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder where a 60-

foot-wide construction right-of-way would be used. The permanent right-of-way in all areas except when 

in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder would be 35 feet wide. Rights to build and 

operate the pipeline within the Arrowhead Boulevard right-of-way would be authorized under an 

agreement between North Baja and Riverside County. 

Where the IID Lateral parallels existing electric transmission lines, North Baja proposes to 

generally use an 80-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. 

North Baja proposes to use a 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 30-foot-wide permanent rightof-way where the lateral would be installed between a transmission line and a road. A 60-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way would also be used where the IID Lateral would be installed within or abutting 

the traveled portion of county roads. Rights to build and operate the IID Lateral within county road 

rights-of-way would be authorized under a franchise agreement between North Baja and Imperial County. 

Franchise agreements do not typically grant a specific strip of land, but simply allow the pipeline to be 

installed and operated within the road right-of-way. For the portion of the IID Lateral located in Evan 

Hewes Highway and other county roads, a 2-foot-wide permanent right-of-way has been assumed. In 

some cases, where the road right-of-way has not been expressly dedicated to the county, North Baja may 

acquire additional easements from private landowners. In these areas, a 30-foot-wide permanent right-ofway has been assumed. 

Comments were received during the scoping process expressing concern that there is not enough 

room in the easements of Imperial County roadways for a pipeline. North Baja selected the proposed 

route in Imperial County roadways based, in part, on a field reconnaissance survey to identify roads with 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-133 

fewer existing surface and buried utilities as well as consultation with the Imperial County Department of 

Public Works. Few obstacles were identified or noted that would prevent placement of a pipeline in the 

road easements. Where such constraints were identified (e.g., the Holtville-Orchard Road Overpass of 

Hunt Road), North Baja adjusted the proposed route to move outside the road right-of-way for a short 

distance. 

In addition to the construction right-of-way, North Baja has identified temporary extra 

workspaces that would be required for staging areas and construction at waterbodies, roads, and railroads, 

and in areas of steep slopes and rugged terrain. The approximate locations and sizes of temporary extra 

workspaces identified by North Baja are listed in Table D-1 in Appendix D. 

Construction of the pipeline facilities would affect a total of about 1,569.3 acres of land, 

including 1,396.3 acres for the pipeline rights-of-way and 173.0 acres for temporary extra workspace. 

About 858.5 acres or 55 percent is previously disturbed area associated with construction and operation of 

North Baja’s existing A-Line. Open land would be the primary land use affected by construction of the 

pipeline facilities totaling about 1,101.8 acres (70 percent) (see Table 4.8.2-1). The remaining land uses 

that would be disturbed consist of 374.0 acres (24 percent) of anthropogenic land and 93.5 acres (6 

percent) of agricultural land. No open water would be affected by construction of the pipeline facilities 

because open expanses of water such as the Colorado River, All-American Canal, and Highline Canal 

would be crossed using the HDD method (see Section 2.3.2). 

Of the 1,569.3 acres of land that would be affected by construction of the pipeline facilities, about 

106.9 acres would be retained as new permanent right-of-way. Of the 106.9 acres permanently retained, 

59.7 acres (56 percent) is anthropogenic land, 42.5 acres (40 percent) is open land, and 4.7 acres 

(4 percent) is agricultural land. The land retained as permanent right-of-way would be allowed to revert 

to former use; however, tree crops such as orchards and aboveground structures would be prohibited on 

the permanent right-of-way. There are no restrictions on how close structures (e.g., houses) can be to the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way. The remaining 1,462.4 acres used for temporary construction right-ofway and temporary extra workspace would be allowed to revert to prior uses following construction with 

no restrictions. 

The most valuable crops in the Project area include alfalfa in La Paz County, nursery stock in 

Riverside County, and vegetables and melons in Imperial County. Approximately 4.7 acres of 

agricultural land would be affected by operation of the proposed pipeline facilities and an additional 0.8 

acre would be affected by operation of the proposed aboveground facilities. Because Riverside County 

has about 572,000 acres of farmland, the 5.5 acres that would be affected by operation of the proposed 

Project represents less than 0.001 percent of the total farmland in the county. Therefore, the Project 

would not result in the conversion of more than 1 percent of agricultural lands to a non-agricultural use or 

impair the productivity of more than 1 percent of agricultural land in a county. The Project would also 

not result in the loss of more than 1 percent of the acreage planted in a county’s most valuable crop. 

Construction and operation activities on approximately 89 percent of the lands affected by the 

Project would be authorized by various governmental entities including: the BLM (for Federal lands 

managed by the BLM, the BOR, and the FWS [53 percent]), California counties (36 percent), the States 

of Arizona or California or cities (less than 1 percent), or the CSLC (less than 1 percent). The remainder 

of the land that would be affected (11 percent) is privately owned. Table 4.8.2-3 summarizes the land 

ownership along the proposed pipeline facilities. 

An easement would be used to convey both temporary (for construction) and permanent rights-ofway to North Baja. The easement gives the company the right to construct, operate, and maintain the 

pipelines, and establish a permanent right-of-way. In return, the company compensates the landowner for 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-134 

use of the land. The easement agreement between the company and the landowner typically specifies 

compensation for loss of use during construction, loss of nonrenewable or other resources, damage to 

property during construction, and allowable uses of the permanent right-of-way after construction. 

TABLE 4.8.2-3 

Summary of Land Ownership Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (miles)

Facility Federal a County Private CSLC Other (State or City) Total 

B-Line 59.3 8.2 11.7 0.2 0.4 79.8 

Arrowhead 

Extension 

0.0 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 

IID Lateral 8.1 36.5 b 0.7 0.0 0.4 45.7 

Project Total 67.4 

(53%) 

45.7 

(36%) 

13.5 

(11%) 

0.2 

(<1%) 

0.8 

(<1%) 

127.6 

(100%) 

____________________ 

a

 Lands authorized by the BLM, including lands managed by the BLM, BOR, and the FWS. The BLM would issue a 

Right-of-Way Grant that would apply to all affected Federal lands after receipt of concurrence from the BOR and the 

FWS. 

b

 Of this total, about 17.6 miles would be located within county road rights-of-way across BLM land. 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding. 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with a landowner and the Project has been certificated by the 

FERC, North Baja may use the right of eminent domain granted to it under section 7(h) of the NGA and 

the procedures set forth under the Federal Rules of Civic Procedure (Rule 71A) to obtain the right-of-way 

and temporary extra workspace areas. North Baja would still be required to compensate the landowner 

for the right-of-way and damages incurred during construction. However, the level of compensation 

would be determined by a court according to State or Federal law. In either case, North Baja would 

compensate landowners for use of the land. Eminent domain does not apply to lands under Federal 

ownership (i.e., BLM, BOR, and FWS land). 

Aboveground Facilities 

Modifications at existing and construction of new aboveground facilities associated with the 

proposed Project would affect 7.2 acres of land. Of the 7.2 acres, 2.0 acres would be permanently 

converted for operation of these facilities. Table 4.8.2-4 summarizes the land requirements and land use 

for the aboveground facilities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. 

The installation of a new pig receiver at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station would take place 

within the existing fenceline of the facility and would not require any additional land for construction or 

operation; however, a header pipe associated with the new pig receiver would be outside of the fenceline 

of the facility and would require 0.7 acre of anthropogenic land for construction (no permanent right-ofway would be required because the line would be installed on North Baja fee property). The aboveground 

modifications at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station and the adjacent El Paso Meter Station to allow for 

northbound flow of gas would take place within the existing fencelines of the facilities. 

The addition of a pig launcher and receiver at Rannells Trap would require an expansion of the 

facility by 0.3 acre on private land during both construction and operation. The modifications and 

additional pig launcher and receiver at the Ogilby Meter Station would require an expansion of the facility 

by 0.2 acre for both construction and operation. This expansion would affect anthropogenic land 

managed by the BLM. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-135 

TABLE 4.8.2-4 

Aboveground Facilities Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility 

Approx. 

Milepost Existing Land Use 

Land Affected 

During Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected 

During Operation 

(acres) 

B-Line 

 Ehrenberg Compressor Station 

Modifications and Pig Receiver a

0.0 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

0.7 0.0 

 El Paso Meter Station Modifications a

 0.0 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

0.0 0.0 

 Rannells Trap Pig Launcher and 

Receiver 

11.7 Open Land 0.3 0.3 

 Valve #1 b

 0.0 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

0.0 0.0 

 Valve #2 5.7 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

0.3 0.01 

 Valve #3 c

 11.7 Open Land 0.0 0.0 

 Valve #4 c

 11.7 Open Land 0.0 0.0 

 Valve #5 28.0 Open Land 0.3 0.0 

 Valve #6 41.6 Open Land 0.3 0.0 

 Valve #7 60.3 Open Land 0.3 0.0 

 Valve #8 d

 75.2 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

0.0 0.0 

 Valve #9 d

 75.2 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

0.0 0.0 

 Ogilby Meter Station Modifications, 

and Pig Launcher and Receiver 

75.2 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

0.2 0.2 

B-Line Subtotal 2.3 0.5 

Arrowhead Extension 

 Two Taps at the A-Line and B-Line, 

Crossover Piping, and Pig Launcher 

0.0 Agricultural 1.0 0.8 

 Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and 

Pig Receiver 

2.1 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

1.0 0.3 

Arrowhead Extension Subtotal 2.0 1.1 

IID Lateral 

 Tap at B-Line and Pig Launcher 0.0 Open Land 0.2 0.2 

 Valve #1 e

 0.0 Open Land 0.0 0.0 

 Valve #2 7.6 Open Land <0.1 0.0 

 Valve #3 27.2 Open Land <0.1 0.0 

 Valve #4 38.7 Agricultural <0.1 0.0 

 El Centro Meter Station and Pig 

Receiver 

45.7 Anthropogenic (Industrial/ 

Commercial/Utility) 

2.5 0.2 

IID Lateral Subtotal 2.9 0.4 

Project Total 7.2 2.0 

____________________ 

a

 Modifications at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station and the adjacent El Paso Meter Station would take place within 

the existing fencelines of these facilities; however, a header pipe associated with the new pig receiver would be 

outside of the fenceline of the facility and would require 0.7 acre for construction. 

b

 This facility would be collocated with the Ehrenberg Compressor Station and would not require any additional land 

during construction and operation. 

c

 This facility would be collocated with Rannells Trap and would not require any additional land during construction and 

operation. 

d

 This facility would be collocated with the Ogilby Meter Station and would not require any additional land during 

construction and operation. 

e

 This facility would be collocated with the tap at the B-Line and would not require any additional land during 

construction and operation. 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-136 

Four new valves associated with the B-Line would be collocated with existing valves along the 

A-Line and would require an expansion of the existing 50-foot by 50-foot sites to 75-foot by 150-foot 

sites during construction. A total of about 1.0 acre of open and anthropogenic land would be affected by 

construction of these facilities. No new permanent right-of-way would be required for the new valves, 

except for valve #2 along 18th Avenue. This valve would require a 12-foot by 24-foot expansion of the 

existing fenced site, which would affect privately owned anthropogenic land. The other five valves 

would be within the sites of the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, Rannells Trap, and Ogilby Meter Station 

and would not require any additional land for construction or operation. 

The taps, crossover piping, and pig launcher associated with the Arrowhead Extension would 

require a 150-foot by 225-foot site on private land on the northeast corner of the intersection of 18th

Avenue and Arrowhead Boulevard. A total of 1.0 acre and 0.8 acre of agricultural land would be required 

for construction and operation, respectively. A 115-foot by 110-foot site within the fenced yard of 

SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station would be required for operation of the proposed BlytheArrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver. A total of 1.0 acre and 0.3 acre of anthropogenic land would 

be required for construction and operation, respectively. 

The tap at the B-Line and pig launcher for the IID Lateral would require an 80-foot by 100-foot 

site on BLM land for construction and operation. A total of 0.2 acre of open land would be required for 

construction and operation of these facilities. The proposed El Centro Meter Station and pig receiver 

would be installed within the existing fenceline of the El Centro Power Generating Station but would 

require 2.5 acres of anthropogenic land for construction and would also require North Baja to obtain a 

0.2-acre easement from the IID within the generating station yard. One of the four new valves would be 

collocated with the tap at the B-Line and pig launcher and would not require any additional land for 

construction or operation. The three remaining valves along the IID Lateral would each require 10-foot 

by 25-foot fenced sites within North Baja’s permanent right-of-way. Two of these valves would be on 

open land and the third would be on agricultural land (see Table 4.8.2-4). Valve #4 would permanently 

affect less than 0.1 acre of agricultural land. Because this permanent conversion of agricultural land 

represents less than 1 percent of the agricultural land in Imperial County, impacts associated with this 

conversion would be less than significant. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

To support construction activities, North Baja proposes to use four pipe storage and contractor 

yards on a temporary basis. These yards would temporarily affect about 73.1 acres of land consisting of 

about 68.1 acres of anthropogenic (i.e., industrial/commercial/utility) land and 5.0 acres of open land. 

Access Roads 

North Baja proposes to use several existing roads for temporary right-of-way access during 

construction. These access roads are primarily paved or dirt roads and/or jeep trails that would be graded 

or otherwise improved as needed to move equipment and materials to the construction right-of-way. An 

additional 485 feet of new temporary access roads would be required for the Project, of which about 60 

feet would be retained as permanent access to the proposed Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station at the end of 

the Arrowhead Extension and 160 feet would be retained as permanent access to the proposed tap at the 

B-Line and pig launcher at the beginning of the IID Lateral. A permanent access road would also be 

required to proposed valve #2 at MP 7.6 of the IID Lateral, but North Baja would utilize existing roads 

with some modification and would not need to construct a new road. A total of about 110.9 acres of land 

would be affected by using these access roads during construction (101.2 acres of open land, 8.4 acres of 

agricultural land, and 1.3 acres of anthropogenic land). Of the 110.9 acres, about 0.1 acre would be 

required for operation of the permanent access road to the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and proposed 

tap at the B-Line and pig launcher at the beginning of the IID Lateral. The locations, conditions, lengths, 

and acres of the proposed access roads are listed in Table D-2 in Appendix D. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-137 

4.8.3 Existing Residences and Planned Developments 

4.8.3.1 Existing Residences 

Although no residential land would be directly crossed by the proposed pipeline facilities, the 

adjacent land uses along 18th Avenue on the B-Line, Arrowhead Boulevard on the Arrowhead Extension, 

and Imperial County roads on the IID Lateral include a mix of rural residential and agricultural land. A 

total of 24 residences and 2 businesses are along the portion of 18th Avenue that would be affected by 

construction of the Project. Of the 24 residences, 18 would be within 100 feet of North Baja’s proposed 

construction work area (i.e., construction right-of-way and temporary extra work areas). Both of the 

businesses along 18th Avenue would also be within 100 feet of the proposed construction work area. 

There are three residences along the portion of Arrowhead Boulevard that would be affected by 

construction of the Project; however, no residences or businesses would be located within 100 feet of the 

Arrowhead Extension. The closest residence, at MP 1.2, is approximately 126 feet from the edge of the 

construction right-of-way. Along the roadways in Imperial County that would be affected by the 

proposed IID Lateral, a total of 28 residences and 6 businesses are present. Of these structures, 19 

residences and 4 businesses would be within 100 feet of North Baja’s proposed construction work area. 

Table 4.8.3-1 lists the residences within 100 feet of North Baja’s proposed construction work area by 

milepost and indicates the distance and orientation of each from the construction work area. There are no 

residences within 100 feet of the modified or proposed aboveground facilities. 

In residential areas, the two most significant impacts associated with construction and operation 

of a pipeline are disturbance during construction and encumbrance of property for future uses caused by 

the easement. This includes the limitation on future permanent structures within the permanent right-ofway. The residences and businesses within 100 feet of the construction work area may experience the 

effects of construction and operation of the Project. In general, as the distance from the construction 

work area increases, the impacts on residences decrease. No permanent residences or businesses would 

be displaced from their established locations as a result of the Project. 

Temporary construction impacts on residential areas could include inconvenience caused by noise 

and dust generated by construction equipment, personnel, and trenching of roads or driveways; ground 

disturbance of lawns; removal of trees, landscaped shrubs, or other vegetative screening between 

residences and/or adjacent rights-of-way; potential damage to existing septic systems or wells; disruption 

of access to the property; and removal of aboveground structures, such as fences, sheds, or trailers, from 

within the right-of-way. 

In general, construction in the 7.6-mile-long paved segment of 18th Avenue in Riverside County, 

in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder in Riverside County, and in the various Imperial 

County roadways would be accomplished using urban construction techniques. All construction activities 

would be confined to the width of the roadways, including the paved roadway and road shoulders. 

Excavated materials would be used as a temporary road base for construction traffic to reduce wear on the 

existing road surface. Through traffic would be routed around segments of road where construction is 

active; however, North Baja would maintain access to residents, farm workers, and emergency response 

vehicles throughout the period of construction (estimated to be about 2 weeks in any given location). 

North Baja has developed Traffic Management Plans for 18th Avenue and Imperial County Roads (see 

Appendix H). These plans are discussed in further detail in Section 4.10.2 along with the Agency Staffs’ 

recommendation that North Baja develop a Traffic Management Plan for Arrowhead Boulevard. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-138 

TABLE 4.8.3-1 

Residences and Businesses Within 100 Feet of the Construction Work Area Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansi

Facility/ Milepost 

Residence/ 

Business 

Distance from 

Edge of 

Construction 

Work Area (feet) 

Orientation 

from the 

Construction 

Work Area 

Site-Specific 

Plan Number(s)a Feature(s) Potentially Affected North Baja’s Propos

B-Line  2.92 Residence 6 North 4200-E-SS-101 Driveway, lawn, access, gravity 

flow irrigation system 

Repair driveway, repmaterial, install temp

 3.30 Residence 51 South 4200-E-SS-102 Driveway access Repair driveway, use 

technique 

 3.62 Residence 19 South 4200-E-SS-103 Access Temporary use of PV 3.64 Residence 75 South 4200-E-SS-104 Access Temporary use of PV 3.72 Residence 86 North 4200-E-SS-105 Driveway, palm trees Repair driveway, inst

protect palm trees, in

 3.75 Residence 62 North 4200-E-SS-106 Driveway, shrubs, access Repair driveway, rep

barrier fencing to proover trench 

 3.77 Residence 83 North 4200-E-SS-107 Driveway, mailbox Repair driveway, rep

over trench 

 3.84 Residence 72 North 4200-E-SS-108 Driveway, mailbox Repair driveway, rep

over trench 

 3.92 Residence 60 South 4200-E-SS-110 None NA  4.23 Business 49 North 4200-E-SS-112 Driveway, mailbox, lawn, 

access 

Repair driveway, repinstall plate over trenconstruction techniqu

 4.42 Residence 91 North 4200-E-SS-113 Driveway, palm trees, lawn, 

access 

Repair driveway, instprotect trees, replant trench, use stove-pip

 4.64 Residence 40 North 4200-E-SS-114 Driveway, fence, shrubs, 

access 

Repair driveway, repinstall plate over trenconstruction techniqu

 4.93 Residence 76 South 4200-E-SS-115 Driveway, palm trees, lawn, 

restricted access 

Repair driveway, instprotect trees, replant construction techniqu

 5.25 Business 49 North 4200-E-SS-116 Driveway, access Repair driveway, inst 5.72 Residence 84 South 4200-E-SS-117 Driveway, lawn Repair driveway, rep 6.38 Residence 52 North 4200-E-SS-120 Driveway, lawn Repair driveway, rep

trench, use stove-pip

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-139 

TABLE 4.8.3-1 (cont’d) 

Residences and Businesses Within 100 Feet of the Construction Work Area Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansi

Facility/ Milepost 

Residence/ 

Business 

Distance from 

Edge of 

Construction 

Work Area (feet) 

Orientation 

from the 

Construction 

Work Area 

Site-Specific 

Plan Number(s)a Feature(s) Potentially Affected North Baja’s Propos

 7.66 Residence 84 South 4200-E-SS-121 Lawn, access Replant lawn, use sto

technique 

 7.91 Residence 74 North 4200-E-SS-122 Driveway, palm trees, shrubs, 

mailbox, access 

Repair driveway, instprotect trees, replant material, install plate 

 8.20 Residence 54 North 4200-E-SS-123 Driveway, trees and shrubs, 

mailbox, access 

Repair driveway, instprotect trees and shrmaterial, use stove-p

 8.66 Residence 70 South 4200-E-SS-124 Shrubs Replant shrubs Arrowhead Extension -NoneIID Lateral 

 8.90 Residence 79 North 4200-E-SS-201 None NA  27.84 Residence 71 North 4200-E-SS-202 Gravel driveway Repair driveway, inst 27.94 Residence 60 North 4200-E-SS-203 Gravel driveway Repair driveway, inst 28.12 Residence 93 North 4200-E-SS-204 Gravel driveway, mailbox Repair driveway, inst

replace mailbox 

 29.54 Residence 80 South 4200-E-SS-205 None NA  40.40 Business 37 North 4200-E-SS-207 Driveway, fence, trees, mailbox Repair driveway, inst

barrier fencing to proreplace mailbox 

 40.44 Residence 19 North 4200-E-SS-207 Driveway, tree, fence, trees, 

mailbox 

Repair driveway, instbarrier fencing to proreplace mailbox 

 41.40 Residence 68 North 4200-E-SS-209 Gravel driveway, mailbox Repair driveway, inst

replace mailbox 

 41.42 Residence 45 West 4200-E-SS-210 None NA  41.94 Residence 66 West 4200-E-SS-211 None NA  41.99 Residence 95 West 4200-E-SS-212 None NA  42.12 Residence 57 West 4200-E-SS-215 None NA  42.89 Residence 59 Northeast 4200-E-SS-216 Mailbox Replace mailbox  42.92 Residence 100 North 4200-E-SS-217 Mailbox Replace mailbox 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-140 

TABLE 4.8.3-1 (cont’d) 

Residences and Businesses Within 100 Feet of the Construction Work Area Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansi

Facility/ Milepost 

Residence/ 

Business 

Distance from 

Edge of 

Construction 

Work Area (feet) 

Orientation 

from the 

Construction 

Work Area 

Site-Specific 

Plan Number(s)a Feature(s) Potentially Affected North Baja’s Propos

 43.04 Business 58 North 4200-E-SS-218 None NA  43.72 Business 89 South 4200-E-SS-219 Gravel road, fence, scales and 

scale house 

Repair road, replace fencing to protect scastove-pipe constructi

 45.24 Residence 76 North 4200-E-SS-220 None NA  45.26 Residence 88 North 4200-E-SS-221 None NA  45.30 Residence 70 North 4200-E-SS-222 None NA  45.32 Business 74 North 4200-E-SS-223 None NA  45.34 Residence 56 North 4200-E-SS-223 None NA  45.36 Residence 80 North 4200-E-SS-224 None NA  45.40 Residence 91 North 4200-E-SS-225 Transmission tower Install barrier fencing ____________________ 

a Site-specific plans are in Appendix O. 

NA = Not applicable. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-141 

North Baja would implement the following general measures to minimize construction-related 

hazards and maintain access to the residences and businesses that would be affected by the Project: 

• minimize the amount of trench left open at the end of the workday and cordon off the 

trench during non-work hours; 

• cover the trench with steel plates where necessary to allow traffic passage and reduce 

safety hazards; 

• install safety fencing for a minimum of 100 feet on either side of residences that are 

within 100 feet of the construction work area; 

• secure and patrol construction areas during non-work hours to minimize safety issues 

associated with open trenches; 

• maintain an emergency ingress and egress near all residences and businesses throughout 

the construction process; 

• maintain at least one lane of restricted traffic movement through the construction area for 

access to residences and for emergency vehicles; 

• minimize noise by maintaining equipment in good operating condition; and 

• suppress dust with the use of water trucks and regular spraying. 

In addition to the measures identified above, North Baja has prepared and would follow Sitespecific Residential Construction Mitigation Plans to minimize disruption and to maintain access to the 

residences and businesses within 100 feet of the construction work area associated with the B-Line and 

IID Lateral. The site-specific mitigation measures North Baja would use for each of the features 

potentially affected at the residences and businesses identified along 18th Avenue and Imperial County 

roadways are summarized in Table 4.8.3-1. Appendix O contains dimensioned site plans that show the 

following items within a minimum of 100 feet of the construction work area: 

• the proposed centerline of the pipeline; 

• the limits of the construction work area; 

• the edge of the paved road surface; 

• each residence/business and associated structures; 

• existing pipelines and powerlines; 

• waterbodies, roads, driveways, fences, trees or other landscaping, and private wells; and 

• the location of safety fencing that would be installed during construction. 

Implementation of North Baja’s general mitigation measures as well as its Site-specific 

Residential Construction Mitigation Plans and Traffic Management Plans would reduce the potential 

impacts of construction on residences and businesses to less than significant levels. 

Because the pipeline facilities in residential areas would be located in county road rights-of-way, 

which already restrict land use, operation of the pipelines would not have an incremental effect upon 

residential owners’ current land uses or activities and would not cause any long-term property damage. In 

addition, because the pipelines would be buried, they would not physically divide an established 

community. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-142 

4.8.3.2 Planned Developments 

Planned developments within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline facilities and associated 

aboveground facilities were identified through consultations with local planning agencies and landowners 

and are summarized below. Section 4.15 includes an analysis of potential cumulative effects of these 

projects when considered in conjunction with the proposed Project. Based on contact with county 

planning officials and landowners, North Baja is not aware of any planned developments that would 

affect current land uses near the Arrowhead Extension. 

Development plans for the Edgewater Lane Planned Residential Community have been submitted 

and approved by the City of Blythe. The residential development would be located along Riviera Drive, 

adjacent to the Colorado River and North Baja’s existing pipeline easement for the A-Line. Construction 

of the development is scheduled to occur in 2007. North Baja has reached an agreement with the 

developer of the Edgewater Lane Planned Residential Community regarding the mutual compatibility of 

the proposed pipeline easement across the property and the residential development. 

The Imperial County Planning Department has prepared a specific plan for “Felicity,” a 2,345-

acre master planned community that would be north of Interstate 8 and primarily west of Sidewinder 

Road (Imperial County 1998). At its nearest point, the existing A-Line and proposed B-Line, as well as 

the expanded Ogilby Meter Station, would be approximately 2 miles west of the proposed development. 

Although the specific plan has been approved and adopted by the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, 

implementation of the Felicity planned community has been put on hold indefinitely (Imperial County 

2005). 

Although not residential in nature, several other projects have been proposed by various agencies 

and could be affected by the proposed Project. These projects include the All-American Canal Lining 

Project, the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project, and the USCIS Border Fence. 

The IID has issued plans to line 23 miles of the 82-mile-long All-American Canal to prevent the 

continual seepage that has been occurring since the canal originally started delivering water to Imperial 

Valley in 1940. The final EIS for the project was issued in 1997; however, a scheduled start date for the 

project has not yet been established. The IID Lateral would be constructed in the same vicinity as the 

lining project between MPs 2.3 and 7.9. North Baja has consulted with the IID on the location of the two 

projects to avoid locational conflicts and would continue to coordinate with the IID as both projects move 

forward. Details on alternatives evaluated in this area are presented in Section 3.2.3.2. 

The BOR has proposed a water storage reservoir at the former Brock Research Station, referred to 

as the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project. A new canal would extend eastward from the reservoir. The 

alignment of the new canal would either be just north of Evan Hewes Highway or in the center of the 

highway itself (the highway would be removed). The proposed IID Lateral alignment would be just south 

of the current paved roadway but it may be moved to an alignment just north of the highway if the new 

canal is built where Evan Hewes Highway now lies (see Section 3.2.4.1). North Baja has consulted with 

the BOR to avoid conflicts and would continue to coordinate with the BOR as both projects move 

forward. 

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill to authorize construction of a fence along the entire U.S.-

Mexico border to assist in homeland security and border control issues. Currently the USCIS only 

maintains a 15-mile-long border fence in the San Diego area. There are no definitive plans for 

constructing a border fence along the border at MP 79.8 where the B-Line crosses from the United States 

into Mexico or along the IID Lateral where it is closest to the border between MPs 7.9 and 16.0. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-143 

Because North Baja would continue to work with the developers and applicable agencies 

associated with these projects to ensure that the proposed Project does not conflict with the development 

plans, impacts on these areas are expected to be less than significant. 

4.8.4 Special Management Areas 

4.8.4.1 California Desert Conservation Area 

Approximately 64.4 miles (81 percent) of the B-Line route in California are within the CDCA 

(MPs 3.5 to 22.3 and MPs 34.2 to 79.8). The entire 2.1 miles of the Arrowhead Extension and 45.7 miles 

of the IID Lateral route are within the CDCA. Pursuant to the FLPMA, the BLM prepared a 

comprehensive land use management plan for the area (the CDCA Plan) in 1980. The intent of the 

CDCA Plan is to “...provide for the immediate and future protection and administration of the public 

lands in the California Desert within the framework of a program of multiple use and sustained yield, and 

the maintenance of environmental quality” (BLM 1980). Figure 4.8.4-1 shows the location of the CDCA 

boundary in relation to BLM land and the proposed pipeline routes. 

None of the 2.1 miles associated with the Arrowhead Extension would cross BLM-managed land 

within the CDCA. About 50.7 miles of the B-Line and 25.7 miles3 of the IID Lateral within the CDCA 

are managed by the BLM (see Figure 4.8.4-1). All of the public lands within the CDCA under BLM 

management have been designated geographically into four MUCs (BLM 1980): Controlled Use (“C”), 

Limited Use (“L”), Moderate Use (“M”), and Intensive Use (“I”). Along the proposed B-Line route 

MUCs “L” (25.2 miles) and “M” (25.5 miles) would be crossed. Along the proposed IID Lateral route 

MUCs “L” (20.8 miles) and “I” (4.9 miles) would be crossed. The CDCA Plan stipulates that new gas 

transmission facilities located in MUCs “L,” “M,” and “I” lands may be allowed only within designated 

corridors. 

Under the Energy Production and Utility Corridors Element of the CDCA Plan, 16 planning 

corridors were identified to address utility facilities, including all pipelines with diameters greater than 12 

inches (BLM 1980). Eight additional corridors are currently identified as contingent corridors. 

Approximately 35.1 miles of the B-Line route within the CDCA would be within designated Utility 

Corridors J and L, of which 29.9 miles are managed by the BLM (see Figure 4.8.4-1). Utility Corridor J 

is a 2-mile-wide corridor that runs north-south through the southeastern portion of California. The B-Line 

is within Utility Corridor J between MPs 10.8 and 22.3, MPs 36.5 and 53.8, and MPs 65.2 and 68.3. 

Between MPs 74.3 and 77.4, the proposed B-Line crosses Utility Corridor L, which is an east-west 

running corridor along Interstate 8. 

Approximately 20.4 miles of the IID Lateral route within the CDCA would be within designated 

Utility Corridor L, of which 18.9 miles are managed by the BLM (see Figure 4.8.4-1). The IID Lateral is 

within Utility Corridor L between MPs 0.0 and 18.9 and MPs 26.0 and 27.5. 

All other portions of the proposed B-Line and IID Lateral within the CDCA would be outside a 

designated utility corridor. The portions of the proposed route that are on lands within the CDCA and 

managed by the BLM but outside a designated utility corridor (approximately 20.8 miles for the B-Line 

and 6.8 miles for the IID Lateral) are in conflict with the CDCA Plan and would require an amendment to 

the plan. 

 

3

 Of this total, about 17.6 miles would be located within county road rights-of-way across BLM land.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-144 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure 4.8.4-1 Location of Special Management Areas in 

Relation to BLM Land and the Proposed Pipeline Routes 

Page 4-144

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-145 

Although approximately 20.8 miles of the proposed B-Line on BLM lands are in conflict with the 

CDCA Plan because they are outside of a designated utility corridor, approximately 1.5 miles of the 20.8 

miles are within a contingent utility corridor. Between MPs 69.7 and 72.5, the proposed B-Line bisects 

Utility Corridor T, which runs in a general northwest to southeast direction adjacent to the Southern 

Pacific Railroad (see Figure 4.8.4-1). The CDCA Plan identifies this corridor as a contingent utility 

corridor having some potential for use in the future (BLM 1980). A contingent utility corridor is not an 

officially designated utility corridor until a plan amendment for the use of the corridor is approved. While 

this portion of the proposed route would still require a plan amendment, it would be within a utility 

corridor that has been identified for future potential use. 

Although the proposed Project is not consistent with the current CDCA Plan, it would be 

consistent with previous projects and the goal of grouping similar land uses. The proposed B-Line would 

be entirely adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line, which was the subject of an amendment to the 

CDCA Plan and previously approved by the BLM in 2002. In addition, the portion of the IID Lateral 

route outside of designated utility corridors would be within or adjacent to existing transportation 

(Interstate 8 and Imperial County roadways) and transmission line rights-of-way. 

North Baja submitted an amended Right-of-Way Grant application to the BLM in May 2005 and 

would need to receive the BLM’s approval in order to locate the pipeline facilities on BLM lands. It 

would also be the BLM’s responsibility to amend the CDCA Plan (see Section 1.7). The plan amendment 

would avoid conflict with the CDCA Plan and would, therefore, not be a significant impact. The 

amendment would only accommodate the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project and would not create a 

new corridor or modify existing corridors. 

4.8.4.2 Milpitas Wash Special Management Area 

The proposed B-Line crosses the Milpitas Wash SMA generally between MPs 29.4 and 34.2, 

crossing approximately 4.4 miles of BLM managed land (see Figure 4.8.4-1). The Milpitas Wash SMA is 

managed by the BLM Yuma Field Office under the Yuma District Plan. The purpose of the Yuma 

District Plan is to provide a comprehensive framework for managing public land and resources in the 

Yuma District. The Yuma District Plan adopted the preferred alternative analyzed during an EIS process 

addressing six major issues and concerns identified by the public, other agencies, and BLM staff. The six 

issues included wildlife habitat, special management areas, grazing, land ownership adjustment, rights-ofway, and recreation. The theme of the preferred alternative adopted by the Yuma District Plan is to 

“balance competing demands by providing for development of needed resources while protecting 

important and sensitive environmental values” (BLM 1985). As part of the Yuma District Plan, several 

areas were identified to be managed under special management prescriptions, including the Milpitas 

Wash SMA. The Milpitas Wash SMA was designated for its natural values, which include undisturbed 

desert vegetation, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. The Yuma District Plan prohibits new utilities 

or rights-of-way across the Milpitas Wash SMA. 

Of the approximately 4.4 miles crossed by the proposed B-Line within the Milpitas Wash SMA, 

2.5 miles are managed by the BLM. Allowing construction of the proposed B-Line across these 2.5 miles 

would require an amendment to the Yuma District Plan. 

This EIS/EIR proposes to modify the land use plan decisions to the extent needed to allow the 

BLM to issue North Baja a permit to cross the Milpitas Wash SMA. The Yuma District is currently in the 

process of revising its plan and is considering a proposal that would reroute the utility corridor to follow 

SR 78. The revision to the Yuma District Plan is a separate action from the proposed North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project. On December 15, 2006, the EPA published a Notice of Availability of the Yuma 

Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-146 

Register.4

 Because the B-Line would be within this new utility corridor, adoption of this revision would 

eliminate the need for a plan amendment for the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. The 

revised plan, however, is not expected to be completed before the environmental review process for the 

proposed Project is completed. Therefore, for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, this EIS/EIR 

will be used by the BLM to consider amending the current Yuma District Plan. 

Although the B-Line deviates from designated utility corridors within the Milpitas Wash SMA, it 

would be collocated with North Baja’s existing A-Line. The BLM approved an amendment to the Yuma 

District Plan to accommodate this pipeline in 2002. North Baja submitted an amended Right-of-Way 

Grant application to the BLM in May 2005 and would need to receive the BLM’s approval to locate the 

B-Line on BLM lands. It would also be the BLM’s responsibility to amend the Yuma District Plan to 

accommodate the B-Line (see Section 1.7). The plan amendment would avoid conflict with the Yuma 

District Plan and would, therefore, not be a significant impact. The amendment would only accommodate 

the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project and would not create a new corridor or modify existing 

corridors. 

4.8.4.3 Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 

The ISDRA was created in 1977 for the purpose of providing a formal space for OHV use 

(Congressional Resources Committee 2005). The ISDRA covers 248 square miles, with a length of more 

than 40 miles and an average width of about 5 miles (see Figure 4.8.4-1). The ISDRA is managed by the 

BLM El Centro Field Office and is a popular OHV use area. OHV recreation in the dunes became an 

important recreational activity in the post-World War II era with the availability of surplus U.S. Army 

Jeeps (BLM 2003). The ISDRA typically hosts 1.4 million OHV visitors per year, mostly between the 

months of September and May, when the weather is cooler (summer dunes temperatures reach well past 

110 °F). Camping (with recreational vehicles or vacation trailers) and sightseeing are also popular 

activities in this area. 

The ISDRA is divided into eight management areas, of which six are open to OHV use. The two 

management areas not open to OHV use are the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness, which is completely 

closed to motorized traffic, and the Adaptive Management Area, where limited use has been established 

while monitoring is taking place. The management areas that are open to OHV use include: Mammoth 

Wash, Ogilby, Glamis, Gecko, Dune Buggy Flats, and Buttercup (BLM 2003). The Gecko and Buttercup 

Management Areas have formal campgrounds; these include pit toilets, some paved driving surfaces, and 

signage. The B-Line would cross the Ogilby Management Area between MPs 71.1 and 74.5. The IID 

Lateral would cross the Ogilby Management Area between MPs 0.0 and 2.3 and the Buttercup 

Management Area between MPs 2.3 and 7.9. 

The Ogilby Management Area is designated MUC “M” by the ISDRA Plan and is popular with 

families and groups that enjoy OHV use away from intensively used areas in the ISDRA. The Buttercup 

Management Area is designated MUC “I” by the ISDRA Plan and is used for camping, sightseeing, 

commercial vending, education, filming, and rights-of-way. 

Between MPs 71.1 and 74.5, the B-Line would be within North Baja’s existing right-of-way 

associated with the A-Line and would also be adjacent to Ogilby Road, which marks the eastern edge of 

the ISDRA and the Ogilby Management Area. This portion of the route is in an area of lighter OHV use 

and away from any developed recreational facilities. As a result, the B-Line is not expected to have a 

significant impact on this area and agencies have not expressed concern about this portion of the Project. 

 

4

 The Yuma Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for viewing on the Internet 

at http://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/planning.htm or at the Yuma Field Office. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-147 

However, agencies have expressed concern about locating the IID Lateral through the more heavily used 

portions of the ISDRA. 

North Baja selected the proposed IID Lateral route based on an evaluation of alternative routes 

and in consultation with the BOR, the IID, the BLM, and the members of the ISDRA Technical Review 

Team. Alternatives that were considered for the route through this area are discussed in Section 3.2.3.2. 

The location of the proposed route alignment accounts for concerns that arose during consultation 

meetings. 

The eastern end of the proposed IID Lateral (west of the All-American Canal and Interstate 8) 

would be adjacent to an existing 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from MPs 0.1 to 2.3. This portion of 

the route is in the Ogilby Management Area in an area of lighter OHV use and away from any developed 

recreational facilities. Between MPs 2.3 and 2.6, the pipeline would be installed beneath Interstate 8 and 

the All-American Canal using the HDD method. From MP 2.6, the alignment continues west adjacent to 

the CalTrans right-of-way associated with Interstate 8 as well as existing transmission lines for 3.1 miles 

to MP 5.7. In this segment the route traverses the northern edge of the Buttercup Campground, avoiding 

the main parking and vendor area by staying close to the CalTrans right-of-way. This alignment was 

suggested by the ISDRA Technical Review Team. North Baja made other alignment adjustments in this 

stretch at the suggestion of the BLM, with the goal of avoiding the most intensively used areas. 

At MP 5.7, the IID Lateral would cross Interstate 8 to an area between the freeway and the AllAmerican Canal where there is no access for OHV users. The IID Lateral would cross this area between 

MPs 5.7 and 7.9, adjacent to an area that would be used by the IID for its All-American Canal Lining 

Project (see Section 4.8.3.2). The IID Lateral would be installed beneath the All-American Canal (and 

exit the ISDRA) at MP 7.9. A valve would be located at MP 7.6 in an area between the Interstate 8 rightof-way and the All-American Canal, which is closed to OHV activity. 

Peak OHV use season in the ISDRA is from Labor Day to Easter, and is especially high in 

November and December. This prompted a suggestion from BLM recreation planners and the ISDRA 

Technical Review Team that construction of the IID Lateral take place during the summer months to 

avoid conflict with the high-use recreational season (BLM 2005). North Baja has incorporated this 

suggestion into its proposed construction schedule (see Section 2.4). The ISDRA Technical Review 

Team also raised concerns that various recreational activities might conflict with the pipeline if it was 

buried at standard depths. In response to these concerns, North Baja would bury the IID Lateral to ensure 

6 feet of cover (3 feet more than typical pipeline depths) between MPs 2.7 and 5.7. 

During construction, the work area within the ISDRA would be fenced to prevent recreational 

users from entering the construction area. This would result in a short-term restriction on recreational use 

in the area. Because it would be short term (i.e., considerably less than 1 year) and would occur during 

the summer months when use of the area is at its lowest, this impact would not be considered significant. 

Once the IID Lateral has been installed, surface contours would be re-established and the pipeline rightof-way would not be restricted for OHV use. As a result, no significant impacts on recreational use 

would occur during normal pipeline operations. Short-term recreational impacts could result from 

operation and maintenance activities if North Baja needed to perform major maintenance work, such as 

pipeline repairs; however, such major work would be rare and, if needed, would be completed in less than 

1 year so no significant impacts would occur. Routine maintenance at the valve at MP 7.6 would occur 

inside the fenced valve site and would not affect recreational use. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-148 

4.8.5 Recreation and Public Interest Areas 

The proposed pipeline facilities would not cross any national or State forests, National or 

California Wild and Scenic Rivers, registered national natural landmarks, lands designated under a 

Habitat Conservation Plan, golf courses, or areas designated under the National Trails System. However, 

the B-Line and IID Lateral would cross 11 recreation or public interest areas and be adjacent to several 

others. Table 4.8.5-1 lists the locations and crossing length (if applicable) for each of these areas. A 

more detailed discussion of each area is provided below. The Arrowhead Extension would not cross or be 

adjacent to any recreation or public interest areas. Schools in the Project area are discussed in Section 

4.9.4. 

TABLE 4.8.5-1 

Recreation and Public Interest Areas Crossed by or Adjacent to the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility 

Milepost 

Location Name of Area Crossing Length 

B-Line 

 0.0 Ehrenberg Sandbowl Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area NA – 1.0 mile southeast 

 0.1 Colorado River access area NA – 0.1 mile south 

 0.2 Colorado River 768 feet 

 15.7 Mule Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) 

NA – 0.9 mile west 

 18.3 Bradshaw Trail 50 feet 

 19.2-22.3 Metropolitan Water District Property 3.1 miles 

 25.0 Palo Verde Mountains County Park NA – 1.3 miles east 

 25.5 Oxbow Recreation Site NA – 1.1 miles east 

 29.2-29.6 Bureau of Reclamation quarry NA – 0.1 mile west 

 31.0 Palo Verde Wilderness Area NA – 1.0 mile west 

 29.9-32.3 a Cibola National Wildlife Refuge 1.2 miles 

 35.2-50.0 Wildlife Habitat Management Area 14.8 miles 

 49.0 Indian Pass Wilderness Area NA – 1.9 miles east 

 66.5 Tumco Mine Area Landmark NA – 1.2 miles east 

 71.1-74.5 Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA), Ogilby 

Management Area 

3.4 miles 

 79.6 Pilot Knob ACEC NA - 1.0 mile east 

Arrowhead Extension -NoneIID Lateral 

 0.0-2.3 ISDRA, Ogilby Management Area 2.3 miles 

 2.3-4.3 

4.9-5.6 

Plank Road ACEC 

Plank Road ACEC 

NA – 0.1 mile southeast 

0.7 mile 

 6.8 Plank Road Interpretive Site NA – 0.1 mile southeast 

 2.3-7.9 ISDRA, Buttercup Management Area 5.6 miles 

 13.7-18.7 East Mesa ACEC 5.0 miles 

 13.7-21.1 East Mesa Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Management Area 7.4 miles 

 27.4 Hot Springs Long Term Visitor Area NA – 0.1 mile north 

 27.3-27.6 Lake Cahuilla ACEC 0.3 mile 

____________________ 

a

 The B-Line would cross the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge intermittently between MPs 29.9 and 32.3 for a total of 1.2 

miles. Specifically, the B-Line would cross the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge between MPs 29.9-30.0, 30.3-30.4, 

30.7-30.8, 30.9-31.3, and 31.8-32.3. 

NA = Not applicable. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-149 

One of the primary concerns when crossing recreation and public interest areas is the impact of 

construction on the purpose for which the area was established (e.g., the recreational activities, public 

access, and resources the area aims to protect). Construction would alter visual aesthetics by removing 

existing vegetation and disturbing soils. Construction would also generate dust and noise, which could be 

a nuisance to recreational users. Construction could also interfere with or diminish the quality of the 

recreational experience by affecting wildlife movements or disturbing trails. In general, impacts on 

recreational and public interest areas would be temporary and would be limited to the period of active 

construction, which typically would last only several days to several weeks in any one area. 

In general, North Baja would minimize construction-related impacts on these areas by: 

• installing the B-Line entirely within the existing right-of-way maintained for the A-Line; 

• installing the IID Lateral almost entirely within or adjacent to existing road and 

transmission line rights-of-way; 

• timing construction to avoid peak usage periods, when practical; and 

• ensuring effective post-construction reclamation of the right-of-way to preconstruction 

conditions. 

Off-Highway Areas and Use 

OHV use in the Project area is variable in terms of both season and location. OHV use occurs 

most frequently during the winter months with the heaviest use occurring on the weekends. The 

Ehrenberg Sandbowl OHV Area is 1.0 mile southeast of the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site. Further 

south, along the terminus of the proposed B-Line and along the beginning of the proposed IID Lateral, the 

ISDRA provides a large area of OHV use (see Section 4.8.4.3). In addition, OHV use is common but 

regulated on BLM lands outside of these areas and along the routes of the B-Line and IID Lateral. 

BLM land within the CDCA is designated open, closed, or limited for vehicle use. Route 

designations are generally made on the basis of MUCs. MUC “M” (approximately 25.5 miles of the BLine), MUC “L” (approximately 25.2 miles of the B-Line and 20.8 miles of the IID Lateral), and MUC 

“I” (approximately 4.9 miles of the IID Lateral) fall under the limited vehicle use designation. Limited 

vehicle access means that motorized-vehicle access is allowed only on certain routes of travel, which 

include roads, trails, and washes (BLM 1980). At a minimum, use is restricted to existing routes of 

travel. An existing route of travel is a route that was established before approval of the CDCA Plan in 

1980 with a minimum width of 2 feet, showing significant surface evidence of prior vehicle use or, for 

washes, history of prior use. On MUC “M” lands, access is allowed on existing routes unless it is 

determined that use on specific routes must be limited further. On MUC “L” lands, vehicle access is 

directed toward use of approved routes of travel due to higher levels of resource sensitivity in this MUC. 

On MUC “I” lands, those areas not designated as open are limited to existing routes. 

During construction, the Project could have an impact on OHV areas and users by restricting 

access to areas designated for OHV use. Conversely, the pipeline rights-of-way could increase 

accessibility for OHV use into previously inaccessible, environmentally sensitive areas. To reduce the 

potential for interference between pipeline construction activities and authorized OHV use, as well as 

unauthorized OHV use of the pipeline rights-of-way after construction, North Baja developed an OffHighway Vehicle Management Plan (OHV Plan) that addresses the initial siting, construction, and 

operation of the proposed facilities. North Baja’s OHV Plan was developed in consultation with BLM 

recreation specialists and biologists in 2001 and 2002 during planning for the original North Baja Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-150 

Project and again in 2005 during planning for the proposed Project. The OHV Plan is also based on 

experience North Baja has gained while operating, maintaining, and managing the A-Line right-of-way 

since 2002. The OHV Plan is provided in Appendix P. 

In the area that would be crossed by the B-Line, OHV use is permitted only on BLM-designated 

routes of travel except between MPs 71.1 and 74.5 (see Section 4.8.4.3). Before construction, North Baja 

would clearly mark the extent of the construction work area. Where active construction is underway, the 

right-of-way would be occupied by workers and equipment and restricted for OHV use. OHV users 

would be directed back to designated routes of travel. Additional measures North Baja would implement 

to minimize construction-related impacts on OHV users in the ISDRA are discussed in Section 4.8.4.3. 

Because any impacts associated with restricted OHV use would be short term (i.e., considerably less than 

1 year), they would not be considered significant. 

Where the proposed pipelines would be in areas of authorized OHV use, the pipeline rights-ofway would not be restricted for OHV use. However, to minimize the potential for the pipeline rights-ofway to increase accessibility for OHV use into previously inaccessible, environmentally sensitive areas, 

North Baja would implement various blocking measures where it has been determined that such measures 

may be effective in discouraging OHV use. These measures are described below. 

• Berms would be placed across the right-of-way where it intersects an existing OHV road. 

Berm slopes would not exceed 30 percent. 

• Berms would be placed across the right-of-way as part of erosion control and 

strategically placed to reduce visibility and mimic local topography. 

• Rock redistribution and strategic placement, without making it into a challenging obstacle 

course, would occur across the right-of-way where large rock is available and such work 

would “erase” the visual cues of “road.” 

• The right-of-way would be backbladed or raked by bulldozer or by hand, to erase the 

traces of the intersection of the right-of-way with an existing OHV route or dirt road. 

• Ocotillo and large cacti would be salvaged and replanted where they are available with 

the understanding that survival criteria would not be applied because even dead 

specimens provide convincing visual clues of “no road.” 

• Other desert species, including creosote bush scrub and desert wash woodland species 

(e.g., palo verde, ironwood, smoke tree, etc.) would also be salvaged and replanted with 

the understanding that they would be unlikely to survive but could still provide value as a 

visual block. 

• Woody material removed during construction would be redistributed across the right-ofway to both disguise the right-of-way and serve as “vertical mulch.” 

An assessment and detailed description of where these blocking measures would be implemented 

is presented in the OHV Plan (see Appendix P). 

The Yuma District of the BLM commented that it would like North Baja to place additional signs 

and vegetative barriers at access points along the right-of-way to prohibit OHV use. North Baja has 

agreed to place signs and/or vegetative barriers at access points along the right-of-way if requested by the 

Yuma District. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-151 

A scoping comment was received regarding OHV management within or near the Cibola NWR. 

North Baja met with the manager of the Cibola NWR to review the effects of construction of the A-Line 

within the refuge and to determine the appropriate OHV management measures to be considered for the 

proposed B-Line. The refuge manager recommended that North Baja replace fencing originally installed 

after construction of the A-Line but subsequently destroyed by OHV users. It was also suggested that 

North Baja maintain the fence for 2 years because in remote parts of the refuge, it takes 2 years for 

fencing to become an effective OHV barrier. North Baja has agreed to install and maintain the fencing 

for 2 years along this portion of the B-Line. 

A scoping comment was also received regarding OHV management on the Nowell property near 

Riviera Drive at approximately MP 0.4 of the B-Line. After construction of the A-Line, an earthen berm 

was installed across North Baja’s right-of-way on the western edge of Riviera Drive to discourage OHV 

users from gaining access to other parts of the property from that location. North Baja states that the 

berm proved effective in discouraging access down the right-of-way from this location; however, OHV 

traffic originating from other locations has been relatively heavy on North Baja’s and the adjacent 

SoCalGas rights-of-way. According to North Baja, this appears to be a continuation of an OHV use 

pattern established before its right-of-way was created. North Baja proposes to reconstruct the earthen 

berm at Riviera Drive after construction of the B-Line and, with the property owner’s concurrence, would 

leave the right-of-way with a rougher surface instead of the smooth finished grade that matches the 

adjacent ground surface. This could make the right-of-way less attractive as a travel way. North Baja 

would also offer to procure and install signs for the property owner, should he choose to attempt to 

discourage OHV access at the main entry points on the property (unrelated to the pipeline right-of-way). 

In comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the EPA and the ICAPCD expressed concern about the 

generation of fugitive dust emissions associated with OHV use of the right-of-way. These agencies also 

commented that North Baja’s OHV Plan did not address enforcement and future monitoring of the 

proposed OHV blocking measures. Therefore, the Agency Staffs recommend that:

• North Baja shall revise its OHV Plan to include: 

a. the agency or agencies responsible for enforcement of the OHV Plan; 

b. the frequency of monitoring that would be conducted to ensure that the 

implemented OHV blocking measures are functioning properly; 

c. the methodology for reassessing the implemented OHV blocking measures 

in the future; and 

d. enforcement measures.

North Baja shall file the revised OHV Plan with the FERC and the CSLC for the 

review and written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive Officer of the 

CSLC before construction of Phase I-A and Phase II.

Implementation of North Baja’s proposed measures as well as the Agency Staffs’ 

recommendation would reduce the potential impacts associated with unauthorized OHV use of the rightof-way to less than significant levels. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-152 

Colorado River and Access 

The proposed B-Line would cross the Colorado River at MP 0.2, and an access area to the river is 

0.1 mile south of the Ehrenberg Compressor Station. The Colorado River is an area of high recreational 

use, including boating and fishing. The Colorado River would be crossed using the HDD method, which 

would minimize impacts on the river and would not limit the use of the river for recreational purposes. 

However, access to the river may be restricted during welding of the pipe and the pullback for the HDD 

crossing. The period of limited public access would be short term (i.e., considerably less than 1 year) and 

would, therefore, not result in any significant impacts on this area. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

The FLPMA defines an ACEC as an area within the public lands where special management 

attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to 

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife 

resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

According to the CDCA Plan, the ACEC designation is a process for determining what special 

management certain important environmental resources or hazards require. 

The B-Line would be within 1 mile of two BLM-designated ACECs. The Mule Mountains 

ACEC is about 0.9 mile west of MP 15.7 and the Pilot Knob ACEC is about 1.0 mile east of MP 79.6. 

The management objective of both these ACECs is to protect cultural resources. Because these areas 

would not be crossed by the B-Line, the designated use of these areas would not be affected by the Project 

and no impacts are anticipated. A detailed discussion of cultural resources potentially affected by the 

proposed Project is presented in Section 4.11. 

The IID Lateral would cross three ACECs: Plank Road, East Mesa, and Lake Cahuilla. The IID 

Lateral would be within 0.1 mile of the Plank Road ACEC between MPs 2.3 and 4.3 and would cross this 

ACEC between MPs 4.9 and 5.6. The IID Lateral would cross the Lake Cahuilla ACEC between MPs 

27.3 and 27.6. Both of these ACECs are managed to protect cultural resources. Almost all of the route in 

these locations would be in a designated utility corridor and, therefore, consistent with the designated use 

of the area. As a result, impacts on these areas would be less than significant. A detailed discussion of 

cultural resources potentially affected by the proposed Project is presented in Section 4.11. 

The IID Lateral would also cross the East Mesa ACEC between MPs 13.7 and 18.7. In 2003, the 

effective function of the ACEC was replaced by the adoption of a plan amendment providing for a rangewide management strategy for this species within the East Mesa Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Management 

Area crossed by the IID Lateral between MPs 13.7 and 21.1. The IID Lateral would be at the extreme 

southern boundary of the area within Imperial County road rights-of-way. Additional information on the 

flat-tailed horned lizard, including mitigation measures North Baja would implement to minimize impacts 

on this species, is presented in Section 4.7.6.13. 

Designated Trails 

At MP 18.3 the proposed B-Line would cross the Bradshaw Trail. The Bradshaw Trail is a BLMdesignated Back-Country Byway. Back-Country Byways are a network of low-standard roads and trails 

or “adventure routes” that are designated as such by the BLM because they cross public lands with high 

scenic or public interest value. Between 1862 and 1877, the Bradshaw Trail was used to transport miners 

and supplies to the gold mines of La Paz (now Ehrenberg), Arizona. The trail was also used as a 

stagecoach route and was the first road through Riverside County. The existing 70-mile-long section of 

this dirt road extends from the North Shore area near the Salton Sea to within 14 miles of the City of 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-153 

Blythe. The Bradshaw Tail is periodically graded by the Riverside County Transportation Department. 

The land at the location of the proposed pipeline crossing is managed by the BLM. 

The effects of pipeline construction across the Bradshaw Trail could include restricted or 

temporary loss of use to the public. To mitigate the impacts of construction on public use of the 

Bradshaw Trail, North Baja proposes to perform construction activities during off-peak periods and to 

complete pipeline installation across the trail in just a few days. No adverse impacts on use of the trail are 

known to have occurred during construction of the A-Line, and minimal impact is expected to occur 

during construction of the B-Line. Because the period of limited public access would be short term (i.e., 

considerably less than 1 year), impacts on Bradshaw Trail would be less than significant. No other 

designated trails would be crossed by the proposed Project. 

Metropolitan Water District Property 

North Baja’s existing A-Line crosses about 3.1 miles of undeveloped desert property owned by 

the MWD between MPs 19.2 and 22.3. North Baja has stated that it is unaware of any development plans 

for the property. North Baja’s existing right-of-way agreement with the MWD allows placement of a 

second pipeline within the 50-foot-wide easement. The right-of-way agreement also stipulates certain 

terms such as restoration of surface contours, payment for actual damages caused by North Baja’s 

construction, reconstruction or ingress/egress, and other standard conditions. North Baja would adhere to 

the terms of its easement. By adhering to the terms of its right-of-way agreement, impacts on this 

property would be less than significant. 

Parks and Recreation Sites 

The Palo Verde County Park and Oxbow Recreation Site are 1.3 miles and 1.1 miles, 

respectively, from the proposed B-Line. Because these are low-intensity use areas that are over 1 mile 

from the proposed facilities, no impacts associated with the proposed Project on these areas are 

anticipated. 

Quarries 

Between MPs 29.2 and 29.6 the B-Line would pass near a rock quarry operated by the BOR. The 

quarry is currently inactive. No impacts on the quarry are known to have occurred during or after 

construction of the A-Line. Similarly, construction of the proposed B-Line is not expected to have an 

effect on any possible use of or access to the quarry. No other quarries would be affected by the proposed 

Project. 

Wilderness Areas 

The Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness Area is about 1.0 mile west and the Indian Pass 

Wilderness Area is about 1.9 miles east of the B-Line route at MPs 31.0 and 49.0, respectively. The 1964 

Wilderness Act defined wilderness as areas in generally natural condition; areas having outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; areas at least 5,000 acres or 

large enough to preserve use as wilderness; and areas containing ecological, geological, or other features 

of scientific, scenic, or historical value. The Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness Area is a 32,310-acre area 

designated as part of the California Desert Protection Act of 1994. Distinguishing this wilderness area are 

twin buttes known as the Flat Tops, which stand out as a landmark against a range of jagged peaks. 

About 32,083 acres are included in the Indian Pass Wilderness Area, which is a distinctive part of the 

Chocolate Mountains. According to the 1964 Wilderness Act, there shall be no commercial enterprise, no 

permanent road (except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area), 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-154 

no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, 

no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area. The area of 

the proposed Project does not intersect or overlap with any wilderness areas, and thus no impacts are 

anticipated. 

Wildlife Refuges 

The proposed B-Line would cross a total of 1.2 miles of the Cibola NWR at various locations 

between approximately MPs 29.9 and 32.3. The refuge was established in 1964 to protect the wintering 

grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. Access to the refuge and use of the area by humans is 

strictly controlled to protect wildlife habitat. As discussed in Section 1.5.2, a decision that allows a 

crossing of the Cibola NWR must be compatible with the FWS Refuge Management Regulations in Part 

603 FW 2.10(D). In approving a proposed utility right-of-way across the Cibola NWR, the Refuge 

Manager must find that none of the conditions listed in Part 603 FW 2.10(D) exist with regards to the 

proposed Project. The existing A-Line complied with these conditions and a favorable Compatibility 

Determination was issued for the installation of that pipeline. Therefore, a favorable Compatibility 

Determination is expected to be issued for the proposed B-Line. As a result, no significant impacts on 

this area are anticipated. No other State or national wildlife refuges would be crossed by or adjacent to 

the proposed pipelines. 

Wildlife Habitat Management Area 

The proposed B-Line would cross a multi-species WHMA between MPs 35.2 and 50.0. This 

segment of the route also crosses two portions of proposed WHMAs for bighorn sheep (MPs 35.2 to 42.0 

and MPs 49.0 to 50.0). North Baja would also expand an existing valve site within this area (valve #6 at 

MP 41.6). Construction-related activities could impact wildlife in the WHMA. The majority of the 

pipeline route in this area would be within a designated utility corridor. Management goals for the 

WHMA include the maintenance of naturally occurring distributions of 28 special status animal species 

and 30 special status plant species. A second goal is to maintain proper functioning conditions in all 

natural communities with special emphasis on communities that are present in small quantities, have a 

high species richness, and support many special status species. The third goal is to maintain ecological 

processes by maintaining naturally occurring interrelationships among various biotic and abiotic elements 

of the environment. 

According to the BLM, required mitigation measures within the WHMA include limiting 

construction activities to between July 1 and December 1 if Crissal thrashers are present, implementation 

of special mitigation measures to avoid disturbance of Couch’s spadefoot toad habitat, and compensation 

for disturbance of desert dry wash woodland and desert chenopod scrub communities. Details on North 

Baja’s proposed mitigation measures for the Crissal thrasher and the Couch’s spadefoot toad are 

presented in Sections 4.7.6.5 and 4.7.6.12, respectively. North Baja’s proposed mitigation measures for 

disturbance of desert wash woodlands and other desert vegetation communities are described in Section 

4.5.3. 

Registered Natural and Historical Landmarks 

One registered natural landmark, the Tumco Mine area, is about 1.2 miles east of the B-Line 

route at MP 66.5. Historically, the Tumco Mine area was a gold camp that reached its peak development 

between 1893 and 1899 (Donald Laird Consulting 2000). This site was evaluated before construction of 

the A-Line and no effects associated with construction of the B-Line construction are anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-155 

The Plank Road, a California State Historical Landmark, lies in the vicinity of the proposed IID 

Lateral. At its nearest point, the Plank Road interpretive site is about 0.1 mile southeast of MP 6.8 of the 

IID Lateral. The Plank Road was a wooden, portable driving surface to provide for the passage of 

automobiles across the Algodones Dunes and was in use from 1916 through 1926 (BLM 1998). Because 

the locations of segments of the Plank Road are unknown, it could be encountered during construction of 

the IID Lateral. Additional information on the Plank Road is provided in Section 4.11. 

Camping 

Informal camping occurs in areas near the proposed Project facilities but is variable in nature with 

most of the activity occurring in the winter. The area surrounding the Ogilby Meter Station, in particular, 

is a popular camp site throughout the winter months. Construction-induced effects such as traffic, noise, 

and dust may affect the quality of some campers’ recreational experiences, but any effects would be 

temporary in nature (i.e., considerably less than 1 year) and would not result in any significant impacts. 

Hot Springs Long Term Visitor Area 

The Hot Springs Long Term Visitor Area is located about 0.1 mile north of the proposed IID 

Lateral at MP 27.4. The area includes a historic and still active hot spring that attracts both local and 

winter visitors. Construction-induced effects such as traffic, noise, and dust may affect the quality of 

some visitors’ recreational experiences, but any effects would be temporary in nature (i.e., considerably 

less than 1 year) and would not result in any significant impacts. 

4.8.6 Hazardous Waste Sites 

The CEQA process requires the identification of hazardous material sites pursuant to Government 

Code section 65962. The Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC), Site Mitigation Group, 

was contacted regarding the proper approach to identifying hazardous material sites pursuant to the 

CEQA requirements. In order to fulfill these requirements, the CAL-SITES list and leaking underground 

storage tank (LUST) list were reviewed. The CAL-SITES is a database maintained by the DTSC that 

contains potential or confirmed substance release properties and is released quarterly. The LUST list, 

maintained by the CSWRCB, contains an inventory of reported underground storage tank incidents. 

A review of the CAL-SITES database did not identify any sites that are currently on or adjacent 

to the proposed Project. A review of the LUST list revealed a single incident of a leaking underground 

fuel tank along the IID Lateral route in El Centro (case #7T2243030). The case was closed by the 

CRWQCB on August 28, 1992 and is not considered to be an issue for the proposed Project. 

If contamination is encountered during construction of the Project, North Baja would notify the 

appropriate agencies. In addition, North Baja has prepared an SPCC Plan that provides preventive and 

mitigative measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential impact of hazardous 

material spills during construction (see Appendix F). 

Although not classified as hazardous waste sites, two solid waste facilities and a former livestock 

feed yard are adjacent to the proposed facilities. The Palo Verde Solid Waste Site is 0.1 mile west of the 

proposed B-Line at MP 26.4, and a former solid waste disposal site was adjacent to the proposed 18th 

Avenue Yard near MP 5.5. No impacts on or from these facilities occurred during construction of the 

existing A-Line and no impacts associated with the proposed B-Line are anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-156 

A former livestock feed yard was located at the proposed 18th Avenue Yard (MPs 5.5 to 5.7). No 

impacts on or from this facility occurred during construction of the existing A-Line and no impacts 

associated with the proposed B-Line are anticipated. 

4.8.7 Aesthetic Resources 

The BLM uses a VRM system to identify and manage scenic values on public lands. The VRM 

system includes a visual resource inventory, which classifies resources on BLM land in one of four 

categories: class I, II, III, or IV, with class I having the highest visual sensitivity and class IV being the 

least sensitive.5

 The degree of modification allowed to the basic elements of the landscape in these 

classes includes: 

• class I: modifications should not be evident in the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention; 

• class II: modifications should not be evident in the landscape. Contrasts are seen, but 

should not attract the attention of the casual observer; 

• class III: modifications are evident, but should remain subordinate to the existing 

landscape; and 

• class IV: modifications may dominate the view and be the focus of viewer attention; 

however, every effort should be made to minimize the impact of these activities. 

Within the Project area, the BLM land in Imperial County under the jurisdiction of the El Centro 

and Yuma Field Offices has been categorized into VRM classes. BLM land along the proposed B-Line in 

Riverside County under the jurisdiction of the Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office has not been 

classified. Accordingly, interim VRM classes have been established for the area crossed by the pipeline 

route in Riverside County. The interim VRM classes are included in the summary above. The supporting 

VRM evaluation establishing these interim VRM classes is provided in Appendix Q. 

Of the 55.2 miles of BLM-managed lands that would be crossed by the B-Line, 24.9 miles are 

VRM class II, 23.5 miles are VRM class III, and 6.8 miles are VRM class IV. Of the 25.7 miles of BLMmanaged lands that would be crossed by the IID Lateral, 20.8 miles are VRM class II and 4.9 miles are 

VRM class IV. No VRM class I lands would be affected by the proposed Project. 

There are two types of potential impact on visual resources associated with construction and 

operation of the Project facilities: that resulting from alteration of terrain and vegetation patterns due to 

facility construction or right-of-way maintenance and that resulting from the presence of new 

aboveground facilities. 

Pipeline Facilities 

During construction, the cleared and graded right-of-way, as well as construction equipment 

operating on the right-of-way, would be visible from any surrounding residences and local roads. 

Because the terrain over much of the Project area is relatively flat, views of the construction activity may 

extend for some distance. Following construction, the primary visual impact would be the right-of-way, 

which due to the arid climate and slow regeneration of native vegetation could be noticeable for many 

years. The visual impact of the right-of-way following construction depends on the visual contrast in 

 

5

 A full description of the BLM’s VRM system is available at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8410.html. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-157 

form, line, color, and texture created between the proposed facilities and the existing landscape. These 

factors are discussed by facility and milepost below. 

B-Line

The B-Line would be constructed adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line and would result in 

similar impacts on visual resources as those experienced during construction and operation of that 

pipeline. The landscape along the B-Line route is characterized by flat agricultural and rural residential 

areas, playa/alluvial fan landscapes (i.e., flat terrain, creosote scrub vegetation, desert washes), and 

mountain foothills. Specific segments of the pipeline route fall into one of these general categories as 

described below. 

MPs 0.0 to 11.7 – This portion of the B-Line route comprises flat terrain with a mix of 

agricultural and rural residential landscapes on both sides of 18th Avenue. Agricultural operations would 

resume following construction. Construction activity would create a short-term visual intrusion to 

residents along 18th Avenue. There would be no long-term impact on visual resources in this area because 

little or no vegetation clearing would be required where the B-Line would be installed within the right-ofway associated with 18th Avenue. The Colorado River would be crossed using the HDD method, and 

setbacks from the river would protect existing vegetation. Therefore, views from the river and adjacent 

areas would not be affected. 

Lands within this route segment in the CDCA are not managed by the BLM and do not have a 

VRM classification. Therefore, construction of this segment of the B-Line would not cause an 

inconsistency with an adopted VRM Plan. As described above, construction in this area would also not 

result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic area or vista, substantially damage scenic resources, or 

substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area or its surroundings. As a result, 

impacts on visual resources along this segment of the B-Line would be less than significant. 

MPs 11.7 to 22.3 – Past 18th Avenue, the B-Line route joins the Western Area Power 

Administration transmission line corridor and continues south across the Palo Verde Mesa to the Palo 

Verde Mountains foothills. In this flat desert landscape, a low degree of visual impact would occur 

initially and would be further reduced over time. Visibility resulting from the very slight contrast in soil 

color and vegetative pattern between the right-of-way and adjacent areas would be offset by limited 

viewing opportunities afforded by areas with flat to low topographic relief and views that include existing 

manmade features of electric transmission lines. 

The area that would be crossed has an interim VRM classification of IV. The degree of contrast 

with the characteristic landscape that would result from the B-Line would be consistent with the visual 

management objectives of this class. Changes in form, line, color, and texture would be reduced where 

the route would be adjacent to other linear facilities, including the existing electric transmission lines. 

Overall, construction in this area would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic area or vista, 

substantially damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 

the area or its surroundings. For these reasons, impacts on visual resources along this segment of the BLine would be less than significant. 

MPs 22.3 to 29.7 and MPs 31.5 to 79.8 – South of the Palo Verde Mountains, the surroundings of 

the corridor assume characteristics typical of playa/alluvial fan landscapes until the route reaches the 

intersection of Ogilby Road and Interstate 8. At that point, the route heads southeast through the Pilot 

Knob Mesa to the U.S.-Mexico border, adjacent to the sand dune system that dominates the surrounding 

visual setting and contributes to a moderate to high landscape quality. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-158 

In the desert landscape environment of these two route segments, a low degree of visual impact 

would occur initially and would be further reduced over time. Visibility resulting from the contrast in soil 

color and vegetative pattern between the right-of-way and adjacent areas would be partially offset by 

limited viewing afforded by areas with flat to low relief and views that include existing manmade 

features. Adjacent features along most of the length of these segments include paved and desert wash 

roads, levees, canals, and electric transmission lines. Over time, the contrast would diminish and the 

visual effect of the installed pipeline would be minimal. 

The BLM lands along these two segments of the route include VRM class II and VRM class III. 

The degree of contrast with the characteristic landscape that would result from the B-Line would be 

consistent with the visual management objectives of these classes. Changes in form, line, color, and 

texture would be reduced where the route would be adjacent to other linear facilities. Overall, 

construction in this area would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic area or vista, 

substantially damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 

the area or its surroundings. For these reasons, impacts on visual resources along these segments of the 

B-Line would be less than significant. 

MPs 29.7 to 31.5 – In this segment of the route, the B-Line would cross hilly to flat terrain with a 

backdrop created by the steeper slopes of the Palo Verde Mountains to the west. Potential viewing 

locations include SR 78, which is parallel to a portion of the route in this segment. Few longitudinal 

views down North Baja’s existing right-of-way occur in this area. Glimpses of the existing right-of-way 

can be seen while traveling on SR 78, but the dominant feature is the mid-distance views of the Colorado 

River bottom covered by expanses of tamarisk. The highway alignment in this area is curvilinear with 

vertical changes in grade. A single lane exists in either direction. All of these features compete with the 

viewer’s attention. 

Lands in this route segment are VRM class III. The degree of contrast with the characteristic 

landscape that would result from the B-Line would be consistent with the visual management objectives 

of this class. Overall, construction in this area would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 

area or vista, substantially damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade the existing visual character 

or quality of the area or its surroundings. As a result, impacts on visual resources along this segment of 

the B-Line would be less than significant. 

Arrowhead Extension

The route associated with the Arrowhead Extension would cross flat terrain with a mix of 

agricultural and rural residential landscapes on both sides of Arrowhead Boulevard. Agricultural 

operations would resume following construction. Construction activity would create a short-term visual 

intrusion along Arrowhead Boulevard. There would be no long-term impact on visual resources in this 

area because little or no vegetation clearing would be required where the pipeline would be installed 

within the right-of-way associated with Arrowhead Boulevard, and agricultural operations would resume 

following construction where the pipeline would be outside the road right-of-way. The lands affected by 

the Arrowhead Alternative are not managed by the BLM and do not have a VRM classification. 

IID Lateral

The IID Lateral would be constructed within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way for the majority 

of the route. The landscape along the IID Lateral route is characterized by sand dunes, playa/alluvial fan 

landscapes (i.e., flat terrain, creosote scrub vegetation, desert washes), and agricultural areas. Specific 

segments of the lateral route fall into one of these general categories as described below. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-159 

MPs 0.0 to MP 7.9 – This portion of the IID Lateral would cross the ISDRA, which contains the 

largest mass of sand dunes in California. The ISDRA is recognized for its frequent use as a backdrop for 

commercials and movies because of its unique beauty and landscape. Very little vegetation is present due 

to intense OHV use. Manmade modifications in the vicinity of the IID Lateral in this area include 

Interstate 8, the All-American Canal, the Coachella Canal, and several wood-pole and steel-lattice-tower 

electric transmission lines that traverse the dunes in an east-west direction. 

The BLM lands along this segment of the route include VRM class II and VRM class IV. The 

degree of contrast with the characteristic landscape that would result from the IID Lateral would be 

consistent with the visual management objectives of these classes. Changes in form, line, color, and 

texture would be reduced where the route would be adjacent to other linear facilities. Moreover, winddeposited sand is expected to mask most remaining visual evidence of the right-of-way within a relatively 

short period following construction. Overall, construction in this area would not result in a substantial 

adverse effect on a scenic area or vista, substantially damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade 

the existing visual character or quality of the area or its surroundings. For these reasons, impacts on 

visual resources along this segment of the IID Lateral would be less than significant. 

MPs 7.9 to 27.6 – The landscapes that would be crossed by the IID Lateral through this area 

include desert environments adjacent to or within manmade features such as Evan Hewes Highway and 

other Imperial County roadways as well as electric transmission lines. In the desert landscape 

environment of this route segment, a low degree of visual impact would occur initially and would be 

further reduced over time. Visibility resulting from the contrast in soil color and vegetative pattern 

between the right-of-way and adjacent areas would be partially offset by limited viewing afforded by 

areas with flat to low relief and views that include existing manmade features. Over time, the contrast 

would diminish and the visual effect of the installed pipeline would be minimal. 

The BLM lands along this segment of the route include VRM class II. The degree of contrast 

with the characteristic landscape that would result from the IID Lateral would be consistent with the 

visual management objectives of this class. Changes in form, line, color, and texture would be reduced 

where the route would be adjacent to other linear facilities. Overall, construction in this area would not 

result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic area or vista, substantially damage scenic resources, or 

substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area or its surroundings. For these 

reasons, impacts on visual resources along this segment of the IID Lateral would be less than significant. 

MPs 27.6 to 45.7 – This portion of the IID Lateral comprises flat terrain with a mix of agricultural 

and rural residential landscapes on both sides of several Imperial County roadways. Agricultural 

operations in these areas would resume following construction. Construction activity would be a shortterm visual intrusion to residents along the roadways. There would be no long-term impact on visual 

resources in this area because little or no vegetation clearing would be required where the lateral would be 

installed within the road rights-of-way. 

Lands within this route segment in the CDCA are not managed by the BLM and do not have a 

VRM classification. Therefore, construction of this segment of the IID Lateral would not cause an 

inconsistency with an adopted VRM Plan. Construction in this area would also not result in a substantial 

adverse effect on a scenic area or vista, substantially damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade 

the existing visual character or quality of the area or its surroundings. As a result, impacts on visual 

resources along this segment of the IID Lateral would be less than significant. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-160 

Aboveground Facilities 

The area near the Ehrenberg Compressor Station has a mix of industrial and rural landscape 

characteristics. During modifications at the station, the presence of construction workers and equipment 

in the Project area would be a minor detraction. All modifications at the facility would be at or near 

ground level and would be visually unobtrusive. Because the facility is not on BLM land, it does not 

have a VRM classification. 

Rannells Trap is within an open scrub-shrub desert landscape near the boundary of the 

agricultural area of the Palo Verde Valley to the east. The facility would be expanded by 0.3 acre to 

accommodate the new pig launcher and receiver. The land for this facility is not managed by the BLM 

and does not have a VRM classification. 

The existing Ogilby Meter Station is on flat terrain within an open scrub-shrub desert landscape. 

This site is on land managed by the BLM and has a VRM designation of class II. The modifications and 

additional pig launcher and receiver at the Ogilby Meter Station would require an expansion of the facility 

by 0.2 acre for both construction and operation. The modified structure would be visible to travelers on 

Interstate 8 but it would be seen in the context of the existing facility as well as other manmade structures 

such as electric transmission lines. The degree of contrast would not attract attention and would be 

consistent with the visual management objectives for VRM class II areas. 

Four new valves associated with the B-Line would be collocated with existing valves along the 

A-Line. No new permanent right-of-way would be required for these valves, except for valve #2 along 

18th Avenue. This valve would require a 12-foot by 24-foot expansion of the existing fenced site. The 

land for this expanded valve is not managed by the BLM and does not have a VRM classification. The 

other five valves would be within the sites of the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, Rannells Trap, and 

Ogilby Meter Station and would not result in any additional impacts on visual resources. 

The Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver would be constructed in the existing utility 

yard associated with SoCalGas’ Blythe Compressor Station. Its appearance would be consistent with the 

existing character of the area and would result in only a minor change in the visual landscape. The pig 

launcher and portions of the valves would be the only aboveground structures at the site in the northeast 

corner of the intersection of 18th Avenue and Arrowhead Boulevard at the beginning of the Arrowhead 

Extension. The pig launcher would extend approximately 6 to 8 feet above the surface, the valve stem 

operator would be 5 feet in height, and a blowdown silencer would be about 6 to 8 feet in height. The 

land for these facilities is not managed by the BLM and does not have a VRM classification. 

The tap at the B-Line and pig launcher for the IID Lateral would require an 80-foot by 100-foot 

site for construction and operation. The land for this facility is managed by the BLM and has a VRM 

classification of II. The degree of change associated with this facility would be consistent with the visual 

management objectives of this class. 

The proposed El Centro Meter Station and pig receiver would be installed within the existing 

fenceline of the El Centro Power Generating Station. Its appearance would be consistent with the existing 

character of the area and would result in only a minor change in the visual landscape. Because the facility 

is not on BLM land, it does not have a VRM classification. 

One of the four new valves associated with the IID Lateral would be collocated with the tap at the 

B-Line and pig launcher as discussed above. The three remaining valves along the IID Lateral would 

each require 10-foot by 25-foot fenced sites within North Baja’s permanent right-of-way. The valves at 

MPs 7.6 and 27.2 would be on BLM land with a VRM classification of II. The degree of change 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-161 

associated with these facilities would be consistent with the visual management objectives of this class. 

The valve at MP 38.7 would not be on land managed by the BLM and does not have a VRM 

classification. 

Construction of the new aboveground facilities would have a permanent impact on visual 

resources. Modifications at the existing aboveground facilities would result in an incremental increase in 

impacts on visual resources but would generally be minor because of the presence of the existing 

facilities. Overall, for those facilities on BLM land, the degree of contrast with the characteristic 

landscape resulting from each of the facilities would be consistent with the visual management objectives 

of the affected classes. In addition, North Baja would paint the new or additional facilities so they would 

blend with the surrounding landscape. Construction of these facilities would not result in a substantial 

adverse effect on a scenic area or vista, substantially damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade 

the existing visual character or quality of the area or its surroundings. 

Security lighting at the aboveground facilities would be low sodium vapor light that would be 

angled toward the interior of the station. Some small floodlights would be used at the sites but they 

would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime 

views in the area. 

For these reasons, impacts on visual resources associated with the aboveground facilities would 

be less than significant. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

With the possible exception of minor grading activities and surfacing, soils at the pipe storage and 

contractor yards would not be disturbed. As a result, there would be no permanent impacts on visual 

resources associated with the use of these yards. 

Access Roads 

North Baja proposes to use several existing roads for temporary right-of-way access during 

construction. These access roads are primarily paved or dirt roads and/or jeep trails that would be graded 

or otherwise improved as needed to move equipment and materials to the construction right-of-way. 

Because these are existing roads, these activities would not result in significant impacts on visual 

resources. 

Approximately 485 feet of new temporary access roads would be required for the Project, of 

which about 60 feet would be retained as permanent access to the proposed Blythe-Arrowhead Meter 

Station at the end of the Arrowhead Extension and 160 feet would be retained as permanent access to the 

proposed tap at the B-Line and pig launcher at the beginning of the IID Lateral. A permanent access road 

would also be required to proposed valve #2 at MP 7.6 of the IID Lateral but North Baja would utilize 

existing roads with some modification and would not need to construct a new road. The land associated 

with the new permanent access road to the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station is not managed by the BLM 

and does not have a VRM classification. The land associated with the new permanent access road to the 

proposed tap at the B-Line and pig launcher at the beginning of the IID Lateral is managed by the BLM 

and has a VRM classification of II. The degree of change associated with this new road would be 

consistent with the visual management objectives of this class. Overall, no significant impacts on visual 

resources associated with these access roads are anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-162 

4.8.8 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on land use identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-163 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The socioeconomic study area considered for this analysis includes La Paz County, Arizona, and 

Riverside and Imperial Counties, California. Socioeconomic information is presented based on countylevel census data for La Paz and Imperial Counties. With the exception of tax revenues, information for 

Riverside County is based on data from Congressional District 45, which encompasses the eastern portion 

of the county. Because the western portion of the county is more densely populated, data from 

Congressional District 45 are more reflective of the Project area than data from all of Riverside County. 

4.9.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse socioeconomic impact would be considered significant and would require mitigation 

if Project construction or operation would: 

• cause a permanent population increase of 3 percent or more in a county affected by the 

Project; 

• cause the vacancy rate for temporary housing to fall to less than 5 percent; or 

• increase the short- or long-term demand for public services in excess of existing and 

projected capacities. 

4.9.2 Population, Economy, and Employment 

All three counties are sparsely populated in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Within the study 

area, Congressional District 45 (within Riverside County) has the highest population and density; 

however, this is due to the significantly higher population density in the western half of the district. Table 

4.9.2-1 provides a summary of selected demographic and socioeconomic statistics for Arizona and 

California and each of the counties where Project facilities are proposed. 

The counties within the study area experienced small to moderate population growth between 

2000 and 2004. The population within La Paz County increased by only 0.9 percent, which is 

significantly lower than the 12.0 percent population increase for the State of Arizona. Within California, 

Imperial County experienced population growth of 7.1 percent and Riverside County (Congressional 

District 45) experienced population growth of 14.7 percent. Both of these growth rates are higher than 

the overall growth rate for the State of California (6.0 percent). 

Table 4.9.2-2 identifies the anticipated workforce and construction schedule for the facilities 

associated with the Project. Due to the specialized nature of pipeline construction, North Baja expects to 

hire most construction personnel from outside the study area. Based on the brief construction period, and 

the small number of workers who brought their families during construction of the A-Line, North Baja 

anticipates that most non-local construction workers would not be accompanied by their families. North 

Baja estimates that the peak workforce would be between 300 and 400 workers during construction of the 

B-Line in late 2009. During this phase of construction, 240 to 320 workers are expected to temporarily 

relocate to the Project area. Based on the current population size within the study area, and the relatively 

small number of construction workers who would temporarily relocate to the area, impacts on the 

population numbers in the Project area would be minor and short term. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-164 

TABLE 4.9.2-1 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Study Area

Population 

Population 

Density a Per Capita Income 

State/County 2000 2004 

Percent 

Change 2000 2004 1999 2003 

Civilian Labor 

Force 

2004 

Unemployment 

Rate (percent)

2004 

Top Two 

Arizona 5,130,632 5,743,834 12.0 45.1 50.5 $20,275 $27,232 2,762,612 5.0 1. Educational, 

2. Retail Trade 

La Paz 19,715 19,898 0.9 4.4 4.4 $14,916 $18,653 7,500 6.7 1. Arts, entertain

accommodati

2. Educational, 

California 33,871,648 35,893,799 6.0 217.2 230.1 $22,711 $33,415 17,522,300 6.2 1. Educational, 

2. Manufacturing 

Riverside b 639,088 732,855 14.7 106.9 122.6 $19,423 $22,201 323,918 5.8 1. Educational, 

2. Retail trade 

Imperial 142,361 152,448 7.1 34.1 36.5 $13,239 $20,674 59,900 17.1 1. Educational, 

2. Retail Trade 

____________________ 

a Persons per square mile based on population and land area: Arizona (113,642.2 square miles), La Paz County (4,518 square miles), California 

Riverside County (Congressional District 45 - 5,979.9 square miles), and Imperial County (4,175.1 square miles). 

b Represents Congressional District 45, which encompasses the Project area in the eastern portion of Riverside County. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, State and County Quickfacts, Estimates for 2004. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, Fast Facts for Congress, Estimates for 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, California Congressional Districts by Urban and Rural Population and Land Area. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts for 2003. Employment Development Department 2005. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-165 

TABLE 4.9.2-2 

Anticipated Construction Workforce for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Anticipated Workforce 

Facility 

Approximate 

Mileposts Time Period 

Construction 

Duration Local Non-local County/State 

Arrowhead 

Extension, 

BlytheArrowhead 

Meter Station, 

Aboveground 

Facility 

Modifications 

Various 2007 2 to 4 months 10 40 La Paz, AZ 

Riverside, CA 

Imperial, CA 

B-Line 0.5 to 79.8 Late 2009 4 to 6 months 60 to 80 240 to 320 Riverside, CA 

Imperial, CA 

IID Lateral 0.0 to 13.7 

13.7 to 45.7 

Summer/Fall 2008 

Late 2008/early 2009 

2 to 3 months 

3 to 4 months 

20 to 30 

20 to 30 

80 to 120 

80 to 120 

Imperial, CA 

Imperial, CA 

Because North Baja currently operates an existing pipeline system in the Project area, no 

additional permanent employees would be required. Personnel from North Baja’s existing staff would 

assume operation and maintenance of the new facilities as part of their existing routine workload. 

Therefore, the Project would not cause a permanent population increase in any of the affected counties. 

Annual per capita income in 2003 (estimated) was lower in all three counties that would be 

affected by the proposed Project than the respective State averages ($27,232 in Arizona and $33,415 in 

California), ranging from $18,653 in La Paz County to $22,201 in Riverside County (Congressional 

District 45). Educational, health, and social services rank as the largest employment industries in both 

Arizona and California and in two of the three affected counties (see Table 4.9.2-1). In La Paz County, 

accommodations and food services are the top industries by employment, reflecting the importance and 

impact of tourism relative to other economic sectors in that county. 

Unemployment rates in the three counties affected by the Project ranged from 5.8 percent in 

Riverside County to 17.1 percent in Imperial County. North Baja anticipates that up to 80 local workers 

would be employed during the peak construction period of the Project (construction of the B-Line). 

Given the relatively high unemployment rates in the study area, sufficient numbers of local workers are 

expected to be available for construction of the Project. 

During the three phases of construction (see Table 4.9.2-2), North Baja estimates that the total 

Project payroll would be about $50,000,000, a portion of which would be spent locally for the purchase of 

housing, food, gasoline, and entertainment. These direct payroll expenditures would have a beneficial 

impact on local economies. 

4.9.3 Housing 

Housing characteristics within the study area are presented in Tables 4.9.3-1 and 4.9.3-2. Table 

4.9.3-1 presents an overview of the total housing units, including owner- and renter-occupied units, 

median value and monthly rental rates, and vacancy rates in the study area. Table 4.9.3-2 lists the number 

of units available for temporary use. All three counties have lower median rents and higher rental 

vacancy rates than their respective State averages. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-166 

TABLE 4.9.3-1 

2000 Housing Characteristics in the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Study Area

State/County 

Total 

Housing 

Units 

Owner 

Occupied 

(percent) 

Renter 

Occupied 

(percent) 

Median 

Value, 

Owner 

Occupied 

Units 

Median 

Gross 

Monthly 

Rent 

Owner 

Vacancy 

Rate 

(percent) 

Rental 

Vacancy 

Rate 

(percent) 

Arizona 2,189,189 68 32 $121,3000 $619 2.1 9.2 

La Paz 15,133 78 22 $86,500 $442 3.7 14.8 

California 12,214,549 56.9 43.1 $211,500 $747 1.4 3.7 

Riverside a 278,037 69.2 30.8 $138,400 $644 3.0 9.0 

Imperial 43,891 58.3 41.7 $100,000 $504 1.4 4.9 

____________________ 

a

 Represents Congressional District 45, which encompasses the Project area in the eastern portion of Riverside County. 

Source: U.S. Department of Congress, Bureau of the Census 2000 State and County Quickfacts. 

TABLE 4.9.3-2 

2000 Temporary Housing Characteristics in the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Study Area

State/County Units for Rent 

Vacant for Seasonal, 

Recreational, or Occasional 

Use 

Vacant for Migrant 

Workers Other Vacant 

Arizona 61,781 141,965 636 43,026 

La Paz 320 5,237 31 856 

California 190,321 236,857 2,205 139,253 

Riverside a 3,054 2,865 2 1,019 

Imperial 842 2,081 38 997 

____________________ 

a

 Represents Congressional District 45, which encompasses the Project area in the eastern portion of Riverside County. 

Source: U.S. Department of Congress, Bureau of the Census 2000, Vacant Housing Units. 

Temporary housing availability varies seasonally and geographically within the counties and the 

few communities crossed by the proposed pipeline facilities. Temporary housing is least available during 

the winter, when residents of northern states come to take advantage of the warmer weather. There is less 

demand for temporary housing during the hot summer months. Reflecting the importance of tourism in 

La Paz County, there are nearly twice as many units available for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 

than in either Riverside or Imperial Counties. 

In the study area, temporary housing is available in the form of apartments as well as daily, 

weekly, and monthly rentals in motels, hotels, campgrounds, and rooming houses. The Quartzsite area 

east of Ehrenberg, Arizona, for example, has more than 50 recreational vehicle (RV) and mobile home 

parks that help accommodate more than 1 million visitors each year (Quartzsite Chamber of Commerce 

2004). Additionally, temporary housing is available in Yuma, Arizona, which lies about 10 miles 

southeast of the terminus of the B-Line in Yuma County, Arizona. 

Construction of the Project could affect the availability of temporary housing in the Project area. 

However, because the construction periods for the proposed phases of the Project are relatively short, and 

because most non-local workers are expected to come alone without their families due to the temporary 

nature of the relocations, most workers are likely to use hotels, motels, apartments, and campgrounds 

within commuting distance of the Project area. Non-local workers should be able to locate temporary 

housing in the Blythe area; in the campgrounds and RV parks east of Ehrenberg; or near Yuma. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-167 

Assuming that local construction workers do not require housing, up to 320 housing units may be 

required for the non-local workers. Previous pipeline experience, including construction of the A-Line in 

2002, suggests that non-local workers typically select a variety of temporary housing accommodations, 

with approximately 30 percent providing their own housing units (i.e., travel trailers or RV campers). 

Given the vacancy rates in the area and the number of seasonal, recreational, or occasional use units 

available, construction crews should not encounter difficulty in finding temporary housing and would not 

cause the vacancy rate for temporary housing to fall to less than 5 percent in La Paz or Riverside 

Counties. Although the vacancy rate for temporary housing in Imperial County is currently about 5 

percent, this rate is unlikely to change due to construction. Based on previous experience during 

construction of the A-Line, most non-local workers temporarily relocating to the southern portion of the 

Project area would likely find housing near Yuma. In addition, construction of the portion of the IID 

Lateral that would cross the ISDRA would occur during the summer, when the availability of temporary 

housing is at its highest. Therefore, construction of the Project would not significantly affect the Imperial 

County vacancy rate. As a result, impacts on housing associated with the proposed Project would be less 

than significant. 

4.9.4 Public Services 

A wide range of public services and facilities are offered in Ehrenberg and Yuma, Arizona (at the 

origin of the proposed B-Line and about 10 miles southeast of the terminus of the B-Line, respectively) 

and in Blythe and El Centro, California (near MP 5.0 of the proposed B-Line and at the western terminus 

of the proposed IID Lateral, respectively). Available services and facilities include emergency services 

(e.g., full-service law enforcement, fire departments, emergency response services, and hospitals), utilities 

and public service systems (e.g., water and sewer services), solid waste disposal, and schools. Public 

services potentially affected by the Project are discussed below. 

Emergency Services 

Emergency services for the Project would be provided by a combination of State, county, and 

local departments. In the area near the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, emergency fire and medical 

services are provided by the Ehrenberg Fire Department, which is currently finishing an expansion to 

include a new 12,000 square foot facility. Ambulance service is dispatched from Quartzsite, Arizona with 

dispatch services provided by the La Paz County Sheriff’s Department (La Paz County Sheriff’s 

Department 2004). In portions of Riverside County and northern Imperial County, emergency services 

are provided by the Blythe Police and Fire Departments. In areas of Riverside County that do not have a 

city fire department, fire and medical emergency services are provided primarily by the California 

Department of Forestry. In Imperial County, the Imperial County Fire Department provides fire and 

medical emergency services. The Winterhaven Fire Protection District is the closest emergency response 

agency to North Baja’s existing A-Line; however, emergency personnel and vehicles can be dispatched 

from El Centro, Palo Verde, Brawley, Holtville, or a number of other locations within Imperial County 

depending on the nature and exact location of the emergency. Services can be dispatched through the 

sheriff’s office, California Highway Patrol, El Centro Police Department, or other entities depending upon 

where the emergency call originates (Capitol Impact 2005). In comments on the draft EIS/EIR, both the 

Ehrenberg Fire Department and Winterhaven Fire Protection District expressed support for the proposed 

Project. 

Because the non-local workforce would be small relative to the current population, construction 

of the pipeline facilities would result in minor, temporary, or no impact on local community facilities and 

services such as police, fire, and medical services. Local communities have adequate infrastructure and 

community services to meet the needs of the non-local workers that would be required for the Project. 

Other construction-related demands on local agencies could include increased enforcement activities 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-168 

associated with issuing permits for vehicle load and width limits, local police assistance during 

construction at road crossings to facilitate traffic flow, and emergency medical services to treat injuries 

resulting from construction accidents. North Baja would work with local firefighters and other 

emergency responders to coordinate activities for effective emergency response and would develop an 

Emergency Response Plan (see Section 4.14.2). As part of the Emergency Response Plan, North Baja 

would establish and maintain communications with local fire, police, and public officials and would make 

personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency. The degree of impact 

on public services would vary from community to community depending on the number of non-local 

workers (and accompanying family members, if any, as previously indicated) that temporarily reside in 

each community, how long they stay, and the size of the community. Although these factors are too 

variable to accurately predict the severity of the impact, the effects would be short term and would not be 

in excess of existing and projected capabilities and are therefore not significant. 

Utilities and Public Service Systems 

During construction, the Project would require the temporary use of water for hydrostatic testing 

of the pipelines, but the water would not be permanently removed from the supply system. North Baja 

would also withdraw water for dust control during construction. This water would be procured from 

irrigation districts, North Baja’s own water sources, or other local water purveyors (see Section 4.3.4). 

The Project has no wastewater treatment requirements and would not require construction of new or 

expanded wastewater facilities, or stormwater drainage facilities that could cause significant 

environmental effects. 

North Baja would consult with the local governments as well as the Underground Service Alert of 

Southern California before construction to establish the precise locations of underground utilities along 

the proposed pipeline and lateral routes. All water delivery systems, water wells, water lines, and 

underground utilities would be clearly marked and would be avoided during construction; however, if 

these facilities are encountered, the required separations would be maintained by North Baja. In the event 

that any of these facilities are inadvertently affected during construction, North Baja would immediately 

notify the utility operator so that repairs could be made promptly. 

Operation of the Project would have no additional permanent water supply needs and would not 

require the construction or expansion of wastewater or stormwater facilities. North Baja would comply 

with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to wastewater and stormwater. 

Because the Project would not increase the short- or long-term demand for these services in 

excess of existing and projected capabilities, any impacts associated with these facilities would be less 

than significant. 

Solid Waste 

Construction of the Project would generate modest amounts of solid waste (e.g., food containers, 

packaging, and construction scraps) over a relatively short period of time. Existing disposal services and 

landfills in the Project area include Imperial County Sanitation in Imperial; Palo Verde Valley Disposal 

Service in Blythe; and Suburban Sanitation Services and the South Yuma County Landfill in Yuma. 

These facilities would be able to accommodate the solid waste generated by the Project. Operation of the 

Project would not require any additional employees and would not result in the construction or expansion 

of any landfills. North Baja would comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations 

related to solid waste disposal. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-169 

Schools 

Comments were received during the scoping process regarding the proximity of the proposed 

facilities to school property and potential impacts on school bus routes. The Palo Verde Unified School 

District, El Centro Elementary School District, and Holtville Unified School District serve students in the 

Project area. The closest school to the proposed Project is Meadows Elementary School, which is more 

than 0.75 mile west of the terminus of the IID Lateral in El Centro. No potentially significant impacts on 

this school are anticipated from either construction or operation of the proposed Project. 

Potential impacts on school bus routes could occur during construction of the proposed Project. 

The Palo Verde Unified School District manages school bus routes in Blythe that travel along 18th 

Avenue. In addition, bus routes cross 18th Avenue at the intersections of Intake Boulevard, South C & D 

Canal Boulevard, South Broadway, DeFrain Boulevard, Arrowhead Boulevard, Neighbors Boulevard, 

and Keim Boulevard. During construction, bus traffic may be slightly disrupted in the same manner as 

other traffic; however, access by school buses would not be precluded. Potential impacts on traffic as a 

result of the proposed Project are discussed in detail in Section 4.10. 

Because most of the non-local workers are expected to come alone without their families during 

the construction period and because no additional permanent employees would be required during 

operation of the proposed facilities, the Project would not result in any increases in demand for schoolrelated services. 

4.9.5 Property Values 

Comments were received during the scoping process regarding the impacts of the proposed 

Project on property values. North Baja currently maintains easements to operate its A-Line. Placement 

of the B-Line adjacent to the existing A-Line should not change or affect the value of a property. Because 

the B-Line would be entirely within North Baja’s existing easement, North Baja would not need to 

acquire new permanent easements or property to operate this facility. North Baja would, however, need 

to acquire temporary easements or property to construct the proposed facilities. North Baja would also 

need to acquire the applicable easements for the Arrowhead Extension and the IID Lateral. The easement 

acquisition process is described in Section 4.8.2. 

The effect that a pipeline easement may have on property value is a damage-related issue that 

would be negotiated between the landowner and North Baja during the easement acquisition process. The 

easement acquisition process is designed to provide fair compensation to the landowner for the right to 

use the property for pipeline construction and operation. Appraisal methods used to value land are based 

on objective characteristics of the property and any improvements. The impact a pipeline may have on 

the value of a tract of land depends on many factors, including the size of the tract, the values of adjacent 

properties, the presence of other utilities, the current value of the land, and the current land use. 

Subjective valuation is generally not considered in appraisals. This is not to say that the pipeline would 

not affect resale values. A potential purchaser of property may make a decision to purchase land based on 

his or her planned use, such as agricultural, future subdivision, or second home on the property in 

question. If the presence of a pipeline renders the planned use unfeasible, it is possible that a potential 

purchaser would decide not to purchase the property. However, each potential purchaser has different 

criteria and differing capabilities to purchase land. 

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) conducted a national case study to 

determine if the presence of a pipeline on a piece of property affected the property value or sale price of 

the property. The INGAA Foundation Natural Gas Pipeline Impact Study (2001) found that there was not 

a significant impact on the sale price of properties along natural gas pipelines. The study further 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-170 

concluded that neither the size of the pipeline (diameter) nor the product carried by a pipeline has any 

significant impact on sale price. 

Property taxes for a piece of property are generally based on the actual use of the land. 

Construction of the pipeline would not change the general use of the land, but would preclude 

construction of aboveground structures on the permanent right-of-way. If a landowner believes that the 

presence of a pipeline easement reduces the value of his or her land, resulting in an overpayment of 

property taxes, he or she may appeal the issue of the assessment and subsequent property taxation to the 

local property tax agency. This is the proper forum for this issue to be addressed. 

Comments were received during the scoping process that installation of the pipeline adjacent to 

Parker Road in El Centro would have a negative impact on income from rental property. The effect that 

construction may have on income derived from rental property is a damage-related issue and should be 

negotiated between the parties during the easement acquisition process. This negotiation is outside of the 

scope of this EIS/EIR. 

4.9.6 Tax Revenues 

Construction and operation of the Project would have a beneficial impact on local tax revenue, 

based on the tax revenue projections contained in Tables 4.9.6-1 and 4.9.6-2. Revenue from sales tax 

would be greater during construction due to the temporary influx of workers to the area. The increase in 

property tax revenue, about $3.4 million annually, would be generated throughout the life of the Project. 

TABLE 4.9.6-1 

Estimated Property Tax Payments for Facilities Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility Location 

Estimated Annual Tax 

Payment 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station Modifications, El Paso Meter 

Station Modifications, and B-Line 

La Paz County, Arizona $145,000 

B-Line, Arrowhead Extension, and Blythe-Arrowhead Meter 

Station 

Riverside County, California $786,000 

B-Line, Ogilby Meter Station Modifications, IID Lateral, and El 

Centro Meter Station 

Imperial County, California $2,512,000 

Project Total $3,443,000 

TABLE 4.9.6-2 

Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Generated by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

 Project Total 

La Paz County, 

Arizona 

Riverside County, 

California 

Imperial County, 

California 

Payroll $50,000,000 NA NA NA 

Percent of total income spent for taxable sales 38.8 NA NA NA 

Income spent for taxable sales $19,400,000 NA NA NA 

Percent spent in each county -- 5% 55% 40% 

Income spent for taxable sales by county -- $970,000 $10,670,000 $7,760,000 

Tax rate - State jurisdiction -- 5.6% 6.25% 6.25% 

Tax rate - county/city jurisdiction -- 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 

Sales tax to State -- $54,320 $666,875 $485,000 

Sales tax to county/city -- $9,700 $160,050 $116,400 

______________ 

Source: California State Board of Equalization 2005. 

 Arizona Department of Revenue 2006. 

NA = Not Available. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-171 

As discussed in Section 4.9.2, North Baja estimates that the total Project payroll would amount to 

about $50,000,000. Of this total, North Baja anticipates that about 40 percent would be spent for taxable 

sales (see Table 4.9.6-2). Sales taxes in the counties affected by the Project in Arizona and California are 

6.6 percent and 7.75 percent, respectively. The majority of this amount (5.6 percent in Arizona and 6.25 

percent in California) would go to the State. The remainder (1.0 percent in Arizona and 1.5 percent in 

California) would go to the county and local governments, resulting in annual sales tax revenues of 

$9,700 to La Paz County, $160,050 to Riverside County, and $116,400 to Imperial County. 

4.9.7 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential socioeconomic impacts identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-172 

4.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 

The local road and highway system in the vicinity of the Project facilities is well developed. The 

principal north/south roadways are SRs 78 and 111, and the principal west/east roadways are Interstates 8 

and 10. Most local public roads in the vicinity of the proposed Project are paved. There is also rail 

service in the Project area. Construction of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project could affect 

transportation and traffic during construction across and within roadways and railroads and due to 

increased vehicle traffic associated with the commuting of the construction workforce to the Project area 

as well as the movement of construction vehicles and delivery of equipment and materials to the 

construction work area. 

4.10.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on transportation and traffic would be considered significant and would 

require mitigation if Project construction or operation would: 

• result in a short- or long-term decrease in the level of service of a roadway; 

• cause the closure of an arterial or collector roadway for more than 48 hours 

consecutively; 

• prevent movement of emergency vehicles; 

• conflict with planned transportation projects or adopted public transportation policies; 

• create noticeable deterioration of local roadway surfaces; or 

• create a safety hazard for vehicles, pedestrians, or rail operations. 

4.10.2 Construction Across and Within Roadways and Railroads 

Construction across roads and highways would result in short-term impacts on public 

transportation while construction activities pass through the Project area. Table 4.10.2-1 lists the named 

roads and highways that would be crossed by the proposed Project, as well as North Baja’s proposed 

construction method. 

North Baja would apply for the permits necessary for road crossings and would comply with all 

permit stipulations. The railroad crossings would be bored. Boring typically requires temporary extra 

workspace on both sides of the crossing for excavating bore pits to the depth of the pipeline. The bore 

pits are typically just outside of the road or railroad right-of-way limits; however, site-specific conditions, 

such as the presence of structures or waterbodies, may require the bore pits and temporary extra 

workspace to be moved within the road right-of-way. In some cases, 24-hour operations are required 

during difficult boring operations where ground conditions and ambient daytime temperatures contribute 

to overheating of the equipment and operators. Roadways and railroads crossed using the bore 

construction method typically remain open so that construction would not prevent the movement of 

emergency vehicles. Overall, there would be little or no disruption to traffic at road or railroad crossings 

that are bored. Bored crossings would also minimize the potential for safety hazards for vehicles and rail 

operations. No work would occur within the road or railroad rights-of-way unless expressly permitted by 

the applicable agency. As a result, impacts on roads and railroads that would be crossed using the bore 

construction method would be less than significant. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-173 

TABLE 4.10.2-1 

Named Roads Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility/Location Milepost Road Name Proposed Crossing Method 

B-Line 

La Paz County, Arizona - None Crossed - 

Riverside County, California 0.4 Riviera Drive HDD 

 3.4 Intake Boulevard Open cut 

 4.0 Jones Road Open cut 

 4.4 C & D Boulevard Bore 

 4.9 South Broadway Road Open cut 

 5.4 Lovekin Boulevard Bore 

 5.4 Arizona – California Railroad Bore 

 6.5 DeFrain Boulevard Open cut 

 7.4 Arrowhead Boulevard Open cut 

 8.5 State Route 78 Bore 

 9.5 Stephenson Boulevard Open cut 

 10.5 Keim Road Bore 

 11.5 Rannells Road Open cut 

Imperial County, California 25.6 Old Palo Verde Road Open cut 

 28.2 State Route 78 Bore 

 31.4 Old Mitchell’s Camp Road Open cut 

 33.1 Three Slashes Road Open cut 

 35.0 Walters Camp Road Open cut 

 49.0 Black Mountain Road Open cut 

 55.0 Ogilby Road 

(County Highway S34) 

Bore 

 66.4 Gold Rock Ranch Road Open cut 

 70.9 Ted Kipf Road Open cut 

 71.0 American Girl Mine Road Open cut 

 71.4 Union Pacific Railroad Bore 

 74.5 Ogilby Road 

(County Highway S34) 

Bore 

 75.0 Center of the World Drive Bore 

 75.1 Interstate 8 Bore 

Arrowhead Extension 

Riverside County, California 

1.0 Seeley (16th) Avenue Bore 

1.5 Arrowhead Boulevard Bore 

2.0 14th Avenue Bore 

IID Lateral 

Imperial County, California 2.4 Interstate 8 HDD 

 3.5 Grays Well Road Open cut 

 4.4 Grays Well Road Open cut 

 5.6 Grays Well Road Open cut 

 5.7 Interstate 8 Bore 

 8.5 Gordons Well Road Open cut 

 13.1 Brock Research Road Bore 

 13.6 Evan Hewes Highway Open cut 

 26.0 Evan Hewes Highway Open cut 

 27.3 Interstate 8 Bore 

 28.5 Vanderlinden Road Open cut 

 29.5 Miller Road 

(County Highway S33) 

Bore 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-174 

TABLE 4.10.2-1 (cont’d) 

Named Roads Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility/Location Milepost Road Name Proposed Crossing Method 

 30.5 Enz Road Open cut 

 31.5 Bonds Corner Road Bore 

 32.0 Schali Road Open cut 

 33.2 Towland Road Open cut 

 34.2 State Route 7 

(Holtville Orchard Road) 

Bore 

 34.9 Mets Road Open cut 

 35.9 Anderholt Road Open cut 

 36.9 Barbara Worth Road Open cut 

 37.9 Meloland Road Open cut 

 27.4 Holdridge Road Open cut 

 39.1 Interstate 8 Bore 

 40.4 Bowker Road/East Ross 

Road 

Bore 

 41.7 East Hamilton Road Open cut 

 42.2 East Gillette Road Open cut 

 42.9 East Evan Hughes Road Bore 

 43.4 State Route 111 Bore 

 44.7 Cooley Road Open cut 

 45.6 North Dogwood Road 

(County Highway S31) 

Bore 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-175 

Most smaller, unpaved roads and driveways would be open cut where permitted by local 

authorities or landowners. North Baja would implement several mitigation measures at open-cut 

crossings to ensure safety and to minimize traffic disruptions. For example, no roads would be closed 

unless adequate detours are provided. If a detour is required, traffic would be rerouted to another nearby 

road. This would not result in a significant change in the level of service of Project-area roadways (see 

Section 4.10.3). If no reasonable detour is feasible, North Baja would leave at least one lane of traffic 

open. Where Project construction crosses roads necessary for access to private residences and no 

alternative entrance exists, North Baja would implement measures (e.g., plating over the open portion of 

the trench) to maintain passage for landowners and emergency vehicles. Most open-cut crossings would 

be completed and the road resurfaced in 1 or 2 days; therefore, construction would not cause the closure 

of a roadway for more than 48 hours consecutively. 

During the scoping process, comments were received regarding the potential for future settling of 

roads that would be crossed using the open-cut method. To address these concerns and to further 

minimize the potential for noticeable deterioration of local roadway surfaces, North Baja would prepare 

construction specifications that are designed to avoid settling of the finished grade and would also require 

the contractor to repair any settling, should it occur. If road settlement attributed to pipeline construction 

occurs after the pipeline is in operation, North Baja would make the necessary repairs as required by the 

jurisdictional agency. Implementation of North Baja’s proposed mitigation measures for open-cut road 

crossings would reduce impacts associated with the Project to less than significant levels. 

During the scoping process, the USCIS expressed concern about the ability to maintain access 

across roads used by the Border Patrol. North Baja consulted with the Border Patrol about any concerns 

it may have and the Border Patrol stated that it has not identified any concerns about the Project (Whipple 

2006). 

In addition to the roads crossed, several miles of both the B-Line and IID Lateral as well as the 

Arrowhead Extension would be within or adjacent to roadways (see Table 2.2.1-1). Major roadways 

potentially affected by construction and operation of these facilities include 18th Avenue, Arrowhead 

Boulevard, SR 78, Ogilby Road, Interstate 8, and several Imperial County roadways (e.g., Evan Hewes 

Highway, Hunt Road, and East Ross Road). A discussion of each of these roadways is provided below. 

18th Avenue 

Construction of the B-Line would take place within the road or road shoulder of 18th Avenue for 

about 7.6 miles between MPs 2.9 and 10.5. The B-Line would also be adjacent to the roadway for 

another 0.6 mile between MPs 2.3 and 2.9. Although 18th Avenue is not a heavily traveled roadway, 24 

residences and 2 businesses are along the proposed route. To minimize road closures or periods of 

restricted access, North Baja plans to designate a specialized crew for construction within 18th Avenue. 

This crew would have experience with working in congested areas and would have two major 

components. The first crew would install the pipeline through the major crossings, and the second crew 

would be responsible for the installation of pipeline sections between crossings. Construction would 

advance at an estimated 500 feet per day; however, to expedite completion and thereby minimize the 

duration of inconvenience to residents, construction may occur at numerous locations along 18th Avenue 

simultaneously. Direct construction impacts at any given location are expected to last about 2 to 3 weeks 

(excluding repaving). 

North Baja has developed a Traffic Management Plan for 18th Avenue in consultation with the 

County of Riverside Transportation Department (see Appendix H). The plan identifies traffic control 

measures; traffic signage requirements; construction measures to comply with the CalTrans Traffic 

Manual; construction hours; vehicular, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access provisions; nightly shutDocument Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-176 

down procedures; clearance distance between excavations and vehicular traffic; placement of safety 

fencing; and construction equipment storage. The plan identifies the following mitigation measures to 

minimize traffic-related impacts associated with construction within 18th Avenue: 

• the pipeline would be installed with a minimum of 36 inches of cover and 12 inches of 

separation from other utilities or obstructions. A minimum of 2 feet would be maintained 

under canals and 5 feet over drains; 

• intersections would be bored or trenched (trenched intersections would be steel plated if 

construction does not occur on consecutive days); 

• North Baja would contact each owner and/or tenant of the properties abutting the road to 

explain the construction process and identify any special conditions or concerns that need 

to be incorporated into the construction plans. In addition, these adjacent residents and 

businesses would be notified by hand-delivered flyers 2 weeks before construction. The 

flyers would include the dates of construction, work hours, traffic detours, and contact 

numbers for North Baja and the contractor. Emergency response agencies would also be 

notified of the work schedule; 

• the Underground Service Alert would be notified at least 48 hours before beginning 

work; 

• flag persons would be provided to route traffic around construction equipment and 

obstructions; 

• work would be scheduled during daylight hours unless alternative schedules are 

authorized; 

• access would be maintained to all residences or businesses except during actual trenching 

operations. Steel plates would be available to maintain access to driveways during 

periods when the trench is open; 

• non-local traffic would be detoured around construction activities; 

• one lane of restricted traffic movement would be maintained through the construction 

area. This would allow residences, businesses, and emergency vehicles reasonable access 

during the construction activities; 

• during non-work times, the work area would be secured and patrolled to minimize safety 

hazards associated with open trenches, heavy equipment, and other construction 

operations; and 

• open trenches would be covered or cordoned off during non-working hours. 

The non-local traffic that would be detoured around construction activities would be directed to a 

road parallel and typically only 1 block north or south of 18th Avenue. This would not result in a 

significant change in the level of service of Project-area roadways (see Section 4.10.3). Implementation 

of North Baja’s Traffic Management Plan for 18th Avenue would reduce impacts associated with 

construction of the B-Line to less than significant levels. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-177 

Arrowhead Boulevard 

Between 18th and Seeley Avenues (MPs 0.0 and 1.0), the Arrowhead Extension would be within 

the right-of-way of Arrowhead Boulevard. North Baja would use the same construction methods between 

MPs 0.0 and 1.0 of the Arrowhead Extension as those described above for portions of the proposed BLine within 18th Avenue. North Baja has indicated that it would implement the measures identified in its 

Traffic Management Plan for 18th Avenue (see Appendix H) to also minimize traffic-related impacts 

along Arrowhead Boulevard; however, the Traffic Management Plan for 18th Avenue is not specific to 

Arrowhead Boulevard. Therefore, to ensure that site-specific conditions along Arrowhead Boulevard are 

addressed, the Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan for Arrowhead Boulevard in 

consultation with the County of Riverside Transportation Department to detail the 

specific measures that would be used to control traffic during construction of the 

Arrowhead Extension. North Baja shall file the plan with the FERC and the CSLC 

for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive 

Officer of the CSLC before construction.

Implementation of North Baja’s proposed measures and the Agency Staffs’ recommended Traffic 

Management Plan for Arrowhead Boulevard would reduce impacts associated with construction of the 

Arrowhead Extension to less than significant levels. 

State Route 78 

SR 78 is a two-lane State-maintained facility with wide shoulders. The B-Line would cross SR 

78 in two locations (MPs 8.5 and 28.2). North Baja would bore these two crossings. The B-Line would 

also be adjacent to SR 78 between MPs 30.9 and 31.3 and MPs 37.0 and 47.4 but it would not be within 

the road right-of-way except at the two road crossings. Because these two crossings would be bored, no 

significant impacts on this roadway have been identified. 

Ogilby Road 

Ogilby Road is a two-lane county roadway that connects SR 78 with Interstate 8. Ogilby Road 

would be crossed twice during construction of the B-Line (MPs 55.0 and 74.5). North Baja would bore 

these two crossings. In addition, the B-Line would be adjacent to Ogilby Road between MPs 55.0 and 

61.0 and between MPs 66.8 and 74.5 but it would not be within the road right-of-way except at the two 

road crossings. Because these two crossings would be bored, no significant impacts on this roadway have 

been identified. 

Interstate 8 

Interstate 8 is a major east-west freeway crossing southern Arizona and California. Interstate 8 

would be crossed by the B-Line at MP 75.1 and by the IID Lateral in four locations (MPs 2.4, 5.7, 27.3, 

and 39.1). North Baja would either HDD or bore each of these crossings. The HDD method is described 

in Section 2.3.2. Similar to the bore construction method, the HDD method would result in little or no 

disruption to traffic. As a result, no significant impacts on this roadway have been identified. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-178 

Imperial County Roadways 

Construction of the IID Lateral would occur within several Imperial County roadways (e.g., Evan 

Hewes Highway, Hunt Road, and East Ross Road). To avoid or minimize impacts along these roadways, 

North Baja developed a Traffic Management Plan for Imperial County Roads (see Appendix H). The 

plan identifies the same mitigation measures as discussed above for 18th Avenue. In addition, North Baja 

would install the pipeline in sections and would have a specialized crew designated for construction to 

minimize road closures or periods of restricted access along Imperial County roadways. In contrast to 

construction procedures for 18th Avenue, North Baja would close off 0.5- to 1.0-mile-long sections of 

road and reroute traffic around the area through the use of signs and detours (while maintaining access for 

residents and emergency vehicles). The detours would direct traffic to another nearby roadway and 

would not result in a significant change in the level of service of the roadway. No more than 2 miles of 

work area would be active at any one time, and construction would advance along the roadway at an 

estimated 0.5 mile per day. Excluding any repaving that may be required, direct construction impacts at 

any given location would last no more than 2 to 3 weeks. Implementation of these measures and North 

Baja’s Traffic Management Plan for Imperial County Roads would reduce impacts associated with 

construction of the Project to less than significant levels. 

4.10.3 Increased Vehicle Traffic 

Construction of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would result in temporary increases to 

traffic levels due to the commuting of the construction workforce to the Project area as well as the 

movement of construction vehicles and delivery of equipment and materials to the construction work 

area. Table 4.10.3-1 identifies the average daily traffic counts and the existing level of service of the 

major roadways potentially affected by the Project. As indicated in Table 4.10.3-1, the roadways in the 

Project area have a level of service of A or B. 

Table 4.10.3-2 lists the types of construction vehicles and estimated number of trips associated 

with the Project. North Baja estimates that during peak construction up to 400 people would be working 

along the B-Line. Based on an industry standard of 1.3 people per car, the resulting number of roundtrips 

per day is expected to be about 308. Because pipeline construction work is generally scheduled to take 

advantage of all daylight hours, workers would commute to and from the contractor yards and 

construction right-of-way during off-peak traffic hours (e.g., before 7:00 AM and after 6:00 PM). 

Construction workers would typically meet at the contractor yards and share rides to the construction 

right-of-way, thereby reducing overall traffic. In addition, work would be spread along the length of the 

construction spread, which would reduce the impact on traffic at any one location. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-179 

TABLE 4.10.3-1 

Major Roadways Potentially Affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility/County/Road Mileposts Average Daily Traffic Count Existing Level of Service a

B-Line 

 Riverside 

 18th Avenue 2.3 - 10.5 636 A 

 State Route 78 8.5 1,700 B 

 Imperial 

 State Route 78 28.2 

30.9 - 31.3 

37.0 - 47.4 

1,700 

2,700 

B 

 Ogilby Road 55.0 - 61.0 

66.8 - 74.5 

540 

700 

-- 

A 

 Interstate 8 75.1 12,000 A 

Arrowhead Extension 

Riverside 

 Arrowhead Boulevard 0.0 - 2.1 -- -- 

IID Lateral 

Imperial 

 Interstate 8 2.4, 5.7, 27.3, 39.1 12,000 A 

 Evan Hewes Highway 8.0 - 27.1 1,000 b -- 

 Hunt Road 27.6 - 38.7 -- -- 

 East Ross Road 39.6 - 41.3 5,630 -- 

____________________ 

a

 Level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions in terms of such factors as speed, 

travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort, convenience, and safety. A level of service of A indicates that a roadway 

has little or no delay or congestion. A level of service of B indicates that a roadway has slight congestion or delay. 

b

 Through the City of El Centro, Evan Hewes Highway serves as Adams Avenue (a four-lane facility) and is estimated to 

carry approximately 9,000 vehicles per day; however, most other segments of the highway, including those affected by 

the proposed Project, provide only one travel lane per direction and are estimated to carry approximately 1,000 vehicles 

per day. 

-- Average daily traffic counts and/or level of service have not been established for these roadways. 

Source: California Department of Transportation 2002. 

TABLE 4.10.3-2 

Anticipated Construction Traffic Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Truck Roundtrips Contractor Yard 

Facility 

Duration 

(months) 

Daily Workforce 

Vehicle 

Roundtrips Pipe Stringing 

Daily Other 

Trucks Pipe Materials 

Arrowhead 

Extension, BlytheArrowhead Meter 

Station, 

Aboveground Facility 

Modifications 

2 to 4 38 3 trips daily, 

over 3 weeks 

30 Ripley 

Yard 

18th Avenue 

Yard 

B-Line 4 to 6 308 40 trips daily, 

over 12 to 16 weeks 

100 Ripley 

Yard 

18th Avenue 

Yard 

IID Lateral 2 to 4 115 5 trips daily, 

over 10 to 20 weeks 

70 Ripley 

Yard 

IID Lateral 

Yard 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-180 

In addition to the construction workforce, the delivery of construction equipment and materials to 

the construction work area could temporarily congest existing transportation networks at specific 

locations. The construction equipment would be initially staged at a pipe storage and contractor yard and 

then transported to the construction right-of-way using surfaced streets and approved access roads (see 

Table 4.10.3-2). Once a vehicle leaves the pipe storage or contractor yard, its exact route would vary 

depending on the current location of construction activity. Equipment would be dropped off in one 

location and would then move in a linear direction along the right-of-way. As a result, most equipment 

would be on the pipeline right-of-way and would not affect traffic on local roads after its initial delivery 

to the construction site. Truck traffic associated with pipe hauling during construction of the B-Line 

would have the greatest potential to impact traffic levels. During B-Line construction, pipe in lengths of 

60 to 80 feet would be hauled from the yards by trailer trucks during the daylight hours for an 

approximately 12- to 16-week period. It is estimated that during this period 40 truck loads of pipe would 

travel between the Ripley Contractor Yard and the pipeline route each day. North Baja states that the 

movement of materials and equipment to the construction work area would add as many as 100 truck trips 

per day and that most of these deliveries would occur during early morning and evening hours. 

Overall, the number and frequency of construction vehicle trips would be low on any particular 

roadway at any one time because construction would move sequentially along the Project right-of-way. A 

discussion of impacts on transportation during construction across and within roadways is presented in 

Section 4.10.2. Trips by vehicles that would visit the right-of-way on a regular basis (e.g., pickup trucks, 

crew vehicles) would be distributed along the length of the route as the pipe is installed and construction 

activity progresses to a different part of the right-of-way. Truck traffic associated with transporting pipe 

and other materials to the construction work area could result in temporary detours or obstructions in 

traffic flow due to vehicle size or may require short-term assistance from local police in limited instances. 

However, the Project would not cause an increase in traffic that would be substantial in relation to the 

existing traffic load and capacity. As a result, because most roadways in the Project area currently 

operate at a level of service of A or B, the relatively minor increase in traffic associated with the Project 

would not result in a significant change in the level of service on any roadway. Therefore, impacts 

associated with increased traffic levels during construction of the Project would be less than significant. 

North Baja and its contractors would comply with local road weight limits and restrictions and 

would keep roads free of mud and other debris that may be deposited by construction equipment; 

therefore, the Project would not create a safety hazard for vehicles or pedestrians. Track-driven 

equipment would cross roads on tires or equipment pads to minimize road damage. Because North Baja 

would repair any roadways damaged by construction activities, the Project would not result in noticeable 

deterioration of local roadway surfaces. 

No significant impacts would be expected during operation of the Project because there would be 

only minimal traffic associated with operation and maintenance of the pipelines. Because no new 

permanent employees would be required to operate the facilities, traffic levels during operation would be 

the same as currently experienced for operation of North Baja’s A-Line. 

4.10.4 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-181 

potential impacts on transportation and traffic identified for the construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-182 

4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

4.11.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on cultural resources would be considered significant and would require 

mitigation if Project construction or operation would result in an unresolvable adverse effect on the 

characteristics that contribute to the eligibility of a historic or prehistoric property for listing on the NRHP 

or the CRHR. Adverse effects may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; 

• change in the character of the property’s use or of physical features within a property’s 

setting that contribute to its historic significance (e.g., by isolating the property from its 

setting); and 

• introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

property’s significant historic features. 

4.11.2 Regulatory Requirements 

Federal 

The FERC is responsible for complying with section 106 of the NHPA, which requires Federal 

agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment. The procedures for 

complying with section 106 are outlined in the ACHP’s regulations (Title 36 CFR Part 800). The effects 

of the Project on properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Americans must also 

be considered in accordance with section 101 (d)(6) of the NHPA and the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act. North Baja, as a non-Federal party, is assisting the FERC in meeting its obligations under 

section 106 and the implementing regulations in Title 36 CFR Part 800. In addition, the BLM must 

consider Native American religious and cultural concerns for the portion of the Project crossing Federal 

lands in accordance with the Archaeological Resource Protection Act, the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, and Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007. 

As the lead Federal agency, the FERC is responsible for determining NRHP eligibility and 

Project effects in consultation with the Arizona and California State Historic Preservation Offices 

(SHPOs); the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; and Native American tribes, as applicable. If, 

after completing review, the consulting parties agree that cultural resources found during surveys are 

ineligible for the NRHP, no further consideration of these resources would be required. 

In evaluating cultural resources, several criteria are considered. First, significant cultural 

resources (as defined for Federal undertakings) include those prehistoric and historic sites, districts, 

buildings, structures, and objects, as well as properties with traditional religious or cultural importance to 

Native Americans or other groups, that are listed, or are eligible for listing, on the NRHP (historic 

properties) according to the criteria outlined in Title 36 CFR Part 60.4. Second, cultural resources that do 

not meet the NRHP criteria but may qualify as a unique characteristic of an area are considered under 

NEPA. 

CEQA 

The CSLC is responsible for complying with all provisions of the CEQA covering cultural 

resources, including the CEQA sections 21083.2 and 21084.1, and section 15064.5 of the Guidelines for 

Implementing the CEQA. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-183 

districts, and objects; standing historic structures, buildings, districts, and objects; and locations of 

important historic events or sites of traditional/cultural importance. The State CEQA Guidelines section 

15064.5 indicates a project may have a significant environmental effect if it causes “substantial adverse 

change” in the significance of an historic resource as defined in section 15064.5(a)(1) through (a)(4). 

Under the CEQA, the CSLC is also required to take into account the effect on properties eligible for 

listing on the CRHR or that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in the CEQA section 

21083.2. 

Under the CEQA, archaeological resources are sometimes treated differently than “historical 

resources.” Thus, it is important to first determine whether certain archaeological sites are “historical 

resources” for purposes of the CEQA. An archaeological resource is considered an historic resource if it 

is listed, or determined eligible for listing, on the CRHR, included in a local register of historical 

resources, or identified as significant in an historical resource survey. For archaeological resources that 

are not “historical resources,” it must then be determined if they are “unique” archaeological resources 

according to Public Resources Code 21083.2 (g). The distinction may be important because mitigation 

measures sometimes differ for archaeological and historical resources. 

4.11.3 Cultural Resources Assessment 

North Baja contacted the Arizona and California SHPOs regarding the proposed Project and the 

applicability of previous surveys conducted for the A-Line. On March 20, 2006, the Arizona SHPO 

concurred that the current area of potential effect and previous survey efforts conducted for the A-Line 

are adequate for the proposed Project. The California SHPO indicated that the guidelines regarding 

methods for identifying potential subsurface sites have changed since the A-Line was constructed. The 

SHPO suggested North Baja use the data from the A-Line data recovery and construction monitoring to 

address the potential for buried sites, or alternatively to develop new field methods regarding such sites. 

North Baja addressed these comments in its Evaluation Plan. 

As part of its application, North Baja provided the FERC with its Overview and Survey Report, 

and its Unanticipated Discovery Plan (see Section 4.11.4). The report provided the results of the previous 

A-Line survey and the results of the current surveys of the IID Lateral and the remaining ancillary areas 

associated with the proposed Project. The report was also provided to the CSLC; the BLM; the BOR; the 

FWS, Cibola NWR; and the California SHPO. To date, comments have been received from the BLM, the 

BOR, and the California SHPO. 

North Baja subsequently provided the FERC and the CSLC with Addendum Reports 2 and 3. 

Addendum Report 2 documents the results of surveys of the Arrowhead Alternative (see Section 3.2.5). 

Addendum Report 3 documents the results of a records search for the Corridor L Alternative (see Section 

3.2.3.2). North Baja provided Addendum Report 2 to the California SHPO but did not provide the report 

to the BLM or the BOR because the report is not applicable to Federal lands. Addendum Report 3 has 

been provided to the California SHPO and the BLM and the BLM has provided comments. It is not 

applicable to the BOR. 

North Baja provided its Evaluation Plan to the FERC; the CSLC; the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, 

Cibola NWR; and the California SHPO. The BLM has provided comments on the Evaluation Plan. The 

California SHPO and the FWS have indicated that they will not be commenting. Following completion 

of its evaluations, North Baja provided its draft Evaluation Report to the FERC; the CSLC; the BLM; the 

BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; and certain Native American tribes (see Section 4.11.5). The BLM 

provided comments and the FWS has indicated that it will not be commenting. North Baja subsequently 

provided its revised Evaluation Report to the California SHPO. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-184 

North Baja provided its draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan to the FERC; the CSLC; the 

BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; certain Native American tribes (see Section 4.11.5); and the 

Arizona SHPO. North Baja received comments on the draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan from the 

BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; and the Quechan Indian Tribe and provided its revised Historic 

Properties Treatment Plan to the FERC and the California SHPO. To date, no comments have been 

received on the revised Historic Properties Treatment Plan from the California SHPO. 

B-Line 

North Baja surveyed a 220-foot-wide corridor in 2000 and 2001 for the construction of the ALine, which also covers the construction work area for the proposed B-Line. No cultural resources were 

identified in Arizona. Ninety cultural resources were identified along the B-Line route in California. Of 

these, 25 are historic-period sites (including 1 railroad, 3 transmission lines, 15 canals and other irrigation 

features [including the All-American Canal], debris scatters, and the townsite of Ogilby), 53 are 

prehistoric sites (including lithic and ceramic scatters, trails, rock features, milling, rock art, geoglyphs, 

and cleared circles), and 12 sites include both prehistoric and historic-period components. Subsequent to 

its initial surveys, North Baja completed evaluations at 12 sites to determine their eligibility for listing on 

the NRHP and the CRHR. Based on the initial surveys and evaluations, six cultural resources are 

recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR and no further work is 

recommended. Thirty-four cultural resources have not been evaluated to determine eligibility and 50 sites 

are recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR. Of these, two NRHP-eligible 

cultural resources (Site CA-IMP-7911/H and the All-American Canal) were specifically identified by the 

BOR as important cultural resources. North Baja currently plans to mitigate impacts on Site CA-IMP7911/H by completing data recovery and monitoring the site during construction. North Baja would 

avoid impacts on the All-American Canal by use of the HDD crossing method. In addition, the BOR 

identified several cultural resources that individually may not be eligible for the NRHP, but collectively 

contribute to an archaeological district being proposed by the BOR as part of a separate project that 

partially overlaps the proposed Project. Impacts on the other canals and irrigation features would be 

mitigated by North Baja’s proposal to monitor construction activities. North Baja would mitigate impacts 

on the remaining unevaluated and eligible sites by the use of avoidance measures (including installation 

of exclusion fencing), construction monitors, data recovery, and/or narrowing of the construction right-ofway. These methods are discussed in North Baja’s Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Arrowhead Extension 

North Baja surveyed a 92- to 100-foot-wide corridor along the Arrowhead Extension route on 

Arrowhead Boulevard. Between MPs 0.0 and 1.0, the survey corridor was 92 feet centered over the 

paved road, which included the 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way and 16 feet on each side. A 100-

foot-wide corridor adjacent to and east of the road pavement was surveyed for the portion of the pipeline 

route between MPs 1.0 and 1.5. A 100-foot-wide corridor adjacent to and west of the road pavement was 

surveyed for the portion of the pipeline route between MPs 1.5 and 2.0. The aboveground facility sites 

and temporary extra workspaces associated with the Arrowhead Extension were also surveyed. 

North Baja’s surveys identified six historic cultural resources, one of which (the C-05 Canal) was 

previously recorded. The remaining five cultural resources consist of two wood pole utility lines and 

three unnamed canals. All six cultural resources identified are unevaluated for eligibility for listing on the 

NRHP and the CRHR. The wood pole utility lines would not be affected by construction. The 

Arrowhead Extension would cross the C-05 Canal and two of the unnamed canals. The unnamed canals 

are private ditches that are not part of the PVID irrigation system. North Baja would cross the two 

unnamed canals using the open-cut method and would restore the canals to their previous condition after 

construction. North Baja would avoid impacts on the C-05 Canal by use of the bore crossing method. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-185 

IID Lateral 

North Baja surveyed a 100- to 200-foot-wide corridor along about 43.0 miles of the proposed IID 

Lateral route. The remainder of the proposed route was not surveyed due to denied access. Between MPs 

0.0 and 8.4, North Baja surveyed a 200-foot-wide corridor centered on the proposed centerline. From MP 

8.4 to the end of the route, North Baja surveyed a 100-foot-wide corridor adjacent to the pavement of 

Evan Hewes Highway. North Baja has indicated it would complete surveys along the remaining portion 

of the IID Lateral route when landowner permission is obtained. 

North Baja’s surveys identified 98 cultural resources, 8 of which were previously recorded. 

These included 73 canals/drains (including the All-American Canal), 14 transmission/telephone lines or 

poles, 2 historic-period sites, 4 prehistoric sites (including ceramic and lithic scatters), 2 roads, 1 railroad, 

and 2 isolated finds. Subsequent to its initial surveys, North Baja completed evaluations at five sites to 

determine their eligibility for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR. Based on the initial surveys and 

evaluations, six cultural resources are recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP and the 

CRHR and no further work is recommended. Four cultural resources (the All-American Canal and Sites 

CA-IMP-8314, CA-IMP-8327, and CA-IMP-8389) are recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP 

and the CRHR. North Baja would avoid impacts on the All-American Canal by use of the HDD crossing 

method. North Baja would mitigate impacts on Site CA-IMP-8327 by avoiding and monitoring it during 

construction and on Site CA-IMP-8389 by implementing data recovery and monitoring it during 

construction. Site CA-IMP-8314 is one of several cultural resources that collectively contribute to an 

archaeological district being proposed by the BOR. The BOR, the Quechan Indian Tribe, and the 

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians requested that Site CA-IMP-8314 be avoided. The Agency Staffs’ 

recommendation in Section 3.2.3.2 that North Baja adopt the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line 

Alternative would avoid impacts on this site. In response to other Native American requests, North Baja 

would have a monitor present during ground-disturbing activities along the alternative route south of Site 

CA-IMP-8314. The remaining 88 cultural resources have not been evaluated to determine eligibility for 

listing on the NRHP and the CRHR. Two of these sites would not be within the construction work area. 

Seventy-two of the unevaluated cultural resources are canals or other irrigation features, 13 are 

transmission/telephone lines or poles, and 1 is a railroad. North Baja would mitigate impacts on these 

features by monitoring them during construction to ensure avoidance. These methods are discussed in 

North Baja’s Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

During the scoping process, the BOR identified the Coachella Canal as an important cultural 

resource. The IID Lateral route does not cross the Coachella Canal. In addition, a comment was received 

regarding the Plank Road. As discussed in Section 4.8.5, the Plank Road was a wooden, portable driving 

surface to provide for the passage of automobiles across the Algodones Dunes and was in use from 1916 

through 1926 (BLM 1998). The Plank Road is a California State Historic Landmark. A portion of this 

cultural resource, consisting of remnants of metal strapping, was identified during surveys along the 

Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative. As discussed above, the Agency Staffs have 

recommended in Section 3.2.3.2 that North Baja adopt the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line 

Alternative to avoid impacts on Site CA-IMP-8314. North Baja would avoid impacts on the portion of 

the Plank Road along the alternative alignment by installing exclusion fencing and monitoring the site 

during construction. 

Ancillary Facilities 

North Baja completed surveys of the 18th Avenue, Ripley, Ogilby, and IID Lateral (El Centro) 

Contractor Yards. No eligible cultural resources were identified at these yards. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-186 

North Baja has indicated it would complete surveys along any access roads that require 

improvements or modifications. 

4.11.4 Unanticipated Discovery Plan 

North Baja provided its Unanticipated Discovery Plan to be used in the event that cultural 

resources or human remains are discovered during construction. The plan includes contact procedures for 

the FERC; the SHPOs; the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; and Native American tribes, as 

appropriate. The plan provides for the protection in place of any unanticipated discoveries until 

appropriate evaluation and consultation have occurred. In the event that the discovery is determined to be 

of NRHP significance, a treatment plan (such as avoidance, monitoring, and/or scientific data recovery) 

would be developed and implemented in consultation with the appropriate parties. A member of one 

Native American tribe, the Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians, commented that the Unanticipated 

Discovery Plan should be updated to reflect recent burial legislation passed in California. North Baja has 

stated that it would update its plan to reflect this information. 

4.11.5 Native American Consultation 

North Baja originally contacted 18 Native American tribes whose traditional territories are 

crossed by the Project or who had been identified by the SHPOs or another knowledgeable party as 

having a potential cultural resources concern (see Table 4.11.5-1). North Baja sent initial consultation 

letters to the tribes on November 16, 2005. These letters described the Project and provided the tribes 

with the opportunity to comment on the Project and identify sites or places that might be of religious or 

cultural significance to the tribe. In early December 2005, North Baja conducted follow-up contacts with 

the Native American tribes by telephone. In addition, the tribes were contacted regarding participation in 

the cultural resources survey of the proposed pipeline route. Members of the Quechan Indian Tribe and 

the Campo Band of Mission Indians participated in the cultural resources surveys as Native American 

monitors. 

At the time of North Baja’s follow-up consultations, the majority of the tribes indicated they had 

no concerns about the proposed Project or had not yet reviewed the Project materials. Some of these 

tribes also requested to receive future Project updates. North Baja was not able to complete follow-up 

contacts with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. The Gila River Indian Community and the Hualapai 

Tribe indicated they would defer comments to the Colorado River Indian Tribe. The Hualapai Tribe and 

the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians identified concerns about existing trails in the Project area. 

As discussed in Section 4.11.3, North Baja would monitor construction activities to avoid impacts on 

trails. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community indicated it would defer comments to the 

Tohono O’odham Nation, which indicated it would defer comments to the Colorado River and Quechan 

Indian Tribes and the Mojave and Cocopah Tribes. The Hopi Tribe stated it would defer comments to the 

SHPO and other interested parties, that it had an interest in the White Tanks area, and that no known 

traditional cultural properties were in the Project area. The proposed Project would not affect the White 

Tanks area, which is near Phoenix. No Native American religious concerns were identified. 

On September 27, 2006, North Baja met with members of the Quechan Indian Tribe, the Soboba 

Band of Luiseno Indians, the Cocopah Tribe, the BLM, and the BOR to discuss the Project status and 

provide a summary of the survey results and recommendations. North Baja provided its Evaluation 

Report and Historic Properties Treatment Plan to these tribes. In addition, members of the Quechan 

Cultural Committee met with representatives from North Baja and its cultural resources consultant on 

December 13, 2006, to discuss the Project status and the Quechan Indian Tribe’s November 20, 2006 

letter to the FERC providing comments on the draft EIS/EIR (see Section 6.0). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-187 

TABLE 4.11.5-1 

North Baja’s Native American Consultations Conducted for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Tribe/Contact Name Date Description of Consultation 

AhaMaKav Cultural Society 

Elda Butler, Director a 12/8/05 Identified additional contact (Linda Otero). 

Linda Otero Multiple Had not yet reviewed the initial consultation letter; would like to 

have a planning meeting with several invited tribes to discuss 

overall Project activities. 

Ak-Chin Indian Community 

Terry O. Enos, Chairman a

 12/7/05 The proposed Project is outside the tribe’s area; requested to 

receive future Project updates. 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

John James, Chairperson a

 12/7/05 No comments; requested to receive future Project updates. 

Steve Thomas a

 12/7/05 No comments; requested to receive future Project updates. 

Cocopah Tribe 

Sherry Cordova, Chairwoman a

 Multiple Provided additional contact information (Paul Soto). 

Paul Soto, Planning Department 12/13/05 Provided additional contact information (Cathi Alonzo, who 

identified Lisa Wanstall). 

Lisa Wanstall, Museum Director 1/19/06 Provided another copy of the November 16, 2005 letter and 

copies of previous reports and maps. 

 9/21/06 Provided copy of the Evaluation Report. 

 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Jill McCormick 9/27/06 Meeting with Project representatives to discuss the Project 

status and North Baja’s survey results and recommendations. 

Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Betty Cornelius a

 12/7/05 Identified additional contact (Eric Shepard). 

Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman a

 Multiple Requested a copy of the letter be sent to Eric Shepard. 

Eric Shepard 12/8/05 Provided copy of November 16, 2005 letter. 

 Multiple Identified additional contact (Michael Tsosie). 

 12/13/05 Has not yet reviewed the initial consultation letter. 

Michael Tsosie Multiple Requested a copy of the initial consultation letter; requested 

copies of the background reports, data, and maps for review by 

the Cultural Committee. 

 3/2/06 Provided Project information and survey reports. 

 9/21/06 Provided copy of the Evaluation Report. 

 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

Raphael Bear, President,a

 Vince Lujan, 

and Debbie, Planning Department 

Multiple Multiple contacts and voicemails. 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

Nora McDowell, Chairwoman a

 12/7/05 Identified additional contact (Dorothy Hallock). 

Dorothy Hallock, Planning Department Multiple Indicated she would bring the consultation letter to a December 

20, 2005 meeting and expected the tribe to provide a “no 

interest-no comment” decision. 

 9/21/06 Provided copy of the Evaluation Report. 

 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Gila River Indian Community 

Richard Narcia, Governor a

 Multiple The tribe will defer comments to the Colorado River Indian 

Tribe. 

Barnaby Lewis 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-188 

TABLE 4.11.5-1 (cont’d) 

North Baja’s Native American Consultations Conducted for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Tribe/Contact Name Date Description of Consultation 

Havasupai Tribe 

Linda Mahone, Chairwoman a Multiple Identified additional contact (Rex Toilusie). 

Rex Toilusie, Environmental Multiple The tribe has no concerns about the proposed Project. 

Hopi Tribe 

Wayne Taylor, Jr., Chairman a

 12/2/05 Identified additional contact (Terry Morgart). 

Terry Morgart 12/2/05 The tribe will defer comments to the State Historic Preservation 

Office and other interested parties; has an interest in the White 

Tanks area; no known traditional cultural properties are in the 

Project area of potential effect. 

Hualapai Tribe 

Louise Benson, Chairwoman a

 Multiple Identified new tribal chairman (Charles Vaughn). 

Charles Vaughn, Chairman Multiple Identified concerns about existing trails from Baja across the 

tribe’s territory to a place called Wyckham, a prehistoric 

gathering spot; requested to receive future Project updates; 

identified additional contact (Loretta Jackson). 

Loretta Jackson 12/9/05 The tribe will defer comments to the Colorado River Indian 

Tribe; requested to receive future Project updates. 

 9/21/06 Provided copy of the Evaluation Report. 

 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians 

Carmen Lucas 2/9/07 Provided comments on the Project. 

 3/13/07 Meeting with representatives of North Baja to discuss the 

Project, consultations with Native American tribes, Site CAIMP-8314, the Unanticipated Discovery Plan, cumulative 

impacts on cultural resources, and site visits. 

Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians 

Katherine Saubel, Spokesperson a

 12/8/05 No comments on the Project, which is outside the tribe’s area; 

the tribe does not wish to receive further paperwork about this 

Project. 

Quechan Indian Tribe-Ft. Yuma Indian Reservation 

Mike Jackson, Sr., President a

 Multiple Identified additional contact (Pauline Jose). 

Pauline Jose 12/13/05 Provided copy of November 16, 2005 letter. 

 Multiple Requested another copy of the initial consultation letter. 

 1/19/06 Meeting with Project representatives. The tribe requested to 

have a monitor accompany the cultural resources survey of the 

IID Lateral, asked about future plans for the Project, and 

requested another meeting to clarify additional planning and 

engineering questions. 

 3/2/06 Provided Project information and survey reports. 

 9/21/06 Provided copy of the Evaluation Report. 

 2/2/07 Meeting with representatives of the BLM and North Baja to 

discuss Site CA-IMP-8314. 

Earl Hawes a 12/8/05 No longer with the tribal government. 

Bridget R. Nash-Chrabascz, Historic 

Preservation Officer 

9/27/06 Meeting with Project representatives to discuss the Project 

status and North Baja’s survey results and recommendations. 

 11/20/06 Letter providing comments on the draft EIS/EIR. 

 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

 2/2/07 Meeting with representatives of the BLM and North Baja to 

discuss Site CA-IMP-8314. 

Quechan Cultural Committee 12/13/06 Meeting with Project representatives to discuss the Project 

status and the tribe’s comments on the draft EIS/EIR. 

Manfred Scott, Quechan Tribal Council 2/2/07 Meeting with representatives of the BLM and North Baja to 

discuss Site CA-IMP-8314. 

Emilio Escalante, Quechan Tribal Council 2/2/07 Meeting with representatives of the BLM and North Baja to 

discuss Site CA-IMP-8314. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-189 

TABLE 4.11.5-1 (cont’d) 

North Baja’s Native American Consultations Conducted for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Tribe/Contact Name Date Description of Consultation 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

Joni Ramos, President a Multiple The tribe will defer comments to the Tohono O’odham Nation; 

requested to receive future Project updates. 

Evelyn Andrews Multiple Requested copy of the initial consultation letter. 

 12/20/05 Provided copy of November 16, 2005 letter. 

 9/21/06 Provided copy of the Evaluation Report. 

 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Soboba Band of Mission Indians 

Robert J. Salgado, Sr., Chairman a

 12/8/05 Identified new tribal chairman (Charlene Ryan). 

Charlene Ryan, Cultural Multiple Requested copy of the initial consultation letter; believes the 

tribe will not have any comments on the proposed Project. 

Benee Calac 9/21/06 Provided copy of the Evaluation Report. 

 9/27/06 Meeting with Project representatives to discuss the Project 

status and North Baja’s survey results and recommendations. 

 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Steven Estrada 9/27/06 Meeting with Project representatives to discuss the Project 

status and North Baja’s survey results and recommendations. 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

Vivian Juan-Saunders, Chairwoman a

 Multiple Multiple contacts and voicemails. 

Peter Steer, Manager of Cultural Affairs 1/6/06 The tribe will defer comments to the Colorado River and 

Quechan Indian Tribes and the Mojave and Cocopah Tribes; 

requested a copy of the original survey report. 

 9/21/06 Provided copy of the Evaluation Report. 

 11/30/06 Provided copy of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan. 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Ray Torres, Sr., Chairperson a

 12/8/05 Identified new tribal chairman (Joe Loya). 

Joe Loya Multiple Identified some concerns about the local trail systems near the 

proposed Project; requested to receive future Project updates. 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians 

Dean Mike, Chairperson a

 12/8/05 Requested another copy of the initial consultation letter. 

 12/22/05 The tribe has no concerns about the proposed Project. 

____________________ 

a

 Recipients were sent North Baja’s November 16, 2005 initial consultation letter. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-190 

On February 2, 2007, North Baja met with members of the Quechan Indian Tribe to discuss 

measures to reduce or avoid impacts on Site CA-IMP-8314. As discussed in Sections 3.2.3.2 and 4.11.3, 

Site CA-IMP-8314 would be avoided by the adoption of the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line 

Alternative. 

A member of the Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians provided comments on the Project to North 

Baja in a letter dated February 9, 2007. North Baja subsequently met with the tribal member on March 

13, 2007. Specifically, the tribal member provided comments on the consultations with Native American 

tribes, site visits, potential impacts on Site CA-IMP-8314, the Unanticipated Discovery Plan, and 

cumulative impacts on cultural resources. North Baja arranged site visits for the tribal member in midApril 2007. As stated in Section 4.11.3, Site CA-IMP-8314 would be avoided by the adoption of the 

Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative. In addition, North Baja would have a monitor present 

during ground-disturbing activities along the alternative route south of Site CA-IMP-8314. As discussed 

in Section 4.11.4, North Baja has stated that it would update its Unanticipated Discovery Plan to reflect 

recent burial legislation passed in California. Section 4.15.7 has been revised to include additional 

discussion of potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources. 

No traditional cultural properties have been identified in the proposed Project’s area of potential 

effect to date. North Baja has indicated it would continue consultations with Native American tribes 

throughout the Project. 

In addition to North Baja’s contacts, the NOI/NOP dated August 30, 2005 was sent to 64 

individuals from 33 Native American tribes that were identified by the California Native American 

Heritage Commission. One tribe, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, provided comments in response to the 

NOI/NOP. The tribe expressed concern regarding Native American sites and Native American artifacts 

that may be discovered during excavation. The tribe also commented that a Native American monitor 

should be present during field studies and construction and requested copies of the report. Native 

American monitors were present during the survey, and North Baja has indicated that it would invite 

Native American representatives on field visits to cultural resources sites that would be affected by the 

proposed Project. In addition, North Baja would include Native American tribes in consultations 

regarding the recommended mitigation measures at potentially significant cultural resources that may be 

of concern to the tribes. No other responses have been received to date. 

4.11.6 General Impact and Mitigation 

Project impacts or effects include not only the physical disturbance of a historic property, but may 

also include the introduction, removal, or alteration of various visual or auditory elements, which could 

alter the traditional setting or ambience of the property. Once cultural resources surveys and evaluations 

are complete, the FERC, in consultation with the SHPOs; the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; 

and Native American tribes, as applicable, would make determinations of eligibility and Project effects. 

Impacts on sites determined non-significant per NRHP eligibility criteria are not considered effects, and 

no further treatment or consideration is accorded these sites before construction and related Project 

activities. If a property listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP would be affected, mitigation would 

be necessary. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following measures: (1) 

avoidance through the use of realignment of the pipeline route, relocation of temporary extra workspaces, 

or changes in the construction and/or operational design; (2) data recovery, which may include the 

systematic professional excavation of an archaeological site or the preparation of photographs and/or 

measured drawings documenting standing structures; and (3) the use of landscaping or other techniques 

that would minimize or eliminate effects on the historic setting or ambience of standing structures. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-191 

The Arizona SHPO indicated that the previous surveys were adequate for the currently proposed 

Project areas in Arizona. Any newly proposed areas not previously surveyed would be surveyed and 

reported in an addendum. Inventory in California is not complete. Once cultural resources surveys and 

evaluations are complete, the FERC and the consulting parties discussed above would make 

determinations of eligibility and Project effects. If historic properties would be adversely affected, the 

FERC, as the lead Federal agency, would notify the ACHP to afford it an opportunity to participate in 

consultation. The CSLC would make the determination of eligibility for the CRHR for CEQA purposes. 

North Baja has prepared a treatment plan that specifies measures to reduce or mitigate impacts. Once the 

treatment plan is approved, a Memorandum of Agreement would be executed by the appropriate parties. 

North Baja would implement the specific treatment measures before Project construction is authorized by 

the FERC and the CSLC in any given area. Implementation of treatment would occur only after 

certification of the proposed Project. Implementation of treatment would ensure that Project-related 

adverse effects would be resolved for purposes of section 106 compliance, and reduced to less than 

significant levels for the purposes of NEPA compliance. 

Generally under the CEQA, a project that follows the Secretary of Interior’s Standards shall be 

considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resources. However, 

in some cases, documentation as mitigation is not sufficient to reduce the impact to a level that is less than 

significant (State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4[b][2]). Thus, documentation of an “historical 

resource” may not necessarily mitigate the effects “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the 

environment would occur” as it does under section 106. Archaeological sites that are important for their 

data alone can usually be mitigated through data recovery (excavation). 

To ensure that the FERC’s responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing regulations and 

the CSLC’s responsibilities under the CEQA are met, the Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall defer implementation of any treatment plans/mitigation measures 

(including archaeological data recovery), construction of facilities, and use of all 

staging, storage, or temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads 

on each respective Project phase until North Baja files with the FERC and the 

CSLC, as applicable, the materials listed in items a. through g., and the steps listed 

in items h. through j. below have been completed: 

a. any FWS, Cibola NWR comments on the Overview and Survey Report; 

b. any BOR comments on the Evaluation Plan; 

c. any comments from the BOR and Native American tribes on the draft 

Evaluation Report; 

d. the revised Evaluation Report; 

e. the California SHPO’s comments on Addendum Reports 2 and 3, the revised 

Evaluation Report, and the revised Historic Properties Treatment Plan; 

f. all additional cultural resources survey reports for denied access areas and 

any additional areas requiring survey, evaluation reports, and any necessary 

treatment plans as well documentation that these reports and plans were 

submitted to the SHPO(s); the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; and 

Native American tribes, as applicable; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-192 

g. any comments of the SHPO(s); the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; 

and Native American tribes, as applicable, on all additional cultural 

resources reports and plans; 

h. the CSLC reviews and approves all cultural resources reports and plans 

prepared for the California portion of the Project and notifies North Baja in 

writing that construction may proceed; 

i. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment, if historic properties 

would be adversely affected; and 

j. the Director of OEP reviews and approves all applicable cultural resources 

reports and plans and notifies North Baja in writing that treatment 

plans/mitigation measures may be implemented or construction may 

proceed. 

All material filed with the FERC containing location, character, and ownership 

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages 

therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED 

INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE.” 

4.11.7 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on cultural resources identified for the construction and operation of the proposed 

Project would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-193 

4.12 AIR QUALITY 

4.12.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on air quality would be considered significant and would require mitigation if 

Project construction or operation would: 

• conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality or attainment plan; 

• violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air 

quality violation; 

• result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the 

Project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality 

standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone 

precursors); 

• expose the public (especially schools, day care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, 

convalescence facilities, and residences) to substantial pollutant concentrations, including 

those resulting in a cancer risk greater than or equal to one in a million and/or a hazard 

index (non-cancerous risk) greater than or equal to 0.1; 

• impair air quality in a mandatory Class I Federal area; or 

• create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or affecting a lesser 

number of people for a substantial duration. 

4.12.2 Existing Air Quality 

Climatic conditions in the Palo Verde Valley and the Imperial Valley, which include the entire 

Project area, are governed by the large-scale sinking and warming of air in the semi-permanent 

subtropical high-pressure center of the Pacific Ocean. The coastal mountains prevent the intrusion of 

cool, damp marine air, which results in the Palo Verde and Imperial Valleys experiencing clear skies, low 

humidity, extremely hot summers, and mild winters. Moderate winds and deep thermal convection are 

produced by the flat terrain of the valleys and the strong temperature differentials created by intense solar 

heating. The combination of subsiding air, protective mountains, and distance from the ocean all combine 

to severely limit precipitation. Rainfall is highly variable and usually amounts to less than 2 inches 

annually. Occasionally, heavy storms can produce rainfall that exceeds the annual average. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Background Air Quality 

Ambient air quality is protected by Federal, State, and local regulations. The EPA has established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants for the purpose of protecting 

human health (primary standards) and public welfare (secondary standards). These criteria pollutants are: 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, SO2, lead (Pb), PM10, and PM2.5. 

The EPA established designations for a new 8-hour ozone standard, which are now in effect while 

the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005 in most areas, including the Project area. In 

addition to the Federal NAAQS, State ambient air quality standards have been established for Arizona 

and California. The Arizona ambient air quality standards are the same as the Federal standards. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-194 

California has adopted ambient air quality standards that are stricter than the Federal standards with the 

exception of the 8-hour CO standard. 

The existing ambient air concentrations in the Project area were evaluated by reviewing 

representative air monitoring data from Imperial County and Riverside County monitoring locations in 

the Salton Sea and Mojave Desert Air Basins for the years 2003 through 2005. Table 4.12.2-1 lists the 

Federal and State ambient air quality standards and the background values estimated for each of the 

pollutants and averaging periods. These monitoring data show that the existing ambient air 

concentrations for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 are above the Federal and State ambient air quality standards 

while the concentrations for Pb, NO2, and SO2 are below the Federal and State ambient air quality 

standards. CO ambient concentrations are below the Federal standards for both the 1-hour and 8-hour 

averaging periods. However, the 1-hour CO concentration exceeds the State ambient air quality standard. 

TABLE 4.12.2-1 

Federal and State Air Quality Standards and Existing Air Quality in the Project Area

Pollutant Averaging Period 

Federal/Arizona 

Primary Standards 

Federal/Arizona 

Secondary Standard 

California 

Standards 

Highest Background 

Values a

1 Hour - Same as Primary 0.09 ppm 0.159 ppm b O3

8 Hour 0.08 ppm 0.070 ppm 0.127 ppm c

24 Hour 150 μg/m3 Same as Primary 50 μg/m3

 227 μg/m3 b PM10 

Annual AM d 50 μg/m3 20 μg/m3

 75 μg/m3 d

24 Hour 65 μg/m3 Same as Primary - 77 μg/m3 e PM2.5 

Annual AM 15 μg/m3 12 μg/m3

 24.8 μg/m3 d

Pb Quarter 1.5μg/m3 Same as Primary 1.5 μg/m3 0.02 μg/m3 d

1 Hour 35 ppm None 10 ppm 12.4 ppm b CO 

8 Hour 9 ppm 9.0 ppm 8.6 ppm b

NO2 1 Hour - Same as Primary 0.25 ppm 

Annual AM 0.053 ppm - 0.022 ppm d

1 Hour - - 0.25 ppm 

3 Hour - 0.5 ppm - 

24 Hour 0.14 ppm - 0.04 ppm 0.015 ppm b

SO2

Annual AM 0.030 ppm - - 

____________________ 

a

 Background value is the highest value reported by the EPA for the years 2003 through 2005 for monitors located in 

Imperial County and Riverside County. 

b

 Second highest value. 

c

 Fourth highest value. 

d

 Arithmetic mean. 

e

 98th percentile value. 

O3 = ozone 

PM10 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

PM2.5 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns 

Pb = lead 

CO = carbon monoxide 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

NA = No data available 

ppm = parts per million 

Note: The lead standard for California is a 30-day averaging period. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-195 

Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) and Attainment Status 

The AQCRs were established by the EPA and local agencies, in accordance with section 107 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), as a means to implement the CAA and comply with the NAAQS through State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs). The AQCRs are intra- and interstate regions such as large metropolitan 

areas where the improvement of the air quality in one portion of the AQCR requires emission reductions 

throughout the AQCR. Each AQCR, or portion thereof, is designated as attainment, unclassifiable, 

maintenance, or nonattainment for the NAAQS. The designations are based on compliance with the 

NAAQS. Areas where the ambient air pollutant concentration is determined to be below the applicable 

ambient air quality standard are designated attainment. Areas where no data are available are designated 

unclassifiable. Areas where the ambient air concentration is greater than the applicable ambient air 

quality standard are designated nonattainment. Areas that have been designated nonattainment but have 

since demonstrated compliance with the ambient air quality standard(s) are designated maintenance for 

that pollutant. Maintenance areas are treated similarly to attainment areas for the permitting of stationary 

sources; however, specific provisions may be incorporated through the State's approved maintenance plan 

to ensure that the air quality would remain in compliance with the ambient air quality standard(s) for that 

pollutant. 

La Paz County, Arizona is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants. 

Portions of Riverside and Imperial Counties that are within the Project area are designated as 

nonattainment for ozone and PM10 and attainment for all other criteria pollutants including PM2.5. 

4.12.3 Regulatory Requirements 

The proposed Project is potentially subject to a variety of Federal, State, and local regulations 

pertaining to the construction or operation of air emission sources. The CAA, 42 USC 7401 et seq., as 

amended in 1977 and 1990, and Title 40 CFR Parts 50 through 99 are the basic Federal statutes and 

regulations governing air pollution in the United States. The ADEQ is the governing agency for the 

portion of the Project that passes through La Paz County, Arizona. The Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District (AQMD) and the ICAPCD are the governing agencies for the portions of the Project 

within California. 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would involve modifications at the existing 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station, El Paso Meter Station, and Ogilby Meter Station to allow northbound 

flow of natural gas. The Project would also involve the construction of 127.6 miles of natural gas 

pipeline, 2 meter stations, 13 valves, 4 pig launchers, 5 pig receivers, and 3 taps and crossover piping. 

Except for the construction equipment and activities associated with building these facilities, there would 

be no air emissions generated by these aboveground or pipeline facilities (i.e., no emissions would occur 

during operation). 

Federal Air Quality Requirements 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) – 

Ambient air quality is protected by the EPA’s PSD and Nonattainment NSR programs. The PSD 

regulations apply to new major stationary sources or major modifications to stationary sources located in 

attainment areas. The Nonattainment NSR regulations apply to new or modified stationary sources 

located in nonattainment areas. The PSD regulations, as codified in Title 40 CFR Part 52.21, define a 

major source or major modification as: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-196 

• a source with a potential-to-emit (PTE) of more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of any 

criteria pollutant for a facility that is one of the 28 industrial source categories listed in 

Title 40 CFR Part 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a); 

• a source with a PTE of more than 250 tpy of any criteria pollutant for a facility that is not 

one of the 28 industrial source categories listed in Title 40 CFR Part 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a); 

• a modification to an existing major source that results in a net emissions increase greater 

than the PSD significant emission rate specified in Title 40 CFR Part 52.21 (b)(23)(i); or 

• an existing minor source proposing a modification that is major by itself. 

One of the factors considered in the PSD permit review processes is potential impacts on 

protected Class 1 Federal areas. If a project is located within 100 kilometers of a Federal Class I area, 

additional modeling analysis may be required to determine the potential impact on the area. The 

Nonattainment NSR/PSD requirements apply to stationary sources. The proposed Project would not have 

any stationary source emissions associated with the operation of the Project; therefore, the Project is not 

subject to the Nonattainment NSR/PSD requirements. Because the modifications at the existing 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station would not trigger PSD review, an air quality impact determination would 

not be required. Additionally, the Project would not be located within 100 kilometers of a Federal Class I 

area; therefore, additional modeling analysis would not be necessary and it can be concluded that the 

potential for the Project to impact air quality in any Federal Class 1 areas would be less than significant. 

Other Federal regulations (e.g., the New Source Performance Standards, the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and Title V of the CAA) that only apply to stationary sources are 

not applicable as well. 

Mobile Source Regulations – Title II of the CAA Amendments of 1990 contains provisions 

relating to highway and off-road mobile sources. Regulations aimed at reducing pollution from heavyduty diesel engines, including marine and locomotive engines, that have been promulgated or proposed 

include: 

• Title 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86, Final Rule, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor 

Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur 

Control Requirements – This rule requires a reduction in emissions from on-road diesel 

engines and establishes sulfur limits for diesel fuel. Currently, the requirements are for 

new engines only and the standards will begin to take effect in model year 2007. 

Although the emissions standards are for new engines only, the reduced sulfur diesel fuel, 

which is required to have a sulfur content less than 0.05 percent (500 parts per million by 

weight [ppmw]), a limit that was lowered to 15 ppmw starting in June 2006, would also 

reduce particulate and sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions from existing diesel engines. 

• Title 40 CFR Parts 9 and 69 et al., Final Rule, Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from 

Non-road Diesel Engines and Fuel – This rule requires emissions reductions from nonroad diesel engines by establishing emissions limits and sulfur content limits. This rule 

targets agricultural equipment, construction equipment, and other non-road diesel 

engines. As with the previous rule, the reduced sulfur fuel would lower emissions from 

existing diesel engines even though the emissions limits would only apply to new 

engines. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-197 

Both non-road and highway use vehicles and construction equipment used for the Project would 

be required to use the new low sulfur diesel fuel as soon as it is commercially available. 

General Conformity Determination – The EPA promulgated the General Conformity Rule on 

November 30, 1993 in Volume 58 of the Federal Register Page 63214 (58 Federal Register 63214) to 

implement the conformity provision of Title I, section 176(c)(1) of the CAA. Section 176(c)(1) requires 

that the Federal government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance for licensing or 

permitting, or approving any activity not conforming to an approved CAA implementation plan. 

The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W and Part 93, 

Subpart B, Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation 

Plans. The General Conformity Rule applies to all Federal actions except programs and projects 

requiring funding or approval from the DOT, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit 

Administration, or the Metropolitan Planning Organization. In lieu of a conformity analysis, these latter 

types of programs and projects must comply with the Transportation Conformity Rule promulgated by the 

DOT on November 24, 1993 (58 Federal Register 62197). 

The General Conformity Rule applies to projects that are located in nonattainment or 

maintenance areas and evaluates the impacts of both direct and indirect emissions from a proposed 

project. Accordingly, in the draft EIS/EIR, the Project emissions evaluated in the conformity 

applicability analysis included those associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline, 

specifically those direct and indirect emissions occurring in designated nonattainment areas. No new 

direct operating emission sources are proposed as part of the project and therefore are not included in the 

general conformity review. Various commentors on the draft EIS/EIR, including the EPA, the 

SCAQMD, the ICAPCD, and the Border Power Plant Working Group, indicated that the Agency Staffs’ 

definition of the proposed Project and its emissions is too limited in focus. As discussed in Section 1.1, 

these commentors assert that the supplies of LNG-source gas that would be transported on the North Baja 

system would have a higher WI compared to existing supplies and, therefore, the introduction of the 

LNG-source gas would increase emissions of NOx in the SCAB. These commentors state that a full 

General Conformity analysis should be conducted that considers the indirect air quality impacts of the end 

use of the gas. 

As the lead Federal agency responsible for authorizing the proposed Project, the FERC has 

identified the emissions that would result from the Project in accordance with the published definitions of 

“direct” and “indirect” emissions in Title 40 CFR Part 51.852/93.152 and the supplementary information 

provided in the EPA’s final rule for Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or 

Federal Implementation Plans contained in 58 Federal Register 63214. This Project definition is 

supported by the EPA’s response to comments included in 58 Federal Register 63214 on the proposed 

rule. 

The General Conformity Rule was proposed on March 15, 1993 (58 Federal Register 13836). 

The preamble to the proposed rule invited comments on two proposed definitions of indirect emissions – 

“inclusive” and “exclusive.” As defined in the final General Conformity Rule (58 Federal Register 

63214), “exclusive” indirect emissions are “emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors that: (1) are 

caused by the Federal action, but may occur later in time and/or may be further removed in distance from 

the action itself but are still reasonably foreseeable; and (2) the Federal agency can practicably control 

and will maintain control over due to a continuing program responsibility of the Federal agency.” The 

EPA states that this definition was selected because it met the requirements of section 176(c) of the CAA 

and because it was consistent with the Transportation Conformity Rule, can be reasonably implemented, 

and best fits within the overall framework of the CAA. The inclusive definition (which was broader and 

did not include the second part of the exclusive definition) was not selected because: (1) the mitigation 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-198 

measures required may not be enforceable; (2) it is not consistent with the Transportation Conformity 

Rule; (3) it would impose an unreasonable burden due to the large number of affected Federal actions: 

and (4) it establishes an overly broad role for the Federal government in attaining the NAAQS. Further, 

the exclusive definition requires Federal agencies to consider only those emissions over which, under 

their legal authorities, they can exercise and maintain practicable control and over which they have 

continuing program responsibilities. 

The final General Conformity Rule further states that “the exclusive definition assures that 

Federal actions will meet the intent of section 176(c) and the States will retain the primary responsibility 

to attain and maintain the air quality standards.” Also, “a Federal agency has no responsibility to attempt 

to limit emissions that do not meet those tests, or that are outside the Federal agency’s legal control. 

Moreover, neither section 176(c) of the CAA nor this regulation requires that a Federal agency attempt to 

‘leverage’ its legal authority to influence or control non-Federal activities that it cannot practicably 

control, or that are not subject to a continuing program responsibility, or that lie outside the agency’s legal 

authority.” 

“Reasonably foreseeable” emissions are defined in the final General Conformity Rule as 

“projected future indirect emissions that are identified at the time the conformity determination is made; 

the location of such emissions is known and the emissions are quantifiable, as described and documented 

by the Federal agency based on its own information and after reviewing any information presented to the 

Federal agency.” An attempt to determine whether emissions from the end use of the natural gas 

delivered by the North Baja system are reasonably foreseeable for general conformity applicability 

identified several factors about the natural gas to be delivered by North Baja and the end use that are not 

known at this time. These factors include: (1) the precise WI of the natural gas to be delivered, other 

than it would meet the existing standards set by the CPUC for SoCalGas and SDG&E; (2) the sector of 

the SoCalGas market to which the gas would be delivered (no specific end users have been identified with 

the exception of the El Centro Generating Station in El Centro, California, which North Baja proposes to 

serve through a new lateral pipeline); (3) the ultimate character of the natural gas at the end user (the gas 

received by North Baja may be blended within the SoCalGas distribution system and the resultant WI of 

such blend is unknown); and (4) whether or not the gas would be consumed within the SCAB. The 

markets of North Baja’s shippers are not limited to the SCAB, and capacity constraints on the SoCalGas 

system would prevent all of the gas volumes proposed in Phase II from moving into SoCalGas’ system. 

Because the new supplies of North Baja’s shippers would compete with existing gas supplies, it is 

impossible to determine at this time where LNG-source gas would be burned, how much LNG gas would 

be burned, and (due to limited data) the extent of changes in NOx emissions associated with the burning 

of LNG gas. Also, the final General Conformity Rule provides examples of actions not reasonably 

foreseeable. One of these examples includes the resulting emissions from the use of electric power. This 

example was considered not reasonably foreseeable because the emissions cannot be precisely located or 

quantified. Similarly, the emissions from the end use of natural gas are not reasonably foreseeable. 

The EPA has noted that “the requirements of this final rule will apply only in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, as proposed,” which is further supported in the June 5, 2006 EPA memorandum 

Revision to General Conformity Applicability Questions and Answers. This memorandum states “The 

purpose of this memorandum is to make you aware of a recent revision to our questions and answers 

(Q&A) document for the EPA's General Conformity regulations. Some questions have arisen concerning 

whether emissions generated outside a nonattainment area should be accounted when making a General 

Conformity determination for a Federal action. We are revising our Q&A document issued July 13, 1994, 

to clarify that only direct or indirect emissions originating in a nonattainment or maintenance area need to 

be analyzed for conformity with the applicable SIP.” The new guidance states that the EPA interprets this 

statutory amendment to mean that any direct and indirect emissions originating in an attainment or 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-199 

unclassifiable area do not need to be analyzed for General Conformity purposes, even if such emissions 

may transport into a nonattainment or maintenance area.” 

As supported by the General Conformity definitions, supplemental information, and subsequent 

guidance memos, the FERC has appropriately defined the Project’s direct and indirect emissions to be 

those associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline facilities in the nonattainment 

counties where the Project would be located. With respect to General Conformity, the Project does not 

include emissions associated with construction and operation of any portion of the Project in areas 

designated as attainment or unclassifiable, areas outside the United States, or areas where future end users 

of the gas are or would be located. 

One segment of the Project is located in a serious PM10 nonattainment area within Imperial 

County as well as a Subpart 2 marginal ozone nonattainment area in Imperial County. The Project does 

not include any nonattainment areas within Arizona and is not located within any maintenance areas. 

Relevant General Conformity regulations for the two jurisdictions with nonattainment areas include the 

ICAPCD Regulation IX, Rule 925, adopted on November 29, 1994; and the Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 

2002, adopted on October 26, 1994. Rules 925 and 2002 were approved in revisions to both the 

California and Arizona SIPs in the Federal Register on April 23, 1999 (64 Federal Register 19916). 

General Conformity assessments must be completed when the total direct and indirect emissions 

of a planned project would equal or exceed specified pollutant thresholds per year in each nonattainment 

area. With regard to the proposed Project, the relevant General Conformity pollutant thresholds are: 

• PM10: 70 tpy for projects located in serious nonattainment areas; or 

• ozone precursors: 100 tpy of VOC or NOx for projects located in ozone nonattainment 

areas that are not within an ozone transport region and are not classified as serious, 

severe, or extreme. 

As discussed in Section 4.12.4, Project emissions would be below General Conformity 

thresholds; therefore, a general conformity determination is not required. 

State Air Quality Requirements 

Because there would be no stationary sources or operational emissions associated with the 

proposed Project, the stationary source permitting requirements of the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), ADEQ, the Mojave Desert AQMD, and the ICAPCD do not apply. 

Mobile source and fugitive dust regulations adopted by the CARB, the ADEQ, the Mojave Desert 

AQMD, and the ICAPCD do apply to the construction activities associated with the proposed Project. 

Table 4.12.3-1 lists the mobile source and fugitive dust/opacity regulations that apply to the Project. 

These requirements include EPA Reasonably Available Control Measures such as using wetting agents, 

dust suppressants, and other means to prevent particulates from becoming airborne. Permits are not 

required for pipeline construction emissions from any of the above-noted agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-200 

TABLE 4.12.3-1 

Mobile Source and Fugitive Emissions (Dust) Rules

Agency Rule Number Rule Description 

California Air Resources Board CCR Title 13 Division 3 Mobile Source Operational and Pollution Control 

Requirements 

R18-2-604 Construction fugitive dust limitations 

R18-2-605 Road construction fugitive dust limitations 

R18-2-606 Material handling fugitive dust limitations 

R18-02-607 Storage pile fugitive dust limitations 

R18-2-702 Visible emission limitations 

R18-2-802 Off-road machinery opacity limitations 

Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality 

R18-2-804 Roadway and site clearing opacity limitations 

401 Visible emission limitations 

402 Nuisance 

Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District 

403 Fugitive dust control 

401 Visible emission limitations 

407 Nuisance 

Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District 

800-805 (Regulation VIII) Fugitive dust control rules 

Although CO2 is not a regulated pollutant, it is associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 

along with other gases such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons. GHG emissions are vital to life on earth 

because they help to maintain ambient temperatures. However, excess GHG emissions augment this 

effect and are considered by many experts to contribute to overall global climatic changes, typically 

referred to as global warming. CO2 emissions are a product of fossil fuel combustion and tropical forest 

destruction, which are human activities that contribute to global climatic changes. Large quantities of 

GHG emissions would decrease the amount of infrared or heat energy radiated by the earth back to space 

and upset the heat balance. Global warming may ultimately contribute to a rise in sea level, destruction of 

estuaries and coastal wetlands, and changes in regional temperature and rainfall pattern, with significant 

agricultural and coastal community implications. 

4.12.4 Air Emission Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction activities for the proposed facilities (including the pipeline) would take place in the 

following four sequences: site preparation/trenching; foundation work; installation of equipment, 

structures, and pipeline; and right-of-way/site restoration. The anticipated construction periods for the 

various components of the proposed Project are described in Section 2.4. As discussed in Section 2.4, 

construction of Phase I would occur over a 2- to 4-month period in 2007, construction of Phase I-A would 

occur over a 2- to 4-month period in 2008 and 2009, and construction of Phase II would occur over a 4- to 

6-month period in 2009. The construction activities that would generate emissions include land clearing, 

ground excavation, and cut and fill operations. These construction activities would occur 6 days per week 

for up to 12 hours per day during the construction periods. The intermittent and short-term emissions 

generated by these activities would include dust from soil disruption and combustion emissions from the 

construction equipment. Emissions associated with construction equipment include PM10, PM2.5, NO2, 

CO, volatile organic compounds (VOC), SO2, and small amounts of air toxics. These emissions could 

result in minor, temporary impacts on air quality in the vicinity of pipeline installation. Table 4.12.4-1 

lists the estimated emissions of these criteria pollutants that would be generated by construction of the 

proposed Project facilities by year of construction in attainment and nonattainment areas.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-201 

TABLE 4.12.4-1 

Estimated Emissions of Criteria Pollutants from Project Construction by Year

Source Category 

PM10

 

(tons) 

PM2.5 

(tons) 

NOx

(tons) 

CO 

(tons) 

SOx

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

2007/Arrowhead Extension/Riverside 

County/Attainment Area 

 

 Construction Equipment a 0.43 0.39 8.19 3.27 1.52 0.76 

 Fugitive Dust 4.82 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 Commuter Traffic 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 

 Delivery Vehicles 0.01 0.01 0.66 0.25 0.00 0.04 

 2007 Attainment Area Total 5.26 1.00 8.86 3.57 1.52 0.81 

2008/IID Lateral/Imperial County/Nonattainment Area 

 Construction Equipment a 0.44 0.40 8.41 3.36 1.57 0.77 

 Fugitive Dust 31.76 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 Commuter Traffic 0.01 0.01 0.17 1.61 0.00 0.17 

 Delivery Vehicles 0.17 0.16 9.21 2.57 0.13 0.45 

 2008 Nonattainment Area Total 32.38 5.34 17.79 7.54 1.70 1.39 

2009/IID Lateral/Imperial County/Nonattainment Area 

 Construction Equipment a 0.05 0.05 1.04 0.41 0.19 0.10 

 Fugitive Dust 3.93 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 Commuter Traffic 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.02 

 Delivery Vehicles 0.02 0.02 1.14 0.32 0.02 0.06 

2009/ B-Line/Imperial County/Nonattainment Area 

 Construction Equipment a 1.21 1.11 22.37 9.22 4.13 2.13 

 Fugitive Dust 47.87 9.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 Commuter Traffic 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.93 0.00 0.10 

 Delivery Vehicles 0.18 0.17 9.40 6.19 0.01 0.88 

 2009 Nonattainment Area Total 53.27 11.17 34.07 17.27 4.35 3.29 

2009/B-Line/Riverside County/Attainment Area 

 Construction Equipment a 0.91 0.84 16.92 6.97 3.12 1.61 

 Fugitive Dust 36.21 6.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 Commuter Traffic 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.70 0.00 0.08 

 Delivery Vehicles 0.13 0.13 7.11 4.69 0.01 0.67 

2009/B-Line/Imperial County/Attainment Area 

 Construction Equipment a 1.01 0.93 18.67 7.69 3.44 1.78 

 Fugitive Dust 39.94 7.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 Commuter Traffic 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.00 0.08 

 Delivery Vehicles 0.15 0.14 7.84 5.17 0.01 0.74 

 2009 Attainment Area Total 78.36 16.71 50.70 25.99 6.58 4.96 

____________________ 

a

 Construction equipment emissions include both on- and non-road construction equipment. 

Emissions from construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities are not expected to cause 

or significantly contribute to a violation of an applicable ambient air quality standard or contribute 

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because the construction equipment would be 

operated on an as-needed basis during daylight hours only and the emissions from gasoline and diesel 

engines would be minimized because the engines must be built to meet the standards for mobile sources 

established by the EPA. Most of the construction equipment would be powered by diesel engines and 

would be equipped with typical control equipment (e.g., catalytic converters), and Project-related vehicles 

and construction equipment would be required to use the new low sulfur diesel fuel as soon as it is 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-202 

commercially available. In addition, North Baja would implement the following measures to minimize 

impacts on air resources. 

• minimize idling time for diesel equipment whenever possible; 

• ensure that diesel-powered construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained, and 

shut off when not in direct use; 

• prohibit engine tampering to increase horsepower; 

• use California Air Resources Board-certified low sulfur diesel fuel (less than 15 parts per 

million); and 

• reduce construction-related trips as feasible for workers and equipment, including trucks. 

Fugitive dust emissions (e.g., PM10) would depend on the moisture content and texture of the 

soils that would be disturbed. The construction emissions would vary from day to day depending on the 

level of activity, the specific operations, and prevailing weather. The fugitive dust emissions due to 

construction activities on the pipeline segments as listed in Table 4.12.4-1 were estimated using an 

uncontrolled emission factor of 0.11 tons/acre-month based on a study conducted for the SCAQMD by 

the Midwest Research Institute (1996). Typically, the emission factor in the EPA’s AP-42 Compilation of 

Air Pollutant Emission Factors is used; however, the Agency Staffs used the more relevant SCAQMD 

factor.6 The emission factor for estimating fugitive dust from unpaved roads is based on empirical 

equations that include several factors, including silt content of the soil, average vehicle weight, and 

surface moisture content under natural conditions. The equation for estimating the emission factor for 

unpaved roads is found in AP-42, Section 13.2.2. The calculated emission factor for unpaved roads 

includes an assumed average silt content of 25 percent (average value derived from the Eastern Imperial 

County and Eastern Riverside County soil survey data), an average vehicle weight of 4.3 tons, and a 

surface soil moisture content of 1 percent. The number of days with measurable rain (greater than 0.01 

inch) is also taken into account. The emissions estimate for worker travel (commuter traffic) includes the 

use of multi-passenger vehicles to transport construction workers from central staging areas. 

Fugitive dust generated by construction activities would be minimized by the implementation of 

North Baja’s Dust Control Plan (see Appendix L). The Dust Control Plan includes control measures 

identified as best management practices by some of the regulating agencies. The measures that would be 

implemented include: 

• take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from construction 

activities; 

• take every reasonable measure to limit visible density (opacity) of emissions to less than 

or equal to 20 percent; 

• apply water one or more times per day to all affected unpaved roads, and unpaved haul 

and access roads; 

• reduce vehicle speeds on all unpaved roads, and unpaved haul and access roads; 

 

6

 The Mojave Desert AQMD has not developed its own emission factor. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-203 

• clean up track-out and/or carry-out areas at paved road access points at a minimum of 

once every 48 hours; 

• if bulk transfer operations are required, spray handling and transfer points with water at 

least 15 minutes before use; 

• cover all haul truck loads, or maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard space in each cargo 

compartment. Ensure that all haul truck cargo compartments are constructed and 

maintained to minimize spillage and loss of materials, and clean or wash each cargo 

compartment at the delivery site after removal of the bulk materials; 

• apply water to active construction areas to limit visible density (opacity) of emissions to 

less than or equal to 20 percent; 

• apply water to open and/or unvegetated areas to limit visible density (opacity) of 

emissions to less than or equal to 20 percent; and 

• for temporary surfaces during periods of inactivity, restrict vehicular access by means of 

either fencing or signage, and apply water to comply with the stabilized surface 

requirements. 

Although many of these measures clearly specify the performance requirement, some of the 

measures are vague and open to interpretation and, consequently, would be difficult to enforce during 

construction. Therefore, the Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall prepare a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan that specifies the 

following: 

a. the precautions that would be taken to minimize fugitive dust emissions 

from construction activities; 

b. the measures that would be taken to limit visible density (opacity) of 

emissions to less than or equal to 20 percent; 

c. how visual density would be measured to determine that it is less than or 

equal to 20 percent; 

d. how compliance with the 20 percent visual density requirement would be 

documented; 

e. the individuals with authority to determine if/when water needs to be 

reapplied for dust control; 

f. the speed limit that would be required on unpaved roads and unpaved haul 

and access roads; and 

g. the individuals with authority to stop work if the contractor does not comply 

with dust control measures. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-204 

The revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan shall be filed with the FERC and the 

CSLC for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive 

Officer of the CSLC before construction. 

In its comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the ICAPCD noted that North Baja’s Dust Control Plan 

does not meet the Best Available Control Measures of the ICAPCD’s Regulation VIII with regard to 

clean up of track-out areas. The ICAPCD also noted that additional track-out control devices and further 

dust control measures must be utilized if construction vehicle trips per day exceed the thresholds 

established in Regulation VIII. The ICAPCD asked that traffic at unpaved to paved intersections be 

quantified in the Dust Control Plan and the Dust Control Plan modified accordingly. To address the 

ICAPCD’s comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the Agency Staffs recommend that: 

• North Baja shall prepare an Imperial County-specific Dust Control Plan that 

includes the measures of the revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan and meets the 

requirements of the ICAPCD’s Regulation VIII. The Imperial County-specific Dust 

Control Plan shall be filed with the CSLC for the review and written approval of the 

Executive Officer of the CSLC before construction of the Imperial County portions 

of Phase I-A and Phase II. 

As discussed in Section 4.8.5, in their comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the EPA and the ICAPCD 

expressed concern about the generation of fugitive dust emissions associated with OHV use of the rightof-way and commented that North Baja’s OHV Plan did not address enforcement and future monitoring 

of the proposed OHV blocking measures. In Section 4.8.5, the Agency Staffs have recommended that 

North Baja file a revised OHV Plan that addresses enforcement and future monitoring with the FERC and 

the CSLC before construction. 

With the implementation of the Agency Staffs’ recommendations, fugitive dust from Project 

construction activities and OHV use of the right-of-way is not expected to result in a violation of Federal 

or State ambient air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality 

violation due to the transient and temporary nature of the construction activities. Further, all activities 

would be done in compliance with each agency’s rules and regulations. 

Construction of the Project would generate emissions of non-regulated GHG. CO2 would be 

formed as a primary product of combustion of the diesel and gas engines used to power construction 

equipment and vehicles. 

None of the proposed facilities would result in increased air emissions of criteria pollutants 

during operation; however, emissions of GHG could occur. Direct releases of methane could occur as a 

result of pipeline repair or maintenance operations. These releases would be infrequent over the lifetime 

of the Project and would likely involve only an isolated section of pipeline resulting in a negligible 

increase in GHG emissions. 

The gas transported on the North Baja system to SoCalGas would be odorized by SoCalGas using 

its existing odorant facilities. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors that would 

affect a substantial number of people or affect a lesser number of people for a substantial duration. 

During the scoping process, the ICAPCD commented that the Mexican standards for gas quality 

and the WI are inadequate to protect air quality in the United States and requested that a comparison of 

the U.S. and Mexican standards be provided. In comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the EPA, the SCAQMD, 

the ICAPCD, and the Border Power Plant Working Group expressed concern that the supplies of LNGsource gas that would be transported on the North Baja system would have a higher WI compared to 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-205 

existing supplies. These commentors assert that the introduction of the LNG-source gas would 

potentially increase emissions of NOx in the SCAB, directly affecting air quality and making attainment 

of the Federal air quality standards more difficult. Some of the commentors requested that the FERC and 

the CSLC impose an upper limit on the WI for the gas received into North Baja’s system and urged the 

Project approval to be conditioned upon the treatment of the gas prior to its delivery into the SCAB. 

Section 1.1 presents a detailed discussion of the current gas quality standards applicable to the SoCalGas 

and SDG&E systems. 

The Agency Staffs have also concluded that they do not have legal authority to control nor do 

they have continuing program responsibility over the construction and operation of facilities located in 

Mexico (see Section 1.4). These upstream facilities are subject to the Mexican environmental regulatory 

review process and standards. However, in response to scoping comments, the air quality impacts on the 

United States from the associated upstream facilities are addressed in the cumulative impact analysis in 

Section 4.15. 

4.12.5 Health Risk Assessment 

A Health Risk Assessment was not conducted for the proposed Project because it would not result 

in increased operational emissions. Therefore, the potential for the Project to expose the public to 

substantial pollutant concentrations, including those resulting in a cancer risk greater than or equal to one 

in a million and/or a hazard index (non-cancerous risk) greater than or equal to 0.1, would be less than 

significant. 

A Health Risk Assessment was conducted to address the cumulative impacts associated with 

nonjurisdictional upstream facilities (see Section 4.15). 

4.12.6 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on air quality identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-206 

4.13 NOISE 

4.13.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on environmental noise levels would be considered significant and would 

require mitigation if Project construction or operation would cause: 

• exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in 

the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; 

• exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels; 

• substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels 

existing without the Project; or 

• substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity 

above levels existing without the Project. 

4.13.2 Existing Noise Levels 

At any location, both the magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably 

over the course of the day and throughout the week. This variation is caused in part by changing weather 

conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetative cover and human activity. Federal agencies use two 

measures to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise to its known effect on people. The 

Leq(24) is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of 

interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. A second measure, the day-night equivalent sound level (Ldn) is 

calculated by adding 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) to the nighttime sound levels between 

the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM to account for the greater sensitivity of people to sound during the 

nighttime hours. The A-weighted scale is used because human hearing is less sensitive to low and high 

frequencies than mid-range frequencies. The human ear’s threshold of perception for noise change is 3 

dBA. 

The Project would occur primarily in rural range, desert, and agricultural areas. Noise sources in 

rural areas are predominantly natural, including insects, birds, wind, and weather. Accordingly, existing 

ambient noise levels near most of the pipeline routes are low. Background noise levels in wilderness and 

rural areas typically range between 35 dBA and 45 dBA (Ldn). The primary sources of noise in the rural 

residential and agricultural areas are roadway traffic and farm machinery on a seasonal basis. 

Background noise levels are approximately 40 dBA in rural residential areas and 45 dBA in agricultural 

cropland with equipment operating (FERC 2002, EPA 1978). 

Noise-sensitive areas (NSAs) include residences, schools and day care facilities, hospitals, longterm care facilities, places of worship, libraries, and parks and recreational areas specifically known for 

their solitude and tranquility such as wilderness areas. The majority of the pipeline and aboveground 

facilities would be located in areas with little to no human population and few NSAs. 

The existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station is considered a noise-generating facility. Principal 

noise sources at the compressor station include the air inlet, exhaust, and casing of the engines. 

Secondary noise sources include cooling fans, yard piping, and valves. Post-construction noise 

compliance testing after the Ehrenberg Compressor Station was constructed and placed into service 

confirmed that noise levels at nearby NSAs were below the FERC’s limitation of 55 dBA Ldn with the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-207 

power turbines for all three compressors operating simultaneously at maximum horsepower. The 

proposed modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station would not increase operational 

noise levels at the station. 

4.13.3 Regulatory Requirements 

The FERC guidelines do not specifically cover operational noise for the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project aboveground facilities such as the meter stations, pig launchers, or pig receivers. 

Neither the States of Arizona nor California have Statewide noise regulations that would limit noise from 

these facilities; noise is regulated at the local level in both States. 

In 1974, the EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA 1974). This publication evaluates 

the effects of environmental noise with respect to health and safety, and provides information for State 

and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. The EPA has determined 

that in order to protect the public from activity interference and annoyance outdoors in residential areas, 

noise levels should not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA. An Ldn of 55 dBA is equivalent to a continuous noise 

level of 48.6 dBA for facilities that operate at a constant level of noise. The FERC has adopted the EPA 

guidelines. 

The State of California does not promulgate Statewide standards for environmental noise but 

requires each county to include a noise element in its general plan (California Government Code section 

65302[f]). In addition, Title 4 of the California Code of Regulations has guidelines for evaluating the 

compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. 

The La Paz County, Arizona Department of Community Development has approved a nuisance 

ordinance that prohibits any actions that are “offensive to the senses.” No numerical standards for noise 

exist in the county. Imperial and Riverside Counties have community-based noise standards, which are 

implemented in the specific general plans for each region. 

Chapter 7 of the Riverside County General Plan contains a noise element that sets the basic 

community standards for noise levels and allowable impacts from a wide range of commercial and 

industrial activities, including construction noise. The Riverside County noise element identifies 

construction noise as a temporary impact and establishes a set of policies to deal with noise mitigation 

during construction activities. These policies are identified as N12.1, N12.2, and N12.4. These policies 

are in large part related to land use because of the effects of noise on sensitive land uses. Stationary 

source land use noise standards for Riverside County are presented in Table 4.13.3-1 (Riverside County 

2003). 

TABLE 4.13.3-1 

Stationary Source Land Use Noise Standards for Riverside County

Land Use Interior Standards a Exterior Standards a

Residential 

10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 40 Leq (10 minute) 45 Leq (10 minute) 

7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55 Leq (10 minute) 65 Leq (10 minute) 

____________________ 

a Leq (10 minute) = average noise level over a 10-minute period expressed in dBA.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-208 

The Imperial County General Plan also contains a community noise element that specifies the 

basic standards for acceptable noise levels from operational- (stationary) or construction-related sources 

as shown in Table 4.13.3-2. 

TABLE 4.13.3-2 

Noise Standards for Imperial County

Operation Noise Standards 

Land Use Zone Time 

Applicable Limit 

Average Sound Level (dB) 

Residential Zones 7 AM to 10 PM 

10 PM to 7 AM 

50 

45 

Multi-residential Zones 7 AM to 10 PM 

10 PM to 7 AM 

55 

50 

Commercial Zone 7 AM to 10 PM 

10 PM to 7 AM 

60 

55 

Light Industrial/Industrial Park Zones Anytime 70 

General Industrial Zones Anytime 75 

Construction Noise Standards 

Duration of 

Construction Noise Source 

Sound Level 

(dB Leq) a

Period of Averaging 

(hours) Restricted Hours of Operation 

Short-term 

(days or weeks) 

Single piece of 

construction 

equipment 

75 8 7 AM to 7 PM Monday-Friday 

9 AM to 5 PM Saturday 

No commercial construction 

operation is permitted on Sundays 

and holidays. 

Short-term 

(days or weeks) 

Combination of 

pieces of 

construction 

equipment 

75 8 7 AM to 7 PM Monday-Friday 

9 AM to 5 PM Saturday 

No commercial construction is 

permitted on Sundays and Holidays 

Extended-term b Single piece of 

construction 

equipment 

75 1 7 AM to 7 PM Monday-Friday 

9 AM to 5 PM Saturday 

No commercial construction is 

permitted on Sundays and Holidays 

Extended-term b Combination of 

pieces of 

construction 

equipment 

75 1 7 AM to 7 PM Monday-Friday 

9 AM to 5 PM Saturday 

No commercial construction is 

permitted on Sundays and Holidays 

____________________ 

a

 As measured at the nearest sensitive receptor. 

b

 The standards assume a construction period, relative to an individual sensitive receptor, of days or weeks. The 

standard can be made more restrictive in cases of extended-length construction times. 

dB = decibel 

Source: County of Imperial General Plan Noise Element 1997c. 

4.13.4 Noise Level Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Noise 

Noise would be generated during construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Noise 

associated with construction activities would be both temporary and intermittent because equipment 

would be operated on an as-needed basis during daylight hours. Therefore, the potential for construction 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-209 

activities to result in the generation of or exposure of persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or 

ground-borne noise levels would be less than significant. 

The most prevalent sound source during construction is anticipated to be the internal combustion 

engines used to provide mobility and operating power to construction equipment. The sound level 

impacts at NSAs from construction operations would depend on the type of equipment used, the mode of 

operation of the equipment, the length of time the equipment is in use, the amount of equipment used 

simultaneously, and the distance between the sound source and sensitive site. All of these factors would 

constantly change throughout the construction period, making the calculation of an Ldn or Leq and, hence, 

the quantification of impacts difficult. Table 4.13.4-1 presents generalized data on construction noise at 

typical construction sites and its potential impacts on receptors at specified distances from the 

construction corridor. In general, receptors at distances greater than 1,650 feet should not experience 

noise levels above the community standards, and receptors closer than 1,650 feet should only experience 

noise levels above the community standards on an intermittent basis during daylight hours. 

TABLE 4.13.4-1 

Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment and Operations

Equipment Type 

Measured Noise 

Level at 

50 feet (dBA) 

Predicted Noise 

Level at 

500 feet (dBA) 

Predicted Noise 

Level at 

1,000 feet (dBA) 

Predicted Noise 

Level at 

2,000 feet (dBA) 

Predicted Noise 

Level at 3,000 

feet (dBA) 

Crane 88 68 62 56 52 

Backhoe 85 65 59 53 49 

Pan Loader 87 67 61 55 51 

Bulldozer 89 69 63 57 53 

Fuel Truck 88 68 62 56 52 

Water Truck 88 68 62 56 49 

Grader 85 65 59 53 44 

Roller 80 60 54 48 52 

Mechanic Truck 88 68 62 56 52 

Flat Bed Truck 88 68 62 56 52 

Dump Truck 88 68 62 56 52 

Tractor 80 60 62 56 44 

Concrete Truck 86 66 60 54 50 

Concrete Pump 82 62 56 50 46 

Front End Loader 83 63 57 51 47 

Scraper 87 67 61 55 51 

Air Compressor 82 62 56 50 46 

Average Construction Site 85 66 59 53 49 

____________________ 

dBA = decibels of the A-weighted scale.

Pipeline construction would proceed at rates averaging about 1 mile per day. However, 

construction activities in any one area could last from several weeks to several months on an intermittent 

basis. Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during this period. Nighttime 

construction noise would be limited to HDDs at the Colorado River, All-American Canal, and the East 

Highline Canal crossings; hydrostatic testing activities; and bores under major highways or railroads. In 

some cases, these operations could require 24-hour work days; however, the duration of activities would 

be generally less than several days at road or railroad crossings although they could extend for up to 2 

weeks at the HDD crossings. Hydrostatic testing would be limited to one 24-hour interval at four to five 

scattered locations. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-210 

Although certain noise-generating activities associated with pipeline construction (e.g., HDDs 

and bore operations) would occur at a single location for extended time periods and include nighttime 

activities, most activities would occur for limited lengths of time at a specific location and would occur 

during daytime hours. Additionally, a majority of the activities would occur away from population 

centers; therefore, the potential for the Project to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in 

ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project would be less than 

significant. 

North Baja would comply with the noise elements included in the Riverside County and Imperial 

County General Plans; therefore, the potential for the Project to result in the exposure of persons to or 

generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, 

or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant. 

Operational Noise 

During operation, there may be short-term noise impacts from aboveground facilities due to 

vehicles and equipment performing routine maintenance. A more intense noise impact would result from 

the infrequent blowdowns at the valves that would be located at Blythe and Ogilby, the El Centro Meter 

Station, and the Ehrenberg Compressor Station. Blowdowns involve the evacuation of gas, which enables 

piping to be taken out of service, typically for major repairs or maintenance. Blowdowns occur only on 

rare occasions; therefore, the noise impacts would be infrequent and temporary. As an example, no 

blowdowns have occurred on North Baja’s existing system since it was placed in service 4 years ago. 

Despite the infrequency of blowdowns, in residential areas, North Baja would install silencers to reduce 

noise levels. In the event of a blowdown, nearby residences would be notified in advance if possible and 

North Baja would provide traffic control along public roadways near the blowdown location as needed. 

The proposed modifications at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station would not increase noise at the station 

during operation. Because the Project would not result in significant operational noise levels, the 

potential for the Project to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project 

vicinity above levels existing without the Project would be less than significant. 

4.13.5 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on noise levels identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-211 

4.14 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an 

accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major 

pipeline rupture. 

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not 

toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high 

concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. 

Methane has an ignition temperature of 1,000 °F and is flammable at concentrations between 5 

percent and 15 percent in air. Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are not explosive. However, a 

flammable concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is 

buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air. 

4.14.1 Significance Criteria 

An adverse impact on public safety would be considered significant and would require mitigation 

if Project construction or operation would: 

• result in a substantial potential for incidents that would cause serious injury or death to 

members of the public; 

• substantially diminish the level of fire and police services (reduction of acceptable 

response times); 

• impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response 

plan or emergency evacuation plan; or 

• significantly increase fire hazard in areas with flammable materials. 

4.14.2 Safety Standards 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, USC Chapter 601. The Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) administers 

the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other hazardous 

materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk management that ensure 

safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline 

facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards that set the level of safety to be 

attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. The PHMSA 

ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This work is 

shared with State agency partners and others at the Federal, State, and local level. Section 5(a) of the 

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act provides for a State agency to assume all aspects of the safety program 

for intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing the Federal standards, while section 5(b) permits a State 

agency that does not qualify under section 5(a) to perform certain inspection and monitoring functions. A 

State may also act as the DOT’s agent to inspect interstate facilities within its boundaries; however, the 

DOT is responsible for enforcement action. The majority of the States have either section 5(a) 

certifications or section 5(b) agreements, while nine States act as interstate agents. Both Arizona and 

California have section 5(a) certifications.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-212 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in Parts 190-199 of Title 49 of the CFR. Part 192 of 

Title 49 CFR specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) 

dated January 15, 1993 between the DOT and the FERC, the DOT has the exclusive authority to 

promulgate Federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of 

the FERC's regulations require that an Applicant certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct, 

operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a Certificate is requested in accordance with Federal 

safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection, or shall certify that it has been granted a 

waiver of the requirements of the safety standards by the DOT in accordance with section 3(e) of the 

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional 

safety standards other than the DOT standards. If the FERC becomes aware of an existing or potential 

safety problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert the DOT. The Memorandum 

also provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by State and local governments and the general 

public involving safety matters related to pipelines under the FERC’s jurisdiction. 

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT's Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee, which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable. 

As part of the leasing process in California, the CSLC reviews pipeline projects to ensure that 

they are designed in compliance with applicable Federal and California standards, and that they reflect 

current geologic and seismic information. The CSLC’s engineering and environmental review assesses 

both siting and safety issues, such as the location of the Project relative to seismic and populated areas, 

and the adequacy of the information contained in the Applicant’s construction, operations, maintenance, 

and emergency response plans (e.g., proposed internal and external maintenance inspection processes, 

integrity testing methods to be applied, corrosion monitoring and testing and calibration of the cathodic 

protection system, leak monitoring, and emergency response plans and procedures). In determining 

whether or not to approve or amend a lease and/or certify the CEQA documentation for a project, the 

CSLC may consider if standards above the DOT minimum standards provided for in Title 49 CFR Part 

192 are warranted in fault zone and populated areas, and may require additional safety measures, such as 

the installation of automatic shutoffs in these areas. For approved projects, the CSLC staff also reviews 

(for consistency with the CSLC’s action on the lease) post-construction documentation, including “asbuilt” construction plans showing any design changes or other amendments to the project as approved, 

pipeline test results (e.g., smart pig and hydrostatic testing), and details of any extraordinary occurrences 

such as spill incidents and accidents. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with or to exceed the 

DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192 and the CPUC, General Order 112-E. 

These regulations, which are intended to protect the public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents 

and failures, include specifications for material selection and qualification; odorization of gas; minimum 

design requirements; and protection of the pipeline from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

To address seismic hazards, the facilities would be designed to meet or exceed the latest edition of the 

Uniform Building Code or International Building Code and to incorporate current seismological 

engineering standards, including the Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe (American Lifelines 

Alliance 2001) and Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid 

Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. 2004). In addition, North Baja’s 

construction contractors would be required to comply with the OSHA Safety and Health Regulations for 

Construction in Title 29 CFR Part 1926. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-213 

The standards in the Federal regulations become more stringent as the human population density 

in the vicinity of the pipeline increases. Part 192 also defines area classifications, based on population 

density in the vicinity of the pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated 

areas. The class location unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any 

continuous 1-mile length of pipeline. The four area classifications are as follows: 

• Class 1 – Location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy; 

• Class 2 – Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy; 

• Class 3 – Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period; and 

• Class 4 – Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, 

testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be installed with a 

minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 4 

locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossings, require a minimum cover of 

36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. All pipelines installed in navigable rivers, 

streams, and harbors must have a minimum cover of 48 inches in soil or 24 inches in consolidated rock. 

North Baja would design all railroad crossings in accordance with the AREMA Manual for Railway 

Engineering, Part 5 Pipeline and Title 49 CFR Part 192 Transportation of Natural Gas by Pipeline: 

Minimum Federal Safety Standards. The AREMA specifications require a minimum distance of 10 feet 

from the bottom of the rail to the top of the pipe. All road crossings would be designed to comply with 

Title 49 CFR Part 192 Transportation of Natural Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, 

which specifies a minimum depth of cover of 3 feet in road ditches. In addition, all roadway and highway 

crossings would be designed to meet the applicable State and local agency permit requirements and the 

latest edition of American Petroleum Institute 1102 requirements. 

Pipe wall thickness and pipeline design pressures, MAOP, hydrostatic test pressures, inspection 

and testing of welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher 

standards in more populated areas. For the B-Line, North Baja proposes to use Class 1 pipe in 

comparable areas of the A-Line: between MPs 11.7 and 79.8. Class 2 pipe would be used between MPs 

0.0 and 11.7 and at all road and railroad crossings within Class 1 locations. For the Arrowhead 

Extension, Class 2 pipe would be used. For the IID Lateral, Class 2 pipe would be used between MPs 

45.0 and 45.7. Class 3 pipe would be used between MPs 0.0 and 0.25, 3.1 and 3.7, and 8.5 and 9.1. Class 

1 pipe would be used in all other locations. The design pressure and MAOP of the pipeline facilities 

would be 1,150 psig. The normal operating pressure would be 1,050 psig. Hydrostatic test pressures 

would be 90 to 100 percent of the specified minimum yield strength of the pipe being tested. 

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change in 

class location for the pipeline, North Baja would be required to reduce the MAOP or replace the segment 

with pipe of sufficient grade and wall thickness to comply with the DOT code of regulations for the new 

class location. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to sectionalizing remote manual block valves 

(referred to as valves in other sections of this document). Part 192 regulations require at least one valve 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-214 

every 20 miles in Class 1 locations, every 15 miles in Class 2 locations, every 8 miles in Class 3 

locations, and every 5 miles in Class 4 locations. The spacing between the valves for the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project would meet or exceed the DOT requirements for the appropriate class 

location. The valves proposed for the B-Line would be adjacent to the existing valves on the A-Line. 

External corrosion control measures include the protective coating on the exterior of the pipe and 

use of cathodic protection systems. These systems are designed to meet requirements established by the 

DOT for protection of metallic facilities from external, internal, and atmospheric corrosion. North Baja 

plans to use an impressed current system using deep well anodes placed in areas where their effect would 

provide the required negative-induced potential to resist external corrosion. The deep well anodes would 

be within the pipeline right-of-way. Aboveground facilities would be painted with a suitable anticorrosion coating. Internal corrosion is not expected to be a factor because North Baja would monitor the 

pipeline interior through the use of internal corrosion probes, on-line pigging tools, or a combination of 

the two. 

The aboveground cathodic protection facilities proposed for the Project include electrical 

rectifiers to provide the necessary electrical current and test leads for conducting system voltage tests. 

Rectifiers are generally mounted on power poles inside locked metal electrical boxes, where test leads are 

generally protected from weather in capped plastic risers designed for that purpose. During the scoping 

process, a question was raised whether North Baja plans any specific vandalism protection measures in 

high-use recreational areas. North Baja reports that no acts of vandalism along the existing A-Line have 

occurred to rectifiers and, therefore, it does not plan to implement any extraordinary vandalism protection 

measures on the cathodic protection devices. North Baja states that its biggest concern for possible 

vandalism would be rectifier installations in the ISDRA portion of the IID Lateral route; however, North 

Baja believes that the cathodic protection system can be designed for the pipeline facilities without 

utilizing this area for rectifier installations. 

North Baja would x-ray all girth welds over 6 inches in diameter where possible to ensure 

pipeline structural integrity and compliance with the applicable DOT regulations. Where x-ray inspection 

is impossible or impractical, other means of non-destructive inspection would be conducted. Those welds 

that do not meet established specifications would be repaired or replaced. Once the welds are approved, 

the welded joints would be coated with a protective coating and the entire pipeline would be visually 

inspected for any faults, scratches, or other coating defects. Any damage would be repaired before the 

pipeline is installed. 

After construction, North Baja would clearly mark the pipeline at line-of-sight intervals, roads, 

railroads, and other key points to alert the public to the presence of the pipeline. The markers would 

provide contact information for North Baja in the event of an emergency. In accordance with the DOT 

regulations in effect since 1982, North Baja would participate in all communication and notification 

“One-Call” services to prevent outside damage to the pipeline. These services provide preconstruction 

information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and 

culverts. 

In 2002, Congress passed an act to strengthen the nation’s pipeline safety laws. The Pipeline 

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (HR 3609) was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002, and signed 

into law by the President in December 2002. By December 17, 2004, gas transmission operators were 

required to develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements 

described in Part 192.911 and addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. 

Specifically, the law establishes an integrity management program that applies to all high consequence 

areas (HCAs). The DOT (68 Federal Register 69778, 69 Federal Register 18228, and 69 Federal Register 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-215 

29903) defines HCAs as they relate to the different class zones, potential impact circles, or areas 

containing an identified site as defined in Part 192.903 of the DOT regulations. 

The OPS published a series of rules from August 6, 2002 to May 26, 2004 (69 Federal Register 

29903), that defines HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and their 

property and requires an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an accident. This 

definition satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate in Title 49, USC 60109 for the OPS to prescribe 

standards that establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area. 

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method (Method 1), an HCA includes: 

• current Class 3 and 4 locations; 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 locations where the PIR7

 is greater than 660 feet and there are 20 

or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle;8

 or 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 locations where the potential impact circle includes an identified 

site.9

In the second method (Method 2), an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that 

contains: 

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or 

• an identified site. 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs. The DOT regulations 

specify the requirements for the integrity management plan at Part 192.911. The pipeline integrity 

management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the entire pipeline in HCAs every 7 years. 

Before placing a natural gas pipeline into service, the DOT requires the facility operator to 

prepare an Operation and Maintenance Plan in accordance with the requirements in Title 49 CFR Part 

192. North Baja would prepare and implement a plan that includes the following activities: 

• employee qualification to operate and maintain the pipeline system in accordance with 

the Title 49 CFR Part 192 Operator Qualification Rule; 

• air patrols of the pipeline right-of-way to monitor its condition, including any indications 

of third-party encroachment; 

• on-the-ground leak surveys with leak detector equipment; 

• annual contact of property owners, utilities, local government agencies, contractors, and 

other interested parties to inform them of the pipeline location and procedures to be 

followed in reporting and responding to a pipeline emergency; 

 

7

 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the maximum allowable operating pressure of the 

pipeline in pounds per square inch multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 8

 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius. 9

 An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in any 12-month period; a 

building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for any 10 weeks in any 12-month period; or a facility that is 

occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-216 

• participation in a "One Call" system in each State where the pipeline is located, including 

staking and marking service for third-party construction and landowner requests; 

• internal audits of field locations to ensure compliance with existing operating and 

maintenance standards and safe-work procedures; 

• periodic pipe-to-soil potential surveys and rectifier inspections to maintain the line’s 

cathodic protection; 

• annual in-house training for operation and maintenance personnel to maintain skill levels 

and review safety procedures in case of a pipeline emergency; and 

• annual testing and inspection of pressure-limiting devices and emergency shutdown 

systems at the compressor stations. 

Section 14.14.4 includes an assessment of potential HCAs associated with the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project. 

The existing pipeline system is monitored and controlled 24 hours a day for pressure drops in the 

pipeline that could indicate a leak or other operating problem through a SCADA system. A detailed 

description of the SCADA system is included in Section 2.6. In addition, a crew that conducts on-site 

operations and maintenance is at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, and is on-call 24 hours a day. When 

completed, the B-Line, Arrowhead Extension, and IID Lateral would be operated in conjunction with the 

existing system and subject to the same operation and maintenance procedures. 

The pipeline would be designed to be piggable, allowing for the future use of smart pigs for 

internal integrity inspection. In addition, North Baja would run a gauging plate and, if warranted, a 

caliper tool to determine if there are any dents in the pipeline as a result of construction. Dents that 

exceed those allowable by code would be removed before placing the pipeline into service. 

Within the first 6 months of placing the pipeline into operation, North Baja would conduct an 

internal inspection of the pipeline. This inspection would use an in-line magnetic flux leakage inspection 

tool (i.e., smart pig). The record of this inspection would serve as an initial set of data that would be 

compared to future internal inspections so that changes in pipe condition, primarily pipe wall thickness 

loss, can be readily determined and corrected. The initial test would likely not indicate any anomalies 

that would require correction because the pipeline would be new and would have completed a successful 

hydrostatic test. Following the initial test, internal inspections with a high resolution instrument would be 

conducted on a periodic basis, at a minimum of one inspection every 10 years, or sooner if the evidence 

suggests that significant corrosion or defects exist or if any new Federal or State regulations require more 

frequent or comparable inspections. 

The pipeline system would be inspected by air and on the ground to observe right-of-way 

conditions and identify indications of leaks, evidence of pipeline damage, evidence of encroachment (i.e., 

landowners building permanent structures on the permanent right-of-way), or damage to erosion controls 

resulting from erosion or washouts. North Baja would comply with other DOT surveillance, leak 

detection requirements such as leakage surveys, aerial surveys, and pedestrian surveys of its facilities. 

To ensure that North Baja’s operation and maintenance commitments are documented in a 

comprehensive plan and to assist the CSLC in reviewing the Project for consistency with the CSLC’s 

action on the amended lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, the Agency Staffs 

recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-217 

• Before placing the pipeline system into service in California, North Baja shall 

submit to the CSLC for approval an Operation and Maintenance Plan. This plan 

shall address internal and external maintenance inspections of the completed 

facility, including but not limited to details of integrity testing methods to be 

applied, corrosion monitoring and testing of the cathodic protection system, and 

leak monitoring. The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall also specify that North 

Baja would, unless expressly prohibited by DOT regulations, conduct an internal 

inspection with a high-resolution instrument on a periodic basis, at a minimum of 

one inspection every 10 years, or sooner if the evidence suggests that significant 

corrosion or defects exist or if any new Federal or State regulations require more 

frequent or comparable inspections. Within 3 months following any new Federal or 

State regulations, North Baja shall update the Operation and Maintenance Plan and 

submit a revised copy to the CSLC. In addition, the Operation and Maintenance 

Plan shall include procedures for implementing operational mitigation measures 

recommended (if any) by the site-specific seismic hazard evaluation reports for the 

Project. 

In accordance with Part 192.615, North Baja would develop an Emergency Response Plan 

comparable to that developed for the A-Line that includes procedures to respond to and minimize the 

hazards from a natural gas pipeline emergency along its system. The Emergency Response Plan would 

include the following: 

• local field headquarters to contact; 

• listing of company personnel, local police, and fire authorities to contact; 

• listing of equipment available at field locations; 

• description of the roles of field supervisors, gas control operators, field crews, and 

support personnel during an emergency; 

• description of procedures for maintaining communication between gas control operators 

and local fire, police, and government authorities; 

• description of procedures for securing additional help from non-company 

resources; and 

• requirements for logging emergency events and reporting the emergency to company and 

regulatory authorities. 

Key elements of the plan also include procedures for: 

• receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, 

and natural disasters; 

• establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, 

and coordinating emergency response; 

• making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an 

emergency; 

• protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards; and 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-218 

• emergency shutdown of the system and safe restoration of service. 

In the unlikely event of a pipeline rupture caused by a seismic event (or any other cause), North 

Baja would implement its emergency response procedures. All North Baja facilities would be designed 

with remote manual pipeline block valves with automatic shutdown capability that are programmed to 

sense pipeline ruptures and to isolate a specific pipeline valve section in the case of a catastrophic rupture 

in that valve section. Like the existing North Baja system, a precipitous pressure drop would trigger an 

alarm at North Baja’s Gas Control Center, which is staffed 24 hours a day. The operator would have 10 

minutes in which to determine whether the pressure drop is caused by something other than a rupture and 

either override the alarm or initiate a shutdown. If neither of these actions is taken by the operator within 

10 minutes, or if line pressure decreases to a pre-determined threshold before 10 minutes, the valve would 

close automatically. 

North Baja currently has procedures in place in the event of an emergency to utilize the Spokane, 

Washington operations center as an emergency call center. This call center is in the process of being 

changed to Redmond, Oregon. By the time the proposed Project would be in operation, the Redmond 

center would likely be operational. There would also be a corporate call center in Calgary, Alberta, 

Canada. The purpose of the call centers in the first few minutes following a rupture is to mobilize 

company resources to secure the incident site and notify local first responders of the incident. The 

incident site is surrendered to local first responders upon their arrival. Procedures are also in place to 

notify Sempra of any incident occurring on the North Baja facilities so that it can respond appropriately 

with regard to its facilities and jurisdictions in Mexico. North Baja’s valves and emergency response 

procedures would reduce the potential for significant fire hazard in areas with flammable materials. 

4.14.3 Pipeline Accident Data 

If a pipeline rupture were to occur after pipeline operation has begun, natural gas would percolate 

through the soil and rapidly dissipate into the atmosphere. The potential outcome would depend on the 

volume of natural gas released and whether an ignition source is available. A pipeline break could result 

in soil and debris being thrown from the area of the break, destruction of nearby vegetation, and, in the 

case of ignition, explosion or fire causing injury or property damage. 

Since February 9, 1970, Title 49 CFR Part 191 has required all operators of transmission and 

gathering systems to notify the DOT of any reportable incident and to submit a report on form F7100.2 

within 20 days. Reportable incidents are defined as any leaks that: 

• caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

• required taking any segment of transmission line out of service; 

• resulted in gas ignition; 

• caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both, of a total of 

$5,000 or more; 

• required immediate repair on a transmission line; 

• occurred while testing with gas or another medium; or 

• in the judgment of the operator was significant, even though it did not meet the above 

criteria. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-219 

The DOT changed reporting requirements after June 1984 to reduce the amount of data collected. 

Since that date, operators must only report incidents that involve property damage of more than $50,000, 

injury, death, release of gas, or that are otherwise considered significant by the operator. Table 4.14.3-1 

presents a summary of incident data for the 1970 to 1984 period, as well as more recent incident data for 

1986 through 2005, recognizing the difference in reporting requirements. The 14.5-year period from 

1970 through June 1984, which provides a larger universe of data and more basic report information than 

subsequent years, has been subject to detailed analysis, as discussed in the following sections.10

TABLE 4.14.3-1 

Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause 

Incidents per 1,000 miles of pipeline (percentage) 

Cause 1970-1984 1986-2005 

Outside force 0.70 (53.8) 0.10 (38.5) 

Corrosion 0.22 (16.9) 0.06 (23.1) 

Construction or material defect 0.27 (20.8) 0.04 (15.4) 

Other 0.11 (8.5) 0.06 (23.1) 

Total 1.30 0.26 

During the 14.5-year period, 5,862 service incidents were reported over the more than 300,000 

total miles of natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. Service incidents, defined as 

failures that occur during pipeline operation, have remained fairly constant over this period with no clear 

upward or downward trend in annual totals. In addition, 2,013 test failures were reported. Correction of 

test failures removed defects from the pipeline before operation. 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be found by examining the primary 

factors that caused the failures. Table 4.14.3-1 provides a percentage distribution of the causal factors as 

well as the annual frequency of each factor per 1,000 miles of pipeline in service. 

The dominant incident cause is outside forces, constituting 53.8 percent of all service incidents 

between 1970 and 1984 and 38.5 percent between 1986 and 2005. Outside forces incidents result from 

the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes; earth movements due to soil 

settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather effects such as winds, storms, and thermal strains; and 

willful damage. Table 4.14.3-2 shows that, of the service incidents caused by outside forces, human error 

in equipment usage was responsible for approximately 75 percent of the incidents. Since April 1982, 

operators have been required to participate in “One-Call” public utility programs in populated areas to 

minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The 1986 through 2005 data 

show that the portion of incidents caused by outside forces has decreased to 38.5 percent (see Table 

4.14.3-1). 

TABLE 4.14.3-2 

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970-1984)

Cause Percent 

Equipment operated by outside party 67.1 

Equipment operated by or for operator 7.3 

Earth movement 13.3 

Weather 10.8 

Other 1.5 

 

10 American Gas Association 1986. "An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 Through 

June 1984." NG-18 Report No. 158, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association. D.J. Jones, G.S. Kramer, D.N. Gideon, 

and R.J. Eiber. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-220 

As noted above, outside forces can include geologic hazards. The primary geologic hazard that 

could affect the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would be seismicity. The potential seismic 

impacts associated with the Project and North Baja’s proposed mitigation measures are discussed in 

Section 4.1.4. 

The pipelines included in the data set in Table 4.14.3-1 vary widely in terms of age, pipe 

diameter, and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be 

expected for a specific segment of pipeline. 

The frequency of service incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. While pipelines 

installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency, pipelines installed before 

that time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion. Older pipelines have a higher 

frequency of corrosion incidents, because corrosion is a time-dependent process. Further, new pipe 

generally uses more advanced coatings and cathodic protection to reduce corrosion potential. 

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their location 

may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, smaller diameter pipelines 

constitute a disproportionate number of the older pipelines, which have a greater rate of outside forces 

incidents. Small diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or earth 

movements. 

Table 4.14.3-3 clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of corrosion control in reducing the 

incidence of failures caused by external corrosion. The use of both an external protective coating and a 

cathodic protection system, required on all pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the 

rate of failure compared to unprotected or partially protected pipe. The data show that bare, cathodically 

protected pipe actually has a higher corrosion rate than unprotected pipe. This anomaly reflects the 

retrofitting of cathodic protection to actively corroding spots on pipes. 

TABLE 4.14.3-3 

External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984)

Corrosion Control Incidents per 1,000 miles per year 

None-bare pipe 0.42 

Cathodic protection only 0.97 

Coated only 0.40 

Coated and cathodic protection 0.11 

4.14.4 Impact on Public Safety 

The service incident data summarized in Table 4.14.3-1 include pipeline failures of all 

magnitudes with widely varying consequences. Approximately two-thirds of the incidents were classified 

as leaks, and the remaining third classified as ruptures, implying a more serious failure. 

Table 4.14.4-1 presents the average annual fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission and 

gathering lines from 1970 to 2005. Fatalities between 1970 and June 1984 have been separated into 

employees and nonemployees, to better identify a fatality rate experienced by the general public. Of the 

total 5.0 nationwide average, fatalities among the public averaged 2.6 per year over this period. The 

simplified reporting requirements in effect after June 1984 do not differentiate between employees and 

nonemployees. However, the data show that the total annual average for the period 1984 through 2005 

decreased to 3.6 fatalities per year. Subtracting two major offshore incidents in 1989, which do not 

reflect the risk to the onshore public, yields a total annual rate of 2.8 fatalities per year for this period. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-221 

TABLE 4.14.4-1 

Annual Average Fatalities - Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems a, b

Year Employees Nonemployees Total 

1970-June 1984 2.4 2.6 5.0 

1984-2005 c - - 3.6 

1984-2005 c - - 2.8 d

____________________ 

a

 1970 through June 1984 - American Gas Association 1986. 

b

 DOT Hazardous Materials Information System. 

c

 Employee/nonemployee breakdown not available after June 1984. d

 Without 18 offshore fatalities that occurred in 1989 (11 fatalities resulted from a fishing vessel striking an offshore pipeline 

and 7 fatalities resulted from an explosion on an offshore production platform). 

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in Table 4.14.4-2 in order to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas 

pipelines. Direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, however, because 

individual exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the average 2.6 

public fatalities per year is relatively small considering the more than 300,000 miles of transmission and 

gathering lines in service nationwide. Furthermore, the fatality rate is approximately two orders of 

magnitude (100 times) lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornados, floods, 

earthquakes, etc. 

TABLE 4.14.4-2 

Nationwide Accidental Deaths a

Type of Accident Fatalities 

All accidents 90,523 

Motor vehicles 43,649 

Falls 14,985 

Drowning 3,488 

Poisoning 9,510 

Fires and burns 3,791 

Suffocation by ingested object 3,206 

Tornado, flood, earthquake, etc. (1984 to 1993 average) 181 

All liquid and gas pipelines (1978 to 1987 average) b 27 

Gas transmission and gathering lines 

Nonemployees only (1970 to 1984 average) c

2.6 

____________________ 

a

 All data, unless otherwise noted, reflect 1996 statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 

“Statistical Abstract of the United States 118th Edition.” b

 U.S. Department of Transportation “Annual Report on Pipeline Safety - Calendar Year 1987.” 

c

 American Gas Association 1986. 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on approximately 301,000 miles in service, the rate of public fatalities for the 

nationwide mix of transmission and gathering lines in service is 0.01 per year per 1,000 miles of pipeline. 

Using this rate, the pipeline facilities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project might 

result in a public fatality about every 793 years. This would represent a slight increase in risk to the 

nearby public and would not result in a substantial potential for incidents that would cause serious injury 

or death to members of the public. 

As discussed in Section 4.14.2, North Baja would be required to develop an integrity 

management program that applies to all HCAs. There are no indicated HCAs for North Baja’s existing 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-222 

A-Line, but preliminary data indicate that it is likely that two locations along the proposed B-Line might 

qualify as HCAs. These locations are near MPs 27.0 and 75.0. There are no locations along the 

Arrowhead Extension that would classify as an HCA. Along the IID Lateral, the ISDRA portion of the 

route (MPs 0.0 to 7.0) would classify as an HCA and the newly constructed RV park near MP 9.0 might 

classify as an HCA using Method 1 of the HCA determination protocols. No HCAs were identified along 

the Project using Method 2. The HCAs potentially crossed by the proposed Project are listed by milepost 

and pipeline class in Table 4.14.4-3. As required by the DOT, North Baja would conduct a 

comprehensive HCA assessment of the new pipeline segments following construction. The existing 

North Baja pipeline facilities are presently managed under an Integrity Management Program plan that 

ensures compliance with Title 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O. The newly constructed facilities would be 

incorporated into the existing plan. Pipeline inspection within identified HCAs would be conducted every 

7 years in accordance with the pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs. Additional discussion of 

potential impact radii as they relate to minority and low-income populations is provided in Section 4.17.4. 

TABLE 4.14.4-3 

Preliminary Identification of High Consequence Areas (HCAs) Crossed by the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project a

Facility/Milepost Range per Pipeline Class Pipeline Class HCA Milepost 

B-Line 

0.0 - 11.7 Class 2 None 

11.7 - 79.8 Class 1 27.0, 75.0 

Arrowhead Extension 

0.0-2.1 Class 2 None 

 

IID Lateral 

0.0-0.25 Class 3 0.0-0.25 

0.25-3.1 Class 1 0.25-3.1 

3.1-3.7 Class 3 3.1-3.7 

3.7-8.5 Class 1 3.7-7.0 

8.5-9.1 Class 3 9.0 

9.1-45.0 Class 1 None 

45.0-45.7 Class 2 None 

____________________ 

a All HCAs were determined by Method 1. 

HCA Determination Method 1 = current Class 3 and 4 locations or any area in Class 1 or 2 locations where the 

potential impact radius is greater than 660 feet and there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy 

within the potential impact circle; or any area in Class 1 or 2 locations where the potential impact circle includes an 

identified site. 

Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, 

police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may 

respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also 

establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those 

engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public 

officials. Local police and fire departments would be informed of North Baja’s Operation and 

Maintenance and Emergency and Response Plans. Annual meetings would be held with local police and 

fire authorities to review the plans and discuss procedures to follow in case of an emergency. Police and 

fire departments would also receive emergency telephone numbers where they can contact North Baja 24 

hours a day. North Baja would provide the appropriate training to local emergency service personnel 

before the pipeline is placed in service. No additional specialized local fire protection equipment would 

be required to handle pipeline emergencies. As a result of North Baja’s coordination with local 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-223 

emergency providers, the level of fire and police services would not be substantially diminished. North 

Baja has continued to coordinate with local police and fire departments during operation of the A-Line. 

The Winterhaven Fire Projection District and the Ehrenberg Fire Department submitted comments on the 

draft EIS/EIR in support of the Project and citing North Baja’s commitment to safety. North Baja’s 

continued coordination with local emergency providers would reduce the potential to impair 

implementation of or interference with any local adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. 

4.14.5 Terrorism 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, terrorism has 

become a very real issue for the facilities under the FERC’s jurisdiction. The FERC, like other Federal 

agencies, is faced with a dilemma in how much information can be offered to the public while still 

providing a significant level of protection to energy facilities. Consequently, the FERC has removed 

energy facility design plans and location information from its Internet website to ensure that sensitive 

information is not readily available (RM02-4-000 and PL02-1-000 issued February 20, 2003). 

Since September 11, 2001, the FERC has been involved with other Federal agencies in 

developing a coordinated approach to protecting the energy facilities of the United States, and continues 

to coordinate with these agencies to address this issue. In addition, interstate natural gas companies are 

actively involved with several industry groups to chart how best to address security measures in the 

current environment. A Security Task Force has been created and is addressing ways to improve pipeline 

security practices, strengthen communication within the industry and the interface with government, and 

extend public outreach efforts. 

Increased security awareness has occurred throughout the industry and the nation. The Office of 

Homeland Security was established with the mission of coordinating the efforts of all executive 

departments and agencies to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from 

terrorist attacks within the United States. The FERC, in cooperation with other Federal agencies and 

industry trade groups, has joined in the efforts to protect the energy infrastructure, including the 

approximately 300,000 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipelines. The pipeline system would 

be inspected by air and on the ground in accordance with DOT surveillance requirements as discussed in 

Section 14.4.2. Security measures at the aboveground facilities would include secure fencing, locked 

buildings, security lighting, and automated alarm systems. Employees would be required to wear 

identification cards, and approved visitors would need to sign in and wear identification badges. 

Safety and security are important considerations in any action undertaken by the FERC and the 

CSLC. The attacks of September 11, 2001 have changed the way pipeline operators as well as regulators 

must consider terrorism, both in approving new projects and in operating existing facilities. However, the 

likelihood of future attacks of terrorism or sabotage occurring along the proposed Project, or at any of the 

myriad of natural gas pipeline or energy facilities throughout the United States is unpredictable given the 

disparate motives and abilities of terrorist groups. The continuing need to construct facilities to support 

the future natural gas pipeline infrastructure is not diminished from the threat of any such future acts. 

Moreover, the unpredictable possibility of such acts does not support a finding that this particular Project 

should not be constructed. 

4.14.6 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-224 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

potential impacts on public safety identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-225 

4.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with a proposed 

project are superimposed on, or added to, either temporary (construction related) or permanent (operation 

related) impacts associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although the 

individual impact of each separate project may be minor, the additive or synergistic effects of multiple 

projects could be significant. 

Existing environmental conditions in the Project area reflect changes based on past projects and 

activities. Much of the Project area is rural and relatively undeveloped. However, significant changes to 

portions of the Project area have resulted from activities related to agriculture, mining, water diversion, 

transportation projects, recreation, exotic species introductions, and residential/commercial development. 

Table 4.15-1 lists present or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities that may 

cumulatively or additively impact resources that would be affected by construction and operation of the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. Construction schedules of the future projects depend on factors 

such as economics, funding, and regulatory considerations. Projects and activities included in this 

analysis are generally those of comparable magnitude and nature of impact, and are located within the 

same counties that would be affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. With some 

exceptions, more geographically distant projects are not assessed because their impact would generally be 

localized and, therefore, would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts in the proposed Project 

area. 

4.15.1 Geology and Soils 

The facilities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project are expected to have a 

temporary but direct impact on near-surface geology and soils. Impacts on geology and soils could lead 

to poor revegetation potential and indirectly affect wildlife and aquatic resources as a result of poor 

vegetative cover and increased erosion and sedimentation. The soil stabilization and revegetation 

requirements included in North Baja’s CM&R Plan would prevent or minimize any indirect impacts. 

Because the direct effects would be highly localized and limited primarily to the period of construction, 

cumulative impacts on geology and soils would only occur if other projects are constructed at the same 

time and place as the proposed facilities. The construction of several of the projects listed in Table 4.15-1 

would coincide with the schedule proposed for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. Projects that 

require significant excavation or grading such as the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project, the landfill and 

mine expansions, and residential developments would also have temporary direct impacts on near-surface 

geology and soils. The additive impact of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project on most of these 

projects would be minimal because they would not occur within the same local vicinity. The Drop 2 

Storage Reservoir Project, however, would be relatively close to the IID Lateral. While there would be 

the potential for cumulative impacts on geological resources and soils if the project was constructed 

concurrently with the IID Lateral, any cumulative impact on geology and soils would be minimized by 

the implementation of erosion control and restoration measures during the construction and restoration of 

the projects. Consequently, any potential cumulative impacts on geological resources and soils would be 

temporary and minor. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-226 

TABLE 4.15-1 

Existing or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Affecting Resources of Concern 

for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Activity/Project County Description 

Approximate 

Acres of 

Land 

Affected 

Anticipated 

Construction 

Dates 

Blythe Energy Project Phase II Riverside Expansion of electrical generation 

facilities 

66.0 Unknown 

Blythe Energy Project 

Transmission Line Modification 

Riverside Installation of 74.1 miles of 230-kilovolt 

transmission lines 

174.0 2007 

Palo Verde-Devers 

Transmission Line 

Riverside Installation of 230 miles of 500-kilovolt 

transmission lines 

4,015.0 2009 

Edgewater Lane Planned 

Residential Community 

Riverside Residential development including 46 

single-family homes 

Unknown 2007 

All-American Canal Lining 

Project 

Imperial Install concrete canal lining 2,161.0 2007 

Unit 3 Repower Imperial Expansion of electrical generation 

facilities

4.0 2009 

Department of Homeland 

Security, INS Border Fence 

Imperial Construction of a fence along the Mexican 

border 

Unknown Unknown 

Drop 2 Storage Reservoir 

Project 

Imperial Construction of a reservoir and canal 916.0 2007-2008 

BLM ISDRA - expansion 

Buttercup Valley Recreation 

Area 

Imperial Establish a ranger station and 

improvements to campground 

Unknown 2007 

BLM ISDRA Area Closure 

maintenance 

Imperial Closures of recreational areas Unknown Annual 

Mesquite Regional Landfill Imperial Construction of regional landfill 4,000.0 2007-2008 

Imperial Project Imperial Open pit gold mine development 1,302.0 Unknown 

Mesquite Mine Expansion Imperial Expansion of gold mining operations 142.0 Unknown 

Felicity Development Imperial Residential development 2,345.0 Unknown 

Las Ventanas Imperial Residential/commercial development 

including 1,040 single-family homes 

304.0 Unknown 

Esmeralda Estates Imperial Residential development including 293 

single-family homes 

80.0 2008 

Rancho Diamante Imperial Residential/commercial development 

including 2,257 single-family homes and 

1,944 multi-family units 

1,350.0 2008 

Los Lagos Imperial Residential/commercial development 

including 1,132 single-family homes 

500.0 2008 

Estrella Subdivision Imperial Residential development including 371 

single-family homes and 400 multi-family 

units 

150.0 2008 

Gasoducto Bajanorte 

Expansion Project (Phase I) a

Mexico Installation of compression, 

reconfiguration of an existing pipeline, and 

construction of a 45-mile-long pipeline 

lateral 

Unknown 2007 

Gasoducto Bajanorte 

Expansion Project (Phase II) a

Mexico Installation of compression and 

construction of a 140-mile-long pipeline 

loop 

Unknown 2009 

____________________ 

a The Gasoducto Bajanorte Expansion Project would not be located within the same counties as the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project; however, cumulative impacts could result if this project were to be constructed at the 

same time as North Baja’s proposed Project, specifically cumulative impacts on air quality. However, based on the 

analysis in Section 4.15.8, no significant cumulative impacts on air quality would occur. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-227 

4.15.2 Waterbodies and Wetlands 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would require the crossing of 2 perennial 

waterbodies, 73 irrigation canals and drains, and 265 dry washes. The proposed Project would not 

involve in-stream activities or the construction of permanent diversions or dams and, therefore, is 

expected to have only temporary impacts, if any, on surface water quality. With the exception of 

Rannells Drain that would be crossed by the B-line and two unnamed canals that would be crossed by the 

Arrowhead Extension, all flowing waterbodies would either be crossed via an HDD, a bore, or would be 

avoided by crossing culverted portions of the waterbodies; therefore, the potential for the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project to cumulatively affect surface waters within the region is low. The greatest 

potential for impacts on waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project is if a frac-out were to 

occur during one of the proposed HDD crossings. Runoff from construction activities near waterbodies 

could also result in cumulative impacts, although this effect would be relatively minor and would be 

controlled by implementation of erosion and sediment control measures and by compliance with Federal, 

State, and local requirements. Additionally, indirect economic impacts on individuals and/or 

communities could result if surface waters were to become contaminated and/or limitations were placed 

on the beneficial uses (e.g., potable water supply, recreation, and fishing) of the affected waters. 

However, the potential for contamination during the construction of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project would be minor due to the low frequency and volumes of these occurrences and would be further 

minimized by implementation of North Baja’s SPCC Plan. 

Several of the projects listed in Table 4.15-1 are located within the watersheds crossed by the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, and some of these projects (e.g., Edgewater residential 

development, the All-American Canal Lining Project, and the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project) could 

potentially result in impacts on surface waters; however, water quality impacts resulting from 

construction of the proposed Project, if any, would be temporary. The potential for a frac-out at the 

proposed waterbody crossings would be low according to North Baja’s geotechnical studies and, with the 

exception of the Rannells Drain crossing, streambank disturbance would be avoided. Additionally, the 

potential for erosion and sedimentation resulting from the disturbance of areas adjacent to waterbodies in 

the Project area is low given the typically flat topography and arid climate of the Project area. 

Although there is the potential that cumulative impacts could result if the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project were constructed in addition to other projects listed in Table 4.15-1, the geographic 

extent and duration of disturbances caused by construction of the Project would be minimal and further 

minimized by the implementation of North Baja’s Project-specific CM&R and SPCC Plans. Therefore, 

the collective effects of these projects on surface water resources are expected to be minor. 

Impacts on wetlands would result from construction of the proposed Project and some of the 

other reasonably foreseeable future projects. Specifically, the All-American Canal Lining Project would 

impact wetlands by reducing or eliminating the water source for wetlands that depend on seepage from 

the currently unlined portions of the canal. In contrast, the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would 

not result in the permanent loss or alteration of wetlands. Wetlands affected by the proposed Project 

would be restored following construction, and based on the mitigation monitoring reports completed for 

the A-Line, the primarily tamarisk-dominated wetlands affected would revegetate within 2 to 3 years. 

Therefore, construction and operation of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would not contribute 

to cumulative long-term impacts on wetlands within the region. 

4.15.3 Vegetation, Wildlife and Habitat, and Aquatic Resources 

When projects are constructed at the same time or close to the same time, they could have a 

cumulative impact on vegetation and wildlife occurring in the area. Right-of-way clearing and grading 

and other construction activities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project along with 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-228 

other construction projects, including the All-American Canal Lining Project, the Gasoducto Bajanorte 

Expansion Project, the Edgewater Lane Planned Residential Community, and the mining and landfill 

expansion projects would result in the removal of vegetation; alteration of wildlife habitat; displacement 

of wildlife; and other secondary effects such as increased population stress, predation, and the potential 

establishment of invasive plant species. These effects would be greatest where the other projects are 

constructed within the same time frame and area as the proposed Project and where the recovery time of 

the vegetation/habitat is equal to that of the Project (i.e., long term). Because of the long-term impacts 

that would occur as a result of clearing desert vegetation, the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, if 

constructed along with the other projects listed in Table 4.15-1, would result in cumulative impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife habitats. North Baja’s proposal to overlap its right-of-way onto the previously 

disturbed construction right-of-way, which is subject to restoration requirements, limit new clearing in 

desert wash woodlands, and construct within the road shoulder along portions of the B-Line, the 

Arrowhead Extension, and the IID Lateral would minimize the areas of previously undisturbed vegetation 

that would be affected and thereby not contribute to additional cumulative impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife habitats. Implementation of North Baja’s CM&R Plan would promote revegetation of the rightof-way following construction. Disturbance in areas of desert wash woodland and areas designated as 

desert tortoise habitat would require compensatory mitigation in addition to restoration of the right-ofway. Additionally, because the amount of vegetation/habitat affected would be small compared to that 

which is regionally available, and the entire right-of-way would be allowed to return to preconstruction 

conditions, any cumulative impact may be long term but would be less than significant. 

The projects listed in Table 4.15-1 that are linear in nature have the greatest potential to fragment 

wildlife habitat; however, this effect would be minimal because most of these projects (e.g., the AllAmerican Canal Lining project, and the Gasoducto Bajanorte Expansion Project) would be adjacent to 

existing linear facilities and would only incrementally widen existing corridors. Similarly, many of the 

non-linear projects (i.e., the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project and the mine and landfill expansions), 

would occur within or adjacent to previously disturbed locations and only incrementally increase the 

extent of disturbance. Potential habitat fragmentation resulting from the proposed Project would be 

minimal because the areas would be allowed to return to pre-existing conditions although, in the case of 

desert habitats, this would occur over the long term. All of the projects would implement mitigation 

measures designed to minimize the potential for long-term erosion, increase the stability of site 

conditions, and in many cases control the spread of noxious weeds, thereby minimizing the degree and 

duration of the cumulative impacts of these projects. 

Construction of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project at the same time as other projects 

listed in Table 4.15-1 that would affect waterbodies could cause cumulative impacts on aquatic resources 

within the Project area. The crossing of the Colorado River has the greatest potential to affect aquatic 

resources because it is the only waterbody with a designated fishery that would be affected by the Project. 

Because the river would be crossed using the HDD method, impacts are not expected to occur. As 

previously noted, the potential for a frac-out at the Colorado River crossing location would be low and 

impacts resulting from a frac-out, should one occur, would be minimized by the implementation of North 

Baja’s HDD Plan. The duration of any disturbances caused by construction of the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project would be minimal and further minimized by the implementation North Baja’s CM&R, 

SPCC, and HDD Plans in addition to any conditions required by the COE and CDFG as part of their 

respective permit approvals. Additionally, none of the projects listed in Table 4.15-1 would involve 

direct in-stream impacts on the Colorado River. 

Animal and plant species that are federally and/or State-listed threatened and endangered species 

and their critical habitat would be affected by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project. Cumulative 

impacts on these species could result if other foreseeable future projects would also affect the same 

species or their habitats. However, conservation measures would likely be required for each of these 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-229 

projects by the jurisdictional agencies to minimize potential impacts on federally and State-listed species. 

Additionally, conservation measures may be recommended for candidate species and species of concern. 

Conservation measures would be project-specific and would be expected to reduce impacts such that the 

projects would not adversely affect the majority of special status species or would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species or cause the adverse modification of critical habitat. However, the 

Agency Staffs have determined that two species, the desert tortoise and Peirson’s milk-vetch, as well as 

critical habitat for the desert tortoise, would be likely adversely affected by the Project (see Section 4.7) 

and would result in cumulative impacts on a special status species if other projects listed in Table 4.15-1 

would also occur within desert habitats that support these species. 

4.15.4 Land Use, Special Management Areas, Recreation and Public Interest Areas, and Aesthetic 

Resources 

The proposed Project and several other foreseeable future projects would result in both temporary 

and permanent changes to current land uses. Much of the land that would be disturbed by construction is 

open land. The facilities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would temporarily 

disturb about 1,760.5 acres of land of which 69 percent would be open land, 25 percent would be 

developed land, and 6 percent would be agricultural land. The All-American Lining Project, Drop 2 

Storage Reservoir Project, and mining and landfill expansion projects listed in Table 4.15-1 would disturb 

hundreds of additional acres of land affecting a variety of land uses. The residential development projects 

proposed for Imperial County would primarily affect farmlands. While most of these projects would have 

permanent impacts on land uses, the majority of land use impacts associated with the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project would be temporary, as most land uses would be allowed to revert to prior uses 

following construction. Permanent impacts on land use would be small because 94 percent of the land 

affected by construction of the pipeline facilities would be allowed to revert to prior uses following 

construction with no restrictions and only 2.0 acres of additional land would be required for the operation 

of aboveground facilities. 

The proposed Project, if built at the same time as other foreseeable future projects, could result in 

cumulative impacts on recreational and public interest areas if these projects would affect the same area 

or feature (e.g., trails) at the same time. The proposed pipeline facilities would cross 11 recreation or 

public interest areas and would be adjacent to several others. However, because the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project would be constructed primarily within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way and would 

not substantially affect the current land uses, most Project-related impacts would be short term, often 

lasting only for the duration of construction through that area, after which the area would be restored to its 

preconstruction condition. 

The visual character of the existing landscape is defined by historic and current land uses such as 

agricultural, recreation, conservation, and development. The visual qualities of the landscape are further 

influenced by existing linear installations such as highways, railroads, pipelines, and electrical 

transmission and distribution lines. Within this context, the proposed meter stations, valves, and other 

aboveground facilities would have the most visual impact, while the pipeline portion of the proposed 

Project would be visually subordinate to the existing landscape character and would contribute only 

incrementally to overall visual conditions, particularly after completion of reclamation and the reestablishment of vegetation. However, the majority of the Project would affect desert vegetation where 

the impact would be greater because it would take many years to regenerate. Of the projects listed in 

Table 4.15-1, the electrical generation facility, mines and landfill expansions, and the residential 

subdivisions would have the most impact on visual resources in the area. Because 99 percent of the 

proposed Project would be located within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way, the visual impact would 

be minimal. Additionally, the majority of the proposed aboveground facilities would be collocated with 

other aboveground facilities. This collocation would lessen the visual impact of the aboveground 

facilities because their presence would be consistent with the current viewshed in the area. The 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-230 

aboveground facilities that would not be collocated with existing facilities would be painted to blend with 

the surrounding landscape. Therefore, the proposed Project would not significantly contribute to 

cumulative effects on visual resources. 

4.15.5 Socioeconomics 

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities could cumulatively impact 

socioeconomic conditions in the Project area. Employment, housing, infrastructure, and public services 

could experience both beneficial and detrimental impacts. 

Economy and Employment 

The projects considered in this section would have cumulative effects on employment during 

construction if more than one project is built at the same time. The North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project expects to employ up to 400 workers during the peak construction months for the B-Line but 

would be considerably less during other phases of construction. North Baja estimates that 25 percent of 

its construction workforce would be local hires. If the larger projects, such as the All-American Canal 

Lining Project, landfill and mine expansions, and residential development projects are built 

simultaneously, the demand for workers could exceed the local supply of appropriately skilled labor. The 

counties affected by the Project have a civilian labor force of about 2,230,030 people and an average 

unemployment rate of 6.5 percent. This suggests that the local labor force could meet much of the 

employment needs induced by construction of these projects, although it is unknown whether a sufficient 

number of these unemployed persons have the necessary skills to work on these projects. Therefore, if 

these projects are constructed at the same time, the demand for local workers may exceed supply. It is 

assumed that the remainder of the employment positions would be filled by non-local hires. Because 

North Baja currently operates pipeline facilities in the area, no additional permanent employees would be 

required. 

In addition to impacts on local employment, these projects would provide an increase in tax 

revenue for California, the counties, and other local economies through the payment of payroll tax, sales 

tax, property tax, and other taxes and fees. As discussed in Section 4.9.6, the estimated payroll for the 

proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would be $50 million during the construction phase and 

the annual property taxes are anticipated to be $3.4 million. A similar net increase in payroll and tax 

revenues could be expected from the other projects listed in Table 4.15-1. The proposed Project would 

have both short- and long-term beneficial impacts on State, county, and local economies. 

Temporary Housing 

Temporary housing for the construction workers would be needed for the portion of the 

workforce not drawn from the local area. For the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, it is 

estimated that a maximum of 320 housing units would be needed per month to accommodate the nonresident construction workforce. Given the vacancy rates, the number of rental housing units in the area, 

and the number of hotel/motel rooms and campgrounds available in the cities and towns in the vicinity of 

the Project, construction crews should not encounter difficulty in finding temporary housing. If 

construction occurs concurrently with other projects, temporary housing would still be available but may 

be slightly more difficult to find and/or more expensive to secure. Regardless, these effects would be 

temporary, lasting only for the duration of construction, and there would be no long-term cumulative 

effect on housing from the proposed Project. 

Public Services 

The cumulative impact of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project and the other projects listed 

in Table 4.15-1 on infrastructure and public services would depend on the number of projects under 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-231 

construction at one time. The small incremental demands of several projects occurring at the same time 

could become difficult for police, fire, and emergency service personnel to address. This problem would 

be temporary, occur only for the length of construction, and could be mitigated by the various project 

sponsors providing their own personnel to augment the local capability or by providing additional funds 

or training for local personnel. Two fire departments within the Project area, the Winterhaven Fire 

Protection District and the Ehrenberg Fire Department, submitted comments in support of the Project. No 

long-term cumulative effect on infrastructure and public services is anticipated from the proposed Project. 

4.15.6 Transportation and Traffic 

Where installation of the proposed Project occurs at road crossings, road traffic could be 

temporarily disrupted or delayed. The transportation system in the three counties where the proposed 

facilities would be constructed is well developed. Construction activities could disrupt traffic flow, and 

result in cumulative impacts on traffic in the Project area if several projects are being constructed at once. 

North Baja developed Traffic Management Plans for 18th Avenue in Riverside County and for Imperial 

County roadways (see Appendix H) to mitigate impacts associated with construction along road 

shoulders. In Section 4.10.2, the Agency Staffs have recommended that North Baja develop a Traffic 

Management Plan for Arrowhead Boulevard. Other major roads and highways would be bored and 

construction would not affect traffic. The addition of traffic associated with construction personnel 

commuting to and from the Project sites could affect traffic congestion in the region if several of the 

projects listed in Table 4.15-1 would occur within the same time frame. However, workers associated 

with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would commute to and from the pipe storage and 

contractor yards or aboveground facility sites during off-peak traffic hours (e.g., before 7:00 AM and after 

6:00 PM). Workers traveling between the pipe storage and contractor yards and the construction site 

would likely share rides. Moreover, it is unlikely that each project would reach peak traffic conditions 

simultaneously; therefore, potential cumulative impacts on traffic from construction, should they occur, 

are expected to be temporary and short term. In its comments on the draft EIS/EIR, the BOR noted that 

the construction schedule of the IID Lateral has the potential to coincide with the BOR’s Drop 2 Storage 

Reservoir Project. Because these two projects would be within close proximity to one another, the 

construction of North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project at the same time as the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir 

Project would result in cumulative impacts on traffic congestion. To avoid or reduce potential traffic 

impacts, North Baja would continue to coordinate activities associated with construction of the IID 

Lateral with the BLM and the BOR. Once construction of the proposed Project is complete, there would 

be no impacts on traffic from operation or maintenance of the facilities. 

4.15.7 Cultural Resources 

Past disturbances to cultural resources sites in the Project area have been related to legal 

collecting; accidental disturbance by OHV users; intentional destruction or vandalism; and construction 

and maintenance operations associated with existing roads, railroads, and transmission lines, including 

North Baja’s existing A-Line. The currently proposed projects listed in Table 4.15-1 that are defined as 

Federal actions would include mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize additional direct 

impacts on cultural resources. Where direct impacts on significant cultural resources are unavoidable, 

mitigation (e.g., recovery and curation of materials) would occur before construction. Non-Federal 

actions would need to comply with any mitigation measures required by the State. Increased access by 

rights-of-way and service roads would increase the potential for trespass or vandalism at previously 

inaccessible sites. However, to minimize the potential for the pipeline rights-of-way to increase 

accessibility for OHV use into previously inaccessible, environmentally sensitive areas, North Baja would 

implement various blocking measures where it has been determined that such measures may be effective 

in discouraging OHV use (see Section 4.8.5). In addition, North Baja would mitigate impacts on 

unevaluated sites and sites that are eligible for listing on the NRHP by the use of avoidance measures 

(including installation of exclusion fencing), construction monitors, narrowing of the right-of-way, and/or 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-232 

data recovery. Therefore, the proposed Project would only incrementally contribute to the effects of the 

other projects and would not result in significant cumulative impacts on cultural resources in the area. 

4.15.8 Air Quality 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project and the projects listed in Table 4.15-1 would all 

involve the use of heavy equipment that would generate emissions of air contaminants and fugitive dust. 

The majority of these impacts would be minimized because the construction activities would occur over a 

large geographical area. Any air impacts would be localized and confined primarily to the airsheds in 

which the projects occur. Cumulative impacts on air quality, therefore, would be limited primarily to 

areas where more than one project is proposed within the same airshed and would be constructed 

simultaneously. Several projects, primarily industrial and housing development projects, are planned in 

the vicinity of the Project and may be constructed within the same time frame. These effects could 

temporarily add to the ongoing effects from agricultural activities, traffic, and OHV use in the Project 

area. Mitigation measures similar to those outlined in Section 4.12.4 for the proposed Project would 

likely be required for these other projects. Because the projects listed in Table 4.15-1 would take place 

over a large area; have varying construction schedules; and adhere to Federal, State, and local regulations 

for the protection of ambient air quality, long-term cumulative impacts on air quality would not be 

anticipated. Additionally, because no additional compression would be installed as part of the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project, the proposed Project would not add any stationary or permanent sources of 

NOx, CO, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, or SO2 to the environment; therefore, operation of the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project would not contribute cumulatively to air quality. In their comments on the draft 

EIS/EIR, the EPA, the SCAQMD, the ICAPCD, and the Border Power Plant Working Group indicated 

that the Agency Staffs’ definition of the proposed Project is too limited in focus. Sections 1.1, 1.4, and 

4.12 have been revised to include additional information supporting the Agency Staffs’ Project definition 

and cumulative impacts evaluation. 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is not proposed to serve any new, modified, or 

expanded power plants in the Project area. However, it could be speculated that in the future the Project 

could transport gas for new or expanded power plants; therefore, the Project could result in a cumulative 

impact on the region’s air quality. Any new projects, including modification of existing facilities, would 

have to meet applicable air quality standards of the regions where they are located. 

As discussed in Section 1.4.1, Sempra’s existing Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline would be 

expanded in coordination with North Baja’s phased expansion. The Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline, which 

currently takes gas from the North Baja system at the U.S.-Mexico border and moves it west, would be 

reconfigured to move gas in the opposite direction, similar to the reconfiguration of the North Baja 

system that would occur during Phase I. Transport of the initial volumes of LNG-source gas would also 

require the construction of a 45-mile-long pipeline lateral from the ECA terminal to connect to the 

Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline and a new compressor station (Algodones Compressor Station) on the 

Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline. This compressor station would be constructed about 2.5 miles south of the 

California-Mexico border and 3 miles west of the Arizona-Mexico border in the State of Baja California 

del Norte just southwest of the border town of Algodones. All of the permits have been obtained for the 

construction of the lateral, the reconfiguration of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline, and the construction 

of the Algodones Compressor Station, which are planned for completion in late 2007. 

The capacity of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline system would similarly be expanded in 

coordination with North Baja’s Phase II expansion. Up to 100 percent looping of the Gasoducto 

Bajanorte pipeline and additional compression would be required, both at the Algodones Compressor 

Station and at a new compressor station near Mexicali (Mexicali Compressor Station). These facilities 

would be constructed in 2009 to be operational by 2010. These facilities are shown on Figure 1.4-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-233 

Because of the proximity of the proposed compressor stations in Mexico, the potential exists for 

operating emissions to affect air quality in the United States, specifically in the Imperial Valley portion of 

Imperial County. The cumulative impacts are described below by project phase. 

Phase I Air Quality Impacts – Algodones Compressor Station 

Sempra would install two 15,000 horsepower (hp) combustion turbines at the Algodones 

Compressor Station for a total of 30,000 hp of compression. However, only one 15,000-hp turbine would 

be operated at a time; the other turbine would be kept on reserve and rotated in and out of service. Using 

data provided by the turbine manufacturer and the operational data provided by Sempra, the emissions 

from one 15,000-hp turbine were modeled to determine the impact on nearby receptor locations. The 

EPA’s ISCST3 dispersion model with the default regulatory options and 5 years of representative 

meteorological data from Yuma, Arizona provided by the ADEQ were used. Table 4.15.8-1 presents a 

summary of the modeling analysis results at the maximally impacted receptor in the vicinity of the U.S.-

Mexico border from one turbine. The data in Table 4.15.8-1 indicate that emissions from the Algodones 

Compressor Station would result in impacts below Federal significant impact levels and the U.S. and 

California State standards. 

TABLE 4.15.8-1 

Phase I Algodones Compressor Station Impacts a

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period 

Background 

(μg/m3)

Modeled Impact 

(μg/m3

) 

Significant 

Impact Level 

(μg/m3)

Federal/State 

Standards (μg/m3) b 

Is Standard 

Currently 

Exceeded? 

NO2 1 hour 355 2.625 NA NS/470 No 

 Annual AM 25 .044 1 100/NS No 

CO 1 hour - 3.748 2000 40,000/23,000 No 

 8 hour 9,478 1.325 500 10,000/10,000 No 

PM10 24 hour 509 .083 5 150/50 Yes c

 Annual AM 80 .007 1 NS/20 Yes c

PM2.5

d

 24 Hour 51.4 .083 5 35/NS Yes c

 Annual 11.9 .007 1 15/12 No 

SO2 1 hour - .017 NA 655/NS No 

 3 hour - .015 25 1,300/NS No 

 24 hour 8 .003 5 365/105 No 

 Annual AM - <.001 1 80/NS No 

____________________ 

μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

AM = arithmetic mean 

CO = carbon monoxide 

PM10 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

PM2.5 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide a

 Modeled impacts are at a location in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico border, which is approximately 4 kilometers (4,000 

meters or 13,100 feet) from the compressor station site. Only one of the two proposed turbines would operate at any 

single time (i.e., the cumulative run time for both turbines would not exceed 8,760 hours per year, and two turbines 

would not run simultaneously.) b

 Federal standard/State standard. NS = no standard. 

c

 The Algodones Compressor Station’s incremental impact does not exceed the applicable Significant Impact Level and 

is well below 0.5 percent of the applicable Federal and/or State standards; therefore, it would not significantly impact 

the existing nonattainment area. d

 PM2.5 emissions from the turbine were assumed to equal emissions of PM10 per particulate matter specification profiles 

from the California Air Resources Board. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-234 

It should be noted that the PM10/PM2.5 impacts from the turbine would be insignificant (i.e., 

below the significant levels for PSD Class II areas11 of 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) on a 24-

hour basis, and 1 μg/m3 on an annual basis) and they are also below the significant monitoring 

concentration levels for PM10 of 10 μg/m3

 on a 24-hour basis. However, a portion of Imperial County 

that is within the Project area (specifically the Imperial Valley) is nonattainment for PM10 and 

unclassified for PM2.5, primarily due to ambient concentrations of windblown dust, not due to ambient 

concentrations of PM10/PM2.5 from combustion sources. 

Phase II Air Quality Impacts – Algodones and Mexicali Compressor Stations 

Sempra has not yet signed precedent agreements with all of the potential shippers in Phase II and, 

therefore, has not developed design details for its Phase II expansion. Sempra has indicated to North 

Baja, however, that the following design assumptions would be applicable for purposes of analyzing the 

potential cumulative impacts of the future compression additions on the Sempra system as follows: 

• The Mexicali Compressor Station would be located on or adjacent immediately to the 

existing facilities (i.e., either the La Rosita Power Complex [LRPC] or the 

Termoelectrica de Mexicali Power Plant [TDM Plant]). 

• The horsepower needed at the Mexicali Compressor Station would be approximately 

75,000, while the required horsepower proposed for the Algodones Compression Station 

would be approximately 116,000 (of which approximately 15,000 hp would be 

contributed by the two turbines [with one compressor in continual reserve] already 

proposed for Phase I, which would leave an additional need at the site of approximately 

100,000 hp). 

• The turbines would be equipped with the following emissions control technologies: 

• installation and operation of low-NOx combustors; 

• good combustion practices (e.g., measurement and control of air flow, optimizing 

air/fuel ratios, etc.) would be implemented to reduce emissions of CO and VOC; 

and 

• clean fuels (natural gas) would be used to reduce emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. 

If the new turbines would be located near the existing power plants west of Mexicali, the result 

would be the mixing of the new exhaust plumes with the existing plumes at the existing sites. A complete 

and rapid mixing of the plumes allows for the characterization of new impacts using the modeling 

scenarios established in the previous Imperial-Mexicali 230kV Transmission Lines (Imperial-Mexicali) 

final EIS (DOE 2004). This was accomplished assuming that the resulting downwind impacts would be 

directly proportional to emissions levels. Table 4.15.8-2 shows the predicted concentrations at the 

maximally impacted receptor in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico border resulting from both the LRPC and 

TDM Plant emissions as documented in Table 4.3-6 of the Imperial-Mexicali final EIS (DOE 2004). 

These estimated impacts are based on the power plants emitting at the proposed maximum rates and are 

conservative. 

 

11 All areas not classified as a Federal Class I area are classified as a Class II area in accordance with section 162(b) of the Clean Air Act. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-235 

TABLE 4.15.8-2 

LRPC and TDM Plant Estimated Impacts

Pollutant Average Period 

Impact at Maximum U.S. Receptor 

(μg/m3) 

Significant Impact 

Level (μg/m3) NAAQS (μg/m3) 

CO w/o catalyst 8 Hour 7.67 500 40,000 

CO w/catalyst 8 Hour 1.09 500 40,000 

NO2 1 Hour 6.41 NA NA 

PM10/PM2.5 24 Hour 4.07/4.07 5/5 150/65 

_____________________ 

μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

CO = carbon monoxide 

PM10 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

PM2.5 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns 

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table 4.15.8-3 shows the cumulative totals of emissions from the Mexicali Compressor Station 

added to the LRPC and TDM Plant, and emissions associated with the Phase I/Phase II Algodones 

Compressor Station. 

TABLE 4.15.8-3 

Cumulative Estimated Emissions by Site

Pollutant LRPC and TDM Plant (tpy) 

LRPC, TDM Plant, and Mexicali 

Compressor Station (tpy) 

Algodones Compressor Station 

Phase I and Phase II (tpy) 

NOx 608 842 355.7 

CO 3,089 3,383 442.1 

VOC 1,069 1,080.0 16.4 

SOx 30 31.5 2.5 

PM10/PM2.5 1,208/1,208 1,247.4/1,247.4 60.6/60.6 

____________________ 

tpy = tons per year 

NOx = nitrogen oxides 

CO = carbon monoxide 

VOC = volatile organic compounds 

SOx = sulfur oxides 

PM10 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

PM2.5 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns 

Table 4.15.8-4 shows the resultant scaled ambient air quality impacts at the maximally impacted 

receptor location in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico border, considering the addition of the Mexicali 

Compressor Station emissions and the Phase I/II impacts at the Algodones Compressor Station for the 

same scenarios. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-236 

TABLE 4.15.8-4 

Resultant Estimated Impacts at Maximum U.S. Receptor Locations

Pollutant Average Time 

LRPC, TDM Plant, and 

Mexicali Compressor Station 

(μg/m3) 

Algodones Compressor 

Station Phase I and 

Phase II (μg/m3) 

Significant 

Impact Level 

(μg/m3)

NAAQS 

(μg/m3

)

CO 8 Hour 8.40 3.56 500 40,000 

NO2 1 Hour 8.88 7.88 NA NA 

PM10/PM2.5 24 Hour 4.2/4.2 0.28/0.28 5/5 150/65 

____________________ 

μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

CO = carbon monoxide 

PM10 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

PM2.5 = particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns 

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

As shown in Table 4.15.8-4, no emitted pollutants at the Mexicali or Algodones Compressor 

Station sites would result in a predicted concentration above an established Significant Impact Level at 

the maximally impacted receptor located in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The Algodones Compressor Station emissions were not included with the LRPC and TDM Plant 

and Mexicali Compressor Station site emissions for purposes of modeling the cumulative impacts due to 

the following: 

• the Algodones Compressor Station would be approximately 50+ miles (80+ kilometers) 

from the LRPC and TDM Plant sites; 

• the generally accepted distance limitations of the ISCST3 dispersion model12 is 31 miles 

or 50 kilometers; therefore, application of the model at distances greater than 50 

kilometers would produce questionable results; and 

• the cumulative impact of emissions from the Algodones Compressor Station on the 

LRPC/TDM Plant impact area, or vice versa, would be minimal considering the previous 

modeling performed for the LRPC/TDM Plant, and the recent modeling performed for 

the Algodones Compressor Station, which were conducted using the ISCST3 model, 

predicted concentrations below the established Significant Impact Levels within a few 

kilometers of the individual plant sites. 

In addition, SO2 emissions were not evaluated in the cumulative impacts analysis due to the 

following: 

• emissions of SO2 from all of the plants involved would not cumulatively add up to a 

value that exceeds the NSR or PSD major source threshold values; 

• each individual plant site has SO2 emissions that are considered minor; 

• the previous Imperial-Mexicali final EIS (DOE 2004) analysis of emissions from the 

LRPC and TDM Plant only considered impacts from NO2, PM10, and CO, with no 

 

12 At the time the analysis was conducted, the EPA’s ISCST3 was the preferred dispersion model for SIP revisions to existing sources and for 

NSR and PSD programs. While other air dispersion models are now currently available, the ISCST3 model is still deemed to be acceptable 

for this analysis. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-237 

modeling data presented for SO2; therefore, it was not included in the cumulative impacts 

analysis; and 

• SO2 impact data are presented for the Algodones Compressor Station (Phase I) in Table 

4.15.8-1. The predicted ambient concentrations of SO2 were so low that impacts for the 

Algodones Compressor Station (Phase II) were not predicted based on the assumption 

that modeled ambient concentrations are directly proportional to emissions, and the SO2

emissions at the Algodones Compressor Station only increased by approximately 1.87 

tpy, which if scaled from the Phase I impacts would not result in any SO2 standard or 

Significant Impact Level to be exceeded. 

Based on the above preliminary analysis, it is unlikely that emissions from the proposed future 

compressor stations would result in any significant cumulative ambient air quality impacts at receptors in 

the vicinity of or across the U.S. border. 

Air Toxics Emissions and Health Risk Impacts 

A Health Risk Assessment was conducted to determine the potential impacts of the toxic air 

pollutants emitted by the existing power plants and proposed compressor stations. The analysis also 

includes the LRPC and TDM Plant. 

Tables H-1 and H-2 of the Imperial-Mexicali final EIS (DOE 2004) indicate that the total 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) emissions from the LRPC and TDM Plant are 35.2 and 9.9 tpy, 

respectively. Estimated HAPs emissions for the future compressors at the Mexicali Compressor Station 

and for the compressors at the Algodones Compressor Station would be 3.03 tpy and 4.03 tpy, 

respectively. Assuming that the risks at the maximally impacted receptor are directly proportional to 

emissions, and keeping all the modeling and risk assessment parameters constant to those used in the 

HAPs risk assessment modeling undertaken in the Imperial-Mexicali FEIS, the changes in risk can be 

directly calculated via the ratio of known emissions and known risks to expected future emissions. Table 

4.15.8-5 presents the resultant scaled risk values subsequent to addition of the future compressor 

emissions. 

TABLE 4.15.8-5 

Existing and Future Potential Risks

Facility Cancer Risk per Million a Chronic Hazard Index b Acute Hazard Index c

Existing LRPC 0.54 0.002 0.02 

Existing TDM Plant 0.06 0.0007 0.007 

Algodones Compressor Station (Phase I) 0.008 0.0002 0.0005 

LRPC and Mexicali Compressor Station 0.59 0.0022 0.022 

TDM Plant and Mexicali Compressor 

Station 

0.078 0.0009 0.009 

Algodones Compressor Station (Phase 

II) 

0.062 0.0015 0.004 

Significance Threshold 1.0 1.0 1.0 

SCAQMD Threshold 0.5 0.5 0.5 

__________________ 

a

 Average risk values per Table H-6, Imperial-Mexicali final EIS (DOE 2004). 

b

 Chronic hazard results from long-term exposure. 

c

 Acute hazard results from short-term exposure. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-238 

As shown in Table 4.15.8-5, the average cancer risks, as well as the chronic and acute hazard 

indexes, would be well below the established significance thresholds used by California air districts. In 

addition, the future chronic and acute hazard indexes would also be well below the more stringent 

thresholds set by the SCAQMD for these evaluations at a level of 0.5. Therefore, the cumulative risks 

associated with the emissions from the existing power plants and the future compressor stations would be 

considered less than significant. 

A comment was received requesting the identification of air impacts resulting from the total 

number of power plants and future development projects that could be constructed within the Southeast 

Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and evaluation of the potential long-term air quality deterioration and possible 

human health impacts. Table 4.15-1 contains all “reasonably foreseeable future projects” within the 

SEDAB. Section 15144 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in part, “While foreseeing the 

unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it 

reasonably can.” 

4.15.9 Noise 

Because the impact of noise is highly localized and attenuates quickly as the distance from the 

noise source increases, cumulative impacts associated with construction or operation would be unlikely 

unless one or more of the projects listed in Table 4.15-1 is constructed at the same time in the same 

location. However, even short-term additional noise during construction could, for example, create 

enough disturbance to nesting birds or breeding toads to constitute a potential adverse impact. Although 

the Project could result in cumulative noise impacts if other projects listed in Table 4.15-1 would be 

constructed within the same time frame and vicinity, the majority of these impacts would be limited to the 

period of construction. 

4.15.10 Reliability and Safety 

Impact on reliability and public safety would be mitigated through the use of the DOT Minimum 

Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192 and the CPUC, General Order 112-E., which are 

intended to protect the public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. In addition, North 

Baja’s construction contractors would be required to comply with the OSHA Safety and Health 

Regulations for Construction in Title 29 CFR Part 1926. Should a pipeline failure occur on the A-Line 

and the B-Line simultaneously, the PIR would fall within the PIR footprint of a failure of the proposed BLine; therefore, the close proximity of the A-Line to the B-Line would not result in a cumulative impact 

on the PIR calculated for the Project. No cumulative impacts on safety and reliability would be 

anticipated to occur. 

4.15.11 Environmental Justice 

As discussed in Section 4.17, some communities within the PIR of the Project have low-income 

and minority populations compared to the affected counties as a whole. As a result, there is a potential 

for these populations to bear a disproportionate share of an adverse impact. However, none of the 

potential impacts of the Project that could affect environmental justice issues are considered significant. 

Therefore, the Project would neither result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect or impact on 

minority or low-income populations nor contribute to a cumulative impact on these populations. 

4.15.12 Conclusion 

The majority of cumulative impacts would be temporary and minor. However, long-term 

cumulative impacts would occur on vegetation, wildlife habitat, and special status species. Long-term 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-239 

cumulative benefits would be realized from the boost to the local economy associated with tax revenues. 

Short-term cumulative benefits would also be realized through jobs and wages and purchases of goods 

and materials. 

4.15.13 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, no resources as discussed in each section would be affected; 

therefore, no cumulative impacts would result from this alternative. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-240 

4.16 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 

The CEQA requires the consideration and discussion in an EIR of the growth-inducing impact of 

a proposed project. NEPA does not have a similar requirement. As specified in sections 15126.2 (d) of 

the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall: 

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or 

the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. 

Included in this are projects that would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a 

waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases 

in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities 

that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristics of some projects that 

may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either 

individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, 

detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. 

Most development projects could induce growth in the area in which they are located. The 

following six criteria are used as a guide to evaluating the growth-inducing potential for the proposed 

Project. 

1. Would the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project foster growth or remove obstacles to 

economic or population growth? 

The Project area is already served by various fuel supplies and economic activity is already taking 

place. The demand for energy and the proposed pipeline and Blythe connection are a result of, rather than 

a precursor to, development in this region. The region is currently undergoing significant growth and 

while there is no evidence at this time that the growth is being constrained by the lack of energy 

availability, the IID’s Unit 3 Repower Project would increase its generating capacity by 84 megawatts, 

from 44 megawatts to 128 megawatts. Although it is recognized that the availability of a new or an 

alternative source of natural gas may be a contributing factor in stimulating economic and population 

growth and could result in the construction of additional power infrastructure, the power plant that the 

Project would serve is not solely dependent on the supply from the proposed Project. However, to the 

extent that the IID’s Unit 3 Repower Project would diversify its suppliers of natural gas, the additional 

gas supplied by the proposed Project could be a growth-inducing impact. Local factors that could also 

influence or restrict growth include availability of infrastructure, such as roads and sewer connections, 

and availability of water. 

2. Would the Project provide new employment? 

It is anticipated that the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would provide 

temporary employment for between 300 and 400 construction workers during the peak construction 

period. North Baja does not anticipate adding permanent staff to handle Project operations. 

3. Would the Project provide new access to undeveloped or under developed areas? 

The Project would require the creation of only two new permanent roads (totaling less than 0.1 

mile). These roads would be used to gain access to the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver 

at the end of the Arrowhead Extension and the tap to the B-Line and pig launcher at the beginning of the 

IID Lateral. North Baja would use either new temporary access roads or existing access roads to access 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-241 

the remainder of the Project. North Baja would implement OHV controls such as soil or rock berms and 

salvaged vegetation to prevent OHV use in environmentally sensitive areas. 

4. Would the Project extend public service to a previously unserved area? 

The Project would not extend public service to areas currently unserved by natural gas. The 

primary result of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would be to meet increased energy demands 

from existing customers and to provide an alternate supply of natural gas to an existing power plant. 

5. Would the Project tax existing community services? 

The number of non-local workers would be small relative to current populations in the Project 

area and local communities have adequate infrastructure and community services to meet the needs of 

these non-local workers. 

6. Would the Project cause development elsewhere? 

As stated above, the power plant that would be served by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project is not solely dependent on the Project for an energy source. Therefore, the addition or absence of 

the gas supply from the proposed Project would not affect development. The Project is being proposed to 

meet existing energy needs and is not dependent upon future power plant expansions. However, the 

Project would link markets in southern California and other areas of the Southwest with an alternative 

source of natural gas. 

During the scoping process, a comment was received from the EPA requesting that the growth 

and resulting impacts attributable to the IID Lateral be addressed. The IID Lateral would provide an 

alternate source of natural gas to the El Centro Generating Station and would have additional capacity that 

could support future expansions of the station. As discussed in Section 1.4.1, the IID has proposed an 

expansion at the station (the Unit 3 Repower) to serve the growing electrical load demands of the region. 

The El Centro Generating Station could be further expanded if and when IID determines that the electrical 

needs within its service territory have grown or will grow sufficiently to need additional generation. 

While the Project is not associated with or dependent upon any specific expansions of power 

generation facilities or other industrial or residential developments, the availability of an alternative 

source of natural gas to the region could affect economic growth by exerting downward pressure on 

natural gas prices, by increasing competition among gas-producing regions. Lower or stable natural gas 

pricing could, in combination with other factors, either contribute to a positive economic climate 

conducive to growth, or moderate a scenario where higher gas prices may inhibit growth. 

If the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project is constructed, additional pipeline capacity would be 

available, which could potentially accommodate future projected growth in the Southwest and southern 

California regions. For this additional pipeline capacity to be fully utilized, the capacity of the Gasoducto 

Bajanorte pipeline would need to be doubled by looping the pipeline and adding compression. However, 

there is no evidence that the growth projected for the regions would be constrained by any assumed lack 

of availability of natural gas. Therefore, although the Project could support the projected growth, the 

growth could occur whether or not the Project is constructed. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-242 

Summary 

The potential growth-inducing impact of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would be the 

delivery of an alternative or additional source of natural gas to existing natural gas users as described in 

Section 1.1. Providing an alternate fuel supply could lead to a positive economic environment conducive 

to growth or prevent increases in energy costs that might restrict growth. The existing power plant that 

would be supplied by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (i.e., the IID El Centro Generating 

Station) would not be solely dependent on the gas supplied by the Project. Potential infrastructure growth 

might occur with or without the construction of the pipeline and thus would not be attributable to the 

proposed Project. However, to the extent that the IID Unit 3 Repower Project would diversify its 

suppliers of natural gas, the additional gas supplied by the proposed Project could be a growth-inducing 

impact. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-243 

4.17 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Environmental justice is concerned with the question of whether a proposed project would expose 

minority or disadvantaged populations to proportionately greater risks or impacts compared to those 

borne by other individuals. This section identifies populations with a relatively high representation of 

minority or low-income status and evaluates whether the proposed Project would result in significant 

adverse effects that disproportionately affect identified minority or low-income populations. 

4.17.1 Significance Criteria 

An environmental justice impact would be considered significant if Project construction or 

operation would: 

• result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect or impact. This “means an adverse 

effect or impact that: (1) is predominantly borne by any segment of the population, 

including a minority and/or a low-income population; or (2) would be suffered by a 

minority and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe, or greater in 

magnitude, than the adverse effect or impact that would be suffered by a non-minority 

and/or non-low-income population.” (Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations of 

Environmental Injustice [EPA 2004]). 

4.17.2 Background and Regulatory Setting 

The EPA defines environmental justice as the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices.” Similarly, 

environmental justice is defined in California State planning law as the “fair treatment of people of all 

races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, and polices.” The EPA’s Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations 

of Environmental Injustice (EPA 2004) provides the following definitions for use in analyzing 

environmental justice impacts: 

• Low-income means a person whose median household income is at or below the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. 

• Low-income population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who 

live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically 

dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant farm workers or Native Americans) who will 

be similarly affected by a proposed project or action. 

• Minority means a person, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, who is a: (1) Black 

American (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); (2) 

Hispanic person (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, 

or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race); (3) Asian American or Pacific 

Islander (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast 

Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); or (4) American Indian or Alaskan 

Native (a person having origins in any of the original people of North America and 

maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition). 

• Minority population means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in 

geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-244 

persons (such as migrant farm workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly 

affected by a proposed project or action. Minority populations should be identified where 

either: (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the 

minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis. 

The major Federal and State laws, regulations, policies, and plans related to environmental justice 

are summarized in Table 4.17.2-1. No regional or local environmental justice policies and/or assessments 

have been performed by agencies within the study area. 

To determine whether disproportionately high and adverse effects or impacts would occur, the 

EPA recommends a four-step process for carrying out an environmental justice assessment: (1) problem 

formation; (2) data collection; (3) assessment of the potential for adverse impacts; and (4) assessment of 

the potential for disproportionately high adverse impacts (EPA 2004). 

During the problem formation step, the affected area is identified. The data collection step 

involves identifying environmental sources of stress and the likelihood of exposure, and collecting healthrelated, demographic, social, and economic data on the affected area. The third step involves assessing 

the adverse impacts on the environment and human health, and the fourth step is determining whether 

adverse impacts are disproportionately high in the affected area compared with the reference population. 

The use of specific components of this methodology is intended to be flexible. These steps are discussed 

below. 

4.17.3 Identification of Affected Area for Environmental Justice Analysis 

As discussed in Section 4.14.2, the DOT has developed a criterion for identifying HCAs. HCAs 

are calculated using a PIR, which is the radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline 

could have considerable impact on people or property. The PIR is proportional to the maximum 

allowable pipeline pressure and the pipeline diameter and was used to determine the specific area of 

potential impact associated with the Project. After the PIR for the B-Line, Arrowhead Extension, and IID 

Lateral facilities was determined, the affected census tracts within the PIR were identified. Table 4.17.3-

1 identifies the PIR associated with the proposed pipelines as well as the affected census tracts within the 

PIR. 

Within the census tracts affected by the PIR, census block-level data were analyzed for ethnic and 

racial data and census block group-level data were analyzed for income-related data. As previously 

discussed, approximately 89 percent of the land affected by construction and operation of the Project 

would be authorized by the BLM on public lands (including lands managed by the BLM, the BOR, and 

the FWS) (53 percent), California counties (36 percent), the States of Arizona or California or cities (less 

than 1 percent), or the CSLC (less than 1 percent). The remainder of the land that would be affected (11 

percent) is privately owned. Because of the large amount of public land crossed, most of the census 

blocks along the proposed pipeline routes (about 79 percent) are unpopulated (see Table 4.17.3-2). In 

total, the PIR associated with the proposed Project would affect 1 populated census block in La Paz 

County, 34 populated census blocks in Riverside County, and 40 populated census blocks in Imperial 

County. These 75 populated census blocks within the PIR were, therefore, considered the area of 

potential impact for the purposes of the environmental justice analysis. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-245 

TABLE 4.17.2-1 

Major Laws, Regulatory Requirements, Policies, and Plans for Environmental Justice 

Law/Regulation/Policy/Agency Key Elements and Thresholds 

FEDERAL 

Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution 

• The Fourteenth Amendment expressly provides that the States may not “deny to 

any person within [their] jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 

Executive Order on Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (referred to as Executive 

Order 12898) (1994) 

• Designed to focus attention on environmental and human health conditions in areas 

of high minority populations and low-income communities, and promote nondiscrimination in programs and projects substantially affecting human health and 

the environment. 

• Requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and all other Federal 

agencies (as well as State agencies receiving Federal funds) to develop strategies 

to address this issue. 

• Requires that disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impacts 

on minority and low-income populations be avoided or minimized to the extent 

feasible. 

• Requires Federal agencies to achieve environmental justice by identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

programs, polices, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Environmental Justice Implementation 

Plan (1997) 

• Supplements the EPA environmental justice strategy and provides a framework for 

the development of specific plans and guidance for implementing Executive Order 

12898. 

Final Guidance for Incorporating 

Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s 

NEPA Compliance Analysis (1998) 

• Provides a framework for the assessment of environmental justice in the 

preparation of environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental 

assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

• Emphasizes the importance of selecting an analytical process appropriate to the 

unique circumstances of the potentially affected community. 

Toolkit for Assessing Potential 

Allegations of Environmental Injustice 

(2004) 

• Provides a conceptual and substantive framework for understanding the EPA’s 

environmental justice program. 

• Presents a systematic approach with reference tools that can be used and adapted 

to assess and respond to potential allegations of environmental injustice as they 

occur, or to prevent injustices from occurring in the first place. 

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

192 

The Final Rule on Operator Public Awareness Programs (May 2005) states, in part, 

that: 

• The operator’s [public awareness] program must specifically include provisions to 

educate the public, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in 

excavation-related activities. 

• The program must include activities to advise affected municipalities, school 

districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations. 

• The program and the media used must be as comprehensive as necessary to reach 

all areas in which the operator transports gas. 

• The program must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly 

understood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English speaking 

population in the operator’s area. 

STATE 

California Constitution • Provides for equal protection. 

Government Code Section 65040.12 • Defines environmental justice and designates the Office of Planning and Research 

as the coordinator for the State’s environmental justice program. 

Government Code Section 65040.2 • Requires the Office of Planning and Research to develop environmental justice 

guidelines for local general plans. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-246 

TABLE 4.17.2-1 (cont’d) 

Major Laws, Regulatory Requirements, Policies, and Plans for Environmental Justice 

Law/Regulation/Policy/Agency Key Elements and Thresholds 

Governor’s Office of Planning and 

Research - State of California General 

Plan Guidelines 

• Provides guidelines for local agencies on integrating environmental justice issues 

into their general plans. 

• Identifies procedural and geographic inequity. 

• Recommends that cities and counties develop public participation strategies that 

allow for early and meaningful community involvement in the general plan process 

by all affected population groups. 

• Recommends gathering socioeconomic data to improve the public participation 

process, identify underserved neighborhoods, plan for infrastructure and housing, 

and identify low-income and minority neighborhoods in which industrial facilities and 

uses that pose a significant hazard to human health and safety may be 

overconcentrated. 

• Recommends incorporating polices supportive of environmental justice in all of the 

mandatory elements of the general plan. 

California State Lands Commission 

(CSLC) – Environmental Justice Policy 

Statement in April 2002, amended 

October 2002 (see www.slc.ca.gov for 

the entire policy statement) 

• Developed to ensure equity and fairness in the CSLC’s processes and procedures, 

including that “environmental justice is an essential consideration in the 

Commission’s processes, decision, and programs and that all people who live in 

California have a meaningful way to participate in these activities.” 

• Stresses equitable treatment of all members of the public and commits to consider 

environmental justice in its processes, decision-making, and regulatory affairs, 

which are implemented, in part, through identification of and communication with 

relevant populations that could be adversely and disproportionately impacted by 

CSLC projects or programs and by ensuring that a range of reasonable alternatives 

is identified that would minimize or eliminate environmental impacts affecting such 

populations. 

• The staff of the CSLC is required to report back to the Commission on how 

environmental justice is integrated into its programs, processes, and activities. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-247 

TABLE 4.17.3-1 

Potential Impact Radius Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Facility/Milepost Range Location 

Pipe Diameter 

(inches) 

Potential Impact 

Radius (feet) 

Census Tracts 

Affected 

B-Line 

 MPs 0.0 to 0.2 La Paz County, Arizona 42 982 a 206 

 MPs 0.2 to 11.7 Riverside County, California 42 982 a 459, 460 

 MPs 11.7 to 22.3 Riverside County, California 48 1,123 a 458, 459 

 MPs 22.3 to 79.8 Imperial County, California 48 1,123 a 124 

Arrowhead Extension 

 MPs 0.0 to 2.1 Riverside County, California 36 842 459 

IID Lateral 

 MPs 0.0 to 45.7 Imperial County, California 16 374 108, 112.01, 113, 

114, 124 

____________________ 

a

 A simultaneous failure of the existing A-Line would fall within the footprint of a failure of the proposed B-Line (which is 

the bigger diameter). 

TABLE 4.17.3-2 

Unpopulated Census Blocks within the Potential Impact Radius Associated with the 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

State/County Number of Census Blocks 

Number of Unpopulated 

Census Blocks Unpopulated Percent 

Arizona 

 La Paz County 5 4 80.0 

California 

 Riverside County 94 60 63.8 

 Imperial County 263 223 84.8 

Project Total 362 287 79.3 

____________________ 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American FactFinder 2000a. 

4.17.4 Demographic and Economic Data 

This section describes the composition and distribution of minority and low-income populations 

in the States of Arizona and California as well as the counties and populated census blocks affected by the 

PIR associated with the Project and identifies populations with a relatively high representation of 

minority or low-income status. Because most of the facilities associated with the proposed Project are in 

rural, unincorporated areas, county-level data rather than city-level data were used as a reference 

population in this analysis. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American FactFinder 2000 database was analyzed 

to obtain the racial and ethnic composition of smaller geographic areas, including census tracts, census 

block groups, and census blocks, to identify potential pockets of minority communities that may not be 

apparent when analyzing aggregated data on a county or State level.13 Once populations with a relatively 

 

13 A census tract, which averages about 4,000 inhabitants, is delineated as a relatively homogeneous unit with respect to population 

characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. A subdivision of a census tract, a census block group is the smallest geographic unit 

for which the U.S. Census Bureau tabulates sample data. A census block group consists of all the blocks within a census tract with the same 

beginning number. A census block is the smallest geographic unit for which the U.S. Census Bureau tabulates 100 percent data. Many 

census blocks correspond to individual city blocks bounded by streets; however, census blocks, especially in rural areas, may include many 

square miles and may have some boundaries that are not streets. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-248 

high representation of minority or low-income status are identified, the impact analysis in Section 4.17.5 

discusses whether the Project would disproportionately affect such identified minority or low-income 

populations. 

4.17.4.1 Minority Population 

Table 4.17.4-1 presents the ethnic and racial composition of the population in the States, 

Counties, and populated census blocks affected by the Project.14 

TABLE 4.17.4-1 

Summary of Racial and Ethnic Demographics within the Potential Impact Radius 

Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project a

Location 

Total 

Population 

Percent 

White 

Percent 

Black or 

African 

American 

Percent 

American 

Indian & 

Alaska 

Native 

Percent 

Asian 

Percent 

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

Percent 

Other 

Race 

Percent 

Hispanic or 

Latino -Any 

Race 

Percent 

Minority 

Arizona 5,130,632 75.5 3.1 5.0 1.8 0.1 14.5 25.3 24.5 

La Paz County 19,715 74.2 0.8 12.5 0.4 0.1 12.0 22.4 25.8 

Census Blocks 

Affected by the 

B-Line 

 4 75.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 

California 33,871,648 59.5 6.7 1.0 10.9 0.3 21.6 32.4 40.5 

Riverside County 1,545,387 65.6 6.2 1.2 3.7 0.3 23.0 36.2 34.4 

Census Blocks 

Affected by the 

B-Line and 

Arrowhead 

Extension 

 725 73.0 4.4 1.7 0.1 0.6 20.3 32.4 27.0 

Imperial County 142,361 49.4 4.0 1.9 2.0 0.1 42.6 72.2 50.6 

Census Blocks 

Affected by the 

B-Line and IID 

Lateral 

 622 63.0 3.1 1.3 0.2 0.0 32.5 58.5 37.0 

____________________ 

a

 2004 data are available for the State and county levels, but are not available for census block levels. In order to be 

 consistent, 2000 data were used throughout. 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000a. 

As shown in Table 4.17.4-1, the Hispanic or Latino population within the census blocks affected 

by the B-Line and IID Lateral in Imperial County is 58.5 percent, which is greater than the 50 percent 

threshold used by the EPA to define a minority population. However, the percentage of Hispanic 

population affected by the Project in Imperial County is less than the percentage of the Hispanic 

population in the county as a whole (72.2 percent). Although there are too few individuals living in La 

Paz County’s affected census blocks for derived statistics to be meaningful (only four people total), they 

are in the tables of this section for the sake of completeness. In the census blocks potentially affected by 

the B-Line and Arrowhead Extension within Riverside County, 1.7 percent is American Indian and/or 

 

14 Historically, the U.S. Census Bureau has classified race and Hispanic origin as two separate concepts. The recent introduction of the option 

to report more than one race added more complexity to the presentation and comparison of U.S. Census data. Race and Hispanic origin are 

two separate concepts in the Federal statistical system. People who are Hispanic may be of any race. Each person has two attributes, their 

race (or races) and whether or not they are Hispanic. Overlap of race and Hispanic origin is the main comparability issue. For more 

information on the definition of the term “Hispanic” see U.S. Census Bureau, 2004 http://www.census.gov/population/

www/socdemo/compraceho.html. This document uses the term “Hispanic or Latino.” 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-249 

Alaska Native, and 0.6 percent is Native Hawaiian and/or Other Pacific Islander, which is an appreciably 

higher percentage than the county average as a whole (1.2 and 0.3 percent, respectively). Within the 

census blocks potentially affected by the B-Line and IID Lateral in Imperial County, there are no minority 

populations that comprise a higher percentage of the total population than the county as a whole. 

Therefore, the detailed census block analysis of the ethnic composition of the population focuses only on 

the Hispanic or Latino population in the census blocks potentially affected by the B-Line and IID Lateral 

in Imperial County (see Table 4.17.4-2), the American Indian and/or Alaska Native population affected 

by the B-Line in La Paz County (see Table 4.17.4-3), and the American Indian and/or Alaska Native and 

Native Hawaiian and/or Other Pacific Islander populations affected by the B-Line and Arrowhead 

Extension in Riverside County (see Table 4.17.4-4).

TABLE 4.17.4-2

Populated Census Blocks Containing Hispanic or Latino Populations within the Potential Impact Radius 

Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project in Imperial County 

Location Total Population 

Total Number of Hispanic or 

Latino Individuals Percent Hispanic or Latino 

California 33,871,648 10,966,556 32.4 

 Imperial County 142,361 102,817 72.2 

Census Tract 108, Block 1379 2 2 100.0 

Census Tract 108, Block 1398 8 2 25.0 

Census Tract 108, Block 2054 5 5 100.0 

Census Tract 108, Block 2078 5 5 100.0 

Census Tract 108, Block 2083 2 2 100.0 

Census Tract 112.01, Block 2014 39 37 94.9 

Census Tract 113, Block 1055 9 7 77.8 

Census Tract 113, Block 1057 19 12 63.2 

Census Tract 113, Block 1058 149 114 76.5 

Census Tract 113, Block 1065 48 40 83.3 

Census Tract 113, Block 1070 61 45 73.8 

Census Tract 113, Block 1072 13 2 15.4 

Census Tract 113, Block 1100 8 4 50.0 

Census Tract 113, Block 1107 16 8 50.0 

Census Tract 113, Block 1115 6 6 100.0 

Census Tract 113, Block 1116 8 6 75.0 

Census Tract 113, Block 1120 2 2 100.0 

Census Tract 113, Block 1152 3 1 33.3 

Census Tract 113, Block 2000 53 38 71.7 

Census Tract 113, Block 5018 2 1 50.0 

Census Tract 124, Block 2101 21 6 28.6 

Census Tract 124, Block 2493 6 1 16.7 

Census Tract 124, Block 2568 38 18 47.4 

____________________ 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000a. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-250 

TABLE 4.17.4-3

Populated Census Blocks Containing American Indian or Alaska Native Populations within the Potential Impact Radius 

Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project in La Paz County 

Location Total Population 

Total Number of American Indian or 

Alaska Native Individuals 

Percent American Indian or 

Alaska Native 

Arizona 5,130,632 255,879 5.0 

 La Paz County 19,715 2,470 12.5 

 Census Tract 206, Block 1075 4 1 25.0 

____________________ 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000a. 

TABLE 4.17.4-4

Populated Census Blocks Containing American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander 

Populations within the Potential Impact Radius Associated with 

the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project in Riverside County 

Location Total 

Population 

Total Number of 

American Indian 

& Alaska Native 

Percent 

American Indian 

& Alaska Native 

Total Number 

Native Hawaiian 

& Other Pacific 

Islander 

Percent Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander 

California 33,871,648 333,346 1.0 116,961 0.3 

 Riverside County 1,545,387 18,168 1.2 3,902 0.3 

 Census Tract 458, Block 6214 68 1 1.5 0 0.0 

 Census Tract 459, Block 1122 12 6 50.0 0 0.0 

 Census Tract 460, Block 2014 116 1 0.9 0 0.0 

 Census Tract 460, Block 2037 30 2 6.7 4 13.3 

 Census Tract 460, Block 2056 68 2 2.9 0 0.0 

____________________ 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000a. 

 

The census block data presented in Table 4.17.4-2 show the number and percent of the population 

that are Hispanic or Latino in the blocks that contain those populations within the PIR of the Project in 

Imperial County. The percentage of Hispanics or Latinos in each census block are presented in 

comparison with county and State percentages. When looking at the affected census blocks, 14 of the 

affected blocks contain greater than 50 percent Hispanic or Latino populations. Of these 14 blocks, 12 

also contain a higher percentage of Hispanics or Latinos than the county average as a whole. 

Table 4.17.4-3 shows the number and percentage of persons identifying themselves as American 

Indians and/or Alaska Natives in the populated census block affected in La Paz County. The percentage 

of American Indians and/or Alaska Natives in this census block is presented in comparison with county 

and State percentages. In 2000, the percentage of American Indians and/or Alaska Natives comprised 25 

percent of the total population in the populated block. This percentage is twice the percentage of the 

county as a whole, and five times the average for the State of Arizona (12.5 and 5 percent, respectively). 

It is important to note, however, that this census block contains only four persons, of which one is 

American Indian or an Alaska Native. 

The census block data presented in Table 4.17.4-4 show the number and percent of the population 

that are American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and/or Other Pacific Islanders in the blocks 

that contain those populations within the PIR of the B-Line and Arrowhead Extension in Riverside 

County. The percentage of American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and/or Other Pacific 

Islanders in each census block is presented in comparison with county and State percentages. Four of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-251 

five populated census blocks identified in Table 4.17.4-4 have higher percentages of American Indians 

and/or Alaska Natives than the county as a whole. In addition, one census block has four Native 

Hawaiians and/or Other Pacific Islanders, comprising 13.3 percent of the population, compared to an 

average of 0.3 percent for both the county and State. 

It should be noted that because of the often irregular sizes and shapes of census blocks, not all 

residents included in each block identified as having minority populations live in close enough proximity 

to the proposed pipeline route to be impacted. Nevertheless, the data show that minority populations are 

present along the proposed pipeline routes and, therefore, there is a potential for disproportionate adverse 

impacts on these minority communities. 

Although the information discussed in this section is based on information from the U.S. Bureau 

of the Census, the potential exists for migrant minority populations to have been underestimated by the 

census in the Project area. In California, this can occur in areas with large populations of migrant workers 

associated with large agricultural operations, particularly orchards. It is possible that such populations 

exist within the Project area in the agricultural areas concentrated near Blythe and the western portion of 

the IID Lateral; however, based on a review of aerial photographs, no orchards occur on the land that 

would be affected by the Project. Nevertheless, there is a potential for disproportionate adverse impacts 

on these communities. 

As discussed in Section 4.17.3, the majority of the census blocks within the PIR associated with 

the Project are unpopulated. Even though the census blocks are unpopulated, there can still be an 

environmental justice concern if property is owned by a member of a minority group or there are 

resources such as traditional cultural properties nearby. The majority of the land associated with the 

unpopulated census blocks is managed by Federal agencies (i.e., the BLM, the BOR, the FWS). No tribal 

lands would be crossed. In addition, no traditional cultural properties have been identified in the 

proposed Project’s area of potential effect to date (see Section 4.11.5). 

4.17.4.2 Income Distribution in the Project Area 

Table 4.17.4-5 presents the income distribution within the Project area based on statistics from 

the U.S. Census Bureau. The U.S. Census Bureau uses the poverty guidelines developed annually by the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to determine the percentage of the population living 

below the poverty line. The poverty guidelines do not vary geographically within the conterminous 

United States and are determined based on the size of the family, ages of family members, and the total 

family income. On average, La Paz, Riverside, and Imperial Counties all had significantly lower annual 

per capita and household income levels and similar or higher poverty levels than their respective State 

averages. However, in the case of Riverside and Imperial Counties, this is due in part to these counties 

being more rural than the highly urbanized western portion of the State of California. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-252 

TABLE 4.17.4-5 

Summary of Income Distribution within the Potential Impact Radius 

Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Location 

Total Population 

(2000) 

Per Capita 

Income (1999) 

Median Household 

Income (1999) 

Percentage of 

Persons Below 

Poverty (1999) 

Arizona 5,130,632 $20,275 $40,558 13.6 

 La Paz County 19,715 $14,916 $25,839 19.3 

 Census Tract 206, Block Group 1 1,356 $14,372 $27,000 22.6 

California 33,871,648 $22,711 $47,493 13.9 

 Riverside County 1,545,387 $18,689 $42,887 13.9 

 Census Tract 458, Block Group 6 1,440 $11,303 $27,404 28.3 

 Census Tract 459, Block Group 1 963 $18,562 $40,893 15.3 

 Census Tract 459, Block Group 2 994 $8,236 $20,625 32.9 

 Census Tract 460, Block Group 2 702 $20,872 $36,071 29.1 

 Imperial County 142,361 $13,239 $31,870 20.8 

 Census Tract 108, Block Group 1 608 $15,776 $34,219 35.2 

 Census Tract 108, Block Group 2 877 $22,868 $49,844 2.1 

 Census Tract 112.01, Block Group 2 1,030 $10,526 $30,667 12.0 

 Census Tract 113, Block Group 1 870 $12,906 $37,625 17.5 

 Census Tract 113, Block Group 2 1,377 $11,021 $30,815 23.2 

 Census Tract 113, Block Group 5 1,404 $12,331 $47,083 8.5 

 Census Tract 124, Block Group 2 637 $13,286 $16,389 28.6 

____________________ 

Source U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000a. 

A review of the block group data from the 2000 census shows that the poverty rate along the BLine in La Paz County is 22.6 percent, which is higher than the county average of 19.3 percent although 

the median household income for the affected block group is higher than the county average ($27,000 

compared to $25,839). All four of the block groups within the PIR of the proposed B-Line and 

Arrowhead Extension in Riverside County have lower median household incomes and higher poverty 

rates than the county average. In Imperial County, the PIR associated with the B-Line and IID Lateral 

would affect three block groups with lower median household incomes than the county average. Two of 

these three block groups also have higher poverty rates than the county average. A third block group also 

has a higher poverty rate than the county average but its median household income is above the county 

average. In summary, the data show that low-income populations are present along the proposed pipeline 

routes. Therefore, there is a potential for disproportionate adverse impacts on these low-income 

populations. 

4.17.5 Impact Analysis 

Not all impacts identified in this EIS/EIR are considered to affect minority or low-income 

populations. Examples of Project-related impacts that are considered impacts with potential 

environmental justice issues are described below. 

The main adverse impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project would be the 

temporary noise, dust, and traffic congestion, none of which are considered significant adverse impacts 

after mitigation. These impacts would occur along the entire pipeline routes and in areas with a variety of 

socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, these impacts are not considered to result in a disproportionately 

high and adverse effect or impact on minority or low-income populations. As a result, this analysis does 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-253 

not evaluate construction-related impacts any further. Impacts associated with operation of the Project 

are described below. 

None of the proposed facilities would result in increased air emissions during operation (see 

Section 4.12.4). The pipeline facilities would be buried and would, therefore, not have an impact on 

visual resources during operation. As discussed in Section 4.8.7, construction of the new aboveground 

facilities would have a permanent impact on visual resources, and modifications at the existing 

aboveground facilities would result in an incremental increase in impacts on visual resources but would 

generally be minor because of the presence of the existing facilities. The impacts on visual resources 

associated with these facilities are considered to be less than significant and are, therefore, not considered 

to result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect or impact on minority or low-income populations. 

The long-term potential public safety impacts associated with operation of the pipelines (the 

potential for a release of natural gas from a leak or rupture of the pipelines followed by ignition and 

burning of the gas cloud) could represent an environmental justice concern. However, construction and 

operation of the proposed facilities would affect a mix of ethnic and socioeconomic areas in the Project 

area as a whole. In addition, the pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the Project would be 

designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with or to exceed the DOT Minimum 

Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192 and the CPUC, General Order 112-E. These 

regulations, which are intended to protect the public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and 

failures, apply to all areas along the proposed pipeline routes regardless of the presence or absence of 

minority or low-income populations. As discussed in Section 4.14.2, none of the safety-related potential 

impacts associated with the Project are considered significant. Therefore, the safety-related impacts are 

not considered to result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect or impact on minority or lowincome populations. 

Executive Order 12898 emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities for community 

input into the NEPA process. Similarly, the CSLC’s Environmental Justice Policy stresses 

communication and public involvement in the decision-making process. Information on the public 

notification and participation process conducted for the proposed Project is provided in Section 1.3. A 

recent Final Federal Rule, published in May 2005 for Title 49 CFR Part 192, requires the operator to 

include, in its public awareness plans, measures to prepare and distribute a comprehensive program that 

includes activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline 

facility locations. The program must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly 

understood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English speaking population in the 

operator’s area. As discussed in Section 1.3, open houses and public scoping meetings were held in the 

Project area in July and September of 2005 to inform the public about the Project and provide an 

opportunity for the public to ask questions and express concerns. The draft EIS/EIR was issued in 

September 2006 and the public was given 90 days to review and comment on the document in the form of 

written comments and at two public meetings held in the Project area in December 2006. These public 

input opportunities were announced in the local newspapers in English and Spanish, and Spanish 

translators were present at the public meetings. 

4.17.6 No Project Alternative 

Under the No Project Alternative, the FERC would deny North Baja’s application for a 

Certificate and a Presidential Permit amendment, the CSLC would deny North Baja’s application for an 

amendment to its right-of-way lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, and the BLM would 

deny North Baja’s application to amend its existing Right-of-Way Grant and obtain a Temporary Use 

Permit for the portion of the Project on Federal lands. The No Project Alternative means that the Project 

would not go forward and the Project-related facilities would not be installed. Accordingly, none of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
4-254 

potential environmental impacts identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would occur. 

Because the proposed Project is privately funded, it is unknown whether North Baja would fund 

another energy project in California. However, should the No Project Alternative be selected, the energy 

needs identified in Section 1.1 would likely be addressed through other means, such as through other 

LNG or natural gas-related pipeline projects. Such projects may result in potential environmental impacts 

of the nature and magnitude of the proposed Project as well as impacts particular to their respective 

configurations and operations; however, these impacts cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-1 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFFS’ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The Agency Staffs have determined that construction and operation of the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project would result in adverse environmental impacts. These impacts would be most 

significant during the period of construction. This determination is based on a review of the information 

provided by North Baja and further developed from data requests; field investigations; scoping; literature 

research; alternatives analysis; and contacts with Federal, State, and local agencies, and individual 

members of the public. The Agency Staffs have concluded, however, that the Project would be an 

environmentally acceptable action. Although many factors were considered in this determination, the 

principal reasons are: 

• 99 percent of the proposed pipeline facilities would be constructed in or adjacent to 

various existing rights-of-way; 

• no new permanent right-of-way would be required for the B-line, and the permanent 

rights-of-way for the Arrowhead Extension and the IID Lateral would be limited to a 

maximum width of 35 feet and 30 feet, respectively; 

• North Baja would implement its CM&R Plan, SPCC Plan, HDD Plan, Traffic 

Management Plans, Blasting Specifications, PRMM Plan, Dust Control Plan, Fire 

Prevention and Suppression Plan, Site-specific Residential Construction Mitigation Plans, 

OHV Plan, POD, and Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources to protect 

natural and cultural resources and residential areas during construction and operation of 

the Project; 

• use of the HDD method would avoid disturbances to the beds and banks of the Colorado 

River, the All-American Canal, and the East Highline Canal and associated 

wetlands/riparian areas; 

• the appropriate consultations with the FWS, the CDFG, the SHPOs, and Native American 

tribes would be completed before North Baja would be allowed to begin construction in 

any given area; and 

• an environmental inspection and MMP would ensure compliance with all mitigation 

measures that become conditions of the FERC Certificate, the CSLC’s amended lease, 

and other approvals. 

In addition, the Agency Staffs developed specific mitigation measures to further reduce the 

environmental impact that would otherwise result from construction of the Project. The FERC and CSLC 

staffs are recommending that these mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorizations 

issued by the FERC and the CSLC. These mitigation measures are presented in Section 5.6. The BLM 

will present, in its Records of Decision for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, its own 

recommendations that incorporate the concurrence or non-concurrence of the BOR and the FWS. 

Table 5.1-1 presents a summary of the Project’s potential environmental impacts and the 

mitigation measures identified to avoid or reduce each impact. The impacts are classified before and after 

mitigation in accordance with the CEQA significance classifications. Table 5.1-1 also lists the 

agency(ies) responsible for monitoring each of the mitigation requirements. With a few exceptions, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-2 

discussed in Section 5.4, North Baja’s proposed and/or the Agency Staffs’ recommended mitigation 

would reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. Table 5.1-1 is the basis for 

the MMP that would be implemented during construction and operation of the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project. 

5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The No Project Alternative was considered. The Agency Staffs concluded that while the No 

Project Alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts identified in this EIS/EIR, North Baja 

would not be able to provide transportation for LNG-source natural gas from the Mexican pipeline system 

into the United States to meet the demand for natural gas in California and other southwestern U.S. 

markets. This means customers in the southwestern United States would likely have fewer and 

potentially more expensive options for obtaining natural gas supplies in the near future. This might lead 

to alternative proposals to develop natural gas delivery or storage infrastructure, reduced use of natural 

gas, and/or the use of other sources of energy. 

It is possible that the infrastructure currently supplying natural gas to the proposed market area 

could be developed in other ways unforeseen at this point. This might include constructing or expanding 

regional pipelines as well as LNG import and storage systems. Any construction or expansion work 

would result in specific environmental impacts that could be less than, similar to, or greater than those 

associated with the proposed Project. Increased costs could potentially result in customers conserving or 

reducing use of natural gas. Although it is possible that additional conservation may have some effect on 

the demand for natural gas, the level of conservation efforts, as described in the CEC’s 2005 Integrated 

Energy Policy Report (CEC 2005a), is not expected to significantly reduce the long-term requirements for 

natural gas or effectively exert downward pressures on gas prices. 

Denying North Baja’s applications could force potential natural gas customers to seek regulatory 

approval to use other forms of energy. California regulators are promoting renewable energy programs to 

help reduce the demand for fossil fuels. While renewable energy programs can contribute as an energy 

source for electricity, they cannot at this time reliably replace the need for natural gas or provide 

sufficient energy to keep pace with demand. 

Alternatives involving the use of other existing or proposed LNG or natural gas facilities to meet 

the stated objectives of the proposed Project were evaluated. None of these system alternatives could 

meet the Project objectives within the time frame of the proposed Project. Furthermore, each of the 

system alternatives could result in its own set of significant environmental impacts that could be greater 

than those associated with the proposed Project. 

The B-Line deviates from a designated utility corridor on BLM land at five locations in the 

CDCA. As part of the EIS/EIR for the A-Line, the alternative of following designated utility corridors 

was considered. Based on the analysis conducted for that project, the route selected for the A-Line, 

including the deviations from designated utility corridors and the crossing of the Milpitas Wash SMA, 

was determined to be environmentally preferable to a route that remained within designated utility 

corridors. The proposed B-Line would be adjacent to the existing A-Line for the entire route. The 

collocation of facilities is generally preferred by land management agencies, land use planners, and other 

regulatory agencies and has several inherent engineering and environmental advantages. Perhaps the 

most important of these advantages is that new land disturbance is minimized. Because of the advantages 

of collocation, and because the route selected for the A-Line that would be followed for the B-Line was 

previously determined to be environmentally preferable to a route that remains within a designated utility 

corridor, alternatives for the B-Line route that would follow designated utility corridors were not 

considered. One route alternative (22nd Avenue Alternative) in comparison with the corresponding 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-3 

segment of the proposed B-Line was evaluated. The 22nd Avenue Alternative would avoid 18th Avenue. 

The 22nd Avenue Alternative was eliminated because it would merely transfer impacts from one or more 

property owners or communities to another without conferring obvious environmental advantages. 

Eight route alternatives were evaluated in comparison with the corresponding segment of the 

proposed IID Lateral. Along the IID Lateral, North Baja proposes to deviate from a designated utility 

corridor at three locations within the CDCA. Two alternatives (Corridor L and Bonds Corner 

Alternatives) were evaluated to stay within a designated utility corridor for a longer distance than the 

proposed route. Four alternatives (CalTrans, ISDRA North, ISDRA Transmission Line, and ISDRA 

Grays Well Road Alternatives) were identified to avoid potential conflicts of the IID Lateral with existing 

and planned recreational use in the ISDRA. One alternative (the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line 

Alternative) was identified to avoid impacts on a cultural resources site. The eighth alternative 

(Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline Route Alternative) would connect directly from the Gasoducto Bajanorte 

pipeline west of Mexicali to the IID’s El Centro Generating Station. The Agency Staffs determined that 

the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative is environmentally superior to the corresponding 

segment of the IID Lateral and are recommending that it be adopted. The remaining IID Lateral 

alternatives were eliminated because they would not be environmentally preferable to the corresponding 

segment of the IID Lateral, would be infeasible, or would not meet the Project objectives. 

Four route variations (East Mesa Route Variation and Imperial Valley Route Variations A, B, and 

C) in comparison with the corresponding segment of the proposed IID Lateral were evaluated to avoid 

potential conflicts with other projects or address scoping comments. These route variations were 

eliminated because they would not be environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the IID 

Lateral, would be infeasible, or would merely transfer impacts from one or more property owners or 

communities to another without conferring obvious environmental advantages. 

Aboveground facility site alternatives were evaluated. All of the proposed new and modified 

aboveground facilities are designed to meet the purpose and need of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion 

Project. The location of these facilities is dictated by the location of the existing and proposed pipelines 

and, in most cases, the proposed facilities would be collocated with existing and/or other proposed 

facilities. No significant impacts have been identified at any of the new or modified facilities; therefore, 

the alternative that would result in the creation of new industrial sites would not be environmentally 

preferable to the proposed Project and thus was eliminated from further consideration. 

5.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 

The State CEQA Guidelines (section 15126.6(d)) require that an EIR include sufficient 

information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the 

proposed Project. An analysis of the No Project Alternative in comparison with the proposed Project is 

included in the major resource topics in Section 4. Based on the analysis in this EIS/EIR, the No Project 

Alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and, 

therefore, is the environmentally superior alternative. However, as discussed above, under the No Project 

Alternative North Baja would not be able to provide transportation for LNG-source natural gas from the 

Mexican pipeline system into the United States to meet the growing demand for natural gas in California 

and other southwestern U.S. markets. 

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides, in part, “If the environmentally 

superior alternative is the “No Project Alternative,” the EIR shall also identify an environmentally 

superior alternative among the other alternatives.” The Agency Staffs have determined that the proposed 

Project with the incorporation of the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative is the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-4 

environmentally superior alternative. The incorporation of the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line does 

not affect the length of the Project that would require a BLM plan amendment. 

5.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS/STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Effects on all resources were evaluated to determine any significant impact that would remain so 

after mitigation. As shown in Table 5.1-1, most environmental impacts would be reduced to less than 

significant levels by North Baja’s proposed and/or the Agency Staffs’ recommended mitigation. The 

Agency Staffs have determined that the Project is likely to adversely affect the Federal and Californialisted threatened desert tortoise and its designated critical habitat and the federally listed threatened and 

California-listed endangered Peirson’s milk-vetch. The Agency Staffs also believe that impacts on the 

flat-tailed horned lizard, which is a California-listed special concern species, and its habitat would be 

considered significant. As such, impacts on these three species would be considered significant. 

Approval of the Project would be subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations under the CEQA 

due to these significant unavoidable impacts that could remain after all available or feasible mitigation is 

applied. In the BO issued on April 20, 2007, the FWS concluded that the proposed action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise and its critical habitat or the continued existence 

of the Peirson’s milk-vetch. The CDFG has not yet issued its conclusions regarding the impact of the 

Project on the desert tortoise, the Peirson’s milk-vetch, and the flat-tailed horned lizard. 

5.5 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES; SHORT- AND 

LONG-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

The major nonrenewable resources that would be consumed by the proposed Project are fossil 

fuels used to power construction vehicles and, over the life of the Project, the pipelines. Theoretically, 

the pipeline components could be reclaimed at the end of the pipelines’ operational life. However, there 

would be a number of irretrievable resources committed to the proposal if the necessary authorizations are 

granted. The primary resources irretrievably lost would include: 

• soils (water and wind erosion could occur in disturbed areas); 

• crop production (lost or reduced for one season); 

• special status species (mortalities could occur during construction, additionally, the 

Agency Staffs have determined that the Project is likely to adversely affect the desert 

tortoise and its designated habitat and the Peirson’s milk-vetch, and significantly impact 

the flat-tailed horned lizard and its habitat); 

• wildlife habitat (construction activities would result in the long-term loss of native desert 

habitats); 

• land use (aboveground facilities and permanent access roads would replace native desert 

vegetation and urban/ruderal vegetation communities for the life of the Project); and 

• visual resources (the presence of aboveground facilities would permanently affect 

viewsheds). 

The Agency Staffs have concluded that overall the proposed Project would result in limited 

unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. While the losses described above would occur, the majority 

would be minimized and compensated for by North Baja’s mitigation plans and the Agency Staffs’ 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-5 

mitigation measures. For these reasons, the irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are 

considered acceptable. 

5.6 FERC AND CSLC STAFFS’ RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the FERC and the CSLC approve the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project, the FERC and 

CSLC staffs recommend that the following measures be included as specific conditions of their respective 

Commission’s authorizations, as appropriate, to further mitigate the environmental impact associated with 

the construction and operation of the Project: 

1. North Baja shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

applications, supplemental filings (including responses to staff data requests), and as identified in 

the EIS/EIR, unless modified by the FERC Order. North Baja must: 

a. file a request for any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions with the 

Secretary and the CSLC; 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP and, for the lands under the CSLC’s 

jurisdiction as the CEQA Lead Agency, the Executive Officer of the CSLC before using 

that modification.

2. The Director of OEP has delegation authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the 

protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the Project. This 

authority shall allow: 

a. the modification of conditions of the FERC Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental 

conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact 

resulting from Project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, North Baja shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, 

certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and contractor personnel 

will be informed of the EI’s authority and have been or will be trained on the implementation of 

the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with 

construction and restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS/EIR, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets, and shall include the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative. As soon 

as they are available, and before the start of construction, North Baja shall file with the 

Secretary revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with 

station positions for all facilities approved by the FERC Order. All requests for modifications of 

environmental conditions of the FERC Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must 

reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

North Baja’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the FERC Order must be consistent with these authorized 

facilities and locations. North Baja’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA section 7(h) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-6 

does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipelines to accommodate future needs 

or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other than natural gas. 

5. North Baja shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs at 

a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility relocations, and 

staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that would be used or 

disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the Secretary. Approval for each 

of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a 

description of the existing land use/cover type, documentation of landowner approval, whether 

any cultural resources or federally listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and 

whether any other environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall 

be clearly identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in 

writing by the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by North Baja’s authorized CM&R 

Plan or minor field realignments per landowner needs and requirements that do not affect other 

landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands. 

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility location 

changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by State regulatory authorities; and 

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

6. At least 60 days before the start of construction of Phase I and at least 120 days before the 

start of construction of Phase I-A and Phase II (unless otherwise agreed to by the CSLC), 

North Baja shall file with the CSLC for the review and approval of the Executive Officer: 

a. a set of final engineering design drawings as issued for construction, certified by a 

California-registered civil/structural engineer. In addition to the pipeline alignments and 

profiles, the drawings shall provide information such as tie-in details, pipeline grade and 

material specifications, wall thickness, weight and corrosion coating, minimum bend 

radius (wherever applicable, such as HDD installations), normal and maximum operating 

pressure, hydrostatic test information, cathodic protection and test stations, and location 

and details of the nearest upstream pipeline flow emergency shutdown equipment, etc.; 

b. a set of detailed design calculations certified by a California-registered civil/structural 

engineer; 

c. for applicable portions of the segments, detailed HDD installation stress calculations and 

procedures; 

d. certified copies of any site-specific seismic hazard evaluation reports/studies and 

geotechnical reports; 

e. a set of construction specifications; 

f. detailed hydrotest procedures; and 

g. construction contractor’s work execution plan and the contractor’s site-specific blasting 

plan. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-7 

7. Within 60 days of acceptance of the Certificate and before construction, North Baja shall file 

an initial Implementation Plan with the Secretary and the CSLC for the review and written 

approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive Officer of the CSLC describing how North 

Baja will implement the mitigation measures required by the FERC Order and the CSLC MMP. 

North Baja must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. how North Baja will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction 

drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and 

inspection personnel; 

b. the number of EIs assigned per spread and how North Baja will ensure that sufficient 

personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

c. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate materials; 

d. what training and instructions North Baja will give to all personnel involved with 

construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as the Project progresses and 

personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP and CSLC staffs to participate in the 

training session(s); 

e. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of North Baja's organization 

having responsibility for compliance; 

f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) North Baja will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and 

g. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

i. the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

ii. the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

iii. the start of construction; and 

iv. the start and completion of restoration. 

8. North Baja shall file updated status reports with the Secretary and the CSLC on a biweekly basis 

until all construction-related activities, including restoration, are complete. These status reports 

shall also be provided to other Federal and State agencies with permitting responsibilities upon 

request. Status reports shall include: 

a. the current construction status of each spread, work planned for the following reporting 

period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally 

sensitive areas; 

b. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the 

EI(s) or the third-party compliance monitors during the reporting period (both for the 

conditions imposed by the FERC and any environmental conditions/permit requirements 

imposed by other Federal, State, or local agencies); 

c. corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of noncompliance, and their 

cost; 

d. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

e. a description of any landowner/resident complaints that may relate to compliance with 

the requirements of the FERC Order and the CSLC mitigation monitoring program, and 

the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and 

f. copies of any correspondence received by North Baja from other Federal, State, or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and North Baja’s response. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-8 

9. North Baja must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before commencing 

service for each component of the Project. Such authorization will only be granted following a 

determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way are proceeding satisfactorily. 

10. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, North Baja shall file an 

affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, and 

that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. identifying which of the Certificate conditions North Baja has complied with or will 

comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas along the right-of-way where 

compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed 

status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

11. North Baja shall adopt the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative between MPs 5.6 and 

8.2 of the IID Lateral. (Page 3-22)

12. North Baja shall prepare a revised HDD Plan that specifies the corrective action and cleanup 

procedures that would be followed in the event a frac-out occurs in the water during an HDD 

operation. North Baja shall file the revised plan with the FERC and the CSLC for the review and 

written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive Officer of the CSLC before 

commencement of any HDD operation. (Page 4-56)

13. North Baja shall, in consultation with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG, develop Preclearing 

Plans to protect migratory bird species during construction. These plans shall include specific 

details of the preclearing methods to be implemented, the specific locations where preclearing 

would occur, and the dates preclearing would be initiated and completed for each phase of 

construction. North Baja shall file these plans with the FERC and the CSLC for the review and 

written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive Officer of the CSLC before initiation 

of Phase I-A and Phase II construction activities. (Page 4-87)

14. North Baja shall restrict stringing trucks to a 10-mile-per-hour speed limit on the right-of-way 

between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 of the B-Line. (Page 4-101)

15. North Baja shall implement the following measures at the Colorado River during activities 

associated with the HDD: 

a. all individuals working within or adjacent to southwestern willow flycatcher habitat shall 

complete southwestern willow flycatcher training before working within the 

construction right-of-way in those areas; and 

b. dust shall be strictly controlled by watering construction areas within 1,000 feet of 

potential habitat at the Colorado River. (Page 4-102)

16. North Baja shall implement the following measures to minimize impact on the Yuma clapper rail 

unless North Baja provides documentation from the FWS and the CDFG that such measures are 

not necessary or if site-specific surveys fail to identify individuals at the Alamo River or Rannells 

Drain: 

a. ensure vegetation at the proposed crossing location of Rannells Drain, extending 150 feet 

on either side of the proposed construction work area, is cleared before February 1, 

2009; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-9 

b. ensure vegetation at the proposed crossing location of the Alamo River is cleared before 

February 1, 2009; and 

c. initiate all construction activities at Rannells Drain and the Alamo River between the 

hours of 8:30 AM and 3:30 PM to avoid periods of peak Yuma clapper rail 

vocalizations. (Page 4-103)

17. North Baja shall not begin Phase I-A or Phase II construction activities until: 

a. the CDFG makes a consistency determination on the FWS’ BO pursuant to section 

2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code or issues an Incidental Take Permit that 

covers both federally and State-listed species that may be affected; 

b. North Baja obtains an Incidental Take Permit under section 2081 of the California Fish 

and Game Code for all State-listed species that may be affected, or receives concurrence 

from the CDFG that an Incidental Take Permit is not required; and 

c. North Baja has received written notification from the Executive Officer of the CSLC that 

construction or use of conservation measures may begin. (Page 4-126)

18. For those portions of the Project facilities where construction would occur more than 1 year from 

the date of issuance of the FERC and CSLC approvals for the Project, North Baja shall consult 

with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG to update the species list and to verify that previous 

consultations and determinations of effect are still current. Documentation of these consultations, 

and the need for additional surveys and survey reports (if required), and FWS, BLM, and CDFG 

comments on the surveys and survey reports and their conclusions (as applicable), shall be filed 

with the FERC and the CSLC before construction begins on those facilities. (Page 4-126)

19. North Baja shall revise its OHV Plan to include: 

a. the agency or agencies responsible for enforcement of the OHV Plan; 

b. the frequency of monitoring that would be conducted to ensure that the implemented 

OHV blocking measures are functioning properly; 

c. the methodology for reassessing the implemented OHV blocking measures in the future; 

and 

d. enforcement measures. 

North Baja shall file the revised OHV Plan with the FERC and the CSLC for the review and 

written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive Officer of the CSLC before 

construction of Phase I-A and Phase II. (Page 4-151)

20. North Baja shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan for Arrowhead Boulevard in consultation 

with the County of Riverside Transportation Department to detail the specific measures that 

would be used to control traffic during construction of the Arrowhead Extension. North Baja 

shall file the plan with the FERC and the CSLC for the review and written approval of the 

Director of OEP and the Executive Officer of the CSLC before construction. (Page 4-177)

21. North Baja shall defer implementation of any treatment plans/mitigation measures (including 

archaeological data recovery), construction of facilities, and use of all staging, storage, or 

temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads on each respective Project phase 

until North Baja files with the FERC and the CSLC, as applicable, the materials listed in 

items a. through g., and the steps listed in items h. through j. below have been completed: 

a. any FWS, Cibola NWR comments on the Overview and Survey Report; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-10 

b. any BOR comments on the Evaluation Plan; 

c. any comments from the BOR and Native American tribes on the draft Evaluation Report; 

d. the revised Evaluation Report; 

e. the California SHPO’s comments on Addendum Reports 2 and 3, the revised Evaluation 

Report, and the revised Historic Properties Treatment Plan; 

f. all additional cultural resources survey reports for denied access areas and any additional 

areas requiring survey, evaluation reports, and any necessary treatment plans as well as 

documentation that these reports and plans were submitted to the SHPO(s); the BLM; the 

BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; and Native American tribes, as applicable; 

g. any comments of the SHPO(s); the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; and Native 

American tribes, as applicable, on all additional cultural resources reports and plans; 

h. the CSLC reviews and approves all cultural resources reports and plans prepared for the 

California portion of the Project and notifies North Baja in writing that construction may 

proceed; 

i. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment, if historic properties would be 

adversely affected; and 

j. the Director of OEP reviews and approves all applicable cultural resources reports and 

plans and notifies North Baja in writing that treatment plans/mitigation measures may be 

implemented or construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the FERC containing location, character, and ownership information 

about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly labeled in 

bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE.” (Page 

4-191)

22. North Baja shall prepare a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan that specifies the following: 

a. the sources of water that would be used for dust control; 

b. the anticipated quantities of water that would be required; 

c. the measures that would be implemented to prevent fish and fish egg entrainment during 

dust control water withdrawals; 

d. the precautions that would be taken to minimize fugitive dust emissions from 

construction activities; 

e. the measures that would be taken to limit visible density (opacity) of emissions to less 

than or equal to 20 percent; 

f. how visual density would be measured to determine that it is less than or equal to 20 

percent; 

g. how compliance with the 20 percent visual density requirement would be documented; 

h. the individuals with authority to determine if/when water needs to be reapplied for dust 

control; 

i. the speed limit that would be required on unpaved roads and unpaved haul and access 

roads; and 

j. the individuals with authority to stop work if the contractor does not comply with dust 

control measures. 

The revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan shall be filed with the FERC and the CSLC for the 

review and written approval of the Director of OEP and the Executive Officer of the CSLC 

before construction. (Pages 4-60 and 4-203) 

23. North Baja shall prepare an Imperial County-specific Dust Control Plan that includes the 

measures of the revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan and meets the requirements of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-11 

ICAPCD’s Regulation VIII. The Imperial County-specific Dust Control Plan shall be filed with 

the CSLC for the review and written approval of the Executive Officer of the CSLC before 

construction of the Imperial County portions of Phase I-A and Phase II. (Page 4-204)

24. Before placing the pipeline system into service in California, North Baja shall submit to the 

CSLC for approval an Operation and Maintenance Plan. This plan shall address internal and 

external maintenance inspections of the completed facility, including but not limited to details of 

integrity testing methods to be applied, corrosion monitoring and testing of the cathodic 

protection system, and leak monitoring. The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall also specify 

that North Baja would, unless expressly prohibited by DOT regulations, conduct an internal 

inspection with a high-resolution instrument on a periodic basis, at a minimum of one inspection 

every 10 years, or sooner if the evidence suggests that significant corrosion or defects exist or if 

any new Federal or State regulations require more frequent or comparable inspections. Within 3 

months following any new Federal or State regulations, North Baja shall update the Operation 

and Maintenance Plan and submit a revised copy to the CSLC. In addition, the Operation and 

Maintenance Plan shall include procedures for implementing operational mitigation measures 

recommended (if any) by the site-specific seismic hazard evaluation reports for the Project. 

(Page 4-217)

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-12 

TABLE 5.1-1 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significance 

Mitigation 

ALTERNATIVESNBP1 ARM1 

Construction of a portion of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Lateral could affect Site CA-IMP-8314. The Quechan Indian Tribe, the Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) requested that North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja) avoid this cultural resources site. 

Significant (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Class II) 

The Modified Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) Transmission Line Alternative avoids Site CA-IMP-8314. The alternative also avoids an area closed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to protect the Peirson’s milk-vetch and does not affect any other sensitive biological resources. The Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative would be located entirely on BLM-managed lands and the BLM finds the alternative route acceptable. Therefore, North Baja would adopt the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative between mileposts (MPs) 5.6 and 8.2 of the IID Lateral. Although the Modified ISDRA Transmission Line Alternative would avoid Site CA-IMP-8314, a portion of another cultural resources site (the Plank Road) was identified during surveys along the alternative alignment. North Baja would avoid impacts on this portion of the Plank Road by installing exclusion fencing and monitoring during construction. 

Less than significant (CClass III) 

GEOLOGYNBP2 Disturbances to the natural 

topography along the right-ofway and at aboveground facilities could occur due to trenching and grading activities. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

After completion of construction, North Baja would restore topographic contours and drainage conditions as closely as practicable to their preconstruction condition. 

Less than significant (CClass III) 

NBP3 Blasting may be necessary 

along the B-Line near MP 29.5. Cultural resources features nearby may be affected. Temporary effects of blasting on cultural resources features could include hazards posed by uncontrolled fly-rock. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would use blasting mats to keep fly-rock from leaving the construction work area and potentially impacting cultural resources. All blasting activities would be conducted in strict compliance with North Baja’s Blasting Specifications. To avoid 

injury to personnel and damage to structures or other features like existing pipelines, North Baja’s Blasting Specifications stipulates that the blasting contractor must prepare site-specific blasting plans and procedures for review and approval by North Baja. All blasting activities would be conducted under the supervision of a California Licensed Blasting Technician. Blasting procedures would be in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations regarding use, storage, and transport of explosives; safety; and environmental protection. 

Less than significant (CClass III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-13 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP4 Pipeline projects have the 

potential to affect the production of mineral resources by restricting mineral production activities in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline right-ofway or precluding future expansion. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

The pipelines would not cross any active mineral resources operations. North Baja would notify the BOR before construction of the B-Line in the vicinity of the quarry the BOR operates between the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and State Route (SR) 78. However, because of the proximity of the BOR quarry to SR 78 and the presence of unsuitable material to the north and south of current quarrying activities, future expansion would not be affected by the pipeline. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP5 Seismicity (which includes 

active faults, ground shaking, and soil liquefaction) is the primary geologic hazard that could affect the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project or proposed Project) facilities. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would construct and test the pipeline facilities to meet U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) construction and safety standards outlined in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards. The pipelines and associated aboveground facilities would be designed using the Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe (American Lifelines Alliance 2001), Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. 2004), applicable building codes, and/or 

other similar recognized seismological engineering standards. The engineering design drawings for the entire Project in 

California would be certified by a California-registered civil/structural engineer, and would comply with the latest edition of the California Building Code. North Baja has also prepared a Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation Study in a manner consistent with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California, Chapter 6, Analysis and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards. North Baja’s Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation Study indicated a potential for liquefaction hazards at the Colorado River crossing, and along the B-Line and IID Lateral.  To mitigate these potential liquefaction hazards, North Baja has incorporated the recommendations of the Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation Study into the Project design. At the Colorado River, liquefiable soils would be avoided by the use of the horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossing method. The pipelines and associated facilities would be designed using the standards listed above and/or other similar recognized industry standards for seismic-resistant design in liquefaction-prone areas. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-14 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP5 cont’d 

 North Baja has committed to perform a site-specific seismic 

evaluation as part of its detailed design phase for the Project. This evaluation would determine the engineering/design solutions that are appropriate to mitigate against the hazard of seismic displacements along the Imperial Fault. The seismic evaluation would determine recommended design fault displacements for the pipeline design specifications. North Baja would develop a computer model to determine the soil-pipe interaction with the proposed applied displacement. The model would evaluate various combinations of pipe wall thickness and pipe grade to determine which pattern yields the best performance under displacement conditions. The design may also incorporate additional mitigation methods if necessary. North Baja would provide a copy of the final design for the Imperial Fault crossing, as well as any related geotechnical information, to the CSLC and the FERC before construction of the IID Lateral. The final design would also address any measures necessary to mitigate for liquefaction hazards. 

NBP6 The potential for landslide 

and/or slope instability hazards could exist in areas where the pipeline route crosses steep terrain. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

With the exception of the Palo Verde Mesa that would be crossed by the B-Line between MPs 11.6 and 11.8, neither the B-Line, the Arrowhead Extension, nor the IID Lateral cross steep terrain that 

was identified as having a high potential for landslides or slumping. North Baja would reduce the potential hazard by creating a stable and/or level right-of-way work area during the grading operation and implementing restoration practices in its Construction Mitigation and Restoration Plan (CM&R Plan). To prevent a potential instability of the B-Line at the Palo Verde Mesa, the pipeline and the grade immediately to each side of the pipeline would be laid back to no more than 30 percent gradient for the estimated 60-foot-high lower terrace slope. North Baja anticipates minor cuts would be needed to accommodate this grade transition. In other areas of steep terrain, North Baja would: • restore damaged slope breakers on the existing permanent 

easement where the B-Line parallels the existing A-Line; 

• install slope breakers to control surface water on the new 

construction right-of-way; 

• install trench breakers to control groundwater flow in the pipe 

trench; 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-15 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP6 cont’d 

• route discharge of surface water away from the slope 

breakers, and divert or collect surface water coming onto the construction right-of-way to pipes in an outflow below the slope; 

• adhere strictly to erosion control and revegetation measures 

required by Federal, State, and local authorities; 

• bury the pipeline in a deeper trench than normal or place 

armor above it in areas of potential debris flow hazards; and 

• monitor geotechnical conditions for signs of mass wasting, 

and respond appropriately to any indications of instability. 

NBP7 The IID Lateral would cross the 

Algodones Sand Dunes, which could expose the pipelines to damage or bury the pipelines as the dunes laterally migrate. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has stabilized a segment of the dunes and actively manages the area to keep Interstate 8 open to vehicle traffic. The IID Lateral would 

be just south of the CalTrans-managed area and is, therefore, somewhat protected from sand dune migration. North Baja would bury the IID Lateral 6 feet deep between MPs 2.7 and 5.7, which includes the area most susceptible to blowing/shifting sands and pipeline exposure. If sand depth were to increase slightly over the pipeline, this would increase its protection from the elements and from vandalism. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP8 Paleontological resources could 

be affected by construction of the pipeline and associated aboveground facilities as well as by the resulting increased public access to these resources. Without mitigation, ground disturbance during construction could cause adverse impacts on paleontological resources. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

To address potential impacts on paleontological resources resulting from pipeline construction, North Baja developed a Paleontological Resource Mitigation and Monitoring (PRMM) Plan.  The PRMM Plan includes a summary of the literature and museum archival review, field survey results, and assessment of potential impacts on paleontological resources; Project-wide and site-specific mitigation and monitoring measures; and curation and reporting procedures. In accordance with the PRMM Plan, North Baja would have a paleontological monitor onsite between MPs 27.0 and 29.1 of the A-Line. Between MPs 27.6 and 46.0 of the IID Lateral, North Baja would conduct spot monitoring. If 

excavation between these mileposts unearths coarse beach intervals or thicker sand/gravel lenses, continuous monitoring 

would be conducted. Additional measures of the plan include: 

• availability of a qualified Project paleontologist to be called to 

the Project area to respond to construction-related issues: 

• training of construction personnel and Environmental 

Inspectors (EIs) regarding the possibility that fossil resources may be encountered during construction; 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-16 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP8 cont’d 

• granting of authority for the EI to temporarily halt construction 

to allow for assessment by the Project paleontologist and implementation of mitigation procedures if warranted; 

• salvage of significant fossils as determined necessary by the 

Project paleontologist; and 

• protocol for curation and repository storage of fossils. Following construction, North Baja’s Project paleontologist would prepare a final paleontological report. The final report would be distributed to the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, the BOR, the Cibola NWR, and other interested parties. 

SOILSNBP9 ARM2 ARM3 

Construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities could expose soils to erosional forces, compact soils, affect soil fertility, cause mixing of soil horizons, and facilitate the dispersal and establishment of weeds. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would mitigate impacts on soils by implementing its CM&R Plan developed in consultation with the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and its Project-wide Dust Control Plan. 

Fugitive dust generated by construction activities would be minimized by the implementation of North Baja’s Project-wide Dust Control Plan. The Project-wide Dust Control Plan includes control measures identified as best management practices by some of the regulating agencies. The measures that would be implemented include: • take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust 

emissions from construction activities; 

• take every reasonable measure to limit visible density 

(opacity) of emissions to less than or equal to 20 percent; 

• apply water one or more times per day to all affected unpaved 

roads, and unpaved haul and access roads; 

• reduce vehicle speeds on all unpaved roads, and unpaved 

haul and access roads; 

• clean up track-out and/or carry-out areas at paved road 

access points at a minimum of once every 48 hours; 

• if bulk transfer operations are required, spray handling and 

transfer points with water at least 15 minutes before use; 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-17 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP9 cont’d ARM2 cont’d ARM3 cont’d 

• cover all haul truck loads, or maintain at least 6 inches of 

freeboard space in each cargo compartment. Ensure that all haul truck cargo compartments are constructed and maintained to minimize spillage and loss of materials, and clean or wash each cargo compartment at the delivery site after removal of the bulk materials; 

• apply water to active construction areas to limit visible density 

(opacity) of emissions to less than or equal to 20 percent; 

• apply water to open and/or unvegetated areas to limit visible 

density (opacity) of emissions to less than or equal to 20 percent; and 

• for temporary surfaces during periods of inactivity, restrict 

vehicular access by means of either fencing or signage, and apply water to comply with the stabilized surface requirements. 

Some of the measures clearly specify the performance requirement; however, some of the measures are vague and open to interpretation and, consequently, would be difficult to enforce during construction. Therefore, before construction, North Baja 

would prepare a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan that specifies the following: • the precautions that would be taken to minimize fugitive dust 

emissions from construction activities; 

• the measures that would be taken to limit visible density 

(opacity) of emissions to less than or equal to 20 percent; 

• how visual density would be measured to determine that it is 

less than or equal to 20 percent; 

• how compliance with the 20 percent visual density 

requirement would be documented; 

• the individuals with authority to determine if/when water needs 

to be reapplied for dust control; 

• the speed limit that would be required on unpaved roads and 

unpaved haul and access roads; and 

• the individuals with authority to stop work if the contractor 

does not comply with dust control measures. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-18 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP9 cont’d ARM2 cont’d ARM3 cont’d 

The Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) noted that North Baja’s Project-wide Dust Control Plan does not meet the Best Available Control Measures of the ICAPCD’s Regulation VIII with regard to clean up of track-out areas. The ICAPCD also noted that additional track-out control devices and further dust control measures must be utilized if construction vehicle trips per day exceed the thresholds established in Regulation VIII. The ICAPCD asked that traffic at unpaved to paved intersections be quantified in the Dust Control Plan and the Dust Control Plan modified accordingly. Therefore, before construction of the Imperial County portions of Phase I-A and Phase II, North Baja would prepare an Imperial County-specific Dust Control Plan that includes the measures of the revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan and meets the requirements of the ICAPCD’s Regulation VIII. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP13. 

NBP10 Construction of the Project 

could result in fugitive dust, which is a visible indication of soil loss through wind erosion. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would mitigate impacts associated with fugitive dust by implementing its Project-wide and Imperial County-specific Dust 

Control Plans. See the mitigation measures listed in NBP9, ARM2, and ARM3. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP11 Contamination from spills or 

leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment could have an impact on soils. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would mitigate impacts on soils by implementing its Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan for Hazardous Materials and Wastes (SPCC Plan). 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP12 Construction of the pipeline 

would impact areas with shallow depths to bedrock near MP 29.5 where blasting would likely be required and could result in bringing excess rock to the soil surface. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would conduct blasting in compliance with its Blasting Specifications. North Baja would implement its CM&R Plan, which requires that excess rock be removed from the upper 12 inches of soil in cropland, hayfields, pastures, residential areas, and other areas at the landowner’s request. Excess rock would not be windrowed along the right-of-way unless approval was obtained from the landowner or land management agency. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP13 Construction would impact soils 

with high water and wind erosion potential. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would mitigate soil erosion impacts by implementing the measures in its CM&R Plan and Project-wide and Imperial 

County-specific Dust Control Plans, which include: • restricting the construction right-of-way width for the B-Line to 

105 feet and further reducing the width of the right-of-way in areas with high concentrations of native trees; 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-19 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP13 cont’d 

• restricting the construction right-of-way width for the IID Lateral 

to 80 feet where parallel to existing powerlines and to 60 feet where the lateral would be installed between a powerline and a road or within or abutting the traveled portion of county roads; 

• preserving the native seed bank by segregating topsoil to a 

depth of 2 to 8 inches in non-agricultural areas where grading would be conducted and redistributing material over the rightof-way during cleanup; 

• preserving and redistributing cut vegetation over the right-ofway; 

• restricting grading and crushing or cutting of vegetation where 

possible, leaving rootstock and minimizing soil disturbance; 

• imprinting areas with a sheepsfoot or similar device to provide 

indentations to catch water/seed and anchor native plant material that has been respread over the right-of-way, thereby aiding in natural revegetation and erosion control; 

• segregating and redistributing topsoil to its actual depth up to 2 

feet in agricultural areas; 

• maintaining water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff 

is coordinated with affected parties; 

• testing for and alleviating compacted soils in agricultural and 

residential areas; 

• implementing procedures to prevent or minimize the spread of 

noxious weeds or other undesirable species by limiting disposal of plant materials to suitable areas and cleaning of clearing and grading equipment before entering native species areas; and 

• placing intact salvaged plant materials or rock at specific 

locations where visual blocking would be employed to discourage use of the pipeline right-of-way by unauthorized vehicles. 

See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP9, ARM2, and 

ARM3. 

NBP14 The IID Lateral would cross the 

ISDRA between MPs 0.0 and 7.0, which consist of loose wind-blown sand and may result in pipeline exposure. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would cross portions of the ISDRA in association with the HDDs of the two All-American Canal crossings. North Baja would bury the IID Lateral 6 feet deep between MPs 2.7 and 5.7, which includes the area most susceptible to blowing/shifting sands and pipeline exposure. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-20 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP15 Construction of the pipeline 

could disrupt irrigation flow (e.g., Rannells Drain). 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would cross the majority of irrigation drains and canals 

by boring underneath the culverts along 18th Avenue or by installing the pipeline between the drain culvert and the road. North Baja would also contact landowners in the Palo Verde and Imperial Valleys regarding the location of other irrigation systems and would maintain water flow in these systems or coordinate disruption of irrigation flow or any shutoff times with the affected landowners. North Baja would restore the banks and bed of Rannells Drain and two unnamed canals along the Arrowhead Extension (open-cut crossings) to their original configurations. Because of the steepness of the banks at the Rannells Drain crossing, erosion control fabric would be used for bank stabilization purposes upon completion of pipeline construction at this crossing. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP16 Construction of the proposed 

pipelines could temporarily impact about 71.7 acres of soil identified as prime farmland and 41.6 acres of farmland of Statewide importance. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would mitigate impacts on soils in active farmlands by segregating topsoil before installation of the pipeline and reapplying topsoil over the surface of the right-of-way during restoration as outlined in its CM&R Plan. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP9 and NBP13. 

Less than significant Class III) 

WATER RESOURCESNBP17 Shallow aquifers underlying 

construction areas could experience changes in overland flow and recharge caused by clearing and grading of the construction right-of-way. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

In accordance with North Baja’s CM&R Plan, vegetation would be cleared only where necessary. After completion of construction, 

North Baja would recontour and restore the ground surface and allow vegetation to regenerate to provide restoration of preconstruction overland flow and recharge patterns. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP18 Compaction of near-surface 

soils and soil mixing as a result of heavy construction vehicles could affect groundwater by reducing the soil’s ability to absorb water. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would comply with its soil compaction mitigation described in its CM&R Plan. This includes testing topsoil and subsoil at regular intervals in agricultural and residential areas for 

compaction and plowing severely compacted agricultural areas. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-21 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP19 Refueling of vehicles and 

storage of fuel, oil, and other fluids during the construction phase of the Project could create a potential long-term contamination hazard to groundwater resources. Spills or leaks of hazardous liquids could contaminate groundwater and affect users of the aquifer. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would comply with its SPCC Plan. This includes avoiding or minimizing potential impacts by restricting the location of refueling activities and storage facilities and by requiring immediate cleanup in the event of a spill or leak. Additionally, the SPCC Plan identifies emergency response procedures, equipment, and cleanup measures in the event of a spill. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP20 Trench dewatering during 

pipeline construction could affect groundwater resources and alter the natural soil strata such that new groundwater migration pathways could be created away from surface waterbodies. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would dewater trenches in such a manner that no heavily silt-laden water flows into any waterbody as described in its CM&R Plan. Additionally, North Baja’s CM&R Plan requires the use of trench breakers or installation of trench plugs at the edges of waterbodies to avoid altering the flow of groundwater to local springs or wetland areas. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP21 Substantial amounts of 

groundwater may be encountered in the vicinity of the Colorado River and near canal crossings along the BLine, Arrowhead Extension, and 

IID Lateral that may result in minor fluctuations in local groundwater levels. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

If necessary, North Baja would use well points in addition to standard sump pump dewatering. The water from these dewatering operations would be discharged to dewatering structures and/or otherwise filtered and discharged into field drains or canals. Minor fluctuations in local groundwater levels may occur, but would be temporary and minor. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP22 Unanticipated, pre-existing 

contaminated groundwater could be encountered during construction. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

In the event evidence of contaminated groundwater or contaminated soils is encountered, additional observations for the presence of a chemical sheen, free product, and chemical odor would be made and recorded before any further construction activity. Field observations would be conducted to determine the nature of the contamination, appropriate disposal/treatment options, and the need for sampling. If contaminated groundwater and/or soils are encountered, North Baja would stop work and consult with the appropriate agencies, including the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region (CRWQCB) and the Riverside and Imperial Counties Departments of Health on a plan to proceed. The plan would include provisions for characterizing the contaminants, appropriate health and safety measures for workers, and proper discharge of the groundwater. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-22 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP22 cont’d 

 North Baja would notify the appropriate agencies of any 

discoveries of pre-existing contamination and would perform evaluations on the amount and composition of the contamination. Once the evaluations are completed, North Baja would coordinate with the appropriate agencies to determine appropriate actions and disposal of affected materials. 

NBP23 Construction activities could 

impact public and private wells located within 150 feet of the proposed construction work area. These potential impacts could include: localized decreases in groundwater recharge rates, changes to overland water flow, contamination due to hazardous materials spills, decreased well yields, decreased water quality (such as an increase in turbidity or odor in the water), interference with well mechanics, or complete disruption of the well. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Ten water wells were identified within 150 feet of the construction work area. Before construction, North Baja would conduct a field survey to verify the location of these wells as well as any other 

wells that are identified within 150 feet of the construction work area. With the landowner’s permission, North Baja would test these water wells before construction to determine baseline flow conditions as a means of determining any potential constructionrelated impacts. Where impacts are reported by landowners, North Baja would conduct post-construction water well tests. If it is determined that construction activities have impaired a well water quality or yield, North Baja would either provide bottled water for drinking and arrange for an alternate source of water (such as water truck) for other household uses, temporarily relocate the landowner until the water supply is restored, or compensate the landowner for losses. If water quality or yield is permanently impaired as a result of construction activities, North 

Baja would arrange for a new well to be drilled or compensate the landowner. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP24 Blasting near groundwater wells 

during construction could cause temporary changes in water level and turbidity and damage the water wells. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

No water wells have been identified within 0.5 mile of anticipated blasting locations (i.e., MP 29.5). North Baja would conduct blasting in compliance with its Blasting Specifications. North Baja’s use of proper blasting techniques, which would fracture bedrock only to the point necessary for removal, would limit the effect of the blast to a local area above the aquifer in the proximity of the trenchline. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP25 Construction activities could 

affect waterbodies through modification of aquatic habitat, increased sedimentation, increased turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, stream warming, or introduction of chemical contamination from fuels or lubricants. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would install the pipeline across all of the flowing waterbodies crossed by the Project using the HDD or bore method or install the pipeline between drain culverts and 18th Avenue, with 

three exceptions (Rannells Drain and two unnamed canals 

crossed by the Arrowhead Extension at MPs 0.5 and 1.5). The IID Lateral would cross the Alamo River (MP 32.3), which would be crossed by installing the pipeline in the road shoulder over the culverts that carry the water under Hunt Road. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-23 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP25 cont’d 

 Construction and restoration at Rannells Drain would be done in 

accordance with the CM&R Plan. North Baja would use sediment booms downstream of the trenching, which would contain sedimentation to the localized area. In accordance with the CM&R Plan, North Baja would attempt to complete actual instream trenching within 48 hours. North Baja would obtain waterbody crossing permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. North Baja would also obtain a section 401 Water Quality Certification from the CRWQCB. In addition, North Baja would obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) (section 1600 seq. of the California Fish and Game Code) from the CDFG. North Baja would implement the measures and best management 

practices in CM&R Plan. All construction activities at waterbody crossings would be in accordance with Federal, State, and local permit requirements. 

NBP26 Spoil placed in floodplains 

during pipeline construction could cause an increase in flood levels or could be washed downstream or be deleterious to aquatic life.

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja states that it would manage spoil piles in accordance with the provisions of the CDFG’s SAA. For the A-Line, these provisions required that materials placed in seasonally dry portions of a stream that could be washed downstream or could be deleterious to aquatic life must be removed before inundation by high flows. Dry washes are also regulated by the CRWQCB, which may impose additional stipulations regarding spoil pile 

management such as requiring North Baja to leave gaps in the spoil piles in dry washes so the washes remain open during construction. North Baja would prepare and submit an updated CM&R Plan to the Agency Staffs before construction if necessary 

to incorporate any additional requirements of Federal, State, and local permits. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP27 Refueling of vehicles and 

storage of fuel, oil, or other hazardous materials near surface waters could create a potential for contamination if a spill were to occur. Immediate downstream users of the water could experience degradation in water quality. Acute chronic toxic effects on aquatic organisms could result from such a spill. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would comply with its SPCC Plan. This includes avoiding or minimizing potential impacts by restricting the location of refueling activities and storage facilities and by requiring immediate cleanup in the event of a spill or leak. Additionally, the SPCC Plan identifies emergency response procedures, equipment, and cleanup measures in the event of a spill. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-24 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP28 ARM4 

The primary impact that could occur as a result of the HDD method at the Colorado River, All-American Canal, and East Highline Canal is an inadvertent release of drilling mud (frac-out) directly or indirectly into the waterbody. Drilling mud could leak through previously unidentified fractures in the material underlying the riverbed, in the area of the mud pits or tanks, or along the path of the drill due to unfavorable ground conditions. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja has prepared site-specific HDD crossing plans for the 

Colorado River, All-American Canal, and East Highline Canal that 

show the drill entry and exit workspaces, the pipe fabrication and stringout areas, and the drill profiles. In addition, North Baja has developed an HDD Plan that describes how drilling operations would be conducted and monitored to minimize the potential for inadvertent releases or failure. The HDD Plan describes the agency notification procedures and the corrective action and cleanup procedures that would be followed in the event of a fracout to land and the abandonment procedures that would be followed if it is necessary to abandon the drill hole. 

Before commencement of any HDD operation, North Baja would 

file with the FERC and the CSLC a revised HDD Plan that specifies the corrective action and cleanup procedures that would be followed in the event a frac-out occurs in the water during an HDD operation.

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP29 Construction could impact the 

streambed and associated wildlife and vegetation habitats of the waterbodies and dry washes crossed by the proposed pipeline routes. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement the mitigation measures listed in 

NBP25 and NBP26. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP30 The withdrawal of water from 

streams or rivers to use for hydrostatic testing could reduce the amount of water available for downstream uses and adversely affect aquatic habitats. The discharge of hydrostatic test water could increase erosion and downstream sedimentation and lead to the deterioration of receiving water quality. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would conduct all hydrostatic test activities in accordance with the measures in its CM&R Plan, applicable permits (including coordination with the BOR), and DOT pipeline safety regulations set forth in Title 49 CFR Part 192. North Baja would limit the fill volume to 1,500 gallons per minute or 10 percent of streamflow, whichever is less. The water would be filtered prior to entering the pipe, and no chemicals would be added to the test water. North Baja would hydrostatically test the B-Line and piping 

associated with the Ehrenberg Compressor Station and Blythe Meter Station with water obtained from an existing irrigation canal 

located adjacent to the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, an existing well on the compressor station site, or the All-American Canal. After testing, the water would be discharged into lined irrigation canals or the All-American Canal. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-25 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP30 cont’d 

The Arrowhead Extension and piping within the Blythe-Arrowhead 

Meter Station would be tested with water obtained from the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), local wells, or a commercial water source. After testing, the water would be discharged into the C-05 Canal. North Baja would hydrostatically test the IID Lateral with water obtained from the All-American Canal. After testing, the water would be discharged back into the All-American Canal or into other IID irrigation facilities. North Baja would discharge hydrostatic test water in accordance with the requirements of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The discharge rate would be regulated, and water would be discharged through energy dissipation devices and sediment barriers, as necessary, to prevent erosion or excessive flow. 

ARM5 The withdrawal of water from 

streams or rivers to control dust could impact aquatic resources. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Before construction, North Baja would file with the FERC and the CSLC a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan that specifies the 

sources of water that would be used for dust control, the anticipated quantities of water that would be required, and measures that would be implemented to prevent fish and fish egg entrainment during dust control water withdrawals. 

Less than significant Class III) 

WETLANDSNBP31 The primary impact of the 

Project on wetlands would be the temporary and permanent alteration of wetland vegetation.  Other impacts could include temporary changes in wetland hydrology and water quality, mixing of topsoil and subsoil, and compaction and rutting of soils. A 10-foot-wide maintained corridor would result in the permanent conversion of 3.0 acres of scrub-shrub wetland to emergent wetland. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would adhere to its CM&R Plan, and comply with the COE’s section 404 and the CRWQCB’s section 401 Water Quality 

Certification permit conditions. Wetlands would be restored to 

preconstruction contours. Construction of the Project would result in “no net loss” of wetlands because no wetlands would be 

permanently drained or filled. North Baja states that it does not plan to actively maintain the permanent right-of-way. However, North Baja has the right to maintain a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipelines if necessary for periodic corrosion/leak surveys. Some of the mitigation measures pertaining to wetland crossings include: • prohibiting storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, 

and lubricating oils within a wetland or within 100 feet of a wetland boundary; 

• requiring that native vegetation on the right-of-way within 

wetlands be cut at ground level, leaving existing root systems in place to promote regrowth; 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-26 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP31 cont’d 

• requiring segregation of the uppermost 1 foot of wetland topsoil 

from the underlying subsoil in areas disturbed by trenching; 

• limiting the operation of construction equipment within wetlands 

to that equipment essential for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration activities; 

• requiring all nonessential equipment to traverse around 

wetlands using upland access roads where wetland soils are prone to rutting and/or cannot be appropriately stabilized; and 

• minimizing duration of construction-related disturbance within 

wetlands. 

VEGETATIONNBP32 The primary impact of the 

Project on vegetation would be the cutting, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation within the construction work area. The removal of desert vegetation would have longerterm impacts than in agricultural areas where vegetation reestablishes quickly. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would work over its existing pipeline to construct the BLine, thereby minimizing the area of new disturbance and the impacts on vegetation. About 75 percent of the vegetation disturbance associated with the B-Line would be within North Baja’s existing, previously disturbed right-of-way. North Baja would implement its CM&R Plan to reduce impacts on vegetation within the construction and permanent rights-of-way and improve revegetation potential. Some of the measures that would be implemented include: • Segregate topsoil in all agricultural areas and in native habitats 

where grading is required. This measure would preserve the superior chemical and biological qualities of the topsoil and, in nonagricultural habitats, would preserve the native seed bank contained in the soil. 

• Crush or skim vegetation within the construction right-of-way in 

areas where grading is not required, which would result in less soil disturbance. The remaining root crowns would aid in soil stabilization, help retain organic matter in the soil, aid in moisture retention, and have the potential to resprout following construction. 

• Preserve native vegetation removed during clearing 

operations. The cut vegetation would be windrowed along the right-of-way during construction and then respread over the disturbed areas as part of restoration activities. This measure would be considered “vertical mulch” and would aid in seedling recruitment by trapping seeds, providing shade, and improving water infiltration. Additionally, this cut vegetation would add to the organic matter in the topsoil layer as it decomposes. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-27 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP32 cont’d 

• Replant desert wash woodland species at specified locations 

along the right-of-way providing a visual barrier to the right-ofway to deter off-highway vehicle (OHV) traffic on the right-ofway. Although this vegetation would not be expected to survive, it would provide many of the benefits of vertical mulch described above in addition to preventing vegetation damage by OHV use on the right-of-way. 

• Recontour disturbed areas as needed. The contours would be 

reshaped after backfilling the trench and replacing the topsoil to restore preconstruction contours and natural drainage patterns. This treatment would reduce erosion and the loss of topsoil, which would improve revegetation potential. 

• Imprint areas of soil disturbance using a “sheep’s-foot” roller or 

other methods. Imprinting would provide micro-catchment areas for seed retention and would improve water infiltration. 

• Maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff is 

coordinated with affected parties. 

• Test for and alleviate compacted soils in agricultural and 

residential areas. 

• Implement procedures to prevent or minimize the spread of 

noxious weeds or other undesirable species by limiting disposal of plant materials to suitable areas and the cleaning of clearing and grading equipment before beginning work on the Project. 

• Monitor the revegetation of the right-of-way the year following 

construction and again during the second growing season. In agricultural areas, crop monitoring would be conducted to determine if additional restoration is required. Additional revegetation efforts would be conducted until revegetation is deemed successful. In non-agricultural lands, revegetation monitoring would be conducted until 2012 and would be considered successful if upon visual survey, the density and cover are similar to adjacent undisturbed lands. 

NBP33 Construction could reduce 

wildlife habitat and diversity by removing desert wash woodlands. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would minimize tree clearing in 16 areas of native trees along the proposed route by reducing the width of the construction right-of-way from 105 feet to 80 feet. These areas are located at MP 16.9 (345 feet), MP 17.9 (270 feet), MP 20.0 (700 feet), MP 22.3 (480 feet), MP 22.5 (250 feet), MP 22.6 (1,000 feet), MP 22.8 (180 feet), MP 23.3 (340 feet), MP 23.4 (250 feet), MP 23.5 (590 feet), MP 25.8 (850 feet), MP 34.5 (860 feet), MP 45.1 (500 feet), MP 51.1 (1,800 feet), MP 51.7 (1,100 feet), and MP 64.5 (500 feet). North Baja would implement its CM&R Plan to restore desert wash woodland. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-28 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP33 cont’d 

 North Baja would provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of 

desert wash woodland vegetation at a 2:1 ratio for the clearing of the 22.0 acres (new disturbance) of desert wash woodland in addition to the 1:1 compensation ratio it proposes to offset impacts on desert tortoise habitat. North Baja would negotiate off-site mitigation requirements with the FWS and the CDFG. 

NBP34 Open-cut trenching through 

Rannells Drain (MP 11.4) could have an impact on vegetation growing in and on the banks of the drain. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

The vegetation in Rannells Drain is routinely removed during drain maintenance by the PVID. Because vegetation has re-established itself in the past after dredging, vegetation in Rannells Drain is expected to regenerate on its own from existing seed and vegetative propagules within 2 years after construction. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP35 Construction of the B-Line 

(primarily along 18th Avenue) 

and the IID Lateral (primarily along Hunt Road and East Ross Road) could affect mature landscaping associated with 11 residences. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja does not propose to remove any trees on residential properties. North Baja would employ mitigation measures such as tree protection fencing to protect existing trees during construction. North Baja would restore landscaping following construction as part of site-specific plans. If mature trees or shrubs need to be removed during construction, landowners would be compensated for the loss of irreplaceable vegetation as part of agreements between North Baja and the landowners. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP36 The revegetation of desert 

areas could take from 5 to 50 years. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement its CM&R Plan to promote revegetation of disturbed areas. Specific mitigation measures are listed in NBP32. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP37 The Project could impact 

rangeland health. The removal of desert vegetation and disturbance of soils could affect the ability of the Project area to support vegetation and wildlife communities. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement its CM&R Plan, which includes measures to control erosion and preserve topsoil and scarce organic matter that would minimize impacts on the revegetation potential of the Project area. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP38 Construction could result in the 

introduction of contaminants to soils and potentially adversely affect the potential for revegetation. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement its SPCC Plan, which specifies cleanup procedures to minimize the potential for soil contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolants. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-29 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP39 The Project would permanently 

affect 0.2 acre of the creosote 

bush scrub community at the pig launcher and receiver at the Ogilby Meter Station; 0.2 acre of the urban/ruderal community at the El Centro Meter Station; 0.3 acre of urban/ruderal and 0.8 acre of creosote bush scrub communities for four valves; 0.3 acre of the creosote bush scrub community at the Rannells Trap; 0.8 acre of the agricultural community for the pig launcher, taps, and crossover piping associated with the Arrowhead Extension; and about 0.2 acre of the creosote bush scrub community for the tap to the BLine and the pig launcher associated with the IID Lateral. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

No mitigation is proposed. The permanent conversion of the 

affected communities would represent less than a 1 percent change in each respective vegetation type in the Project area. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP40 Removal of existing vegetation 

and the disturbances of soils during construction could create conditions for the invasion and establishment of exoticnuisance species. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would reduce the potential to spread noxious weeds and soil pests by implementing the measures included in its CM&R Plan. These measures include, but are not limited to: survey by a qualified noxious weed authority; flagging or treatment before construction; identification of populations of plants listed as invasive exotics by the California Invasive Plant Council and the BLM National List of Invasive Weed Species of Concern; not allowing for disposal of soil and plant materials from non-native areas to native areas; washing all construction equipment before beginning work on the Project; cleaning equipment that worked in Arizona before beginning work in California; washing equipment used to clear tamarisk before working elsewhere on the Project; educating construction personnel on weed identification; use of gravel and/or fill material from weed-free sources for relatively weed-free areas; use of certified weed-free hay bales; implementation of post-construction monitoring and treatment of invasive weeds; removal of tamarisk trees from the right-of-way in native areas and, in non-native areas, tamarisk trees would be removed as necessary as part of clearing operations; and burning or hauling offsite of tamarisk debris. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-30 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP40 cont’d 

 In accordance with the CM&R Plan, North Baja would conduct 

surveys for noxious weeds along the IID Lateral before construction. In areas of weed infestations attributable to the Project, North Baja would implement control measures twice a year for 2 years after construction is complete or until the infestations have been controlled. North Baja would also implement weed control measures annually as part of routine operation and maintenance of the pipeline. 

WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCESNBP41 Construction and operation of 

the pipeline could directly impact wildlife through disturbance, displacement, mortality, and alterations of available habitats. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement conservation measures for special status species that would also serve to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts on general wildlife and their habitats. About 99 percent of the right-of-way would be adjacent to existing utility or transportation corridors. Additionally, North Baja would implement measures identified in its CM&R Plan to avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife habitats as well as facilitate the recovery of native vegetation communities. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP42 Construction across wetlands 

and waterbodies could affect important habitats for a number of resident wildlife species and fishery resources. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would cross the Colorado River, which is the only waterbody that supports fishery resources, using the HDD method. The HDD method would also be used at four other waterbody crossings, thus avoiding in-stream impacts. Rannells Drain would be disturbed; however, it is an agricultural drain that is subject to the clearing of vegetation periodically by the PVID. North Baja would implement measures in its CM&R Plan to minimize disturbance to these habitats. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP43 Fires inadvertently started by 

construction activities (e.g., welding), equipment, or personnel could affect wildlife by igniting vegetation along the right-of-way. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to minimize the potential for wildfires. Some of the measures contained in the plan include: requiring the contractor to train all personnel on fire prevention measures, restricting smoking and parking to cleared areas, requiring all combustion engines to be equipped with a spark arrestor, and requiring vehicles and equipment to maintain a supply of fire suppression equipment (e.g., shovels and fire extinguishers). A Fire Guard would be assigned to each construction spread that would be responsible for maintaining contact with local fire control agencies. North Baja would restrict activities on Federal lands during conditions of high fire danger in coordination with the BLM. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-31 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP44 Construction of the pig launcher 

and receiver at the Ogilby Meter Station; various valves; pig 

launcher, taps, and crossover piping associated with the Arrowhead Extension; and improvements/modifications to three roads would permanently replace existing wildlife habitats. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

No mitigation is proposed. The permanent conversion of the 

affected habitats would represent less than a 1 percent change in each respective habitat type in the Project area. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP45 ARM6 

Some impact on migratory birds could result from habitat loss associated with construction of the Project. Clearing of vegetation could also destroy nests and cause mortality of nestlings and nesting adults. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Along the B-Line, North Baja would overlap its construction rightof-way over the previously disturbed right-of-way. Additionally, North Baja would reduce the right-of-way width from 105 feet to 80 feet in 16 areas of microphyll woodlands and would preserve individual trees within the construction right-of-way where possible. With the exception of the dunes area, 98 percent of the habitat affected by the IID Lateral would occur within or immediately adjacent to existing disturbed utility and transportation rights-of-way. Construction would occur in the dunes area but the existing vegetation resources in the dunes area are sparse. North Baja would attempt to schedule construction in native habitats outside of the breeding season for migratory birds. If, however, construction activities are necessary during the bird breeding season, in accordance with its CM&R Plan, North Baja would remove vegetation that could provide nesting substrate from the right-of-way before the breeding season, thus eliminating the possibility that birds could nest on the right-of-way. Qualified biologists would conduct preconstruction surveys to confirm the absence of nesting birds before construction begins. North Baja would, in consultation with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG, develop Preclearing Plans to protect migratory bird 

species during construction of Phase I-A and Phase II, which are the only phases of construction that have the potential to occur in native desert habitats during the nesting period for migratory birds.  These plans would include specific details of the preclearing methods to be implemented, the specific locations where preclearing would occur, and the dates preclearing would be initiated and completed. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-32 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP45 cont’d ARM6 cont’d 

 If, in spite of vegetation removal, nesting birds are found on the 

construction right-of-way, the nest would not be removed until fledging has occurred or unless authorized after consultation with the FWS, the CDFG, and, if the nest is located on Federal lands, the Federal land management agency. North Baja would implement the measures in its CM&R Plan to promote revegetation of disturbed areas by restoring original contours, segregating topsoil where grading is required, and respreading cut vegetation over the restored areas. 

NBP46 Construction-related activities 

could directly and indirectly impact wildlife in managed and sensitive biological resource areas such as the Cibola NWR, Milpitas Wash Special Management Area (SMA), Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA), and Nature Conservancy sites. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja proposes a number of conservation measures to protect wildlife and special status plants that are generally consistent with objectives of the management plans addressing activities in the Milpitas Wash SMA and the multi-species WHMA.  Construction of the Project would not directly affect sensitive wildlife habitat within the Cibola NWR. Noise associated with construction activities could indirectly impact wildlife and breeding seasons. However, because of the year-round vehicle and boat traffic associated with SR 78 and the Colorado River, wildlife in the area is expected to be somewhat acclimated to noise. The Colorado River and adjacent riparian habitat associated with the Nature Conservancy site would be avoided by the HDD crossing of the river. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP47 The Project would cross a small 

portion of the Cibola-Trigo Herd Management Area (HMA) and Chocolate-Mules HMA where wild horses and/or burros could be found watering. Construction could affect wild horses or burros if the animals were to fall into the open trench. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would install wildlife escape ramps in the excavated trench at 1-mile intervals. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP48 Construction could result in 

sedimentation and turbidity, which might adversely affect fish eggs and juvenile fish survival, benthic community diversity and health, and spawning habitat. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

The Colorado River, the All-American Canal, and the East Highline Canal would be crossed using the HDD method. Only one flowing waterbody, Rannells Drain, would be crossed using the open-cut crossing method. Two unnamed canals along the 

Arrowhead Extension would also be crossed using the open-cut crossing method. The open-cut method is the quickest crossing method; therefore, sedimentation and turbidity would be limited to the relatively short period of in-stream work. Rannells Drain does not have a classified fishery and no fisheries habitat would be lost as a result of construction across Rannells Drain. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-33 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP48 cont’d 

 Nonetheless, North Baja proposes to use sediment booms 

downstream of the trenching, which would contain sedimentation to the localized area. Sediment potentially released during construction would be removed the next time the PVID dredges the drain for agricultural purposes (expected to occur 1 year after construction). 

NBP49 Construction across 

waterbodies could cause streambank erosion. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would cross several waterbodies using the HDD method, which would avoid disturbance of the streambank vegetation. Retaining the existing bank composition at these waterbodies would prevent the need for bank armoring following construction. Irrigation canals and drains would be crossed at locations where these waterbodies are constrained within culverts, which would avoid any bank disturbance. North Baja would implement the measures in its CM&R Plan to facilitate revegetation of the banks following construction. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP50 A chemical or fuel spill in or 

near a waterbody could release contaminants, which could affect fish directly or indirectly through changes in food sources or by contaminating the water resources. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would adhere to the measures in its CM&R Plan and SPCC Plan to prevent a large spill from occurring near surface waters. Hazardous materials would be stored, and vehicles refueled, at least 100 feet from surface waters. Should a spill occur, the containment measures in the SPCC Plan would decrease the response time for control and cleanup of the spill. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP51 Hydrostatic testing and dust 

control water withdrawals could cause entrainment of fish, reduced downstream flows, or impaired downstream uses associated with water withdrawals, and erosion, scouring, or a release of chemical additives. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would cover the water intake with an adequately sized mesh screen to reduce the potential for fish and fish egg entrainment. Water withdrawals would occur from an existing well or irrigation canals and would not affect current flow levels in the Colorado River or other waterbodies containing fishery resources.  No chemicals would be added to the test water, and energy dissipation devices would be employed to minimize channel erosion. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP30 and 

ARM5. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP52 The proposed open-cut 

trenching through Rannells Drain would create a temporary increase in sediment load in the drain. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

The PVID has indicated it would be willing to perform maintenance clearing/dredging at the Rannells Drain crossing before construction of the B-Line in 2009, as long as it is done between August 2 and March 14 as agreed with the CDFG. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP53 A frac-out could occur during 

HDD crossings if the drilling head hits a subterranean fracture in the substrate, resulting in an inadvertent release of drilling mud. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

See the mitigation measures listed in NBP28 and ARM4. Less than 

significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-34 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIESNBP54 Construction could remove 

special status plants living within the construction right-ofway and could disturb, displace, or harm special status animals on and adjacent to construction work areas. Construction could also affect special status plants and wildlife by temporarily altering the habitat along the pipeline right-of-way and permanently altering the habitat at aboveground facility sites. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja has proposed to implement the following general minimization and conservation measures to reduce the impact of the Project on special status species: • North Baja would use its environmental training program, 

successfully implemented for the A-Line construction, as a basis for a site-specific environmental training program to be implemented before the start of work. All employees and contractors working in the field would be required to complete an environmental training session before beginning work on the right-of-way. The program would include discussions of the biology, distribution, and ecology of special status species within the geographic area of construction; protection afforded 

such species under applicable Federal and State laws and regulations; all protection measures that must be followed to protect such species during Project activities; penalties for 

noncompliance; reporting requirements; and the importance of compliance with all protection measures. To ensure proper focus, emphasis would be placed on the specific aspects of compliance applicable to the particular audience’s activities on the Project. 

• Employees and contractors would be informed during one or 

more training sessions that they are not authorized to handle or otherwise move listed species at any time, including while commuting to work sites or at a work site. 

• North Baja would hire and designate at least two EIs per 

construction spread who would be responsible for overseeing 

Project environmental protection measures, including those for special status species. Environmental inspection procedures would be in compliance with the relevant provisions of North Baja’s CM&R Plan. North Baja would also hire and designate at least one authorized biologist who would be responsible for identification of habitat and individuals of special status species and for implementation of all measures requiring an authorized biologist’s intervention. The biologist would, if needed, hold the required permits or formal agreements with appropriate Federal and State agencies for the survey or handling of any special status species. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-35 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP54 cont’d 

• An authorized biologist would conduct species-specific surveys 

of each Project facility located within areas identified during North Baja’s surveys as listed species habitat no more than 7 days before the onset of activities. 

• Project personnel would exercise caution when commuting to 

the construction area to minimize any chance for the inadvertent injury or mortality of species encountered on roads leading to and from the construction area. North Baja’s contractors and employees would report all such incidents directly to an EI. 

• Only existing routes of travel and approved access roads 

would be used to and from construction areas. Cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment would be prohibited. Except on county- or State-maintained roads, vehicle and equipment speeds would not exceed 25 miles per hour within potential habitat of a listed species. On the B-Line, between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 (an area of relatively high tortoise density), North Baja states that it would limit vehicle and equipment speeds to 10 miles per hour except for stringing trucks, which North Baja proposes to allow to travel at 25 miles per hour (see ARM7). 

• Authorized biologists would monitor all work where prior North 

Baja surveys have documented the occurrence of one or more listed species and where construction activities can reasonably be expected to adversely affect those species. In conjunction with North Baja’s EIs, the biologists would have the authority to halt all non-emergency actions that might result in harm to a listed species, and would assist in the overall implementation of protection measures for listed species during Project activities. 

• All trash and food items generated by construction and 

maintenance activities would be promptly placed in a closed container and regularly removed from the Project site to reduce the attractiveness of the area to common ravens and other desert predators. 

• Firearms and domestic pets would be prohibited from work 

sites. 

• In the construction work area and along access roads, 

employees and contractors would look under vehicles and equipment for the presence of special status species before movement. If a special status species is observed, no vehicles or equipment would be moved until the animal has left voluntarily or is removed by an authorized biologist. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-36 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP54 cont’d 

• Pipeline construction activities between dusk and dawn would 

be limited to emergencies only (i.e., issues involving human health and safety) with the exception of the HDD operations (including those at the Colorado River, the All-American Canal, Interstate 8, the East Highline Canal) and the open-cut crossing of Rannells Drain. 

• Open pipeline trenches, auger holes, or other excavations that 

could entrap wildlife would be inspected by an authorized biologist a minimum of three times per day, and immediately 

before backfilling. In habitats supporting special status species, pipe segments would either be capped or taped closed each night or raised on supports of sufficient height to prevent the entry and entrapment of special status species. Such pipe segments would be inspected regularly before sealing and before using in the morning. For open trenches, earthen escape ramps would be maintained at 1-mile intervals.  Other excavations that remain open overnight would be covered, ramped, or fenced to prevent entrapment of wildlife. 

• If a listed species is located during construction, and a 

contingency for avoidance, removal, or transplant has not been approved by the FWS or appropriate agency, North Baja would not proceed with Project activities in t hat location until specific consultation with the FERC, the FWS, the BLM, and/or other appropriate agency is completed. 

• All encounters with listed species would be reported to the 

biologist, who would record the following information: • species; • location (narrative and maps) and dates of observations; 

• general condition and health, including injuries and state of 

healing; 

• diagnostic mar kings, including identification numbers or 

markers; and 

• locations moved from and to. 

• Upon locating a dead or injured listed species, North Baja 

would notify the FWS and the CDFG in California or the AGFD in Arizona. Written notification would be made within 15 days of the date and time of the finding or incident (if known) and would include: location of the carcass, a photograph, cause of death (if known), and other pertinent information. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-37 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP54 cont’d 

• The construction right-of-way would be limited to a width of 105 

feet along the B-Line and 100 feet along the Arrowhead 

Extension (except when in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder where a 60-foot-wide construction right-of-way would be used), while the construction right-of-way for the IID Lateral would be limited to a width of 60 feet for the majority of its length and 80 feet where it parallels existing utility corridors.  The construction right-of-way would be clearly staked and flagged in advance of construction. The construction area includes approved work areas for the pipelines, compressor station, and meter stations; the facilities at Rannells Trap; the taps, crossover piping, and pig launcher associated with the Arrowhead Extension; access roads; the tap to the B-line and pig launcher associated with the IID Lateral; and staging and pipe storage areas. 

• North Baja would attempt to schedule construction in native 

habitats outside of the breeding season for migratory birds. If, however, construction activities are necessary in native 

habitats during the bird breeding season, North Baja would remove vegetation that could provide nesting substrate from the right-of-way before the breeding season, thus eliminating the possibility that birds could nest on the right-of-way. In accordance with the Agency Staffs’ recommendation (see ARM6), specific plans relating to preclearing of vegetation would be coordinated with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. Qualified biologists would conduct preconstruction surveys to confirm the absence of nesting birds before construction begins. 

• If, in spite of vegetation removal, nesting birds are found on the 

construction right-of-way, the nest would not be removed until fledging has occurred or unless authorized after consultation with the FWS, the CDFG, and, if the nest is located on Federal lands, the Federal land management agency. 

• At specified locations in areas of high-density microphyll 

woodland, North Baja would narrow the construction right-ofway width to 80 feet. Areas of this narrower construction width would be identified in the field, staked, and flagged in advance of construction. 

• At the conclusion of work, all trenches and holes would be 

completely filled, surfaces cleaned and smoothed, and each site recontoured to match the original profiles as closely as possible. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-38 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP54 cont’d 

• With the exception of fenced facilities, all materials and 

equipment would be removed from the area upon completion of work. All stakes, flagging, and fencing used to delineate and protect any environmental or cultural feature in the construction area would be removed no later than 30 days after construction and restoration are complete. 

• Upon completion of Project activities, North Baja would submit 

a final report to the FERC for distribution to other agencies, including the FWS. The report would document the effectiveness and practicality of the conservation measures, the number of individuals of each species excavated from their burrows or removed from the site, the number of individuals killed or injured, and other pertinent information. The report would also recommend modifications of the Project stipulations in order to enhance the protection of species in the future. In addition, the final report would provide the actual acreage disturbed by Project activities by habitat type. 

ARM7 North Baja’s proposal to allow 

stringing trucks to travel at 25 miles per hour between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 of the B-Line may not adequately protect special status species. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

To protect special status species, and reduce dust, North Baja would restrict stringing trucks to a 10-mile-per-hour speed limit on 

the right-of-way between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 of the B-Line. 

Less than significant Class III) 

ARM8 Southwestern willow flycatchers 

potentially using habitat along the Colorado River could be 

disturbed by activities associated with the HDD of that waterbody. Specifically, noise and light associated with HDD equipment and activities could dissuade individuals from using habitat in the vicinity of the HDD and/or could interrupt resting individuals if construction activities occurred at night. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

In order to minimize the potential for construction activities to 

affect southwestern willow flycatchers at the Colorado River crossing, North Baja would implement the following measures at the Colorado River during activities associated with the HDD: • all individuals working within or adjacent to southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat would complete southwestern willow 

flycatcher training before working within the construction rightof-way in those areas; and 

• dust would be strictly controlled by watering construction areas 

within 1,000 feet of potential habitat at the Colorado River. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-39 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

ARM9 North Baja would conduct 

surveys for the Yuma clapper rail at Rannells Drain. However, North Baja has not proposed conservation measures to avoid impacts on individuals if identified during such surveys, nor has North Baja proposed to conduct surveys for this species at the Alamo River. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Unless North Baja provides documentation from the FWS and the CDFG that such measures are not necessary or if site-specific surveys fail to identify individuals Yuma clapper rails at the Alamo River or Rannells Drain, in order to avoid impacts on the Yuma clapper rail during construction, North Baja would: • ensure vegetation at the proposed crossing location of 

Rannells Drain, extending 150 feet on either side of the proposed construction work area, is cleared before February 1, 2009; 

• ensure vegetation at the proposed crossing location of the 

Alamo River is cleared before February 1, 2009; and 

• initiate all construction activities at Rannells Drain and the 

Alamo River between the hours of 8:30 AM and 3:30 PM to avoid periods of peak Yuma clapper rail vocalizations. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP55 Construction and operation 

could adversely impact the Yuma clapper rail and/or rail habitat (e.g., wetlands, drains). 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Direct impacts on Yuma clapper rail and/or rail habitat along the Colorado River would be avoided through North Baja’s proposed HDD crossing of this waterbody and the adjacent habitat. Suitable 

Yuma clapper rail and/or rail habitat at both Rannells Drain and the Alamo River would be cleared before construction; thus avoiding direct impacts (see ARM9). Impacts on wetland and drain habitat would be temporary because these vegetation communities typically revegetate within 1 year following construction. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP56 Construction would temporarily 

impact desert tortoise critical habitat at work areas, temporary access roads, and along the construction right-ofway. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would limit disturbance of previously unaffected areas to the narrowest extent practicable by constructing immediately adjacent to the existing A-Line, as well as portions of Stallard Road, SR 78, and Ogilby Road, which would minimize habitat fragmentation, and using existing access roads to the extent practicable. Further, to compensate for the loss of desert tortoise habitat not previously compensated for during construction of the A-Line, North Baja would implement the following measures: • Compensation rates for new impacts on desert tortoise habitat 

of 1:1 would be calculated and an assessed financial contribution would be paid to the BLM. In accordance with accepted guidelines previously implemented by the FERC, the FWS, and the BLM, areas of new impacts would include only those areas not previously affected by construction of the ALine. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-40 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP56 cont’d 

• North Baja would provide funding to the CDFG to manage 

acquired lands in addition to an enhancement fee based on the same compensation rate, which would be based on the CDFG published or calculated rates per acre at the time of issuance of the final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Project. 

NBP57 Construction-related impacts on 

the desert tortoise could include direct mortality or injury as a result of being crushed by vehicles, movement of soils, and entrapment in burrows and open trenches. 

Significant (CEQA Class I) 

North Baja would minimize the potential for impacts on the desert tortoise by implementing the following measures: • North Baja would submit the names, permit numbers, and 

relevant tortoise experience resumes of all individuals who might need to handle desert tortoises to the FWS for approval at least 15 days before the initiation of clearance surveys. North Baja would also submit the list to the BLM for its records.  Project activities would not begin until an authorized biologist 

has been approved. Although other biologists may be employed as biological monitors, only those approved by the FWS as authorized biologists would be permitted to handle tortoises. 

• All persons authorized by the FWS to handle desert tortoises 

would follow the guidelines established in the Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises During Construction Projects. 

• A clearance survey for the desert tortoise would be conducted 

by an authorized biologist within 24 hours before ground disturbance. 

• Burrows outside of the limits of the construction right-of-way 

would be flagged so that the biological monitor would be able to more easily locate them during construction. 

• All desert tortoise burrows or pallets in the construction area 

would be excavated by an authorized biologist. All desert tortoise handling and burrow excavation would be in accordance with the handling procedures developed by the FWS and would be conducted by authorized biologists. 

• Desert tortoises that are found above ground and need to be 

moved from potential harm would be placed in the shade of a shrub by the authorized biologist. All desert tortoises removed from burrows would be placed in an unoccupied burrow of approximately the same size as the one from which it was removed. 

SignificanClass I) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-41 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP57 cont’d 

• If an existing burrow is unavailable, the authorized biologist 

would construct or direct the construction of a burrow of similar size, shape, depth, and orientation as the original burrow. Desert tortoises moved during inactive periods would be monitored for at least 2 days after placement in the new burrows to ensure their safety. The authorized biologist would be allowed some judgment and discretion to ensure that the survival of the desert tortoise is likely. 

• Should a tortoise wander into the construction area during 

construction, adjacent activities would be halted until the tortoise is moved out of the construction work area and out of harm’s way. 

• North Baja would install exclusion fencing along the right-ofway in areas where tortoise density is sufficiently high to 

warrant fencing, in the opinion of the authorized biologist in charge of tortoise surveys and in consultation with the FWS and the CDFG, to prevent tortoises from entering the construction work area and getting in harm’s way. 

• A worker bonus program would be implemented that would 

reward construction staff who spot a tortoise within the construction work area and, without touching or disturbing the animal, notify the authorized biologist for action. 

• If a tortoise is located in the construction work area and is not 

moving, adjacent activities would be halted until an authorized biologist is able to move it out of harm’s way. 

• All pipeline marker signs within desert tortoise habitat would be 

fitted with “bird-be-gone” or similar bird repellent devices. 

• Only approved access roads would be used. Only approved 

areas would be used for temporary storage areas, laydown sites, and any other surface-disturbing activities. Any routes of travel that require construction or modification, or any additional work areas, would be surveyed for tortoises by an authorized biologist(s) before modification or construction of the route or construction or use of a new work area. 

• Trench segments or other excavations would be provided with 

tortoise escape ramps at 1-mile intervals. All excavations would be inspected for tortoises three times daily and before backfilling. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-42 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP57 cont’d 

• Any time a vehicle is parked, the ground around and under the 

vehicle would be inspected for desert tortoises before the vehicle is moved. If a desert tortoise is observed, it would be left to move on its own. If this does not occur within 15 minutes, an authorized biologist would remove and relocate the tortoise. 

• Within desert tortoise habitat, construction pipe, culverts, or 

similar structures with a diameter of 3 inches or greater that are stored on the construction site for one or more nights would be inspected for tortoises before the material is moved, buried, or capped. As an alternative, all such structures may be capped before being stored on the construction site. 

• All construction-related activities in desert tortoise habitat 

would be conducted between dawn and dusk. 

NBP58 Even with North Baja’s 

proposed mitigation and the Agency Staffs’ additional recommendations, the proposed Project is likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise and its critical habitat. 

Significant (CEQA Class I) 

Approval of the Project would be subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations under the CEQA. As part of the section 

7 formal consultation process, the FWS’ Biological Opinion (BO) included non-discretionary terms and conditions in order to ensure that the Project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise. North Baja would not be authorized to make any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would foreclose formulation or implementation of any reasonable or prudent alternatives needed to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species and adverse modification of its critical habitat. 

SignificanClass I) 

NBP59 The razorback sucker may 

occur in the Project area and the FWS has designated the portion of the Colorado River crossed by the pipeline route as critical habitat for this species. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would install the pipeline under the Colorado River using the HDD method. Used successfully, this method would avoid effects on the razorback sucker during the Colorado River crossing. In the event of a frac-out, North Baja would implement the measures in its HDD Plan. Pursuant with its CM&R Plan, North Baja would screen intake piping to prevent fish entrainment during hydrostatic test water withdrawal. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP28, NBP30, ARM4, and ARM5. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP60 Construction may impact the 

Peirson’s milk-vetch, which was identified along sandy substrate areas of the B-Line and between MPs 0.5 and 7.5 of the IID Lateral. Impacts could include the loss of the current season’s seed production. 

Significant (CEQA Class I) 

North Baja would utilize the same techniques used during construction and restoration of the A-Line for the proposed B-Line.  Techniques include topsoil and seedbank conservation measures, topsoil segregation to conserve the existing seedbank, respreading of topsoil upon completion of construction, and imprinting the right-of-way during restoration with equipment (e.g., sheepsfoot roller) to provide micro-catchment areas for seed retention. Along the IID Lateral, North Baja would similarly segregate topsoil but would not use a sheepsfoot roller in the dunes because this equipment is 

SignificanClass I) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-43 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP60 cont’d 

 ineffective in sand. Construction of the IID Lateral through 

potential Peirson’s milk-vetch habitat would be conducted in the summer months after adult plants (if present) have already set seed. 

NBP61 Even with the proposed 

mitigation, the proposed Project is likely to adversely affect the Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

Significant (CEQA Class I) 

Approval of the Project would be subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations under the CEQA. As part of the section 

7 formal consultation process, the FWS’ BO concluded that the Project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

SignificanClass I) 

NBP62 The proposed pipeline route 

would cross potential Arizona bell’s vireo habitat along the proposed B-Line at the Colorado River (MPs 0.0 to 3.0) and the Davis Lake area (MPs 31.0 to 33.0). 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would use the HDD method to cross the Colorado River and implement its general conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impact on Arizona bell’s vireo habitat. The Project would be at least 1,300 feet from the Davis Lake area, thus avoiding direct impacts. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP63 While no California black rail 

habitat was identified during surveys, areas of suitable habitat could become occupied prior to construction. Disturbance of foraging and nesting habitat (i.e., wetlands and drains) could be affected by construction. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would conduct preconstruction surveys for the California black rail if habitat for this species is not cleared before construction. North Baja would implement its general conservation measures. Because habitat for this species is similar to the Yuma clapper rail, suitable habitat for both the Yuma clapper rail and the California black rail at both Rannells Drain and the Alamo River would be cleared before construction, thus avoiding direct impacts (see NBP55 and ARM9). Impacts on 

wetland and drain habitat would be temporary because these vegetation communities typically revegetate within 1 year following construction. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP64 Surveys (2002) for the Gila 

woodpecker identified two occupied cavities at MPs 50.7 and 51.7; other suitable habitat may be affected by the Project. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would conduct surveys for Gila woodpeckers in areas of suitable nesting habitat before initiation of construction of the BLine if construction is scheduled to occur during the breeding 

season. If active Gila woodpecker nest cavities are identified within 100 feet of the right-of-way during preconstruction surveys, North Baja would monitor cavities during construction to determine if nesting individuals are being disturbed by construction activities.  If disturbance (e.g., avoidance of the cavity by individuals) is noted and young are present in the cavity, North Baja would cease construction within 200 feet of the nest cavity until the young have fledged. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-44 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP65 Marginal habitat for the western 

yellow-billed cuckoo is present along some areas of the Colorado River near MP 0.2 of the proposed B-Line. Construction could impact this species and its habitat. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

No individual western yellow-billed cuckoos were identified during surveys conducted for this species before construction of the ALine in June and July 2001. North Baja would implement its general conservation measures to avoid impacts on the western yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP66 The IID Lateral would cross 

suitable habitat for the Algodones Dune sunflower species in the southern Algodones Dunes within the ISDRA (MPs 0.5 to 7.9). Construction may remove individual plants. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. North Baja would implement its general conservation measures. North Baja would segregate topsoil along 

the IID Lateral, but would not use a sheepsfoot roller in the area of the dunes because this equipment is ineffective in sand. Construction of the IID Lateral through potential Algodones Dune sunflower habitat would be conducted in the summer months after adult plants (if present) have already set seed, which should allow for the re-establishment in the next growing season after construction is completed. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP67 The IID Lateral would cross 

suitable habitat for the Wiggins’s croton in the southern Algodones Dunes within the ISDRA (MPs 0.5 to 7.9). Construction may remove individual plants. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. North Baja would segregate topsoil along 

the IID Lateral, but would not use a sheepsfoot roller in the area of the dunes because this equipment is ineffective in sand. 

Construction of the IID Lateral through potential Wiggins’s croton habitat would be conducted in the summer months after adult plants (if present) have already set seed, which should allow for the re-establishment in the next growing season after construction 

is completed. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP68 Construction may impact the 

Colorado River cotton rat, which occurs in the marshes of the Colorado River. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would cross the Colorado River and associated riparian areas using the HDD method. In the event of a frac-out, North Baja would implement the measures in its HDD Plan to contain the drilling mud and avoid impacting potential habitat for 

the Colorado River cotton rat. See also the mitigation measures listed in ARM4. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP69 The BLM reported that the 

proposed Project could encounter desert bighorn sheep near the Palo Verde Wilderness Area, which is approximately 1 mile west of the B-Line near MP 31.0. Impacts on desert bighorn sheep are likely to be indirect in nature, resulting from noise-related disturbance during construction. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would inform workers that bighorn sheep may occur in the area and would keep all construction activities within the 

approved construction work area. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-45 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP70 The B-Line would cross suitable 

riparian and desert wash woodland habitat for the browncrested flycatcher between MPs 22.0 to 23.0, 35.0 to 36.0, 41.0 to 46.0, 50.0 to 53.0, and 59.0 to 66.0. Habitat clearing during the breeding season could result in injury or death, or abandonment of nests. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line. Preconstruction clearing would be conducted in accordance with 

recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP45 and ARM6. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP71 Construction could affect 

burrowing owls, which occur in the irrigated desert agricultural areas. The B-Line would cross suitable burrowing owl habitat from MPs 0.0 to 12.0 (which includes 18th Avenue), and the 

IID Lateral would cross suitable burrowing owl habitat from MPs 28.0 to 46.0. In addition, North 

Baja identified one probable burrowing owl burrow and an individual burrowing owl adjacent to a burrow at approximate MP 1.5 of the Arrowhead Extension. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

For owls occupying burrows within 250 feet of the construction 

work area, North Baja would monitor or passively or actively relocate the species to appropriate and previously installed artificial or available alternate natural burrows. Only biologists approved by the CDFG in advance would handle owls or install one-way doors during relocation activities. The management strategy utilized would be determined on a case-by-case basis. In addition to relocation or monitoring efforts, North Baja would implement the following measures to minimize impacts on the burrowing owl: • Direct impacts on burrowing owl habitat would be minimized by 

constructing in the road pavement or road shoulder in 

agricultural areas or by boring/drilling beneath habitat areas (e.g., canals and drains). 

• Preconstruction surveys during the breeding season would be 

conducted by biologists who would visually check all potential habitat within 250 feet of both sides of the proposed construction work area within 1 week before construction. 

• Unoccupied burrows discovered within the construction rightof-way during preconstruction surveys would be collapsed or 

excavated before construction activities to prevent occupancy by burrowing owls. 

• Artificial burrows, installed to minimize the effect of burrow 

loss, would be placed within the home range of individual owls that would be affected before burrow excavation or installation of one-way doors. 

Also, North Baja would provide compensation at the equivalency rate of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for burrowing owls for each active burrow damaged. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP72 The B-Line would cross 

potential habitat for the Crissal thrasher, which occurs near the Colorado River and the town of 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line. Preconstruction clearing would be conducted in 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-46 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP72 cont’d 

Blythe (MPs 0.0 to 3.0), the town of Palo Verde (MPs 24.0 to 29.0), and the Davis Lake area (MPs 31.0 to 33.0), along 18th Avenue in Blythe, and in 

the area of Stallard Road (MP 25.0). Impacts include slow habitat re-establishment, noise, and breeding disruption. 

 accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and 

the CDFG. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP45 and 

ARM6. Further, North Baja would minimize the potential for longterm impacts on the Crissal thrasher by compensating for loss of microphyll woodland habitat through payment of an assessed financial contribution at a ratio approved by the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG for those areas not already covered by desert tortoise habitat compensation. 

NBP73 The B-Line would cross 

potential habitat for the Le Conte’s thrasher, which occurs from MPs 12.0 to 79.8. The IID Lateral would also cross suitable habitat in the scattered creosote bush scrub habitat between the ISDRA and the Imperial Valley from MPs 8.0 to 28.0. Impacts include slow habitat re-establishment, noise, and breeding disruption. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. North Baja would complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line. Preconstruction 

clearing would be conducted in accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP45 and ARM6. Further, 

North Baja would minimize the potential for long-term impacts on the Le Conte’s thrasher by compensating for loss of microphyll woodland habitat through payment of an assessed financial contribution at a ratio approved by the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG for those areas not already covered by desert tortoise habitat compensation. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP74 The B-Line would cross suitable 

habitat for the summer tanager, which occurs along the lower Colorado River basin (MPs 22.0 to 23.0, 35.0 to 36.0, 41.0 to 46.0, 50.0 to 53.0, and 59.0 to 66.0). Impacts include slow habitat re-establishment, noise, and breeding disruption. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. North Baja would complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line. Preconstruction 

clearing would be conducted in accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP45 and ARM6. Further, 

North Baja would minimize the potential for long-term impacts on the summer tanager by compensating for loss of microphyll woodland habitat through payment of an assessed financial contribution at a ratio approved by the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG for those areas not already covered by desert tortoise habitat compensation. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP75 The B-Line would cross suitable 

habitat for the vermilion flycatcher, which occurs in the desert riparian areas of the lower Colorado River basin (MPs 0.0 to 12.0, 22.0 to 29.0, 31.0 to 33.0, 35.0 to 53.0, 59.0 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. North Baja would complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line. Preconstruction 

clearing would be conducted in accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. See also the 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-47 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP75 cont’d 

to 66.0, and 79.0 to 79.8). Impacts include slow habitat reestablishment, noise, and breeding disruption. 

 mitigation measures listed in NBP45 and ARM6. Further, North 

Baja would minimize the potential for long-term impacts on the vermillion flycatcher by compensating for loss of microphyll woodland habitat through payment of an assessed financial contribution at a ratio approved by the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG for those areas not already covered by desert tortoise habitat compensation. Additionally, North Baja would use the HDD method to cross the Colorado River, avoiding direct impacts on potential suitable habitat. 

NBP76 The B-Line would cross suitable 

habitat for the yellow-breasted chat, which occurs along the Colorado River in Blythe (MPs 0.0 to 3.0), the town of Palo Verde (MPs 22.0 to 23.0), and the Davis Lake area (MPs 31.0 to 33.0). Impacts include slow habitat re-establishment, noise, and breeding disruption. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. North Baja would complete construction of the B-Line after the breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, North Baja would preclear vegetation along the B-Line. Preconstruction 

clearing would be conducted in accordance with recommendations from the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP45 and ARM6. Further, 

North Baja would minimize the potential for long-term impacts on the yellow-breasted chat by compensating for loss of microphyll woodland habitat through payment of an assessed financial contribution at a ratio approved by the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG for those areas not already covered by desert tortoise habitat compensation. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP77 Construction could affect 

suitable habitat for the Colorado River toad, which occurs in the Colorado River from Fort Yuma to the Blythe-Ehrenberg area. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja could cross the Colorado River and associated riparian areas using the HDD method. In the event of a frac-out, North Baja would implement the measures in its HDD Plan to contain the drilling mud and avoid impacting potential habitat for the Colorado River toad. See also the mitigation measures listed in 

ARM4. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP78 The B-Line could affect the 

spadefoot toad, which is historically known to occur at the Milpitas Wash (MP 35.3), and in the Stallard Road wash area (MP 25.0). Impacts include mortality or breeding disruption. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

To minimize impacts on individuals and populations of the Couch’s spadefoot toad, North Baja would implement the following mitigation measures: • If local thunderstorms occur in the habitat identified by the 

CDFG and provide substantial moisture under warm conditions (temperatures over 90 °F) in July, August, or September, and if construction has not already been completed in that area, North Baja biologists would examine potential Couch’s spadefoot toad habitat for persistent pools. The CDFG would notify North Baja if appropriate conditions prevail, and North Baja would coordinate with the CDFG to complete the surveys. 

Authorized biologists would monitor temporary pools for persistence and would examine them daily for eggs, tadpoles, or toadlets. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-48 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP78 cont’d 

• Construction activities would not be conducted within 150 feet 

of temporary pools. If water fails to persist within shallow pools for 10 days, or if no Couch’s spadefoot toad eggs, tadpoles, or toadlets are found within 10 days, then construction would resume in the area. 

• If any Couch’s spadefoot toads are found, the CDFG would be 

immediately notified. A report on the findings would be submitted to the CDFG within 30 days of completion of the construction activities within the area. 

NBP79 The B-Line would cross suitable 

habitat for the flat-tailed horned lizard, which occurs between MPs 71.0 to 79.8. Also, the IID Lateral would cross potentially suitable habitat between MPs 8.0 to 28.0. Impacts include mortality. 

Significant (CEQA Class I) 

Approval of the Project would be subject to a Statement of 

Overriding Considerations under the CEQA. North Baja would implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts on flat-tailed horned lizards: • Authorized biologists would conduct preconstruction surveys to 

verify all flat-tailed horned lizard habitat in the construction area. Within 7 days before construction, biologists would identify habitat areas subject to direct construction-related ground disturbance. 

• Biologists would conduct a final clearance survey 1 to 2 days 

before construction activities, which would include excavating 

potential burrows and relocating lizards to nearby suitable habitat. North Baja would implement the management strategy guidelines for relocation of flat-tailed horned lizards described in the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Range Management Strategy. 

• A field contact representative would initiate a worker education 

program and would have the authority to ensure compliance with protective measures for flat-tailed horned lizards. 

• A biological monitor would be present in each area of active 

construction within flat-tailed horned lizard habitat throughout the work day from initial clearing through habitat restoration. The biological monitors would have sufficient education, field experience, and training with this species to understand its biology and behavior. The monitors would ensure that all activities are in compliance with the management strategy guidelines for relocation of flat-tailed horned lizards. The biological monitors would also have the authority and responsibility to halt activities that are in violation of the 

management strategy guidelines. 

SignificanClass I) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-49 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP79 cont’d 

• In areas of suitable habitat (MPs 75.2 to 79.6 of the B-Line and 

MPs 8.0 to 28.0 of the IID Lateral), North Baja would restrict the amount of trench open at any one time to 2 miles. Trench walkers would be employed in those areas such that each portion of open trench would be observed every 30 minutes 

when ground temperatures exceed 85°F (29.5 °C). Each trench walker can cover 2 miles per hour; therefore, the open portion of trench (2 miles) would require two trench walkers during hot weather to provide the desired coverage. Trench walkers would be construction workers with no other duties than to walk along the side of the open trench and look for flattailed horned lizards. These workers would receive specialized flat-tailed horned lizard training under the supervision of the BLM biologist and would be directly supervised by a qualified biologist who has also received flat-tailed horned lizard training. Additionally, all hazardous sites, such as open pipes, trenches, holes, or deep excavations would be inspected for the presence of lizards before backfilling. 

• If lizards are found trapped in an excavation, the authorized 

biologist would capture by hand and relocate the affected lizard. The management strategy guidelines for relocation of flat-tailed horned lizards described in the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Range Management Strategy would be used. 

NBP80 Construction of the B-Line could 

affect fairyduster plants, which have been identified between MPs 45.1 to 49.8, 53.6 to 57.4, and 65.1 to 66.6. Also, habitat for this species may occur along the IID Lateral. Construction may remove individual plants. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat along the IID Lateral. North Baja would implement its general conservation measures, including topsoil and seedbank conservation. Post-construction surveys of the A-Line right-of-way have shown that restoration of the pipeline right-of-way allows native plants to re-establish in areas disturbed by construction. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP81 The IID Lateral would cross 

suitable habitat for the giant Spanish-needle, which is found in the southern Algodones Dunes within the ISDRA (MPs 0.5 to 7.9). Construction may remove individual plants. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. North Baja would implement its general conservation measures, including the efforts to minimize 

the spread of non-native species, to reduce the overall abundance 

of the species in the area. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP82 The IID Lateral would cross 

suitable habitat for the sand food, which is found in the southern Algodones Dunes within the ISDRA (MPs 0.5 to 7.9). Construction may remove individual plants. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would assume that the species is present throughout the area of suitable habitat. North Baja would implement its general conservation measures, including the efforts to minimize 

the spread of non-native species, to reduce the overall abundance 

of the species in the area. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-50 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

ARM10 The Project may affect potential 

inhabitation of suitable habitats found to be lacking individual special status species during surveys in 2005, and/or new species that are listed under State or Federal law in the future. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

For those areas where construction would occur more than 1 year from the date of issuance of the FERC and CSLC approvals for the Project, North Baja would consult with the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG to update the species list and to verify that previous consultations and determinations of effect are still current. Documentation of these consultations, and the need for additional surveys and survey reports (if required), and FWS, BLM, and CDFG comments on the surveys and survey reports and their conclusions (as applicable), would be filed with the FERC and the 

CSLC. 

Less than significant Class III) 

ARM11 Potential adverse effects on 

Federal and State-listed endangered and threatened species and compliance with the Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would not begin Phase I-A or Phase II construction 

activities until: • the CDFG makes a consistency determination on the FWS’ BO 

pursuant to section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code or issues an Incidental Take Permit that covers both federally and State-listed species that may be affected; 

• North Baja obtains an Incidental Take Permit under section 

2081 of the California Fish and Game Code for all State-listed species that may be affected, or receives concurrence from the CDFG that an Incidental Take Permit is not required; and 

• North Baja has received written notification from Executive 

Officer of the CSLC that construction or use of conservation measures may begin. 

Less than significant Class III) 

LAND USE, SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS, RECREATION AND PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS, AND AESTHETIC RESOURCESNBP83 Land use impacts associated 

with the new pipelines would include disturbance of existing land uses within the construction right-of-way during construction and retention of a new permanent right-of-way for operation. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Following construction, all land used for temporary construction 

right-of-way and temporary extra workspace areas would be allowed to revert to prior uses. With the exception of tree crops such as orchards, all forms of agriculture would be permitted within the permanent right-of-way. Construction of aboveground structures would be prohibited on the permanent right-of-way; however, no restrictions would be placed on the temporary rightof-way or extra workspaces. No new permanent right-of-way would be required for the B-Line. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP84 Land used for the aboveground 

facilities would be permanently converted to a utility use. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

No mitigation is proposed. The permanent conversion of the 

affected land uses would represent less than a 1 percent change in each respective land use in the Project area. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-51 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP85 Eighteen residences and 2 

businesses are within 100 feet of the B-Line and 19 residences and 4 businesses are within 100 feet of the IID Lateral. Residences or businesses could be affected by construction and operation of the Project. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement the following general measures to minimize construction-related hazards and maintain access to the residences and businesses that would be affected by the Project: • minimize the amount of trench left open at the end of the 

workday and cordon off the trench during non-work hours; 

• cover the trench with steel plates where necessary to allow 

traffic passage and reduce safety hazards; 

• install safety fencing for a minimum of 100 feet on either side of 

residences that are within 100 feet of the construction work area; 

• secure and patrol construction areas during non-work hours to 

minimize safety issues associated with open trenches; 

• maintain an emergency ingress and egress near all residences 

and businesses throughout the construction process; 

• maintain at least one lane of restricted traffic movement 

through the construction area for access to residences and for emergency vehicles; 

• minimize noise by maintaining equipment in good operating 

condition; and 

• suppress dust with the use of water trucks and regular 

spraying. 

In addition, North Baja has prepared and would follow Site-specific 

Residential Construction Mitigation Plans to minimize disruption 

and to maintain access to the residences and businesses within 100 feet of the construction work area associated with the B-Line 

and IID Lateral. Dimensioned site plans would show the following items within a minimum of 100 feet of the construction work area: • the proposed centerline of the pipeline; • the limits of the construction work area; • the edge of the paved road surface; • each residence/business and associated structures; • existing pipelines and powerlines; 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-52 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP85 cont’d 

• waterbodies, roads, driveways, fences, trees or other 

landscaping, and private wells; and 

• the location of safety fencing that would be installed during 

construction. 

NBP86 Construction activities could 

conflict with planned developments. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

No mitigation is proposed. North Baja would work with the developers and applicable agencies associated with these projects to ensure that the proposed Project does not conflict with 

the development plans. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP87 Construction activities could 

require plan amendments for crossing portions of designated special management areas such as the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and the Milpitas Wash SMA. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja has submitted an amended Right-of-Way Grant application to the BLM for the crossing of Federal lands. Approval of the application would require an amendment to the CDCA Plan and the Yuma District Resource Management Plan, which dictate management within the CDCA and the Milpitas Wash SMA, respectively. The plan amendments would avoid conflict with the CDCA Plan and the Yuma District Resource Management Plan. The amendments would only accommodate the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project and would not create a new corridor or modify existing corridors. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP88 Public interest areas directly 

affected by or located near the Project, including the Milpitas Wash SMA, ISDRA, Cibola NWR, Mule Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Pilot Knob ACEC, Plank Road ACEC, East Mesa ACEC, Lake Cahuilla ACEC, Palo Verde Wilderness Area, and the Ehrenberg Sandbowl Off-Highway Vehicle area would be affected by temporary removal of vegetation and indirectly affected by traffic, noise, and dust during pipeline construction. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

In general, North Baja would minimize construction-related impacts on these areas by: • installing the B-Line entirely within the existing right-of-way 

maintained for the A-Line; 

• installing the IID Lateral almost entirely within or adjacent to 

existing road and transmission line rights-of-way; 

• timing construction to avoid peak usage periods, when 

practical; and 

• ensuring effective post-construction reclamation of the right-ofway to preconstruction conditions. Construction-induced effects such as traffic, noise, and dust may 

affect the quality of some users’ recreational experiences, but any effects would be temporary in nature and would occur in the summer months when recreational use is at its lowest. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP89 Construction could restrict use 

and access to designated OHV use areas. Conversely, the pipeline rights-of-way could increase accessibility for OHV use into previously inaccessible, environmentally sensitive areas. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

• Where the proposed pipelines would be in areas of authorized 

OHV use, the pipeline rights-of-way would not be restricted for OHV use. To reduce the potential for interference between pipeline construction activities and authorized OHV use, as well as unauthorized OHV use of the pipeline rights-of-way after construction, North Baja developed an Off-Highway Vehicle Management Plan (OHV Plan) that addresses the initial siting, construction, and 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-53 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP89 cont’d 

 operation of the proposed facilities. Some of the measures of 

the plan include: 

• Berms would be placed across the right-of-way where it 

intersects an existing OHV road. Berm slopes would not 

exceed 30 percent. 

• Berms would be placed across the right-of-way as part of 

erosion control and strategically placed to reduce visibility and mimic local topography. 

• Rock redistribution and strategic placement, without making it 

into a challenging obstacle course, would occur across the right-of-way where large rock is available and such work would “erase” the visual cues of “road.” 

• The right-of-way would be backbladed or raked by bulldozer or 

by hand, to erase the traces of the intersection of the right-ofway with an existing OHV route or dirt road. 

• Ocotillo and large cacti would be salvaged and replanted 

where they are available with the understanding that survival criteria would not be applied because even dead specimens provide convincing visual clues of “no road.” 

• Other desert species, including creosote bush scrub and desert 

wash woodland species (e.g., palo verde, ironwood, smoke tree, etc.) would also be salvaged and replanted with the understanding that they would be unlikely to survive but could still provide value as a visual block. 

• Woody material removed during construction would be 

redistributed across the right-of-way to both disguise the rightof-way and serve as “vertical mulch.” 

An assessment and detailed description of where these blocking measures would be implemented is presented in North Baja’s 

OHV Plan. In addition, North Baja has agreed to place additional signs and/or vegetative barriers at access points along the right-of-way if requested by the Yuma District of the BLM. North Baja would also replace fencing on the Cibola NWR that was originally installed after construction of the A-Line but subsequently destroyed by OHV users and would maintain that fencing for 2 years. 

ARM12 North Baja’s OHV Plan did not 

address enforcement and future monitoring of the proposed OHV blocking measures. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Before Phase I-A and Phase II construction activities, North Baja would revise its OHV Plan to include: 

• the agency or agencies responsible for enforcement of the OHV 

Plan; 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-54 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

ARM12 cont’d 

• the frequency of monitoring that would be conducted to ensure 

that the implemented OHV blocking measures are functioning properly; 

• the methodology for reassessing the implemented OHV 

blocking measures in the future; and 

• enforcement measures. 

NBP90 Construction activities could 

disrupt recreational uses at the Colorado River. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

The Colorado River would be crossed using the HDD method, which would minimize impacts on the river and would not limit the use of the river for recreational purposes. However, access to the river may be restricted during welding of the pipe and the pullback for the HDD crossing. No mitigation is proposed during construction because the period of limited public access would be short term. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP91 Use of the Bradshaw Trail could 

be disrupted for several days during construction. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

No mitigation is proposed during construction. Construction would occur in the summer months when recreational use of the trail is at its lowest and be completed within a few days. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP92 Construction-related activities 

could impact wildlife in the multi-species WHMA that would be crossed by the B-Line between MPs 35.2 and 50.0. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would limit construction activities to between July 1 

and December 1 if Crissal thrashers are present, implement special mitigation measures to avoid disturbance of Couch’s spadefoot toad habitat (see NBP78), and compensate for 

disturbance of desert dry wash woodland and desert chenopod scrub communities.

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP93 Construction activities could 

encounter unidentified hazardous waste sites. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would notify the appropriate agencies and adhere to the measures included in its SPCC Plan to avoid or minimize the 

potential impact of hazardous material spills during construction. North Baja would implement the mitigation measures listed in NBP22. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP94 Installation of new aboveground 

facilities would impact visual resources. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would paint the new or additional facilities to blend with 

the surrounding landscape. Security lighting at the aboveground facilities would be low sodium vapor light that would be angled toward the interior of the station. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-55 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

SOCIOECONOMICSNBP95 Construction of the Project 

could temporarily increase the population in the area by about 300 to 400 people. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

No mitigation is proposed during construction. This negligible short-term increase in population would not significantly affect housing availability or increase the demand for public services in excess of existing and projected capabilities. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP96 Construction-related demands 

on local agencies could include increased enforcement activities associated with issuing permits for vehicle load and width limits, local police assistance during construction at road crossings to facilitate traffic flow, and emergency medical services to treat injuries resulting from construction activities. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Local communities have adequate infrastructure and community services to meet the needs of the out-of-area workers that would be required for the Project. North Baja would develop an Emergency Response Plan to establish and maintain communications with local fire, police, and public officials and would make personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP97 Construction and operation of 

the pipeline could generate local tax revenue. 

Beneficial impact (CEQA Class IV) 

No mitigation is proposed. Beneficial 

(CEQA Cl

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFICNBP98 Construction across roads and 

highways would result in shortterm impacts on public transportation while construction activities pass through the Project area. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Construction across paved and unpaved roads, highways, and railroads would be in accordance with requirements of applicable permits and approvals. These features would either be bored or open cut. The use of the bore crossing method would avoid disrupting traffic. No work would occur within the road or railroad rights-of-way unless expressly permitted by the applicable agency.

At open-cut road crossings, North Baja would not close any roads 

unless adequate detours are provided. If a detour is required, traffic would be rerouted to another nearby road. If no reasonable detour is feasible, North Baja would leave at least one lane of traffic open. Where Project construction crosses roads necessary for access to private residences and no alternative entrance exists, North Baja would implement measures (e.g., plating over the open portion of the trench) to maintain passage for landowners and emergency vehicles. Most open-cut crossings would be completed and the road resurfaced in 1 or 2 days. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP99 Construction of the Project 

would result in temporary increases in traffic levels due to the commuting of the construction workforce to the Project area as well as the 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

No mitigation during construction is proposed. The roadways in the Project area have a level of service of A (roadway has little or no delay or congestion) or B (roadway has slight congestion or delay). Because pipeline construction work is generally scheduled to take advantage of all daylight hours, workers would commute to and from the contractor yards and 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-56 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP99 cont’d 

movement of construction vehicles and delivery of equipment and materials to the construction work area. 

 construction right-of-way during off-peak traffic hours. 

Construction workers would typically meet at the contractor yards and share rides to the construction right-of-way, thereby reducing 

overall traffic. In addition, work would be spread along the length of the construction spread, which would reduce the impact on traffic at any one location. Overall, the number and frequency of construction vehicle trips would be low on any particular roadway at any one time because construction would move sequentially along the Project right-of-way. 

NBP100 Construction in the paved 

segment of 18th Avenue could 

inconvenience residents and business owners. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement its Traffic Management Plan for 18th

Avenue, which identifies the following mitigation measures to minimize traffic-related impacts: • the pipeline would be installed with a minimum of 36 inches of 

cover and 12 inches of separation from other utilities or obstructions. A minimum of 2 feet would be maintained under canals and 5 feet over drains; 

• intersections would be bored or trenched (trenched 

intersections would be steel plated if construction does not occur on consecutive days); 

• North Baja would contact each owner and/or tenant of the 

properties abutting the road to explain the construction process and identify any special conditions or concerns that need to be incorporated into the construction plans. In addition, these adjacent residents and businesses would be notified by handdelivered flyers 2 weeks before construction. The flyers would include the dates of construction, work hours, traffic detours, and contact numbers for North Baja and the contractor. Emergency response agencies would also be notified of the work schedule; 

• the Underground Service Alert would be notified at least 48 

hours before beginning work; 

• flag persons would be provided to route traffic around 

construction equipment and obstructions; 

• work would be scheduled during daylight hours unless 

alternative schedules are authorized; 

• access would be maintained to all residences or businesses 

except during actual trenching operations. Steel plates would be available to maintain access to driveways during periods when the trench is open; 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-57 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP100 cont’d 

• non-local traffic would be detoured around construction 

activities; 

• one lane of restricted traffic movement would be maintained 

through the construction area. This would allow residences, businesses, and emergency vehicles reasonable access during the construction activities; 

• during non-work times, the work area would be secured and 

patrolled to minimize safety hazards associated with open trenches, heavy equipment, and other construction operations; and 

• open trenches would be covered or cordoned off during nonworking hours. 

The non-local traffic that would be detoured around construction activities would be directed to a road parallel and typically only 1 block north or south of 18th Avenue. 

NBP101 ARM13 

Traffic along Arrowhead Boulevard could be affected during construction of the Arrowhead Extension. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would use the same construction methods between MPs 0.0 and 1.0 of the Arrowhead Alternative as those described for portions of the proposed B-Line within 18th Avenue (see NBP100). North Baja would also prepare a Traffic Management Plan for Arrowhead Boulevard in consultation with the County of Riverside Transportation Department detailing the specific measures that would be used to control traffic during construction of the Arrowhead Extension. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP102 Construction would affect 

several Imperial County roadways (e.g., Evan Hewes Highway, Hunt Road, and East Ross Road). 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would implement its Traffic Management Plan for Imperial County Roads. The plan identifies the same mitigation measures as for 18th Avenue (see NBP100). In addition, North 

Baja would install the pipeline in sections and have a specialized crew designated for construction to minimize road closures or periods of restricted access along Imperial County roadways. North Baja would close off 0.5- to 1.0-mile-long sections of road and reroute traffic around the area through the use of signs and detours (while maintaining access for residents and emergency vehicles). No more than 2 miles of work area would be active at any one time and construction would advance along the roadway at an estimated 0.5 mile per day. In general, construction impacts at any given location would last no more than 2 to 3 weeks. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-58 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

CULTURAL RESOURCESNBP103 ARM14 

Potential adverse effects on historic properties and compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

North Baja would complete cultural resources surveys for all areas of the proposed Project. To ensure that the FERC’s responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations and the CSLC’s responsibilities under 

the CEQA are met, North Baja would defer implementation of any treatment plans/mitigation measures (including archaeological 

data recovery), construction of facilities, and use of all staging, storage, or temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved 

access roads on each respective Project phase until North Baja 

files with the FERC and the CSLC, as applicable, the materials listed in bullets 1 through 6, and the steps listed in bullets 7 through 9 below have been completed: • any FWS, Cibola NWR comments on the Overview and 

Survey Report; 

• any BOR comments on the Evaluation Plan; 

• any comments from the BOR and Native American tribes on 

the draft Evaluation Report; 

• the revised Evaluation Report; • the California State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) 

comments on Addendum Reports 2 and 3, the revised Evaluation Report, and the revised Historic Properties Treatment Plan; 

• all additional cultural resources survey reports for denied 

access areas and any additional areas requiring survey, evaluation reports, and any necessary treatment plans as well 

as documentation that these reports and plans were submitted to the SHPO(s); the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, Cibola NWR; and Native American tribes, as applicable; 

• any comments of the SHPO(s); the BLM; the BOR; the FWS, 

Cibola NWR; and Native American tribes, as applicable, on all additional cultural resources survey reports and plans; 

• the CSLC reviews and approves all cultural resources reports 

and plans prepared for the California portion of the Project and notifies North Baja in writing that construction may proceed; 

• the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is afforded an 

opportunity to comment, if historic properties would be adversely affected; and 

• the Director of the Office of Energy Projects reviews and 

approves all applicable cultural resources reports and plans and notifies North Baja in writing that treatment plans/mitigation measures may be implemented or construction may proceed. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-59 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

AIR QUALITY NBP104 The construction activities that 

would generate emissions include land clearing, ground excavation, and cut and fill operations. The intermittent and short-term emissions generated by these activities would include dust from soil disruption and combustion emissions from the construction equipment. These emissions could result in minor, temporary impacts on air quality in the vicinity of pipeline installation. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis 

during daylight hours only and the emissions from gasoline and diesel engines would be minimized because the engines must be built to meet the standards for mobile sources established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mobile source emission regulations including those in Title 40 CFR Part 85. Most of the construction equipment would be powered by diesel engines and would be equipped with typical control equipment (e.g., catalytic converters), and Project-related vehicles and construction equipment would be required to use the new low sulfur diesel fuel as soon as it is commercially available. In addition, North Baja would implement the following measures to minimize impacts on air resources. • minimize idling time for diesel equipment whenever possible; • ensure that diesel-powered construction equipment is properly 

tuned and maintained, and shut off when not in direct use; 

• prohibit engine tampering to increase horsepower; • use California Air Resources Board-certified low sulfur diesel 

fuel (less than 15 parts per million); and 

• reduce construction-related trips as feasible for workers and 

equipment, including trucks. 

See also the mitigation measures listed in NBP9, ARM2, and 

ARM3. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP105 Construction of the Project 

would generate emissions of non-regulated greenhouse gas (GHG). Carbon dioxide would be formed as a primary product of combustion of the diesel and gas engines used to power construction equipment and vehicles. 

Less than significant (CEQA III) 

None of the proposed facilities would result in increased air emissions of criteria pollutants during operation; however, emissions of GHG could occur. Direct releases of methane could occur as a result of pipeline repair or maintenance operations. These releases would be infrequent over the lifetime of the Project and would likely involve only an isolated section of pipeline resulting in a negligible increase in GHG emissions. 

Less than significant III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-60 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NOISENBP106 Individuals in the immediate 

vicinity of the construction activities could experience an increase in noise. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Noise associated with construction activities would be both temporary and intermittent. Pipeline construction would proceed at rates averaging about 1 mile per day, and equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during day light. Nighttime construction noise would be limited to HDDs at the Colorado River, All-American Canal, and the East Highline Canal crossings; hydrostatic testing activities; and bores under major highways or railroads. The duration of activities would be generally less than several days at road or railroad crossings, 24 hours for hydrostatic testing, and up to 2 weeks at the HDD crossings. A majority of the activities would occur away from population centers. North Baja would comply with the noise elements included in the Riverside County and Imperial County General Plans. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP107 Blowdown events at Blythe, 

Ogilby, and El Centro Meter Stations, and the Ehrenberg Compressor Station valves could result in a significant noise impact. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Blowdowns would occur only on rare occasions. In residential areas, North Baja would install silencers to reduce noise levels. In the event of a blowdown, nearby residences would be notified in advance if possible and North Baja would provide traffic control along public roadways near the blowdown location as needed. 

Less than significant Class III) 

RELIABILITY AND SAFETYNBP108 The transportation of natural 

gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an accident and subsequent release of gas. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192 and other applicable Federal and State regulations including the California Public Utilities Commission, General Order 112-e. These regulations, which are intended to protect the public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures, include specifications for material selection and qualification; odorization of gas; minimum design requirements; and protection of the pipeline from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. To address seismic hazards, the facilities would be designed to meet or exceed the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code or International Building Code and to incorporate current seismological engineering standards, including the Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe (American Lifelines Alliance 2001) and Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. 2004). The engineering design drawings for the entire Project in California would be certified by a Californiaregistered 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-61 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP108 cont’d 

 civil/structural engineer, and would comply with the latest edition 

of the California Building Code. North Baja would prepare and implement an Operation and Maintenance Plan in accordance with the requirements in Title 49 CFR Part 192. Within the first 6 months of placing the pipeline into operation, North Baja would conduct an internal inspection of the pipeline. Following the initial test, internal inspections with a high resolution instrument would be conducted on a periodic basis, at a minimum of one inspection every 10 years, or sooner if the evidence suggests that significant corrosion or defects exist or if any new Federal or State regulations require more frequent or comparable inspections. The existing pipeline system is monitored and controlled 24 hours a day for pressure drops in the pipeline that could indicate a leak or other operating problem through a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system, which is a computer system for gathering and analyzing real-time systems. The system is programmed to take appropriate immediate action when alarm conditions are present. In addition, a crew that conducts on-site operations and maintenance is located at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, and is on call 24 hours a day. When completed, the B-Line, Arrowhead Extension, 

and IID Lateral would be operated in conjunction with the existing system and subject to the same operation and maintenance procedures. North Baja would x-ray all girth welds over 6 inches in diameter where possible to ensure pipeline structural integrity and compliance with the applicable DOT regulations. Where x-ray inspection is impossible or impractical, other means of nondestructive inspection would be conducted. Those welds that do not meet established specifications would be repaired or replaced.  Once the welds are approved, the welded joints would be coated with a protective coating and the entire pipeline would be visually inspected for any faults, scratches, or other coating defects. Any damage would be repaired before the pipeline is installed. After construction, North Baja would clearly mark the pipeline at line-of-sight intervals, roads, railroads, and other key points to alert the public to the presence of the pipeline. The markers would provide contact information for North Baja in the event of 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-62 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

NBP108 cont’d 

 an emergency. In accordance with the DOT regulations in effect 

since 1982, North Baja would participate in all communication and notification “One-Call” services to prevent outside damage to the pipeline. These services provide preconstruction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts. While the primary focus of these standards is prevention of accidents, North Baja would prepare an Emergency Response Plan that would be coordinated and tested (through drills and exercises) with local fire/police departments and emergency management agencies. 

ARM15 The transportation of natural 

gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an accident and subsequent release of gas. 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

To ensure that North Baja’s operation and maintenance commitments are documented in a comprehensive plan and to assist the CSLC in reviewing the Project for consistency with the CSLC’s action on the amended lease across California’s Sovereign and School Lands, North Baja would submit to the CSLC for approval an Operation and Maintenance Plan before placing the pipeline system into service in California. This plan would address internal and external maintenance inspections of the completed facility, including but not limited to details of integrity testing methods to be applied, corrosion monitoring and testing of the cathodic protection system, and leak monitoring. The Operation and Maintenance Plan would also specify that North Baja would, unless expressly prohibited by DOT regulations, conduct an internal inspection with a high-resolution instrument on a periodic basis, at a minimum of one inspection every 10 years, or sooner if the evidence suggests that significant corrosion or defects exist or if any new Federal or State regulations require more frequent or comparable inspections. Within 3 months following any new Federal or State regulations, North Baja would update the Operation and Maintenance Plan and submit a revised copy to the CSLC. In addition, the Operation and Maintenance Plan would include procedures for implementing operational mitigation measures recommended (if any) by the site-specific seismic hazard evaluation reports for the Project. 

Less than significant Class III) 

NBP109 The Project may affect high 

consequence areas (HCAs), which include two potential locations along the B-Line (MPs 27.0 and 75.0), and two potential locations along the IID Lateral (MPs 0.0 to 7.0 and MP 9.0). 

Significant (CEQA Class II) 

Per the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, North Baja would develop an integrity management program that applies to all HCAs to minimize the potential for an accident. In locations designated as HCAs, the pipeline would be inspected every 7 years. 

Less than significant Class III) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
5-63 

TABLE 5.1-1 (cont’d) 

Mitigation Monitoring Program for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Mitigation Number a Impact b Significance Before Mitigation b, c Mitigation Measure b, d Significan

Mitigati

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NBP110 The Project could result in a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect or impact on a minority or low-income portion of the population. 

Less than significant (CEQA Class III) 

No mitigation is proposed. U.S. Bureau of Census data show that minority and low-income populations are present along the proposed pipeline routes, and there is a potential for disproportionate adverse impacts on these populations. However, North Baja would mitigate these impacts through its Projectspecific plans and obtaining Federal, State, and local permits, and applying them to all areas along the proposed pipeline routes regardless of the presence or absence of minority or low-income populations. In addition, per a recent Final Federal Rule, North Baja would include in its public awareness plans, measures to prepare and distribute a comprehensive program that includes activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations. The program would be conducted in English and in other languages commonly understood by a significant number and concentration of the nonEnglish speaking population in the operator’s area. North Baja conducted open houses and public scoping meetings in the Project area in July and September of 2005 to inform the public about the Project and provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and express concerns. These public input opportunities were announced in the local newspapers in English and Spanish, and Spanish translators were present. 

Less than significant Class III) 

___________________ a NBP = Mitigation proposed by North Baja Pipeline, LLC. 

 ARM = Mitigation recommended by the Agency Staffs. 

b The No Project Alternative would eliminate the impacts of the proposed Project; therefore, no mitigation measures would be required and ther

classifications. 

c California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Classifications: 

 Class I = A significant adverse impact that remains significant after mitigation.  Class II = A significant adverse impact that can be eliminated or reduced below an issue’s significance criteria. 

 Class III = An adverse impact that does not meet or exceed an issue’s significance criteria. 

 Class IV = A beneficial impact. 

d Any mitigation measures included in the CDFG’s BO that are more stringent than the mitigation measures proposed by North Baja and recom

would supersede the measures listed in this table. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-1 

6.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIR AND RESPONSES 

INDEX 

Document Number Commentor Page

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

PM1 Public Meeting at El Centro, California.................................................................6-4 

PM2 Public Meeting at Blythe, California ...................................................................6-17 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

FA1 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office..........................................................................6-27 

FA2 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office......................................6-30 

FA3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX ............................................6-32 

FA4 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance, Pacific Southwest Region ...............................................................6-33 

FA5 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Area 

Office ...................................................................................................................6-35 

FA6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX ............................................6-37 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 

NA1 Quechan Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation ........................................6-47

STATE AGENCIES 

SA1 California Department of Transportation.............................................................6-51 

SA2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin 

Region ..................................................................................................................6-52 

SA3 Colorado River Board of California.....................................................................6-56 

SA4 California Department of Fish and Game ............................................................6-57 

SA5 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State 

Clearinghouse and Planning Unit.........................................................................6-59 

SA6 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality...................................................6-62 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
INDEX (cont’d) 

Document Number Commentor Page

6-2 

LOCAL AGENCIES 

LA1 Blythe Area Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Information Center.................6-63 

LA2 Calexico Chamber of Commerce.........................................................................6-64 

LA3 El Centro Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau..........................................6-66 

LA4 City of Blythe.......................................................................................................6-68 

LA5 City of Holtville ...................................................................................................6-69 

LA6 City of Yuma........................................................................................................6-72 

LA7 City of Brawley....................................................................................................6-76 

LA8 Imperial County Air Pollution Control District ...................................................6-78 

LA9 Imperial County ...................................................................................................6-85 

LA10 Yuma County Board of Supervisors ....................................................................6-99 

LA11 Imperial County Planning & Development Services .........................................6-101 

LA12 City of Imperial..................................................................................................6-105 

LA13 Holtville Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture.............................................6-109 

LA14 Brawley Chamber of Commerce........................................................................6-110 

LA15 South Coast Air Quality Management District ..................................................6-111 

LA16 South Coast Air Quality Management District ..................................................6-116 

LA17 South Coast Air Quality Management District ..................................................6-151 

COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

CO1 Imperial Valley Board of Realtors .....................................................................6-156 

CO2 Blythe Search, Rescue & Assist.........................................................................6-157 

CO3 Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation.........................................6-158 

CO4 Winterhaven Fire Protection District .................................................................6-159 

CO5 Ehrenberg Fire Department................................................................................6-160 

CO6 Border Power Plant Working Group..................................................................6-161 

CO7 Southern California Association of Governments .............................................6-165 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
INDEX (cont’d) 

Document Number Commentor Page

6-3 

CO8 Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company...6-178 

CO9 Sempra LNG Marketing Corporation and Coral Energy Resources, L.P. .........6-181 

APPLICANT 

A1 North Baja Pipeline, LLC ..................................................................................6-190 

A2 North Baja Pipeline, LLC ..................................................................................6-207 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and Responses 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public Meetings 

6-4

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public Meetings 

6-5

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-6

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-7

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-8

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-9

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-10

Public Meetings 

PM1-1 PM1-1 The end use of the natural gas that would 

Pipeline Expansion Project (Project or proscope of the Project and, consequently, is environmental impact statement/environmland use plan amendment (EIS/EIR). See additional discussion. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-11

Public Meetings 

PM1-1 (cont’d) 

PM1-2 Section 4.12.3 of the draft EIS/EIR include

General Conformity regulations. Section 4been revised to include additional informathe Project evaluated for applicability and Conformity Rule. Project emissions would Rule thresholds; therefore, a General Conrequired. Section 4.12.4 of the final EIS/Einformation for the construction and operaalso the responses to comments PM1-1 a

PM1-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-12

Public Meetings 

PM1-3 See the responses to comments PM1-1, PPM1-4 The California Public Utilities Commission 

responsible for setting the appropriate gas standards for gas on the Southern Californand San Diego Gas & Electric Company (the quality and interchangeability characteby SoCalGas from the North Baja Pipelinebe subject to SoCalGas’ CPUC-approved interchangeability standards. In order for SoCalGas system, North Baja must deliveand interchangeability standards set by th

The quality of natural gas distributed in sowould be subject to a tariff agreement negSoCalGas. Tariff agreements, and the pipcontained within, must be approved by the and safety for end users and of the enviroTariff agreements would be subject to renlife of the Project if market conditions chanare modified. SoCalGas’ existing tariff agrequire compliance with Rule 30, “Transpo(SoCalGas 1997). Rule 30 includes the fothat must be met for any natural gas distriregardless of whether the gas is produced other U.S. or international gas reservoirs: 

• concentration limits for a numbe

hydrogen sulfide, mercaptan sucontent, CO2, oxygen, inerts, an

• specific acceptance criteria for g• specific acceptance criteria to e

natural gas from different sourceAssociation’s Wobbe Index (WI) Number), lifting index, flashback 

• a prohibition on acceptance of n

“contain hazardous substances

In September 2006, the CPUC revised Ruspecifications regarding natural gas qualit

• minimum and maximum WI of 1

PM1-2 (cont’d) PM1-3 PM1-4 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public Meetings 

6-13

PM1-4 (cont’d) 

• minimum and maximum heating 

units per dry standard cubic foorespectively; and 

• changes to hydrogen sulfide, m

vapor, hydrocarbon dew point, lgas, and biogas specification. 

This decision is the culmination of a proceJanuary 2004 to assess the sufficiency of infrastructure in California and specifically the anticipated introduction of gas supplienatural gas (LNG) (CPUC 2006). Combusheating values and a higher WI results in temperature and, possibly, increased nitro

Historically, natural gas in the South Coasaverage heating value of about 1,020 Btu/(South Coast Air Quality Management Disthe adoption of the new standards, SoCalGnatural gas with a WI as high as 1,437. 

Natural gas delivered to and used in CalifoCPUC General Order 58-A, “Standards foCalifornia,” which sets standards for the hgas. The heating value standard requires supplied but does not specify an average, value. As a practical matter, North Baja must meto be accepted by SoCalGas at the new inprecedent agreements with its shippers, hstrictest gas quality standards for intercon

Baja would meet the gas quality and intercSoCalGas and SDG&E as required by the 

As discussed in Section 1.1, these requiredelivered to Baja California would meet thstandard, or the receiving terminal (i.e., SeCosta Azul [ECA] terminal) would have to it to the pipelines to meet this standard. Tagreements from the SoCalGas system to 

1 It is noted that the CPUC’s ruling is currently under appea

appeal, the gas quality standards for the SoCal Gas system the North Baja system. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public Meetings 

PM1-4 (cont’d) 

pipeline until it reaches the source, which The terminal would treat the gas by injectimeet the tariff requirements of its downstrBajanorte pipeline. To verify compliance wwould match the California gas quality stawould be installed, or are already in placeECA terminal, the Gasoducto Bajanorte piand the SoCalGas systems. These chromat delivery points. For example, these meor would be installed at the Ogilby Meter Sat the Ehrenberg Compressor Station siteStation. Gas quality data would be telemecompany to the downstream pipeline, whicgas coming into its system meets tariff reqaccuracy of the chromatograph data, SoCmonthly witnessing of the meter calibration this case, the North Baja pipeline system) analysis of gas samples to monitor the car

and high heating value (British thermal unby the North Baja system. 

See also the responses to comments PM1LA16-8. 

6-14

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-15

Public Meetings 

PM1-4 (cont’d) 

PM1-5 The air quality impacts of construction and 

Pipeline Expansion Project are discussed of the final EIS/EIR has been revised to insupporting the definition of the Project evacompliance with the General Conformity Rbelow General Conformity Rule thresholdsdetermination is not required. See also thfor additional discussion supporting the defor applicability and compliance with the G

As discussed in the responses to commenuse of the natural gas proposed to be tranPipeline Expansion Project is outside the sconsequently, the EIS/EIR. Under the Ca(CEQA), a lead agency must recirculate ainformation” is added to the EIR after publPursuant to the CEQA Guidelines section to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR deprives the public of a meaningful opportsubstantial adverse environmental effect omitigate or avoid such effect that the projeimplement. Recirculation of the draft EIS/Expansion Project is unwarranted and unnbeen no major changes to the proposed Pcircumstances or information related to the arisen that would result in a new significansubstantial increase in the severity of an efeasible and previously unanalyzed alternaare within the jurisdiction of the environmeRegulatory Commission (FERC or CommiCommission (CSLC), and the Bureau of LStaffs) to impose have been identified tha

PM1-5 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-16

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public Meetings 

6-17

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-18

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-19

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-20

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-21

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-22

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-23

Public Meetings 

PM2-1 PM2-1 These comments do not relate to the spec

analyzed within the contents of the draft Eenvironmental issues. Thus, no changes 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-24

Public Meetings 

PM2-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-25

Public Meetings 

PM2-2 Section 3.2.5 has been revised to include 

residential community (Edgewater Lane) oapproved by the Blythe Planning Commissrevised Section 3.2.5 notes that the develooriginally proposed Blythe Meter Station wresidential community and expressed a prAlternative, which would site the meter staexisting Blythe Compressor Station. 

The Arrowhead Alternative was analyzed determined to be a reasonable alternative impacts. As discussed in Sections 1.0 anNovember 21, 2006, North Baja filed an aFERC application requesting authorization Alternative as part of the proposed Projecamendment to its application and the analArrowhead Alternative has been incorporaproposed Project in the final EIS/EIR. The originally proposed Project, which included at Riviera Drive, has been eliminated from 

PM2-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-26

Public Meetings 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and Responses 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-27

Federal Agencies 

FA1-1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESAdeterminations of effects on listed species Arizona and the area of the Colorado Riveunder the river are noted. 

FA1-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-28

Federal Agencies 

FA1-2 See the response to comment FA1-1. 

FA1-1 (cont’d) FA1-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-29

Federal Agencies 

FA1-3 It is noted that no further section 7 consult

Project in Arizona or at the Colorado Rivecontinue to coordinate with the FWS and tDepartment. The assigned consultation nfuture correspondence regarding the prop

FA1-2 (cont’d) FA1-3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-30

Federal Agencies 

FA2-1 Thank you for participating in the environm

section 7 of the ESA. It is noted that the Fto all of the information necessary for the consultation. The assigned log number wcorrespondence regarding the proposed P

FA2-2 The FWS’ comments concurring with the F

on listed species in California are noted. 

FA2-3 The FWS’ Biological Opinion (BO) was iss

has been addressed in the analysis in SecEIS/EIR as Appendix R. 

FA2-1 FA2-2 FA2-3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-31

Federal Agencies 

FA2-3 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-32

Federal Agencies 

FA3-1 In a letter dated December 22, 2006, the F

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thbeen provided to review the draft EIS/EIRperiod was 90 days instead of the typical 4Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) commennot formally extend the comment period. letter further stated that the FERC will conwithin a time frame that allows for their revfinal EIS/EIR, including those submitted oua letter dated January 22, 2007, the EPA sdraft EIS/EIR (see comment letter FA6). Tin the responses to comments FA6-1 to FA

FA3-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-33

Federal Agencies 

FA4-1 Section 4.15.6 has been revised to acknow

impact on traffic if the Bureau of ReclamatReservoir Project is constructed at the samDistrict (IID) Lateral and that North Baja wwith the BLM and the BOR. 

FA4-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-34

Federal Agencies 

FA4-2 As discussed in Section 1.2.3, the BLM wo

amended Right-of-Way Grant and associawould apply to all BLM-managed and BORconsider the concurrence or non-concurredecision. The FERC and the CSLC will co

BOR regarding environmental and culturaadministered lands. 

FA4-3 The list of acronyms and abbreviations as 

revised to correctly define “USGS” as “U.S

FA4-4 Section 4.3.2.3 has been revised to expla

150 feet from the construction work area iFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 380.12(d)construction work area would not likely be most conditions. Section 4.3.2.3 has also the factors, other than distance, that deterimpacted by construction activities. 

FA4-2 FA4-3 FA4-4 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-35

Federal Agencies 

FA5-1 Section 4.15.6 has been revised to acknow

impact on traffic if the BOR’s Drop 2 Storaconstructed at the same time as the IID Lacontinue coordination efforts with the BLM 

FA5-2 As discussed in Section 1.2.3, the BLM wo

amended Right-of-Way Grant and associawould apply to all BLM-managed and BORconsider the concurrence or non-concurredecision. The FERC and the CSLC will coBOR regarding environmental and culturaadministered lands. 

FA5-1 FA5-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-36

Federal Agencies 

FA5-2 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-37

Federal Agencies 

FA6-1 The EPA’s rating of the draft EIS/EIR is no

are followed by more specific detailed comthat are addressed in the responses to coOne hard copy of the final EIS/EIR will be letterhead address (mailcode: CED-2). 

FA6-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-38

Federal Agencies 

FA6-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-39

Federal Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-40

Federal Agencies 

FA6-2 See the responses to comments FA6-3 thFA6-3 Section 4.12.4 of the EIS/EIR includes an 

air quality impacts and mitigation measurejurisdictional facilities associated with the addresses the cumulative impacts of the ethat are located in Mexico across the bordcumulative impacts presented are associareceptor location at or near the U.S. bordeoperation of the “reasonably foreseeable” likely not result in significant impacts in the border in California. Section 4.15.8 has bdetails regarding the criteria used to make As discussed in Section 1.4.2, the upstreato the sovereign jurisdiction of another natbasis for the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, oor reject such facilities. Therefore, mitigatrecommended Best Available Control Tecimposed on those facilities by these agencPipeline Project EIS/EIR, there was a litiga

issue that failed. Regarding the issue of transboundary envin Section 1.4.2, Executive Order 12114 dconsider the effects of their actions on the United States. The FERC and the BLM acExpansion Project are the issuance of a Cand Necessity and a Presidential Permit aRight-of-Way Grant and plan amendment, and operation of North Baja’s proposed fabe localized and would not have a significMexico. The upstream facilities in Mexico environmental regulatory review process a

2 Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, No. 

and Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate Distri

FA6-2 FA6-3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-41

Federal Agencies 

FA6-4 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

through LA16-8. 

FA6-4 FA6-3 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-42

Federal Agencies 

FA6-5 As discussed in Section 1.4.2, the upstrea

to the sovereign jurisdiction of another natbasis for the FERC, the CSLC, the BLM, oor reject such facilities. Therefore, mitigatrecommended BACT, cannot be imposed agencies. For the original North Baja Pipelitigation challenge3 concerning this issue 

As discussed in the responses to commenuse of the natural gas that would be transoutside the scope of the Project. The FERBOR do not have jurisdiction to impose musers. As discussed in the response to coregulate gas content lies with the CPUC. stationary emissions sources in the SCAB Imperial County this authority lies with the Control District (ICAPCD). 

FA6-6 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

3 Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, No. 

and Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate Distri

FA6-4 (cont’d) FA6-6 FA6-5 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-43

Federal Agencies 

FA6-7 Section 4.8.5 has been revised to include 

Baja revise its Off-Highway Vehicle Managinclude the agency or agencies responsibPlan, the frequency of monitoring that wouthe implemented OHV blocking measures 

methodology for reassessing the implemethe future, and enforcement measures. 

FA6-6 (cont’d) FA6-7 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-44

Federal Agencies 

FA6-8 North Baja has coordinated with the U.S. A

to determine whether the proposed Projec

under the Clean Water Act. The COE has Pipeline Expansion Project would qualify fCOE’s section 404 permit program. Natiogeneral permit issued by the COE for certimpacts. Projects that qualify for a nationwdemonstrate compliance with the section 4discharges of dredged or fill material wherdamaging alternative exists. Should the Cindividual section 404 permit is necessaryapplication North Baja would be expected appropriate and practicable steps to minim

compliance with the section 404(b)(1) guid

FA6-9 See the response to comment FA6-8. 

FA6-10 FA6-10 See the response to comment FA6-8. FA6-9 FA6-8 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-45

Federal Agencies 

FA6-11 See the response to comment FA6-8. FA6-12 See the response to comment FA6-8. FA6-13 See the response to comment FA6-8. FA6-14 In accordance with North Baja’s Construct

Plan (CM&R Plan) (see Appendix E), trenand/or the trench bottom would be sealed hydrology; therefore, wetland bifurcation wpipeline construction.

FA6-15 A footnote has been added to Table 4.4.2

not include ephemeral washes. 

FA6-16 The vegetation types that would be affecte

to the construction right-of-way are dominrevegetation would likely occur within a shby North Baja’s post-construction monitoriAttempts to revegetate the right-of-way wito be successful due to the presence of taimmediately adjacent to the construction rdominance by tamarisk immediately adjacrevegetation would be the most effective ito preconstruction conditions. The COE hBaja Pipeline Expansion Project would quunder the COE’s section 404 permit progrresult in minimal impacts. Should the COE individual section 404 permit is necessarymitigation measures. These measures covegetation in the impact areas. 

FA6-10 (cont’d) FA6-15 FA6-14 FA6-13 FA6-12 FA6-11 FA6-16 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-46

Federal Agencies 

FA6-17 The COE has determined that the North B

would qualify for a nationwide permit undeprogram because the Project would result 

Project would be exempt from a compens

Should the COE later determine that an innecessary, it may require additional mitiga

potentially include compensatory mitigatio

FA6-16 (cont’d) FA6-17 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and Responses 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-47

Native American Trib

NA1-1 North Baja personnel would gain access t

permanent right-of-way via public roads. would be constructed or used perpendicul

NA1-2 North Baja’s Unanticipated Discovery Plan 

Native American tribes in the event that prhuman remains are encountered during co

NA1-1 NA1-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-48

Native American Trib

NA1-3 The Executive Summary and Section 4.11

Native American tribes, as applicable, in tBaja’s consultation efforts with Native AmeSection 4.11.5, which has been revised to meetings with Native American tribes that the draft EIS/EIR. As discussed in Section 4.11.5-1, North Baja has consulted with thnumerous occasions. 

NA1-4 The revision to the Yuma Field Office Draf

a separate action from the proposed North Project. On December 15, 2006, the EPA 

of Yuma Field Office Draft Resource ManaEnvironmental Impact Statement (DRMP/The DRMP/Draft EIS is available for viewihttp://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/planning.htm o

DRMP/Draft EIS includes strategies for prcultural values that balance multiple uses throughout the Yuma Field Office Planning collaboration with tribal, State, and local gDRMP/Draft EIS, the management of cultube in compliance with several Federal law1906; the National Historic Preservation A“Protection and Enhancement of the CultuLand Policy Management Act of 1976; the Freedom Act of 1978; the Archaeological the Native American Graves Protection anExecutive Order 13007 “Indian Sacred Sit“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Executive Order 13287 “Preserve AmericaOffice manages its cultural resources accoSeries and Arizona BLM Handbooks H-81Cultural Resources” and H-8120 “GuidelinResources.” After the comment period on all public comments received during the coconsidered, a Proposed Resource Managprepared by the BLM. The Quechan Indiacontinue to collaborate with the BLM and DRMP/Draft EIS. 

NA1-5 As discussed in Section 4.1.2, blasting is o

along the B-Line near milepost (MP) 29.5 requiring blasting during construction of thMP 29.5 is uninhabited desert, with no nea

NA1-2 (cont’d) NA1-6 NA1-5 NA1-4 NA1-3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-49

Native American Trib

NA1-5 (cont’d)

development. However, cultural resource

4.1.2 has been revised to state that the rato the trenchline. Blasting mats would be leaving the construction work area. All bla

conducted in strict compliance with North (see Appendix I). Blasting procedures woFederal, State, and local regulations regarof explosives; safety; and environmental p

NA1-6 Under California law, property owners hav

that are discovered on private land. North landowners to determine whether the landof any recovered artifacts or waive ownersan appropriate facility. On Federal land, tagency would determine the appropriate c

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-50

Native American Trib

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and Responses 

STATE AGENCIES 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-51

State Agencies 

SA1-1 Table 1.6-1 indicates that an encroachme

Department of Transportation (CalTrans) wBaja to cross or bore under State highwayright-of-way. It would be North Baja’s respappropriate materials to CalTrans to facilitencroachment permit application. North Bprocuring any additional necessary permitregulatory and resource agencies. 

SA1-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-52

State Agencies 

SA2-1 In an e-mail dated November 29, 2006, th

Quality Control Board, Colorado River Bas

that the Storm Water Construction Permit applicable to the proposed Project as long 

practices (BMPs) for oil and gas field activminimize the discharge of pollutants in stoquality (Mirpour 2006). North Baja’s BMPthat is in Appendix E of the EIS/EIR. Tabldelete the reference to the Storm Water C

SA2-2 See the response to comment SA2-1. SA2-3 Table 1.6-1 indicates that a section 401 W

CRWQCB would be necessary to allow acmaterials. It would be North Baja’s responmaterials to the CRWQCB to facilitate proQuality Certification application. In additioresponsible for addressing and complying stipulated in the section 401 Water Quality 

SA2-1 SA2-2 SA2-3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-53

State Agencies 

SA2-4 Table 1.6-1 indicates that a National Pollu

System (NPDES) permit from the CRWQCdischarge of hydrostatic test water. It wouto submit the appropriate materials to the of an NPDES permit application and to coin the permit. It is noted that the NPDES psubmitted to the CRWQCB 180 days in adthe United States. 

SA2-5 If a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR

necessary, it would be North Baja’s respomaterials to the CRWQCB to facilitate proapplication and to comply with all measurenoted that the WDRs permit application shCRWQCB 140 days in advance of dischar

SA2-3 (cont’d) SA2-5 SA2-4 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-54

State Agencies 

SA3-1 The Colorado River Board of California’s c

draft EIS/EIR and has no comments are n

SA3-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-55

State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-56

State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-57

State Agencies 

SA4-1 It is noted that the Project would require a 

Agreement pursuant to section 1600 et seGame Code. It would be North Baja’s resappropriate materials to the California Dep(CDFG) to facilitate processing of a sectiocomplying with the conditions stipulated in 

SA4-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-58

State Agencies 

SA4-2 It is noted that the Project should obtain a 

Act (CESA) permit. The EIS/EIR adequatlisted species and specifies a mitigation mthat would meet the requirements of a CEBaja’s responsibility to submit the approprfacilitate processing of a CESA permit appthe conditions stipulated in the permit. 

SA4-2 SA4-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-59

State Agencies 

SA5-1 The State Clearinghouse’s comments that 

complied with its review requirements for dpursuant to the CEQA are noted. 

SA5-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-60

State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-61

State Agencies 

SA5-2 The comments of the Colorado River Boa

submitted directly to the FERC (see commresponse to comment SA3-1. 

SA5-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-62

State Agencies 

SA6-1 The Arizona Department of Environmenta

with the comments and suggested mitigat

ICAPCD in its comments (see comment leresponses to comments LA8-1 to LA8-9. 

SA6-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and Responses 

LOCAL AGENCIES 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-63

Local Agencies 

LA1-1 The Blythe Area Chamber of Commerce a

comments expressing support for the prop

LA1-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-64

Local Agencies 

LA2-1 The Calexico Chamber of Commerce’s co

the proposed Project are noted. 

LA2-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-65

Local Agencies 

LA2-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-66

Local Agencies 

LA3-1 The El Centro Chamber of Commerce & V

expressing support for the proposed Proje

LA3-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-67

Local Agencies 

LA3-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-68

Local Agencies 

LA4-1 The City of Blythe’s comments expressing 

are noted. The pipeline has been routed aagricultural areas where possible to minimand reduce the possibility of accidental dispractices. 

LA4-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-69

Local Agencies 

LA5-1 The City of Holtville’s comments expressin

Project are noted. 

LA5-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-70

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-71

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-72

Local Agencies 

LA6-1 The City of Yuma’s resolution expressing 

is noted. 

LA6-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-73

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-74

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-75

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-76

Local Agencies 

LA7-1 The City of Brawley’s resolution expressin

Project is noted. 

LA7-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-77

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-78

Local Agencies 

LA8-1 Section 4.12.4 includes an analysis of the 

measures associated with the proposed Pcumulative impacts evaluation of the existlocated in Mexico across the border from impacts presented are associated with the location at or near the U.S. border and dethe Mexican facilities would likely not resuvicinity of or across the U.S. border in Calrevised to include additional details regarddetermination. 

LA8-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-79

Local Agencies 

LA8-2 See the responses to comments PM1-1, F

through LA16-8. 

LA8-3 Section 4.15.8 has been revised to clarify 

compression installed as part of the North Section 4.15.8 has also been revised to inimplementation of good combustion practiwith the proposed Algodones and Mexicalthe responses to comments PM1-1, FA6-3LA16-8. 

LA8-2 LA8-3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-80

Local Agencies 

LA8-4 Table 4.15.8-3 has been revised to correc

emissions for the Termoelectrica de MexicRosita Power Complex plus the Mexicali C

LA8-5 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

through LA16-8. 

LA8-5 LA8-4 LA8-3 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-81

Local Agencies 

LA8-6 Section 4.8.5 has been revised to include 

Baja revise its OHV Plan to include the agenforcement of the OHV Plan, the frequenconducted to ensure that the implemented functioning properly, the methodology for OHV blocking measures in the future, and 

LA8-5 (cont’d) LA8-6 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-82

Local Agencies 

LA8-7 Section 4.12.4 of the final EIS/EIR include

Baja file a revised Project-wide Dust Contdetails regarding dust control with the FERapproval before construction. It is expecteplan as part of its Implementation Plan tha

request for Notice to Proceed with construImplementation Plan and the FERC’s appNotice to Proceed with construction would FERC’s Internet website. To address the Regulation VIII, Section 4.12.4 has been rrecommendation that North Baja prepare Control Plan that includes the measures oControl Plan and meets the requirements and file the plan with the CSLC for review of the Imperial County portions of Phase I

LA8-7 LA8-6 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-83

Local Agencies 

LA8-8 Section 4.12.3 includes a discussion of the 

regulations applicable to the Project. The the measures required by each air pollutiojurisdictional authority over the Project incAvailable Control Measures. North Baja wthe most stringent Federal or State dust coeach portion or phase of the Project constSection 4.12.3. Activities conducted in Imto comply with Best Available Control MeaRegulation VIII. See also the response to 

LA8-9 The ICAPCD’s comments are noted. 

LA8-8 LA8-9 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-84

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-85

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-86

Local Agencies 

LA9-1 Imperial County’s comments regarding NE

noted. These comments, however, do noissues analyzed within the contents of the significant environmental issues. Thus, no necessary. 

LA9-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-87

Local Agencies 

LA9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-88

Local Agencies 

LA9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-89

Local Agencies 

LA9-2 Reliability and safety issues are addresse

the growth-inducing impacts of the Project The air quality impacts of construction and discussed in Section 4.12.4. 

LA9-3 See the response to comment FA6-3. 

LA9-1 (cont’d) 

LA9-3 

LA9-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-90

Local Agencies 

LA9-4 The proposed Project, as defined for the N

allowed for the preparation of the EIS/EIR Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) gapplicable requirements. The EIS/EIR is cits identification and evaluation of the enviproposed Project and feasible mitigation mwherever possible to less than significant sufficient detail to enable the reader to undraised by the proposed Project and the Agappropriate to summarize the contents of document while referring the reader to spedetails. 

LA9-5 The potential cumulative impacts attributa

adequately addressed in Section 4.15 purCEQA requirements. Section 4.15 include

indirect cumulative impacts that could occreasonably foreseeable projects within the were constructed. 

LA9-5 

LA9-4 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-91

Local Agencies 

LA9-6 In Section 4.16, it is acknowledged that th

supply that would be a result of the propospositive economic environment conducive power plant that would be supplied by the Project (i.e., the IID El Centro Generating dependent on the gas supplied by the Progrowth might occur with or without the conwould not be attributable to the proposed acknowledges that to the extent that the IIdiversify its suppliers of natural gas, the adproposed Project could be a growth-inducany additional growth-inducing impacts beEIS/EIR is unwarranted because they wou

LA9-6 

LA9-5 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-92

Local Agencies 

LA9-7 See the responses to comments PM1-5 aLA9-8 As discussed in the introduction to Section 

affected environment as it currently exists 

discusses the environmental consequenceeach of the following major resource topicresources; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife astatus species; land use, special manageminterest areas, and aesthetic resources; soand traffic; cultural resources; air quality; ncumulative impacts; growth-inducing impaSee also the response to comment PM1-5

LA9-6 (cont’d) 

LA9-7 

LA9-8 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-93

Local Agencies 

LA9-9 The alternatives analysis in the EIS/EIR w

NEPA, CEQ guidelines, the CEQA, and ot

The EIS/EIR is comprehensive and thorouevaluation of the environmental impacts oincludes a reasonable range of alternativeintroduction to Section 4, the No Project Acomparison with the proposed Project for topics. See also the response to commen

LA9-10 As discussed in the introduction to Section 

affected environment as it currently exists 

the major resource topics. Section 4.7 increquirements, occurrence of suitable habitProject route, and potential Project impactspecies with the potential to be affected by 4.7.2-1, several species are not likely to bto the construction schedule, species’ rangProject route. These species do not warraspecies-specific surveys because they woProject. For those species with the potential to occsuitable habitat along the Project route, surequired as necessary to determine poteninstances, surveys are unnecessary becauprimary concern for a given species and thwithout species-specific survey data. Section 4.7.8 has been revised to include Project would not restrict the range of endspecies. 

LA9-8 (cont’d) 

LA9-9 

LA9-10 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-94

Local Agencies 

LA9-11 It would be appropriate for agencies with p

determine whether health risk assessmenfacilities and, if so, to obtain them. Such athe FERC and the CLSC in this proceedincomment FA6-3. 

LA9-10 (cont’d) 

LA9-11 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-95

Local Agencies 

LA9-12 See the response to comment FA6-3. 

LA9-11 (cont’d) LA9-12 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-96

Local Agencies 

LA9-13 Section 4.14.3 has been revised to acknow

subject to potential seismic impacts, and a to direct the reader to Section 4.1.4, where seismic impacts is presented. 

LA9-14 As discussed in the introduction to Section 

included in the cumulative impacts analyscomparable type and nature of impact, ancounties that would be affected by the NoProject. With some exceptions, more geonot assessed because their impact would therefore, would not contribute significantlproposed Project area. One of these excean analysis of cumulative air quality impacBajanorte Pipeline Project in Mexico is inc

LA9-12 (cont’d) LA9-13 LA9-14 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-97

Local Agencies 

LA9-15 The recommendations of the FERC and C

EIS/EIR are, in practice, included as condissued by their respective Commissions. 

included in Table 5.1-1, which forms the bprogram that would be implemented durinthe North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

LA9-16 See the responses to comments PM1-5 a

LA9-14 (cont’d) LA9-16 LA9-15 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-98

Local Agencies 

LA9-16 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-99

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-100

Local Agencies 

LA10-1 The Yuma County Board of Supervisors’ r

the proposed Project is noted. 

LA10-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-101

Local Agencies 

LA11-1 In the United States, the majority of natura

predicted to be for electric generation and 

electricity production from fossil fuels (inclabout 58 percent of the total electricity prorenewable resources in 2003 (Energy Infohttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ solar.renewnonhydrorenewablespaper_final.pdf#2.3]) 

the total electricity produced in the State. generated electricity, about 3 percent resuproduction. Consequently, in the foreseeaproduction, although important as a renewitself contribute in a major way to the enerallowing for California’s ambitious goal of from renewable sources by 2020, energy depend on non-renewable sources of ene(California Energy Commission [CEC] 200

LA11-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-102

Local Agencies 

LA11-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-103

Local Agencies 

LA11-2 Section 4.15.8 includes a cumulative impa

anticipated facilities located in Mexico acroCounty. The cumulative impacts presentemaximally impacted receptor location at odemonstrate that the operation of the Mexresult in significant impacts in the vicinity o

California. Section 4.15.8 has been reviseregarding the criteria used to make this de

LA11-3 Imperial County Planning and Developme

the State Air Resources Board are noted. not directly relate to the environmental issof the draft EIS/EIR. Thus, no changes to 

LA11-1 (cont’d) LA11-3 LA11-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-104

Local Agencies 

LA11-4 The IID Lateral is analyzed in each of the 

4 of the EIS/EIR. 

LA11-5 Imperial County Planning and Developme

See the responses to comments LA11-1 tone CD that can be read by a computer wEIS/EIR will be sent to the county at the le

LA11-5 LA11-4 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-105

Local Agencies 

LA12-1 The City of Imperial’s comments and reso

proposed Project, as well as the acknowle

to make information and presentations avaBaja Pipeline Expansion Project, are note

LA12-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-106

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-107

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-108

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-109

Local Agencies 

LA13-1 The Holtville Chamber of Commerce and A

expressing support for the proposed Proje

LA13-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-110

Local Agencies 

LA14-1 The Brawley Chamber of Commerce’s com

the proposed Project are noted. 

LA14-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-111

Local Agencies 

LA15-1 The SCAQMD’s interest in this proceeding 

impacts of the proposed Project on air quaSCAQMD has been added to the FERC’s 

proceeding. 

LA15-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-112

Local Agencies 

LA15-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-113

Local Agencies 

LA15-2 In a letter dated December 28, 2006, the S

comments on the draft EIS/EIR (see commresponses to comments LA16-1 to LA16-1responses to the detailed comments. 

LA15-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-114

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-115

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-116

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-117

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-118

Local Agencies 

LA16-1 As the lead Federal agency responsible fo

Project, the FERC has identified the emissProject in accordance with the published demissions in Title 40 CFR Part 51.852/93.information provided in the final rule for DeFederal Actions to State or Federal ImplemFederal Register 63214. This Project defiresponse to comments included in 58 Fedproposed rule. The General Conformity Rule was proposFederal Register 13836). The preamble to comments on two proposed definitions of and “exclusive.” As defined in the final GeFederal Register 63214), “exclusive” indirecriteria pollutant or its precursors that: (1) action, but may occur later in time and/or mdistance from the action itself but are still rthe Federal agency can practicably controdue to a continuing program responsibility EPA states that this definition was selecterequirements of section 176(c) of the Cleawas consistent with the Transportation Coimplemented, and best fits within the overinclusive definition (which was broader anof the exclusive definition) was not selectemeasures required may not be enforceablTransportation Conformity Rule; (3) it wouburden due to the large number of affecteestablishes an overly broad role for the FeNational Ambient Air Quality Standards. Frequires Federal agencies to consider only under their legal authorities, they can exercontrol and over which they have continuiThe final General Conformity Rule further definition assures that Federal actions will and the States will retain the primary respthe air quality standards.” Also, “a Federaattempt to limit emissions that do not meethe Federal agency’s legal control. MoreoCAA nor this regulation requires that a Fe

LA16-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-119

Local Agencies 

LA16-1 (cont’d) 

its legal authority to influence or control nopracticably control, or that are not subject responsibility, or that lie outside the agenc“Reasonably foreseeable” emissions are dConformity Rule as “projected future indirethe time the conformity determination is memissions is known and the emissions are documented by the Federal agency based reviewing any information presented to the determine whether emissions from the end by the North Baja system are reasonably fconformity applicability identified several fdelivered by North Baja and the end use tThese factors include: (1) the precise WI delivered, other than it would meet the exifor SoCalGas and SDG&E; (2) the sector the gas would be delivered (no specific enthe exception of the El Centro Generating which North Baja proposes to serve througultimate character of the natural gas at the North Baja may be blended within the SoCthe resultant WI of such blend is unknownwould be consumed within the SCAB. The markets of North Baja’s shippers are capacity constraints on the SoCalGas sys

volumes proposed in Phase II from movinBecause the new supplies of North Baja’s existing gas supplies, it is impossible to desource gas would be burned, how much L(due to limited data) the extent of changes 

with the burning of LNG gas. Also, the finprovides examples of actions not reasonaexamples includes the resulting emissions 

This example was considered not reasonaemissions cannot be precisely located or qemissions from the end use of natural gas The EPA has noted that “the requirements nonattainment and maintenance areas, as supported in the June 5, 2006 EPA memoConformity Applicability Questions and An“the purpose of this memorandum is to marevision to our questions and answers (Q&General Conformity regulations. Some quwhether emissions generated outside a no

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-120

Local Agencies 

LA16-1 (cont’d) 

accounted when making a General Confoaction. We are revising our Q&A documethat only direct or indirect emissions originmaintenance area need to be analyzed foState Implementation Plan (SIP).” The neinterprets this statutory amendment to meemissions originating in an attainment or ube analyzed for General Conformity purpotransport into a nonattainment or maintenaAs supported by the General Conformity dinformation, and subsequent guidance me

defined the Project’s direct and indirect emwith the construction and operation of the counties where the Project would be locatConformity, the Project does not include e

construction and operation of any portion 

as attainment or unclassifiable, areas outswhere future end users of the gas are or wSee also the response to comment PM1-4

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-121

Local Agencies 

LA16-2 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

LA16-3 Section 4.12.4 discussed the air quality im

that would be implemented to minimize imand operation of the Project. See also the PM1-4, LA16-1, and LA16-6 through LA16

LA16-1 (cont’d) LA16-3 LA16-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-122

Local Agencies 

LA16-4 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

through LA16-8. 

LA16-5 It is noted that although significant improv

occurred in the SCAB, recent data indicate 8-hour standard more frequently than any States. 

LA16-4 LA16-5 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-123

Local Agencies 

LA16-6 It is noted that the SCAQMD has prepared 

Management Plan (AQMP) that will need obtain approval from the California Air Ressubmitted to the EPA as a revision to the Cincludes measure CMB-04: Natural Gas Fcontaining this measure is approved, it wilvalue of natural gas preventing possible ecombustion of natural gas with a high heathe CSLC lack the authority to impose condelivered; however, as noted by the SCAQauthority to regulate stationary sources of which would include the sources that may with a higher heating value. As discussed in Section 1.1, North Baja ha

shippers that require them to deliver gas tstringent gas quality standards of any dowgas might be delivered. These conditions the SCAB to exceed the most stringent hethe CPUC or the SCAQMD, effectively mitincreases from the combustion of HHV gaSee also the responses to comments PM1

LA16-6 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-124

Local Agencies 

LA16-7 The SCAQMD suggests that the Project w

dekatherms per day or approximately 2.8 (Bscfd) of natural gas from Mexico to Califapproximately 82 percent of the capacity oBscfd) would feed the SoCalGas pipeline The maximum amount of LNG-sourced gawould be limited to the takeaway capacity Blythe, which is just 1.2 Bscfd. This is appestimated by the SCAQMD. Although not SCAQMD, the FERC recognizes that therof LNG-sourced gas sent to and burned in discussed in Section 1.1, North Baja has cshippers that require them to deliver gas tstringent gas quality standards of any dowgas might be delivered. These conditions 

the SCAB to exceed the most stringent hethe CPUC or the SCAQMD, effectively mitincreases from the combustion of HHV gacomment LA16-6. 

LA16-7 LA16-6 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-125

Local Agencies 

LA16-8 The Agency Staffs recognize that there ha

emissions from certain types of combustioimpacts of burning natural gas with unchavalues and that the SCAQMD is concerne

gas in the SCAB if it would impede its abilambient air quality standards. The AgencSCAQMD has introduced control measure limit on the heating value of natural gas bu2007 AQMP. As stated in CMB-04 “the pumeasure is to prevent emission increases gas with an uncharacteristically high heatiapplications.” The 2007 AQMP also statedata collection to further determine the relnatural gas fuel and NOx emissions from g

this information, the District will make a finpotential emission reductions that can be the 2007 AQMP containing this measure ilimit for natural gas is established, adopteSCAQMD, North Baja’s shippers will be revalue limits if shipping gas to the SCAB. See also the responses to comments PM1LA16-6. 

LA16-7 (cont’d) LA16-8 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-126

Local Agencies 

LA16-8 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-127

Local Agencies 

LA16-9 See the response to comment LA16-1. 

LA16-8 (cont’d) LA16-9 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-128

Local Agencies 

LA16-9 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-129

Local Agencies 

LA16-9 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-130

Local Agencies 

LA16-9 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-131

Local Agencies 

LA16-9 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-132

Local Agencies 

LA16-10 Section 4.12.2 includes a discussion of the 

area. This discussion does not include a d

As discussed in the response to commentthe scope of the EIS/EIR to include an envpotential end use of the natural gas that wBaja system; therefore, the baseline enviris not discussed in the EIS/EIR. The information in Table 3.2.1-1 provides the differences of burning natural gas, fueamount of fuel oil or coal that would be eqBscfd of natural gas, 365 days per year. Tinformation was based on data available fdatabase. 

LA16-9 (cont’d) 

LA16-10 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-133

Local Agencies 

LA16-10 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-134

Local Agencies 

LA16-11 The Agency Staffs acknowledge the poss

health and the environment in areas exceestandard such as the SCAB. However, as comments PM1-1 and LA16-1, it is beyond include an environmental analysis of the pwould be transported on the North Baja sycomment PM1-4. 

LA16-10 (cont’d) LA16-11 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-135

Local Agencies 

LA16-11 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-136

Local Agencies 

LA16-11 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-137

Local Agencies 

LA16-12 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

through LA16-8. 

LA16-11 (cont’d) LA16-12 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-138

Local Agencies 

LA16-13 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

through LA16-8. 

LA16-13 LA16-12 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-139

Local Agencies 

LA16-13 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-140

Local Agencies 

LA16-14 Conducting a Health Risk Assessment on 

in the SCAB due to the burning of the natuon the North Baja system is beyond the scresponses to comments PM1-4 and LA16

LA16-13 (cont’d) LA16-14 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-141

Local Agencies 

LA16-15 LA16-15 See the response to comment PM1-5. LA16-14 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-142

Local Agencies 

LA16-15 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-143

Local Agencies 

LA16-16 The air quality impacts of construction and 

Pipeline Expansion Project are discussed 

of the final EIS/EIR has been revised to insupporting the definition of the Project evacompliance with the General Conformity Rcomment LA16-1 for additional discussion Project evaluated for applicability and comConformity Rule. 

LA16-16 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-144

Local Agencies 

LA16-16 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-145

Local Agencies 

LA16-16 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-146

Local Agencies 

LA16-16 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-147

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-148

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-149

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-150

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-151

Local Agencies 

LA17-1 The SCAQMD’s motion to strike North Baj

comments” (see comment letter A2) is notreply comments and the SCAQMD’s motioconsideration in the analysis in the EIS/EI

LA17-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-152

Local Agencies 

LA17-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-153

Local Agencies 

LA17-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-154

Local Agencies 

LA17-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-155

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and Responses 

COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-156

Companies/Organiza

CO1-1 The Imperial Valley Board of Realtor’s com

the proposed Project are noted. 

CO1-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-157

Companies/Organiza

CO2-1 Blythe Search, Rescue & Assist’s commen

proposed Project are noted. 

CO2-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-158

Companies/Organiza

CO3-1 The Greater Yuma Economic Developmen

expressing support for the proposed Proje

CO3-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-159

Companies/Organiza

CO4-1 The Winterhaven Fire Protection District’s 

for the proposed Project are noted. Sectiobeen revised to acknowledge this support

CO4-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-160

Companies/Organiza

CO5-1 The Ehrenberg Fire Department’s comme

proposed Project are noted. Sections 4.9revised to acknowledge this support. 

CO5-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-161

Companies/Organiza

CO6-1 CO6-1 See the response to comment FA6-3. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-162

Companies/Organiza

CO6-2 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

through LA16-8. The purpose and need foSection 1.1. Section 1.1 has been revised currently transported on the SoCalGas sysAngeles metropolitan area comes entirely Basins, which are in decline or are project

relatively near future. While the gas in the the only pipeline system that supplies signRockies to southern California is the Kern operating at close to capacity. There are 

Kern River system. The other projects cufrom the Rockies will carry the gas to the e

CO6-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-163

Companies/Organiza

CO6-3 See the responses to comments PM1-1, P

through LA16-8. 

CO6-3 CO6-2 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-164

Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-165

Companies/Organiza

CO7-1 Section 1.5.3 has been revised to include 

Southern California Association of GovernComprehensive Plan and Guide Policies wconsistency of the policies with the propos1.5.3 also includes a discussion of the prothe Regional Transportation Plan and the 

CO7-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-166

Companies/Organiza

CO7-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-167

Companies/Organiza

CO7-2 CO7-2 See the response to comment CO7-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-168

Companies/Organiza

CO7-2 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-169

Companies/Organiza

CO7-3 See the response to comment CO7-1. CO7-4 See the response to comment CO7-1. 

CO7-2 (cont’d) CO7-4 CO7-3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-170

Companies/Organiza

CO7-5 See the response to comment CO7-1. 

CO7-6 See the response to comment CO7-1. CO7-7 The purpose and need for the Project are 

also the response to comment LA11-1. 

CO7-5 CO7-6 CO7-7 CO7-4 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-171

Companies/Organiza

CO7-8 See the response to comment CO7-1. 

CO7-9 CO7-9 See the response to comment CO7-1. CO7-8 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-172

Companies/Organiza

CO7-10 See the response to comment CO7-1. CO7-11 See the response to comment CO7-1. CO7-12 See the response to comment CO7-1. 

CO7-9 (cont’d) 

CO7-10 CO7-11 CO7-12 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-173

Companies/Organiza

CO7-13 See the response to comment CO7-1. CO7-14 See the response to comment CO7-1. CO7-15 See the response to comment CO7-1. 

CO7-16 Section 1.5.3 has been revised to include 

consistency with the Regional Transportat

CO7-12 (cont’d) CO7-13 CO7-14 CO7-15 CO7-16 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-174

Companies/Organiza

CO7-16 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-175

Companies/Organiza

CO7-17 Section 1.5.3 has been revised to include 

consistency with the Compass Growth Vis

CO7-16 (cont’d) CO7-17 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-176

Companies/Organiza

CO7-18 See the responses to comments CO7-1, CCO7-19 The final EIS/EIR documents all of the fea

reduce impacts associated with the ProjecHowever, the Agency Staffs have determimilk-vetch, the desert tortoise and its critichorned lizard and its habitat would remain feasible mitigation is applied. Approval of Statement of Overriding Considerations un

CO7-20 See the responses to comments LA11-1 aCO7-21 The SCAG is on the environmental mailing 

receive the applicable issuances associateresponse to comment CO7-1. 

CO7-17 (cont’d) CO7-18 CO7-19 CO7-20 CO7-21 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-177

Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-178

Companies/Organiza

CO8-1 SoCalGas’ and SDG&E’s comments that s

curtailed in the past 16 years are noted. Sto state that customers of SoCalGas and Snominate LNG supplies at Blythe and OtaMexico become available. The revised Sewhile the SoCalGas Alternative would proto LNG-source gas through the SoCalGas direct access to LNG supplies nor direct asystem, which are objectives of the proposalternative was eliminated from further con

CO8-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-179

Companies/Organiza

CO8-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-180

Companies/Organiza

CO8-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-181

Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 Sempra LNG Marketing Corporation’s and 

reply comments to comments on the draft SCAQMD and the Border Power Working LA16 and CO6, respectively) are noted. Pcomments have been taken into consideraEIS/EIR. 

CO9-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-182

Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-183

Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-184

Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-185

Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-186

Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-187

Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-188

Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-189

Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and Responses 

APPLICANT 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-190

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-191

Applicant 

A1-1 The applicable sections of the EIS/EIR ha

the analysis of the Arrowhead Alternative 

A1-2a See the responses to comments A1-19 anA1-2b The Executive Summary has been revised 

deletion. 

A1-2c The Executive Summary has been revised 

addition. 

A1-2d See the responses to comments A1-19 anA1-3 Section 1.4.1 has been revised to reflect t

the IID’s Unit 3 Repower has been compleCEC determined that the project would caenvironmental impacts or adverse impact 

A1-4 Table 1.6-1 has been revised to remove re

Construction Permits. 

A1-2a A1-2b 

A1-2c 

A1-2d 

A1-1 A1-3 A1-4 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-192

Applicant 

A1-5 Section 2.3.1 has been revised to reflect t

consultation with the BLM in which the BLregarding compaction levels in native deseand potential compaction along the B-Line

A1-6 Section 2.3.1 has been revised to state th

desert wash woodland species at specifieto provide a visual barrier to deter off-highright-of-way. 

A1-7 Section 2.3.2 has been revised to note tha

MP 29.5 during construction of the A-Line

A1-8 Table 3.2.1-1 has been revised to note tha

underestimated if natural gas were to be cthan industrial boilers. 

A1-9 Based on confirmation from the BLM, Sec

note that the BLM has indicated that it plavehicle closure to protect the Peirson’s mifuture. 

A1-10 Section 4.2.3 has been revised to delete t

of the CRWQCB. See also the response 

A1-5 A1-6 A1-7 A1-8 A1-9 

A1-10 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-193

Applicant 

A1-11 Section 4.2.3 has been revised to reflect t

consultation with the BLM in which the BLregarding compaction levels in native dese

and potential compaction along the B-Line

A1-12 The recommendation in Section 4.3.3.3 re

Directional Drill Plan (HDD Plan) has been HDD Plan shall be filed with the FERC anapproval before commencement of any ho

A1-13 The recommendation in Section 4.3.4 of th

revised from the recommendation that waEIS/EIR, requires North Baja to file with thand approval before construction a revised that specifies the sources of water that woanticipated quantities of water that would bwould be implemented to prevent fish and control water withdrawals. Because much land, it is appropriate for North Baja to firsapproval as North Baja has stated. Sectioincludes a recommendation that North BajCSLC for review and approval before consDust Control Plan that specifies additional measures that would be implemented to pconfusing to construction and inspection pProject-wide Dust Control Plan for the Prorecommendations in Section 4 associated Dust Control Plan (combined into one recothe final EIS/EIR) require that the revised construction (i.e., before construction of an

also the response to comment LA8-7. 

A1-14 Section 4.5.5 has been revised to reflect t

consultation with the BLM in which the BLmeasures contained in North Baja’s CM&R 

A1-12 A1-11 A1-13 A1-14 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-194

Applicant 

A1-15 See the response to comment A1-14. A1-16 The recommendation in Section 4.6.2.3 ha

Preclearing Plans would be required to be A and Phase II construction activities. Baproposed construction schedule for these some construction would occur in native dmigratory bird breeding season. If that is construction, North Baja may address whenecessary in its Implementation Plan (see measure number 7 in Section 5.6 of the fin

A1-17 The recommendation in Section 4.7.3 that 

stringing trucks to 10 miles per hour within tortoise density between MPs 48.0 and 68because North Baja has not committed to “sweeps” of the construction right-of-way fahead of the arrival of stringing trucks in thdensity, the FERC, the CSLC, and the BLthe speed of stringing trucks to 10 miles p68.0 would provide a greater level of proteis not an arbitrarily imposed measure. Rafrom the FERC/BLM/CSLC Compliance Mconstruction of the A-Line about the excestraveling along the right-of-way. The BO iincluded more stringent biological monitortortoise than are included in the BO for the there would be less biological monitoring oarrival of the stringing trucks, and the speeidentified well in advance of construction (schedule and incorporated into the constrmeasure has been retained in the final EIS

A1-18 Follow-up consultation with the FWS has c

requirement to erect an abatement wall woconcurrence with the FERC’s determinatiowillow flycatcher. Accordingly, the recommrequiring an abatement wall has been elim

A1-19 As discussed in Section 4.7.1, a project’s 

considered significant if the project would designated critical habitat. Even with mitigcritical habitat falls under this criterion. Acon the desert tortoise and desert tortoise cconsidered significant according to the sigthis Project under the CEQA, regardless ooriginal North Baja Pipeline Project. 

A1-14 (cont’d) A1-15 A1-16 A1-17 A1-18 A1-19 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-195

Applicant 

A1-20 FWS guidance documents state that if any 

may occur as a result of a proposed projespecies is “likely to adversely affect.” In thvetch, the clearing of occupied habitat durwould result in direct impacts on the specirecolonize the area following construction measures agreed to by North Baja, existinThe EIS/EIR acknowledges that the speciconstruction area, but re-establishment domeasure needed to avoid adverse impacts

“nonetheless, the proposed Project would species, including crushing and cutting of Thus, although construction in locations aspecies may increase habitat suitability or for proliferation of the species, the likelihouncertain. The clearing and grading of areindividuals and populations of this species adverse impacts on existing populations.” discussion of how the proposed Project wand exceed the significance criteria estab

CEQA. The Agency Staffs’ conclusion remEIS/EIR. In a letter dated November 1, 20determination of effect. In the BO issued concluded that the proposed action is not 

existence of the Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

A1-21 Section 4.7.5.3 has been revised to includ

recommendation regarding surveys and mincluding North Baja’s commitment to cea200 feet of active nest cavities if disturban

fledged. Accordingly, the recommendatio

A1-19 (cont’d) A1-20 A1-21 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-196

Applicant 

A1-22 Section 4.7.6.13 has been revised to clarif

the Project are not expected to reduce the loss of individuals would still result in a redTherefore, impacts on the flat-tailed hornesignificant according to the significance crunder the CEQA. 

A1-23 As North Baja states, it is reasonable to ex

for finalizing consultation would support exunless substantive changes in listing statuinclusion of “previous consultation” in the rwould ensure that North Baja considers coon all comments previously provided by asuch a requirement would necessarily alloto reconsider previous consultations. Acchas been retained in its entirety in the fina

A1-24 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to indica

an agreement with the developer of the prResidential Community. 

A1-22 A1-23 A1-24 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-197

Applicant 

A1-25 Section 4.8.5 has been revised to clarify th

proposed only where it has been determineffective in discouraging OHV use. 

A1-26 Section 4.10.2 has been revised to correc

Management Plan. 

A1-27 Section 4.11.3 has been updated with the 

consultations with the CSLC, the BLM, the Historic Preservation Office. 

A1-28 Section 4.11.3 has been updated with the 

comments on the cultural resources surve

A1-29 Section 4.11.3 has been revised to incorpA1-30 The text in Section 4.14.2 of the draft EIS/

between mainline valves within the variouvalve every 20 miles in Class 1 locations, locations, every 8 miles in Class 3 locationlocations). Accordingly, no change has be

A1-31 Because the proposed Project would resu

species that would be considered significacriteria established for the Project under thin cumulative impacts on sensitive species future projects in the vicinity of the proposimpact sensitive species. See also the res20, and A1-22. 

A1-24 (cont’d) A1-25 A1-26 A1-29 A1-28 A1-27 A1-31 A1-30 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-198

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-199

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-200

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-201

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-202

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-203

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-204

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-205

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-206

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-207

Applicant 

A2-1 North Baja’s reply comments to comments 

by the SCAQMD, the ICAPCD, and the Bocomment letters LA16, LA8, and CO6, reshas been revised to indicate that the delivtransported by the proposed Project would to El Paso Natural Gas Company and that fall within the path. The exception is the dwhich is shown in Table 1.1-1 as Ogilby MGenerating Station. Other points raised in been taken into consideration in the analy

A2-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-208

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-209

Applicant 

A2-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-210

Applicant 

A2-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-211

Applicant 

A2-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-212

Applicant 

A2-1 (cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
6-213

Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS/EIR AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN 

AMENDMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS/EIR AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, CO 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, DC 

 Director of Cultural Resources 

 Office of Federal Agency Programs 

 Laura Henley Dean 

 Don L. Klima, Director 

Army Corps of Engineers, AZ 

 Arizona Section 

 Marjorie Blaine 

Army Corps of Engineers, CA 

 Los Angeles District 

 Deanna Cummings 

 Crystal Marquez 

 Dan Swenson 

Army Corps of Engineers, DC 

 Headquarters 

 Chief, Regulatory Branch 

 Office of the Chief of Army Engineers 

Council on Environmental Quality, DC 

 Dina Bear, General Counsel 

 Horst Greczmiel 

Department of Agriculture, DC 

 Forest Service 

 Deputy Chief, National Forest System 

 Director of Lands 

 Ecosystem Management Coordination 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

 National Environmental Coordinator 

 Office of Finance and Management 

Department of Commerce, DC 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

 Office of the Secretary 

 Sloan Rappoport, Senior Policy Advisor 

Department of Commerce, MD 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

 Karen Abrams, Marine Resource Habitat Specialist, Office of Habitat Protection 

Department of Defense, CA 

 Navy 

 JOC Bob Haagenson 

 John D. White 

 Captain Paul Ziegler, Commanding Officer 

Department of Defense, DC 

 Philip Grone 

 Sonny White 

 Navy 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Federal Agencies (cont’d)

A-2 

 Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Tribal and Regulatory Affairs 

 Chip Smith, Assistant for Environment 

Department of Defense, VA 

 Paul Mason, ACSIM 

 Air Force 

Department of Energy, AZ 

 Western Power Administration 

 Carla Cristelli 

Department of Energy, DC 

 Robert Corbin, Manager, Natural Gas Regulatory Activities 

 Harvey Harmon, Director for Import/Export Activities 

 Office of Environmental Compliance 

 Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

 Steve Lerner 

Department of Health and Human Services, GA 

 Centers for Disease Control 

Department of Homeland Security, CA 

 Border Patrol 

 Rick Lopez 

 Carl McClafferty 

Department of Homeland Security, DC 

 Coast Guard 

 Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant 

 Captain David Scott 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, DC 

 Director of Environment 

Department of Justice, CA 

 Drug Enforcement Administration 

Department of Justice, DC 

 Land and Natural Resources Division 

Department of Labor, DC 

 Office of Regulatory Economics 

Department of State, DC 

 Office of Environment/Health 

Department of the Air Force, DC 

 Environment, Safety and Occupational health 

 Office of the Deputy Secretary 

Department of the Interior, AZ 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Yuma Agency 

 William Pyott 

 Bureau of Land Management 

 Sandra Arnold, Archaeologist, Yuma Field Office (YFO) 

 Stephen Fusilier, Lead Realty Specialist, YFO 

 Rebecca Heick, Field Manager, YFO 

Bureau of Reclamation 

 Jim Cherry, Area Manager 

 John English, Engineering 

 Peggy Haren 

 Cynthia Hoeft, Director 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Federal Agencies (cont’d)

A-3 

 Kim Garvey, NEPA Coordinator 

 Russ Reichelt, Project Manager 

 Rick Strahan 

 Rex Wahl, Environmental Planning and Compliance 

 Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Lesley Fitzpatrick 

 Bill Seese 

 Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor 

Department of the Interior, CA 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 Melanie M. Daniel 

 Virgil Townsend 

 Bureau of Land Management 

 Gail Acheson, Field Manager, Palm Springs South-Coast Field Office (PSSCFO) 

 John Dalton, Planning/NEPA Coordinator, California Desert District (CDD) 

 Erin Dreyfus, Natural Resource Specialist, El Centro Field Office (ECFO) 

 J. Anthony Danna, Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, California State Office 

(CSO) 

 Jim Foote, Outdoor Recreation Planner, PSSCFO 

 Diane Gomez, Realty Specialist, PSSCFO 

 Neil Hamada, Dunes Manager, ECFO 

 John Kalish, Associate Field Manager, PSSCFO 

 Lynda Kastoll, Realty Specialist, ECFO 

 Larry LaPre, Wildlife Biologist, CDD 

 Duane Marti, Realty Specialist, CSO 

 Jack Mills, NEPA Specialist, CSO 

 Rolla Queen, District Archaeologist, CDD 

 Wanda Raschkow, Archaeologist, PSSCFO 

 Linda Self, Reality Specialist, ECFO 

 Al Stein, ADM, Lands, Minerals, and Renewable Resources, CDD 

 Daniel Steward, Wildlife Biologist, ECFO 

 Vicki Wood, Field Manager, ECFO 

 Tom Zale, Resource Staff Supervisor, ECFO 

 Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Jon Avery 

 Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor 

 Tyler Grant 

 Sylvia Pelizza, Refuge Manager 

 Kurt Roblek 

 Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

 Patricia Sanderson Port, Regional Environmental Officer 

Department of the Interior, DC 

 Minerals Management Service 

 Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director 

 Patricia E. Morrison, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

 National Park Service 

 Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

 Willie Taylor, Director 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Federal Agencies (cont’d)

A-4 

Department of the Interior, NM 

 Fish and Wildlife Service 

 David Siegel 

Department of the Interior, NV 

 Bureau of Reclamation 

 Pat Hicks, Regional Archaeologist 

 Joe Liebhauser 

 Deanna J. Miller, Director 

 Laurie Perry 

Department of Transportation, CO 

 Office of Pipeline Safety 

 Kimbra Davis 

Department of Transportation, DC 

 Environmental Policies 

 Camille Mittelholtz 

 Office of Pipeline Safety 

 Alex Dankanich 

 Tom Fortner 

 William H. Gute, Director, E. Region 

 Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

 Samuel G. Bonasso, P.E., Deputy Administrator 

 Stacy Gerard, Associate Administrator 

 Kimberly Hughes, Executive Secretary 

 James K. O’Steen, Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 

 Office of the Secretary 

 Martin T. Whitmer, Jr., Asst. to the Secy. for Policy 

Department of Transportation, GA 

 Office of Pipeline Safety 

 Mike Schwarzkopf 

Department of Transportation, MO 

 Office of Pipeline Safety 

 Karen Butler 

 Harold Winnie 

Department of Transportation, TX 

 Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

 Houston Office 

Earl Lewter, Depository Library, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 

Environmental Protection Agency, CA 

 Region 9 

 Paula Bisson, Manager, Communities and Ecosystems 

 Nova Blazej, Manager 

 Ann McPherson 

 David P. Schmidt 

Environmental Protection Agency, DC 

 Office of Federal Activities 

 Director 

 Joseph Montgomery – Director, NEPA Compliance Division 

 Cliff Rader, NEPA Compliance Division 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Federal Agencies (cont’d)

A-5 

International Boundary Water Commission, TX 

 Carlos Marin 

 Elizabeth Verdecchia 

Interstate Commerce Commission, DC 

 Chief Energy and Environment 

Library of Congress, DC 

 Joe Mahar 

U.S. Senate, DC 

 Committee on Energy and Natural Gas 

Federal Representatives and Senators

Arizona

Representative Raúl M. Grijalva 

Senator Jon Kyl 

Senator John McCain 

California

Representative Mary Bono 

Representative Bob Filner 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

State Representatives and Senators

Arizona

Representative Amanda Aguirre 

Representative Russell L. Jones 

Senator Robert Cannell 

California

Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia 

Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny 

Native American Tribes

Raphael Bear, President, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, AZ 

Louise Benson, Chairwoman, Hualapai Tribe, AZ 

Elda Butler, Director, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, AhaMaKav Cultural Society, AZ 

Lorey Cachora, Cultural Committee, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, AZ 

Sherry Cordova, Chairwoman, Cocopah Tribe, AZ 

Betty Cornelius, Cultural Contact, Colorado River Reservation, AZ 

Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes, AZ 

Terry O. Enos, Chairman, Ak-Chin Indian Community, AZ 

Earl Hawes, Quechan Indian Tribe, AZ 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Native American Tribes (cont’d)

A-6 

Mike Jackson, Sr., President, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation-Quechan Tribe, AZ 

Vivian Juan-Saunders, Chairwoman, Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ 

Linda Mahone, Chairwoman, Havasupai Tribe, AZ 

Richard Narcia, Governor, Gila River Indian Community, AZ 

Bridget Nash-Chrabascz, Historic Preservation Officer, Quechan Indian Tribe, AZ 

Joni Ramos, President, Salt River Pima - Maricopa Indian Community, AZ 

Wayne Taylor, Jr., Chairman, Hopi Tribe, AZ 

Bill Anderson, Environmental Manager, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Mary Ann Andreas, Chairperson, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Anthony J. Andreas, Jr., CA 

Christina Arzate, Spokesperson, Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Steve Banegas, Spokesman, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee, CA 

Richard Begay, THPO Director, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, CA 

Joseph R. Benitez (Mike), CA 

Greg Cervantes, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Ron Christman, Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee, CA 

William J. Contreras, Cultural Resources Coordinator, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, CA 

Courtney A. Coyle, Attorney at Law, Held Palmer House, CA 

H. Paul Cuero, Jr., Chairperson, Campo Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Paul Cuero, Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage Preservation, CA 

Thomas J. Davis, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, CA 

Leroy Elliot, Manzanita Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Attn: EPA Director, Manzanita Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Attn: EPA Specialist, Campo Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Alfredo E. Figueroa, CA 

Michael Garcia, EPA Director, Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office, CA 

Mary Ann Green, Chairperson, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, CA 

Joseph Hamilton, Vice Chairman, Ramona Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Manuel Hamilton, Chairperson, Ramona Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Terry Hughes, Tribal Administrator, Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians, CA 

John James, Chairperson, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Karin Kupcha, Tribal Administrator, Augustine Band of Mission Indians and Ramona Band of Mission 

Indians, CA 

Clifford LaChappa, Chairperson, Barona Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, CA 

Anthony Largo, Environmental Coordinator, Ramona Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Carmen Lucas, Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Anthony Madrigal, Jr., Chairperson, Cahuilla Band of Indians, CA 

Malki Museum, Morongo Indian Reservation, CA 

Nora McDowell, Chairwoman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, CA 

Will Micklin, Executive Director, Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office, CA 

Dean Mike, Chairperson, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Richard Milanovich, Chairperson, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, CA 

Ernest Morreo, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, CA 

Susan Pantell, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Reservation, CA 

Gwendolyn Parada, La Posta Indian Reservation, CA 

Anthony Pico, Chairperson, Viejas Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, CA 

Harlan Pinto, Sr., Chairperson, Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office, CA 

Alberto Ramierz, Environmental Coordinator, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, CA 

James Robertson, Cultural Resources Coordinator, Ewiiaapaayp EPA Office, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Native American Tribes (cont’d)

A-7 

Charlene Ryan, Cultural Program Director, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, CA 

Robert J. Salgado Sr., Chairperson, Soboba Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Katherine Saubel, Spokesperson, Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Wilson T. Thibodeaux, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Raymond Torres, Chairperson, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, CA 

Daniel Tucker, Chairperson, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, CA 

Britt W. Wilson, Cultural Resources Coordinator, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, CA 

Charles Wood, Acting Chairperson, Chemehuevi Reservation, CA 

State Agencies

Arizona

Governor Janet Z. Napolitano

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

 Air Quality Division 

 Dave Biddle 

 Ira M. Domsky, Deputy Director 

Arizona Historical Society

Arizona State Land Department

Jim Gross, Rights-of-Way Administrator

Arizona State Parks

Public Archaeology Programs

Ann Valdo Howard, Manager/Archaeologist, State Historic Preservation Office

Department of Public Safety

Curt Knight

International Boundary Water Commission

 Al Goff, Project Manager 

California

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 

California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency

The Honorable Sunne Wright McPeak

California Chamber of Commerce

Allan Zaremberg, President and Chief Executive Officer

California Department of Fish and Game

Joe Brana

Arturo Delgado, Staff Biologist

Chris Hayes, Blythe Area Field Manager

Gerry P. Mulcahy

Canh Nguyen, Environmental Scientist

California Department of Transportation

Will Kempton, Director 

 Patricia Marrufo, Development Review Branch, District 11 Planning Division 

 Mario H. Orso, Development Review Branch, District 11 Planning Division 

 Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director (Riverside County) 

 Michael Perovich, District 8 Director (Imperial County)

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

State Agencies (cont’d)

A-8 

California Electricity Oversight Board

Ken Glick, Staff Counsel

California Energy Commission

Steve Larson, Executive Director

Terrence O'Brien, Deputy Director

California Public Utilities Commission

Wesley M. Franklin, Executive Director

California State Lands Commission

Chandra Basavalinganadoddi, Senior Engineer

Thomas Filler, Staff Environmental Scientist

Jim Porter, Public Land Management Specialist 

 Dwight Sanders, Division Chief

Centinela State Prison

Juan A. Nessi

Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board

Jose Angel, Assistant Division Chief 

 Liann Chavez, Senior Engineering Geologist 

 John Carmona, Supervisor

Robert Perdue, Executive Officer

Colorado River Board and California 

 Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director 

Department of Conservation

Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

Department of Fish and Game

Department of Parks and Recreation

Office of Historic Preservation

Wayne Donaldson, State Historic Preservation Officer

Michael D. McGuirt, Associate State Archaeologist

Governor's Office of California - Mexico Affairs

Kristen Miller Aliotti, Director

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District

Ellen DeJarnette, Executive Assistant 

 Eldon Heaston, Executive Director

Native American Heritage Commission

Carol Gaubatz

Dave Singleton, Program Analyst

Picacho State Recreation Area

Robin Greene

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

 David D’Alessandro, Esq., Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 

 Michael R. Harris, Esq. 

 Deborah Keeth, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, San Francisco, CA 

 Harvey L. Reiter, Esq., Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 

 Daniel P. Selmi, Esq. 

 Kurt R. Wiese, Esq. 

State Board of Food and Agriculture

Louise K. Willey

State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 

 Terry Roberts, Director 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

State Agencies (cont’d)

A-9 

State Water Resources Control Board

Celeste Cantu, Executive Director

Tom Howard, Chief Deputy Director 

 Beth Jines, Chief Deputy Director

County Agencies

Arizona

La Paz County 

 Sheriff Hal Collett, La Paz County Sheriff's Office 

 The Honorable Cliff Edey, Supervisor, La Paz County 

 La Paz County Board of Supervisors 

 La Paz County, Public Works 

 Pat Wall, Community Development Director (Acting), La Paz County 

Yuma County 

 Casey Prochaska, Chairman of the Board 

 Ken Rosevear, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce 

California

Imperial County 

 Steve Birdsall, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 

 William Burnet, Director of Public Works, Imperial County Public Works Department 

 Robertta Burns, County Executive Officer, Imperial County 

 Administrative Office, Imperial County 

 Victor Carrillo, Imperial County Board of Supervisors 

 Harold Carter, Imperial County Sheriff 

 Darrell Gardner, Imperial County Planning 

 Larry Grogan, Imperial County Board of Supervisors, District 2 

 Cliff Gruenberg, Agricultural Commissioners Office 

 Bob Ham, Executive Director, I.V. Association of Governments, Imperial County 

 Jurg Heuberger, Director, I.C. Planning & Development Department, Imperial County 

 Imperial County Fish and Game Commission 

 Imperial County Historical Society 

 Wally Leimgruber, Imperial County Board of Supervisors, District 5 

 Rosa C. Lopez, Imperial Valley Association of Governments 

 Joe Maruca, Imperial County Board of Supervisors, District 3 

 Mark McNay, Imperial County Sheriff’s Office 

 Jim Monk, Imperial County Planning 

 Brad Poiriez, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 

 Nicole M. Rottfleisch, Executive Director, Imperial County Farm Bureau 

 Gary Wyatt, Imperial County Board of Supervisors, District 4 

 Joanne Yeager, Imperial County 

Kern County 

 Marilyn J. Beardslee, Kern County Council of Governments 

Riverside County 

 Karin L. Bazan, Riverside County 

 Board of Supervisors, Riverside County 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

County Agencies (cont’d)

A-10 

 Building and Safety Department, Riverside County 

 Tony Carstens, Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency 

 Sheriff Bob Doyle, Riverside County Sheriff's Department, Administration 

 Fire Department, Headquarters, Riverside County 

 John Guerin, Planner, Riverside County 

 Riverside County Planning Department, Planning Director 

 Riverside County Historical Commission 

 Riverside County Planning Commission 

 Roger S. Streeter, County of Riverside 

 The Honorable Roy Wilson, Supervisor, Riverside County 

San Bernardino County 

 Board of Supervisors, San Bernardino County 

Various County 

 Randy Gray, Imperial Irrigation District, Real Estate Section 

 Roger Henning, Palo Verde Irrigation District 

 Imperial Irrigation District 

 Imperial Valley Association of Governments 

 Jim Kelley, Imperial Irrigation District, Real Estate Section 

 Steve L. Nagle, Coachella Valley Association of Governments 

 Ed Smith, General Manager, Palo Verde Irrigation District 

 Minh C. Tran 

City and Town Agencies

Arizona

Larry Covel, Board Chairman, Ehrenberg Fire Department, Ehrenberg, AZ 

Ehrenberg Chamber of Commerce, Ehrenberg, AZ 

Ehrenberg Water Company, Ehrenberg, AZ 

Tadeo A. Garcia, Administrative Specialist, City of Yuma, Yuma, AZ 

California

Anza Valley Chamber of Commerce, Anza, CA 

Chad Aaby, City of Blythe, Blythe, CA 

Blythe Development Services Department, Development Services Director, Blythe, CA 

City of Blythe, c/o Bill Brunet, City Engineer, Blythe, CA 

Barbara Burrow, Blythe, CA 

Robert Casias, City of Blythe, Development Services Dept., Blythe, CA 

The Honorable Robert Crain, Mayor, City of Blythe, Blythe, CA 

Charles "Butch" Hull, City of Blythe, Blythe, CA 

Jim Shipley, Chief Operating Officer, Blythe Area Chamber of Commerce, Blythe, CA 

Jennifer Wellman, Plannng Director, City of Blythe, Blythe, CA 

Toni C. Carrillo, Mayor, City of Brawley, Brawley, CA 

Sue Giller, President, Brawley Chamber of Commerce, Brawley, CA 

Nicole Gilles, Brawley Chamber of Commerce, Brawley, CA 

Oscar G. Rodriquez, City Manager, City of Brawley, Brawley, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

City and Town Agencies (cont’d)

A-11 

Marlene Best, City Manager, City of Calexico, Calexico, CA 

Hildy Carrillo-Rivera, Executive Director, Calexico Chamber of Commerce, Calexico, CA 

The Honorable Alex Perrone, Mayor, City of Calexico, Calexico, CA 

Patti K. Drusky, Cathedral City Chamber of Commerce, Cathedral City, CA 

Coachella Chamber of Commerce, Coachella, CA 

Tom Levy, General Manager-Chief Engineer, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella, CA 

Commission, El Centro, CA 

Ruben Duran, City Manager, City of El Centro, El Centro, CA 

Jim Gay, City of El Centro Planning Department, El Centro, CA 

Dennis H. Morita, President, El Centro Chamber of Commerce, El Centro, CA 

Norma Villicana, City of El Centro Planning Department, El Centro, CA 

Sedalia Sanders, Mayor, City of El Centro, El Centro, CA 

Ken Mishino, Mayor, City of Hemet, Hemet, CA 

Jerry M. Brittsan, Mayor, City of Holtville, Holtville, CA 

Chief, City of Holtville Police Department, Holtville, CA 

Steve Hogan, City Manager, City of Holtville, Holtville, CA 

Manuel Nunez, President, Holtville Chamber of Commerce, Holtville, CA 

Debra Jackson, City Clerk, City of Imperial, Imperial, CA 

City of Indian Wells, Indian Wells, CA 

Currie D. Kates, City of Indian Wells, Indian Wells, CA 

Jon Carlson, Riverside County Sheriff, Indio, CA 

Indio Chamber of Commerce, Indio, CA 

Indio Planning Department, Indio, CA 

Gary H. Werner, City of Indio, Indio, CA 

Laura J. Simonek, Manager, Environmental Planning Team, Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California, Los Angeles, CA 

Robert W. Morin, City of Moreno Valley, Moreno Valley, CA 

Jean Benson, Mayor, Palm Desert City Hall, Palm Desert, CA 

David Aaker, Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce, Palm Springs, CA 

Alan Denefeld, City of Palm Springs, Palm Springs, CA 

Doug R. Evans, City of Palm Springs, Palm Springs, CA 

Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce, Palm Springs, CA 

Ron Eggertsen, City of Rancho Mirage, Rancho Mirage, CA 

Jeanne Parrish, City of Rancho Mirage, Rancho Mirage, CA 

Ronald O. Loveridge, City of Riverside, Riverside, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

City and Town Agencies (cont’d)

A-12 

West Shores Chamber of Commerce, Salton City, CA 

Jarrell Brown, Sr., Fire Chief, Winterhaven Volunteer Fire Protection District, Winterhaven, CA 

Libraries

Yuma County Library District, Yuma, AZ 

Palo Verde Valley Library, Blythe, CA 

El Centro Public Library, El Centro, CA 

Hemet Public Library, Hemet, CA 

Holtville City Library, Holtville, CA 

Imperial Public Library, Imperial, CA 

City of Rancho Mirage Public Library, Rancho Mirage, CA 

Glen Avon Library, Riverside, CA 

Palo Verde District Library, Rollins Hills Estates, CA 

Media

Bajo El Sol, Yuma, AZ 

KECY-TV, Yuma, AZ 

KSWT - TV 13, Yuma, AZ 

KYMA - News Channel 11, Yuma, AZ 

Yuma Daily Sun, Yuma, AZ 

Palo Verde Valley Times, Blythe, CA 

Arturo Boronquez, Imperial Valley Press, El Centro, CA 

Imperial Valley Press, El Centro, CA 

Ruby Yniguez, Imperial Valley Press, El Centro, CA 

Intervenors

Diane McVicker, Senior Principal Analyst, Salt River Project, Scottsdale, AZ 

David C. Nowell, Nowell Investment Company, Glendale, AZ 

Mayan Tahan, Salt River Project Agricultural Imp. and P.D, Tempe, AZ 

Maurice Lyons, Chairperson, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Banning, CA 

Melissa Schlichting, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Karshmer & Associates, Berkely, CA 

Stephen V. Quesenberry, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Karshmer & Associates, Berkely, CA 

Jonathon Bromson, Counsel, California Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, CA 

John R. Ellis, Sempra Energy, Los Angeles, CA 

Kim M Kiener, Imperial, CA 

Kerry C. Klein, Attorney, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA 

Frank R. Lindh, Attorney, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA 

Norman A. Pedersen, Attorney, Hanna and Morton LLP, Los Angeles, CA 

Douglas Kent Porter, Senior Counsel, Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA 

Bill Rapp, Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, CA 

William D. Rapp, Senior Counsel, Sempra Energy, San Diego, CA 

Sabrina Teller, Attorney, Remy, Tomas and Moose, LLP, Sacramento, CA 

Larry Bautista, El Paso Pipeline Group, Colorado Springs, CO 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Intervenors (cont’d)

A-13 

Lee Alan Alexander, Hogan and Hartson L.L.P., Washington, DC 

Douglas M. Canter, Attorney, McCarthy, Sweeney and Harkaway, P.C., District of Columbia, DC 

Stuart Caplan, White and Case LLP, Washington, DC 

Melanie Devoe, Associate, Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, DC 

Joel L. Greene, Jennings, Strouss and Salmon, Washington, DC 

Charles H. Shoneman, Partner, Bracewell and Giuliani LLP, Washington, DC 

Deborah A. Swanstrom, Partner/Attorney, Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, DC 

Sarah E. Tomalty, Senior Attorney, FPL Energy, LLC, Washington, DC 

Myra W. McAbee, Senior Attorney, FPL Group Resources, LLC, Juno Beach, FL 

Edward C. McMurtrie, Southwest Gas Corporation, Las Vegas, NV 

Carl M. Fink, Assistant General Counsel, North Baja Pipeline, LLC, Portland, OR 

Henry P. Morse, General Manager, North Baja Pipeline, LLC, Portland, OR 

Donna Bailey, Managing Counsel, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Houston, TX 

Bruce Alan Connell, Director Regulatory Affairs, ConocoPhillips Company, Houston, TX 

Stephanie D. Jones, Sr. Analyst, ConocoPhillips Company, Houston, TX 

Frederick T. Kolb, BP Energy Company, Houston, TX 

J. Jeannie Myers, Senior Counsel, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Houston, TX 

Chris Sorensen, Director Business Development, Houston, TX 

Steve P. Tarpey, BP America Production Company, Houston, TX 

Katherine B. Edwards, Edwards and Associates, Alexandria, VA 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners

Carey Johannesson, Comsult Inc., Calgary, AB, Canada 

Floyd A. Davis, Linda L. Davis, Springdale, AR 

R. Nilson, K. Nilson, and R. Nilson, Casa Grande, AZ 

Walter Nilson and Karen N. Schroeder, Casa Grande, AZ 

CBI Prop, c/o Manuel Cavazos, Ehrenberg, AZ 

Steven Whisennand, Ehrenberg, AZ 

Ronald J. Sutter, Trustee, c/o Nilson-New Children's Trust, Flagstaff, AZ 

Lakota Resources, Gilbert, AZ 

L.R. Layton and Assoc., Gilbert, AZ 

Roberta V. Bevins, Trustee, Glendale, AZ 

Joeann Morton, Nowell Inv, Levee Block Ltd Partnership, c/o David Nowell, Glendale, AZ 

David C. Nowell, Betty A. Nowell, Glendale, AZ 

David C. Nowell, Lee Nowell, Glendale, AZ 

Jack Seiler, Jack Seiler Farms, An Arizona General Partnership, Lake Hazasu City, AZ 

John and Mary Lou Smith, Maricopa, AZ 

Greg Gorman, American Sand Association, Mesa, AZ 

N. H. Killian Farms, c/o Mark and Nancy Killian, Mesa, AZ 

LDS Church, Desert Grain Storage, c/o Chris Wagner, Mesa, AZ 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-14 

Arizona-California Railroad, c/o Wayne Gilman, Parker, AZ 

Albert Rovey, Rovey Land and Cattle Co., Parker, AZ 

Desert Cotton Distributing, Roger Murphey, Peoria, AZ 

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Phoenix, AZ 

Dovie L. Bevins and Ray Gerald, Co-Trustees, Phoenix, AZ 

Bool Properties, LP, Phoenix, AZ 

Roberta A. Bright, Phoenix, AZ 

El Paso Natural Gas Company, c/o Bob Brooks, Phoenix, AZ 

Joe Maggio Family Limited Partnership, Phoenix, AZ 

Jerry Seaver, American Sand Association, Phoenix, AZ 

WAPA, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Phoenix, AZ 

Carl E. and Patricia J. Weiler, Trustees, Phoenix, AZ 

Quartzsite Historical Society, Quartzsite, AZ 

TDS Cable, Harley Lemons, Supervisor, Quartzsite, AZ 

Lakota Resources, c/o Robert Layton, Queen Creek, AZ 

Joe Maggio Family Limited Partnership, Scottsdale, AZ 

Milton P. Smith, Trustee, Scottsdale, AZ 

Peter Galvan, Desert Ecologist, Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ 

Joy Leanne Johnson, Tucson, AZ 

Cullison Family Limited Partnership, Jerry Cullison, Wellton, AZ 

Chris Camancho, President/CEO, Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation, Yuma, AZ 

Ken Edwards, Manager, Yuma, AZ 

I.B.W.C., Al Goff, Project Manager, Yuma, AZ 

Cary Meister, Yuma Audubon Society, Yuma, AZ 

Meyer Farms, LLC, Yuma, AZ 

Glenn Montgomery, Yuma Dunners, Yuma, AZ 

Ron Pierce, Range Management Department MCAS, Yuma, AZ 

Louis A. Audet, Lorraine Audet, Anaheim, CA 

Self Serve Auto Dismantlers, Anaheim, CA 

Scaroni Properties, Inc., c/o Linda Scaroni Rossi, Aptos, CA 

John Studer, Jr., et al., c/o Barbara Collins, Arroyo Grande, CA 

William D. Wilson, Atascadero, CA 

Ralph M. Black, Auburn, CA 

Jack Simonson, Banning, CA 

Elaine Anzick and Thomas John Newidouski, Blythe, CA 

Pratt Apiaries, Blythe, CA 

Lawrence and Edith Marie Augusta, Blythe, CA 

Clarence Banjamin Baker, Blythe, CA 

Kayian Enterpises, Barnes and Berger Farms, Blythe, CA 

Celeste Barnett, Blythe, CA 

Thomas S. Barnett, Blythe, CA 

Jerry Birdsong, Blythe, CA 

David B. Brown, Peggy Ann Brown, Stanley W. Stroschein, Eric W. Stroschein, Blythe, CA 

Gary A. Bryce, Barbara L. Bryce, Blythe, CA 

Gary Bryce, Rio Rancho 2000, LLC, Blythe, CA 

Rosalie Ann Campa, Christina Marie Gonzales, Raymond Milton Cox, Blythe, CA 

Bobby Carnes and Mary E. Gage, Blythe, CA 

Lawrence Chaffin, Chaffin Holdings, Inc., c/o Chaffin Farms, Blythe, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-15 

Chairel Custom Hay, c/o Jody Johns, Blythe, CA 

Gerald J. and Sonja E. Colcun, Blythe, CA 

Richard C. and Donna Cox, Blythe, CA 

Desert Security Farms, Blythe, CA 

Desert Mining Co., Blythe, CA 

Richard Dill, Blythe, CA 

Richard Dodson and Teresita Cube Mercado, Blythe, CA 

William R. Downs, Blythe, CA 

Anita Duenes, Blythe, CA 

Christina Duenes, Blythe, CA 

Floyd L. Dunagan Trust, c/o Donald Nelson, Trustee, Blythe, CA 

Christina Elizalde, Blythe, CA 

D & B Fisher, Blythe, CA 

Fisher Ranch, Bart Fisher, Fisher Family Properties, Blythe, CA 

Fisher Wireless Services, Blythe, CA 

William and Sara L. Fletcher, Blythe, CA 

Clinton H. Ford, Blythe, CA 

Rigo Garnica, Blythe, CA 

Gilbert Guilin, Blythe, CA 

Betty Gillett, Blythe, CA 

Gary Grisamer, Blythe, CA 

Chuck Grotke, Blythe, CA 

Tonia Grubbs, Blythe, CA 

Hanna Farms, Inc., Blythe, CA 

Orson P. Holt, Idawna W. Holt, Blythe, CA 

The Holt Group, c/o Rob Holt, Blythe, CA 

Joel W. Hudson, President, Blythe Search, Rescue and Assist, Blythe, CA 

Danny Hughes, Blythe, CA 

Mike Jimenez, Blythe, CA 

Carl Jones, c/o Eddie Love, Blythe, CA 

Kayian Enterprises, Blythe, CA 

Kingfisher Corporation, Bart Fisher, Blythe, CA 

Don Lange, Blythe, CA 

LDS Church, Desert Grain Storage, c/o Steven Vickery, Blythe, CA 

Augustus Love, Blythe, CA 

Calvin and Sylvia Love, Blythe, CA 

Eddie Beatrice Love, Blythe, CA 

Jesus Luna, Armando Cortez, Celedonio Luna, Miguel Cortez, Blythe, CA 

Floyd Marlowe, Blythe, CA 

Barbara Martin, Blythe, CA 

Dennis Melton, Cori Melton, Blythe, CA 

Manuel Milke and Jose Milke, Blythe, CA 

Steven Montgomery, Blythe, CA 

Albert L. Morgan, Doris E. Morgan, Blythe, CA 

Harold E. Morgan, Blythe, CA 

James P. Nelson, Blythe, CA 

Esther H. Nowland, Blythe, CA 

Occupant (nine mailing list entries), Blythe, CA 

P.V.I.D., Blythe, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-16 

Palo Verde Historical Museum Society, Blythe, CA 

Chas San Prop, Blythe, CA 

Randy Rausch, Blythe, CA 

Thomas Robinson, Blythe, CA 

Robinson Farms, Blythe, CA 

Leonard Rutledge Estate, c/o Preston Rutledge, Blythe, CA 

Savelle, Blythe, CA 

Louis Schindler, Schindler Brothers, Blythe, CA 

Aubrey M. Seale, Blythe, CA 

Shepwells, Inc., Blythe, CA 

Quinton Smith, Blythe, CA 

SoCal Gas Company, Local Office, Blythe, CA 

Southern California Edison, c/o David Ramirez, Blythe, CA 

Eric W. Stroschein, Blythe, CA 

Elton Thatcher, Blythe, CA 

Mark A. and Tina M. Todd, Blythe, CA 

Stephanie D. Todd, Blythe, CA 

Ulmer Farms, LLC, John Ulmer, Blythe, CA 

Joe Van Dyke, Priscilla Van Dyke, Blythe, CA 

Verizon, c/o Mike Firquain, Blythe, CA 

Stanley Wayne and Gloria J. Stroschein, Blythe, CA 

Donald Williams, Blythe, CA 

Jack Wilson, Glenda Wilson, Blythe, CA 

Wuertz Ranches Inc., Verne Wuertz, Blythe, CA 

Matthew Wylee, Blythe, CA 

John and Monica Wylie, Blythe, CA 

Betty Binggeli and Joseph Binggeli, et al., c/o Betty Binggeli, Brawley, CA 

John Heuenber, Brawley, CA 

Dennis P. Laybourn, Newmont Mining Corporation, Brawley, CA 

Marjetta Masserini, Trustee, Brawley, CA 

Thomas B. Rutherford, Desert Wildlife Unlimited, Brawley, CA 

Vincent J. Signorotti, Cal Energy Company Inc., Brawley, CA 

Stallard Family Trust, c/o Geraldine Stallard, Burbank, CA 

Joaquin Campos-Godinez and S.T. Tugadi, Calexico, CA 

Juana Lopez, Calexico, CA 

Javier Lopez-Quiroz, Executor, Calexico, CA 

Patricia Mendez-Leon, Calexico, CA 

Richard Parra and Joel Parra, Calexico, CA 

Robert Rubio, Calexico, CA 

Tony P. Tirado, Calexico, CA 

Joe Swain, Cathedral City, CA 

General Patton Memorial Museum, Chiriaco Summit, CA 

Williams Communications, Chula Vista, CA 

William Jongsma, Corona, CA 

James George, Corona, CA 

Carrie Downey, Horton Knox Carter and Foote (IID), Coronado, CA 

Leroy E. Edwards, Trustee, Coronado, CA 

Harry R. Gisler, Trustee, et al., c/o James J. Fuchs, Costa Mesa, CA 

Andres and Liliana Bustamante, Couvina, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-17 

Kiyoshi and Shizuko Murakawa, Co-Trustees, Cypress, CA 

Carolyn E. Connelly and Barbara A. Leffingwell, c/o Carolyne E. Connelly, Davis, CA 

Brad L. Hunter, Kirk B. Hunter, and B.E. Palmer, c/o Mrs. Edith Hunter, Davis Creek, CA 

Lester A. and Roseanne Bornt, et al., c/o Lester A. Bornt, Descanso, CA 

Larry and Donna Charpied, Desert Center, CA 

Richard Conti, Eagle Rock, CA 

Charles T. and Frances C. Ciraolo, Co-Trustees, El Cajon, CA 

Ben and Margaret L. Abatti, El Centro, CA 

Michael A. and Kerri Abatti, El Centro, CA 

Andrew and Peggy D. Andreotti, Trustees, El Centro, CA 

Larry M. Bratton and Wes Blakely, El Centro, CA 

James W. and Susan J. Brock, El Centro, CA 

Rigoberto and Ilda E. Cadena, El Centro, CA 

Gary D. Cartee, El Centro, CA 

Myron and Lyla Corfman, El Centro, CA 

Allen L. and Delma L. Cradic, El Centro, CA 

Archibald Mark Dessert and Mary Winifred, Trustees, El Centro, CA 

Doris L. Dungan, El Centro, CA 

Billy J. and Margie C. Eldred, El Centro, CA 

Elloramo Farms, c/o Judy Tagg, El Centro, CA 

Sergio Estrada, El Centro, CA 

Gary Garleb, Dion International Trucks, LLC, El Centro, CA 

Aida Gates, El Centro, CA 

J.B. Gonzalez and E.B Rodriguez and L.H.B., El Centro, CA 

Imperial County Public Works, c/o Bob Gray, El Centro, CA 

Felipe and Anne Irigoyen, c/o Felipe Irigoyen, El Centro, CA 

Adalberto and Carmen Juarez, El Centro, CA 

K & J Investments and Koyoko Sugiura, c/o Kyoko Sugiura, El Centro, CA 

KBKJ Holdings, LLC, c/o Mary Borchard, El Centro, CA 

Cathy Kennerson, El Centro, CA 

K & J Investments, Sugiura Kyoko, El Centro, CA 

Hank Kuiper, El Centro, CA 

Patricia Limon, El Centro, CA 

Jean Marsh, et al., El Centro, CA 

Sterling Mayes and Barbara Smith, El Centro, CA 

Alan G. McCalmont, El Centro, CA 

Maria del Socorro Mejia, El Centro, CA 

E.S. Menvielle, E.S. and L.L. Menvielle, El Centro, CA 

Joseph J. and Cynthia L. Menvielle, c/o Design Development and Eng, El Centro, CA 

Robert F. Menvielle, John P. Menvielle, and Ralph M. Menvielle, El Centro, CA 

Sharon Renee Menvielle, c/o Ralph Menvielle, El Centro, CA 

The Gas Company, Joe Montenegro, District Operations Manager, El Centro, CA 

Montecito Land, El Centro, CA 

Joel Ocampo, El Centro, CA 

A. Olekhnovitch, Fiore C. and C. Olekhnovitch, Trustees, El Centro, CA 

James Piper, El Centro, CA 

Joe Daniel and Altagracia C. Ramos, El Centro, CA 

Rautbort Enterprises, c/o Mark Rautbort, El Centro, CA 

Orville S. and Juanita E. Reed, El Centro, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-18 

Roy F. and Louise A. Richter, El Centro, CA 

E.B. Roberts and Eleanor R. Nance, Trustees, El Centro, CA 

Guadalupe and Nativadad Saucedo, El Centro, CA 

Arnold F. Schoeck, El Centro, CA 

Donald Ray and Kathy Lynn Seals, El Centro, CA 

Kevin D. and Lisa D. Seals, El Centro, CA 

Sam Sharp, El Centro, CA 

Barbara J. Smith, El Centro, CA 

Richard J. Strobel, El Centro, CA 

Jeep Swerdfeger, Imperial Valley Gem and Mineral Society, El Centro, CA 

Judy Tagg, 2006 President, Imperial Valley Board of Realtors, El Centro, CA 

Tony and Lillian Terribilini, Trustees, El Centro, CA 

Thomas Topuzes, El Centro, CA 

Lance Unverzagt, El Centro, CA 

E.A. Vedder, Trustee of E.A. Vedder Survivor Trust, et al., c/o Eleanor Vedder, El Centro, CA 

John J. Vessey and Darla Wyatt, Trustees, El Centro, CA 

Charles R. and Olivia G. Waegner, El Centro, CA 

Henry S. and Margaret B. Wasson, El Centro, CA 

R.J. and A.S. West, and J.L. and L.R. Mayo, El Centro, CA 

Monica Appel, Encinitas, CA 

Robson Smith, et al., c/o Frances Martin, Escondido, CA 

Delbert H. and Alice Valla, Co-Trustees, Escondido, CA 

Eugene and Marian Gabrych, Fallbrook, CA 

Fred Kruger, Fallbrook, CA 

George T. Scott Ranches, c/o Peggy Seay, Fallbrook, CA 

Peggy Seay, Fallbrook, CA 

Kayian Enterprises, Fresno, CA 

Kayian Trust, c/o James Kayian, Fresno, CA 

Glenn Santa Cruz, Local 230 Fitters, Gardena, CA 

S & A Souza Farms, Inc., c/o Donald S. Souza, Garden Grove, CA 

Rolando Berrera and Carl Salinas, Gilroy, CA 

A. Jeanne Williams, Boardmanville Trading Post, Glamis, CA 

A.C. Marion, Trustee, and J.R. Brimberry, Jr., et al., c/o A.C. Marion, Greneda, CA 

J. Knevelbaard and S and C Knevelbaard, Hanford, CA 

William A. Claverie and David A. Claverie, et al., Heber, CA 

John F. and Marscia Menvielle, Trustees, Heber, CA 

Katherine and Roy J. Bianchi, Holtville, CA 

Mark K. Bonesteel, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

Alan L. and Glen D. Bornt, Trustees, Holtville, CA 

Richard R. and Derlene S. Bringle, Holtville, CA 

Micaela Chell, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

Robert S. and Karmen A. Chell, Holtville, CA 

Frank Joseph and Phyllis Mae Claverie, Trustees, Holtville, CA 

M.R. and Melissa C. Claverie and M.D. Garewal, Holtville, CA 

Michael Denis and Rita Sue Claverie, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

Thomas O. Daniels, Jr. and Ann M. Daniels, Trustees, Holtville, CA 

P.R. Dhaliwal and Patricia D. Couch, Holtville, CA 

Burdette and Judy Lee Freire, Holtville, CA 

John O. Grizzle, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-19 

Esperanza G. Hartman, Holtville, CA 

B.E. Hawk, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

Harold Leslie and Louise Hawk, Holtville, CA 

Fritz T. and Lena A. Heuberger, Holtville, CA 

David Hilfiker and Richard Hilfiker, Holtville, CA 

Ellery Claude Holdridge, Holtville, CA 

Eugene H. Holdridge, et al., c/o Eugene Holdridge, Holtville, CA 

Michel M. and Connie M. Ihidoy, Holtville, CA 

Imperial Associates, Inc., Holtville, CA 

Norberto and Patricia Irungaray, Holtville, CA 

Vaughn and Rosalie C. Krikorian, Holtville, CA 

Ronald C. Leimgruber, Holtville, CA 

Walter James and Margoria Ann Leimgruber, Holtville, CA 

Lillieqvist Ranches, Ltd, c/o Laurene B. Johnson, Holtville, CA 

Nicholas and Athena Mainas, Trustees, c/o Mainas Farms, Holtville, CA 

Marguerite A. Martin, Holtville, CA 

Edward and Patricia McGrew, Holtville, CA 

James W. and Edith A. McLaughlin, Trustees, Holtville, CA 

Anastasia Miki, Holtville, CA 

Frank R. Miranda and Emily Claverie, Holtville, CA 

H.G. Morrison, Jr. and J.R. and M.A. Morrison, Holtville, CA 

Marie P. Muheim, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

Clem A. and Madeline Muller, Holtville, CA 

Charles E. and Louise Nilson, Trustees, Holtville, CA 

Henry A. and Barbara Nilson, Trustees, Holtville, CA 

W.D. Nilson, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

Joe L. and Roberta Ann Omlin, Trustees, Holtville, CA 

Michael J. and Susan K. Omlin, Holtville, CA 

Richard P. Pata, Holtville, CA 

Daniel Louis and Cynthia E. Poloni, Holtville, CA 

Bill Rapp, Holtville, CA 

Maria T. Rombaut, Trustee, c/o Magda Nemteanu, Holtville, CA 

Victor A. Rombout, Holtville, CA 

Robert W. Rubin, Sr. and Jean R. Rubin, Trustees, c/o Le Brown Gladys Parker, Holtville, CA 

Carol Ann Saikhon, LP, c/o Black Dog Farms, Holtville, CA 

Diane Saikhon, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

Jeffrey S. Saikhon, Trustee, c/o Black Dog Farms, Holtville, CA 

Yoshiya and Mary Sanbonmatsu and Bruce T. Sanbonmatsu, Holtville, CA 

Clifford H. and Jarene M. Schneider, Holtville, CA 

E.M. and D. and S. and C III and D. Schneider, Holtville, CA 

David and Donna Schoeneman, Holtville, CA 

E.F. and R.O. and C. and M.F. Strahm, c/o Ernest Strahm, Holtville, CA 

Ernest F. and Esther L. Strahm, c/o Michael F. Strahm, Holtville, CA 

Ernie Strahm and Sons, Inc., Holtville, CA 

R.L. and R. Strahm, Holtville, CA 

Ralph Strahm, Holtville, CA 

W.E. and R.E. and L.F. and R.W. Strahm, c/o Walter Strahm, Holtville, CA 

John F. and Jo Ann Taylor, Trustees, Holtville, CA 

Steve Terrill, Holtville, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-20 

Rick Turner, Holtville, CA 

Jewel S. Vencill, Trustee, Holtville, CA 

The Jack Edward Cornwell Estate, c/o James Carlson, Huntington Beach, CA 

The M. Jay Kramer Foundation, c/o Barnard B. Kaplan, Huntington Beach, CA 

Robert F. and Sylvia M. Aguirre, Imperial, CA 

Juanita Salas, Imperial, CA 

Harold D. and Enemirta Treadway, Imperial, CA 

Antonio Ventura, Imperial, CA 

Coachella Valley Historical Society, Inc., Indio, CA 

Crystal V. Deleon, Indio, CA 

Sherry Johnson, Indio Chamber of Commerce, Indio, CA 

Riverside County Transportation Department, c/o Dan Castillo, Indio, CA 

Fay Rawles, Trustee, King City, CA 

Jennie Kelly, La Quinta, CA 

Valerie Smith, La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, La Quinta, CA 

Fort Colin Succ, Trustee, c/o Chester E. Horton, Jr., Laguna Woods, CA 

P.E. Hawk, H.S. Hawk, and L.M. Hawk, Trustees, c/o Stan Hawk, Lemoore, CA 

Jesse E. and Donna C. Brown, Los Angeles, CA 

Margaret M. Chase, Vera H. McCarthy, Los Angeles, CA 

Jill Egerman, Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, CA 

Charles W. Hokanson, Los Angeles, CA 

Sylvia Patsaouras, Manager, Environmental Division, Southern California Association of Governments, 

Los Angeles, CA 

Doug Spahr, SoCal Gas, Los Angeles, CA 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, c/o Lynn Winkler P.L.S., Los Angeles, CA 

James Reddy, Omya California Inc., Lucerne Valley, CA 

Dov Grajcer, Aquafarms, Mecca, CA 

Jeff Jeffredo, Mecca, CA 

Isabella Burns, Monterey, CA 

Rick Gluck, Morongo Valley, CA 

Daniel R. Bennett, Norco, CA 

Gregory Ouellette, Western Pacific Mining Association, Norco, CA 

Robert G. Spangler, Norco, CA 

David E. Stapp, Norco, CA 

Richard E. Wright, Ricks Sand Buggy Repair and Parts, Norco, CA 

Richard E. and Lee Ann Corbaley, Trustees, North Fork, CA 

Tracy R. Myers, North Shore, CA 

Karen Collins, Imperial Valley College Desert Museum, Southeast Information Center, Ocotillo, CA 

Michael W. Cuff, Ocotillo, CA 

Edie and James Harmon, Ocotillo, CA 

Imperial Valley College Desert Museum and Society, Ocotillo, CA 

Maria L. Rivera, Ontario, CA 

Kinder Morgan, Energy Partners LP, Orange, CA 

California Turtle and Tortoise Club, Palm Desert, CA 

Richard A. Daniels, Eagle Mountain Landfill, Palm Desert, CA 

Robert Del Gagnon, Palm Desert, CA 

Susan E. Hanley, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, Palm Desert, CA 

David A. Heveron, The Living Desert, Palm Desert, CA 

Bonnie J. Jones, Palm Springs, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-21 

Kenneth Zachik, Palm Springs, CA 

Coco Palms Mobile Home Park, Donna Clinton, Palo Verde, CA 

Coco Palms Mobile Home Park, Jeanette Banks, Palo Verde, CA 

Bill and Lois Coram, Palo Verde, CA 

Frank Dokter, Walters Camp, Inc., Palo Verde, CA 

Fort Gaston Historical Museum, Palo Verde, CA 

Daniel R. Mueller, Mary E. Mueller, Palo Verde, CA 

Jack Seiler Farms, c/o Jack Seiler, Palo Verde, CA 

V.S. Chase, L.R. Chase, Virginia S. Chase, Laurence R. Chase, Pasadena, CA 

Charles Herach Papaz, Trustee, Pasadena, CA 

Michelle M. Cassella, District 37 Off Road, Perris, CA 

Dan's Feed and Seed, Inc., John R. Harrison, Perris, CA 

Lee Mee Farm, Inc., Perris, CA 

Orange Empire Railway Museum, Inc., Perris, CA 

AT&T Wireless PCS LLC, Rancho Cordova, CA 

Grant George, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 

Ronald I. Mendez, Paul Perez Mendoza, Thomas and Marsha Frame, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 

Manny Malenez, Redland, CA 

Neva Barmakian, Trustee, c/o Plastic Pilings, Inc., Rialto, CA 

James Bryant, Riverside Municipal Museum, Riverside, CA 

Robert Buster, Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Riverside, CA 

Michael J. Connor, Ph.D., Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee, Riverside, CA 

Ian Davidson, Riverside, CA 

Tony Felix, Riverside, CA 

Pioneer Historical Society of Riverside, Riverside, CA 

County of Riverside, Dept. of Building Services, Riverside, CA 

Riverside Co. Regional Park, Open Space Dist, c/o Department Building Services Real Property Division, 

Riverside, CA 

Historical Resources Management Program, University of California Riverside, History Department, 

Riverside, CA 

University of California Riverside, Department of Anthropology, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, 

CA 

Southern California Edison Company, Case Administration, Rosemead, CA 

Country Life Mhprv Asset Partners LP, c/o McKay Florence Investments, Roseville, CA 

Jim Bramham, Sacramento, CA 

Ralph Cordova, Jr., Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, LLP, Sacramento, CA 

State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA 

Sabrina Teller, Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, LLP, Sacramento, CA 

JoAnn Yaeger, Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, LLP, Sacramento, CA 

Benson Todd, et al., c/o Benson Todd, Salinas, CA 

Whole Leaf, LLC, Salinas, CA 

Sheri Davis, Inland Empire Film Commission, San Bernardino, CA 

Caltrans District 8, c/o Dominic Ehirim, San Bernardino, CA 

VARP, Inc., San Bernardino, CA 

Michael L. Handy and Cheryl Anne Pember, San Bruno, CA 

Harriet and Douglas Allen, Desert Protective Council, Inc., San Diego, CA 

Dion Leasing LLC, San Diego, CA 

EDAW, Rebecca Apple, San Diego, CA 

Nick Ervin, Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter, San Diego, CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-22 

Edie Harmon, Sierra Club of San Diego, San Diego, CA 

Carl Joseph Maggio, San Diego, CA 

Macey L. McMillin, Jr. and Vonnie L. McMillin, Trustees, c/o Mark E. Doyle, San Diego, CA 

Joseph J. and Cynthia L. Menvielle, San Diego, CA 

Pacific Bell, San Diego, CA 

Pan American Development Co., LLC, San Diego, CA 

Elise C. Paul, San Diego, CA 

Bill Powers, P.E., U.S. Co-Chair, Border Power Plant Working Group, San Diego, CA 

Gary R. Sallis, Local 230 Plumbers & Fitters, San Diego, CA 

Caltrans District 11, c/o Robert Snyder, San Diego, CA 

Kristin Ellen Tow, Trustee, San Diego, CA 

Truck Stop 111 LP, c/o Kevin Moriarty, San Diego, CA 

Eric Brian Tuttle, Trustee, et al., c/o Eric Tuttle, San Diego, CA 

Terry Weiner, Imperial County Projects and Conservation Director, Desert Protective Council, San 

Diego, CA 

Ross Family Enterprises, San Luis Obispo, CA 

CBFar Limited Partnership, c/o Town and Country, Santa Ana, CA 

Velma E. Goebel, Trustee, Santa Ana, CA 

James Nickerson, TetraTech, Santa Ana, CA 

Harold Soens, Santee, CA 

Howard Wilshire, Sebastopol, CA 

Sky C. Stanfield, Adams, Broadwell, Joseph and Cardozzo, South San Francisco, CA 

Daniel D. Hinger, Hinger Electric, Temecula, CA 

Case Vanderyk, Tipton, CA 

Jon Stone, Torrance, CA 

Betty E. Moosekian, Trustee, Turlock, CA 

Del Schmidt, Trustee, c/o Schmidt and Associates, Tustin, CA 

Camille Waite and Del Schmidt, Trustees, c/o Del Schmidt, Tustin, CA 

Ruth E. Fudge, Trustee, Upland, CA 

Donald R. and Charlene S. Walker, et al., c/o C. Acosta, Victorville, CA 

South Valley Farms, Wasco, CA 

Granite Construction Co., Watsonville, CA 

John D. Souza, Weaverville, CA 

Ileene Anderson, Southern California Regional Botanist, California Native Plant Society, West 

Hollywood, CA 

Billie Ruddell, Colleen Morrell, Ruddell Trust, West Sacramento, CA 

H & R Warne Farms, Inc., Westminster, CA 

Thomas W. and Miriam Warne, Trustees, et al., Westminster, CA 

David L. Harrison, Jr., MWC, Whitewater, CA 

Andrew L. and Connie S. Howard, Winterhaven, CA 

Lynn and Connie Howard, Pair a Dice, Winterhaven, CA 

David B. Smith and Kimberly C. Smith, Yorba Linda, CA 

Pete Morton, Ph.D., Resource Economist, The Wilderness Society, Denver, CO 

Level 3 Communications, Inc., Tim Donelson, Broomfield, CO 

Western Tele-Communications, Inc., Denver, CO 

SF Pacific Properties, Inc., c/o Catellus, John Bezzant, Lakewood, CO 

Bill Lansinger, Sempra Energy, Washington, DC 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Organizations, Individuals, and Landowners (cont’d)

A-23 

Dave Parker, President, American Gas Association, Washington, DC 

Peggy Womack, Project Manager, AT&T Corporation, Atlanta, GA 

James Nickerson, TetraTech, Logan, IA 

J.D. Lormand, Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Pipeline Construction Association, Lafayette, LA 

Allen Davis, Jane M. Davis, Roberta Rock, White Ford, MD 

Amy Davis, Natural Resource Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN 

Dave Potter, Natural Resource Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN 

J.C. Wight, Trustee, c/o Donald J. Wight, Clancy, MT 

Union Pacific Railroad, c/o Mary Hauschild, Omaha, NE 

F.M. Campos, MJM DE Campos, and F.M. Campos, Las Vegas, NV 

Burrell F. and Merilyn E. Hammond, Howard, OH 

John Cassady, North Baja Pipeline, LLC, Portland, OR 

Kim L. Marcus, K. Lowell, and Chrystle M. Vincent, c/o Kim L. Marcus, Portland, OR 

J. Patrick Tielborg, Pipe Line Contractors Association, Dallas, TX 

Brian Jones, Trustee, c/o Sherrie Quam (Bruno), Houston, TX 

Trapmar Properties Inc, Attn: Morgan Johnston, Irving, TX 

MCI/World Com, Attn: Investigations, Richardson, TX 

Arizona and California Railroad Co., c/o Real Estate Dept., San Antonio, TX 

Gary G. Ollivier, Management and Training Corp., Centerville, UT 

Dick Southerland, Shirley Southerland, Duck Creek Village, UT 

Desert Security Farms, Salt Lake City, UT 

Corp of Pres Bishop, Church of Jesus Christ LDS, c/o Tax Division, Salt Lake City, UT 

J.T. Sessions, C.B. Sessions, M.S. Sessions, c/o F.R. Sessions, Salt Lake City, UT 

Dean G. Morris, Springville, UT 

Penny Eckert, TetraTech EC, Inc., Bothell, WA 

Nancy Ann Altman, Private Canal, South Charleston, WV 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX B 

FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix B Facility Location Maps 

B-Line – Sheets 1 through 29 

IID Lateral – Sheets 1 through 19 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX C 

TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-1 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

B-Line – Adjacent to Canal Sheet 1 of 4

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-1 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

B-Line – 18th Avenue Sheet 2 of 4

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007 Public
Figure C-1 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

B-Line – Cross Country Type I Sheet 3 of 4

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-1 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

B-Line – Cross Country Type II Sheet 4 of 4

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-4 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

 Arrowhead Alternative Sheet 1 of 3

C-2

Extension

Public

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-4 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

 Arrowhead Alternative Sheet 2 of 3

C-2

Extension

Public

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-4 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

 Arrowhead Alternative Sheet 3 of 3

C-2

Extension

Public

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 0.0 to 8.5 Sheet 1 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 2.6 to 5.6 Sheet 2 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 4.4 to 5.1 Sheet 3 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 8.5 to 27.1 Sheet 4 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 13.6 to 16.2 Sheet 5 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 16.2 to 26.0 Sheet 6 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 27.6 to 42.1 Sheet 7 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 34.9 to 43.4 Sheet 8 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 33.9 to 39.7 Sheet 9 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 43.4 to 43.6 Sheet 10 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 43.6 to 44.1 Sheet 11 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Figure C-3 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

IID Lateral – MPs 44.1 to 45.6 Sheet 12 of 12

Public Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX D 

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND 

ACCESS ROADS ASSOCIATED WITH 

THE NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-1 

TABLE D-1 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

County, 

State Milepost Description Dimensions (feet) Acres 

Acres of New 

Disturbance 

B-Line 

La Paz, Arizona 

 0.0 Colorado River Pullback - East Side (AZ) 200 x 2,575 11.8 1.5 

 Subtotal 11.8 1.5 

Riverside, California 

 0.4 Colorado River - West Side (CA) 50 x 241 0.3 0.1 

 1.1 East 25 x 400 0.2 0.2 

 1.3 East 25 x 800 0.5 0.5 

 1.3 D-10-13-42E Canal - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 1.3 D-10-13-42E Canal - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 1.3 East 25 x 1,590 0.9 0.9 

 1.6 East 15 x 260 0.1 0.1 

 1.7 D-10-13-45E Canal - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 1.7 D-10-13-45E Canal - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 1.7 East 15 x 600 0.2 0.2 

 1.9 D-10-13-47E Canal - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 1.9 D-10-13-47E Canal - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 1.9 East 15 x 400 0.1 0.1 

 2.2 D-10-13-49E Canal - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 2.2 D-10-13-49E Canal - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 2.2 East 15 x 200 0.1 0.1 

 2.3 D-10-13 (F) Canal - East & South 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 2.3 D-10-13 (F) Canal - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 2.3 D-10-13 (F) Canal - West & South (Triangular) 66 x 317 0.5 0.2 

 2.3 West 15 x 1,600 0.6 0.6 

 2.7 D-10-11-2N Canal - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 2.7 D-10-11-2N Canal - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 2.7 North 15 x 900 0.3 0.3 

 2.9 D-10 Canal - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 3.2 East Side Drain - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 3.2 East Side Drain - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 3.4 Intake Blvd./Goodman Drain - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 3.4 Intake Blvd./Goodman Drain - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 3.6 D-Siphon-89 Canal - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 3.6 D-Siphon-89 Canal - West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 3.9 Private Canal (Jones Rd.) - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 3.9 Private Canal (Jones Rd.) - West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 4.4 D-19 Canal/C&D Blvd. - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 4.4 D-19 Canal/C&D Blvd. - West & North 65 x 45 0.1 0.0 

 4.4 D-19 Canal/C&D Blvd. - West & North 40 x 105 0.1 0.1 

 4.4 D-19 Canal/C&D Blvd. - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 4.4 D-19 Canal/C&D Blvd. - East & South 20 x 20 0.0 0.0 

 4.7 D-19-4N Canal - West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 4.9 South Broadway - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 4.9 South Broadway - West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 4.9 South Broadway - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-2 

TABLE D-1 (cont’d) 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, 

State Milepost Description Dimensions (feet) Acres 

Acres of New 

Disturbance 

 4.9 South Broadway - East & South 30 x 30 0.0 0.0 

 5.2 Lovekin Drain - East & South 75 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 5.2 Lovekin Drain - West & North 75 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 5.4 AZ & CA RR/Lovekin Blvd. - East & North 75 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 5.4 AZ & CA RR/Lovekin Blvd. - Center & North 75 x 198 0.3 0.1 

 5.4 AZ & CA RR/Lovekin Blvd. - West & South 50 x 120 0.1 0.1 

 5.4 AZ & CA RR/Lovekin Blvd. - West & South 10 x 140 0.0 0.0 

 5.9 C-Siphon-56 Canal - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 5.9 C-Siphon-56 Canal - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 6.4 De Frain Blvd. - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 6.4 De Frain Blvd. - West & North 75 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 6.9 Central Drain - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 6.9 Central Drain - West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 7.4 Arrowhead Blvd. - East & North 75 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 7.4 Arrowhead Blvd. - West & South 75 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 7.9 C-05 Canal - East & South 200 x 150 0.7 0.1 

 7.9 C-05 Canal - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 8.2 Private Concrete Culvert - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 8.2 Private Concrete Culvert - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 8.4 State Hwy. 78 (Neighbors Rd.) - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 8.4 State Hwy. 78 (Neighbors Rd.) - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 8.9 West Side Drain - East & South 75 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 8.9 West Side Drain - West & South 75 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 9.5 Stephenson Blvd./C-03 Canal - East & South 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 9.5 Stephenson Blvd./C-03 Canal - Center & North 50 x 177 0.2 0.1 

 9.5 Stephenson Blvd./C-03 Canal - Center & South 100 x 150 0.3 0.1 

 9.9 C-03-64N Canal - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 9.9 C-03-64N Canal - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 10.3 C-03-16-3N Canal - East & North 150 x 100 0.3 0.1 

 10.5 Keim Blvd./C-03-16 Canal - West & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 10.7 C-03-16-6S Canal - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 10.7 C-03-16-6S Canal - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 11.0 C-03-16-1 & C-03-16-8W Canal - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 11.0 C-03-16-1 & C-03-16-8W Canal - West & North 200 x 75 0.3 0.0 

 11.2 Private Concrete Canal - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

 11.2 Private Concrete Canal - West & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 11.5 Rannells Drain - East & North 110 x 550 1.4 0.3 

 11.5 Rannells Drain - East & South 110 x 550 1.4 0.3 

 11.5 Rannells Drain/Private Canal - West & North 110 x 516 1.3 0.3 

 11.5 Rannells Drain/Private Canal - West & South 110 x 550 1.4 0.3 

 11.6 Rannells Trap Site - East & North 50 x 385 0.4 0.2 

 11.6 Rannells Trap Site – South 25 x 730 0.4 0.4 

 11.7 Rannells Trap Site - West & North 25 x 255 0.1 0.1 

 16.9 Adjacent to T-Line 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 17.1 Adjacent to T-Line 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 17.8 Adjacent to T-Line 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 17.9 Adjacent to T-Line 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 20.1 Adjacent to T-Line 50 x 500 0.6 0.3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-3 

TABLE D-1 (cont’d) 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, 

State Milepost Description Dimensions (feet) Acres 

Acres of New 

Disturbance 

 20.2 Adjacent to T-Line 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 22.5 Adjacent to T-Line 50 x 401 0.5 0.2 

 22.5 Adjacent to T-Line 50 x 358 0.4 0.2 

 Subtotal 32.2 13.4 

Imperial, California 

 24.4 Unnamed Wash - North & West 50 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 24.4 Unnamed Wash - South & West 50 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 24.8 East and West of centerline 60 x 500 0.7 0.3 

 24.9 Helms Wash - North & West 50 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 24.9 Helms Wash - South & West 50 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 28.1 East 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 28.1 West 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 28.2 State Hwy. 78 - North & West 50 x 150 0.2 0.1 

 28.2 State Hwy. 78 - North & East 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 28.2 State Hwy. 78 - South & West 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 28.2 State Hwy. 78 - South & East 50 x 150 0.2 0.1 

 28.4 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 1,400 1.6 0.8 

 29.2 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 250 0.3 0.1 

 29.3 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 31.8A East of SR 78 & Pipeline 75 x 876 1.5 0.5 

 32.0A East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 660 0.8 0.4 

 32.6 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 1,100 1.3 0.6 

 35.1 South of SR 78 50 x 1,660 1.9 1.0 

 35.0 North of SR 78 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 35.4 South of SR 78 50 x 2,740 3.1 1.6 

 35.8 North of SR 78 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 36.1 North of SR 78 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 36.3 South of SR 78 100 x 300 0.7 0.2 

 36.5 South of SR 78 50 x 600 0.7 0.3 

 37.2 North of SR 78 50 x 700 0.8 0.4 

 37.2 South of SR 78 50 x 700 0.8 0.4 

 37.9 South of SR 78 50 x 3,800 4.4 2.2 

 38.6 North of SR 78 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 39.2 North of SR 78 50 x 2,400 2.8 1.4 

 39.7 North of SR 78 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 39.7 South of SR 78 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 39.9 North of SR 78 50 x 600 0.7 0.3 

 39.9 South of SR 78 50 x 600 0.7 0.3 

 40.5 North of SR 78 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 40.6 North of SR 78 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 40.6 South of SR 78 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 41.2 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 41.2 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 41.4 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 41.4 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 41.6 SR 78 30 x 120 0.1 0.1 

 42.1 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 42.2 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 95 x 244 0.5 0.1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-4 

TABLE D-1 (cont’d) 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, 

State Milepost Description Dimensions (feet) Acres 

Acres of New 

Disturbance 

 42.3 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 42.3 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 42.7 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 43.3 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 43.5 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 43.5 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 43.6 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 300 0.3 0.2 

 43.6 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 300 0.3 0.2 

 44.5 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 44.5 40 x 530 0.5 0.3 

 44.6 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 44.9 40 x 110 0.1 0.1 

 44.9 100 x 200 0.5 0.1 

 45.0 

East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 

50 x 640 0.7 0.4 

 45.2 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 250 0.3 0.1 

 46.3 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 46.3 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 400 0.5 0.2 

 46.9 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 430 0.5 0.2 

 47.1 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 47.1 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 47.1 East of SR 78 & East of Pipeline 30 x 320 0.2 0.2 

 50.2 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 300 0.3 0.2 

 50.4 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 500 0.6 0.3 

 52.2 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 2,476 2.8 1.4 

 53.0 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 500 0.6 0.3 

 53.2 East of SR 78 & West of Pipeline 50 x 250 0.3 0.1 

 55.0 Ogilby Road (County Rd. S-34) - North & East 50 x 150 0.2 0.1 

 55.0 Ogilby Road (County Rd. S-34) - South & East 50 x 41 0.0 0.0 

 55.0 Ogilby Road (County Rd. S-34) - South & West 50 x 316 0.4 0.2 

 55.6 Ogilby Road (County Rd. S-34) 25 x 1,500 0.9 0.9 

 55.6 Ogilby Road (County Rd. S-34) 25 x 1,500 0.9 0.9 

 60.3 Ogilby Road and MLV 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 60.3 Ogilby Road and MLV 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 61.6 Walker Way Road 50 x 1,300 1.5 0.7 

 62.8 Walker Way Road 50 x 9,348 10.7 5.4 

 64.6 Walker Way Road 50 x 7,547 8.7 4.3 

 66.5 Gold Rock Ranch Rd. - North & West 50 x 150 0.2 0.1 

 66.5 Gold Rock Ranch Rd. - South & West 50 x 150 0.2 0.1 

 69.7 Ogilby Road (Co. Rd. S-34) at Amer. Girl Wash 50 x 1,000 1.1 0.6 

 71.2 Union Pacific Railroad - North & West 50 x 150 0.2 0.1 

 71.2 Union Pacific Railroad - South & West 50 x 150 0.2 0.1 

 74.5 Ogilby Rd. (County Rd. S-34) - North & West 50 x 66 0.1 0.0 

 74.5 Ogilby Rd. (County Rd. S-34) - North & East 50 x 198 0.2 0.1 

 74.5 Ogilby Rd. (County Rd. S-34) - South & East 50 x 170 0.2 0.1 

 74.5 Ogliby Rd. (County Rd. S-34) - South & West 50 x 137 0.2 0.1 

 75.2 Ogliby Meter Station 50 x 550 0.6 0.3 

 75.3 Interstate 8 - Center Median 50 x 50 0.1 0.0 

 75.3 Interstate 8 - South & West 75 x 200 0.3 0.1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-5 

TABLE D-1 (cont’d) 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, 

State Milepost Description Dimensions (feet) Acres 

Acres of New 

Disturbance 

 75.3 Interstate 8 - South & West 300 x 300 2.1 0.2 

 75.3 Interstate 8 - South & East 50 x 200 0.2 0.1 

 76.8 Acc. Rd IMCA-28 at OH Pwr Ln (Triangular) 40 x 75 0.1 0.0 

 79.6 All American Canal Pullback - North Side 200 x 2,517 11.6 1.4 

 79.8 All American Canal – South Side (USA) 50 x 160 0.2 0.1 

 Subtotal 84.2 36.4 

 B-Line Total 128.2 51.2 

Arrowhead Extension 

 1.0 Northeast Corner Seeley and Arrowhead 100 x 200 0.5 0.5 

 1.5 East Side of C-05 Canal Crossing 75 x 250 0.4 0.4 

 1.5 West Side of C-05 Canal Crossing 200 x 300 0.5 0.5 

 2.0 Southeast Corner 14th and Arrowhead 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 Arrowhead Extension Total 1.7 1.7 

IID Lateral 

 0.0 IID Lateral Tap 200 x 203 0.9 0.9 

 2.0 All-American Canal Pullback 

East Side 

200 x 2,700 12.4 12.4 

 2.7 All-American Canal 

West Side 

30 x 240 0.2 0.2 

 3.4 State Park Road North 30 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 3.4 State Park Road South 30 x 65 0.0 0.0 

 4.1 Grays Well Road East 25 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 4.1 Grays Well Road West 25 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 4.4 Grays Well Road North 25 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 4.4 Grays Well Road South 25 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 5.5 Grays Well Road North 25 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 5.5 Grays Well Road South 25 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 5.7 I-8 - South Side 50 x 75 0.1 0.1 

 5.8 I-8 - North Side 50 x 90 0.1 0.1 

 7.8 All-American Canal Pullback - East Side (Irregular 

Shape) 

156 x 1,900 6.8 6.8 

 8.1 All-American Canal - West Side 35 x 150 0.1 0.1 

 8.6 Evan Hewes Hwy 50 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 12.6 Ditch/Canal, SouthEast 25 x 75 0.0 0.0 

 12.6 Ditch/Canal, SouthWest 25 x 75 0.0 0.0 

 13.2 Brock Research Cntr Rd. SouthEast 25 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 13.2 Brock Research Cntr Rd. SouthWest 25 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 13.6 Evan Hewes/Hwy 80 (in R/W) 50 x 100 0.1 0.1 

 26.0 Evan Hewes/Hwy 80 (in R/W) 15 x 150 0.1 0.1 

 27.2 Between Evan Hewes & I-8 60 x 687 0.9 0.9 

 27.3 Between I-8 & Holdridge Rd 60 x 138 0.2 0.2 

 27.4 Holdridge Rd. South to Pullback 60 x 442 0.6 0.6 

 27.4 East Highline Canal Pullback 

East Side 

150 x 1,100 3.8 3.8 

 28.5 Vanderlinden Road - East & South 50 x 250 0.3 0.3 

 29.5 Miller Road - East & South 125 x 125 0.4 0.4 

 30.5 Enz Road - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 31.5 Bonds Corner Road – West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 32.0 Schali Road - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-6 

TABLE D-1 (cont’d) 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, 

State Milepost Description Dimensions (feet) Acres 

Acres of New 

Disturbance 

 32.0 Schali Road - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 32.4 Alamo River - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 33.2 Towland Road - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 33.2 Towland Road - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 33.9 Lateral 12 - East & North 75 x 120 0.2 0.2 

 33.9 Lateral 12 - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 34.2 Holtville Orchard Road - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 34.2 Holtville Orchard Road - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 34.5 Ash Main Canal - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 34.5 Ash Main Canal - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 34.9 Mets Road - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 34.9 Mets Road - West & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 35.9 Anderholt Road - East & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 36.4 Ash 39/30A Lateral - West & South 75 x 190 0.3 0.3 

 36.9 Barbara Worth Road – East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 38.0 Meloland Road - West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 38.2 Gate 151 - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 38.2 Gate 151 - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 38.4 Central Drain 2A - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 38.7 Chick Rd at McGrew - NE corner 100 x 100 0.2 0.2 

 38.9 Gate 122A - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 38.9 Gate 122A - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 39.1 I-8 - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 39.1 I-8 - East & South 40 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 39.1 I-8, Dealwood Road – West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 39.1 I-8, Dealwood Road - East & North 40 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 39.7 E. Ross Road 50 x 400 0.5 0.5 

 39.9 Ash Lat. 15 & Central Drain - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 39.9 Ash Lat. 15 & Central Drain - West & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 40.4 Bowker Road - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 40.4 Bowker Road - West & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 41.9 Acacia Lateral 6A - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 41.9 Acacia Lateral 6A - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 42.2 E. Gillett Street - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 42.2 E. Gillett Street - West & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 42.5 Acacia Lateral 8 - West & South 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 42.8 Evan Hewes Hwy & Parker Rd - West & South 75 x 250 0.4 0.4 

 42.8 Evan Hewes Hwy & Parker Rd - East & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 42.9 Holton Road 50 x 390 0.4 0.4 

 43.3 State Highway 111 - East & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 43.4 Old St Hwy 111 - East side of Pipeline 50 x 90 0.1 0.1 

 

43.4 Old St Hwy 111 - West side of Pipeline 

(Triangular) 

75 x 160 0.1 0.1 

 43.7 Old St Hwy 111 - East side of Pipeline 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 44.2 Alder Lateral 7 at Cannon Rd - West & North 75 x 200 0.3 0.3 

 44.7 Alder Lateral at Cooley Rd - East & North 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 44.7 Alder Lateral at Cooley Rd - West & South 50 x 200 0.2 0.2 

 45.7 N. Dogwood Road 75 x 100 0.2 0.2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-7 

TABLE D-1 (cont’d) 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, 

State Milepost Description Dimensions (feet) Acres 

Acres of New 

Disturbance 

 45.7 El Centro Terminus 320 x 280 2.1 2.1 

 IID Lateral Total 43.1 43.1 

 Total Project 173.0 96.0 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-8 

TABLE D-2 

Access Roads for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, State Milepost Road Number 

Type 1 a

(miles) 

Type 2 b

(miles) 

Type 3 c

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

Type 1 

(acres) 

Type 2 

(acres) 

Type 3 

(acres) 

To

Acr

B-Line La Paz, Arizona

 0.0 LPAZ-01 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0

 LPAZ-02 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 1

Subtotal 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 2

Riverside, California 2.2 RICA-01 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0 11.5 RICA-02 1.3 2.1 3.4 3.4 5.6 0.0 9 11.9 RICA-03 2.5 1.2 3.7 6.7 3.1 0.0 9 15.6 RICA-04 2.1 2.1 5.6 0.0 0.0 5 18.3 RICA-05 3.0 3.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 7 22.1 RICA-06 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 1

Subtotal 9.4 3.3 0.0 12.6 25.0 8.7 0.0 33

Imperial, California 22.1 IMCA-01 1.8 1.8 4.7 0.0 0.0 4 26.5 IMCA-02 0.7 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 1 28.1 IMCA-03 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0

 28.2 IMCA-04 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 1 29.1A IMCA 2001 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0 29.6A IMCA 2002 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 1 29.9A IMCA 2003 0.6 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 1 30.7A IMCA 2004 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 31.0A IMCA 2005 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 31.2A IMCA 2006 0.8 0.8 0.0 2.1 0.0 2 32.1A IMCA 2007 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0 32.1 IMCA 2008 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0 33.2 IMCA-09 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0 35.0 IMCA-10 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0 35.8 IMCA 1002 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 1 36.5A IMCA 1003 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0 36.9A IMCA 1004 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 37.1A IMCA 1005 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 37.7A IMCA 1006 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-9 

TABLE D-2 (cont’d) 

Access Roads for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, State Milepost Road Number 

Type 1 a

(miles) 

Type 2 b

(miles) 

Type 3 c

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

Type 1 

(acres) 

Type 2 

(acres) 

Type 3 

(acres) 

To

Acr

 38.0A IMCA 1007 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 38.2A IMCA 1008 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 39.0A IMCA 1009 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0 39.9A IMCA 1010 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 40.2A IMCA 1011 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0 40.9A IMCA 1012 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0 41.6 IMCA 1014 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0

 41.8A IMCA 1015 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 42.5A IMCA 1016 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0 43.0A IMCA 1018 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 43.6A IMCA 1019 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 43.9A IMCA 1021 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 44.1A IMCA 1023 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 44.2A IMCA 1024 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 44.5A IMCA 1025 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 44.8A IMCA 1026 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0 45.2A IMCA 1028 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 45.5A IMCA 1029 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 45.7A IMCA 1030 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 45.9A IMCA 1031 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 46.2A IMCA 1033 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 46.5A IMCA 1034 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 46.7A IMCA 1035 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 46.9A IMCA 1036 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 47.0A IMCA 1037 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 47.6A IMCA 1038 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 48.0A IMCA 1039 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 1 49.0 IMCA-17 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0 54.4 IMCA-18 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.0 1 55.0 IMCA-19 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 60.3 IMCA-20 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0

 62.4 IMCA-21 1.1 1.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 3

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-10 

TABLE D-2 (cont’d) 

Access Roads for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, State Milepost Road Number 

Type 1 a

(miles) 

Type 2 b

(miles) 

Type 3 c

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

Type 1 

(acres) 

Type 2 

(acres) 

Type 3 

(acres) 

To

Acr

 64.9 & 66.5 IMCA-22 2.4 2.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 6 66.5 IMCA-23 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0 68.9 IMCA-24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 70.9 IMCA-25 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 72.9 IMCA-26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 75.2 IMCA-27 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0

 76.8 IMCA-28 3.3 3.3 8.7 0.0 0.0 8 79.3 IMCA-29 1.9 1.9 0.0 5.1 0.0 5 79.8 IMCA-30 1.7 1.2 2.9 4.5 3.1 0.0 7

Subtotal 13.8 10.2 0.0 24.0 36.7 27.2 0.0 64

B-Line Total 24.0 13.5 0.0 37.4 63.9 35.9 0.0 99

Arrowhead Extension 

 2.1 h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Arrowhead Extension Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

IID Lateral Imperial, California 0.0 IMCA-01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0.2 IMCA-02 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 5.6 IMCA-04 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0 7.6 IMCA-05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 7.8 IMCA-06 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0 8.0 IMCA-07 0.5 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 1 8.2 IMCA-08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 14.0 IMCA-09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 14.5 IMCA-10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 15.0 IMCA-11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 15.5 IMCA-12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 15.9 IMCA-13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 16.2 IMCA-14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 27.3 IMCA-15 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0 27.4 IMCA-16 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
D-11 

TABLE D-2 (cont’d) 

Access Roads for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

County, State Milepost Road Number 

Type 1 a

(miles) 

Type 2 b

(miles) 

Type 3 c

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

Type 1 

(acres) 

Type 2 

(acres) 

Type 3 

(acres) 

To

Acr

 27.6 IMCA-17 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0 27.8 IMCA-18 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0 39.2 IMCA-19 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 1 43.7 IMCA-20 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 1 44.2 IMCA-21 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 1 44.2 IMCA-22 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 1 44.6 IMCA-23 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 1

IID Lateral Total 2.2 1.9 0.1 4.2 5.9 5.1 0.2 11

Total Project 26.2 15.4 0.1 41.6 69.8 41.0 0.2 11

____________________ 

a Existing road that needs no improvement. b Existing road that needs some improvement or modification. c New access road. d Access roads are assumed to be 22 feet wide. e Existing access road to valve #5. f Existing access road to valve #6. g Existing access road to valve #7. h Proposed 60-foot-long permanent access road to the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION AND RESTORATION PLAN 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix E 

Construction Mitigation 

and Restoration Plan 

Prepared by 

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

May 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... E-1 

2.0 DESERT RESTORATION PLAN .............................................................................................. E-2 

2.1 NORTH BAJA REVEGETATION AND WEED MONITORING PROGRAM ............. E-2 

2.2 RESTORATION GOALS ................................................................................................. E-3 

2.3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................ E-4 

2.3.1 Preconstruction Phase.......................................................................................... E-4 

2.3.2 Construction Phase – Clearing ............................................................................ E-6 

2.3.3 Construction Phase – Cleanup............................................................................. E-9 

2.4 POSTCONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. E-9 

2.5 SURVEY, MONITORING, AND REPORTING ............................................................. E-9 

3.0 UPLAND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (FERC UPLAND EROSION 

CONTROL, REVEGETATION, AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, MODIFIED).................... E-11 

3.1 APPLICABILITY (FERC PLAN SECTION I., MODIFIED)........................................ E-11 

3.2 SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION ............................................................................. E-11 

3.2.1 Environmental Inspection (FERC Plan Section II.A., Modified)...................... E-11 

3.2.2 Responsibilities of Environmental Inspectors (FERC Plan Section II.B., 

Modified)........................................................................................................... E-11 

3.3 PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING ............................................................................. E-13 

3.3.1 Construction Work Areas (FERC Plan Section III.A., Modified)..................... E-13 

3.3.2 Drain Tile and Irrigation Systems (FERC Plan Section III.B., Modified) ........ E-13 

3.3.3 Grazing Deferment (FERC Plan Section III.C., Modified)............................... E-13 

3.3.4 Road Crossings and Access Points (FERC Plan Section III.D.) ....................... E-13 

3.3.5 Disposal Planning (FERC Plan Section III.E.).................................................. E-13 

3.3.6 Agency Coordination (FERC Plan Section III.F., Modified)............................ E-13 

3.3.7 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (FERC Plan Section III.G.).................. E-14 

3.4 INSTALLATION............................................................................................................ E-14 

3.4.1 Approved Areas of Disturbance (FERC Plan Section IV.A.) ........................... E-14 

3.4.2 Topsoil Segregation (FERC Plan Section IV.B., Modified) ............................. E-15 

3.4.3 Drain Tiles (FERC Plan Section IV.C., Modified)............................................ E-15 

3.4.4 Irrigation (FERC Plan Section IV.D.) ............................................................... E-16 

3.4.5 Road Crossings and Access Points (FERC Plan Section IV.E., Modified)....... E-16 

3.4.6 Temporary Erosion Control (FERC Plan Section IV.F., Modified).................. E-16 

3.5 RESTORATION ............................................................................................................. E-16 

3.5.1 Cleanup (FERC Plan Section V.A., Modified) ................................................. E-16 

3.5.2 Permanent Erosion Control Devices (FERC Plan Section V.B.) ...................... E-17 

3.5.3 Soil Compaction Mitigation (FERC Plan Section V.C., Modified) .................. E-18 

3.5.4 Revegetation (FERC Plan Section V.D., Modified).......................................... E-19 

3.6 OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL (FERC PLAN SECTION VI., MODIFIED)......... E-19 

3.7 POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ E-20 

3.7.1 Monitoring and Maintenance (FERC Plan Section VII.A., Modified).............. E-20 

3.7.2 Reporting (FERC Plan Section VII.B., Modified) ............................................ E-21 

4.0 WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES ...................................................................................... E-22 

4.1 APPLICABILITY (FERC PROCEDURES SECTION I., MODIFIED) ........................ E-22 

4.2 PRECONSTRUCTION FILING (FERC PROCEDURES SECTION II, MODIFIED) . E-23 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-ii North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS (FERC PROCEDURES SECTION III.) ............. E-23 

4.4 PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING ............................................................................. E-23 

4.4.1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (FERC Procedures Section IV.A.) ....... E-23 

4.5 WATERBODY CROSSINGS......................................................................................... E-24 

4.5.1 Notification Procedures and Permits (FERC Procedures Section V.A., 

Modified)........................................................................................................... E-24 

4.5.2 Installation (FERC Procedures Section V.B., Modified) .................................. E-25 

4.5.3 Restoration (FERC Procedures Section V.C., Modified).................................. E-27 

4.5.4 Post-Construction Maintenance (FERC Procedures Section V.D., Modified).. E-27 

4.6 WETLAND CROSSINGS (FERC PROCEDURES SECTION VI, MODIFIED) ......... E-28 

4.6.1 General (FERC Procedures Section VI.A., Modified) ...................................... E-28 

4.6.2 Installation (FERC Plan Section VI.B., Modified)............................................ E-29 

4.6.3 Restoration (FERC Plan Section VI.C., Modified) ........................................... E-31 

4.6.4 Post-Construction Maintenance (FERC Plan Section VI.D., Modified) ........... E-31 

4.7 HYDROSTATIC TESTING ........................................................................................... E-31 

4.7.1 Notification Procedures and Permits (FERC Plan Section VII.A.)................... E-31 

4.7.2 General (FERC Plan Section VII.B.) ................................................................ E-32 

4.7.3 Intake Source and Rate (FERC Plan Section VII.C.) ........................................ E-32 

4.7.4 Discharge Location, Method, and Rate (FERC Plan Section VII.D., 

Modified)........................................................................................................... E-32 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table E-1: Locations Where the Proposed Construction Right-of-Way Will be Reduced to Minimize 

Tree Clearing................................................................................................................ E-5

Table E-2 Extra Workspaces Needed in Wetlands ................................................................................. E-29

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix E 

Construction Mitigation and Restoration Plan 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This Construction Mitigation and Restoration Plan (CM&R Plan) describes measures to be taken by 

North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja) to protect natural resources during construction and operation of 

the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project). The CM&R Plan consists of three parts: 

• Section 2 describes procedures that were used successfully for the A-Line construction 

mitigation and restoration and will be used again for the Project, including the B-Line and the 

IID Lateral, to preserve and restore habitat values temporarily impacted by pipeline 

construction in the desert environment. 

• Section 3 proposes modifications to the FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan, as updated January 2003 (FERC Plan), that are relevant to the Project area 

and are designed to minimize Project-related construction impacts on soils and minimize 

erosion.1

 

• Section 4 proposes modifications to the FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures, as updated January 2003 (FERC Procedures), that are relevant to the 

Project area and are designed to minimize Project-related disturbance to waterbodies and 

wetlands.2

 

In addition to the CM&R Plan presented here, North Baja is providing the following additional plans 

directly relevant to construction mitigation and restoration: 

• Appendix G – Horizontal Directional Drilling Plan, which contains specific procedures to be 

used during the horizontal directional drilling of the Colorado River, the All-American Canal 

(AAC), and the East Highline Canal; 

• Appendix F – Spill Prevention, Containment, And Control Plan For Hazardous Materials And 

Hazardous Wastes (SPCC Plan); 

• Appendix P – Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Management Plan, which contains site-specific 

measures for controlling OHV route proliferation attributable to Project construction; and 

• Appendix L – Dust Control Plan, which contains measures designed to minimize air pollution 

or wind erosion from fugitive dust attributable to construction activities. 

An updated CM&R Plan will be submitted prior to construction if necessary to incorporate any additional 

applicable requirements of Federal, State, and local permits. 

 

1 The FERC’s Plan can be viewed on the FERC Internet website at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/uplndctl.pdf. 

2 The FERC’s Procedures can be viewed on the FERC Internet website at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/wetland.pdf. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.0 DESERT RESTORATION PLAN 

North Baja researched desert restoration techniques and produced a desert restoration plan for the original 

North Baja Pipeline Project. That plan provided the scientific rationale for the restoration approach, which 

differs from conventional methods due to the extreme aridity of the Project area. It included a literature 

review on natural vegetation recovery and revegetation parameters. It also provided an in-depth review of 

the Colorado Desert setting, including detailed descriptions of cover types. 

The results of the desert restoration plan for the A-Line have been relatively rapid natural revegetation 

along most of the pipeline right-of-way, no spread of noxious weeds due to construction or operation of 

the pipeline, and limited expansion of OHV routes due to pipeline construction. These results have been 

documented in annual reports, filed with the FERC and other agencies, detailing the surveys conducted 

for weed spread and revegetation success. Annual evaluations and reports for the weed and revegetation 

surveys will continue through 2012 as agreed for the original North Baja Pipeline Project. 

As part of the A-Line restoration plan, an experimental seeding program was instituted. That program is 

detailed in Attachment A of the North Baja CM&R Plan used for construction of the A-Line, and has also 

resulted in annual reports filed with FERC and other agencies. After 3 years of monitoring, the plots 

show that seeding in the desert is generally ineffective in improving the rate or extent of revegetation. A 

possible exception is in desert wash woodlands, where a high rate of seeding has shown a somewhat 

increased number of individual woodland tree species seedlings. Annual evaluations and reports for the 

experimental seeding Project will continue until construction of the B-line, providing an estimated 7 years 

of results to inform future restoration efforts in the Colorado Desert. 

2.1 NORTH BAJA REVEGETATION AND WEED MONITORING 

PROGRAM 

The October 2004 and March 2005 surveys conducted 26 and 32 months, respectively, after final surface 

restoration completion showed increased natural regeneration, both in the desert wash woodland habitat 

and in creosote scrub habitat, compared to off-right-of-way areas (Tetra Tech 2005). Native species of 

annuals and shrubs have readily recruited onto the right-of-way with each annual species increasing in 

occurrence within plots with each passing year. The control plots, on the other hand, generally show no 

increase in occurrence of each species over time. 

In October 2004, native shrubs Larrea tridantata, Atriplex canescens, and Ambrosia dumosa were the 

most common plants and occurred in 30, 14, and 2 percent of the right-of-way plots, respectively. These 

same shrubs occurred in 23, 2, and 12 percent of the plots in March 2005. Encelia farinosa, a native 

shrub, was present in 4 percent of the plots in 2004 and increased to 14 percent in 2005. One species of 

tree, Psorothamnus spinosa, (smoke tree) was found within a right-of-way plot in October 2004, although 

other tree recruitment was noted on the right-of-way but outside of plot locations. In March 2005, both 

Psorothamnus spinosa and Cercidium floridum (blue palo verde) seedlings were found in the plots and 

again tree recruitment was evident along the right-of-way outside of plot locations. Tree and shrub 

recruitment within the right-of-way was noticeably greater within desert wash habitat compared to 

creosote scrub habitat. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Based on the first 3 years of survey, the right-of-way appears to be revegetating successfully, not only 

with annuals in season, but also with the perennial shrubs and trees that will eventually become the 

dominant vegetation. Revegetation success has been high for annuals this year, but also for perennials. 

The very harsh Colorado desert climate will probably continue to restrict cover and growth of all species. 

Noxious weed species have not spread outside areas containing weeds prior to construction. From a 

qualitative perspective, Brassica tournefortii was generally present in equal numbers in disturbed rightof-way areas and in adjacent, less-disturbed desert pavement areas; however, no B. tournefortii was 

observed within any sample plots during October 2004, which is due to its spring flowering followed by 

summer and fall die off. Brassica tournefortii was present in 33 percent of the plots in March 2005, 

although its distribution was patchy and not concentrated in any particular areas. The right-of-way is also 

experiencing minor recruitment of Tamarix ramosissima, although this weed species has constantly 

remained below 9 percent abundance among all sample plots since post-construction monitoring and is 

present only in areas of prior tamarisk infestation. 

The use of the sheepsfoot to create mini-catchment areas appears to encourage the sprouting of annuals in 

most areas, especially when the mini-catchments are located in low-lying or wash areas; however, many 

plots lacking topographical relief or located in desert pavement do not show a clear difference between 

regeneration inside and outside of the mini-catchments. 

Annuals typically dominate numerically and by percent cover, especially during the prolific bloom 

observed in March 2005, which is attributed to extremely high precipitation. Many seedling native shrubs 

have also recruited and are steadily increasing in percent cover. It should also be noted that in areas with 

desert pavement there was noticeably more recruitment of annuals within the right-of-way compared to 

intact desert pavement sites located off the right-of-way. In addition, off-right-of-way areas appeared to 

follow the same pattern of higher shrub recruitment in wash areas than in creosote bush scrub and desert 

pavement habitats. Last, although not quantified, shrub recruitment within the right-of-way, but outside 

sample plot areas was generally higher than off-right-of-way areas, indicating that native shrub seedlings 

recruit more readily to recently impacted areas. 

2.2 RESTORATION GOALS 

Typical of arid habitats, the natural revegetation processes in the Colorado Desert are relatively 

protracted. Impacts on the landscape take long periods to restore to their original forms. In addition to the 

intrinsic value of the desert landscape, the Colorado Desert supports a number of special-status plants and 

animals. The goals of this plan will be to: 

• Avoid impacts where practical; 

• Where impacts are unavoidable, minimize impacts; and 

• Focus on site preparation to facilitate natural processes of revegetation. 

North Baja proposes to continue its adaptive management approach that incorporates many different 

“tools” that may be used on a site-specific basis. These tools include: 

• Emphasize final site preparation to encourage natural revegetation; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• Avoid (i.e., preserve), where practical, mature native trees; 

• Stipulate a maximum construction corridor width; 

• Reserve topsoil and plant materials from the right-of-way before grading, and respread over 

the right-of-way after construction is complete; 

• Grubbing and crushing vegetation where possible along the construction corridor, rather than 

blading; 

• Salvaging large woody debris to later be spread on the restored corridor to serve a dual 

purpose: blocking OHV access to the pipeline corridor and serve as a mulch and source of 

shade to nurse plant germination and growth; 

• Imprint the restored right-of-way to provide indentations to catch seed and water; 

• Implement best management practices to protect the soil; 

• Apply restoration methods that have been shown to work in the desert environment; 

• Prevent the construction- or operation-related spread of noxious weeds or other undesirable 

species; 

• Apply methods to discourage unauthorized OHV use of the pipeline right-of-way, including 

construction of berms, placement of natural materials, and transplanting of cactus and ocotillo; 

and 

• Avoid removing desert trees where practical by reducing the width of the right-of-way. 

2.3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

2.3.1 Preconstruction Phase 

2.3.1.1 Identification of Native Tree Areas 

Mature, native trees are particularly valuable and important in desert ecosystems. Target native plants 

include the tree forms of the following species: desert willow, cat's claw acacia, Palo Verde, desert 

ironwood, mesquite, smoke tree, and ocotillo. A field survey was conducted in October 2001 to identify 

areas of native tree concentrations where reducing right-of-way width would preserve significant 

quantities of trees. Subsequent surveys in 2005 of the IID Lateral revealed no desert washes and no 

microphyll woodlands on this route. Therefore, the microphyll woodland area identification conducted for 

the A-Line is the only needed guide to locations where B-Line right-of-way width reductions will occur. 

Areas that can be reasonably preserved from impact are those designated as the passing lanes. While work 

can proceed on the pipeline without the use of the passing lanes, it is much slower and more expensive 

and is not feasible for extended distances. Topsoil will have to be hauled off the right-of-way and stored, 

along with the woody vegetative debris, then returned to the area and respread. Spoil from the trenching 

operation will be spread along the working area, then replaced in the trench after the padding operation is 

complete. 

During in-field surveys of the proposed neck-down areas, it was determined that measuring a percent 

crown cover for the passing lane along the entire route provided an accurate description of trees lost (or 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

preserved) in the area and the relative value of the multi-stemmed desert wash woodland species. Given 

that desert vegetation is sparse at best, North Baja determined that where at least 20 percent crown cover 

was found in the proposed 30-foot-wide area, construction corridor width should be limited. Table E-1 

shows the location and extent of the areas where the right-of-way width was planned for reduction or 

“necking down” for the A-Line. In several locations, neck-down areas were modified in the field by 

variances approved by the agencies prior to construction. In these areas, the A-Line was restricted to 50-

foot width. For B-Line construction, right-of-way width will be reduced 25 feet from the standard 105 

feet to 80 feet in the same locations that were necked down during A-Line construction. 

Table E-1: Locations Where the Proposed Construction Right-of-Way Will be Reduced to 

Minimize Tree Clearing 

Starting Milepost Length (feet) Crown 

Cover (%) 

A-Line Acres 

Disturbed 

B-Line Additional Acres 

Disturbed 

B-Line — 105 feet to 80 feet 

16.9 345 25 0.4 0.2 

17.9 270 31 0.3 0.2 

20.0 700 30 0.8 0.5 

22.3 480 20 0.6 0.3 

22.5 250 43 0.3 0.2 

22.6 1,000 33 1.1 0.7 

22.8 180 42 0.2 0.1 

23.3 340 50 0.4 0.2 

23.4 250 63 0.3 0.2 

23.5 590 41 0.7 0.4 

25.8 850 35 1.0 0.6 

34.5 860 25 1.0 0.6 

45.1 500 48 0.6 0.3 

51.1 1,800 30 2.1 1.2 

51.7 1,100 30 1.3 0.8 

64.5 500 31 0.6 0.3 

Total 10,015 11.7 6.8 

Without right-of-way reduction, the acreage of desert wash woodland represented in these areas equals 

24.1 acres. The proposed narrowing would preserve 5.6 acres and leave 18.5 acres still impacted. The 

remaining acres of desert wash woodland are in areas so scattered and with so few trees that the impact of 

right-of-way reduction would be small compared to the significant increase in cost. The right-of-way 

width reduction in these areas would preserve the densest, and therefore most productive, areas of desert 

wash woodland within the originally proposed footprint of the pipeline construction. 

2.3.1.2 Construction Work Area Restrictions 

Measures will be taken to minimize permanent and temporary construction disturbances to facilitate 

subsequent restoration. Construction will stay within designated construction work areas. 

Designated Construction Zone − Project-related vehicle traffic, construction activity, and equipment 

storage will be restricted to established roads, designated access roads, the working strip, storage areas, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

staging and parking areas, and other designated Project areas. This restriction includes the placement of 

portable toilet facilities. 

Staking − The outside boundaries of the construction corridor will be staked prior to construction with 

approximately 24-inch-tall flagged or painted stakes at a maximum interval of 300 feet. 

Storage, Laydown, and Spoil Disposal Areas − To minimize permanent and temporary construction 

disturbances, storage facilities will be located at sites that have non-native cover or have been previously 

disturbed. Parking, storage, and other areas will be marked by flagged lath stakes about 24 inches above 

ground and placed in line of sight with a maximum spacing of 300 feet. 

2.3.1.3 OHV Route Proliferation Limitation 

Please see Appendix P, OHV Management Plan for details of the OHV route management plan. 

2.3.1.4 Salvage Cactus, Ocotillo, and Other Woody Vegetation 

Immediately prior to ground-disturbing activities at designated crossing areas defined in Appendix P, 

identified specimens of the larger species of cactus (primarily Opuntia), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), 

and other woody vegetation will be salvaged from the nearby right-of-way, stored, and then replanted 

after pipeline installation. These specimens will be used for OHV route control. 

2.3.2 Construction Phase – Clearing 

2.3.2.1 Non-Native Cover Types 

For tamarisk scrub (MPs 29-33, B-Line only), restoration objectives during the initial ground clearance 

and right-of-way preparation will be: 

Prevent Spread of Noxious Weeds −Soil and plant materials from non-native areas will be disposed of in 

non-native areas only. That is, no disposal or transfer of excess spoils or cleared-and-grubbed plant 

materials into native cover type areas will be allowed. All equipment will be washed and inspected prior 

to use on the right-of-way, including in tamarisk areas. See section on washing equipment in Native 

Habitat Areas, below. 

Disposal methods for tamarisk removed during the clearing of portions of large monotypic tamarisk 

stands include hauling or burning on site. If burning is the selected measure, North Baja will apply for the 

appropriate burning permits. If hauling is selected, loads will be covered to prevent windborne dispersal 

of propagules. After the removal of all tamarisk from the right-of-way, no further equipment or truck 

washing will be needed or utilized. 

Trucks and equipment used to remove tamarisk will be washed prior to their use elsewhere on the rightof-way. All washing will be conducted at commercial truck washes in nearby communities, and trucks 

and equipment will be inspected prior to use elsewhere on the right-of-way. 

Restore Hydrology − Where hydrologic features are present, the original surface hydrology will be 

restored (see Section 4). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.3.2.2 Native Cover Types 

For the three native cover types, restoration objectives during the initial ground clearance and right-ofway preparation are: 

Prevent Spread of Noxious Weeds − Disposal of soil and plant materials from non-native areas will not be 

allowed in native areas. That is, no disposal or transfer for excess spoils or plant materials from nonnative areas will be allowed into native cover type areas. 

The construction right-of-way is surveyed annually for plants listed as invasive exotics by the State of 

California, as well as other species on the BLM National List of Invasive Weed Species of Concern, as a 

right-of-way grant condition for the A-Line. This survey has shown no spread of weeds since construction 

of the A-Line. Based on weed surveys conducted for the A-Line and follow-up surveys conducted 

annually thereafter, the only infested area is the tamarisk infestation from MPs 29 through 33 on the BLine. While other non-native species are present on the right-of-way, including African mustard and 

Schismus, they are ubiquitous in the wider desert area, including but not limited to the present right-ofway and the proposed construction area, and equipment washing will not impact their distribution. Weed 

control will, therefore, focus only on tamarisk. 

Once the construction corridor has been cleared and graded, vehicles can travel the right-of-way through 

non-native areas without significant risk of spreading noxious plant material. 

Non-native tamarisk trees will be removed from the right-of-way in native areas to discourage 

colonization of the right-of-way after construction. If possible, removal should occur prior to the set of 

seeds to reduce the risk of dispersal. Tamarisk small enough to be pulled out by hand will be removed 

when found. Larger specimens will be mechanically removed during Project construction. All identified 

tamarisk will be removed by the end of Project construction. Tamarisk will be disposed of in a manner 

that prevents the spread of seed. The preferred methods of disposal of tamarisk found in relatively 

isolated locations include hauling off or burning on site. Methods for each area will be specified in the 

Plan of Development (POD). Where burning is the selected measure, North Baja will apply for the 

appropriate burning permits. If hauling is selected, loads will be covered to prevent windborne dispersal 

of propagules. 

Weed Wash Stations: No temporary weed wash stations were employed during construction of the ALine. No temporary weed wash stations are proposed for the construction of the Project. However, weed 

control continues to be an important concern for North Baja, and the following weed-control measures 

will apply. 

All construction equipment must be washed prior to entering the construction area for the first time for 

any part of the Project to prevent the spread of invasive weeds from other areas. The initial washing will 

be conducted at commercial truck washes in nearby communities, including Blythe, El Centro, or Yuma, 

and use of clean equipment will be a contractual condition for the construction contractor and all 

subcontractors. The Environmental Inspector will ensure that all trucks and equipment that will be 

utilized on an unpaved portion of the construction right-of-way have been washed prior to first use, and 

that there is no dirt or plant material clinging to the wheels, tracks, or understructure of any truck or 

equipment. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Preserve Native Trees − Impacts on native trees concentrations will be minimized in the areas specified in 

Table E-1, above, by limiting the construction right-of-way width to 80 feet. 

Restrict Area of Disturbance − The width of the right-of-way will be restricted to minimize impacts on 

native areas. The standard right-of-way width will be 105 feet. In constrained areas with steep slopes, the 

width may be widened to accommodate equipment for limited stretches. Conversely, in specified areas, 

above, the right-of-way width will be restricted to 80 feet for limited stretches to avoid trees. Only the 

working strip, public roads, or approved routes of travel will be used. Off-road traffic outside designated 

areas will be prohibited to protect adjacent native habitat. All Project vehicles will turn around only 

within approved work areas or on designated access roads. 

Preservation of the Seed Bank − The upper two to eight inches of topsoil from the portions of the right-ofway requiring grading will be removed first (see also Section 3.4.2, below). Topsoil will be stockpiled 

separately from the spoil pile. Topsoil will be temporarily stockpiled in windrows, which will be flagged 

to clearly identify them. These stockpiles of topsoil will be carefully segregated from the subsoil. Topsoil 

will be stockpiled under normal circumstances from 2 to 4 weeks, but not longer than 4 months. 

The topsoil will be evenly respread over the graded area during cleanup. Reserving and respreading 

topsoil is designed to conserve the seed bank, aiding in natural revegetation. Imprinting will be used to 

provide micro-catchment areas for water retention and seed germination. Imprinting may be 

accomplished through the use of a “sheep’s-foot” roller or other methods. 

Encourage Regeneration of Woody Plants − Areas that must be scraped or graded will be restricted to that 

necessary to create a safe working area for construction. Naturally level areas, for example, may require 

no grading. In areas requiring no grading, grubbing of the right-of-way in native habitat areas will leave 

the underground roots of woody plants intact. That is, the grubbing will skim the surface of the ground to 

crush or slice off the aboveground portions of vegetation, leaving the root crowns intact. This will allow 

for rapid regeneration of woody plant species. 

Native plant material that has been grubbed from the right-of-way will be respread on the right-of-way 

after pipeline installation, providing a mulch to trap seeds, shade seedlings, and conserve water for the 

revegetation of the right-of-way. In areas where topsoil is removed, the plant material will be respread 

with the topsoil. 

Restore Hydrology − Where hydrologic features are present, the original surface hydrology will be 

restored. See Section 4, below. 

Prevent Impacts on Migratory Birds – North Baja plans to conduct construction in native habitats outside 

the breeding season for migratory birds. If construction activities are necessary during bird breeding 

season, vegetation that could provide nesting substrate will be removed from the right-of-way before 

breeding season, thus eliminating the possibility that birds could nest on the right-of-way. Qualified 

biologists will conduct pre-construction surveys to confirm the absence of nesting birds before 

construction begins. 

If, in spite of vegetation removal, nesting birds are found on the construction right-of-way, the nest will 

not be removed until fledging has occurred or unless authorized after consultation with USFWS, CDFG, 

and, if the nest is located on Federal lands, the Federal land management agency. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.3.3 Construction Phase – Cleanup 

Once the pipeline has been installed and the pipeline trench backfilled, the right-of-way will be 

recontoured to approximate original contours. Recontouring to natural lines and grade will be 

accomplished without disruption to adjacent undisturbed habitat. 

After topsoil and native plant material have been respread over the graded areas at the completion of 

construction, these areas will be imprinted with a sheep’s-foot or similar device. The indentations created 

by the imprinter catch seed and water, aiding in the natural revegetation of the site. Native plant material 

that had been removed from the right-of-way will provide a mulch to trap seeds, shade seedlings, and 

conserve water for the revegetation of the right-of-way. 

2.4 POSTCONSTRUCTION 

Postconstruction monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline right-of-way will be according to the overall 

Project plan (see Sections 2.5 and 3.7, below). Of particular relevance will be monitoring of erosion and 

repairs to maintain the integrity of the line. 

2.5 SURVEY, MONITORING, AND REPORTING 

Surveys will be conducted for non-native invasive plant species after construction is complete. They will 

be compared to the preconstruction survey conducted to determine locations of weed infestations 

attributable to this Project, including the B-Line, Arrowhead Extension, and IID Lateral. North Baja will 

be responsible for weed survey and control two times a year for the first 2 years, then once a year 

thereafter as part of its routine maintenance and operation of the pipeline. The first survey after 

construction will be conducted after rainfall and will consist of walking the entire line, looking for new 

weed infestations. Thereafter, surveys may be conducted aerially with spot ground checks in areas of 

infestations. Weed control will be done at the same time as the survey, since tamarisk, the most likely 

invader, can be most efficiently controlled by hand-pulling, bagging, and disposing of in approved sites. 

The entire line will also be monitored for success of restoration of desert vegetation in addition to the 

routine monitoring specified in Section 3.7, below. Postconstruction monitoring will be conducted 

annually in areas of desert vegetation disturbed by construction through 2012. Results of the monitoring 

will be provided in full reports to the FERC, BLM, CSLC, BOR, FWS, and CDFG as originally agreed 

for the A-Line construction. 

If, after 5 years of monitoring where rainfalls have been at least average for the area, revegetation of the 

construction work area in native desert habitats is determined to be unsuccessful, North Baja will consult 

with FERC, BLM, CSLC, BOR, FWS, and CDFG and develop a remedial restoration plan for desert 

revegetation. The remedial plan will be based upon assessments of the extent of the failure, the reasons 

for the failure, and conditions on the right-of-way, such as whether a viable seed source still exists in the 

soil. It is very unlikely that a remedial plan would include irrigation, which is impracticable in most 

settings along the pipeline. Options may include selective re-scarification of the surface, with or without 

supplemental seeding, or allowing more time for natural regeneration to occur. For each year that rainfall 

amounts have been less than 80 percent of average after 1 drought year subsequent to construction, an 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-10 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

additional year shall be granted beyond the initial 5 years for native vegetation to establish before North 

Baja would be obliged to examine remedial measures. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-11 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.0 UPLAND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 

(FERC UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, 

AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, MODIFIED) 

3.1 APPLICABILITY (FERC PLAN SECTION I., MODIFIED) 

As outlined below, North Baja is proposing modifications to the FERC Plan. This section will apply to all 

nonwetland areas of the Project. Wetland and waterbody systems are addressed in Section 4. 

Deviations that involve measures different from those contained in this section of the CM&R Plan will 

only be permitted as certificated by the Commission or by written approval of the Director of the Office 

of Energy Projects (OEP), or his/her designee, unless specifically required in writing by another Federal, 

State, or Native American land management agency for the portion of the Project on its land. North Baja 

will file other agency requirements with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) before construction. 

3.2 SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION 

3.2.1 Environmental Inspection (FERC Plan Section II.A., Modified) 

1. At least two Environmental Inspectors are required for each construction spread during active 

construction or restoration. The number and experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to 

each construction spread should be appropriate for the length of the construction spread and the 

number/significance of resources affected. 

2. Environmental Inspectors shall have peer status with all other activity inspectors. 

3. Environmental Inspectors shall have the authority to stop activities that violate the environmental 

conditions of the FERC Certificate, State and Federal environmental permit conditions or 

landowner requirements and to order corrective action. 

3.2.2 Responsibilities of Environmental Inspectors (FERC Plan Section II.B., 

Modified) 

At a minimum, the Environmental Inspector(s) shall be responsible for: 

1. Ensuring compliance with the requirements of this CM&R Plan, the environmental conditions of 

the FERC Certificate authorization, the mitigation measures proposed by North Baja in its 

application submitted to FERC, other environmental permits and approvals, and environmental 

requirements in landowner easement agreements; 

2. Identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions, as necessary to bring an activity 

back into compliance; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-12 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3. Verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and locations of access roads are 

properly marked before clearing; 

4. Verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the boundaries of sensitive 

resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, or areas with special requirements along the construction 

work area; 

5. Identifying erosion/sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all areas; 

6. Locating dewatering structures and slope breakers to ensure they will not direct water into known 

cultural resources sites or locations of sensitive species; 

7. Verifying that trench dewatering activities do not result in the deposition of sand, silt, and/or 

sediment near the point of discharge into a wetland or waterbody or cause scouring as a result of 

excessive water volumes and/or pump velocities. If such deposition or scouring is occurring, the 

dewatering activity shall be stopped and the design of the discharge shall be changed to prevent 

recurrence of the relevant problem; 

8. Testing subsoil and topsoil in agricultural and residential areas to measure compaction and 

determine the need for corrective action; 

9. Advising the Chief Inspector when conditions (such as wet weather) make it advisable to restrict 

construction activities in agricultural areas; 

10. Ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil; 

11. Verifying that the soils imported for agricultural or residential use have been certified as free of 

noxious weeds and soil pests; 

12. Determining the need for and ensuring that temporary erosion controls are properly installed as 

necessary to prevent sediment flow into Rannells Drain and the two unnamed canals along the 

Arrowhead Extension and/or as required by regulatory agencies; 

13. Inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control measures at Rannells Drain 

and the two unnamed canals along the Arrowhead Extension at least: 

a. on a daily basis in areas of active construction or equipment operation; 

b. on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment operation; and 

c. within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall; 

14. Ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control measures at Rannells Drain and 

the two unnamed canals along the Arrowhead Extension within 24 hours of identification; 

15. Keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of the FERC Certificate, and 

the mitigation measures proposed by North Baja in the application submitted to the FERC and 

other Federal and State environmental permits during active construction and restoration; and 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-13 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

16. Identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure stabilization and restoration after 

the construction phase. Implementation of this program may be transferred to the company's 

operating section upon completion of construction and restoration activities. 

3.3 PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING 

North Baja will complete the following before construction: 

3.3.1 Construction Work Areas (FERC Plan Section III.A., Modified) 

North Baja will identify all construction work areas (e.g. construction rights-of-way, extra workspace 

areas, pipe storage and contractor yards, borrow and disposal areas, access roads, etc.) that are needed for 

safe construction. North Baja has ensured that appropriate cultural resources and biological surveys were 

conducted and that the extent of those surveys was sufficient to accommodate possible future need for 

activities outside the certificated work areas. 

3.3.2 Drain Tile and Irrigation Systems (FERC Plan Section III.B., Modified) 

1. Attempt to locate existing irrigation systems. 

2. Develop procedures for maintaining irrigation systems during construction, and repairing 

irrigation systems after construction. 

3.3.3 Grazing Deferment (FERC Plan Section III.C., Modified) 

There are no grazing areas that would require grazing deferments along the Project. Therefore, this 

section does not apply. 

3.3.4 Road Crossings and Access Points (FERC Plan Section III.D.) 

North Baja has planned for safe and accessible conditions at all roadway crossings and access points 

during construction and restoration. 

3.3.5 Disposal Planning (FERC Plan Section III.E.) 

North Baja has determined methods and locations for the disposal of brush and excess rock. Off-site 

disposal in other than commercially operated disposal locations is subject to compliance with all 

applicable survey, landowner permission, and mitigation requirements. 

3.3.6 Agency Coordination (FERC Plan Section III.F., Modified) 

North Baja will coordinate with the appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies as outlined in this 

section and in the Certificate. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-14 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

1. Obtain written recommendations from the local soil conservation authorities or land management 

agencies regarding permanent erosion control. North Baja has completed consultation on desert 

restoration techniques and incorporates the results in Section 2, above. Incorporate all agreedupon recommendations into the CM&R Plan, and on alignment sheets, if required (FERC Plan 

Section III.F.1., modified). 

2. Develop specific procedures in coordination with the appropriate agency to prevent the 

introduction or spread of noxious weeds and soil pests resulting from construction and restoration 

activities. At a minimum, North Baja will wash all equipment transferred from Arizona to 

California at the washing station in Ehrenberg to ensure that equipment arriving on site in 

California is clean and will wash down clearing and grading equipment before moving equipment 

from non-native into native vegetation areas as outlined in Section 2 of this CM&R Plan (FERC 

Plan Section III.F.2., modified). 

3.3.7 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (FERC Plan Section III.G., 

Modified) 

North Baja will make available on each construction spread the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans 

(SWPPPs) that would be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality and the California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, Colorado River Basin Region. 

3.4 INSTALLATION 

3.4.1 Approved Areas of Disturbance (FERC Plan Section IV.A.) 

1. Project-related ground disturbance shall be limited to the construction right-of-way, extra 

workspace areas, pipe storage yards, borrow and disposal areas, access roads, and other areas 

approved in the certificate. Any Project-related ground-disturbing activities outside these 

certificated areas, except those needed to comply with the Plan and Procedures (e.g., slope 

breakers, energy-dissipating devices, dewatering structures, drain tile system repairs) will require 

prior Director approval. All construction or restoration activities outside of the certificated areas 

are subject to all applicable survey and mitigation requirements. 

2. The construction right-of-way width shall not exceed that described in North Baja's FERC 

application unless otherwise modified by a certificate condition. However, in limited non-wetland 

areas, this construction right-of-way width may be expanded by up to 25 feet without Director 

approval to accommodate full construction right-of-way topsoil segregation and to ensure safe 

construction where topographic conditions, such as side-slopes, require it. Twenty-five feet of 

extra construction right-of-way width may also be used in limited, non-wetland or non-forested 

areas for truck turnaround where no reasonable alternative access exists. 

Project use of these additional limited areas is subject to landowner approval and compliance with 

all applicable survey and mitigation requirements. When such additional areas are used, each one 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-15 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

would be identified and the need explained in the weekly or biweekly construction reports to the 

FERC. The following material would be included in the reports: 

a. the location of each additional area by station number and reference to a previously filed 

alignment sheet, or updated alignment sheets showing the additional areas; 

b. identification of where the Commission's records contain evidence that the additional areas 

were previously surveyed; and 

c. a statement that landowner approval has been obtained and is available in Project files. 

Prior written approval of the Director is required when the certificated construction right-of-way width 

would be expanded by more than 25 feet. 

3.4.2 Topsoil Segregation (FERC Plan Section IV.B., Modified) 

1. Unless the landowner or land management agency specifically approves otherwise, prevent the 

mixing of topsoil with subsoil by stripping topsoil from either the full work area or from the 

trench and subsoil storage area (ditch plus spoil side method) in: 

• native desert habitats (based on desert restoration techniques found in Section 2 of this 

CM&R Plan ); 

• annually cultivated or rotated agricultural lands and pastures; 

• hayfields; 

• residential areas; and 

• other areas at the landowner's or land managing agency’s request (FERC Plan Section IV.B.1, 

modified). 

2. In residential areas topsoil replacement (i.e., importation of topsoil) is an acceptable alternative to 

topsoil segregation. (FERC Plan Section IV.B.2). 

3. In agricultural fields, to maintain the integrity of the temporarily displaced topsoil horizon (depth 

to be determined before construction), topsoil will be stripped to its actual depth up to 2 feet and 

stockpiled at the edge of the right-of-way so that it can be replaced, as nearly as possible, in the 

topsoil’s original position within the soil profile. 

4. Where topsoil segregation is required, maintain separation of salvaged topsoil and subsoil 

throughout all construction activities. 

5. Segregated topsoil may not be used for padding the pipe or backfilling the trench (FERC Plan 

Section IV.B.5). 

3.4.3 Drain Tiles (FERC Plan Section IV.C., Modified) 

This section does not apply because the Project does not cross land with drain tiles. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-16 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.4.4 Irrigation (FERC Plan Section IV.D.) 

Maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff is coordinated with affected parties. 

3.4.5 Road Crossings and Access Points (FERC Plan Section IV.E., Modified) 

Maintain safe conditions at all road crossings in accordance with the road crossing. North Baja will not 

use crushed stone access pads in residential or active agricultural areas, so Part 2 does not apply. 

3.4.6 Temporary Erosion Control (FERC Plan Section IV.F., Modified) 

North Baja does not propose to install temporary erosion controls. This is because of the level topography 

along most of the route and the stony soil where slopes are somewhat steeper along portions of the B-Line 

route east of Highway 78. In the Project area, rainfall amounts average less than 5 inches annually, but 

rain often occurs in intense cloudbursts that result in flash flooding, which in turn renders typical erosion 

controls (silt fence, hay bales, etc.) ineffective. Therefore, Part 1, regarding temporary slope breakers; 

Part 2, regarding sediment barriers; and Part 3, regarding mulch do not apply to this Project. 

3.5 RESTORATION 

3.5.1 Cleanup (FERC Plan Section V.A., Modified) 

1. Commence cleanup operations immediately following backfill operations. Complete final 

grading, topsoil replacement, and installation of permanent erosion control structures within 20 

days after backfilling the trench (10 days in residential areas). Weather compliance limitations are 

not applicable in this climate; therefore, part of this Part 1 does not apply. 

2. Section 2 is not applicable because temporary erosion controls are not needed. 

3. Rock excavated from the trench may be used to backfill the trench only to the top of the existing 

bedrock profile. Rock that is not returned to the trench should be considered construction debris, 

unless approved for use as mulch or for some other use on the construction work areas by the 

landowner or land managing agency. 

4. Remove excess rock from at least the top 12 inches of soil in all actively cultivated or rotated 

cropland and pastures, hayfields, and residential areas, as well as other areas at the landowner's 

request. The size, density, and distribution of rock on the construction work area should be 

similar to adjacent areas not disturbed by construction. The landowner may approve other 

provisions in writing. 

5. Grade the construction right-of-way to restore pre-construction contours. 

6. Remove construction debris from all construction work areas unless the landowner or land 

managing agency approves otherwise, and the debris left behind will be in compliance with all 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-17 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

7. Section 7 does not apply because temporary erosion control measures are not applicable. 

3.5.2 Permanent Erosion Control Devices (FERC Plan Section V.B.) 

1. Trench Breakers 

a. Trench breakers are intended to slow the flow of subsurface water along the trench. Trench 

breakers may be constructed of materials such as sand bags or polyurethane foam. Do not use 

topsoil in trench breakers. 

b. An engineer or similarly qualified professional shall determine the need for and spacing of 

trench breakers. Otherwise, trench breakers shall be installed at the same spacing as and 

upslope of permanent slope breakers. 

c. In agricultural fields and residential areas where slope breakers are not typically required, 

install trench breakers at the same spacing as if permanent slope breakers were required. 

d. At a minimum, install a trench breaker at the base of slopes greater than 5 percent where the 

base of the slope is less than 50 feet from a waterbody or wetland and where needed to avoid 

draining a waterbody or wetland. 

2. Permanent Slope Breakers 

a. Permanent slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff velocity, divert water off the 

construction right-of-way, and prevent sediment deposition into sensitive resources. 

Permanent slope breakers may be constructed of materials such as soil, sand bags, or some 

functional equivalent. 

b. Construct and maintain permanent slope breakers in all areas, except cultivated areas and 

lawns, using spacing recommendations obtained from the local soil conservation authority or 

land managing agency. 

In the absence of written recommendations, use the following spacing unless closer spacing is 

necessary to avoid excessive erosion on the construction right-of-way: 

Slope (%) Spacing (ft.) 

5 – 15 300 

>15 – 30 200 

>30 100 

c. Construct slope breakers to divert surface flow to a stable area without causing water to pool 

or erode behind the breaker. In the absence of a stable area, construct appropriate energydissipating devices at the end of the breaker. 

d. Slope breakers may extend slightly (about 4 feet) beyond the edge of the construction rightof-way to effectively drain water off the disturbed area. Where slope breakers extend beyond 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-18 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

the edge of the construction right-of-way, they are subject to compliance with all applicable 

survey requirements. 

3.5.3 Soil Compaction Mitigation (FERC Plan Section V.C., Modified) 

1. Test topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular intervals in agricultural and residential areas 

disturbed by construction activities. Conduct tests on the same soil type under similar moisture 

conditions in undisturbed areas to identify approximate preconstruction conditions. Use 

penetrometers or other appropriate devices to conduct tests. 

Sampling Procedure: Compaction sampling will be carried out by staff along the right-of-way 

at 1-mile intervals in fine-textured soils where compaction may be a concern. At least three 

measurements inside the right-of-way and three measurements outside the right-of-way will be 

taken. Measurements will be taken in line perpendicular to the centerline. Three test points will 

be taken along the travel corridor on the working side of the right-of-way. This is a heavily 

traveled area immediately adjacent to the centerline trench and is the most likely candidate for 

severe compaction. One point will be sampled over the approximate center of the travel corridor 

and two other points 5 feet in either direction. Three test points will be taken at 5 feet, 10 feet, 

and 15 feet outside of the right-of-way limits on the working side of the right-of-way. 

Penetrometer readings will be taken at a depth of 3 inches, 6 inches, and 9 inches (where soil 

conditions allow). 

If severe compaction exists along the right-of-way (see below, Penetration Parameters), 

additional testing will be conducted at 0.1-mile intervals in either direction following the abovedescribed methods until the area where compaction is severe has been defined. 

Penetration Parameters: Penetration resistance of soils ranges from 0 pounds per square inch 

(PSI) to 725 PSI. Plant roots can no longer penetrate the soil mass at densities above 725 PSI. 

Undisturbed resistance values for native soils range from 0 to 100 PSI for sandy or organic 

topsoils to 300 to 500 PSI for clayey subsoil. In comparing affected to unaffected sites, an 

increase in penetration resistance of 300 PSI, equivalent to over one-level increase in resistance 

category, is a reasonable gauge of compaction. Use of cone penetrometers may be impossible in 

extremely rocky or gravelly desert soils. If the equipment cannot easily be used to a depth of at 

least 3 inches because of obstruction from rocks, gravel, or plant roots, the assumption will be 

that there is sufficient coarse material in the soil to ameliorate compaction and that further testing 

or soil manipulation is not required. 

2. Plow severely compacted agricultural areas with a paraplow or other deep tillage implement. In 

areas where topsoil has been segregated, plow the subsoil before replacing the segregated topsoil. 

Alternatively, make arrangements with the landowner to plant and plow under a "green manure" 

crop, such as alfalfa, to decrease soil bulk density and improve soil structure. If subsequent 

construction and cleanup activities result in further compaction, conduct additional tilling. 

3. Perform appropriate soil compaction mitigation in severely compacted residential areas. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-19 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4. Compaction is normally a concern during pipeline construction. However, based on the soils 

analysis conducted by North Baja (see Resource Report 7) there is little potential for compaction 

in the coarse-textured soils of the desert areas. Construction of the A-Line did not result in any 

compaction problems in native desert habitats, and revegetation progress has been very good. 

Soils that are poorly, somewhat poorly, or very poorly drained have compaction potential, 

depending on soil texture. A query of the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database 

determined that for this pipeline route, including the IID Lateral, there are no soils in these 

categories. Therefore, based on the STATSGO information, there is little potential for soil 

compaction. 

Soil compaction testing will not be conducted in desert habitats where compaction did not occur 

during the construction of the A-Line. Testing completed for the A-Line indicated no areas of 

compaction in native desert habitats. No additional testing is needed in the same soil types and in 

the same areas. Soil testing will be conducted in fine-textured soils along the IID Lateral in 

native desert habitats. Note that no such soils have been shown to exist in the STATSGO 

database, and no compaction potential has been identified for these areas. However, if finetextured soil is encountered, as identified by the Environmental Inspector or the BLM, 

compaction testing will be conducted, using the compaction testing procedure identified in 

section 1. above. 

Soil Treatment: Reservation of topsoil and imprinting practices will be relied upon except in 

cases of severe soil compaction caused by Project activities. Soil ripping will be applied when 

average penetrometer readings of compacted soils on the pipeline corridor are ≥ 300 PSI more 

than soils unaffected by compaction. Ripping will be carried out with an implement that has as 

small a space between tines that can be effectively passed through the soil. Depth of ripping will 

be 6 to 9 inches, or as specified by inspectors. Rocks and root masses may preclude ripping in 

some areas. 

3.5.4 Revegetation (FERC Plan Section V.D., Modified) 

1. Restoration methods for desert habitats are specified in Section 2, above. Where applicable in 

residential areas, North Baja will restore all turf, ornamental shrubs, and specialized landscaping 

in accordance with the landowner's request, or compensate the landowner. Restoration work must 

be performed by personnel familiar with local horticultural and turf establishment practices. 

2. North Baja will not use soil modifiers or seeding; therefore Parts 2 and 3 do not apply. 

3.6 OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL (FERC PLAN SECTION VI., 

MODIFIED) 

Where requested, North Baja will offer to install and maintain measures to discourage unauthorized 

vehicle access to the right-of-way. These may include signs or other barriers along the right-of-way. See 

also Section 2, above, and Appendix P, OHV Management Plan. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-20 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.7 POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 

3.7.1 Monitoring and Maintenance (FERC Plan Section VII.A., Modified) 

1. Conduct follow-up inspections of all disturbed areas after the first and second growing seasons to 

determine the success of restoration. 

2. North Baja has specified special restoration measures for desert habitats. See Section 2, above. 

Therefore, Part 2 of the FERC Plan Section VII.A. is modified, Part 4 is not applicable, and Part 6 

is modified to recognize that full control of OHV use in the desert is not feasible. Restoration 

shall be considered successful in agricultural areas if crop yields are similar to adjacent 

undisturbed portions of the same field. Continue revegetation efforts in agricultural areas until 

revegetation is successful. 

3. Monitor and correct problems with drainage and irrigation systems resulting from pipeline 

construction in active agricultural areas until restoration is successful. 

4. (Not applicable—modified by Section 2, above). 

5. To facilitate periodic corrosion and leak surveys, a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width 

centered on the pipeline may be maintained annually. 

6. In native desert habitats, restoration shall be considered successful if the right-of-way is similar in 

species composition to adjacent undisturbed lands. 

Post-construction monitoring would be conducted annually in areas of native desert habitats 

disturbed by construction through 2012. Results of the monitoring will be provided in full reports 

to the FERC, BLM, CSLC, BOR, FWS, and CDFG. If, after 5 years of monitoring where 

rainfalls have been at least average for the area, revegetation of the construction work area in 

native desert habitats is determined to be unsuccessful, North Baja will consult with FERC, BLM, 

CSLC, BOR, FWS, and CDFG and develop a remedial restoration plan for desert revegetation. 

The remedial plan will be based upon assessments of the extent of the failure, the reasons for the 

failure, and conditions on the right-of-way, such as whether a viable seed source still exists in the 

soil. It is very unlikely that a remedial plan would include irrigation, which is impracticable in 

most settings along the pipeline. Options may include selective re-scarification of the surface, 

with or without supplemental seeding, or allowing more time for natural regeneration to occur. 

For each year that rainfall amounts have been less than 80 percent of average after 1 drought year 

subsequent to construction, an additional year shall be granted beyond the initial 5 years for 

native vegetation to establish before North Baja would be obliged to examine remedial measures. 

7. Efforts to discourage unauthorized off-road vehicle use, in cooperation with the landowner, shall 

continue throughout the life of the Project. Maintain signs, gates, and vehicle trails as necessary. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-21 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.7.2 Reporting (FERC Plan Section VII.B., Modified) 

1. Part 1 of Section VII.B. is not applicable because no soil modifiers or seeding is necessary or 

proposed for the Project. 

2. North Baja shall file with the FERC and the CSLC quarterly activity reports documenting 

problems, including those identified by the landowner, and corrective actions taken for at least 2 

years following construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-22 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.0 WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES 

4.1 APPLICABILITY (FERC PROCEDURES SECTION I., MODIFIED) 

A. The intent of these Procedures is to minimize the extent and duration of Project-related 

disturbance of wetlands and waterbodies. North Baja has specified measures considered 

unnecessary, technically infeasible, or unsuitable due to local conditions, and has described any 

alternatives herein. 

Once a Project is certificated, further changes can be approved. Any such changes from the 

measures in these Procedures (or the Applicant’s approved CM&R Plan) will be approved by the 

Director of the Office of Energy Projects (Director), upon the Applicant’s written request, if the 

Director agrees that an alternative measure: 

1. provides equal or better environmental protection; 

2. is necessary because a portion of these Procedures is infeasible or unworkable based on 

Project-specific conditions; or 

3. is specifically required in writing by another Federal, State, or Native American land 

management agency for the portion of the Project on its land or under its jurisdiction. 

Project-related impacts on non-wetland areas are addressed in the staff’s Upland Erosion Control, 

Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan). 

B. Definitions 

1. "Waterbody" includes any natural or artificial stream, river, or drainage with perceptible flow 

at the time of crossing, and other permanent waterbodies such as ponds and lakes: 

a. "minor waterbody" includes all waterbodies less than or equal to 10 feet wide at the 

water's edge at the time of crossing; 

b. "intermediate waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 10 feet wide but less than 

or equal to 100 feet wide at the water's edge at the time of crossing; 

c. "major waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 100 feet wide at the water's edge 

at the time of crossing. 

2. "Wetland" includes any area that is not in actively cultivated or rotated cropland and that 

satisfies the requirements of the current Federal methodology for identifying and delineating 

wetlands. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-23 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.2 PRECONSTRUCTION FILING (FERC PROCEDURES SECTION II, 

MODIFIED) 

A. North Baja shall file with the Secretary before construction the hydrostatic testing information 

and an updated wetland delineation report, if needed. North Baja will not use underwater blasting 

on the Project. Trenching will be used in a waterbody only to cross Rannells Drain, which is 

covered in Section 4.5.2, Paragraph 4, of this CM&R Plan. 

B. North Baja shall file the following site-specific construction plans with the FERC for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP before construction. 

1. Part 1 does not apply because as no extra workspaces are planned within 50 feet of a 

waterbody. 

2. Part 2 does not apply because there are no major waterway crossings except as covered in 4, 

below. 

3. Part 3 does not apply because the construction right-of-way in the only wetlands crossed by 

trenching is covered in Section 4.6, below. 

4. Horizontal directional drill plans for “crossing” the Colorado River, the AAC, and the East 

Highline Canal. 

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS (FERC PROCEDURES SECTION 

III., MODIFIED) 

A. At least two Environmental Inspectors having knowledge of the wetland and waterbody 

conditions in the Project area are required for each construction spread. The number and 

experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each construction spread should be 

appropriate for the length of the construction spread and the number/significance of resources 

affected. 

B. The Environmental Inspector's responsibilities are outlined in Section 3.2.2, above. 

4.4 PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING 

4.4.1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (FERC Procedures Section IV.A., 

Modified) 

A. A copy of the SWPPPs that would be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality and the California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region must be available in 

the field on each construction spread. The SWPPPs shall contain Spill Prevention and 

Response Procedures that meet the requirements of applicable agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-24 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

1. North Baja and its contractors will structure their operations in a manner that reduces the risk of 

spills or the accidental exposure of fuels or hazardous materials to waterbodies or wetlands. 

a. all employees handling fuels and other hazardous materials are properly trained; 

b. all equipment is in good operating order and inspected on a regular basis; 

c. fuel trucks transporting fuel to on-site equipment travel only on approved access roads; 

d. all equipment is parked overnight and/or fueled at least 100 feet from a waterbody or in an 

upland area, at least 100 feet from a wetland boundary, and at least 200 feet from any 

private, municipal or community water well. These activities can occur closer only if the 

Environmental Inspector finds, in advance, no reasonable alternative and the Project sponsor 

and its contractors have taken appropriate steps (including secondary containment structures) 

to prevent spills and provide for prompt cleanup in the event of a spill; 

e. hazardous materials, including chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils, are not stored within 

200 feet of a wetland, 200 feet from private wells, and 400 feet from municipal water 

supply wells, unless the location is designated for such use by an appropriate governmental 

authority. This applies to storage of these materials and does not apply to normal operation or 

use of equipment in these areas; and 

f. concrete coating activities are not performed within 100 feet of a wetland or waterbody 

boundary, unless the location is an existing industrial site designated for such use. 

2. North Baja and its contractors will structure their operations in a manner that provides for the 

prompt and effective cleanup of spills of fuel and other hazardous materials. North Baja will: 

a. ensure that each construction crew (including cleanup crews) has on hand sufficient supplies 

of absorbent and barrier materials to allow the rapid containment and recovery of spilled 

materials and knows the procedure for reporting spills; 

b. ensure that each construction crew has on hand sufficient tools and material to stop leaks; 

c. know the contact names and telephone numbers for all local, State, and Federal agencies 

(including, if necessary, the U. S. Coast Guard and the National Response Center) that must 

be notified of a spill; and 

d. follow the requirements of those agencies in cleaning up the spill, in excavating and 

disposing of soils or other materials contaminated by a spill, and in collecting and disposing 

of waste generated during spill cleanup. 

B. North Baja shall coordinate with the appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies. 

4.5 WATERBODY CROSSINGS 

4.5.1 Notification Procedures and Permits (FERC Procedures Section V.A., 

Modified) 

1. North Baja will apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the appropriate 

wetland and waterbody permits required for the proposed construction activities. 

2. Part 2 does not apply because there are no potable surface water supply intakes within 3 miles 

downstream of the proposed crossing. 

3. North Baja will apply for State-issued waterbody crossing permits and obtain a Section 401 

Water Quality Certification. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-25 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4. Notify appropriate State authorities at least 48 hours before trenching within the waterbody, 

or as specified in State permits. 

4.5.2 Installation (FERC Procedures Section V.B., Modified) 

1. Time windows for construction do not apply, since fisheries are not affected. North Baja will 

cross the Colorado River, the AAC (three crossings) and the East Highline Canal using the 

horizontal directional drill method, and no instream work will occur. The other waterbodies 

crossed by the proposed Project (with the exception of Rannells Drain) are canals, drainage 

ditches, or streams (Alamo River) that will be crossed within county or private roads using 

existing culverts and road fill or bored beneath the canal structure. Rannells Drain, which is 

not a classified fishery, will be the only waterbody crossed using the open-cut method. 

2. Extra Work Areas 

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage areas) at 

least 50 feet away from water’s edge, except where the adjacent upland consists of 

actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. 

b. North Baja will file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director, a 

site-specific construction plan for each extra work area with a less than 50 foot setback 

from the water's edge, (except where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or 

rotated cropland or other disturbed land) and a site-specific explanation of the conditions 

that will not permit a 50-foot setback. 

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the edge of the waterbody to 

the certificated construction right-of-way. 

d. Limit the size of extra work areas to the minimum needed to construct the waterbody 

crossing. 

3. General Crossing Procedures 

a. Comply with the Section 404 permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification in 

addition to terms and conditions of other applicable permits. 

b. Construct crossings as close to perpendicular to the axis of the waterbody channel as 

engineering and routing conditions permit. 

c. If the pipeline parallels a waterbody, attempt to maintain at least 15 feet of undisturbed 

vegetation between the waterbody (and any adjacent wetland) and the construction rightof-way. 

d. Part d does not apply because the waterways crossed do not meander or have multiple 

channels. 

e. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, and prevent the interruption of 

existing downstream uses. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-26 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

f. Waterbody buffers (extra work area setbacks, refueling restrictions, etc.) must be clearly 

marked in the field with signs and/or highly visible flagging until construction-related 

ground disturbing activities are complete. 

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control 

a. All spoil must be placed in the construction right-of-way at least 10 feet from the water's 

edge or in additional extra work areas. 

b. Use sediment barriers to prevent the flow of spoil into any waterbody. 

5. Part 5 does not apply because no equipment bridges are proposed for the Project. 

6. Part 6 does not apply because no dry-ditch crossing methods are proposed for the Project. 

7. Part 7 does not apply because no minor waterbody crossings are proposed for the Project. 

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies (applies only to the open-cut crossing of Rannells 

Drain) 

a. Attempt to complete trenching and backfill work within the waterbody (not including 

bank grading) within 72 hours, unless site-specific conditions make completion within 

72 hours infeasible. 

b. Limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed to construct the 

crossing. 

9. Part 9 does not apply because no major waterbody crossings are proposed for the Project. 

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (applies only to Rannells Drain Crossing) 

North Baja will install sediment barriers immediately after disturbance of Rannells Drain or 

the adjacent upland. Sediment barriers must be properly maintained throughout construction 

and reinstalled as necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench) until replaced by 

permanent erosion controls or restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete. Temporary 

erosion and sediment control measures are addressed in more detail in the Plan; however, the 

following specific measures must be implemented at stream crossings: 

a. install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way at all waterbody 

crossings, where necessary to prevent the flow of sediments into the waterbody. In the 

travel lane, these may consist of removable sediment barriers or driveable berms. 

Removable sediment barriers can be removed during the construction day, but must be reinstalled after construction has stopped for the day and/or when heavy precipitation is 

imminent; 

b. where waterbodies are adjacent to the construction right-of-way, install sediment barriers 

along the edge of the construction right-of-way as necessary to contain spoil and sediment 

within the construction right-of-way; and 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-27 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

c. use trench plugs at all waterbody crossings, as necessary, to prevent diversion of water 

into upland portions of the pipeline trench and to keep any accumulated trench water out 

of the waterbody. 

11. Trench Dewatering. 

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a manner that does not 

cause erosion and does not result in heavily silt-laden water flowing into any waterbody. 

Remove the dewatering structures as soon as possible after the completion of dewatering 

activities. 

4.5.3 Restoration (FERC Procedures Section V.C., Modified) 

1. Part 1 does not apply because there are no cold-water fisheries crossed by the Project. 

2. For open-cut crossings, stabilize waterbody banks and install temporary sediment barriers within 

24 hours of completing instream construction activities. There are no dry-ditch crossings for the 

Project. 

3. Return all waterbody banks to preconstruction contours or to a stable angle of repose as approved 

by the Environmental Inspector. 

4. Part 4 does not apply because riprap will not be used on the Project. 

5. Part 5 does not apply because riprap will not be used on the Project. 

6. Part 6 does not apply because the Project will not disturb any riparian areas. 

7. Part 7 is covered in Section 3.5.2, above, and will apply to Rannell’s Drain crossing only. 

8. Part 8 does not apply because there are no perennial or intermittent streams crossed by the 

Project. 

4.5.4 Post-Construction Maintenance (FERC Procedures Section V.D., 

Modified) 

1. Vegetation maintenance adjacent to waterbodies or in dry washes will be limited to that needed to 

facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys. This part is modified to reflect that the Project 

does not impact any riparian areas and includes dry wash crossings not covered in the Procedures. 

2. No herbicides or pesticides will be used in or within 100 feet of a waterbody except as specified 

by the appropriate land management or State agency. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-28 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.6 WETLAND CROSSINGS (FERC PROCEDURES SECTION VI, 

MODIFIED) 

4.6.1 General (FERC Procedures Section VI.A., Modified) 

1. North Baja has completed wetland delineations along the North Baja Project route. Eighteen 

wetlands were identified with a total crossing length of 14,493 feet. Construction impact on 

six of the wetlands will be avoided by the directional drills of the Colorado River (two 

wetlands), the AAC (two wetlands), and the East Highline Canal (two wetlands). Of the 

remaining twelve wetlands, three will be avoided by building in the roadway (IID Lateral at 

the Alamo River, Acacia Lateral Canal, and Alder Lateral Canal). The other nine wetlands, 

all sodic seasonal wetlands with non-native tamarisk as the dominant vegetation, will be 

trenched, for a total crossing length of 13,660 feet. 

2. North Baja routed its pipeline to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent possible. Where the 

B-Line crosses wetlands, it does so only 25 feet from the existing A-Line. 

3. The B-Line width through the sodic seasonal wetlands in the wetlands covered by the FERC 

Procedures will be 105 feet. The degraded nature of the wetland and the extensive and rapidly 

invading presence of tamarisk does not warrant right-of-way narrowing in this area. 

Following post-construction of the A-line, representative vegetative sampling plot locations 

were established to monitor the revegetation of impacted areas. These surveys were 

conducted twice per year for the first 2 years and continue to be conducted annually. North 

Baja has filed annual reports with FERC, CSLC, BLM, and CDFG as agreed in the CM&R 

Plan for the A-Line construction. These reports document revegetation of native and 

nonnative species. Representative plot locations established within these monotypic tamarisk 

wetlands have shown rapid re-establishment of tamarisk with a range of cover between 5 to 

40 percent, and limited species diversity of shrubs. Colonization of these wetlands consists 

almost entirely of tamarisk with several individuals of salt bush (Atriplex lentiformes). These 

wetland areas contain very high concentrations of salts, which precludes colonization of most 

native vegetation, with the exception of salt bush and iodine bush. 

4. Wetland boundaries and buffers will be clearly marked in the field until construction-related 

ground-disturbing activities are complete. 

5. Part 5 does not apply because no water crossing is located within a wetland. 

6. Part 6 does not apply because no aboveground facilities will be located in wetlands. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-29 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.6.2 Installation (FERC Plan Section VI.B., Modified) 

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads 

a. North Baja will locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage 

areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries, except where the adjacent upland 

consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. Exceptions are listed 

in Table E-2, below. 

b. Table E-2, below, lists needed extra workspaces in wetlands and includes a brief explanation 

of the need for each workspace. North Baja does not believe additional drawings are needed. 

Table E-2 Extra Workspaces Needed in Wetlands 

Disturbance 

Approximate Acres 

Milepost County, State 

Wetland 

Identifier Need for EWS 

Orientation 

to ROW Total New 

Arrowhead Extension 

No Wetlands 

B-Line 

28.2 Imperial, CA N68-WE-29 Horizontal Bore, Hwy 78 East 0.1 0.0 

28.3 Imperial, CA N69-WE-29 Horizontal Bore, Hwy 78 East 0.2 0.0 

28.5 Imperial, CA N70-WE-29 

Offset EWS to avoid 

powerline West 0.5 0.5 

31.9 Imperial, CA CWE-5 

Offset EWS to avoid steep 

sideslopes and powerline East 1.5 0.0 

32.1 Imperial, CA CWE-5 

Offset EWS to avoid steep 

sideslopes and powerline West 0.3 0.3 

IID Lateral 

27.5 Imperial, CA 

East Highline 

Canal – East 

Set up area for HDD 

Pullback South 0.1 0.1 

 Total Acres 2.7 0.9 

c. North Baja will limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the edge of the 

wetland to the certificated construction right-of-way. 

d. The construction right-of-way may be used for access when the wetland soil is firm enough to 

avoid rutting or the construction right-of-way has been appropriately stabilized to avoid rutting 

(e.g., with timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats). In wetlands that cannot be 

appropriately stabilized, all construction equipment other than that needed to install the wetland 

crossing shall use access roads located in upland areas. Where access roads in upland areas do not 

provide reasonable access, limit all other construction equipment to one pass through the wetland 

using the construction right-of-way. 

e. The only access road that crosses a wetland is an existing access road. 

2. Crossing Procedures 

a. Comply with the Section 404 permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification in addition 

to terms and conditions of other applicable permits. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-30 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

b. Assemble the pipeline in an upland area unless the wetland is dry enough to adequately 

support skids and pipe. 

c. Use "push-pull" or "float" techniques to place the pipe in the trench where water and other site 

conditions allow. 

d. Minimize the length of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench is open. 

e. Limit construction equipment operating in wetland areas to that needed to clear the right-ofway, separate and stockpile topsoil, dig the trench, fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill 

the trench, and restore the right-of-way. 

f. Cut vegetation just above ground level, leaving existing root systems in place, and remove it 

from the wetland for disposal if the wetland is dominated by native species. 

g. All tamarisk trees and shrubs will be removed, including stumps and root systems, and either 

burned or disposed using covered dump trucks to approved public facilities. 

h. Segregate the top 1 foot of topsoil from the area disturbed by trenching except in areas where 

standing water or saturated soils are present. After backfilling is complete, restore the 

segregated topsoil to its original location. 

i. Do not use rock, soil imported from outside the wetland, tree stumps, or brush riprap to 

stabilize the right-of-way. 

j. If standing water or saturated soils are present, use low-ground-weight construction 

equipment, or operate normal equipment on timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats or 

terra mats. 

k. Part k does not apply because timbers will not be used on the Project. 

l. Part l does not apply because timbers will not be used on the Project. 

m. Remove all Project-related material used to support equipment on the construction right-of 

way upon completion of construction. 

3. Temporary Sediment Control 

Wetland crossings on the Project are constructed in flat terrain. No sediment controls are needed 

and Part 3 does not apply. 

4. Trench Dewatering 

a. Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a manner that does not 

cause erosion and does not result in heavily silt-laden water flowing into any wetland. Adhere 

to all applicable permits, including water quality sampling and monitoring as required.

Remove the dewatering structures as soon as possible after the completion of dewatering 

activities. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-31 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.6.3 Restoration (FERC Plan Section VI.C., Modified) 

1. Where the pipeline trench may drain a wetland, construct trench breakers and/or seal the trench 

bottom as necessary to maintain the original wetland hydrology. 

2. Wetland crossings on the Project are constructed in flat terrain. No trench breakers, slope 

breakers or sediment barriers are needed and Part 2 does not apply. 

3. Do not use fertilizer, lime, or mulch unless required in writing by the appropriate land 

management or State agency. 

4. Since the only wetlands that are crossed by trenching are sodic seasonal wetlands with monotypic 

tamarisk vegetation within and adjacent to the existing and proposed right-of-way, North Baja 

does not propose any restoration beyond that specified in Section 2, above. During construction 

of the A-Line, the manager of the Cibola NWR requested that sheepsfooting not be used, and 

North Baja is not proposing to use sheepsfooting in these wetlands after B-Line construction. 

Therefore, parts 4, 5, and 6 do not apply. No temporary sediment barriers are necessary or 

proposed; therefore, Part 7 does not apply. 

4.6.4 Post-Construction Maintenance (FERC Plan Section VI.D., Modified) 

1. Do not conduct vegetation maintenance over the full width of the permanent right-of-way in 

wetlands. However, to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on 

the pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in a herbaceous state. In addition, trees 

within 15 feet of the pipeline that are greater than 15 feet in height may be selectively cut and 

removed from the right-of-way. 

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a wetland, except as allowed by the 

appropriate land management agency or State agency. 

3. Monitoring and success criteria are specified in Section 2, above. Therefore, parts 3 and 4 do not 

apply. 

4.7 HYDROSTATIC TESTING 

4.7.1 Notification Procedures and Permits (FERC Plan Section VII.A.) 

1. Apply for State-issued withdrawal permits, as required. 

2. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State-issued discharge 

permits, as required. 

3. Notify appropriate State agencies of intent to use specific sources at least 48 hours before testing 

activities unless they waive this requirement in writing. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX E 

May 2006 E-32 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.7.2 General (FERC Plan Section VII.B.) 

1. North Baja will perform 100 percent radiographic inspection of all pipeline section welds or 

hydrotest the pipeline sections, before installation under waterbodies or wetlands. 

2. If pumps used for hydrostatic testing are within 100 feet of any waterbody or wetlands, address 

the operation and refueling of these pumps in the SPCC Plan. 

3. North Baja will file with the Secretary before construction a list identifying the location of all 

waterbodies proposed for use as a hydrostatic test water source or discharge location. 

4.7.3 Intake Source and Rate (FERC Plan Section VII.C.) 

1. Screen the intake hose to prevent entrainment of fish. 

2. North Baja will not use State-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies which provide 

habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or waterbodies designated as public 

water supplies, unless appropriate Federal, State, and/or local permitting agencies grant written 

permission. 

3. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, provide for all waterbody uses, and provide 

for downstream withdrawals of water by existing users. 

4. Hydrostatic test manifolds will be located outside wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum 

extent practicable. 

4.7.4 Discharge Location, Method, and Rate (FERC Plan Section VII.D., 

Modified) 

1. Regulate discharge rate, use energy dissipation device(s), and install sediment barriers, as 

necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour, suspension of sediments, or excessive streamflow. 

Adhere to all applicable permits, including water quality sampling and monitoring as required. 

2. Do not discharge into State-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies which provide 

habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or waterbodies designated as public 

water supplies, unless appropriate Federal, State, and local permitting agencies grant written 

permission. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT, AND CONTROL 

PLAN FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix F 

Spill Prevention, Containment, and 

Control Plan for Hazardous Materials 

and Wastes 

Prepared by 

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

February 2006

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. F-1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SPILL PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT AND CONTROL 

PLAN...................................................................................................................... F-1

1.2 NORTH BAJA EXPANSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................... F-1

1.3 RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS SPCC PLAN .................................................. F-1

1.3.1 NBX Representatives................................................................................ F-2

1.3.2 Contractor Responsibilities ....................................................................... F-2

2.0 SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES ................................................................................ F-5

2.1 SITE SELECTION.................................................................................................. F-5

2.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................. F-5

2.2.1 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. F-5

2.2.2 Wastes ...................................................................................................... F-5

2.3 SPILL PREVENTION ............................................................................................. F-6

2.3.1 Tank and Container Specifications ........................................................... F-6

2.3.2 Dispensing and Transfer........................................................................... F-7

2.3.3 Materials Storage...................................................................................... F-7

2.3.4 Setback Exceptions................................................................................... F-8

2.3.5 Equipment for Safe Tank Operation.......................................................... F-8

2.3.6 Separation of Incompatible Materials........................................................ F-9

2.3.7 Labeling, Marking and Placarding............................................................. F-9

2.4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT ............................................................................. F-9

2.4.1 Approved Secondary Containment ........................................................... F-9

2.4.2 Minimum Standards for Secondary Containment ..................................... F-9

2.5 REGULAR INSPECTIONS................................................................................... F-10

3.0 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................ F-11

3.1 EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ............................................................................ F-11

3.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT........................................................... F-11

3.2.1 Contractor’s Spill Containment and Cleanup Resources........................ F-11

3.2.2 Maintaining Emergency Response Equipment ....................................... F-13

4.0 INCIDENT OR EMERGENCY RESPONSE.................................................................. F-14

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE NOTIFICATION .................................................. F-14

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE RESPONSE ACTIONS....................................... F-14

4.2.1 Incident Response .................................................................................. F-14

4.2.2 Emergency Response............................................................................. F-15

5.0 TRAINING..................................................................................................................... F-18

6.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. F-19

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-ii North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment A Contractor’s Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Forms, 

Parts I and II 

Attachment B Labels for Waste Containers 

Attachment C Contractor’s Emergency Response Plan Form 

Attachment D Site Maps 

Attachment E Table 1 - Waste Cross-Reference 

Table 2 - Waste Quick Reference Guide and Waste Designations for 

Hazardous Wastes, Universal Wastes, Special Wastes, and Recyclable 

Hazardous Materials including Used Oil 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix F 

Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan for 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SPILL PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT AND 

CONTROL PLAN 

This Spill Prevention, Containment and Control (SPCC) Plan1 has been developed as a good 

management practice to provide guidelines for hazardous materials (including oil) and 

hazardous waste management, to prevent releases to the environment, and to plan actions to 

take in the event of a release. 

This SPCC Plan applies to planning and construction through initial operation of the North Baja 

Expansion Project, including the Arrowhead Extension and IID Lateral. Activities of North Baja 

Pipeline staff and its Contractors are subject to the requirements of this SPCC Plan. This SPCC 

Plan will be followed in the event of a release of oil, hazardous material or waste to the 

environment. 

1.2 NORTH BAJA EXPANSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project) will construct a new natural gas pipeline to 

connect with the Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline at the U.S.-Mexico border and to the existing 

North Baja facilities and the El Paso Natural Gas system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. In addition, new 

connections will be made with the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) system near 

Blythe, California, and with the Imperial Irrigation District’s (IID) El Centro Generating Station in 

El Centro, California. The proposed Project will be constructed in phases, with the first phase 

planned for construction in 2007, the IID Lateral for 2008, and the final phase of the North Baja 

Expansion in 2009, pending completion of upstream liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal 

facilities. 

 

1

 This SPCC Plan has been developed to meet the intent of FERC requirements for spill prevention, containment and control 

plans; oil spill prevention control and countermeasure provisions of 40 CFR 112; the environmental emergency preparedness 

and prevention provisions of 40 CFR Subparts C and D for hazardous waste management; Arizona Administrative Code, Title 

18, Chapter 8 and Title 22 of California Code of Regulations on hazardous waste management; and, California Business Plan 

requirements for hazardous materials management. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

The Project includes three elements: the B-Line, which includes interconnection facilities in 

Ehrenberg, Arizona, as well as a 79.8-mile, 42- and 48-inch diameter pipeline between Blythe 

and the Mexican border; the Arrowhead Extension, which includes a meter station and a 2.1-

mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline extending from the proposed B-Line at milepost 7.4 to 

SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station; and the Imperial Irrigation District Lateral (IID 

Lateral), a 46-mile, 16-inch diameter pipeline between the B-Line and IID’s El Centro 

Generating Station. 

1.3 RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS SPCC PLAN 

1.3.1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Representatives 

The Chief Inspector (CI) will evaluate and approve each construction contractor’s (Contractor) 

submittal under this SPCC Plan. The Project Environmental Inspector (EI) will oversee 

implementation of this SPCC Plan and of the Contractor’s plans and submittals incorporated by 

reference. The EI will conduct regular inspections of Contractor activities and identify any issues 

that may require correction. The EI has the authority to stop construction to correct issues, if 

necessary. 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Representatives 

Function Name Location Telephone No. 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project Manager 

(PM): 

 

Chief Inspector (CI): 

Environmental Inspector (EI): 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Primary 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Secondary 

Emergency Response Contractors: 

(Company/Responsibility) 

 

Spill Response: 

Transportation Services: 

Site Remediation: 

1.3.2 Contractor Responsibilities 

The Contractor will prepare plans and submittals under this SPCC Plan that will include 

activities of Contractor and its Subcontractors. Contractor will ensure that such documents are 

maintained current and complete, and that this SPCC Plan is fully implemented. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Primary Contractor Representatives 

 Name Location Telephone No. 

Contractor: 

On-Site Foreman: 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Primary 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Secondary 

Environmental Contact: 

Safety Representative: 

Subcontractor Representatives 

 Name Location Telephone No. 

Subcontractor: 

On-Site Foreman: 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Primary 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Secondary 

Environmental Contact: 

Safety Representative: 

Scope of Subcontract: 

Subcontractor Representatives 

 Name Location Telephone No. 

Contractor: 

On-Site Foreman: 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Primary 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Secondary 

Environmental Contact: 

Safety Representative: 

Scope of Subcontract: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Subcontractor Representatives 

 Name Location Telephone No. 

Contractor: 

On-Site Foreman: 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Primary 

Emergency Response Coordinator: Secondary 

Environmental Contact: 

Safety Representative: 

Scope of Subcontract: 

Responsibilities identified as “Contractor” in subsequent sections of this SPCC Plan apply to 

each Contractor and Subcontractor. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.0 SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES 

2.1 SITE SELECTION 

Site selection for Project staging areas where hazardous materials and hazardous wastes may 

be present have considered and avoided environmentally sensitive areas. These sites are 

located at least 100 feet from water bodies and 200 feet from any private, municipal or 

community water well. Hazardous materials and wastes may not be stored, handled or used in 

an area that has not been approved for that purpose by the CI. 

2.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Each Contractor is required to develop a site-specific Contractor’s Hazardous Materials and 

Waste Management Plan (Attachment A) that identifies the hazardous materials that the 

Contractor will use and the wastes that the Contractor may generate during Project activities. 

This includes MSDSs or waste designation information, quantities, locations of storage and use, 

container or tank used, secondary containment, and inspection procedures. 

2.2.1 Hazardous Materials 

No new hazardous material may enter the job site without an amendment to the Contractor’s 

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan and without the express approval of the EI. 

Usable hazardous materials will be removed by Contractor for its future use upon completion of 

work on-site. 

2.2.2 Wastes 

Each waste generated will be evaluated for appropriate waste designation and appropriate 

disposal. 

2.2.2.1 Rights-of-Way and Sites Owned or Leased by the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project 

Wastes generated at the right-of-way and at sites owned or leased by North Baja that have 

potential of being hazardous waste will be returned to the approved staging point, whereupon 

the EI will be notified. As necessary, Contractor will sample wastes and request assistance of 

the EI in waste management. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

The Project EI is responsible for designation of hazardous waste, universal waste, special waste 

or recyclable hazardous materials in accordance with North Baja’s guidelines (Attachment E) 

and State-specific requirements (22 California Code of Regulations and Title 18, Chapter 8 of 

Arizona Administrative Code). 

Regulated wastes will be placed into North Baja-approved containers, maintained in good 

condition, maintained closed and appropriately labeled. Containers will be in an approved area 

and EI will be notified of the waste activity. North Baja Representatives will arrange for 

appropriate disposal of regulated wastes. 

2.2.2.2 Contractor Leased Facility 

Contractor is responsible for disposal of non-hazardous waste generated as a result of on-site 

activities where the staging point is the Contractor’s leased facility. 

Contractor will manage used oil and antifreeze generated by its equipment maintenance 

activities as required by Federal and State regulations. 

Contractor is responsible for appropriate waste designation, management of wastes and 

appropriate disposal for wastes generated at Contractor’s Leased Facility. 

2.2.2.3 Domestic Sewage 

Domestic sewage will be handled by means of portable self-contained toilets during 

constructions that are stationed at central locations and reasonable distances throughout the 

work area. 

2.2.2.4 Waste Disposal On-Site Prohibited 

In no case will any waste material be disposed of at the job site, right-of-way location, or 

adjacent property. 

2.3 SPILL PREVENTION 

The Contractor will store, handle, and transfer fluids used during construction so as to prevent 

the release of spill of oil or other hazardous materials. Materials that are likely to be used in 

construction equipment include gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, and lubricating oils. 

2.3.1 Tank and Container Specifications 

Specifications for tanks and containers must meet generally approved standards (including but 

not limited to supplier’s recommendations and specifications of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and California Highway Patrol (CHP)). In meeting these standards, tanks 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

and containers must continuously be of integrity and condition to be acceptable for storage and 

transportation. 

2.3.2 Dispensing and Transfer 

Dispensing and transfer of hazardous materials and wastes must occur in accordance with 

nationally recognized standards. This includes bonding or grounding during transfer of 

flammable liquids. Contractor will inspect transfer of hazardous materials and waste. 

Transfer of liquids and refueling will occur only at approved locations that are at least 100 feet 

away from any wetlands or surface waters, and 200 feet from any private, municipal or 

community water well, with certain exceptions noted below (see Section 2.3.4, Setback 

Exceptions). 

Crew must have adequate spill response equipment available at the dispensing or transfer 

location. 

Repair/overhaul of equipment will not occur at the right-of-way or temporary work space except 

for emergency type repair of short duration. Any liquids will be collected in suitable containers 

and appropriately disposed of. 

When materials are transferred from a storage tank or container to a vehicle, the Contractor will: 

• operate during daylight hours or where lighting is adequate to illuminate the area; 

• monitor the transfer operations at all times; 

• refuel at least 100 feet from wetlands or surface waters and at least 200 feet from 

potable water supplies, with certain exceptions noted below, 

• keep sufficient spill control materials on site; and 

• in the event of a spill, implement the spill response procedures. 

2.3.3 Materials Storage 

When materials are stored in a fuel storage tank, the Contractor will: 

• locate the tank at least 200 feet from wetlands, 200 feet from private wells, and 400 

feet from municipal water supply wells, with certain exceptions noted below (see 

Section 2.3.4, Setback Exceptions); 

• install a temporary earthen berm around the tank and line it with plastic to provide 

containment; 

• inspect the tank, berm and liner daily; 

• correct any conditions that could result in a spill, leak, or compromise the integrity of 

the secondary containment; 

• plug or close all tank openings when not in use; 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• remove any precipitation from the bermed area with a pump (Note: inspect 

precipitation for an oil sheen and, if sheen is present, collect the liquid for disposal.) 

• keep sufficient spill control materials on site. 

When materials are stored in a container, the Contractor will: 

• store containers at least 100 feet from wetlands with certain exceptions noted below 

(see Section 2.3.4, Setback Exceptions); 

• use small containers which are in good condition (maximum capacity 55 gallons); 

• protect the containers from the elements and physical damage; 

• replace any leaking or damaged containers; 

• close containers when not in use; and 

• keep sufficient spill control materials on site. 

2.3.4 Setback Exceptions 

The dispensing and transfer (e.g., refueling) setbacks identified above may not be practical for 

certain construction activities in certain locations. Exceptions may only be allowed for: 

• areas such as rugged terrain or steep slopes where movement of equipment to 

refueling stations would cause excessive disturbances to the surface of the right-ofway; 

• construction sites where moving equipment to refueling stations is impractical or 

where there is a natural barrier from the waterbody or wetland (e.g., road or railroad); 

• locations where the waterbody or wetland is located adjacent to a road crossing from 

which the equipment can be serviced; and 

• refueling and fuel storage for immobile equipment (including but not limited to 

bending and boring machines, air compressors, hydrotest fill pumps). 

• All exceptions to the required setbacks must be approved by the environmental 

inspector. 

In these situations, the Contractor shall exercise extreme caution during fueling and lubrication 

of equipment and all other oil and hazardous materials transfers. 

2.3.5 Equipment for Safe Tank Operation 

Tanks will be equipped with all standard safety equipment required for the specification 

packaging and its use. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.3.6 Separation of Incompatible Materials 

Incompatible materials will be stored in areas separated in accordance with nationally 

recognized standards. Incompatible materials will not be consecutively placed into a container 

or tank. In addition, sources of ignition will be prohibited in hazardous materials and wastes’ 

areas. 

2.3.7 Labeling, Marking and Placarding 

Each cylinder, container and tank will be appropriately identified with contents as per OSHA 

requirements (see samples in Attachment B). Containers and tanks used for transport of 

hazardous materials and wastes will be marked and labeled in accordance with U.S. DOT 

requirements (e.g., Proper Shipping Name, UN/NA Number, Hazard Class labels or placards). 

In addition, tanks will be labeled in accordance with National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA), where required by the local jurisdiction. 

Approved areas for hazardous materials and waste will be secured against unauthorized entry 

and vandalism. 

2.4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT 

2.4.1 Approved Secondary Containment 

Approved secondary containment will provided for each tank and each container with a capacity 

of 5 gallons or more. 

2.4.2 Minimum Standards for Secondary Containment 

Minimum standards for secondary containment are as follows: 

2.4.2.1 Containers 

Secondary containment for containers with 5 or more gallons capacity may include: a temporary 

containment area with temporary earthen berms and contiguous 10 mil polyethylene 

containment; or it may consist of a portable containment system constructed of PVC or other 

suitable material. 

Secondary containment volume will be at least 110 percent of the aggregate volume of 

hazardous materials and wastes stored. 

2.4.2.2 Tanks 

Secondary containment for tanks will be provided that includes tank and the dispensing area. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-10 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Secondary containment volume will be 110 percent of the volume of the largest tank of 

hazardous materials and wastes stored. Tanks should be elevated a minimum of 2 feet above 

grade. 

2.4.2.3 Contractor’s Secondary Containment 

Secondary containment provided by the Contractor must meet these minimum standards and 

must be implemented as proposed in the Contractor’s Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Management Plan. 

2.5 REGULAR INSPECTIONS 

Contractor will conduct regular inspections at locations where hazardous materials and wastes 

are stored, handled and dispensed. Inspections will follow site-specific procedures in the 

approved Contractor’s Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan. Inspections to 

include availability of emergency response equipment. 

The source of any container or tank leak will be stopped immediately and residual wastes will be 

aggregated, designated and properly disposed of. Any leaking container will be immediately 

overpacked. 

All vehicles (e.g., trucks, side-booms, dozers, etc.) shall be: 

• inspected daily for leaks or signs of deterioration which could result in a leak; 

• repaired when defective tanks, hoses, fittings, etc. are found; and 

• parked at least 100 feet from waterbodies or wetlands, with certain exceptions noted 

above (see Setback Exceptions, Section 2.3.4). 

The EI will provide oversight to Contractor’s activities on hazardous materials and waste 

management. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-11 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.0 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 

Each Contractor is required to develop a Contractor’s Emergency Response Plan (ER Plan, 

Attachment C) for environmental emergency preparedness and response. The Plan is 

appropriate for the hazardous materials and wastes used and generated. The initial ER Plan will 

be approved by the CI. This ER Plan will be maintained current: subsequent revisions may be 

approved by the EI. 

Contractor will maintain adequate resources, including: 

• Emergency response coordinators; 

• Fire-fighting equipment (such as portable fire extinguishers); 

• Spill control and cleanup equipment (absorbent materials such as pads, pillows, 

booms and socks, non-sparking shovels, etc.); 

• Appropriate personal protective equipment; and, 

• Contractor’s ER Plan. 

3.1 EMERGENCY RESPONDERS 

Contractor will designate personnel responsible for incident or emergency response, in the 

event of a release to the environment. Contractor will ensure that emergency responders 

identified will have appropriate training in environmental emergency or incident preparedness, 

prevention and response. Contractor’s emergency contact information will be maintained 

current. 

In addition, North Baja will designate primary and secondary emergency response coordinators. 

North Baja emergency response coordinators will have the have the authority to commit 

necessary resources to respond to environmental releases and to conduct cleanup. 

3.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT 

3.2.1 Contractor’s Spill Containment and Cleanup Resources 

3.2.1.1 On-site Equipment 

Contractor will have available, adequate spill containment and cleanup resources that are 

appropriate to their activities and to the hazardous materials and wastes handled. Minimum 

standards are identified on Attachment C. The following additional materials will be available at 

a central location on each construction spread: 

• Boom(s) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-12 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• Cleanup rags 

• 55-gallon DOT-approved containers 

• Replacement parts and equipment for repair of tanks, hoses, nozzles, etc. 

• Fire extinguisher, Type: B, C 

• Two bags of chemical sorbent material (i.e. kitty litter) 

• Three 17” x 17” chemical pillows 

• Four 48” x 3” chemical socks 

• Twenty 18” x 18” x 3/8” sorbent pads 

• Twenty 30-gallon 6-mil polyethylene bags 

• Two 30-gallon polyethylene open-head drums 

• Ten pair polypropylene gloves 

• Two, each type, waste labels 

• Two 8’ x 10’ polyethylene tarps 

• One cooler 

• One quart jar 

• One trowel 

• Twenty hay bales 

Contractor will be prepared to clean up, characterize and dispose of spill debris. North Baja will 

have additional contractors available for associated emergency spill response, transportation, 

remediation and disposal activities. 

3.2.1.2 Vehicle Response Equipment 

The Contractor will maintain a supply of spill materials as follows: 

• Any vehicle used to transport lubricants and fuel will be equipped with: 

− One 20-pound fire extinguisher (Type: B, C) 

− 50 pounds of oil absorbent (e.g., Speedy Dry or equivalent) 

− Ten 48” x 3” oil socks 

− Five 17” x 17” oil pillows 

− Two 10’ x 4” oil booms 

− Twenty 24” x 24” x 3/8” oil absorbent pads 

− Twenty 30-gallon 6-mil polyethylene bags 

− One roll of 10-mil plastic sheeting 

− Two shovels 

− Ten pair of polypropylene gloves 

− One 55-gallon (or equivalent capacity) DOT-approved container 

− Two, each type, waste label 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-13 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• All foremen’s vehicles and heavy equipment will be equipped with: 

− Absorbent pads 

− Heavy duty plastic bags 

− One shovel 

3.2.2 Maintaining Emergency Response Equipment 

Contractor will inspect emergency response equipment weekly to ensure that all equipment 

identified in the Contractor’s ER Plan is available in quantities and locations identified. After 

response to an incident or emergency release, any equipment used will be replaced or 

decontaminated and returned to inventory. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-14 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.0 INCIDENT OR EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE NOTIFICATION 

Contractor will notify the North Baja Emergency Response Coordinator on call of each spill. 

There will be immediate notification in the event of a release of one pound or more of any 

hazardous material or any amount of hazardous waste. 

If agency notification is required, North Baja Representatives will notify the PM and appropriate 

agencies in accordance with North Baja Policies. 

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE RESPONSE ACTIONS 

In the event contaminated groundwater or contaminated soils are encountered as evidenced by 

refuse and/or other debris in the pipeline trench, discoloration, odor, or other signs along the 

pipeline route, the area will be inspected prior to any further construction activity. Field 

observations will be conducted to determine the nature of the contamination. The Contractor’s 

Emergency Response Coordinator will provide details available on the spill, including the 

material or waste involved, its quantity and location to the North Baja Emergency Response 

Coordinator. 

The North Baja Emergency Response Coordinator will verify the nature of the material released, 

its source and amount, the aerial extent of the release and will determine whether an incident or 

an emergency release has occurred. The North Baja Emergency Response Coordinator will 

assess potential hazards to human health and the environment. Appropriate agencies, including 

the CRWQCB, Colorado River Basin, Region 7, and the Riverside and Imperial Counties 

Departments of Health would be contacted to determine how the contaminated medium should 

be handled. 

4.2.1 Incident Response 

If the environmental release is an incident that can be handled with available resources, 

Contractor may be requested to perform the following, under direction of the North Baja 

Emergency Response Coordinator: 

• Stop the source of release. This may mean plugging a container or tank, turning off a 

valve, etc. 

• Contain the spill. Use approved container. Or create a lined, covered containment 

area. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-15 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• Collect spilled materials. Block off drains. Create/expand containment areas using 

available means. Use appropriate neutralizers, sorbents, pigs and pads. Create 

barriers to protect sensitive areas. 

• Remove all contaminated soil or other material. 

• Contain contaminated material and temporarily store in a secured area. 

• Perform any necessary sampling of waste material. 

• Conduct preliminary clean-up of the site. 

4.2.2 Emergency Response 

The Emergency Response Coordinator will act as Incident Commander, overseeing emergency 

release response actions taken. 

If additional resources are needed, the North Baja Emergency Response Coordinator will retain 

emergency response contractors and/or request assistance of local emergency responders 

(including fire, police, HAZMAT teams, ambulance or hospitals and highway patrol) and will 

coordinate all emergency response activities. As necessary, the North Baja Emergency 

Response Coordinator will signal evacuation of site personnel. 

Where site cleanup is necessary, North Baja Emergency Response Coordinator will coordinate 

cleanup actions with appropriate agency representatives. North Baja Representatives will 

provide guidance on appropriate waste management and disposal. 

The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, California State Warning Center (916-845-8911) 

(Warning Center) serves as the coordinator of spill response in the State of California. The 

Warning Center determines the severity of spills and contacts the appropriate agency. Local 

emergency response contact—some of which are listed below—also are provided in the event 

that a spill involves injuries or fire. The Resource Center also maintains an up-to-date list of 

approved disposal facilities to accept spill-related contaminated and clean-up materials. 

Likewise, the Emergency Response Duty Office of the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (602-771-2330) provides assistance regarding the proper handling and disposal 

methods consistent with State and Federal regulations, as well as a database containing 

approved disposal facilities. 

Provided in the table below is a list of State and local agencies that will be contacted in the 

event of a hazardous materials spill. The names of the individuals will be identified prior to 

construction to ensure that the list is up-to-date. This information will be incorporated into the 

SPCC Plan for Hazardous Materials and Wastes. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-16 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

State Spill/Release Response Contacts 

Contact 

Name Agency Location (City/State) 

Telephone 

Number 

Arizona 

 La Paz County Sheriff City of Parker, 

AZ 

(928) 669-6141 

 Yuma County Sheriff 

(District 2, Westside) 

Yuma, AZ (928) 782-3192 

 City of Yuma Police Department 

Main Dispatch 

Yuma, AZ (928) 783-4421 

 Yuma Regional Medical Center 

Main Number 

Yuma, AZ (928) 344-2000 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-17 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

State Spill/Release Response Contacts 

Contact 

Name Agency Location (City/State) 

Telephone 

Number 

California

 Riverside County Sheriff Blythe Station Blythe, CA (760) 921-7900 

 Riverside County Highway Patrol Blythe, CA (760) 922-6141 

 Blythe Fire Department Blythe, CA (760) 922-6116 

 Blythe Ambulance Service Blythe, CA (760) 922-8460 

 Palo Verde Hospital Blythe, CA (760) 922-4115 

 Riverside County Emergency Response Blythe, CA (760) 921-7861 

 Riverside County Office of Emergency 

Services (8 AM – 5 PM) 

Riverside, CA (951) 955-4700 

 Imperial County Office of Emergency Services Imperial, CA (760) 355-1191 

 Imperial County Police Department Imperial, CA (760) 355-4327 

 Imperial County Sheriff El Centro, CA (760) 339-6311 

 Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality 

Control Board 

Palm Desert, 

CA 

(760) 346-7491 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-18 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

5.0 TRAINING 

A pre-construction meeting will be held between Contractor and North Baja Representatives to 

review responsibilities and requirements that include waste minimization, hazardous materials 

and waste management, emergency preparedness and prevention, incident and emergency 

response identification and response planning and coordination. Furthermore, all EIs and CIs 

will receive a copy of the SPCC Plan prior to construction. 

During construction, the EI will conduct spill refresher briefings with the construction crews that 

will include the following: 

• Precautionary measures to prevent spills; 

• Potential sources of spills, such as equipment failure, malfunction, or leaks; 

• Standard operating procedures in case of a spill; 

• Applicable notification procedures; 

• Equipment, materials and supplies available for a cleanup of a spill; and 

• List of known spill events. 

Prior to reporting to the job site, each person must be trained on the contents and on the 

implementation of this SPCC Plan. This training may be integrated into North Baja’s 

Environmental Training Program. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-19 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

6.0 REFERENCES 

Nationally recognized standards may include but are not limited to NFPA, Uniform Fire Code 

(UFC), U.S. DOT and CHP, and state-specific requirements of Arizona Administrative Code and 

California Code of Regulations. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-20 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

ATTACHMENTS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-21 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

ATTACHMENT A 

CONTRACTOR’S HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMS 

PARTS I AND II 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-22 North B

CONTRACTOR'S HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: 

PART I 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

File 5.11 

NBX Project: Description: Chief Inspector’s Name: Tel. No./Location: NBX Project Contractor: Firm Name: Contact Name/Tel. No.: Address:  Project Dates: Number of Contractor Personnel On-site: Work Schedule: 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE AND HANDLING PROCE

Material Name Manufacturer MSDS Reference (Attach) 

Estimated 

Quantity 

Needed for Job 

(Units) 

Quantity 

On-Site 

(Units) 

Location(s) at 

Job Site 

Marking/ Labeling/ 

Placarding 

(Discuss or 

Attach)4

Tan

Conta

Size

Type

Comments: Attachments: 1 Provide MSDSs. 

2 Describe secondary containment for containers of 5 gallons or more capacity. 

3 Describe inspection procedures. 4 Describe tank/drum marking, labeling and placarding procedure

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-23 North B

CONTRACTOR'S HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: 

PART II 

HAZARDOUS, UNIVERSAL AND SPECIAL WASTE and RECYCLABLE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS M

 File 5.11 

WASTE DESCRIPTION1 WASTE ACCUMULATION AND HANDLING 

Waste Type and Description

Estimated Monthly 

Generation 

Quantity/Unit(s) 

Accumulation Area Location(s)2

On-Site 

Tank/Container 

Size(s)/Type(s) 

Marking/ Labeling/ 

Placarding (Discuss or 

Attach)3

Co

Process Generating Waste (s): Contractor's Staging Point Location (Rights-of-way work site only): Comments: Attachments: 1 If Contractor intends to completely use or re-use hazardous materials on-site 

or off-site and no hazardous waste will be generated, please discuss. 

4 Describe secondary containment for containe

2 Note: Locations may be established on site during mobilization. 5 Describe inspection procedures, inspection f3 Describe tank/drum marking, labeling and placarding procedures. 

Distribution: Original: Informational Copies: Revision Date ( Chief Inspector/NBX File NBX Environmental Inspector: __________  Safety-Training: ______________  Others: _______________ 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-24 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

ATTACHMENT B 

LABELS FOR WASTE CONTAINERS 

Including: 

“Materials Identification Label” (all containers) 

“Recyclable Material/Waste” Container Label 

Hazardous Waste "Workplace Accumulation 

Container" Label 

“Used Oil” Container Label

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-25 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

“MATERIALS IDENTIFICATION LABEL” (all containers) 

North Baja Expansion Project

MATERIALS IDENTIFICATION LABEL

North Baja Expansion Project: Description: 

Facility/Location: 

Chief Inspector: 

Environmental Inspector: 

NBX Project Number/Account: 

Contractor Name: 

Environmental Contact Name: 

Contractor: 

Telephone No.: 

Process: 

Materials Description: Quantity: pounds

 gallons 

Container Type (drum, tank, 

etc.): 

 Container Location: 

Container Number: Date of Accumulation: 

Sample Number: 

Sample Date: 

Analytical Laboratory: 

Analysis Date: 

Report Date: 

Status of Material: 

 (if sampling and analysis are required) 

Analytical Results: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-26 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

“RECYCLABLE MATERIAL/WASTE” CONTAINER LABEL 

North Baja Expansion Project

RECYCLABLE MATERIAL/WASTE LABEL

 Facility Name: 

 Address: 

 State/Zip: 

 Contact: 

 

 Type: USED OIL 

 

UNIVERSAL WASTE:

 Universal Waste – Batteries 

 Universal Waste – Lamps 

 

 Universal Waste – Mercury Thermostats 

 

 SPECIAL WASTE

 

RECYCLABLE MATERIAL

 Description: 

 Accumulation Date: 

 DOT Proper Shipping 

Name: 

 

 

 UN/NA Number: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-27 North Ba

HAZARDOUS WASTE “WORKPLACE ACCUMULATION CONTAINER

WORKPLACE ACCUMULATION CONTAINE

Proper D.O.T Shipping Name: HAZARDOUS Composition:

WASTE Physical State of Waste:

UN /NA# STATE AND FEDERAL LAW Solid Generator: PROHIBITS IMPROPER DISPOSAL. Hazardous Properties: Facility: IF FOUND, CONTACT THE NEAREST Flammable CorAddress: POLICE OR PUBLIC SAFETY Reactivity OthPhone: City: AUTHORITY, THE EPA Waste No.State: Zip: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CA Waste No.EPA ID No: AGENCY OR THE CALIFORNIA Date Placed in HazardouWorkplace Accumulation DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC Waste Storage Area:Start Date: SUBSTANCES CONTROL Manifest Document Num

HANDLE WITH CARE!

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-28 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

“USED OIL” CONTAINER LABEL 

USED 

OIL

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-29 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

ATTACHMENT C 

Contractor’s Emergency Response Plan Form 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-30 North Ba

CONTRACTOR'S EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN File 5.11 

NBX SPCC/Emergency Response Plan Reviewed: (Y/N) 

Emergency Response Coordinator

Name Title Telephone (Office/Job Site) Address 

Primary 

Secondary 

Incident/Emergency Response Equipment

Emergency Response Equipment Type Capability Quantity LFire Fighting Fire Extinguishers Type: B, C? JIncident Response Kit Chemical sorbent material (e.g., kitty litter) Chemical Spill Response 2 bags P 17” x 17” chemical pillows “ 3 “  48” x 3” chemical socks “ 4 “  Sorbent pads 18” x 18” x 3/8” “ 20 “  6 mil polyethylene bags “ 20, 30-gal. “  Polyethylene open-head drum “ 2, 30-gal. “  Polypropylene gloves “ 10 pair “  Waste Labels “ 2 Each “  8’ x 10’ Polyethylene Tarp “ 2 “ Release Response Kit 48”x3” oil socks Fuel/Oil Spill Response 10 E 17” x 17” oil pillows “ 5 “  10’ x 4” oil boom “ 2 “  24” x 24” x 3/8” oil mats “ 20 “  6 mil polyethylene bags “ 20, 30-gal. “  Polypropylene Gloves “ 10 pair “  Propylene open-head drum “ 1, 55-gallon “  Waste Labels “ 2 Each “ Sample Kit Cooler, Quart Jars, Trowel Sampling of solids 1 PSpill Containment 8’ x 10’ Polyethylene Tarp Contain Spill Debris 2 P Hay Bales “ 20 “ 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-31 North Ba

Evacuation Procedures 

Distribution: Original: Informational Copies: Revision  Chief Inspector/NBX File NBX Environmental Inspector: __________  Safety-Training: ______________  Others: _______________ 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-32 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

ATTACHMENT D 

SITE MAPS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-33 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Site Maps will be provided at the time of construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-34 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

ATTACHMENT E 

Table 1 

Waste Cross-Reference 

Use “Waste Cross-Reference” Table in conjunction with 

Exhibit 5, Table 2 for the proper identification, designation, 

labeling, and management of Hazardous Wastes, Universal 

Wastes, Special Wastes and Recyclable Hazardous Materials. 

Table 2 

Waste Quick Reference Guide and 

Waste Designations for Hazardous Wastes, Universal 

Wastes, Special Wastes, and Recyclable Hazardous 

Materials including Used Oil 

Note for Sites Located Within the State of California. 

Where a California Waste Code is indicated in Column 5, the waste 

must be managed (i.e., use of hazardous waste label, California 

Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, etc.) as a hazardous waste at the 

point of generation. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-35 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE 1 

WASTE CROSS-REFERENCE 

WASTE GENERATED:

CROSS-REFERENCE TO Table 2 

: 

WASTE QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE:

COMMENT OR 

DESIGNATION, IF NOT 

REGULATED:

Acid, Muriatic or Hydrochloric Acid 

(used at 1 part of 0.4% hydrochloric acid 

to 20 parts water) 

 At dilutions with water > 10 

times: Non-Regulated Waste. 

Adhesives/Sealants Non-Regulated Waste if 

completely used. Otherwise, 

contact EC staff. 

Aerosol Spray Cans/Containers Aerosol Cans. 

AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foam by 3M Co. 

Alkaline Batteries Batteries, Alkaline. 

Ambitrol Glycol, Propylene. 

Antifreeze Glycol, Ethylene. 

Glycol, Propylene. 

Asbestos Asbestos. 

Automatic Fire Fighting Foam Aqueous Film Forming Foam by 3M Co. 

Automatic Transmission Fluid Used Oil. 

Automotive Antifreeze Glycol, Ethylene. 

Glycol, Propylene. 

Automotive Batteries Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Batteries, NiCad, Electric Storage Type, Gel 

Cell. 

Automotive Filters Filters Containing Fuel. 

Oily Solids, Motor Vehicle Filters, Not HotDrained and Punctured. 

Automotive Lubricating Oil Used Oil. 

Batteries, Alkaline Batteries, Alkaline. 

Batteries, Debris Batteries, Debris From Corrosive Batteries. 

Batteries, Dry-Cell Batteries: refer to constituents. 

Batteries, Gel Cell Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Batteries, NiCad, Electric Storage Type, Gel 

Cell. 

Batteries, Lead Acid Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Batteries, Lithium Batteries, Lithium. 

Batteries, Mercury Batteries, Mercury. 

Batteries, Nickel Cadmium (NiCad) Batteries, NiCad, Household Type. 

Batteries, NiCad, Electric Storage Type, Gel 

Cell. 

Batteries, Potassium Hydroxide Batteries, Alkaline. 

Batteries, Wet-Cell Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Brake Fluid (Automotive) Used Oil. 

Brake Pads, Containing Asbestos Asbestos. 

Brake Pads, Not Containing Asbestos Non-Regulated Waste. 

Carburetor Cleaner Solvent, Safety-Kleen Immersion Cleaner #699 

(Carburetor Cleaner). 

Others may also be Hazardous 

Waste. 

Chemical Cleaners Solvent, Fyre Wash and Water. 

Oil With Water and Sediment. 

ZOC 27 Wash water is NonRegulated Waste. 

Chemical Toilet Wastes Handled by Contractor. 

Chips (From Painted Materials) Paint Chips and Debris: segregated by lead 

content.

Coatings, Oil-Based Paint, Oil-Based. 

Communications Batteries Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Batteries, NiCad, Electric Storage Type, Gel 

Cell. 

Construction Materials (Cement, Wood, 

Metal, Glass, and Rubber) 

Refer also to specific regulated wastes listed. Non-Regulated Waste. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-36 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE 1 

WASTE CROSS-REFERENCE 

WASTE GENERATED:

CROSS-REFERENCE TO Table 2 

: 

WASTE QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE:

COMMENT OR 

DESIGNATION, IF NOT 

REGULATED:

Corrosion Inhibitors Glycol, Propylene. 

Crankcase Oil Used Oil. 

Degreasers Solvent, Safety-Kleen Immersion Cleaner #699 

(Carburetor Cleaner). 

Solvent With Flash Point of > 141o F. 

Solvent With Flash Point of <= 141o

 F. 

Solvent Aerosols. 

Demolition Wastes (Earth, Rock, 

Concrete, Asphalt, Plastics, Wood, 

Sheet Rock) 

Asbestos. Other Demolition Wastes: NonRegulated Waste. 

Diesel Filters (Motor Vehicle or Fuel Tank) Filters Containing Fuel. 

Diesel Fuel Fuel, Diesel. 

Diesel Fuel Contaminated Solid Waste Fuel, Diesel, Contaminated Solid Waste. 

Refer also to Filters Containing Fuel. 

Drums, Empty Empty Drums, Containing < 1” of Material or 

Waste. 

Dry Cell Batteries Batteries: refer to constituents. 

Electrosol Solvent Aerosols. 

Elemental Mercury Mercury, Liquid, and Mercury Devices, 

Including Thermometers and Switches. 

Empty Containers Aerosol Cans. 

Pesticide Aerosols. 

Solvent Aerosols. 

Other Empty Containers are 

Non- Regulated Waste. 

Empty Drums Empty Drums, Containing < 1” of Material or 

Waste. 

Empty Paint Cans Refer to Aerosol Cans. Other Empty Containers are 

Non- Regulated Waste. 

Empty Pesticide and Herbicide Containers Refer to Pesticide, Aerosols. Not Regulated if completely 

used, including rinsate. Larger 

quantities are applied and 

managed by licensed 

contractors. 

Epoxy (Components) Non-Regulated Waste if 

completely used. Otherwise, 

contact EC staff. 

Equipment Oil Filters Oily Solids, Equipment Oil Filters, With Textile 

Filter. 

Refer also to Filters Containing Fuel. 

Ethylene Glycol Glycol, Ethylene. 

Film, X-Ray May be recycled as a 

Hazardous Material. 

Filters Containing Fuel Filters Containing Fuel. 

Filters Containing Oil Oily Solids, Motor Vehicle Filters, Not HotDrained and Punctured. 

Fluorescent Tubes (Containing Mercury) Mercury Lighting Waste: refer to state where 

waste is generated.

Food and Beverage Containers and 

Scraps 

 Non-Regulated Waste. 

Fuel Filters (Motor Vehicle or Fuel Tank) Filters Containing Fuel. 

Refer also to Oily Solids, Equipment Oil Filters, 

With Textile Filter. 

Fuel With Water Fuel, Diesel. 

Fuel, Gasoline. 

Fuel, Kerosene. 

Fuel, Diesel Fuel, Diesel. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-37 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE 1 

WASTE CROSS-REFERENCE 

WASTE GENERATED:

CROSS-REFERENCE TO Table 2 

: 

WASTE QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE:

COMMENT OR 

DESIGNATION, IF NOT 

REGULATED:

Fuel, Diesel, Contaminated Solid Waste. Fuel, Diesel, Contaminated Solid Waste. 

Refer also to Filters Containing Fuel. 

Small quantities with < 200 

ppm diesel are not regulated if 

no water bodies impacted. 

Fuel, Gasoline Fuel, Gasoline. 

Fuel, Gasoline, Contaminated Solid 

Waste. 

Fuel, Gasoline, Contaminated Solid Waste. 

Refer also to Filters Containing Fuel. 

Small quantities with < 100 

ppm gasoline are not regulated 

if no water bodies impacted. 

Fuel, Kerosene Fuel, Kerosene. 

Gas Generator Oil Used Oil. 

Gaskets (Cork or Rubber, Unsaturated) Non-Regulated Waste. 

Gasoline Fuel, Gasoline. 

Gasoline Contaminated Solid Waste Fuel, Gasoline, Contaminated Solid Waste. 

Refer also to Filters Containing Fuel. 

Gasoline Filters (Motor Vehicle or Fuel 

Tank) 

Filters Containing Fuel. 

Gear Oil Used Oil. 

Gel Cell Batteries Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Batteries, NiCad, Electric Storage Type, Gel 

Cell. 

Glycol, Ethylene Glycol, Ethylene. 

Glycol, Propylene Glycol, Propylene. 

Grease Gun Cartridge (Empty) Non-Regulated Waste. 

Herbicides and Growth Suppressants Refer to Pesticide, Aerosols. Larger quantities are applied 

and managed by licensed 

contractors. 

Hydraulic Fluid Used Oil. 

Hydrochloric Acid (used at 1 part of 0.4% 

hydrochloric acid to 20 parts water) 

 At dilutions with water > 10 

times: Non-Regulated Waste. 

Immersion Cleaner Solvent, Safety-Kleen Immersion Cleaner #699 

(Carburetor Cleaner).

Insecticides Refer to Pesticide, Aerosols. 

Isopropyl Alcohol When diluted for de-icing, NonRegulated Waste. 

Kerosene Fuel, Kerosene. 

Lacquer Thinner Paint Thinner (Naphtha). 

Lamps (Containing Mercury) Mercury Lighting Waste: refer to state where 

waste is generated.

Lead Acid Batteries Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Light Ballasts (PCB-Contaminated) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Light 

Ballasts With PCBs. 

Fluorescent light ballasts 

manufactured before 1979 or 

which are not labeled “No 

PCBs” are suspect. 

Lithium Batteries Batteries, Lithium. 

Lubricating Oil Used Oil. 

Mercury Batteries Batteries, Mercury. 

Mercury Debris (With >= 0.2 ppm 

Mercury) 

Mercury Debris. 

Mercury, Elemental or Liquid Mercury, Liquid, and Mercury Devices, 

Including Thermometers, Barometers, 

Manometers, Thermowells and Switches. 

Mercury Lamps Mercury Lighting Waste: refer to state where 

waste is generated.

Mercury Lighting Waste Mercury Lighting Waste: refer to state where 

waste is generated.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-38 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE 1 

WASTE CROSS-REFERENCE 

WASTE GENERATED:

CROSS-REFERENCE TO Table 2 

: 

WASTE QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE:

COMMENT OR 

DESIGNATION, IF NOT 

REGULATED:

Mercury Switches Mercury, Liquid, and Mercury Devices, 

Including Thermometers, Barometers, 

Manometers, Thermowells and Switches. 

Mercury Thermostats Mercury Thermostats. 

Methanol Methanol. 

Microwave Station Batteries Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Batteries, NiCad, Electric Storage Type, Gel 

Cell. 

Motor Oil Used Oil. 

Motor Vehicle Filters Containing Gasoline Filters Containing Fuel. 

Motor Vehicle Filters Containing Oil Oily Solids, Motor Vehicle Filters, Not HotDrained and Punctured. 

Muriatic Acid (used at 1 part of 0.4% 

hydrochloric acid to 20 parts water) 

 At dilutions with water > 10 

times: Non-Regulated Waste. 

NiCad Batteries Batteries, NiCad, Household Type. 

Batteries, NiCad, Electric Storage Type, Gel 

Cell. 

Non-Saturated Oily Rags and Absorbents Refer to Shop Rags⎯Oily, Laundered. 

Odorant Rags and Debris Odorant Rags and Debris. 

Odorants Odorant Liquids. 

Office Products Refer to Toner and Cartridges below. Office products other than 

toner and cartridges are NonRegulated Wastes. 

Oil Filters (Equipment) Oily Solids, Equipment Oil Filters, With Textile 

Filter. 

Oil Filters (Metal, Drained) Recyclable Waste 

Oil Filters, (Metal, Not Drained) Oily Solids, Motor Vehicle Filters, Not HotDrained and Punctured. 

Oil Sorbents (Saturated) Oily Pigs and Pads. 

Oil With Water Oil With Water and Sediment. 

Oil-Based Paints Paint, Oil-Based. 

Oil-Saturated Soil and Gravel Oily Solids: Gravel, Soil. 

Oily Parts Without Free-Standing Oil Non-Regulated Waste, 

Possibly Recyclable. 

Oily Pigs and Pads Oily Pigs and Pads. 

Oily Rags (Laundered) Shop Rags⎯Oily, Laundered. 

Oily Rags (Saturated) Oily Pigs and Pads. 

Oily Sludge Oily Sludge. 

Oily Solids Oily Pigs and Pads. 

Oily Sludge. 

Oily Solids, Equipment Oil Filters, With Textile 

Filter. 

Oily Solids: Gravel, Soil. 

Oily Solids, Motor Vehicle Filters, Not HotDrained and Punctured. 

Shop Rags⎯Oily, Laundered. 

Oily Solids, Equipment Oil Filters Oily Solids, Equipment Oil Filters, With Textile 

Filter. 

Oily Solids, Motor Vehicle Filters, Not HotDrained and Punctured Oily Solids, Motor Vehicle Filters, Not HotDrained and Punctured. 

Paint and Coatings, Oil-Based Paint, Oil-Based. 

Refer also to Aerosol Cans. 

Paint Chips Paint Chips and Debris: segregated by lead 

content.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-39 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE 1 

WASTE CROSS-REFERENCE 

WASTE GENERATED:

CROSS-REFERENCE TO Table 2 

: 

WASTE QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE:

COMMENT OR 

DESIGNATION, IF NOT 

REGULATED:

Paint Containers (With Paint Remaining) Paint, Oil-Based. 

Paint, Water-Based. 

Refer also to Aerosol Cans. 

Not regulated if completely 

used. Otherwise, contact EC 

staff. 

Paint Stripper, Corrosive (e.g., Peel 

Away 1, ST-1) 

Paint Stripper, Corrosive. 

Paint Thinner Paint Thinner (Naphtha). 

Paint, Oil-Based Paint, Oil-Based. 

Paint, Water-Based Paint, Water-Based. 

Paint, Water-Based (Corrosive). 

Refer also to Aerosol Cans. 

Paper Products (Packing, Boxes, Paper, 

etc.) 

 Recyclable Non-Regulated 

Waste. 

PCB-Contaminated Wastes Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Scrubber 

Oil With 1-50 ppm PCBs. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Light 

Ballasts With PCBs. 

Penetone 19 With Water Oil With Water and Sediment. Diluted 9 parts water to 1 part 

Penetone 19, used as a turbine 

wash. 

Pesticides Aerosol Cans, Flammable and Non-flammable. Larger quantities are applied 

and managed by licensed 

contractors. 

Petroleum Oil Used Oil. 

Photo Developing Waste Handled by Contractor. 

Pipeline Liquids Used Oil. 

Pipeline Sludge, Non-Oily Non-Regulated Waste. 

Pipeline Sludge, Oily Oily Sludge. 

 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): 

Scrubber Oil With 1-50 ppm PCBs 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Scrubber 

Oil With 1-50 ppm PCBs. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Light 

Ballasts With PCBs. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Light 

Ballasts With PCBs. 

Fluorescent light ballasts 

manufactured before 1979 or 

which are not labeled “No 

PCBs” are suspect. 

Propylene Glycol Glycol, Propylene. 

Rags, Oily Oily Pigs and Pads. 

Shop Rags⎯Oily, Laundered. 

Rags, Solvent Shop Rags⎯Solvent, Laundered. 

Rubbish 

(Paper, Cloth, Tin, Cardboard, Glass) 

 Non-Regulated Waste. 

Rust Inhibitors Paints, Oil-Based. 

Sand Blasting Waste Refer to Paint Chips and Debris: segregated by 

lead content.

Sand Blasting Media, as 

purchased, is Non-Hazardous. 

Material blasted may be 

hazardous. 

Scrap Metal (Shavings, Pipe, Parts, 

Welding Rods, Tools Without Standing 

Petroleum Liquids) 

 Non-Regulated if Recycled. 

Scrubber Oil Used Oil. 

Scrubber Oil With 1-50 ppm PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Scrubber 

Oil With 1-50 ppm PCBs. 

Separator Sludge Oily Sludge. 

Shop Rags⎯Oily, Laundered Shop Rags⎯Oily, Laundered. 

Shop Rags⎯Solvent, Laundered Shop Rags⎯Solvent, Laundered. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX F 

February 2006 F-40 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE 1 

WASTE CROSS-REFERENCE 

WASTE GENERATED:

CROSS-REFERENCE TO Table 2 

: 

WASTE QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE:

COMMENT OR 

DESIGNATION, IF NOT 

REGULATED:

Solvent Aerosols (e.g., Electrosol) Aerosol Cans, Flammable and Non-flammable. 

Solvent Containing Naphtha Solvent, Safety-Kleen Immersion Cleaner #699 

(Carburetor Cleaner). 

Solvent With Flash Point of <= 141o F. 

Solvent With Flash Point of > 141o

 F. 

Paint Thinner (Naphtha). 

Solvent, Fyre Wash and Water Solvent, Fyre Wash and Water. 

Solvent, Safety-Kleen Immersion Cleaner 

#699 (Carburetor Cleaner) 

Solvent, Safety-Kleen Immersion Cleaner #699 

(Carburetor Cleaner). 

Solvent, Safety-Kleen Parts Washer Solvent With Flash Point of > 141o F: for 150 

Solvent. 

Solvent With Flash Point of <= 141o F: for 105 

Solvent.

Solvents Solvent, Safety-Kleen Immersion Cleaner #699 

(Carburetor Cleaner). 

Solvent With Flash Point of <= 141o

 F. 

Solvent With Flash Point of > 141o

 F. 

Solvent, Fyre Wash and Water. 

Paint Thinner (Naphtha) 

Spill Cleanup Debris Oily Solids. 

Mercury Debris. 

Fuel, Diesel, Contaminated Solid Waste. 

Fuel, Gasoline, Contaminated Solid Waste. 

Stripper, Paint (e.g., Peel Away) Paint Stripper (Corrosive). 

Surplus Chemicals Non-Regulated Waste if 

completely used: Use/Reuse 

wherever possible. 

Thermostats Containing Mercury Mercury Thermostats. 

Thinner, Paint Paint Thinner (Naphtha). 

Tires Non-Regulated Waste. 

Toner and Cartridges Cartridges and Toner are 

returned to Vendor. Toner not 

returned to Vendor is 

hazardous waste. 

Transmission Fluid Used Oil. 

Turbine Lube Oil Used Oil. 

Used Oil With Water Oil With Water and Sediment 

Wash Water (With Petroleum Solvents) Solvent, Fyre Wash and Water. 

Refer to Oil With Water, and Sediment. 

Wash Water (Without Petroleum Solvents) Refer to Oil With Water, and Sediment. ZOC 27 Wash water is NonRegulated Waste. 

Water-Based Paint Paint, Water-Based. 

Paint, Water-Based (Corrosive). 

Weed Killer Pesticide, Aerosols. Larger quantities are applied 

and managed by licensed 

contractors. 

Welding Rods Non-Regulated Waste. 

Wet Cell Batteries Batteries, Lead Acid: Destined for Recycling. 

Batteries, NiCad, Electric Storage Type, Gel 

Cell. 

X-Ray Film May be recycled as a 

Hazardous Material. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-41 North Ba

Table 2 

Waste Quick Reference Guide 

1. 

Waste Stream: 

Hazardous Materials or 

Waste Generated 

2. 

Designation 

Note 1 

3. 

Characteristic 

4. 

EPA 

Waste 

Code 

(RCRA 

Waste) 

5. 

State Waste 

Code (State 

Reference) 

6. 

Waste Label 

7. 

Waste Profile 

No. (TSD 

Ref.) 

Note 2 

8. 

Proper Shipping 

Name 

Note 3 

9. 

DOT Hazard 

Class/ 

Division 

10. 

UN/NA Number 

11. 

Packing 

Group 

Note 4 

D

C

No

Aerosol Cans, Flammable 

and Non-Flammable 

Hazardous Waste 

I D001 343 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

220715 (R) Waste Aerosols, 

Flammable 

2.1 UN1950 - 1A2

1H2

Aqueous Film Forming 

Foam by 3M Co. (3% AFFF With Water) 

Special - - 343 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

219320 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Water, 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy) Ethanol, Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A1

1A1

Asbestos Special T (CA) - 151 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste, 

Special and 

Asbestos 

340068 (R) 

(Non-Friable) 

Asbestos 9 NA2212 III 1A2

1H26 m

Batteries, Alkaline, 

Containing Potassium Hydroxide: Household Type 

Universal Waste 

- - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

335054 (R) Batteries, Dry, 

Containing Potassium Hydroxide Solid. Note 7 EXEMPT: 40 CFR 273, Universal Waste⎯Batteries 

8 UN3028 III 1A2

1H2

Batteries, Debris From 

Corrosive Batteries 

Special - - 181 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

- Corrosive Solids, N.O.S. 

(contains [acid/alkaline] batteries) 

8 UN1759 III 1A2

1H2

Batteries, Lead Acid: 

Destined for Recycling. 

Recyclable Hazardous Material 

- - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

335049 (R) Batteries, Wet, Filled 

With Acid Note 7 EXEMPT: 40 CFR 

266, Recycled lead acid batteries 

8 UN2794 III 1H2

11G

Batteries, Lithium: 

Household Type 

Universal Waste 

- - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

335056 (R) Lithium Battery 

Note 7 EXEMPT: 40 CFR 

273, Universal Waste⎯Batteries 

9 UN3090 II 1A2

1H2

Batteries, Mercury: 

Household Type 

Universal Waste 

- - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

335051 (R) Batteries, Dry, 

Containing Potassium Hydroxide Solid. Note 7 EXEMPT: 40 CFR 273, Universal Waste⎯Batteries 

8 UN3028 III 1A2

1H2

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-42 North Ba

Table 2 

Waste Quick Reference Guide 

1. 

Waste Stream: 

Hazardous Materials or 

Waste Generated 

2. 

Designation 

Note 1 

3. 

Characteristic 

4. 

EPA 

Waste 

Code 

(RCRA 

Waste) 

5. 

State Waste 

Code (State 

Reference) 

6. 

Waste Label 

7. 

Waste Profile 

No. (TSD 

Ref.) 

Note 2 

8. 

Proper Shipping 

Name 

Note 3 

9. 

DOT Hazard 

Class/ 

Division 

10. 

UN/NA Number 

11. 

Packing 

Group 

Note 4 

D

C

No

Batteries, Nickel Cadmium: 

Electric Storage Type, Gel Cell 

Universal Waste 

- - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

335053 (R) Batteries, Wet, NonSpillable 

Note 7 EXEMPT: 40 CFR 273, Universal Waste⎯Batteries 

8 UN2800 III 1H2

11G

Batteries, Nickel Cadmium: 

Household Type 

Universal Waste 

- - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

335052 (R) Universal 

Waste⎯Batteries, EXEMPT: 40 CFR 273 (Non-DOT, Nickel, Cadmium) 

- - - 

Empty Drums: Containing 

< 1” of Material or Waste, Destined For TSD Facility for Recycling 

Special T (CA) - 512 (CA) Empty; 

Recyclable 

Materials/ Waste 

219316 (R) 

(Non-RCRA 

and Non-DOT 

residues) 

California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only (Empty Drums, NonRCRA, Non-DOT) Refer to Waste Management On-Site, subsection 6 of this Manual 

- - - 

Empty Drums: Containing 

< 1” of Material or Waste, Destined For Recycling/Disposal 

Recyclable Hazardous Material or Special 

- - - Empty; 

Recyclable 

Materials/ Waste 

- Varies with each drum. 

Refer to Waste Management On-Site, subsection 6 of this Manual. 

Varies Varies Varies Var

Filters Containing Fuel Hazardous 

Waste 

I, 

T 

D001 D018 

352 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

- Waste Solids Containing 

Flammable Liquid, N.O.S. (Contains Gasoline or Diesel) 

4.1 UN3175 II 1A2

Fuel, Diesel Special T (CA) - 343 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

- Combustible Liquid, 

N.O.S. (Diesel Fuel) Note 7 California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only 

Combustible 

Liquid 

NA1993 III 1A1

1A1

Fuel, Diesel, Contaminated 

Solid Waste 

Special T (CA) - 352 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

340551 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Solids Containing Diesel, Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-43 North Ba

Table 2 

Waste Quick Reference Guide 

1. 

Waste Stream: 

Hazardous Materials or 

Waste Generated 

2. 

Designation 

Note 1 

3. 

Characteristic 

4. 

EPA 

Waste 

Code 

(RCRA 

Waste) 

5. 

State Waste 

Code (State 

Reference) 

6. 

Waste Label 

7. 

Waste Profile 

No. (TSD 

Ref.) 

Note 2 

8. 

Proper Shipping 

Name 

Note 3 

9. 

DOT Hazard 

Class/ 

Division 

10. 

UN/NA Number 

11. 

Packing 

Group 

Note 4 

D

C

No

Fuel, Gasoline Hazardous 

Waste 

I, 

T 

D001 D018 

343 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

- Waste Gasoline 3 UN1203 II 1A1

1A1

Fuel, Gasoline, 

Contaminated Solid Waste 

Hazardous Waste 

T D018 352 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

340581 (R) Hazardous Waste, 

Solid, N.O.S. (Contains Gasoline, Benzene) 

9 NA3077 III 1A2

Fuel, Kerosene Hazardous 

Waste 

I D001 - Hazardous 

Waste 

- Waste Kerosene 3 UN1223 III 1A1

1A1

Glycol, Ethylene, Recycled Special T (CA) - 343 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

220712 (R) 

147833A-00 

(P) 

California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only (Ethylene Glycol and Water, Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A1

1A1

Glycol, Propylene Special T (CA) - 343 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

321411 (R) 

147833B-00 

(P) 

California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only (Propylene Glycol, NonRCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A1

1A1

Mercury Debris (With 

Mercury >= 0.2 ppm) 

Hazardous Waste 

T D009 725 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

- Hazardous Waste, 

Solid, N.O.S. (Contains Mercury) 

9 NA3077 III 1A2

Mercury Lighting Waste 

(Originating in Oregon) 

Oregon Universal Waste 

- - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

335055 (R) Oregon Universal 

Waste⎯ MercuryContaining Lamps, EXEMPT: 40 CFR 273, Non-DOT [Fluorescent Light Tubes/High Intensity Lamps] 

- - - 1A2

or O

Mercury Lighting Waste 

(With Mercury >= 0.2 ppm) 

(Originating in Idaho) 

Hazardous Waste 

T D008 

D009 

181 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

335050 (R) Hazardous Waste, 

Solid, N.O.S. (Contains Mercury) Note 7 Fluorescent Light Tubes/High Intensity Lamps 

9 NA3077 III 1A2

or O

Mercury Lighting Waste (With Mercury >= 0.2 ppm) (Originating in Washington and Destined for Recycling) 

Washington Special 

- - 181 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

306664 (R) Fluorescent Light 

Tubes/High Intensity Lamps, Ref. DOE Memo 1/30/95 (Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

or O

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-44 North Ba

Table 2 

Waste Quick Reference Guide 

1. 

Waste Stream: 

Hazardous Materials or 

Waste Generated 

2. 

Designation 

Note 1 

3. 

Characteristic 

4. 

EPA 

Waste 

Code 

(RCRA 

Waste) 

5. 

State Waste 

Code (State 

Reference) 

6. 

Waste Label 

7. 

Waste Profile 

No. (TSD 

Ref.) 

Note 2 

8. 

Proper Shipping 

Name 

Note 3 

9. 

DOT Hazard 

Class/ 

Division 

10. 

UN/NA Number 

11. 

Packing 

Group 

Note 4 

D

C

No

Mercury Thermostats Universal 

Waste 

- - 725 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

- California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Non-DOT) Note 7 Universal Waste⎯Mercury Thermostats, EXEMPT: 40 CFR 273 

- - - 1A2

Mercury, Liquid (1 pound or more of mercury) and Mercury Devices, Including Thermometers, Barometers, Manometers, Thermowells and Switches 

Hazardous Waste 

T D009 and 

possibly 

U151 

725 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

- Quantity Dependent: At 

greater than or equal to 1 pound of mercury, use:

Environmentally Hazardous Substance, Liquid, N.O.S. (Contains Mercury) 

9 UN3082 III 1A1

1A1

Mercury, Liquid (less than 1 pound of mercury) and Mercury Devices, Including Thermometers, Barometers, Manometers, Thermowells and Switches 

Hazardous Waste 

T D009 and 

possibly 

U151 

725 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

213191 (R) Quantity Dependent: At 

less than 1 pound of mercury, use:Hazardous Waste, Liquid, N.O.S. (Contains Mercury (Metallic)) 

9 NA3082 III 1A1

1A1

Methanol Hazardous 

Waste 

I, 

T (CA) 

D001 and 

F003 or 

U154 

343 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

340061 (R) Waste Methanol 3 UN1230 II 1A1

1A1

Odorant Liquid Hazardous 

Waste 

I, 

T (CA) 

D001 343 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

314416 (R) 

1-40% water 

Waste Mercaptan Mixtures, Liquid, Flammable, Toxic, N.O.S. (Contains TButyl Mercaptan) 

3 UN1228 III 1A1

1A11A2(La

Odorant Rags and Debris Special T (CA) - 352 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

219313 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Rags/Debris, T-Butyl Mercaptan, Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 

Oil With Water and 

Sediment 

Special T (CA) 223 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

219314 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Oil, Sediment, NonRCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A1

1A1

Oily Pigs and Pads Special T (CA) - 223 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

220708 (R) 5-

25% Oil, 65-

85% Sorbents 

California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only (Sorbents, Oil, NonRCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-45 North Ba

Table 2 

Waste Quick Reference Guide 

1. 

Waste Stream: 

Hazardous Materials or 

Waste Generated 

2. 

Designation 

Note 1 

3. 

Characteristic 

4. 

EPA 

Waste 

Code 

(RCRA 

Waste) 

5. 

State Waste 

Code (State 

Reference) 

6. 

Waste Label 

7. 

Waste Profile 

No. (TSD 

Ref.) 

Note 2 

8. 

Proper Shipping 

Name 

Note 3 

9. 

DOT Hazard 

Class/ 

Division 

10. 

UN/NA Number 

11. 

Packing 

Group 

Note 4 

D

C

No

Oily Sludge (e.g., 

Separator Sludge) 

Special T (CA) - 223 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

219315 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Oil, Sludge,  Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Oily Solids, Equipment Oil 

Filters With Textile Filter 

Special T (CA) - 223 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

220709 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Oil, Equipment Textile Filters, Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Oily Solids: Gravel, Soil Special T (CA) - 223 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

220708 (R) 5-

25% Oil and 5-

15% Gravel/ 

Debris 

California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only (Solids,, Oil, NonRCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Oily Solids, Motor Vehicle 

Filters, Not Hot-Drained and Punctured 

Special T (CA) - 223 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

219322 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Filters, Oil, NonRCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Paint Chips and Debris 

With Lead: < 5 ppm Lead 

Special T (CA) - 181 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

321117 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Paint Chips, Debris, Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Paint Chips and Debris With Lead: >= 5 ppm lead 

Hazardous Waste 

T D008 181 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

311008 (R) Hazardous Waste, 

Solid, N.O.S. (Contains Lead) 

9 NA3077 III 1A2

Paint Stripper, Corrosive (e.g., Peel Away 1, ST-1) 

Special Note 9

- - 181 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ 

Waste 

311383 (R) Paint Related Material 

Note 7 Corrosive Stripper⎯Contains Sodium Hydroxide 

8 UN3066 III 1A2

Paint Thinner (Naphtha) Hazardous 

Waste Note 9

I, 

T (CA) 

D001 213 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

220703 (R) Waste Paint Related 

Material Note 7 (Contains Naphtha) 

3 UN1263 III 1A1

1A11A2(La

Paint, Oil-Based (Flammable) 

Hazardous Waste Note 9

I, 

T (CA) 

D001 343 (CA) Hazardous 

Waste 

339532 (R) Waste Paint Related 

Material Note 7 Oil-Based Paints 

3 UN1263 III 1A1

1A11A2(La

Paint, Water-Based Special 

Note 9

T (CA) - 352 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

340059 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Paint, Water-Based, Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Paint, Water-Based (Corrosive) 

Hazardous Waste 

C D002 Hazardous 

Waste 

- Waste Paint Related 

Waste Material Note 7 Corrosive Paints 

8 UN3066 II 1A1

1A11A2(La

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-46 North Ba

Table 2 

Waste Quick Reference Guide 

1. 

Waste Stream: 

Hazardous Materials or 

Waste Generated 

2. 

Designation 

Note 1 

3. 

Characteristic 

4. 

EPA 

Waste 

Code 

(RCRA 

Waste) 

5. 

State Waste 

Code (State 

Reference) 

6. 

Waste Label 

7. 

Waste Profile 

No. (TSD 

Ref.) 

Note 2 

8. 

Proper Shipping 

Name 

Note 3 

9. 

DOT Hazard 

Class/ 

Division 

10. 

UN/NA Number 

11. 

Packing 

Group 

Note 4 

D

C

No

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Light Ballasts With PCBs (Non-Leaking Ballasts) 

Special T (CA) - 731 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste, 

PCB 

340641 (R) RQ, Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls Note 7 California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only 

9 UN2315 II 1A2

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Light Ballasts With PCBs (Leaking Ballasts) 

Special T (CA) - 731 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste, 

PCB 

6874 

(Salesco) 

RQ, Polychlorinated Biphenyls Note 7 California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only 

9 UN2315 II 1A2

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs): Scrubber Oil With PCBs 

Special T (CA) - 343 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

- California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) 

- - - 1A1

1A1

Shop Rags⎯Oily, 

Laundered, Generated in Oregon 

Special - - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

- Dirty Rags Destined for 

Laundering: Oily Rags (Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A2

Shop Rags⎯Solvent, Laundered, Generated in Oregon (Ignitable Solvents Such As Petroleum Naphtha) 

Special - - - Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

- Solids Containing 

Flammable Liquid, N.O.S. (Contains ___) Note 7 Dirty Rags Destined for Laundering: Solvent Rags. 

4.1 UN3175 II 1A2

Solvent, Fyre Wash and Water 

Special Note 9

T (CA) - 343 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

220705 (R) California Regulated 

Hazardous Waste Only (Water and Naphtha, Non-RCRA, Non-DOT) 

- - - 1A1

1A1

Solvent, Safety-Kleen Immersion Cleaner #699 (Carburetor Cleaner) 

Hazardous Waste 

T D006 

D008 D018 D027 D039 D040

 Hazardous 

Waste 

SK-3 Waste Compounds, 

Cleaning Liquid, N. O. S. (Contains Monoethanolamine)

8 NA1760 III Saf

han

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 F-47 North Ba

Table 2 

Waste Quick Reference Guide 

1. 

Waste Stream: 

Hazardous Materials or 

Waste Generated 

2. 

Designation 

Note 1 

3. 

Characteristic 

4. 

EPA 

Waste 

Code 

(RCRA 

Waste) 

5. 

State Waste 

Code (State 

Reference) 

6. 

Waste Label 

7. 

Waste Profile 

No. (TSD 

Ref.) 

Note 2 

8. 

Proper Shipping 

Name 

Note 3 

9. 

DOT Hazard 

Class/ 

Division 

10. 

UN/NA Number 

11. 

Packing 

Group 

Note 4 

D

C

No

Solvent, With Flash Point of <= 141o F. (e.g., Petroleum 

Naphtha: Safety-Kleen 105o F. Flash Point) 

Hazardous Waste 

Note 9 

I, 

T (CA) 

D001 

(Others Will 

Apply to 

SafetyKleen) 

343 (CA) 

WP02 (WA) 

Hazardous 

Waste 

340062 (R) 

SK-1 

Waste Petroleum Distillates, N.O.S. (Contains Petroleum Naphtha) 

3 UN1268 III 1A1

1A1(SaKlehan

Solvent, With Flash Point of > 141o F. (e.g., Petroleum 

Naphtha: Safety-Kleen 150o F. Flash Point) 

Special (if no other waste codes are applicable) Note 9 

T (CA) - 

Note 9 

213 (CA) Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

340657 (R) 

SK-3021735 

Combustible Liquid, N.O.S. (Contains Petroleum Naphtha) 

Note 7 California Regulated Hazardous Waste Only 

Combustible 

Liquid 

NA1993 III 1A1

1A11A2(LaSafma

Solvent, With Flash Point of > 141o F. (e.g., Petroleum 

Naphtha: Safety-Kleen 150o F. Flash Point, 

contaminated with trichloroethylene) 

Hazardous Waste

T D040 Hazardous 

Waste 

SK-3021734 

(Redmond MB) 

Waste Combustible Liquid, N.O.S. (Contains Petroleum Naphtha, trichloroethylene) 

Combustible 

Liquid 

NA1993 III 1A1

1A11A2Safhan

Used Oil Used Oil T (CA) - 221 (CA) Used Oil or 

Recyclable 

Material/ Waste 

Note 7 

100074-02 (P) Used Oil (Non-DOT) - - - 1A1

1A1

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL PLAN 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix G 

Horizontal Directional Drill Plan 

Prepared by 

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

February 2006

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................G-1

2.0 HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING PROCESS..................................................G-2

3.0 MONITORING PROCEDURES ....................................................................................G-4

4.0 NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES ..................................................................................G-5

5.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION AND CLEANUP......................................................................G-6

6.0 ABANDONMENT ..........................................................................................................G-8

7.0 SITE-SPECIFIC PLANS................................................................................................G-9

 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 G-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix G 

Horizontal Directional Drill Plan 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja), will construct the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

(Project), a new natural gas pipeline from the U.S.-Mexico border to the existing North Baja 

facilities and the El Paso Natural Gas system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. The Project includes three 

elements: the B-Line, which includes interconnection facilities in Ehrenberg, Arizona, as well as 

a 79.8-mile, 42- and 48-inch-diameter pipeline between Blythe and the Mexican border; the 

Arrowhead Extension, which includes a meter station and a 2.1-mile, 36-inch-diameter pipeline 

extending from the proposed B-Line at milepost 7.4 to Southern California Gas Company’s 

existing Blythe Compressor Station; and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Lateral, a 45.7-mile, 

16-inch-diameter pipeline between North Baja’s mainline and the IID El Centro Generating 

Station. The Project will be constructed in phases, with the first phase planned for construction 

in 2007, the IID Lateral for 2008, and the final phase of the Project in 2009, pending completion 

of upstream liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facilities. 

This directional drill contingency plan provides specific procedures and steps to contain 

inadvertent releases of drilling mud (also referred to as frac-outs) for waterbodies that are 

crossed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) techniques. As part of its North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project, North Baja proposes to directionally drill the Colorado River and the AllAmerican Canal on the B-Line, and on the IID Lateral, North Baja proposes to directionally drill 

two crossings of the All-American Canal and a crossing of the East Highline Canal. While 

waterway crossings vary substantially in installation depth, current profile data indicate a 

minimum depth of cover of 60 feet for the Colorado River crossing, 30 feet for the All-American 

Canal crossings, and 30 feet for the East Highline Canal crossing. Pipe used for the directionally 

drilled crossings on the B-Line will be 48 inches in diameter for the All-American Canal and 42 

inches for the Colorado River. Pipe used for the directionally drilled crossings of the IID Lateral 

will be 16 inches in diameter. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.0 HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING PROCESS 

Installation of a pipeline by HDD is generally accomplished in three stages. The first stage 

consists of directionally drilling a small-diameter pilot hole along a pre-determined path. The 

second stage enlarges this pilot hole to a diameter that will accommodate the pipeline. 

Numerous “reaming” passes will be necessary with each pass enlarging the diameter of the pilot 

hole incrementally. The third stage involves pulling the pipeline through the enlarged hole. 

During the drilling of the pilot hole, directional control is achieved by using a non-rotating drill 

string with an asymmetrical leading edge. The asymmetry of the leading edge creates a steering 

bias, which allows the operator to control the direction of the drill bit. The actual path of the pilot 

hole is monitored during drilling by taking periodic readings of the inclination and azimuth. 

These readings are used to calculate the horizontal and vertical coordinates along the pilot 

holes relative to the initial entry point on the surface. 

Once the pilot hole is complete, it is enlarged using reaming tools that are often custom-made 

for a particular diameter pipe or type of soil. The reamers are typically attached to the drill string 

at the exit point and are rotated and drawn to the drilling rig, thus enlarging the pilot hole with 

each pass. Pipe installation is accomplished by attaching a prefabricated pull section behind a 

reaming assembly at the exit point and pulling the entire assembly back to the drilling rig. When 

the pipe is in place beneath the river, tie-in welds on the river/stream banks complete the 

crossing. 

Ideally, horizontal directional drilling involves no disturbance to the bed or banks of a stream. 

However, it is possible that geologic irregularities could be encountered during drilling, and 

drilling could fail. This plan describes the potential for failure of horizontal directional drilling, the 

contingency methods that would be implemented in the event of inadvertent release of drilling 

fluids to water or land, and drill hole abandonment procedures. 

The feasibility of the horizontal directional drill method primarily depends on the local geologic 

setting, as well as site topography and other surface features. For example, horizontal 

directional drilling may not be feasible in areas of glacial till or outwash interspersed with 

boulders and cobbles, highly fractured bedrock, or non-cohesive coarse sands and gravels. 

These formations increase the likelihood that drilling could fail due to refusal of the drill bit, 

continuous loss of drilling fluid through fractures or weak areas in the ground, or collapse of the 

bore hole in non-cohesive, unstable substrate. Steep terrain immediately adjacent to the 

crossing location or other surface features can also render the HDD method impossible or 

increase the risk of failure. 

Fortunately, surface characteristics at the proposed Project drill sites are generally favorable for 

HDD. North Baja previously obtained soil borings from each side of the Colorado River and AllAmerican Canal crossings on the B-Line and successfully completed HDDs at both locations in 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2002. This work indicates that conditions are favorable for horizontal directional drilling. 

Geotechnical investigations for the IID Lateral crossings will be conducted in the spring of 2006. 

While the borings can provide a general basis for determining feasibility, they cannot predict all 

problems that could occur. Even the previous successful drills on the original North Baja 

Pipeline Project cannot be used to predict with absolute certainty the results for an adjacent drill. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.0 MONITORING PROCEDURES 

The Environmental Inspector(s) and construction personnel will continuously monitor operations 

during drilling activities. Monitoring activities will include: 

• Visual inspection along the drill path, including monitoring the waterbody for 

evidence of a release. 

• Continuous examination of drilling fluid pressures and returns flows. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.0 NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

If in the course of an inspection an inadvertent release is discovered, steps will be taken by 

construction personnel to contain the release as described in Section 5.0, Corrective Action and 

Cleanup. Notification procedures of North Baja construction management personnel and 

regulatory agencies are detailed in this section. 

If monitoring indicates an in-stream release, the Environmental Inspector(s) will immediately 

notify North Baja’s construction management personnel. North Baja will notify the appropriate 

Federal and State agencies as soon as possible by telephone and/or facsimile of an in-stream 

release event, detailing the nature of the release and corrective actions being taken. The 

notified agencies will determine whether additional measures need to be implemented. If it is 

determined that the release can not be remedied without causing additional environmental 

impact, North Baja will request agency approval to continue the drilling operations. 

If a release occurs that may migrate downstream and affect water quality, downstream water 

users will be contacted by North Baja. The contacts and telephone numbers of downstream 

users will be assembled prior to commencement of construction, and maintained on site. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

5.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION AND CLEANUP 

By monitoring drilling operations continuously, North Baja intends to correct problems before 

they occur. In addition, containment equipment including earth-moving equipment, portable 

pumps, hand tools, sand, hay bales, silt fence, lumber, and a suction dredge will be readily 

available at the drill site. If a release does occur, the following measures will be implemented to 

stop or minimize the release and to clean it up: 

• The drilling contractor will decide what modifications to make to the drilling technique 

or composition of drilling fluid (e.g., thickening of fluid by increasing bentonite 

content) to reduce or stop minor losses of drilling fluid. 

• If a minor bore path void is encountered during drilling, making a slight change in the 

direction of the bore path may avoid loss of circulation. 

• If the bore head becomes lodged resulting in loss of drilling pressure, the borehole 

may be sized by moving the bore head back and forth to dislodge the stuck 

materials. 

• If necessary, drilling operations will be reduced to assess the extent of the release 

and to implement other possible corrective actions. 

• If public health and safety are threatened, drilling fluid circulation pumps will be 

turned off. This measure will be taken as a last resort because it increases the 

potential for drill hole collapse resulting from loss of down-hole pressure. 

• If a land release is detected, the drilling crew will take immediate corrective action to 

contain the release and to prevent migration off site. 

• The contractor will construct pits and berms around the borehole entry point to 

contain inadvertent releases onto the ground. 

• Any drilling mud released into the pits will be pumped by contractor personnel into a 

mud-processing unit for recycling of drilling fluid and separation of cuttings. 

• Additional berms will be constructed around the bore pit as directed by the 

Environmental Inspector(s) to prevent release materials from flowing into the 

waterbody. 

• If the amount of an on-land release does not allow practical collection, the affected 

area will be diluted with fresh water and allowed to dry. Steps will be taken (such as 

berm, silt fence, and/or hay bale installation) to prevent silt-laden water from flowing 

into the waterbody. 

• If hand tools cannot contain a small on-land release, small collection sumps (less 

than 5 cubic yards) may be constructed to pump the released material into the mud 

processing system. 

• Contractor HDD crews will immediately implement non-mechanized measures to 

contain the spread of drilling fluids, including the installation of hay bales or silt fence. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• Sump pumps or vac trucks will be used to remove and dispose of any drilling fluids. 

• Time permitting; HDD crews will await the arrival of CDFG representatives before 

proceeding with mechanized measures to contain the spread of drilling fluids. This 

could include construction of a containment berm. 

• Any activities outside the approved right-of-way or extra workspace will be surveyed 

by a qualified biologist. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

6.0 ABANDONMENT 

If corrective actions do not prevent or control releases from occurring into the waterbody, North 

Baja may opt to re-drill the hole along a different alignment or suspend the Project altogether. In 

either case, the following procedures will be implemented to abandon the drill hole. 

• The method for sealing the abandoned drill hole is to pump thickened drilling fluid 

into the hole as the drill assembly is extracted, and using cement grout to make a 

cap. 

• Closer to the surface of the hole(s) (within approximately 10 feet of the surface), a 

soil cap will be installed by filling with soil extracted during construction of the pit and 

berms. 

• The bore hole entry location will be graded by the contractor to its original grade and 

condition after the drill hole has been abandoned. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

7.0 SITE-SPECIFIC PLANS 

After contracting with an HDD contractor and prior to initiating HHD operations, North Baja will 

prepare a site-specific HDD Drilling Plan for The Colorado River and each canal HDD crossing. 

The plan will be similar to the plan prepared for the A-Line in 2002. The Plan will be submitted to 

the CDFG and will address: 

A. HHD Operations Description: 

1. Construction drawing 

2. Depth of bore, assessment of streambed and frac-out risk 

3. Type and size of boring equipment to be used (e.g., mini, mid, or maxi) 

4. Estimated time to complete bore 

5. List of lubricants and muds to be used (MSDS sheets okay) 

6. Name of contractor and cell phone numbers of construction supervisor and 

monitor 

Project Coordinator 

Construction Supervisor 

Crew Monitor 

B. Frac-Out Prevention and Cleanup Plans Will Include: 

1. Name(s) of environmental and biological monitor(s) 

2. Site-specific monitoring conditions (e.g., preconstruction surveys for sensitive 

species) 

3. Monitoring protocols, including biological monitoring and frac-out monitoring 

(North Baja will have Biological Monitors on-site during HDD activities.) 

Frac-Out Monitoring 

General Monitoring 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX G 

February 2006 G-10 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4. Containment and cleanup plan (include staging location of vacuum trucks and 

equipment, equipment list, necessary hose lengths, special measures needed 

for steep topography, etc.) 

Planning and Set Up 

Operation 

Spill Protocol 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H 

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix H-1 

Traffic Management Plan 

for 18th Avenue 

Prepared by 

2087 E. 71st St. 

Tulsa, OK 74136 

February 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................H-1-1

2.0 ROUTE DESCRIPTION – 18TH AVENUE AND VICINITY.....................................H-1-2

3.0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH .................................................................H-1-3

3.1 18TH AVENUE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..............................H-1-3

3.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH .......................................................H-1-6

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit A 18th Avenue Pipeline Route General Vicinity Map 

Exhibit B 18th Avenue Construction Plan Vicinity Map 

Exhibit C 18th Avenue Traffic Plan Location Map (sheets 1-3) 

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment A Typical Traffic Control Measures 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 H-1-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix H-1 

Traffic Management Plan for 18th Avenue 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja), will construct the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

(Project), a new natural gas pipeline from the U.S.-Mexico border to the existing North Baja 

facilities and the El Paso Natural Gas System in Ehrenberg, Arizona. The Project includes three 

elements: the B-Line, which includes interconnection facilities in Ehrenberg, Arizona, as well as 

a 79.8 -mile, 42- and 48-inch-diameter pipeline between Blythe and the Mexican border; the 

Arrowhead Extension, which includes a meter station and a 2.1-mile, 36-inch-diameter pipeline 

extending from the proposed B-Line at milepost (MP) 7.4 to Southern California Gas Company’s 

existing Blythe Compressor Station; and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Lateral, a 45.7-mile, 

16-inch-diameter pipeline between North Baja’s mainline and the IID El Centro Generating 

Station. The Project will be constructed in phases, with the first phase planned for construction 

in 2007, the IID Lateral for 2008, and the final phase of the Project in 2009, pending completion 

of upstream liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facilities. 

In 2002, North Baja constructed the 36-inch/30-inch A-Line of which the 36-inch segment 

generally is installed in the north edge of 18th Avenue. Between MPs 2.3 and 10.4 of the BLine, the pipeline will be placed generally within the south edge of 18th Avenue, as shown on 

the Pipeline Route General Vicinity Map, Exhibit A. This document describes North Baja’s 

Traffic Management Plan to be employed during construction of the 42-inch B-Line along the 

south side of 18th Avenue. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.0 ROUTE DESCRIPTION – 18TH AVENUE AND VICINITY 

On the west side of the Colorado River, the pipeline will turn south through fallow and/or 

irrigated agricultural land for about 1.8 miles (MP 0.5 to MP 2.3), and will be installed adjacent 

to the existing 36-inch North Baja A-Line which is adjacent to the east side of the D-10-13 Canal 

levee road to the 18th Avenue extension. 

Exhibit B shows the general location of the pipeline route in relation to 18th Avenue and shows 

the orientation of the detailed maps that comprise Exhibit C. 

At the intersection of the D-10-13 Canal and the 18th Avenue extension, the 42-inch-diameter 

pipeline will turn west and will be installed within the 18th Avenue extension (a dirt road) using a 

120-foot-wide right-of-way, consisting of North Baja’s existing 50-foot-wide right-of-way, and 70 

feet of new temporary workspace, for about 0.6 mile. At the D-10 Canal, 18th Avenue becomes 

paved and remains paved for about 7.6 miles to the intersection of Keim Boulevard. Throughout 

this segment, the pipeline will be installed within the road shoulder or within the paved roadway. 

Except for extra work spaces at selected locations, construction will be confined to the 60-footwide designated county road right-of-way, which consists of the paved road and adjacent road 

shoulder. Adjacent land uses along 18th Avenue are agricultural and low density residential and 

business uses. The pipeline route crosses eight irrigation canals, five drains, nine delivery 

ditches, nine roads, and one railroad. Occupants of twenty-four residences and two businesses 

use 18th Avenue for access. Farmers tilling the ground adjacent to 18th Avenue also require 

ingress and egress at points along the road. Homes and buildings will be located between 20 

and 250 feet of the edge of the construction work area. The existing mainline valve lot along 

18th Avenue near Lovekin Road will be expanded to add a second valve for the B-Line at 

MP 5.5. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

North Baja has consulted with the Riverside County Department of Public Works. Riverside 

County requires that construction measures comply with California Department of 

Transportation (CalTrans) Traffic Manual. North Baja’s plan requires that the contractor comply 

with all relevant elements of the CalTrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 5, Traffic Controls. Key traffic 

control elements in the manual address: 

• Temporary traffic control; 

• Pedestrian, bicycle, and worker considerations; 

• Hand signaling control; 

• Types of traffic control devices; and 

• Types of temporary traffic control zone activities. 

Section 3.1 describes the construction considerations along 18th Avenue. Section 3.2 

addresses the traffic management approach. Exhibit C is a series of 1 inch = 2,000 feet maps 

showing the location of the route in relation to 18th Avenue, canals, drains, railroad, and cross 

streets. It shows the location of construction segments and individual residences and 

businesses. Attachment A shows typical traffic control measures contained in the CalTrans 

Traffic Manual that will be implemented by the contractor. 

North Baja will submit detailed construction drawings for approval by Riverside County Public 

Works Department as part of obtaining an Encroachment Permit. 

3.1 18TH AVENUE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 

The following summarizes the construction considerations for 18th Avenue: 

Location in Relation to 18th Avenue – Construction in the paved segment of 18th Avenue will 

be accomplished using urban construction techniques. To minimize disruption to residences 

and facilitate construction across roadways, canals and drains, North Baja will locate the pipe 

approximately 13.0 feet south of the centerline of the pavement. North Baja proposes to confine 

the construction work area to the County road right-of-way with additional extra work space 

located along the road at major crossings such as cross streets, railroads, canals, and ditches. 

Certain crossings such as the operating canals, the Arizona-California Railroad, State Highway 

78, and three county roads will be installed by conventional boring. All other crossings are 

proposed to be open cut aside from the drains whose substantial depth allows for the pipeline to 

be installed across the top. 

Preconstruction Planning – Before construction in 18th Avenue, North Baja will obtain an 

amended franchise agreement and an encroachment permit from the County of Riverside 

Transportation Department. Design and construction methods will conform to Riverside County 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

requirements. Preconstruction activities will include preliminary examination of the work areas 

and identification of the exact location of subsurface utilities, either through visual inspection or 

by digging potholes at intervals along the pipeline trench. If potholing identifies a conflict 

between existing utilities and the pipeline centerline, then the pipeline or utility will be 

horizontally and/or vertically realigned to eliminate the conflict. 

North Baja will contact each owner and/or tenant of the properties abutting the road to explain 

the construction process and identify any special conditions or concerns that need to be 

incorporated into the construction plans. In addition, these adjacent residents and businesses 

will be notified by hand-distributed flyers 2 weeks before construction. 

Timing –To minimize the duration of inconvenience to residences, North Baja proposes to close 

sections of road where construction is active and reroute non-local traffic around these areas 

(while maintaining access for residents). Construction will advance along the road at an 

estimated 500 feet per day; however to expedite completion and thereby minimize the duration 

of any inconvenience to residents, construction may be active at numerous locations along 18th 

Avenue at any given time. Excluding repaving, direct construction impacts at any given location 

are estimated to last about 2 to 3 weeks. 

Construction Crews –The initial plan following contractor mobilization is to have a specialized 

crew solely designated to the 18th Avenue work. This crew will be a self-sufficient “mini spread” 

experienced with work in congested areas and will have two major components. The first 

component being the individuals associated with the installation of the major crossings and the 

second component will be responsible for the installation of the pipeline sections in between the 

crossings. Both components of this crew will make every effort to keep unavoidable road 

closures or restricted access to a minimum and coordinate those closures with residences and 

businesses. 

Safety Considerations and Access – Although 18th Avenue is not a heavily traveled roadway, 

there are 26 residences and businesses along the proposed route. North Baja will apply specific 

traffic management measures in cooperation with the County of Riverside Transportation 

Department. These include: 

• The pipeline will be installed with a minimum of 36 inches of cover and with a 

minimum of 12 inches of separation from other utilities or obstructions. A minimum of 

2 feet will be maintained under canals and 5 feet over drains. 

• Intersections will be bored or trenched and steel plated if construction doesn’t occur 

on consecutive days. 

• Adjacent residents and businesses will be notified by hand-distributed flyers 2 weeks 

before construction. The flyers will include the dates of construction, the work hours, 

traffic detours, and contact numbers for North Baja and the contractor. Emergency 

response agencies will also be notified of the work schedule. 

• The Underground Service Alert will be notified at least 48 hours before beginning 

work. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• Flagging personnel will be provided to route traffic around construction equipment 

and obstructions. 

• Work will be scheduled during daylight hours unless alternative schedules are 

authorized. 

• Access will be maintained to all residences or businesses except during actual 

trenching operations. Steel plates will be available to maintain access to driveways 

during periods when the trench is open. 

• Non-local traffic will be detoured around construction activities. 

• One lane of restricted traffic movement will be maintained through the construction 

area as it progresses down 18th Avenue. This will allow residences and businesses 

reasonable access during the construction activities. 

• Where unrestricted traffic is impractical, North Baja proposes that its contractor will 

maintain at least one direction, either east or west, for exit of local traffic and access 

for any emergency traffic that may occur. 

• At non-work times the work area will be secured and patrolled to minimize safety 

hazards associated with open trenches, heavy equipment and other construction 

operations. 

• Open trenches will be covered or cordoned off during non-working hours. The length 

of open trench may vary with individual circumstances and interferences that may 

occur along the corridor. 

Trenching and Boring – The trench depth for the portions of the pipeline between the bored 

crossings is expected to be 6 to 7 feet to accommodate the 42-inch pipe and maintain 36-inch 

of cover in accordance with USDOT Pipeline Safety Regulations. Trench depth will also be 

contingent on the type of soils and the quantity of ground water encountered. Spoil material 

from the trench will be stockpiled and spread on the work side of the right-of-way or hauled to 

an approved stockpile location. Because the pipeline installation is in the road corridor, no 

topsoil segregation is planned. Any pavement or rock materials removed during the installation 

of the pipeline will be hauled away to an approved landfill or other suitable location. Sheet piling 

and dewatering techniques such as well-pointing will be utilized, as needed, in order to ensure a 

safe and stable trench and bore entrance or exit holes. Pipeline trench borehole dewatering will 

be kept to a minimum, as is practical. North Baja will dewater to nearby canals and drains in 

accordance with PVID requirements. 

Pipe Installation – Pipe installation into the trench will preferably be done in sections as long 

as practical, with the pipe sections being welded up alongside the ditch. In tight work areas, the 

contractor may elect to “double joint” pipe lengths into 80-foot sections at an offsite location and 

transport the pipe joints to the area. In addition, longer sections may be welded up at staging 

areas located near 18th Avenue for use in very narrow workspace zones. One pipe installation 

method that will be used in numerous areas along 18th Avenue is the stovepipe method. This 

method allows for the pipe to be welded up in the trench, one pipe joint at a time, and 

sequentially backfilled following coating operations. This method keeps the length of open 

trench to a minimum and allows for better access management. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

As the pipe installation progresses, tie-ins will be done in the ditch at convenient locations to 

facilitate welding. Most tie-ins will occur on either side of crossings and at sites where 

installation methodology changes from one approach to another, i.e., stovepipe to traditional 

pipe-lay. At these locations the ditch will be widened sufficiently to allow welders access and 

afford them the space necessary to complete the welds. 

Backfilling and Testing – Following pipe installation and the coating of the welds, the ditch will 

be backfilled with the spoil material removed that meets North Baja’s pipeline padding 

specifications, and compacted to the requirements of the County of Riverside Transportation 

Department. New pavement will be installed where existing pavement is removed for ditching, 

and the area will be opened back to normal traffic. However, during hydrostatic testing the area 

again will be limited to traffic of necessity as a safety precaution. North Baja proposes to test the 

pipeline during a time of least disruption to the local residences and businesses. A minimum 8-

hour hydrostatic test period is required by North Baja. 

Noise and Dust – Noise will be reduced by maintaining equipment in good operating condition, 

equipped with proper noise control accessories including mufflers and or sound attenuation 

enclosures. Noise will be monitored for equipment that may run for extended periods of time 

such as pumps, compressors and generators. Work will be scheduled during daylight hours 

unless alternative schedules are authorized. Dust will be suppressed by the use of water trucks 

and regular spraying. 

Restoration – Following a successful test, the entire area will be cleaned up and restored to its 

original condition. Residential areas disturbed during construction will have all fencing, lawns 

and plant materials replaced to a standard equal to the preconstruction conditions. Pavement 

removed or damaged during construction will be replaced initially with temporary material, and 

later re-paved, during restoration, to the requirements of the County of Riverside Transportation 

Department. 

3.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

To effectively outline the traffic management issues associated with the pipe installation on 18th

Avenue, the plan has been broken into segments. The plan is subject to revision as the design 

of the pipeline is finalized and input is received from the pipeline contractor. The segments are 

as follows: 

Segment 1 – MP 2.92 to MP 3.42 

Segment 2 – MP 3.43 to MP 4.00 

Segment 3 – MP 4.01 to MP 5.00 

Segment 4 – MP 5.01 to MP 6.00 

Segment 5 – MP 6.01 to MP 7.00 

Segment 6 – MP 7.01 to MP 8.00 

Segment 7 – MP 8.01 to MP 9.00 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Segment 8 – MP 9.01 to MP 10.00 

Segment 9 – MP 10.01 to MP 10.50 

Segment 1 – MP 2.92 to MP 3.42 

For Segment 1 and all other segments along 18th Avenue, construction equipment and 

personnel will utilize the eastbound lane for pipe installation. For all of Segment 1, the 

westbound lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and local residents only. One-lane 

traffic control along Segment 1 will be accomplished by the use of adequate warning, 

delineation and channelization techniques. Such techniques include proper pavement marking, 

and/or signs or use of other traffic control devices that are effective under varying conditions of 

light and weather. These devices include but are not limited to cones, barricades, portable 

delineators, flexible post type channelizers, drums, and barricades. The quantity and type of 

devices will be appropriate to assure the driver and pedestrian have positive guidance before 

approaching and while passing through the traffic control zone. Flagging personnel will be 

employed when all other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. 

Near the end of Segment 1, at approximately MP 3.40, is the proposed open-cut crossing of 

Intake Boulevard. While the roadway is being open-cut for the installation of the pipeline, 

southbound traffic on Intake Boulevard will be detoured west on Seeley Avenue (16th Avenue), 

which parallels 18th Avenue 1 mile to the north. Northbound traffic will be detoured west on 

22nd Avenue, which parallels 18th Avenue approximately 2 miles to the south. Motorists will use 

C & D Boulevard, 1 mile west of Intake Boulevard, for northbound and southbound traffic flow 

during the detour. The detour will be posted clearly over the entire length so that motorists can 

easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour is 

two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days not 

be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the pipeline trench to 

permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained at 

all times along Intake Boulevard. 

These temporary traffic control zones will be carefully monitored under varying conditions of 

traffic volume, light and weather to ensure that traffic control measures are operating effectively 

and that all devices are clearly visible, clean and in good repair. 

Segment 2 – MP 3.43 to MP 4.00 

From approximately MPs 3.43 to 3.95, of Segment 2, implementation of diversions will be 

required. Diversions are needed when traffic is directed onto a temporary roadway or alignment 

placed in or next to the roadway. These will be required where traffic is routed onto the road 

shoulder of 18th Avenue to maintain access for local residents and emergency vehicles. 

Diversions are accomplished by the use of adequate warning, delineation and channelization 

techniques, as noted above, in addition to the requirements for effective detours as outlined in 

Segment 1. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

For the remaining .05 mile of this segment the westbound lane of 18th Avenue will be used for 

access and necessitate the use of proper pavement marking, signs and or use of other traffic 

control devices, consistent with one-lane traffic control, that are effective under varying 

conditions of light and weather. Modification of these traffic control measures or working 

conditions may be required to expedite traffic movement and to promote worker safety. 

Segment 3 – MP 4.01 to MP 5.00 

For Segment 3, beginning at MPs 4.01 to 4.23, the effective use of diversions will be required to 

allow restricted traffic to use the road shoulder along 18th Avenue for access. From MPs 4.23 to 

5.00, local residents and emergency vehicles will utilize the westbound lane for ingress and 

egress. The traffic control measures for both of these scenarios will be implemented as outlined 

in Segments 1 and 2. Near the mid-point of this segment, MP 4.41 constitutes the approach to 

the crossing of C&D Boulevard. The proximity of the road to a canal requires the road to be 

conventionally bored. The boring of the road negates the need to detour traffic but control 

devices, such as signage and barriers around the bore pits, will be implemented to maintain 

safe traffic flow. 

Towards the end of this segment, near MP 4.93, is the proposed open-cut crossing on South 

Broadway Road. While the roadway is being open-cut for the installation of the pipeline, 

southbound traffic on South Broadway will be detoured east or west on Seeley Avenue. Traffic 

detoured east will use C&D Boulevard for north and south traffic flow and motorists detoured 

west will utilize Lovekin Boulevard. South Broadway terminates at 18th Avenue, thus relieving 

the need for detour measures to handle northbound traffic flow. 

Segment 4 – MP 5.01 to MP 6.00 

For Segment 4, beginning at MPs 5.01 to 6.00, the effective use of diversions will be required to 

allow restricted traffic to use the road shoulder along 18th Avenue for access. Near the midsection of this segment, MP 5.42 constitutes the approach to the crossing of Lovekin Boulevard. 

The proximity of the road to a canal requires the road to be conventionally bored. The boring of 

the road does not require that traffic be detoured but control devices, such as signage and 

barriers around the bore pits, will be implemented to maintain safe traffic flow. Following the 

road crossing is a 1,250-foot-long section, ending at MPs 5.66, that runs north of the proposed 

contractor’s staging area. Again, the use of diversions will be required to facilitate the use of the 

road shoulder for restricted vehicular access. The contractor may elect to install this portion of 

the 18th Avenue construction last to maintain access to the staging area during installation of all 

other segments. 

A mainline valve for the 42-inch pipeline will be constructed adjacent to the existing mainline 

valve on the south side of 18th Avenue within this same 1,250-foot section. 

Segment 5 – MP 6.01 to MP 7.00 

Segment 5 will require the use of diversion traffic control measures to utilize the road shoulder 

from MPs 6.01 to 7.00 except for two small 300-foot sections, one near MP 6.10 and one near 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

MP 6.38, where the westbound lane will be used for access. Pertinent to this segment, near MP 

6.46, is the proposed open-cut crossing of DeFrain Boulevard. While the roadway is being 

open-cut for the installation of the pipeline, southbound traffic on DeFrain Boulevard will be 

detoured east or west on Seeley Avenue and northbound traffic will be detoured east or west on 

22nd Avenue. Motorists detoured east will utilize Lovekin Boulevard and motorist detoured west 

will use Arrowhead Boulevard, located 1 mile west of DeFrain Boulevard, for northbound and 

southbound traffic flow. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that motorists 

can easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour 

is two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days 

not be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the pipeline trench 

to permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained 

at all times along DeFrain Boulevard. 

Segment 6 – MP 7.01 to MP 8.00 

MPs 7.01 to 7.99 will require diversion traffic control measures to utilize the road shoulder for 

restricted vehicular access. Diversion devices include those required for the closing of a single 

roadway lane and those measures required to detour traffic. The final 500-foot of this segment 

will use the westbound lane to provide access for local residents and emergency vehicles. 

MP 7.44 is the approach to the open cut crossing of Arrowhead Boulevard. While the roadway is 

being open-cut for the installation of the pipeline, southbound traffic on Arrowhead Boulevard 

will be detoured east or west on Seeley Avenue and northbound traffic east or west on 22nd 

Avenue. Motorists detoured east will utilize DeFrain Boulevard and motorist detoured west will 

use Neighbors Boulevard (State Route 78), located 1 mile west of Arrowhead Boulevard, for 

northbound and southbound traffic flow. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length 

so that motorists can easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated 

duration of the detour is two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. 

Should these days not be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over 

the pipeline trench to permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles 

will be maintained at all times along Arrowhead Boulevard. 

Segment 7 – MP 8.01 to MP 9.00 

From MP 8.01 to MP 8.45 westbound lane will serve as access for local residents and 

emergency vehicles. When using one lane for traffic control, adequate warning, delineation and 

channelization techniques will be necessary. Such techniques include proper pavement 

marking, signs or use of other traffic control devices that are affected under varying conditions 

of light and weather. The quantity and type of devices will be appropriate to ensure that the 

driver and pedestrian have positive guidance before approaching and while passing through the 

traffic control zone. Flagging personnel will be employed when all other methods of traffic 

control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. 

MP 8.45 represents the proposed conventional bore of State Route 78 (Neighbors Boulevard) 

crossing. The boring of the road negates the need to detour traffic, but control devices, such as 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-10 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

signage and barriers around the bore pits, will be implemented to maintain safe traffic flow. 

From the west side of the highway crossing to the terminus of this segment, diversion traffic 

control measures will be implemented. As with all segments of construction along 18th Avenue, 

traffic control zones will be carefully monitored under varying conditions of traffic volume, light 

and weather to ensure that traffic control measures are operating effectively and that all devices 

are clearly visible, clean and in good repair. Modification of traffic controls or working conditions 

may be required to expedite traffic movement and to promote worker safety. 

Segment 8 – MP 9.01 TO MP 10.00 

For the entire length of Segment 8, the westbound lane will be needed to provide restricted 

access for local residents and emergency vehicles. One-lane traffic control along Segment 8 will 

be accomplished by the use of adequate warning, delineation and channelization techniques. 

Such techniques include, proper pavement marking, signs or use of other traffic control devices 

that are effect under varying conditions of light and weather. The quantity and type of devices 

will be appropriate to assure the driver and pedestrian have positive guidance before 

approaching and while passing through the traffic control zone. Flagging personnel will be 

employed when all other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. 

Approximately halfway through this section, at MP 9.46, is the proposed open-cut crossing of 

Stephenson Boulevard. While the roadway is being open-cut for the installation of the pipeline, 

southbound traffic on Stephenson Boulevard will be detoured east on Seeley Avenue and 

northbound traffic east on 22nd Avenue. Motorists detoured east will then utilize Neighbors 

Boulevard (State Route 78), located 1 mile east of Stephenson Boulevard, for northbound and 

southbound traffic flow. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that motorists 

can easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour 

is two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days 

not be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the pipeline trench 

to permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained 

at all times along Stephenson Boulevard. 

Segment 9 – MP 10.01 TO MP 10.50 

Diversion traffic control measures are needed to allow for limited traffic flow along the south 

shoulder of 18th Avenue between MPs 10.01 to 10.42. From MP 10.42 to the end of the 

segment near MP 10.50 the westbound lane will be utilized for access. As with the all other 

construction segments along 18th Avenue, the traffic control requirements for these two 

scenarios remain the same. MP 10.47 within this segment constitutes the proposed 

conventional road bore of Keim Boulevard. The boring of the road relieves the need to detour 

traffic but control devices, such as signage and barriers around the bore pits, will be 

implemented to maintain safe traffic flow.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-11 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

EXHIBITS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-12 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

EXHIBIT A 

18TH AVENUE PIPELINE ROUTE GENERAL VICINITY MAP 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-13 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT A 

18TH AVENUE PIPELINE ROUTE GENERAL VICINITY MAP 

Page H-1-13 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-14 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

EXHIBIT B 

18TH AVENUE CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-15 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT B 

18TH AVENUE CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Page H-1-15 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-16 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

EXHIBIT C 

18TH AVENUE TRAFFIC PLAN LOCATION MAP 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-17 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT C 

18TH AVENUE TRAFFIC PLAN LOCATION MAP 

Sheet 1 

Page H-1-17 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-18 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT C 

18TH AVENUE TRAFFIC PLAN LOCATION MAP 

Sheet 2 

Page H-1-18 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-19 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT C 

18TH AVENUE TRAFFIC PLAN LOCATION MAP 

Sheet 3 

Page H-1-19 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-1 

February 2006 H-1-20 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

ATTACHMENT A 

TYPICAL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix H-2 

Traffic Management Plan for 

Imperial County Roads 

Prepared by 

2087 E. 71st St. 

Tulsa, OK 74136 

February 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................H-2-1

2.0 ROUTE DESCRIPTION – IID LATERAL PIPELINE................................................H-2-2

3.0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH .................................................................H-2-3

3.1 IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................H-2-3

3.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH .......................................................H-2-6

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit A IID Lateral Pipeline Route General Vicinity Map 

Exhibit B IID Lateral Construction Plan Vicinity Map (sheets 1-6) 

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment A Typical Traffic Control Measures 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix H-2 

Traffic Management Plan for Imperial County Roads 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja), will construct the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

(Project), a new natural gas pipeline from the U.S.-Mexico border to the existing North Baja 

facilities and the El Paso Natural Gas System in Ehrenberg, Arizona. The Project includes three 

elements: the B-Line, which includes interconnection facilities in Ehrenberg, Arizona, as well as 

a 79.8-mile, 42- and 48-inch-diameter pipeline between Blythe and the Mexican border; the 

Arrowhead Extension, which includes a meter station and a 2.1-mile, 36-inch-diameter pipeline 

extending from the proposed B-Line at milepost (MP) 7.4 to Southern California Gas Company’s 

existing Blythe Compressor Station; and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Lateral, a 45.7-mile, 

16-inch-diameter pipeline between North Baja’s mainline and the IID El Centro Generating 

Station. The Project will be constructed in phases, with the first phase planned for construction 

in 2007, the IID Lateral for 2008, and the final phase of the Project in 2009, pending completion 

of upstream liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.0 ROUTE DESCRIPTION – IID LATERAL PIPELINE 

The 16-inch Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Lateral Pipeline extends from the Ogilby area of 

southeastern California, west of Yuma, Arizona, westward to El Centro, California. The IID 

Lateral will be installed 1 foot outside the roadway along the Evan Hewes Highway from MP 8.5 

to MP 27.1 where it then enters the El Centro Valley. In the Valley, the lateral line will generally 

be installed in streets from MP 27.7 to the terminus of the line at MP 45.7. While the only 

residential area in the first 27 miles is located at MP 8.9, residences and some businesses are 

located sporadically as the pipeline passes through the Valley. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

North Baja will consult with the Imperial County Public Works. It is likely that Imperial County will 

require that construction measures comply with California Department of Transportation 

(CalTrans) Traffic Manual. North Baja’s plan requires that the contractor comply with all relevant 

elements of the CalTrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 5, Traffic Controls. Key traffic control 

elements in the manual address: 

• Temporary traffic control; 

• Pedestrian, bicycle, and worker considerations; 

• Hand signaling control; 

• Types of traffic control devices; and 

• Types of temporary traffic control zone activities. 

Section 3.1 describes the construction considerations along the pipeline route. Section 3.2 

addresses the traffic management approach. Attachment A shows typical traffic control 

measures contained in CalTrans Traffic Manual that will be implemented by the contractor. 

North Baja will submit detailed construction drawings for approval by Imperial County Public 

Works Department as part of obtaining an Encroachment Permit. 

3.1 IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 

The following summarizes the construction considerations for the IID Lateral Line: 

Location in Relation to Imperial County Roads and Streets – Construction adjacent to and 

in areas of Imperial County roads and streets will be accomplished using urban construction 

techniques. To minimize disruption to residences and facilitate construction across roadways, 

canals and drains, North Baja will locate the pipe 1 foot outside the edge of pavement along 

Evan Hewes Highway and in the edge of the pavement in the valley. North Baja proposes to 

confine the construction work area to the permanent easement now occupied by Imperial 

County roads and streets with additional extra work space located along the road at major 

crossings such as cross streets, railroads, canals, and ditches. Certain crossings such as the 

operating canals, state highways, interstate highways, and many of the county roads and 

streets will be installed by conventional boring. All other crossings are proposed to be open cut 

aside from the drains whose substantial depth allows for the pipeline to be installed across the 

top. 

Preconstruction Planning - Before construction in Imperial County, North Baja will obtain an 

encroachment permit from the Imperial Public Works Department. Design and construction 

methods will conform to Imperial County requirements. Preconstruction activities will include 

preliminary examination of the work areas and identification of the exact location of subsurface 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

utilities, either through visual inspection or by digging potholes at intervals along the pipeline 

trench. If potholing identifies a conflict between existing utilities and the pipeline centerline, then 

the pipeline or utility will be horizontally and/or vertically realigned to eliminate the conflict. 

North Baja will contact each owner and/or tenant of the properties abutting the road to explain 

the construction process and identify any special conditions or concerns that need to be 

incorporated into the construction plans. In addition, these adjacent residents and businesses 

will be notified by hand-distributed flyers 2 weeks before construction. 

Timing – To minimize the duration of inconvenience to residences, North Baja proposes to 

close off one half to 1 mile-long sections of road and reroute traffic around these areas (while 

maintaining access for residents). No more than 2 miles of work area will be active at any one 

time and construction will advance along the road at an estimated 0.5 mile per day. Excluding 

any repaving which may be required, direct construction impacts at any given location are 

estimated to last no more than 2 to 3 weeks. 

Construction Crews – The construction crew will be a self-sufficient spread and will have two 

major components. The first component being the personnel and equipment associated with the 

installation of the major crossings and the second component will be responsible for the 

installation of the pipeline sections in between the crossings. Both components of this pipeline 

spread will make every effort to keep unavoidable road closures or restricted access to a 

minimum and coordinate those closures with the impacted residences and businesses. 

Safety Considerations and Access – Although Imperial County roadways are not a heavily 

traveled roadway, there are 34 residences and 5 businesses along the proposed route. North 

Baja will apply specific traffic management measures in cooperation with the Imperial County 

Department of Public Works. These include: 

• The pipeline will be installed with a minimum of 36 inches of cover and with a 

minimum of 12 inches of separation from other utilities or obstructions. Clearance 

over and under drains and canals will be as agreed with Imperial Irrigation District. 

• Intersections will be bored or trenched and steel plated if construction doesn’t occur 

on consecutive days. 

• Adjacent residents and businesses will be notified by hand-distributed flyers 2 weeks 

before construction. The flyers will include the dates of construction, the work hours, 

traffic detours, and contact numbers for North Baja and the contractor. Emergency 

response agencies will also be notified of the work schedule. 

• The Underground Service Alert will be notified at least 48 hours before beginning 

work. 

• Flagging personnel will be provided to route traffic around construction equipment 

and obstructions. 

• Work will be scheduled during daylight hours unless alternative schedules are 

authorized. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• Access will be maintained to all residences or businesses except during actual 

trenching operations. Steel plates will be available to maintain access to driveways 

during periods when the trench is open. 

• Non-local traffic will be detoured around construction activities. 

• One lane of restricted traffic movement will be maintained through the construction 

area as it progresses down roadways. This will allow residences and businesses 

reasonable access during the construction activities. 

• Where unrestricted traffic is impractical, North Baja proposes that its contractor will 

maintain at least one direction, either east or west, for exit of local traffic and access 

for any emergency traffic that may occur. 

• At non-work times the work area will be secured and patrolled to minimize safety 

hazards associated with open trenches, heavy equipment, and other construction 

operations. 

• Open trenches will be covered or cordoned off during non-working hours. The length 

of open trench may vary with individual circumstances and interferences that may 

occur along the corridor. 

Trenching and Boring – The trench depth for the portions of the pipeline between the bored 

crossings is expected to be 6 to 7 feet to accommodate the 16-inch pipe and maintain 36-inch 

of cover in accordance with USDOT Pipeline Safety Regulations. Trench depth will also be 

contingent on the type of soils and the quantity of ground water encountered. Spoil material 

from the trench will be stockpiled and spread on the work side of the right-of-way or hauled to 

an approved stockpile location. Because the pipeline installation is in the road corridor, no 

topsoil segregation is planned. Any pavement or rock materials removed during the installation 

of the pipeline will be hauled away to an approved landfill or other suitable location. Sheet piling 

and dewatering techniques such as well-pointing will be utilized, as needed, in order to ensure a 

safe and stable trench and bore entrance or exit holes. Pipeline trench borehole dewatering will 

be kept to a minimum, as is practical. North Baja will dewater to nearby canals and drains in 

accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards. 

Pipe Installation – Pipe installation into the trench will be performed in sections as long as 

practical, with the pipe sections being welded up alongside the ditch. In tight work areas, the 

contractor may elect to “double joint” pipe lengths into 80 to 120-foot sections at an offsite 

location and transport the pipe joints to the area. In addition, longer sections may be welded up 

at staging areas located nearby for use in very narrow workspace zones. 

As the pipe installation progresses, tie-ins will be performed in the ditch at convenient locations 

to facilitate welding. Most tie-ins will occur on either side of crossings and at sites where 

installation methodology changes from one approach to another, i.e., stovepipe to traditional 

pipe-lay. At these locations the ditch will be widened sufficiently to allow welders access and 

afford them the space necessary to complete the welds. 

Backfilling and Testing – Following pipe installation and the coating of the welds, the ditch will 

be backfilled with the spoil material removed that meets North Baja’s pipeline padding 

specifications, and compacted to the requirements of the Imperial County Public Works 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Department. New pavement will be installed where existing pavement is removed for ditching, 

and the area will be opened back to normal traffic. However, during hydrostatic testing the area 

again will be limited to traffic of necessity as a safety precaution. North Baja proposes to test the 

pipeline during a time of least disruption to the local residences and businesses. A minimum 8-

hour hydrostatic test period is required by North Baja. 

Noise and Dust – Noise will be reduced by maintaining equipment in good operating condition, 

equipped with proper noise control accessories including mufflers and or sound attenuation 

enclosures. Noise will be monitored for equipment that may run for extended periods of time 

such as pumps, compressors, and generators. Work will be scheduled during daylight hours 

unless alternative schedules are authorized. Dust will be suppressed by the use of water trucks 

and regular spraying.

Restoration – Following a successful test, the entire area will be cleaned up and restored to its 

original condition. Residential areas disturbed during construction will have all fencing, lawns, 

and plant materials replaced to a standard equal to the preconstruction conditions. Pavement 

removed or damaged during construction will be replaced initially with temporary material, and 

later re-paved, during restoration, to the requirements of the Imperial County Public Works 

Department. 

3.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

To effectively outline the traffic management issues associated with the pipe installation in the 

Imperial County roads and streets, the plan has been broken into segments. The plan is subject 

to revision as the design of the pipeline is finalized and input is received from Imperial County 

and the pipeline contractor. The segments are as follows: 

Segment 1 – MP 8.5 to MP 27.1 

Segment 2 – MP 27.7 to MP 38.7 

Segment 3 – MP 38.7 to MP 38.9 

Segment 4 – MP 39.7 to MP 41.4 

Segment 5 – MP 41.4 to MP 42.9 

Segment 6 – MP 42.9 to MP 43.4 

Segment 7 – MP 44.7 to MP 45.7 

Segment 1 – MP 8.5 to MP 27.1 (Evan Hewes Highway) 

For Segment 1, construction equipment and personnel will utilize the eastbound lane of Evan 

Hewes Highway for pipe installation 1 foot outside the edge of pavement, from MP 8.8 to MP 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

13.7 and from MP 26.0 to MP 27.1. For this portion of Segment 1, the westbound lane will serve 

as access for emergency vehicles and local residents only. From MP 16.0 to MP 26.0, the 

westbound lane will be utilized for pipe installation 1 foot outside the edge of pavement and the 

eastbound lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and local residents only. One lane 

traffic control along Segment 1 will be accomplished by the use of adequate warning, 

delineation and channelization techniques. Such techniques include proper pavement marking 

and signs, or use of other traffic control devices that are effective under varying conditions of 

light and weather. These devices include but are not limited to cones, barricades, portable 

delineators, flexible post type channelizers, drums, and barricades. The quantity and type of 

devices will be appropriate to assure the driver and pedestrian have positive guidance before 

approaching and while passing through the traffic control zone. Flagging personnel will be 

employed when all other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. 

At approximately MP 8.8, is the proposed open cut crossing of Evan Hewes Highway where the 

pipeline passes from the north side of Evan Hewes Highway to the south side. While the 

roadway is being open cut for the installation of the pipeline, a steel plate will be used to bridge 

the pipe ditch because there are no adjacent roads to divert traffic. 

Near MP 13.1, the pipeline will cross Brock Research Center Road which is essentially an exit 

from Interstate 8 with an overpass but no roadway to the north. Because of its proximity to the 

interstate, North Baja is proposing to bore Brock Research Center Road resulting in minimal 

impact to traffic. The boring of this road negates the need to detour traffic but control devices, 

such as signage and barriers around the bore pits, will be implemented to maintain safe traffic 

flow. The estimated duration of the bored crossing is two days, one day for bore pit excavation 

and one day for pipe installation. Should these days not be consecutive adequate traffic control 

devices will be provided around the bore pits to permit safe traffic flow. Access for local 

residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained at all times along Evan Hewes Highway. 

Near MP 13.7 is the open cut crossing of Evan Hewes Highway where the pipeline crosses 

back to the north side of the highway. While the roadway is being open cut for the installation of 

the pipeline, a steel plate will be used to bridge the pipe ditch as there are no adjacent roads to 

divert traffic. 

Near MP 26.0 is the open cut crossing of Evan Hewes Highway where the pipeline crosses 

back to the south side of the highway. While the roadway is being open cut for the installation of 

the pipeline, a steel plate will be used to bridge the pipe ditch because there are no adjacent 

roads to divert traffic. 

These temporary traffic control zones will be carefully monitored under varying conditions of 

traffic volume, light, and weather to ensure that traffic control measures are operating effectively 

and that all devices are clearly visible, clean and in good repair. However, it is expected that 

traffic will be sparse as construction is proposed for the summer months when there is 

significantly less traffic in the area. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Segment 2 – MP 27.7 to MP 38.7 (Hunt Road) 

For Segment 2, the westbound lane of Hunt Road will be used for pipe installation from MP 27.6 

to M.P 33.9, MP 34.5 to MP 34.9, and from MP 35.9 to MP 38.7. For these three portions of 

Segment 2, the eastbound lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and local residents 

only. From MP 34.9 to MP 35.9, the eastbound lane of Hunt Road will be used for pipe 

installation and the westbound lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and local 

residents only. One- lane traffic control along Segment 2 will be accomplished by the use of 

adequate warning, delineation and channelization techniques. Such techniques include proper 

pavement marking and signs or use of other traffic control devices that are effective under 

varying conditions of light and weather. These devices include but are not limited to cones, 

barricades, portable delineators, flexible post type channelizers, drums and barricades. The 

quantity and type of devices will be appropriate to assure the driver and pedestrian have 

positive guidance before approaching and while passing through the traffic control zone. 

Flagging personnel will be employed when all other methods of traffic control are inadequate to 

warn and direct drivers. 

Near MP 28.5, the pipeline will cross Vanderlinden Road, a proposed opencut crossing. While 

the roadway is being opencut, northbound traffic will be detoured 1 mile west on Chell Road to 

Miller Road and southbound traffic will be detoured 3 miles west on Interstate 8 to Bonds Corner 

Road. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that motorists can easily 

determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour is two 

days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days not be 

consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the pipeline trench to 

permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained at 

all times along Vanderlinden Road. 

The next crossing in this segment is Miller Road located near MP 29.5. Miller Road is also 

designated as County Highway S33 and is a proposed bored crossing resulting in minimal 

impact to traffic. The boring of this road negates the need to detour traffic but control devices, 

such as signage and barriers around the bore pits, will be implemented to maintain safe traffic 

flow. The estimated duration of the bored crossing is two days, one day for bore pit excavation 

and one day for pipe installation. Should these days not be consecutive adequate traffic control 

devices will be provided around the bore pits to permit safe traffic flow. 

Near MP 30.5, the pipeline will cross Enz Road, a proposed opencut crossing. While the 

roadway is being opencut, both north and southbound traffic will be detoured 1 mile east on 

Chell Road to Miller Road. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that 

motorists can easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of 

the detour is two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should 

these days not be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the 

pipeline trench to permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will 

be maintained at all times along Enz Road. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

The next crossing in this segment is Bonds Corner Road located near MP 31.5. Bonds Corner 

Road is a proposed bored crossing resulting in minimal impact to traffic. The boring of this road 

negates the need to detour traffic but control devices, such as signage and barriers around the 

bore pits, will be implemented to maintain safe traffic flow. The estimated duration of the bored 

crossing is two days, one day for bore pit excavation and one day for pipe installation. Should 

these days not be consecutive adequate traffic control devices will be provided around the bore 

pits to permit safe traffic flow. 

Near MP 32.0, the pipeline will cross Schali Road, a proposed opencut crossing. The roadway 

north of the crossing dead-ends at the south right-of-way fence of Interstate 8 Highway and has 

no residences or businesses and is used primarily by farm equipment to access the adjoining 

fields; therefore, it will not be necessary to detour traffic. However, steel plating will be used to 

bridge the pipe ditch during the installation of this road crossing for emergency vehicles and 

farm equipment. While the roadway is being opencut, northbound traffic south of the road 

crossing will be diverted 1 mile east on Connelly Road to Bonds Corner Road. The detour will 

be signed clearly over the entire length so that motorists can easily determine how to return to 

the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour is two days, one day for pipe 

installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days not be consecutive, plating or 

other adequate materials will be provided over the trench to permit safe traffic flow. Access for 

local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained at all times along Schali Road. 

Near MP 33.2, the pipeline will cross Towland Road, a proposed open cut crossing. While the 

roadway is being open cut, southbound traffic will be detoured 1 mile west on Edwards Road to 

Holtville Orchard Road while northbound traffic will be diverted 1 mile west on E. McCabe Road 

to Holtville Orchard Road. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that 

motorists can easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of 

the detour is two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should 

these days not be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the 

pipeline trench to permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will 

be maintained at all times along Towland Road. 

The next crossing in this segment is State Route 7 located near MP 34.2. State Route 7 is also 

known as Holtville Orchard Road (formerly County Highway S32) and is a proposed bored 

crossing resulting in minimal impact to traffic. The boring of this road negates the need to detour 

traffic but control devices, such as signage and barriers around the bore pits, will be 

implemented to maintain safe traffic flow. The estimated duration of the bored crossing is two 

days, one day for bore pit excavation and one day for pipe installation. Should these days not 

be consecutive adequate traffic control devices will be provided around the bore pits to permit 

safe traffic flow. 

Near MP 34.9, the pipeline will cross Mets Road, a proposed opencut crossing. While the 

roadway is being opencut, southbound traffic will be detoured 1 mile east on Ross Road to 

Anderholt Road and northbound traffic will be diverted 1 mile west to Anderholt Road on Hilfiker 

Road. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that motorists can easily 

determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour is two 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-10 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days not be 

consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the pipeline trench to 

permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained at 

all times along Mets Road. 

Near MP 35.9, the pipeline will cross Anderholt Road, a proposed opencut crossing. While the 

roadway is being opencut, southbound traffic will be detoured 1 mile east on Ross Road to Mets 

Road and northbound traffic will be diverted 1 mile east to Mets Road on Hilfiker Road. The 

detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that motorists can easily determine how to 

return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour is two days, one day for 

pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days not be consecutive, plating 

or other adequate materials will be provided over the pipeline trench to permit safe traffic flow. 

Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained at all times along 

Anderholt Road. 

Near MP 36.9, the pipeline will cross Barbara Worth Road, a proposed opencut crossing. While 

the roadway is being opencut, southbound traffic will be detoured 1 mile east on Ross Road to 

Anderholt Road while northbound traffic will be diverted 1 mile east to Anderholt Road on 

Hilfiker Road. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that motorists can 

easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour is 

two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days not 

be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the pipeline trench to 

permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained at 

all times along Barbara Worth Road. 

Near MP 37.9, the pipeline will cross Meloland Road, a proposed opencut crossing. While the 

roadway is being opencut, southbound traffic will be detoured 1.5 miles west on E. Ross Road 

to Bowker Road while northbound traffic will be diverted 1 mile west to Bowker Road on 

McCabe Road. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire length so that motorists can 

easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The estimated duration of the detour is 

two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road restoration. Should these days not 

be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be provided over the pipeline trench to 

permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and emergency vehicles will be maintained at 

all times along Meloland Road. 

These temporary traffic control zones will be carefully monitored under varying conditions of 

traffic volume, light and weather to ensure that traffic control measures are operating effectively 

and that all devices are clearly visible, clean and in good repair. 

Segment 3 – MP 38.7 to MP 38.9 (McGrew Road and Interstate 8) 

McGrew Road is a private road which is used primarily for farm equipment to access the 

adjoining fields. However, for Segment 3, construction equipment and personnel will utilize the 

northbound lane of McGrew Road for pipe installation. For all of Segment 3, the southbound 

lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and farm equipment. One lane traffic control 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-11 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

along Segment 3 will be accomplished by the use of adequate warning, delineation and 

channelization techniques. Such techniques include proper pavement marking, signs or use of 

other traffic control devices that are effective under varying conditions of light and weather. 

These devices include but are not limited to cones, barricades, portable delineators, flexible 

post type channelizers, drums and barricades. The quantity and type of devices will be 

appropriate to assure the driver and pedestrian have positive guidance before approaching and 

while passing through the traffic control zone. Flagging personnel will be employed when all 

other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. Modification of these 

traffic control measures or working conditions may be required to expedite traffic movement and 

to promote worker safety. 

At approximately MP 39.1 is the proposed bored crossing of Interstate 8 resulting in minimal 

impact to traffic. The estimated duration of the bored crossing is four days, one day for bore pit 

excavation and three days for pipe installation. 

Segment 4 – MP 39.7 to MP 41.4 (E. Ross Road) 

For Segment 4, the eastbound lane of E. Ross Road will be used for pipe installation from MP 

39.7 to MP 40.4 where the westbound lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and 

local residents only. At MP 40.4 the pipeline crosses Bowker Road, while at the same location, 

E. Ross Road deviates slightly to the south. This facilitates the bored crossing of both roads 

with the same bore. 

The Bowker Road/E. Ross Road combination crossing is a proposed bored crossing resulting in 

minimal impact to traffic. The boring of this road negates the need to detour traffic but control 

devices, such as signage and barriers around the bore pits, will be implemented to maintain 

safe traffic flow. The estimated duration of the bored crossing is two days, one day for bore pit 

excavation and one day for pipe installation. Should these days not be consecutive, adequate 

traffic control devices will be provided around the bore pits to permit safe traffic flow. 

At MP 40.4, after the Bowker/E. Ross Roads crossing, the westbound lane of E. Ross Road will 

be used for pipe installation and the eastbound lane will serve as access for emergency 

vehicles and local residents only. 

One- lane traffic control along Segment 4 will be accomplished by the use of adequate warning, 

delineation and channelization techniques. Such techniques include proper pavement marking 

and signs or use of other traffic control devices that are effective under varying conditions of 

light and weather. These devices include but are not limited to cones, barricades, portable 

delineators, flexible post type channelizers, drums and barricades. The quantity and type of 

devices will be appropriate to assure the driver and pedestrian have positive guidance before 

approaching and while passing through the traffic control zone. Flagging personnel will be 

employed when all other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-12 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Segment 5 – MP 41.4 to MP 42.9 (Parker Road) 

For Segment 5, construction equipment and personnel will utilize the northbound lane of Parker 

Road for pipe installation from MP 41.4 to MP 42.2. For this part of Segment 7, the southbound 

lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and local residents only. After the pipeline 

crosses East Gillett Street, the pipe will be installed in the west edge of the southbound lane of 

Parker Road from MP 42.2 to MP 42.8 and will utilize the southbound lane of Parker Road for 

pipe installation. For this part of Segment 7 the northbound lane will serve as access for 

emergency vehicles and local residents only. One- lane traffic control along Segment 5 will be 

accomplished by the use of adequate warning, delineation and channelization techniques. Such 

techniques include, proper pavement marking, signs or use of other traffic control devices that 

are effective under varying conditions of light and weather. These devices include but are not 

limited to cones, barricades, portable delineators, flexible post type channelizers, drums and 

barricades. The quantity and type of devices will be appropriate to assure the driver and 

pedestrian have positive guidance before approaching and while passing through the traffic 

control zone. Flagging personnel will be employed when all other methods of traffic control are 

inadequate to warn and direct drivers. Modification of these traffic control measures or working 

conditions may be required to expedite traffic movement and to promote worker safety. 

Pertinent to this segment is the opencut crossing of East Hamilton Avenue at MP 41.7. East 

Hamilton Avenue is a gravel road which dead-ends into State Route 111 and has no residences 

or businesses; therefore, it will not be necessary to detour traffic. However, steel plating will be 

used to bridge the pipe ditch during the installation of this road crossing. Further along this 

segment near MP 42.2 is the opencut crossing of East Gillett, a gravel road, which also has no 

residences or businesses; therefore, it will not be necessary to detour traffic. Steel plating will 

be used to bridge the pipe ditch during the installation of this road crossing. 

At the end of this segment, near MP 42.9, is the proposed road bore of Evan Hewes Highway. 

This crossing technique results in minimal impact to traffic. The boring of this road negates the 

need to detour traffic but control devices, such as signage and barriers around the bore pits, will 

be implemented to maintain safe traffic flow. The estimated duration of the bored crossing is 

three days, one day for bore pit excavation and two days for pipe installation. Should these days 

not be consecutive adequate traffic control devices will be provided around the bore pits to 

permit safe traffic flow. 

Segment 6 – MP 42.9 to MP 43.4 (Holton Road and State Route 111) 

For Segment 6, the eastbound lane of Holton Road will be used for pipe installation. For all of 

Segment 6, the westbound lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and local residents 

only. One- lane traffic control along Segment 6 will be accomplished by the use of adequate 

warning, delineation and channelization techniques. However, there is virtually no traffic on 

most of this segment of Holton Road as the road dead-ends into State Route 111 and a large 

vacant lot and an automobile junk yard constitute over 90 percent of the adjacent land use. 

Such techniques include proper pavement marking and signs or use of other traffic control 

devices that are effective under varying conditions of light and weather. These devices include 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-13 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

but are not limited to cones, barricades, portable delineators, flexible post type channelizers, 

drums and barricades. The quantity and type of devices will be appropriate to assure the driver 

and pedestrian have positive guidance before approaching and while passing through the traffic 

control zone. Flagging personnel will be employed when all other methods of traffic control are 

inadequate to warn and direct drivers. 

At approximately MP 43.4 is the proposed bored crossing of State Route 111, resulting in 

minimal impact to traffic. The estimated duration of the bored crossing is four days, one day for 

bore pit excavation and three days for pipe installation. 

Segment 7 – MP 44.7 to MP 45.7 (E. Villa Road) 

For Segment 7, the eastbound lane of E. Villa Road will be used for pipe installation. For all of 

Segment 7, the westbound lane will serve as access for emergency vehicles and local residents 

only. One- lane traffic control along Segment 7 will be accomplished by the use of adequate 

warning, delineation and channelization techniques. Such techniques include proper pavement 

marking and signs or use of other traffic control devices that are effective under varying 

conditions of light and weather. These devices include but are not limited to cones, barricades, 

portable delineators, flexible post type channelizers, drums and barricades. The quantity and 

type of devices will be appropriate to assure the driver and pedestrian have positive guidance 

before approaching and while passing through the traffic control zone. Flagging personnel will 

be employed when all other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. 

Near MP 44.7 is the proposed opencut crossing of Cooley Road, a lightly traveled gravel road. 

While the roadway is being opencut, southbound traffic will be diverted 1 mile to the east on 

Cruickshank Road to old State Route 111 and northbound traffic will be diverted 1 mile east on 

Evan Hewes Highway to old State Route 111. The detour will be signed clearly over the entire 

length so that motorists can easily determine how to return to the original roadway. The 

estimated duration of the detour is two days, one day for pipe installation and one day for road 

restoration. Should these days not be consecutive, plating or other adequate materials will be 

provided over the pipeline trench to permit safe traffic flow. Access for local residents and 

emergency vehicles will be maintained at all times along Cooley Road. 

The final road crossing for this lateral is located near MP 45.6. The named road is Dogwood 

Road, designated as County Highway S31, and is a proposed bored crossing, which will result 

in minimal impact to traffic. The boring of this road negates the need to detour traffic but control 

devices, such as signage and barriers around the bore pits, will be implemented to maintain 

safe traffic flow. The estimated duration of the bored crossing is two days, one day for bore pit 

excavation and one day for pipe installation. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-14 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

EXHIBITS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-15 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

EXHIBIT A 

IID LATERAL PIPELINE ROUTE GENERAL VICINITY MAP 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-16 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT A 

IID LATERAL PIPELINE ROUTE GENERAL VICINITY MAP 

Page H-2-16 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-17 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

EXHIBIT B 

IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-18 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT B 

IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Sheet 1 

Page H-2-18 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-19 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT B 

IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Sheet 2 

Page H-2-19 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-20 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT B 

IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Sheet 3 

Page H-2-20 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-21 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT B 

IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Sheet 4 

Page H-2-21 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-22 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT B 

IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Sheet 5 

Page H-2-22 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-23 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

EXHIBIT B 

IID LATERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN VICINITY MAP 

Sheet 6 

Page H-2-23 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX H-2 

February 2006 H-2-24 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

ATTACHMENT A 

TYPICAL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Public 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX I 

BLASTING SPECIFICATIONS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix M 

Blasting Specifications 

Prepared by 

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

February 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SUPERSEDES 51-E-A-17 

SHEET 1 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

CONSTRUCTION – SPECIFICATIONS 

BLASTING 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE, LLC 4061-E-S-4 0 

BLASTING 

References: 

OMI FF-15 Blasting Guidelines 

 

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION W.B.S. DWN CHKD APPROVALS 

RECORD OF APPROVALS AND CHANGES 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 2 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SCOPE.......................................................................................................3

1.1 Blasting Procedure .................................................................................3

2.0 CODES AND STANDARDS ......................................................................4

3.0 USE, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVES ...............5

3.1 Permits ...................................................................................................5

3.2 Performance Requirements....................................................................5

4.0 SAFETY.....................................................................................................6

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL....................................................................................8

5.1 Land Use ................................................................................................9

5.2 Stream Crossings ...................................................................................9

5.3 Risk of Upset ..........................................................................................9

5.4 Human Health.........................................................................................9

5.5 Transportation ........................................................................................9

5.6 Plant and Animal Life..............................................................................9

5.7 Air Quality.............................................................................................10

5.8 Noise ....................................................................................................10

5.9 Soils and Geology ................................................................................10

ATTACHMENT A ...............................................................................................11

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 3 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

1.0 SCOPE

This Specification outlines the Project areas of concern in the use of explosives 

along the pipeline Rights-of-Way and is to be used by CONTRACTOR as a 

guideline in the preparation of its Blasting Procedure. CONTRACTOR'S Blasting 

Procedure shall recognize that all work may be conducted along existing Rightsof-Way, which parallel and are adjacent to an operating high-pressure natural 

gas pipeline, and any overhead power and telephone lines. 

CONTRACTOR shall be liable for any and all damages to existing facilities 

resulting from the blasting operations. 

The use, storage and transportation of explosives is discussed in Section 3.0. 

CONTRACTOR and its blasting supervisor shall be thoroughly familiar with the 

rules and regulations of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, OSHA and with all State, 

County and Local regulations governing blasting operations. Section 3.0 also 

discusses the development of the standard shots. 

This Specification also outlines the minimum safety requirements to be observed 

during blasting operations. In its Blasting Procedure, CONTRACTOR shall 

indicate by alignment stationing, milepost, or by some other approved method of 

identification, where and how it proposes to conduct its blasting operations and 

remain within the parameters established herein. 

The final section of this Specification deals with the environmental aspects of 

blasting and outlines some of the areas of concern along the Right-of-Ways. 

Requirements of Federal, State, County and Local authorities shall be addressed 

in detail by CONTRACTOR in its Blasting Procedure. 

1.1 Blasting Procedure 

CONTRACTOR shall submit a detailed Blasting Procedure to North Baja 

Pipeline, LLC (North Baja) for approval prior to the start of any blasting 

operations. Acceptance of the Procedure by North Baja shall not relieve 

CONTRACTOR of responsibility for harmful consequences of its blasting 

operations, whether performed in accordance with the Procedure or not. 

The Blasting Procedure shall include the following information: 

• Scope of Blasting Project 

• Location and site Plan for areas known to require blasting 

Typical blasting design criteria including, but not limited to, the following: 

• Explosive type 

• Delay type and interval 

• Initiating methods 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 4 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

• Delay pattern 

• Maximum shot hole depth and diameter 

• Maximum charge per hole 

• Maximum charge per delay 

• Distance to nearest belowground structures including existing 

buried pipelines 

• Distance to nearest aboveground structures 

• Peak particle velocity monitoring and control 

• Proposed fly-rock control method 

• Wet sand cover 

• Matting (type – construction) 

• Other 

• Safety 

• Reference to Federal, State, County and Local requirements 

• Environmental 

• Reference to Federal, State, County and Local requirements 

• Mitigation methods 

• Contingency planning 

2.0 CODES AND STANDARDS 

The latest applicable edition of the following codes, standards and specifications 

form a part of this specification: 

Code and Federal Regulations (CFR) 

18 CFR, Part 2.69 Guidelines to be Followed by Natural Gas 

Pipeline Companies in the Planning, Locating, 

Clearing and Maintenance of Rights-of-Way 

and the Construction of Above Ground 

Facilities 

27 CFR, Part 181 Commerce in Explosives 

29 CFR, Part 1910.109 Explosives and Blasting Agents OSHA 

29 CFR, Part 1926.9 Blasting and Use of Explosives 

49 CFR, Part 177 Carriage by Public Highway 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 5 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

3.0 USE, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVES 

CONTRACTOR'S use, storage and transportation of explosives shall be in 

compliance with Federal and State regulations and the stipulations contained in 

the Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit, and any revised Federal 

grants that apply. CONTRACTOR shall provide North Baja with copies of all 

permits obtained prior to its commencement of blasting operations. 

3.1 Permits 

CONTRACTOR shall obtain and comply with the permit requirements for 

California. Application for license to obtain and use explosives is made 

through the county Sheriffs' office and approved by the State Fire Marshal. 

3.2 Performance Requirements 

3.2.1 General 

The use, storage, transportation and handling of explosives shall be 

conducted in accordance with the regulations set forth in 29 CFR, Part 

1926. 

3.2.2 Storage and Transportation of Explosives and Blasting Agents 

CONTRACTOR shall outline how it will provide magazines for storage and 

transportation of explosives and detonators in accordance with the 

requirements of 29 CFR, Part 1926. The American Table of Distance for 

Storage of Explosives as approved by the Institute of Makers of 

Explosives shall govern the location of storage magazines. 

3.2.3 Use of Explosives and Blasting Agents 

CONTRACTOR shall outline the qualifications of its blaster and the 

procedures for the following operations: loading of explosives, handling of 

explosives, electric blasting, firing of blasts, inspection after blasting, 

misfires and underwater blasting. 

The procedures shall be in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR, 

Part 1926 and shall ensure that the peak particle velocity at the existing 

pipeline does not exceed twelve (12) inches per second. 

CONTRACTOR'S Procedure shall limit the maximum charge per delay to 

that specified in the "Pipeline Blasting Criteria" tables (see Attachment A) 

for a Ground Response Factor of 242. Should CONTRACTOR elect to 

exceed these criteria by increasing the charge size or by reducing the 

Ground Response Factor, or both, such a procedure shall require 

qualification. The procedure qualification shall include the monitoring of a 

minimum of five (5) test shots with three (3) channel recording 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 6 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

seismographs. From these test shots, a scaled distance shall be 

calculated to establish Standard shot in terms of pounds of explosives per 

delay. CONTRACTOR shall include in its Blasting Procedure the shot hole 

array and method of delay to be employed. Production shot delays shall 

be identical to test shot delays. The tests shall be mandatory for each 

change in geology, change in explosive manufacturer or change in 

explosive grade as determined by North Baja. 

For any other structures, the allowable peak particle velocity shall be as 

recommended in the Blaster's Handbook by Dupont, 175th Anniversary 

Edition, and the United States Bureau of Mines Standard. 

3.2.4 Overbreak, Ground Cracking and Block Movement 

Prior to proceeding with full-scale blasting operations following a major 

change in geology, change in explosive manufacturer or change in 

explosive grade, CONTRACTOR shall conduct a test blast limited in 

length no greater than twenty (20) feet of ditchline. Following detonation, 

the area between the blast and the existing pipeline shall be examined for 

indications of excessive overbreak, cracking and ground displacement 

(block movement). Overbreak or ground cracks extending one-half (1/2) or 

more of the distance between these points, or any signs of block 

movement, shall be cause for CONTRACTOR to immediately suspend 

blasting operations and review the blasting procedure. 

3.2.5 Selection of Blasting Products and Methods 

CONTRACTOR'S Blasting Procedure shall describe all blasting products 

and methods proposed for this Project and the justification for their 

selection. All of the items listed as typical blasting design criteria in 

Section 1.1 of this Specification shall be described in detail. 

4.0 SAFETY

4.1 This section outlines the minimum safety requirements for blasting. 

CONTRACTOR shall include in its Procedure all Federal, State, County 

and Local safety requirements for blasting. CONTRACTOR'S Procedure 

shall address, as a minimum, the following requirements: 

4.2 Explosives shall be stored in a locked magazine in accordance with the 

practices specified by the United States Bureau of Mines and OSHA. 

Detonating caps shall not be stored with explosives but shall be stored in 

a separate location in accordance with the practices specified by the 

United States Bureau of Mines and OSHA. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 7 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

4.3 Explosives shall be accounted for at all times. An inventory and use record 

of all explosives and detonating caps shall be maintained for the Project. 

Explosives not being used shall be kept in a locked magazine "off-limits" 

to unauthorized personnel. 

4.4 The inventory and use record shall be reconciled at the end of each 

working day and shall include the number of misfires and their disposition. 

The inventory and use record shall be available for inspection of the 

jurisdictional authorities and North Baja at all times. 

4.5 Smoking, matches, firearms, open flames and other fire, spark or heat 

producing devices and the operation of radio transmitters shall be 

prohibited in or near the explosive magazine or while explosives are being 

handled, transported or used. 

4.6 No loaded holes shall be left unattended or unprotected. No explosives or 

blasting agents shall be abandoned on the Rights-of-Way. Explosives 

shall not be primed or fused until immediately before use and shall not be 

allowed to lay overnight in drilled holes. 

4.7 CONTRACTOR shall, at all times, protect its personnel and the public 

from any injury or harm that might arise from drilling dust and/or the use of 

explosives. Only personnel thoroughly experienced in the handling of 

explosives shall be permitted to supervise, handle, transport or load and 

shoot explosives. 

4.8 CONTRACTOR shall exercise caution in the vicinity of power lines, 

telephone lines, existing pipeline facilities, water wells, caves, structures 

and adjacent buildings to preclude the possibility of damage due to flyrock, dust, air blast or vibration. 

4.9 CONTRACTOR shall use every reasonable precaution, including but not 

limited to visual and audible warning signals and flagging and/or 

barricades to ensure personnel safety. Flaggers shall be stationed on all 

roadways which pass through the danger zone to stop traffic during 

blasting operations. 

4.10 Warning signs, indicating the blast area, shall be erected and maintained 

at all approached to the blast area. Warning sign lettering shall be a 

minimum of four (4) inches in height on a contrasting background. 

Warning signs shall comply with the requirements or the jurisdictional 

authorities. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 8 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

4.11 Notification of blasting operations shall be given to all property owners and 

residences along the Right-of-Way, as well as owners of facilities 

(pipelines, power lines, buildings, etc.) in proximity of blasting operations. 

CONTRACTOR shall comply with the "One Call" notification requirements. 

4.12 All jurisdictional authorities, e.g., California State Fire Marshall, shall be 

granted unrestricted access to all explosive records as well as site access 

for procedural inspections. 

4.13 Prior to the end of the working day, any misfires shall be located and 

rendered safe. 

4.14 CONTRACTOR shall conduct a leak survey after blasting, using a flame 

ionization unit, for all piping within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the 

closest charge. 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

This section outlines the minimum requirements of CONTRACTOR'S Blasting 

Procedure for compliance with environmental concerns along the pipeline Rightsof-Way. Refer to site-specific requirements relating to blasting. 

CONTRACTOR shall complete an environmental checklist to determine the 

extent that blasting will affect the environment. The environmental review will 

overlap with the safety section as both sections are concerned with similar 

subject matter. The environmental review shall address: 

• Land use 

• Stream crossings 

• Risk of upset 

• Human health 

• Transportation 

• Plant and animal life 

• Air quality 

• Noise 

• Soils and Geology 

Each of the above items shall be discussed, as applicable, in the Blasting 

Procedure. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 9 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

5.1 Land Use 

The Project Line Lists indicate land use. The environmental permits 

outline land use areas be environmental requirements. CONTRACTOR 

shall outline how its Blasting Procedure will minimize impacts to local 

residences, properties, businesses or operation that might be affected by 

blasting activity. 

5.2 Stream Crossings 

For major stream crossings, CONTRACTOR shall comply with FERC 

Stream and Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures and sitespecific requirements. 

5.3 Risk of Upset 

CONTRACTOR shall outline how it will limit the risk of upset, e.g., 

methods of preventing unplanned detonations or the release of hazardous 

substances. 

5.4 Human Health 

CONTRACTOR shall identify any known or potential hazards to human 

health and shall outline how it intends to minimize such hazards, e.g., 

ensuring the safe use of explosives and the control of chemical vapors or 

dust generated by blasting. 

5.5 Transportation 

The Procedure shall describe how the explosives will be transported. 

Safeguards to be implemented to ensure the public safety during transport 

shall be discussed, e.g., limiting the size of transport convoys and 

provisions for official escort. 

5.6 Plant and Animal Life 

The Procedure shall address environmental concerns with respect to plant 

and animal life and shall outline procedures to be implemented to protect 

against changes in diversity or number of species, a reduction in the 

numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species, or a deterioration to 

existing habitat. 

Blasting shall not be conducted within or near streams without prior 

consultation with Federal and State conservation authorities having 

jurisdiction to determine what protective measures shall be taken to 

minimize damages to fish and other aquatic life. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 10 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

5.7 Air Quality 

The effect of blasting operations on ambient air quality shall be evaluated 

in CONTRACTOR'S Procedure. A dust abatement program to be 

implemented during drilling operations shall be included. 

5.8 Noise 

The Procedure shall review maximum acceptable noise levels and shall 

examine the potential for increases in existing levels and the extent of 

anticipated exposure of persons to severe noise levels resulting from 

blasting operations. CONTRACTOR'S Procedure shall include guidelines 

for limiting both shot size and frequency to control noise levels. 

Also to be included in CONTRACTOR'S Procedure is its proposed 

methodology for warning nearby residents that may be effected by the 

blasting operations. Blasting after dark shall only be permitted in case of 

emergency and with the permission of the authorities having jurisdiction 

and/or North Baja. 

5.9 Soils and Geology 

The Procedure shall show that blasting operations will not result in 

unstable soil or geological conditions that could expose persons or 

property to hazards such as landslides, mudslides and ground failure. 

CONTRACTOR shall indicate show it proposed to reduce or curtain any 

unstable condition that may result from blasting operations. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
SHEET 11 of 11 SHEETS 

DRAWING NUMBER CHANGE 

4061-E-S-4 0 

ATTACHMENT A 

North Baja 

PIPELINE BLASTING CRITERIA 

CHARGE 

(LBS/DELAY) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

TRUE 

DISTANCE PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY – INCHES / SECOND 

30 FT 1.05 1.82 2.52 3.18 3.8 4.39 4.97 5.53 6.08 6.61 7.14 7.65 

26 FT 1.32 2.29 3.17 3.99 4.78 5.53 6.25 6.96 7.64 8.31 8.97 9.62 

20 FT 2.01 3.49 4.83 6.08 7.27 8.41 9.51 10.58 11.63 12.65 

15 FT 3.18 5.53 7.65 9.63 11.51 13.32 

(cont’d) 

CHARGE 

(LBS/DELAY) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

TRUE 

DISTANCE PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY – INCHES / SECOND 

30 FT 8.16 8.66 9.15 9.63 10.11 10.58 11.05 11.51 11.97 12.43 

26 FT 10.26 10.88 11.5 12.11 

20 FT 

15 FT 

BASED ON GROUND RESPONSE FACTOR OF 242 

CALCULATIONS BASED ON LEWIS L. ORIARD FORMULA 

V = GROUND RESPONSE x (DISTANCE / SQUARE ROOT OF CHARGE PER DELAY) ^ 1.6 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX J 

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS STUDY 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix N 

Geologic Hazards Study 

Prepared by 

Earth Systems Southwest 

for 

Wilbros Engineers 

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

February 2006

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
WILLBROS ENGINEERS, INC. 

P.O. BOX 701650 

TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74170-1650 

File No.: 08312-03 

05-12-718 

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS RECONNAISANCE REPORT 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

& IID LATERAL 

LA PAZ COUNTY ARIZONA, 

RIVERSIDE AND IMPERIAL 

COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 

December 5, 2005 

© 2005 Earth Systems Southwest 

Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited 

without the express written consent of Earth Systems Southwest.

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Section 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................1 

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Study ....................................................................................2 

Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION.....................................................................4

2.1 Field Exploration .....................................................................................................4 

2.2 Geologic Studies ......................................................................................................4 

Section 3 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................5

3.1 Surficial Soil Conditions at Selected Sites ..............................................................5 

3.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................5 

3.3 Regional Geologic Setting.......................................................................................6 

3.4 Geologic Units .........................................................................................................7 

3.5 Geologic Hazards.....................................................................................................8 

3.5.1 Seismic Hazards...........................................................................................8 

3.5.2 Ground Shaking and Site Acceleration......................................................10 

3.5.3 Liquefaction ...............................................................................................12 

3.5.4 Slope Stability............................................................................................13 

3.5.5 Erosion and Scour......................................................................................14 

Section 4 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................15

Section 5 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................16

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................17

APPENDIX A

General Project Location, Figures 1-2 

Geologic Maps, Figures 3-6 

Regional Fault Map, Figure 7 

Excerpt of A-P Fault Map at Imperial Fault, Figure 8 

Groundwater Levels, Palo Verde Valley, Figure 9 

Groundwater Levels, IID Lateral, Figure 10 

Slope Terrain Analysis, Figures 11 –12 

Tables 1 through 3, Fault Parameters at Selected Sites 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 1 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Section 1

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Project Description 

This Geologic Hazards Reconnaissance Report has been prepared for the proposed North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion project (NBP) to be constructed from La Paz County, Arizona to Riverside 

and Imperial Counties, California. The following summary of the projects comes from the Final 

NOI NOP filed with the California State Lands Commission (CLSC). 

North Baja, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, has announced its 

intention to expand its existing natural gas pipeline system in La Paz County, Arizona and 

Riverside and Imperial Counties, California. The existing North Baja system transports natural 

gas in a southbound direction. The expansion Project would allow for a northbound flow of gas. 

The facilities proposed by North Baja include the following to expand the existing system: 

3⁄4 up to 80 miles of buried 36-inch- or 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop (referred to as the 

“B-Line”) adjacent to its existing 30-inch- and 36-inch-diameter pipeline (referred to as 

the “A-Line”) in La Paz, Riverside, and Imperial Counties; 

3⁄4 one metering station at the interconnect with SoCal Gas in Blythe (Blythe Meter Station); 

3⁄4 one pig receiver at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station in La Paz County; 

3⁄4 one pig launcher and one pig receiver at the existing Ogilby Meter Station in Imperial 

County; 

3⁄4 seven mainline valves along the right-of-way; and 

3⁄4 modifications within the Ehrenberg Compressor Station and Ogilby Meter Station to 

allow for northbound flow. 

In association with its proposed expansion, North Baja proposes to construct a 0.5-mile-long, 

buried 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral (Blythe Energy Interconnect Lateral) and associated 

metering and valving from the proposed Blythe Meter Station north to an interconnect with 

Blythe Energy’s existing supply lateral near Interstate Highway 10 in Riverside County. The 

lateral would cross privately owned land adjacent to the existing SoCal Gas pipelines and 

parallel to the D-10-13 Canal and Riviera Drive. North Baja’s preferred alignment would be on 

the east side of the canal; an alternative alignment on the west side of the canal is also under 

consideration. 

North Baja also proposes to construct a new pipeline lateral and associated facilities in Imperial 

County from an interconnect near the Ogilby Meter Station to the existing Imperial Irrigation 

District (IID) El Centro Generating Station. The lateral would deliver up to 100 million cubic 

feet per day of natural gas to the IID El Centro Generating Station. The IID is considering a 

future expansion of the station to meet growing power demand. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 2 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

The IID Lateral facilities proposed by North Baja include: 

3⁄4 approximately 46 miles of buried 16-inch-diameter pipeline lateral (IID Lateral); 

3⁄4 one metering station at the interconnect with the IID El Centro Generating Station (IID El 

Centro Meter Station); 

3⁄4 one pig launcher at a tap off the A-Line near the Ogilby Meter Station; 

3⁄4 one pig receiver at the IID El Centro Generating Station; and 

3⁄4 up to five block valves along the right-of-way. 

North Baja’s preferred route of the IID Lateral would cross approximately 30 miles of federal 

land in Imperial County. The route on federal land deviates from designated utility corridors at 

one location for about 10 miles, where it would parallel Interstate Highway 8. Most of the IID 

Lateral would be installed in public road rights-of-way. 

Figures of the proposed facilities are provided in Appendix A. Figure 1 depicts a general 

overview of the major Project facilities. Figure 1 also depicts North Baja’s preferred route for 

the B-Line in the Palo Verde Valley (adjacent to the A-Line along 18th Avenue) and an 

alternative route under consideration in the Palo Verde Valley along 22nd Avenue. Figure 2 

depicts North Baja’s preferred route for the IID Lateral and various alternative routes under 

consideration... 

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Study 

The purpose for our services was to evaluate potential geologic hazard conditions and to provide 

professional opinions regarding the geologic constraints for the pipeline project. The scope of 

work included the following: 

3⁄4 Review of relevant geotechnical and geological literature, including reports and maps 

from the United States Geological Survey, the California Geological Survey, and other 

relevant information. 

3⁄4 Limited site reconnaissance of the north half of the pipeline route. 

3⁄4 Engineering analysis and evaluation of the acquired data to identify potential 

geotechnical or geological constraints that could include: faulting, groundshaking, 

secondary seismic hazards, landsliding, rock fall hazard, and erosion. 

3⁄4 A summary of our findings and recommendations in this written report. 

Earth Systems Southwest previously conducted a quantitative analysis of the soil liquefaction 

hazard in a separate Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation (LHEM) report. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 3 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Screening Investigation Purpose: The purpose of this screening investigation is to evaluate the 

severity of potential geologic hazards and to screen out areas that have a low potential for 

geologic hazards. Where this screening investigation demonstrates the absence of geologic 

hazards along the pipeline route, and if the lead agency technical reviewer concurs with this 

finding, this screening investigation will satisfy the site-investigation report requirement of CGS 

Special Publication 117 and no further investigation will be required. Where the findings of this 

screening investigation indicate the presence of geologic hazards, then a more-comprehensive 

quantitative evaluation may need to be conducted. 

 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 4 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Section 2

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 

2.1 Field Exploration 

18th Avenue and Ehrenberg Compressor Site: Earth Systems Southwest conducted geotechnical 

exploration at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site and along 18th Avenue. Along the 18th

Avenue alignment, four exploratory borings were drilled to a depth of about 51.5 feet on August 

9, 2001. At the Ehrenberg Compressor site, six exploratory borings were drilled to depths 

ranging from 26.5 to 51.5 feet on August 10, 2001. 

Ogilby Meter Station: Earth Systems Southwest conducted geotechnical exploration at the 

Ogilby Meter Station site. One exploratory boring was drilled to a depth of 26.5 feet on 

September 28, 2001. 

Colorado River and All American Canal Crossings: The LawGibb Group under contract to 

Willbros Engineers, Inc conducted geotechnical exploration for two crossing sites. At the 

Colorado River Crossing, four exploratory borings were drilled to a depth of about 90 to 91.5 

feet on October 9 to 11, 2000. At the All American Canal Crossing, three exploratory borings 

were drilled to a depth of about 91.5 feet October 16 to 19, 2000. 

These boring logs are presented in the Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation and 

geotechnical reports prepared by Earth Systems Southwest. 

2.2 Geologic Studies 

Air Photo Review: A set of vertical aerial photographs was reviewed stereoscopically for 

indications of landsliding or other ground movements at the edge of the Palo Verde Mesa 

(Milepost 11.6 to 11.8) where the pipeline would traverse up the mesa face. 

Site Reconnaissance: Our associate geotechnical engineer/geologist conducted a site 

reconnaissance of the pipeline route from the Ehrenberg Compressor Station to Ogilby Meter 

Station site and the IID lateral. The purpose of this limited reconnaissance was to verify site 

conditions of potentially critical areas of the proposed pipeline route for geologic hazards. 

Slope Terrain Analyses: The calculation of slope gradient is an essential part of the evaluation of 

slope stability. To calculate slope gradient for the terrain within the study area, 7.5- minute 

quadrangle digital elevation models (DEM) were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey. 

These DEMs have a resolution of 30-meters. A slope-gradient map was made from the 

combined DEMs using the MicroDEM program. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 5 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Section 3

DISCUSSION 

3.1 Surficial Soil Conditions at Selected Sites 

Ehrenberg Compressor Site (Milepost 0): The field exploration indicates that soils consist 

primarily of an upper surficial layer of silt that is 2 to 8 feet thick, underlain with medium dense 

to loosely deposited sand and some silty sand. 

Colorado River Crossing (Milepost 0 to 0.5): The field exploration indicates that soils consist 

generally of loose to dense silty sand and sand with some gravel. 

18th Avenue Alignment (Milepost 2.4 to 11.6): The field exploration indicates that soils consist 

generally of an upper layer of cohesive clayey soil underlain by sand to silty sand. 

Ogilby Meter Station (Milepost 75.2): The field exploration indicates that soils consist generally 

of very dense, silty sand. 

All American Canal Crossing (Milepost 79.6 to 79.8): The field exploration indicates that soils 

consist generally of medium dense to dense silty sand. 

3.2 Groundwater 

Measured Groundwater Levels from Exploration: Free groundwater was encountered in the 

borings at the following depths at selected sites. 

Site Milepost Measured Groundwater Depth (feet) 

Ehrenberg Compressor 0 17 

Colorado River Crossing 0 to 0.5 13 to 23 

18th Avenue Alignment 2.4 to 11.6 9 to 16.5 

All American Canal Crossing 79.6 to 79.8 29 to 31 

However, there is uncertainty in the accuracy of short-term water level measurements. 

Groundwater levels may fluctuate with irrigation, drainage, regional pumping from wells, and 

site grading. The groundwater levels detected may not represent an accurate or permanent 

condition. 

Estimated Groundwater Levels in the PaloVerde Valley region: USGS Professional Paper 486-G 

provides a groundwater contour map of the Palo Verde Valley and region. An excerpt of this 

map is presented on Figure 9. 

Estimated Groundwater Levels in the Imperial Valley region: USGS Professional Paper 486-K 

provides a groundwater contour map of the Imperial Valley and region. An excerpt of this map 

is presented on Figure 10. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 6 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

3.3 Regional Geologic Setting 

Ehrenberg Compressor Site, Colorado River Crossing, and 18th Avenue (Milepost 0 to 11.6):

These areas lie in the Palo Verde Valley, which consists of approximately 1,000 feet of alluvial 

and sedimentary gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits of the Colorado River Flood Plain. The 

Flood Plain in the Blythe area consists of approximately 100 feet of Younger (Holocene) 

alluvium consisting of sands, silts, clays, and some gravel. The younger alluvium is directly 

underlain by approximately 500 feet of older (Pliocene and Pleistocene) alluvium of soils similar 

to the younger alluvium. These soils are the result of several broad periods of degradation and 

aggradation by the Colorado River. The alluvial soils in the Blythe area reach to approximately 

600 feet where the soil formation changes to a Pliocene age embankment deposit of the Gulf of 

California known as the Bouse Formation. This formation is composed of tufa and basal 

limestone overlain by interbedded clay, silt, and sand. 

Palo Verde Mesa (Milepost 11.6 to 22.5): The Palo Verde Mesa consists of piedmont on the 

west side of the Palo Verde Valley that consists of older alluvium with lower terrace deposits at 

the valley wall. The mesa is dissected with several alluvial washes. 

Palo Verde Peak Area (Milepost 22.5 to 36): The NBP route through this area traverses around 

the base of foothills that comprise the Palo Verde Mountains. The Palo Verde Mountains consist 

primarily of Tertiary volcanic rocks that form ragged peaks with a topographic high of about 

1795 feet above mean sea level. Older alluvium fanglomerate and conglomerate deposits flank 

the mountains. Some Bouse Formation exposures are found at the base of the mountains. 

Recent alluvium lies within the floodplain of the Colorado River at the eastern base of the 

mountains and foothills. 

Milpitas Wash to Ogilby (Milepost 36 to 71): The NBP route through this area traverses across 

the Milpitas Wash, a major alluvial drainage system, piedmont, and alluvial washes in the 

Arroyo Seco area through the Chocolate Mountains, and piedmont on the southeast side of the 

Chocolate Mountains. The piedmonts consist of older alluvium that is dissected with numerous 

alluvial washes. 

Ogilby to All American Canal Crossing (Milepost 71 to 79.8): The NBP route through this area 

straddles the dividing line between the Salton Trough and the Mojave Desert section of the 

Southern Basin and Range physiographic province. This area lies on the Pilot Knob Mesa near 

the Algodones sand dunes to the west. The mesa soils consist of older and recent alluvium 

consisting of fine to coarse-grained sands with gravels, and cobbles. 

The Algodones Fault trends northwest to southeast and is inferred to lie nearly parallel with the 

proposed NBP route from Milepost 75.5 to 79.5. The Algodones Fault is the dividing line 

between the Salton Trough and Southern Basin and Range. 

IID Lateral: The IID lateral traverses across the Salton Trough physiographic province. The 

Salton Trough is a broad structural depression resulting from large scale regional faulting 

associated with horizontal slip along the San Andreas Fault System. The San Andreas Fault and 

inactive Sand Hills Fault bound the trough on the northeast. The San Jacinto Fault Zone bounds 

the trough on the southwest. The Salton Trough represents the northward extension of the Gulf 

of California that has experienced continual in-filling with both marine and non-marine 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 7 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

sediments since its approximate formation in the Miocene Epoch. 

A high level of seismicity from active northwest-trending faults and oceanic-type spreading 

centers characterizes the Salton Trough. Seismicity in the Salton Trough is concentrated 

between the offsets of three major transform faults - San Andreas, Imperial, and Cerro Prieto. 

Geodetic measurement, as well as historic and geomorphic evidence of recent fault movement, 

indicate a high rate of tectonic activity in the area. 

The Imperial Valley is directly underlain by Holocene (0 - 11,000 years before present) Cahuilla 

Lake beds, which consist of interbedded lenticular and tabular silt, sand, and clay. The Holocene 

lake deposits are probably less than 100 feet thick. The Pleistocene Brawley Formation 

underlies the Cahuilla Lake beds. The Brawley Formation consists of at least 2,000 feet of gray 

clay, sand, and pebbles, which in turn overlie about 6,000 feet of the late Pliocene Borrego 

Formation. The Borrego Formation consists of lacustrine gray clay and sand. The Borrego 

Formation overlies an indeterminate thickness of the Pliocene marine Imperial Formation, 

Alverson Andesite, and Miocene continental sediments of the Split Mountain Formation. 

Basement rock consisting of Mesozoic granite and probably Paleozoic metamorphic rocks are 

estimated to exist at depths between 15,000 - 20,000 feet. Thicknesses of the various geologic 

formations are approximate.

3.4 Geologic Units 

The proposed route of the NBP will generally encounter eight mapped geologic units. The 

mapped units are shown on the Geologic Maps, Figures 3 to 6. For the purposes of screening for 

geologic hazards, we used published geologic maps at 1:250,000 and 1:125,000 scales, 

combined with limited field reconnaissance along the proposed route of the pipeline. The 

following geologic units will be encountered during construction of the pipeline. 

Quaternary lake deposits (Ql): The Imperial Valley, where the west section of the IID lateral 

crosses, is composed of lake deposits of ancient Cahuilla Lake beds that consist of interbedded 

lenticular and tabular silt, sand, and clay. 

Quaternary Alluvium (Qal): Holocene alluvial deposits are mapped across the Palo Verde 

Valley and numerous washes. The alluvium in the Palo Verde Valley consists of unconsolidated 

sands, silts, clays, and some gravel. The washes generally consist of unconsolidated sand and 

gravels with some silts. The mid-section of the IID lateral crosses the East Mesa consisting of 

Holocene alluvial deposits. 

Dune Sand (Qs): Unconsolidated sand and silty sand of both Holocene and Pleistocene origin. 

Extensive dune sand is mapped to the west of the NBP Milepost 75 to 79.8. The IID lateral 

crosses the Algodones sand dune field along the All American Canal. 

Pleistocene Non-marine Older Alluvium & Fanglomerate (Qc): Dissected flat to gently 

sloping alluvium is common from Milepost 11.6 to 79.8. These poorly consolidated silts, sands, 

and gravels typically form desert pavement terraces coated with desert varnish between dry 

washes. The alluvium is generally locally derived, poorly sorted, angular, and reflects the 

lithology of the mountainous areas flanking these deposits. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 8 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Tertiary Volcanic Rock (Tv): Undifferentiated volcanic rock comprises the Palo Verde 

Mountains and smaller outcrops near the NBP route.

Bouse Formation (Tbs): Interbedded marine to brackish water limestone, siltstone, sandstone, 

and tufa of Tertiary origin outcrops intermittently along the base of the Palo Verde Mountains. 

Non-marine Clastic Volcanic Conglomerate (Tc): Non-marine clastic volcanic conglomerate 

outcrops along the NBP route at the flank of the Palo Verde Mountains. 

Miocene Non-marine Sedimentary Deposits (Mc): Non-marine sedimentary fanglomerate 

deposits composed of cemented gravel occur in limited outcrops along the NBP route. 

3.5 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards that may affect the pipeline include seismic hazards (surface fault rupture, 

ground shaking, soil liquefaction, and other secondary earthquake-related hazards), slope 

instability, and erosion. A discussion follows on the specific hazards to the project. 

3.5.1 Seismic Hazards 

Seismic Sources: Several active faults or seismic zones lie within 93 miles (150 kilometers) of 

the project areas as shown on Tables 1 through 3 and Figure 7 in Appendix A. The primary 

seismic hazard to the pipeline project is moderate groundshaking from earthquakes along the San 

Andreas and Imperial Valley Faults. The Maximum Magnitude Earthquake (Mmax) listed is from 

published geologic information available for each fault (Cao et al., CGS, 2003). The Mmax

corresponds to the maximum earthquake believed to be tectonically possible. 

Surface Fault Rupture: The NBP route does not lie within any currently delineated State of 

California, Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zones (Hart, 1997). Well-delineated fault 

lines cross through this region as shown on California Geological Survey (CGS) maps (Jennings, 

1994). Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur along the NBP route. While fault 

rupture would most likely occur along previously established fault traces, future fault rupture 

could occur at other locations. 

However, the IID lateral crosses the Imperial fault. This fault ruptured in both 1940 and 1979. 

In 1979, about 50 to 70 cm of cumulative right lateral displacement was measured occurring on 

two splays of the fault line near Interstate 8 where the preferred IID lateral route crosses. An 

excerpt of the A-P fault map at the Imperial fault is shown on Figure 8. Based on an estimated 

characteristic return rate of 79 years and 20 mm/yr geologic slip rate, an expected characteristic 

fault displacement of about 5 feet (1.6 m) may be anticipated for future ruptures, but could be 

locally greater as occurred in the 1940 event. 

Algodones Fault: The inferred trace of the Algodones fault trends nearly parallel with the 

proposed NBP from Milepost 75.5 to 79.5. The fault appears to be an ancestral continuation to 

the southeast of the San Andreas transform fault of southeastern California, southwestern 

Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. The Algodones Fault is shown on most geologic and 

fault maps of the Yuma area but is concealed by young sediments. 

Studies by Woodward-McNeill (1974) and Dames and Moore (1985) for the Salt River Dual Use 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 9 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Nuclear Plant and the Yuma Water Users Hydroelectric Plant project, respectively, have stated 

that the most recent activity along the Algodones Fault was pre-Holocene (11,000 years before 

present). An extensive fault investigation was performed to determine, in part, if the Algodones 

Fault was capable of future rupture or generating a major earthquake. The investigators found 

that the Algodones Fault is an east dipping normal fault confined to the western margin of the 

Fortuna Basin in Arizona (Heath, 1992). No evidence was found to indicate the Algodones Fault 

projected into California. West of Yuma, west dipping normal faults were identified and these 

most likely represent the eastern edge of the Salton Trough and are probably related to the East 

Mesa Fault (Heath, 1992). 

A pattern of episodic release of stress in moderate to large events at the north end of the 

Algodones fault is supported by the study of Quaternary tectonics of the Yuma region conducted 

by Bull (1974) as part of the Woodward-McNeill report. Analysis of the data from trenches 

across the Algodones Fault in the Yuma region suggests that this portion of the fault has moved 

within the last 15,000 years (late Pleistocene). Further, paleosols indicated that characteristic 

movement along the fault has not occurred as continuous creep but consists of intermittent 

movement of several feet followed by periods of stability. The total late Pleistocene movement 

was estimated as 50 feet. The last movement, representing a single earthquake, was about 3 to 5 

feet (Bull, 1974). 

Imperial Fault: The Imperial fault is a right-lateral fault that connects the oceanic-type spreading 

centers located at the Brawley Seismic Zone and the Cerro Prieto geothermal area. The Imperial 

Fault is about 60 miles in length. It has produced at least two large historic earthquakes. The 

largest events were the 7.0Mw on May 18, 1940 and 6.5Mw on October 15, 1979. 

The Brawley fault trends to the north from an intersection with the Imperial Fault at a location 

about four miles northeast of the City of El Centro. This fault has a surface expression 

approximately 9 miles long. The Imperial and Brawley faults have ruptured synchronously 

during past earthquakes. The California Geological Survey assigns a geologic slip rate of 20 

mm/year, and a characteristic magnitude Mmax of 7.0 with an average 79-year return period 

(CDMG, 1996). 

Historic Seismicity: The Imperial Valley is among the most seismically active regions in the 

nation. Figure 7 shows the significant earthquakes that have been recorded in the region. Five 

significant historic seismic events (5.8M or greater) have significantly affected the Imperial 

Valley in the last 100 years. They are as follows: 

• Imperial Valley Events - On June 22, 1915 twin magnitude 6.0 and 5.9MS earthquakes 

occurred about an hour apart near El Centro resulting in at least six deaths (Ellsworth, 1990). 

• El Centro Event - On May 19, 1940 a magnitude 7.1MS (7.0MW) earthquake ruptured the 

Imperial Fault with horizontal offsets up to 19 feet and triggered widespread liquefaction as 

evidenced by sand boils throughout the valley (Sylvester, 1979). 

• Imperial Valley Events - On October 15, 1979 a magnitude 6.6MS (6.5MW) earthquake 

ruptured the Imperial Fault again with horizontal offsets of about 2 feet and triggered 

widespread liquefaction as evidenced by sand boils throughout the valley. A magnitude 

5.8ML event occurred as an aftershock along the Brawley Fault on the evening of October 

15, 1979 (US Geological Survey, 1982). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 10 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

• Westmorland Event - On April 26, 1981, a magnitude 6.0MS (5.9MW) earthquake occurred 4 

miles north of Westmorland and triggered widespread liquefaction. Although there was not 

surface faulting associated with this earthquake, canals and buildings were damaged. 

Liquefaction also occurred in the Brawley Seismic Zone after M5+ earthquakes in 1930, 

1950 and 1957. 

• Superstition Hills Events - On November 24, 1987, a magnitude 6.6MS (6.5MW) earthquake 

ruptured the Superstition Hills Fault causing over 15 miles of right lateral offset (26 in. 

maximum) and triggered liquefaction from the Salton Sea to Seeley. A magnitude 6.2ML

(5.9MW) event occurred as a foreshock along the Elmore Ranch Fault on November 23. 

Secondary Seismic Hazards: Secondary seismic hazards related to ground shaking include soil 

liquefaction, ground deformation, areal subsidence, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is far inland 

so the hazard from tsunamis is non-existent. At the present time, no water storage reservoirs are 

located in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, hazards from seiches are considered 

negligible at this time. 

3.5.2 Ground Shaking and Site Acceleration 

The potential intensity of ground shaking motion may be estimated from the horizontal peak 

ground acceleration (PGA), measured in “g” forces. Included in Tables 1 to 3 are deterministic 

estimates of site acceleration from possible earthquakes at nearby faults at three representative 

locations along the pipeline route. Ground motions are dependent primarily on the earthquake 

magnitude and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone. Accelerations also are dependent 

upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture, and type of fault. For these 

reasons, ground motions may vary considerably in the same general area. This variability can be 

expressed statistically by a standard deviation about a mean relationship. 

In our evaluation of peak ground acceleration (PGA) we averaged three attenuation 

relationships: Boore et al. 1997; Sadigh et al, 1997; Abrahamson & Silva, 1997, and Campbell, 

2003. Each attenuation relationship has their strengths and limitations. For this reason, the 

USGS used an equally weighted average of these four in their National Strong Motion Mapping 

Program. 

The following table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA, EPA, PGV and Spectral 

Accelerations taken from the 2002 CGS/USGS seismic hazard maps and interactive seismic 

deaggregations available at the USGS National Strong Motion Mapping Program website. 

These values have been adjusted for alluvium soils, Soil Profile Type, SD. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 11 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Estimate of PGA, EPA, PGV, and Spectral Accelerations 

 from 2002 CGS/USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps 

Ehrenberg Station, Riverside County, California 

Modal Magnitude 7.6, Modal Distance 113 km 

Risk of Exceedance 

Equivalent 

Return 

Period (years) 

 

PGA 

(g) 

EPA 

(g)(2) 

PGV (3)

(cm/sec) 

Spectral 

Acceleration 

Sa (0.2 sec.)

Spectral 

Acceleration 

Sa (1.0 sec.)

10% in 50 years (DBE) 

2% in 100 years (MCE) 

475 

2475 

0.12 

0.20 

0.11 

0.20 

33 

48 

0.28 

0.51 

0.19 

0.31 

Ogilby Meter Station, Imperial County, California 

Modal Magnitude 6.9, Modal Distance 45 km 

Risk of Exceedance 

Equivalent 

Return 

Period (years) 

 

PGA 

(g) 

EPA 

(g)(2) 

PGV (3)

(cm/sec) 

Spectral 

Acceleration 

Sa (0.2 sec.)

Spectral 

Acceleration 

Sa (1.0 sec.)

10% in 50 years (DBE) 

2% in 100 years (MCE) 

475 

2475 

0.23 

0.42 

0.23 

0.42 

53 

84 

0.58 

1.02 

0.34 

0.56 

IID Lateral at Imperial Fault, Imperial County, California 

Modal Magnitude 6.9, Modal Distance 0 km 

Risk of Exceedance 

Equivalent 

Return 

Period (years) 

 

PGA 

(g) 

EPA 

(g)(2) 

PGV (3)

(cm/sec) 

Spectral 

Acceleration 

Sa (0.2 sec.)

Spectral 

Acceleration 

Sa (1.0 sec.)

10% in 50 years (DBE) 

2% in 100 years (MCE) 

475 

2475 

0.87 

0.83 

0.84 

0.83 

204 

203 

2.10 

2.07 

0.83 

0.87 

Notes: 

1. Values are adjusted from soft rock site, SB/C. The soil amplification factors to adjust to Soil Profile Type 

SD for PGA, Sa (0.2 sec), and Sa (1.0 sec), are as follows: 

Ehrenberg: 1.5, 1.5, 2.0, respectively. 

Ogilby: 1.2, 1.2, 1.8, respectively. 

IID Lateral at Imperial Fault: 1.0, 1.0, 1.5, respectively 

2. EPA = Effective Peak Acceleration, derived from Spectral acceleration (SA) at period of 0.2 seconds 

divided by scaling factor of 2.5 for 5% damping. 

3. PGV = Peak Ground Velocity, derived from Sa (1.0 sec). 

4. DBE = Design Basis Earthquake for California (Uniform) Building Code. 

5. MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake for International Building Code (ASCE 7), deterministic limit at 

Imperial fault 

6. For other locations along the pipeline, a first order estimate of ground motion parameters may be obtained 

by interpolation between the tables. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 12 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

3.5.3 Liquefaction 

Soil liquefaction is a natural phenomenon that occurs when granular soils below the water table 

are subjected to vibratory motions, such as produced by earthquakes. Vibrations cause an 

increase of pressure in the water within soil pores, as the soil tends to reduce in volume. When 

the pore water pressure reaches the vertical effective stress, the soil particles become suspended 

in water causing a complete loss in soil strength. The liquefied soil behaves as a thick liquid. 

Liquefaction can cause excessive structural settlement, ground rupture, lateral spreading 

(movement), or failure of shallow bearing foundations. Liquefaction is typically limited to the 

upper 50 feet of the subsurface soils. 

Four conditions are generally required before liquefaction can occur: 

1. The soils must be saturated below a relatively shallow groundwater level. 

2. The soils must be loosely deposited (low to medium relative density). 

3. The soils must be relatively cohesionless (not clayey). Clean, poorly graded sands are the 

most susceptible. Silt (fines) content increase the liquefaction resistance in that more 

cycles of ground motions are required to fully develop pore pressures. If the clay content 

(finer than 5 micron size) is greater than 20%, the soil is usually considered nonliquefiable, unless it is extremely sensitive. 

4. Groundshaking must be of sufficient intensity to act as a trigger mechanism. Two 

important factors that affect the liquefaction opportunity are duration as indicated by 

earthquake magnitude (M) and intensity as indicated by peak ground acceleration (PGA). 

The liquefaction susceptibility of a soil varies with the depth to ground water. Very shallow 

ground water increases the susceptibility to liquefaction (more likely to liquefy). In areas of 

limited or no geotechnical data, susceptibility zones may be identified by geologic criteria as 

defined in CGS Special Publication 117: 

3⁄4 Areas containing soil deposits of late Holocene age (less than 11,000 years, such as 

river channels and their historic floodplains), where the M7.5-weighted peak 

acceleration that has a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years is greater than or 

equal to 0.10 g and the water table is less than 40 feet below the ground surface; or 

3⁄4 Areas containing soil deposits of Holocene age (less than 11,000 years), where the 

M7.5-weighted peak acceleration that has a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 

years is greater than or equal to 0.20 g and the historic high water table is less than or 

equal to 30 feet below the ground surface; or 

3⁄4 Areas containing soil deposits of latest Pleistocene age (between 11,000 years and 

15,000 years), where the M7.5-weighted peak acceleration that has a 10% probability 

of being exceeded in 50 years is greater than or equal to 0.30 g and the historic high 

water table is less than or equal to 20 feet below the ground surface. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 13 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Based on these criteria and supplemented by the Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation And Mitigation 

Study conducted along selected areas the following areas have both the opportunity and 

susceptibility for soil liquefaction to occur. 

Area Milepost Measured or Estimated 

Groundwater Depth 

(feet) 

Geologi

c Unit 

Liquefaction 

Potential 

Palo Verde Valley 0 to 11.6 9 to 17 Qal Moderate to High 

Palo Verde Peak 23 to 25.3 

25.3 to 27.5 

27.5 to 31.9 

40 to 20 

20 to 40 

5 to 20 

Qal 

Qc/Qal 

Qal 

Low to Moderate 

Very Low to Low 

Moderate to High 

Milpitas Wash 34.9 to 35.7 43 to 57 Qal Very Low 

All American Canal 79.6 to 79.8 29 to 31 Qc/Qal Very Low 

East Mesa IID Lateral Generally 20 to 40 

Locally <10 at W side 

Qal Low to Moderate 

Locally High 

Imperial Valley IID Lateral Generally 5 to 15 Ql Moderate to High 

Quantitative analyses of the soil liquefaction hazard have been conducted from Milepost 0 to 

11.6 and at 79.6 to 79.8. The liquefaction potential for Milepost 27.5 to 31.9 is likely to be 

similar to the Palo Verde Valley area. 

Soil liquefaction potential is most acute along the Imperial Valley section of the IID lateral. 

Historic occurrence of soil liquefaction has been documented along the Alamo River banks from 

the 1970 Imperial Valley Earthquake (USGS Professional Paper 1254). 

Liquefaction Effects: Soil Liquefaction can cause permanent ground displacements (PGD), 

ground surface disruption (sand boils, fissuring), and lateral spreading or movement on sloping 

ground or toward canal or river banks. Based on prior quantitative liquefaction analyses 

conducted by Earth Systems Southwest and our experience in the area, PGD may range from 

about 0 to 6 inches. However, at canal banks and especially at the Alamo River within the 

Imperial Valley, the lateral spreading potential may exceed these values. 

3.5.4 Slope Stability 

Potential geologic hazards related to slope instability include; landslides, debris flows and rock 

falls. The impact of these hazards to the site is discussed below. 

Landslides: No significant landslides were observed during the site reconnaissance, nor are any 

known to exist along the proposed NBP Route. The terrain along and immediately adjacent to 

the pipeline route is less than 25% gradient (except at the edge of Palo Verde Mesa as discussed 

below). Therefore, the potential for landsliding is low to nil (see Figures 11 and 12). 

Debris Flows: The proposed pipeline route traverses across numerous drainages with alluvial 

material. These drainages are subject to debris flow and flash flood occurrence during the 

sporadic heavy rainfall of the region. 

Rock Falls: The Palo Verde Peak area contains moderate to steep slopes that contain blocky, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 14 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

volcanic rock outcrops and boulders on the surface. These outcrops are a potential source of 

falling and rolling boulders. Rock falls are most likely to occur during strong earthquakes or 

large storms that may loosen boulders on the surface. However, the proposed pipeline does not

appear to be at risk from rock falls in that the route does not traverse sloping terrain exceeding 

25% gradient nor is the route immediately at the foot of steep slopes. 

Mesa Bank Stability (Milepost 11.6 to 11.8): The NBP route will traverse up the terrace edge of 

the Palo Verde Mesa (see Figure 10). The terrace slope is generally at a 25% gradient, but is 

locally at 30 to 35% gradient. This terrace slope is susceptible to water erosion if significant 

runoff occurs down the slope. The base of the terrace is densely vegetated. The terrace slope to 

the south appears to have been eroded by several small washes that formerly drained a larger 

drainage basin to the west. The drainage is now generally directed to a gulley cutting through 

the lower terrace about 4000 feet to the south of Milepost 11.7. There are several sand dunes at 

the base of the mesa to the south, giving the appearance of a hummocky topography. 

River Bank Stability (Milepost 0 to 0.5): The Colorado River banks may be susceptible to 

failure during an earthquake or flooding. Horizontal directional drilling for the pipeline crossing 

will be well below and away from potential areas of bank instability.

3.5.5 Erosion and Scour 

Evidence of erosion was observed in numerous alluvial washes (arroyos) on the Palo Verde 

Mesa. Erosion and scour of fluvial washes is considered a significant risk along significant 

portions of the NBP route (mainly from Mileposts 16.5 to 73). The NBP route crosses mesas 

and piedmonts that are generally depositional from outwashes from higher mountainous terrain. 

The existing alluvial washes may meander laterally from existing channels during flooding and 

possibly scour to deeper depths. We understand that soil cover of up to 5-feet depth and possible 

concrete encasement are being considered to mitigate this hazard across significant washes. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 15 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Section 4

CONCLUSIONS 

The following is a summary of our conclusions and professional opinions based on the data 

obtained from a review of selected technical literature, geologic and topographic maps, and 

limited site reconnaissance. 

Geologic Constraints and Mitigation:

3⁄4 The primary geologic hazard along the North Baja Pipeline is moderate ground shaking 

from earthquakes and resulting soil liquefaction originating on distant faults. A major 

earthquake of magnitude 7 or greater originating on the San Andreas or Imperial Valley 

Faults would be the critical seismic event that may affect the proposed North Baja 

Pipeline. The ground motion potential becomes stronger along the IID lateral. 

Engineered design and earthquake-resistant construction increase safety and allow 

development of seismic areas. 

3⁄4 The project study areas lie within seismic Zones 3 and 4 and about 0 to 113 km from 

Type A seismic sources as defined in the California Building Code. The minimum

seismic design of the pipeline and facilities should comply with the latest edition of the 

California Building Code and ASCE 7-03.

3⁄4 The IID Lateral crosses the active Imperial fault. Earthquake resistant design should 

accommodate an estimated 5 to 15 feet of fault displacement.

3⁄4 Other seismic hazards including ground rupture and seismically induced flooding are 

considered low or negligible for the proposed North Baja Pipeline. 

3⁄4 A significant probability for soil liquefaction may occur for a design basis earthquake at 

the Ehrenberg Compressor site, the Arizona side of the Colorado River crossing, and 

western portion of the 18th Avenue alignment. Some areas around the Palo Verde Peak 

are susceptible to soil liquefaction where the pipeline traverses across recent alluvium at 

the base of foothills to the mountains. A significant potential for soil liquefaction occurs 

along the IID lateral within the Imperial Valley. The pipeline should be designed to be 

earthquake resistant using the estimated Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) and Permanent 

Ground Displacement (PGD) values given in this report. 

3⁄4 The North Baja Pipeline route crosses generally gently sloping terrain with gradients less 

than 25%, except at the edge of the Palo Verde Mesa at Milepost 11.6 to 11.8. Except at 

this area the potential for slope instability is low to nil. To avoid a potential instability of 

the NBP at the Palo Verde Mesa, the pipeline and the grade immediately to each side of 

the pipeline should be laid back to no more than 30% gradient for the estimated 60-foot 

high lower terrace slope. Minor cuts are anticipated to accommodate this grade 

transition. 

3⁄4 Fluvial scour erosion is possible within existing alluvial washes that dissect the older 

alluvium mesas and piedmonts. Deeper soil cover and possible concrete encasement are 

possible measures to mitigate this hazard across significant washes. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 16 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Section 5

LIMITATIONS 

Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field 

exploration, review of maps and geologic data, limited site reconnaissance, and our 

understanding of the proposed project. Variations in soil, rock, or groundwater may require 

additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions. 

Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in 

conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they are from natural processes 

or works of man on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards 

occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of 

this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this 

report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. 

In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the pipeline are planned, the 

conclusions contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are 

reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing. 

This report is issued with the understanding that the owner, or the owner’s representative, has the 

responsibility for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. 

Earth Systems Southwest (ESSW) has striven to provide our services in accordance with 

generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. No warranty 

or guarantee is express or implied. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client 

and the Client’s authorized agents. 

Although available through ESSW, the current scope of our services does not include an 

environmental assessment, or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or 

toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject 

property. 

-o0oAppendices as cited are attached and complete this report. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 17 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, N., and Shedlock, K., editors, 1997, Ground motion attenuation relationships: 

Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, January 1997 special issue, 256 p. 

Bull, W.B., 1974, Reconnaissance of the Colorado River Terraces near the Yuma Dual Purpose 

Nuclear Plant: Woodward McNeill and Associates, Geotechnical Investigation, Yuma 

Dual Purpose Nuclear Plant, Appendix F, Part 2, 52 pages. 

California Geological Survey (CGS), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic 

Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. 

Cao, T, Bryant, W.A., Rowhandel, B., Branum. D., and Wills, C., 2003, The Revised 2002 

California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, California Geologic Survey (CGS), June 

2003. 

Dames & Moore, 1985, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Siphon Drop, Power Plant 

Rehabilitation near Yuma, Arizona: Report to Yuma Water Users Association. 

Ellsworth, W.L., 1990, “Earthquake History, 1769-1989” in: The San Andreas Fault System, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. 

Frankel, A.D., et al., 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard 

Maps, USGS Open-File Report 02-420. 

Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines and 

Geology Special Publication 42, 34 p. 

Heath, E.G. (1992), Faulting and Seismicity in the Vicinity of the Mesquite Regional Landfill. 

Letter report to Environmental Solutions, Inc. (copy included as appendix to 

Environmental Report for Mesquite Regional Landfill by Environmental Solutions, Inc.). 

International Code Council (ICC), 2002, California Building Code, 2001 Edition. 

International Code Council (ICC), 2003, International Building Code, 2003 Edition. 

Jennings, C.W, 1967, Geologic Map of California – Salton Sea Sheet, California Division of Mines 

and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000. 

Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of 

Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000. 

Metzger, D. G., Loeltz, O. J., and Irelan, B., 1973, Geohydrology of the Parker-Blythe-Cibola 

Area, Arizona and California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-G, 130 p. 

Morton, P. K., 1977, Geology and mineral resources of Imperial County, California: California 

Division of Mines and Geology, County Report No. 7, 104 p. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
December 5, 2005 - 18 - File No.: 08312-03 

 05-12-718 

EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

Olmsted, F. H., Loeltz, O. J., and Irelan, B., 1973, Geohydrology of the Yuma Area, Arizona and 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-H, 227 p. 

Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Leinkaemper, 

J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwarz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for 

the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08. 

Riverside County Planning Department, 2002, Geotechnical Element of the Riverside County 

General Plan. 

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for 

Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and 

Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, University of Southern California. 

Strand, R.G, 1962, Geologic Map of California – San Diego - El Centro Sheet, California Division 

of Mines and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1982, The Imperial Valley California Earthquake of October 

15, 1979: Professional Paper 1254, 451 p. 

Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1515, 283 p. 

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern 

California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of 

America, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 379-439. 

Aerial Photographs Reviewed 

Date Frame Numbers Scale Source

2-23-95 48-6, 48-7, 48-8 1" = 1,650' Riverside County Flood 

 Control District 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 

APPENDIX A 

General Project Location, Figures 1-2 

Geologic Maps, Figures 3-6 

Regional Fault Map, Figure 7 

Excerpt of A-P Fault Map at Imperial Fault, Figure 8 

Groundwater Levels, Palo Verde Valley, Figure 9 

Groundwater Levels, IID Lateral, Figure 10 

Slope Terrain Analysis, Figures 11 –12 

Tables 1 through 3, Fault Parameters at Selected Sites 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 1 General Project Location 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 2 North Baja’s Preferred IID Lateral Route and IID 

Lateral Alternative Routes 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 3 Geologic Map, North Half 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 4 Geologic Map, South Half 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 5 Geology Map, Pale Verde Peak 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 6 Geologic Map; IID Lateral 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 7 Regional Fault Map 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 8 Excerpt of A-P Fault Map at Imperial Fault 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 9 Groundwater Levels, Pale Verde Valley Area 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 10 Groundwater Levels, IID Lateral 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 11 Slope Terrain Analysis, Pale Verde Peak Area 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 

FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION 

PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix J/Appendix A 

Figure 12 Slope Terrain Analysis, Ripley Area 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available 

only through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007



APPENDIX K 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE MITIGATION 

AND MONITORING PLAN 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix K 

Paleontological Resource Mitigation 

and Monitoring Plan 

Prepared by 

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

February 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... K-1

2.0 GUIDANCE MITIGATION CRITERIA: SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE 

PALEONTOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. K-2

3.0 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ K-3

3.1 LITERATURE AND MUSEUM ARCHIVAL REVIEWS .......................................... K-3

3.2 FIELD SURVEY..................................................................................................... K-3

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ K-4

4.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING ................................................................................ K-7

4.1 PROJECT-WIDE MEASURES .............................................................................. K-7

4.2 SITE-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................... K-9

4.2.1 B-Line .......................................................................................................... K-9

4.2.2 IID Lateral.................................................................................................... K-9

5.0 FOSSIL EXTRACTION ............................................................................................... K-10

6.0 CURATION AND REPORTING .................................................................................. K-11

6.1 PROTOCOL FOR CURATION/REPOSITORY STORAGE OF FOSSILS ........... K-11

6.2 FINAL REPORT................................................................................................... K-11

7.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ K-13

LIST OF TABLES 

Table K-1: Paleontological Discoveries Along the A-Line in 2002 ................................ K-4

Table K-2: Paleontological Sensitivity of Stratigraphic Units Found Along the North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project.......................................................................... K-5

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 K-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix K 

Paleontological Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja), will construct the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

(Project), a new natural gas pipeline from the U.S.-Mexico border to the existing North Baja 

facilities and the El Paso Natural Gas system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. The Project includes three 

elements: the B-Line, which includes interconnection facilities in Ehrenberg, Arizona, as well as 

a 79.8-mile, 42- and 48-inch-diameter pipeline between Blythe and the Mexican border; the 

Arrowhead Extension, which includes a meter station and a 2.1-mile, 36-inch-diameter pipeline 

extending from the proposed B-Line at milepost (MP) 7.4 to Southern California Gas Company’s 

existing Blythe Compressor Station; and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Lateral, a 45.7-mile, 

16-inch-diameter pipeline between North Baja’s mainline and the IID El Centro Generating 

Station. The Project will be constructed in phases, with the first phase planned for construction 

in 2007, the IID Lateral for 2008, and the final phase of the Project in 2009, pending completion 

of upstream liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facilities. 

This Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMM Plan or Plan) fulfills the 

requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for an assessment of the potential impact on paleontological 

resources (fossils) of construction of the Project. A similar plan was prepared and implemented 

for construction of the A-Line in 2002. This Plan summarizes the findings of the assessment 

contained in Resource Report 6 and the mitigation and monitoring measures planned to mitigate 

the potential adverse impacts of Project construction on paleontological resources. The Plan 

includes avoidance strategies, mitigation measures including procedures for scientific removal 

of significant fossils, preparation/curation protocols, and provisions for a final report on the 

paleontological data recovery. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.0 GUIDANCE MITIGATION CRITERIA: SOCIETY OF 

VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS 

Guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) are found in Standard Measures for 

Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontological Resources

(SVP 1991, 1995, 1996), and have been adapted to evaluate the paleontological resources and 

potential adverse impacts of the Project, and to help formulate an appropriate mitigation plan to 

protect those resources considered scientifically important. The SVP standard measures 

address significance and sensitivity of paleontological resources and methods for mitigating 

adverse effects on fossil resources, including guidance pertaining to field assessment, 

monitoring, identification, storage, and compliance. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.0 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 

3.1 LITERATURE AND MUSEUM ARCHIVAL REVIEWS 

Prior to construction of the A-Line, paleontological literature and museum archival reviews for 

previously recorded fossil sites in the vicinity of the A-Line and a field reconnaissance were 

undertaken. All known geological and paleontological literature was reviewed for references to 

fossils. In addition, museum archival reviews were conducted at the University of California 

Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) at Berkeley, the San Diego Natural History Museum 

(SDNHM) at San Diego, and the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) in San Bernardino. 

The UCMP at Berkeley is considered the primary repository for fossils in the State of California 

and the UCMP collections are considered the most comprehensive of all California institutions. 

Detailed information on the stratigraphy of the area was obtained from numerous geological 

publications. The geology in the vicinity of the proposed right-of-way has been mapped or 

described by numerous workers, including Brown (1923), Strand (1962), Jennings (1967), 

Metzger et al. (1973), Loeltz et al. (1975), Morton (1977), and Stone (1990). This report is 

heavily dependent on Dibblee (1954), Metzger et al. (1973), and Morton (1977), who have 

provided the most comprehensive and detailed accounts. 

3.2 FIELD SURVEY 

The purpose of the field survey was to supplement the literature and museum archival reviews 

by verifying that sensitive rock units identified during these reviews occurred at the points 

previously mapped, to document the present condition of any previously recorded fossil sites, to 

look for any previously unrecorded fossils sites, and to identify areas where any special 

mitigation measures might need to be implemented prior to construction to avoid potential 

construction delays. Prior to construction of the A-Line, a field survey of the pipeline right-of-way 

was conducted during September 2000. Field monitoring took place in accordance with the 

PRMMP in effect for the A-Line construction in 2002. Paleontological discoveries along the 

A-Line in 2002 are listed in Table K-1. The IID Lateral route was field surveyed in November 

2005. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Table K-1: Paleontological Discoveries Along the A-Line in 2002 

Milepost Results of Paleontological Monitoring Significant 

Paleontological Find

25.7 Unidentified Holocene specimen (bone fragment) No 

27.2 Corals and calcareous algae in Bouse limestone No 

27.7-28.1 Turritelidae fossils, brachiopods, ostracods, foraminifera 

amphistegina, echinoids, and algae 

No 

27.7-28.8 Slabs of chert hosting marine invertebrates No 

27.9 Large fossil log in Bouse Formation limestone spoil pile No 

28.1 Slabs of Bouse Formation limestone hosting kummel form 

echinoids 

No 

28.1-28.2 Echinoid (sea urchin) fossils of probably Miocene age (14 to 15 

million years before present [mybp]) 

Yes 

28.1-28.2 Small echinoid crowns, barnacles plates, and shark teeth No 

28.6 Chert/limestone pebbles; crinoids, corals, bryozoans, and sand 

shark teeth 

No 

28.5-29.0 Brachiopod in Bouse Formation No 

29.1 Paleozoic brachiopod No 

33.1 Petrified wood specimen No 

33.2 Paleozoic fossiliferous crinoidal limestone No 

32.1-35.0 Limestone nodule with Paleozoic fossil corrals No 

41.5 Two petrified wood specimens in Pleistocene older alluvium No 

45.2-45.8 Marine fossils in carbonate pod (coral, bryozoa, crinoid ossicles) No 

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Construction of the Project could result in either adverse or beneficial impacts on significant 

paleontological resources. Adverse impacts may occur when Project earth-moving and ground 

disturbance result in significant fossils being destroyed. The destruction of significant 

paleontological resources could occur either directly by mechanical means or indirectly by 

allowing weathering agents to reach previously buried specimens. Mechanical destruction could 

result not only from actual trenching, but also from excavations during construction of access 

roads, clearing, and grading. Indirect adverse impacts could occur whenever weathering agents 

are allowed to reach specimens previously naturally protected by burial. For instance, indirect 

impacts could occur from any ground disturbance that causes fracturing of the ground, allowing 

the percolation of rain water through the disturbed sediment. Additionally, indirect impacts could 

result from any changes in surface grade that modifies the drainage pattern and allows erosion 

of previously protected areas; increased erosion could expose previously protected fossils to 

weathering and destruction. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Based on the literature and museum archival review, field survey, and A-Line construction 

monitoring, the paleontological sensitivity for stratigraphic units crossed by the proposed 

pipeline routes was determined. The potential for fossils based on paleontological sensitivity 

along the proposed pipeline route is summarized by milepost in Table K-2. 

Table K-2: Paleontological Sensitivity of Stratigraphic Units 

Found Along the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Mileposts Stratigraphic Unit Potential for Fossils 

B-Line 

0.0 – 11.5 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

11.5 – 22.3 Pleistocene older alluvium moderate sensitivity 

22.3 – 25.2 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

25.2 – 25.8 Pleistocene older alluvium moderate sensitivity 

25.8 – 26.0 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

26.0 – 26.6 Miocene fanglomerate low sensitivity 

26.6 – 27.0 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

27.0 – 27.3 Miocene fanglomerate low sensitivity 

27.3 – 27.6 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

27.6 – 28.2 Pliocene Bouse Formation moderate sensitivity 

28.2 – 28.5 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

28.5 – 29.2 Pliocene Bouse Formation moderate sensitivity 

29.2 – 29.9 Early Tertiary volcanic rocks low sensitivity 

29.9 – 30.2 Pliocene Bouse Formation moderate sensitivity 

30.2 – 31.2 Early Tertiary volcanic rocks low sensitivity 

31.2 – 31.6 Pliocene Bouse Formation moderate sensitivity 

31.6 – 32.6 Miocene fanglomerate low sensitivity 

32.6 – 32.8 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

32.8 – 35.8 Miocene fanglomerate low sensitivity 

35.8 – 36.3 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

36.3 – 75.2 Pleistocene older alluvium moderate sensitivity 

75.2 – 79.8 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

Arrowhead Extension 

0.0 – 2.1 Holocene alluvium low sensitivity 

IID Lateral 

0.0 – 2.0 Pleistocene alluvium low sensitivity 

2.0 – 7.6 Dune sands low sensitivity 

7.6 – 27.6 Quaternary alluvium low sensitivity 

27.6 – 45.7 Quaternary Lacustrine sands Low-moderate sensitivity 

 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

The results of literature and field review, and monitoring during the construction of the A-Line 

revealed very limited paleontological resources. Of the several areas identified during preconstruction analysis as moderate sensitivity along the A-Line, only a short stretch of about a 

mile, from MP 28.1 to MP 29.1, yielded a single significant paleontological find. Areas of 

Pleistocene older alluvium, potentially of moderate sensitivity and identified from MP 11.5 to MP 

22.3, yielded no paleontological materials. Other areas of Pleistocene older alluvium, including 

MPs 35-75.2, yielded only occasional paleontological materials and no significant finds. The 

Arrowhead Extension is located in the same Holocene alluvium stratigraphic unit as the first 

11.5 miles of the B-Line. The four stratigraphic units crossed by the IID Lateral have a low to 

low-moderate potential to yield paleontological resources, and the construction of the IID Lateral 

is unlikely to affect such resources. 

Implementation of a paleontological resource mitigation plan prepared by a knowledgeable and 

experienced paleontologist can result in a substantial reduction in the severity of adverse 

construction-related impacts, both direct and indirect. A well-designed and fully implemented 

mitigation program can even provide some beneficial impacts by uncovering and recording 

information about or preserving significant fossils and associated geologic and geographic data 

in a public museum where they are available for future study by qualified investigators. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING 

The purpose of the PRMMP is to assist North Baja in complying with environmental laws and 

permit requirements regarding the protection of significant paleontological resources that might 

be encountered during Project construction. The goal of the proposed program is to minimize 

the potential negative effects of Project construction to a point where no significant effect on 

paleontological resources will occur. 

4.1 PROJECT-WIDE MEASURES 

Construction of the Project will involve several known fossil-bearing rock units. However, the 

paleontological sensitivity of stratigraphic units crossed is low overall, taking into account 

literature, field review, and monitoring during the construction of the A-Line. Due to the 

widespread geographic distribution of these geological formations, a paleontological resource 

mitigation program has been developed. This mitigation program includes construction-worker 

education and spot monitoring of selected sections of the pipeline right-of-way during 

excavation to salvage any significant fossil remains encountered during construction involving 

ground-disturbing and earth-moving activities. 

More specifically, the paleontological resource mitigation program includes the following: 

Avoidance Strategy 

1. All construction personnel will be given environmental training that will include instruction 

in both verbal and written form regarding what fossil resources may be encountered 

during construction. The Environmental Inspectors will receive additional instruction in 

fossil identification from the Project Paleontologist. 

2. Construction personnel will be instructed that, if fossils are seen in areas without a 

Paleontological Monitor, the Environmental Inspector and the Project Paleontologist will 

immediately be notified, and the fossils will be avoided by further construction activities 

until a determination of the significance of the discovery can be made and a plan of 

action can be formulated. 

3. Construction personnel will also be instructed that excavation spoils surrounded by 

exclusion fencing or survey flagging are to be avoided under all circumstances, and that 

any intrusions into an exclusion zone by personnel or equipment other than under the 

direction of the Project Paleontologist are strictly prohibited. 

4. If the Paleontological Monitor or Environmental Inspector note an unusually large 

number of fossils or an individual highly significant specimen being excavated or 

disturbed by earth-moving operations, he or she will immediately contact the Project 

Paleontologist. The Environmental Inspector may temporarily halt construction activities 

until consultation with the Project Paleontologist and (on Federal lands) BLM staff to 

determine whether site-specific mitigation requirements are warranted. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

5. Depending on the specific circumstances, the mitigation procedure could either: move 

construction away from the fossil locality and return later to carefully excavate the fossil 

site under the direction of the Project Paleontologist; or excavate through the fossil site, 

destroying a portion of the site, and salvaging a representative collection of significant 

fossils from an adjoining portion of the site. 

Other General Mitigation Measures 

1. A Paleontologist Monitor or Environmental Inspector will spot monitor ground-disturbing 

activities along those sections of the pipeline right-of-way identified during the 

literature/archival reviews and field survey as having a moderate potential for 

paleontological resources (see Section 4.2). During excavation in stratigraphic units with 

fossil-bearing potential, the Paleontologist Monitor or Environmental Inspector will 

monitor trenching activities and examine freshly exposed surfaces during clearing and 

grading operations. The Paleontologist Monitor or Environmental Inspector will salvage 

significant fossils exposed during construction after consultation with the Project 

Paleontologist. 

2. Each significant salvaged fossil will be preliminarily identified to the lowest taxon 

possible by the Project Paleontologist before curation into the retrievable storage 

system. Specimens preserved in rock matrix will be prepared only sufficiently to provide 

a taxonomic identification. 

3. During Project construction, the Paleontological Monitor or Environmental Inspector will 

prepare reports that will be summarized by the Project Paleontologist into a brief 

quarterly report to be submitted to the FERC, CSLC, and BLM. In these quarterly status 

reports, the Project Paleontologist will briefly describe the results of the paleontological 

resource mitigation program during that quarter. 

4. During construction, if no fossil remains have been discovered after one-half of the 

excavations through any individual stratigraphic unit have been completed, upon the 

recommendation of the Project Paleontologist monitoring in that stratigraphic unit may 

be reduced or suspended entirely. 

5. At the end of the Project, the Project Paleontologist will prepare a final report of findings 

that lists and places in a scientific perspective all significant salvaged materials. 

Implementation of the mitigation measures described above will ensure protection of significant 

paleontological resources and result in compliance with Federal and State environmental 

guidelines. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.2 SITE-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES 

4.2.1 B-Line 

Results of the paleontological monitoring conducted during the construction of the A-Line in 

2002 are summarized in Table K-1. Based on the archival research and monitoring undertaken 

during the construction of the A-Line, monitoring of B-Line construction by a paleontologist is 

planned only through MPs 27 to 29, where the outer edge of the Bouse Formation is crossed. 

4.2.2 IID Lateral 

Based on low sensitivity of the stratigraphic units crossed by the IID Lateral, spot monitoring is 

planned. Between MP 27.6 to MP 46, spot monitoring recommended unless excavation 

unearths coarse beach intervals or thicker sand/gravel lenses. In the latter event, probability for 

fossils rises to high in those intervals and continuous monitoring is recommended. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-10 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

5.0 FOSSIL EXTRACTION 

The overall probability of discovery of salvageable fossils is at best only moderate in even the 

most promising intervals of this proposed right-of-way. If salvageable fossils are encountered, 

they would most likely be individual separate (disarticulated) bones of larger mammals such as 

elephants or other hoofed taxa like horses or bison. Predators, because of their inherent low 

frequency in any environment, are very unlikely. 

Owing to the virtually unconsolidated nature of nearly all intervals of the multiple stratigraphic 

units along the right-of-way, the extraction of any fossil remains here would be a relatively 

simple and rapid process. Extraction and removal of individual post cranial skeletal bone 

elements might even be effected without having to resort to the use of plaster field jackets. 

Skulls, particularly those of larger ungulates, would probably require plaster jackets but the 

tedium and time-consuming process of exposing, undercutting, and removal of the fossils is 

greatly eased by the unconsolidated nature of the sediments. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-11 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

6.0 CURATION AND REPORTING 

6.1 PROTOCOL FOR CURATION/REPOSITORY STORAGE OF 

FOSSILS 

Fossils encountered and judged salvageable by the Project Paleontologist along the Project 

route will be removed, stabilized, and accessed into museum collections. Museums in the 

vicinity of the right-of-way, including the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology at 

Berkeley, Los Angeles County Museum, Anza Borrego Museum, San Diego Museum of Natural 

History and the San Bernardino County Museum all maintain collections of fossils that would be 

similar to those likely to be found on the Project. Contacts with museum personnel from these 

establishments suggest they would be willing to examine a suite of fossils salvaged and select 

any materials they wished to access into their collections. 

Field collection is to follow standard strategies including, where necessary for vertebrate 

materials, plaster jackets. Materials are to be cleaned and stabilized only to the degree 

necessary for removal from the field and transport. Curation, including identification to generic 

or where possible specific levels, will proceed when materials arrive at the laboratory. Facilities 

for fossil preparation/curation are available at the Condon Museum, which is the Oregon State 

Museum of Paleontology, and that laboratory will be utilized for the initial stabilization and 

preparation of fossils. 

At all these facilities the fossils will be available for study, teaching, research, or display to the 

scientific community as well as the public at large. Disposition of all fossils, including repository 

specimen numbers, will be part of the final report. 

6.2 FINAL REPORT 

Upon completion of the work, the Project Paleontologist will prepare a final paleontology report. 

The report will include a complete faunal and floral list of all taxa recovered and salvaged as 

well as museum collection accession numbers on all fossil objects and their final disposition 

(storage). The report will also include a summary narrative on the scientific import, which will 

address both the entire collection as well as specific specimens, depending on their 

significance. 

This report will include, as prescribed by the SVP (1991, 1995, and 1996), a summary of the 

stratigraphy and lithology of fossil-bearing strata, taxonomic lists of plant and animal specimens 

noted and salvaged along the right-of-way and their scientific significance, and complete 

detailed records of the localities when collection took place (SVP 1991, 1995, 1996). In addition, 

the ultimate repository in California for each salvaged fossil along with the museum accession 

number will be recorded in addition to its identification to the lowest taxonomic level (genus 

and/or species) following stabilization and preparation to a sufficient degree that such 

identification might be made. A complete bibliography of pertinent papers on the taxa identified 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-12 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

will be part of this report. The final report will be distributed to the FERC, CSLC, BLM, BOR, 

Cibola National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and other interested parties. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX K 

February 2006 K-13 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

7.0 REFERENCES 

Brown, J. S. 1923. The Salton Sea region, California; a geographic, geologic, and hydrologic 

reconnaissance, with a guide to desert watering places. U. S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 497, 292 p. 

Dibblee, Jr., T. W. 1954. “Geology of the Imperial Valley region, California,” p. 21-28, in R. H. 

Jahns (editor), Geology of Southern California. California Division of Mines and Geology 

Bulletin 170. 

Jennings, C. W. 1967. Geologic map of California, Salton Sea Sheet. California Division of 

Mines and Geology (1:250,000 scale). 

Loeltz, O. J., B. Irelna, J. H. Robison, and F. H. Olmsted. 1975, Geohydrologic reconnaissance 

of the Imperial Valley, California. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-K, 54 

p. 

Marshall, L. G. 1976. “Paleontological salvage and federal legislation.” Journal of Paleontology, 

vol. 50, p. 346-348. 

Metzger, D. G., O. J. Loeltz, and B. Irelna. 1973. Geohydrology of the Parker-Blythe-Cibola 

area, Arizona and California. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-G, 116 p. 

Morton, P. K., 1977. Geology and mineral resources of Imperial County, California: California 

Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 7, p. 1-104. 

SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology). 1991, Standard measures for assessment and 

mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources: Society of 

Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 152, p. 2-5. 

SVP. 1995, Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic 

resources–standard guidelines: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 

163, pages 22-27. 

SVP. 1996, Conditions of receivership for paleontologic salvage collections: Society of 

Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 166, p. 31-32. 

Stone, Paul. 1990. Preliminary geologic map of the Blythe 30' by 60' quadrangle, California and 

Arizona: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF-90-497, scale 1:100,000. 

Strand, R. G. 1962. Geologic map of California, San Diego-El Centro Sheet: California Division 

of Mines and Geology (1:250,000 scale). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

DUST CONTROL PLAN 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix L 

Dust Control Plan 

Prepared by 

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

February 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................L-1

2.0 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES ON THE NBX PROJECT ................................................L-2

3.0 APPLICABLE RULES ....................................................................................................L-3

4.0 DUST CONTROL MEASURES IDENTIFIED BY RULES..............................................L-4

5.0 ADDITIONAL DUST CONTROL MEASURES ...............................................................L-5

5.1 Use of Tackifiers....................................................................................................L-5

5.2 Residential and Agricultural Areas and Highways.................................................L-5

5.3 Cross-Country Construction ..................................................................................L-5

6.0 SAFETY MEASURES FOR DUSTY CONDITIONS DURING ROW CLEARING .........L-7

7.0 MONITORING AND RECORDKEEPING.......................................................................L-8

8.0 RESPONSIBLE CONTACT ...........................................................................................L-9

LIST OF TABLES 

Table L-1: Fugitive Dust Rules ...............................................................................................L-3

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix L 

Dust Control Plan 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja), will construct the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

(Project), a new natural gas pipeline from the U.S.-Mexico border to the existing North Baja 

facilities and the El Paso Natural Gas system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. The Project includes three 

elements: the B-Line, which includes interconnection facilities in Ehrenberg, Arizona, as well as 

a 79.8-mile, 42- and 48-inch-diameter pipeline between Blythe and the Mexican border; the 

Arrowhead Extension, which includes a meter station and a 2.1-mile, 36-inch-diameter pipeline 

extending from the proposed B-Line at milepost 7.4 to Southern California Gas Company’s 

existing Blythe Compressor Station; and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Lateral, a 45.7-mile, 

16-inch-diameter pipeline between North Baja’s mainline and the IID El Centro Generating 

Station. The Project will be constructed in phases, with the first phase planned for construction 

in 2007, the IID Lateral for 2008, and the final phase of the Project in 2009, pending completion 

of upstream liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facilities. 

Construction of the proposed facilities will result in fugitive dust. Fugitive dust is particulate 

matter that is suspended in the air by wind or human activities and does not come from a point 

source such as a stack. Air quality regulations require the use of control techniques to minimize 

fugitive dust emissions. The goal is to eliminate visible airborne fugitive dust to the extent 

possible, given the construction techniques and requirements. This plan is designed to reduce 

fugitive dust emissions to a minimum from the Project. 

There are several reasons to control fugitive dust. First, Imperial County is not currently in 

compliance with the U.S. Environmental Policy Act (EPA) Clean Air standards with regards to 

particulate matter under 10 microns or under 2.5 microns (abbreviated PM10 and PM2.5, 

respectively) (http://www.epa.gov/airtrends). Thus it is important that this Project not worsen the 

existing situation. Second, fugitive dust can cause respiratory distress, not only in the 

construction workers and nearby residents, but also in nearby wildlife. Fugitive dust can obscure 

visibility to the point of creating a safety hazard. Finally, fugitive dust can be evidence of soil 

loss through wind erosion. Fugitive dust can be created directly from the activities involved in 

pipeline construction, such as vegetation removal, grading, trenching, backfill, or topsoil 

replacement. Vehicles and equipment moving rapidly on unsurfaced roads and work areas can 

also create dust, while significant wind action on spoil piles or topsoil storage areas is yet 

another source of dust. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.0 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES ON THE NORTH BAJA PIPELINE 

EXPANSION PROJECT 

Fugitive dust can be created directly from the activities involved in pipeline construction such as 

vegetation removal, grading, trenching, backfill, or topsoil replacement. Vehicles and equipment 

moving rapidly on unsurfaced roads and work areas can also create dust, while significant wind 

action on unprotected spoil piles or topsoil storage areas is yet another source of dust. These 

activities consist of a series of different operations, each with its own duration and potential for 

dust generation. In other words, emissions from any single construction site can be expected 

1) to have a definable beginning and an end, and 2) to vary substantially over different phases 

of the construction process. This is in contrast to most other fugitive dust sources, where 

emissions are either relatively steady or follow a discernable annual cycle. 

This dust control plan applies only to fugitive dust generated by construction activities and 

vehicle trips by support equipment on unpaved roads. These sources are evaluated in the 

Resource Report 9. Energy use, architectural coatings, and traffic impacts were not quantified 

because their impacts are not pertinent to, nor subject to, dust control measures. No demolition 

is required as part of this Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.0 APPLICABLE RULES 

Pipeline construction will occur in Imperial and Riverside counties, California, and La Paz 

County, Arizona. The agencies responsible for air quality activities in these counties are: 

• Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) 

• Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) 

• Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

Permits are not required for pipeline and related aboveground facility construction emissions 

from any of the above noted agencies. However, there are applicable best management 

practices that apply to construction emissions identified by the responsible local air quality 

control agency. Table L-1 lists agency rules. 

Table L-1: Fugitive Dust Rules 

Agency Rule Number Rule Description 

R18-2-604 Construction fugitive dust limitations 

R18-2-605 Road construction fugitive dust limitations 

R18-2-606 Material handling fugitive dust limitations 

R18-02-607 Storage pile fugitive dust limitations 

R18-2-702 Visible emission limitations 

R18-2-802 Off-road machinery opacity limitations 

ADEQ 

La Paz County, AZ 

R18-2-804 Roadway and site clearing opacity limitations 

401 Visible emission limitations 

402 Nuisance 

MDAQMD 

Riverside County, CA 

403 Fugitive dust control 

401 Visible emission limitations 

407 Nuisance 

IAPCD 

Imperial County, CA 

800-805 Fugitive dust control rules 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.0 DUST CONTROL MEASURES IDENTIFIED BY RULES 

Impacts from fugitive dust would be controlled by applying the appropriate control measures 

(e.g., watering unpaved roads, covering piles, etc) as identified by each air quality control 

agency having jurisdiction over the construction areas. The following describes dust control 

measures proposed by North Baja based on the best management practices identified by 

agencies: 

• Take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from 

construction activities. 

• Take every reasonable measure to limit visible density (opacity) of emissions (VDE) to 

less than or equal to 20 percent. 

• Apply water one or more times per day to all affected unpaved roads, and unpaved 

haul and access roads. 

• Reduce vehicle speeds on all unpaved roads, and unpaved haul and access roads. 

• Clean up track-out and/or carry-out areas at paved road access points at a minimum of 

once every 48 hours. 

• If bulk transfer operations are required, spray handling and transfer points with water 

at least 15 minutes before use. 

• Cover all haul truck loads, or maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard space in each 

cargo compartment. Insure that all haul truck cargo compartments are constructed and 

maintained to minimize spillage and loss of materials, and clean or wash each cargo 

compartment at the delivery site after removal of the bulk materials. 

• Apply water to active construction areas to limit VDE to less than or equal to 20 

percent. 

• Apply water to open and/or unvegetated areas to limit VDE to less than or equal to 20 

percent. 

• For temporary surfaces during periods of inactivity, restrict vehicular access by means 

of either fencing or signage, and apply water to comply with the stabilized surface 

requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

5.0 ADDITIONAL DUST CONTROL MEASURES 

5.1 USE OF TACKIFIERS 

Use of tackifiers will be limited to spoil and topsoil piles. During construction of the A-Line in 

2002, several types of tackifiers and several methods of applying tackifiers were tried with 

generally unsatisfactory results. Tackifiers were found to work on spoil piles or other locations 

with no traffic or subsequent disturbance. In areas with repeated vehicle use, however, they 

were ineffective. To be effective, tackifiers required a compact soil surface, sufficient moisture 

holding capabilities (e.g., the presence of clays or organic matter), and/or soil structure (i.e., the 

ionic bonding of soil particles into clods, or “peds”). These soil characteristics were found to be 

absent for much of the A-Line right-of way especially in desert areas. In many places along the 

right-of-way, removal of surficial soil exposed a dry, structureless, silty C-horizon. In these soils 

the individual mineral particles entirely lack adhesion, rendering them highly susceptible to wind 

erosion. Moreover, the depth, dryness, and poor moisture holding capability of the soils allow 

them to absorb large quantities of water or water-based compounds without compacting, 

puddling, or maintaining the particle adhesion necessary to inhibit wind erosion. Similar soil 

characteristics are found along the IID Lateral. 

Additional measures proposed by North Baja related to fugitive dust control near residential and 

agricultural areas and highways, and cross-country construction are described in more detail 

below. 

5.2 RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND HIGHWAYS 

The main objective of the fugitive dust control effort is to decrease dust emissions. In Imperial 

County, the objective is to reduce dust emissions below the ICAPCD limit of 20 percent opacity 

to comply with fugitive PM10 regulations in Rules 800 through 805 of the ICAPCD. Dust will be 

controlled so that impacts to adjacent residences are kept to a minimum at all times. Fugitive 

dust emissions in agricultural and residential areas will be controlled either by the application of 

water on the construction right-of-way and access roads, by water and tackifier on topsoil and 

spoil piles, speed control on exposed surface areas, and the mechanical covering of exposed 

piles with plastic or other wind-resistant covers. 

Fugitive dust rules adopted and enforced by the Mojave Desert AQMD will apply to the portion 

of the construction route within Riverside County, i.e., Rules 401 through 403. These rules are 

similar in scope and requirements as the ICAPCD rules noted above. 

5.3 CROSS-COUNTRY CONSTRUCTION 

Topsoil Piles – For spoils and topsoil piles, a single application of a tackifier (organic polymer) 

will be sufficient to control dust until these materials are re-applied to the work area. This 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

compound will be applied once where soil conditions warrant after piles are created as a waterbased additive from a spray truck. 

Cleared Right-of-Way and Unpaved Access Roads – Water without tackifier will be applied 

as required to reduce dust. Vehicles may travel these areas immediately upon application of 

water. Given the temperature and humidity conditions present on the right-of-way, puddling of 

water, if it occurs at all, will be short term. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

6.0 SAFETY MEASURES FOR DUSTY CONDITIONS 

DURING ROW CLEARING 

In areas adjacent to highways where dust could cause poor visibility, grading activities will be 

restricted to prevent unsafe conditions. Restrictions may include applying water as close to 

earth-moving equipment as possible, slowing the speed of construction equipment, spacing 

equipment further apart, increased traffic control, or shutting down operations. North Baja will 

coordinate with the California Highway Patrol to ensure adequate traffic control measures are in 

place, including the possibility of using flaggers to control traffic if extreme low visibility 

conditions develop. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

7.0 MONITORING AND RECORDKEEPING 

Environmental Inspectors are primarily responsible for monitoring and enforcing the need for 

dust control. The contractor will implement dust control as specified above, and the 

Environmental Inspectors will be responsible for making sure that dust control is effective and 

recorded. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX L 

February 2006 L-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

8.0 RESPONSIBLE CONTACT 

The following individual(s) are responsible for the preparation, submittal, and implementation of 

this Dust Control Plan. 

Name Title Company Address Phone 

(Preparation) 

(Submittal) 

(Implementation) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX M 

DRY WASHES CROSSED BY THE 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-1 1 0.2 Colorado River Directional Drill 7S 23E 2 Blythe Perennial 840 None; avoided by 

directional drilling 

None; avoided by directional drilling 

tamarisk, willow, arrow weed 

Ri

W-2 4 16.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 2 Roosevelt 

Mine 

Seasonal 20 0.01 0.04 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-3 5 17.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 11 Roosevelt 

Mine 

Seasonal 20 0.01 0.04 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-4 5 17.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 11 Thumb Peak Seasonal 20 0.01 0.04 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-5 5 18.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 11 Thumb Peak Seasonal 10 0.01 0.02 Poaceae sp., creosote C

Sc

W-6 5 18.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 14 Thumb Peak Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 Poaceae sp., creosote C

Sc

W-7 5 18.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 14 Thumb Peak Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Poaceae sp., creosote C

Sc

W-8 5 18.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 14 Thumb Peak Seasonal 5 0.003 0.01 Poaceae sp., creosote C

Sc

W-9 5 19.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 14 Thumb Peak Seasonal 9 0.01 0.02 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-10 5 19.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 14 Thumb Peak Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-11 5 20.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 22 Thumb Peak Seasonal 10 0.006 0.02 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-12 5 20.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 22 Thumb Peak Seasonal 30 0.02 0.06 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-13 5 20.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 22 Thumb Peak Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-14 5 21.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 34 Thumb Peak Seasonal 12 0.007 0.02 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-15 5 21.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 8S 21E 34 Thumb Peak Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

W-16 6 22.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 4 Thumb Peak Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 Poaceae sp., creosote C

Sc

W-18 6 22.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 4 Thumb Peak Seasonal 50 0.03 0.09 Poaceae sp., creosote De

W

W-17 6 22.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 4 Thumb Peak Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, Palo Verde De

W

M-1

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-19 6 22.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 4 Thumb Peak Seasonal 25 0.014 0.05 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-20 6 24.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 10 Palo Verde Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 Palo Verde, creosote C

S

W-21 6 24.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 10 Palo Verde Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 white bursage, creosote C

S

W-22 6 24.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 10 Palo Verde Seasonal 10 0.006 0.018 creosote C

S

W-23 6 25.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21e 15 Palo Verde Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 smoke tree, white bursage, 

creosote 

DW

W-24 6 26.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 22 Palo Verde Seasonal 6 0.005 0.01 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-25 6 26.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 22 Palo Verde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 ironwood, creosote C

S

W-26 6 26.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 22 Palo Verde Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 Palo Verde, smoke tree D

W

W-27 6 26.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 22 Palo Verde Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-28 6 26.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 10 0.006 0.02 tamarisk, Palo Verde T

W-29 6 27.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage, 

ironwood 

CS

W-30 6 27.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 30 0.02 0.06 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-31 6 27.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 35 0.02 0.06 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-32 6 27.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 creosote shrub, Palo Verde C

S

W-33 6 27.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 20 0.01 0.04 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-34 6 27.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote shrub C

S

W-35 6 27.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-36 6 27.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 26 Cibola Seasonal 20 0.01 0.04 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

CW-1 7 28.65 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 36 Cibola Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, creosote, 

cholla sp. 

CS

M-2

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

CW-2 7 28.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 36 Cibola Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 white bursage, creosote C

S

CW-3 7 28.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 36 Cibola Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, creosote C

S

CW-4 7 29.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 36 Cibola Seasonal 150 0.09 0.3 cat claw acacia, Palo 

Verde, creosote, brittle bush, arrow weed 

DW

CW-5 7 29.25 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 9S 21E 36 Cibola Seasonal 12 0.007 0.02 cat claw acacia, Palo 

Verde, creosote, brittle bush, tamarisk 

DW

CW-6 7 30.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 3 0.002 0.01 tamarisk, arrow weed T

CW-7 7 31.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 tamarisk, creosote T

CW-8 7 31.15 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 14 0.008 0.03 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote 

DW

CW-9 7 31.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote 

DW

CW-10 7 31.35 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote, tamarisk 

T

CW-11 7 31.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 Palo Verde, creosote, 

tamarisk 

T

CW-12 7 31.55 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 14 0.008 0.03 tamarisk T

CW-13 7 31.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 13 0.007 0.02 tamarisk T

CW-14 7 31.65 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 12 0.007 0.02 tamarisk, cat claw acacia, 

creosote 

T

CW-15 7 31.75 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 11 0.006 0.02 creosote, white bursage C

S

CW-16 7 31.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 10 0.006 0.019 creosote, white bursage C

S

CW-17 7 31.85 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 9 0.005 0.017 cholla sp., cat claw acacia, 

creosote 

CS

W-56 7 32.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 35 0.02 0.06 cholla sp., creosote D

W

W-57 7 32.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 20 0.01 0.04 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

M-3

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-58 7 32.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 1 Cibola Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 ironwood, creosote D

W

W-59 7 32.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 2 Cibola Seasonal 60 0.03 0.1 Palo Verde, creosote, 

ironwood 

DW

W-60 7 32.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 2 Cibola Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 ironwood, creosote D

W

W-61 8 34.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 2 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, creosote, white 

bursage 

DW

EW-1 8 35.30a Milpitas Wash Trench 10S 21E 29 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 3749 2.2 6.9 smoke tree, cheesebush, 

acacia 

DW

EW-2 8 35.80a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 2 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 ironwood, creosote, 

brassica, krameria 

CS

EW-3 8 36.05a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 2 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, creosote, 

brassica-tourn, krameria 

DW

EW-5 8 36.15a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 2 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 creosote, ironwood, 

ambrosia, krameria 

CS

EW-6 8 36.20a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 2 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 creosote, ironwood, 

ambrosia, krameria 

CS

EW-7 8 36.35a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, ironwood, 

ambrosia 

CS

EW-12 8 36.55a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ambrosia, creosote, Palo 

Verde 

CS

EW-14 8 36.62a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, ambrosia, 

ironwood, krameria 

CS

EW-16 8 36.67a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote, ambrosia 

DW

EW-17 8 36.70a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 ironwood, Palo Verde, 

lycium, creosote 

DW

EW-22 8 37.00a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 jojoba, ironwood, creosote, 

ambrosia 

CS

EW-24 8 37.18a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote, big galleta, lycium

DW

EW-25 8 37.20a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote, big galleta, lycium

CS

EW-26 8 37.55a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 ironwood, krameria, jojoba, 

creosote, ambrosia 

CS

EW-27 8 37.70a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 21E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 75 0.04 0.1 ironwood, creosote, 

cheesebush, lycium 

DW

M-4

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

EW-28 8 38.05a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 10S 20E 3 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 75 0.04 0.1 ironwood, creosote, 

cheesebush, lycium 

DW

EW-29 8 38.40a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Palo Verde 

Peak 

Seasonal 25 0.01 0.05 galleta, creosote, ironwood C

S

EW-34 9 39.20a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 80 0.05 0.1 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote, ambrosia 

DW

EW-37 9 39.70a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 2 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 80 0.05 0.1 encelia, cheesebush, 

ironwood, creosote 

DW

EW-43 9 39.91a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 2 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 25 0.014 0.05 ironwood, ambrosia, encelia D

W

EW-44 9 39.93a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, ironwood C

S

EW-45 9 39.94a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 25 0.014 0.05 Palo Verde, cheesebush, 

ironwood 

DW

EW-47 9 40.20a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 50 0.03 0.09 ironwood, Palo Verde, 

creosote, krameria 

DW

EW-61 9 40.62a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 krameria, creosote, 

ironwood, ocotillo, ambrosia, cheesebush, encelia 

DW

EW-66 9 40.88a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, ambrosia, 

ironwood, krameria 

CS

EW-70 9 41.12a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 150 0.09 0.3 ironwood, Palo Verde, 

creosote, krameria 

DW

EW-72 9 41.25a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 100 0.06 0.2 creosote, ambrosia, 

krameria, ironwood, encelia 

CS

EW-75 9 41.55a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 ironwood, creosote, 

krameria 

CS

EW-76 9 41.57a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 ironwood, creosote, 

ambrosia, Palo Verde, cholla 

CS

EW-78 9 41.63a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, Palo Verde, 

creosote, galleta grass, ambrosia 

CS

EW-81 9 41.76a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 ironwood, Palo Verde, 

creosote, galleta, cholla 

CS

EW-83 9 41.85a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 ironwood, creosote, 

ambrosia, krameria 

CS

EW-89 9 42.25a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 1 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 ironwood, creosote, big 

galleta 

CS

M-5

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

EW-91 9 44.32a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 2 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 30 0.01 0.06 bebbia, ironwood D

W

EW-92 9 44.35a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 2 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 10 0.006 0.02 ironwood, Palo Verde, 

creosote, krameria, ambrosia 

CS

EW-95 9 44.50a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 2 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, krameria, galleta, 

ironwood 

CS

EW-98 10 42.80a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 2 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 ironwood, ambrosia, 

creosote 

DW

EW-109 10 43.59a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 2 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 100 0.06 0.2 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote, lycium 

DW

EW-111 10 43.67a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 2 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 75 0.04 0.1 ambrosia, creosote, 

brittlebush, bebbia, cheesebush 

CS

EW-126 10 44.49a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 3 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 25 0.014 0.05 lycium, bebbia, creosote, 

ironwood, krameria, brittlebush, brassica 

DW

EW-131v 10 44.90a-v Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 3 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, ironwood, 

ambrosia, galleta, krameria 

CS

EW-135v 10 45.15a-v Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 3 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 300 0.2 0.6 creosote, Palo Verde, 

ironwood, krameria 

DW

EW-135 10 45.04a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 3 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 1 0.0006 0.002 ambrosia, creosote, 

krameria 

CS

EW-136 10 45.12a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 11S 20E 3 Buzzards 

Peak 

Seasonal 70 0.04 0.1 ambrosia, creosote, 

krameria 

DW

EW-143 10 45.60a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 4 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 ironwood, jojoba, brassica, 

ambrosia, Bromus, lycium 

DW

EW-144 10 45.67a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 4 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 creosote, ambrosia, 

ironwood, brassica, krameria, acacia 

DW

EW-152 10 46.30a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 4 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 100 0.06 0.2 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

EW-162 10 47.08a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 9 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 30 0.01 0.06 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote, bebbia, galleta, lycium 

DW

EW-163 10 47.15a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 9 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 calliandra, ironwood, 

creosote, bebbia, galleta, lycium 

CS

M-6

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

EW-164 10 47.33a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 9 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 calliandra, galleta, 

ambrosia, creosote, krameria, ocotillo 

CS

EW-165 10 47.72a Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 1 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 30 0.01 0.06 ocotillo, krameria, ambrosia, 

creosote 

CS

W-146 11 48.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 1 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 Palo Verde, ironwood, white 

bursage 

CS

W-147 11 48.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 1 Mt. Barrow Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 white bursage, jojoba, Palo 

Verde 

CS

W-148 11 48.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 white bursage, fairy duster, 

Palo Verde, lycium 

CS

W-149 11 49.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 ironwood, Palo Verde C

S

W-150 11 49.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 white bursage, smoke tree, 

and Palo Verde 

CS

W-151 11 49.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, opuntia sp., 

creosote 

CS

W-152 11 49.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-153 11 49.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 10 0.006 0.02 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-154 11 50.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-155 11 50.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-156 11 50.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-157 11 50.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-158 11 50.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 50 0.03 0.1 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-159 11 51.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 3 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 20 0.002 0.04 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-160 11 51.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 3 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 25 0.014 0.05 ironwood, Palo Verde D

W

W-161 11 51.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 3 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 25 0.014 0.05 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-162 11 52.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 12S 20E 3 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 30 0.01 0.1 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

M-7

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-164 11 52.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 5 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote D

W

W-165 11 52.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 5 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ironwood D

W

W-163 11 52.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 5 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ironwood D

W

W-166 11 52.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 5 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ironwood D

W

W-167 11 52.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 5 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ironwood D

W

W-168 11 53.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 6 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 creosote, ironwood, Palo 

Verde 

DW

W-169 11 53.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 6 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage, 

ocotillo 

DW

W-170 11 53.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 6 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 wolfberry, creosote C

S

W-171 12 54.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 7 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, white bursage C

S

W-172 12 54.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, creosote, ocotillo C

S

W-173 12 54.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, creosote, ocotillo C

S

W-174 12 54.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 ironwood, creosote, jojoba C

S

W-175 12 54.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ocotillo, creosote C

S

W-176 12 54.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ocotillo, creosote C

S

W-177 12 55.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-178 12 55.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 white bursage, ironwood D

W

W-179 12 55.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 30 0.01 0.06 white bursage D

W

W-180 12 55.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 1 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, ironwood D

W

W-181 12 57.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 2 Ninemile 

Wash 

Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde C

S

M-8

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-182 12 57.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 3 Clyde Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 Palo Verde D

W

W-183 13 57.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 3 Clyde Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 Palo Verde, creosote C

S

W-184 13 58.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 13S 20E 3 Clyde Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 ironwood, Palo Verde C

S

W-185 13 59.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 5 Clyde Seasonal 12 0.007 0.02 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-186 13 59.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 5 Clyde Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-187 13 59.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 5 Clyde Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-188 13 59.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 5 Clyde Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-189 13 60.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 8 Clyde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, white bursage D

W

W-190 13 60.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 8 Clyde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-191 13 60.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 8 Clyde Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-192 13 60.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ironwood D

W

W-193 13 60.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, creosote D

W

W-194 13 61.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, white bursage, 

ironwood 

CS

W-195 13 61.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, white bursage, 

ironwood 

CS

W-196 13 61.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, white bursage, 

ironwood 

CS

W-197 13 61.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage, 

ironwood 

CS

W-198 13 61.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage, 

ironwood 

CS

W-199 13 61.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-200 13 61.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 18 0.01 0.03 Palo Verde, ironwood, white 

bursage 

DW

M-9

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-201 13 61.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, Palo Verde, 

ironwood 

DW

W-202 13 61.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 1 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, Palo Verde, 

ironwood 

DW

W-203 13 62.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, Palo Verde, 

ironwood 

CS

W-204 13 62.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-205 13 62.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ironwood 

CS

W-206 13 62.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush C

S

W-207 13 62.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo 

CS

W-208 13 62.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo 

CS

W-209 13 62.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo 

CS

W-210 13 62.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo 

CS

W-211 13 62.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 10 0.006 0.02 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

brittlebush, white bursage 

CS

W-212 14 62.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo 

CS

W-213 14 62.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo 

CS

W-214 14 62.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, ironwood 

CS

W-215 14 62.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 20 0.012 0.04 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-216 14 62.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 20 0.012 0.04 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-217 14 62.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 20 0.012 0.04 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-218 14 63.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, ambrosia dumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-219 14 63.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 11 0.006 0.02 Palo Verde, ironwood C

S

M-10

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-220 14 63.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Clyde Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, ambrosia clumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-221 14 63.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Hedges Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote 

DW

W-222 14 63.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

creosote 

DW

W-223 14 63.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, ironwood, white 

bursage 

DW

W-224 14 63.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, ironwood, white 

bursage 

DW

W-225 14 63.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 2 Hedges Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-226 14 64.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, ambrosia clumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-227 14 64.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, ambrosia clumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-228 14 64.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, ambrosia clumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-229 14 64.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

brittlebush 

DW

W-230 14 64.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

brittlebush 

DW

W-231 14 64.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

brittlebush 

DW

W-232 14 64.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

brittlebush, white bursage 

DW

W-233 14 64.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-234 14 64.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, ironwood, white 

bursage 

DW

W-235 14 64.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 14S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, ironwood, white 

bursage 

DW

W-236 14 65.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 saltbush, creosote, Palo 

Verde 

CS

W-237 14 65.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 brittlebush, fairy duster, 

creosote, white bursage 

CS

M-11

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-238 14 65.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 wolfberry, ironwood, ocotillo C

S

W-239 14 65.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 white bursage, creosote C

S

W-240 14 65.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, creosote, 

Palo Verde 

CS

W-241 14 65.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 white bursage, creosote, 

Palo Verde 

CS

W-242 14 65.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 white bursage, creosote C

S

W-243 14 66.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-244 14 66.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 12 0.007 0.02 Palo Verde, ironwood D

W

W-245 14 66.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Hedges Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 ironwood, creosote C

S

W-246 14 66.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, creosote C

S

W-247 14 66.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 1 Hedges Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, creosote, 

ocotillo 

CS

W-249 14 67.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ironwood, creosote, white 

bursage 

CS

W-250 14 68.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 10 0.006 0.02 Palo Verde, ironwood C

S

W-251 15 68.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 Palo Verde, creosote C

S

W-252 15 68.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 white bursage, ocotillo, 

ironwood 

CS

W-253 15 68.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 Palo Verde, creosote C

S

W-254 15 68.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 ironwood, Palo Verde C

S

W-255 15 68.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 ironwood, creosote C

S

W-256 15 69.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 Palo Verde, creosote C

S

W-257 15 69.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, Palo Verde, white 

bursage 

CS

M-12

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-258 15 69.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, ironwood C

S

W-259 15 69.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 ironwood, white bursage, 

creosote 

CS

W-260 15 69.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 10 0.007 0.02 Palo Verde, creosote, white 

bursage 

CS

W-261 15 69.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, Palo Verde, white 

bursage 

CS

W-262 15 69.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 Palo Verde, creosote C

S

W-263 15 69.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage, 

ironwood 

CS

W-264 15 70.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 7 0.004 0.02 Palo Verde, ironwood, white 

bursage 

CS

W-265 15 70.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 Palo Verde, creosote C

S

W-266 15 70.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-267 15 70.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, white bursage, 

ironwood 

CS

W-268 15 70.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ironwood C

S

W-269 15 70.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, ironwood C

S

W-270 15 70.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, Palo Verde, white 

bursage, ironwood 

CS

W-271 15 70.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 creosote, ironwood C

S

W-272 15 70.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 creosote, ironwood, white 

bursage 

CS

W-273 15 70.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 white bursage, creosote C

S

W-274 15 70.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, creosote C

S

W-275 15 71.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, smoke tree, white 

bursage 

CS

W-276 15 71.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 8 0.005 0.015 smoke tree, ironwood, white 

bursage, creosote 

CS

M-13

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-277 15 71.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 milkweed, creosote, 

ironwood 

CS

W-278 15 71.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-279 15 71.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 smoke tree, creosote, white 

bursage 

CS

W-280 15 71.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 white bursage, creosote C

S

W-281 15 71.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 15S 20E 3 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-282 15 71.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 ironwood, creosote, white 

bursage 

CS

W-283 15 71.9 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, ironwood, white 

bursage 

CS

W-284 15 72.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 12 0.007 0.02 ironwood, creosote, white 

bursage 

CS

W-285 15 72.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 6 0.003 0.01 Palo Verde, ironwood, 

ocotillo, white bursage 

CS

W-286 15 72.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-287 15 72.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-288 15 72.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, white bursage, 

ocotillo 

CS

W-289 15 72.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 10 0.006 0.02 creosote, white bursage C

S

W-290 16 73.3 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote, smoke tree, 

ocotillo, ambrosia, brittlebush 

CS

W-291 16 73.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 4 0.002 0.007 creosote, smoke tree, 

ocotillo, ambrosia, brittlebush 

CS

W-292 16 74.4 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, smoke tree, 

ocotillo, ambrosia, brittlebush 

CS

W-293 16 74.6 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ambrosia 

dumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-294 16 74.7 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ambrosia 

dumosa, milkweed 

CS

M-14

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
TABLE M-1 (cont’d) 

Dry Washes Crossed by the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Map I.D. No. 

Map 

Page 

Entering Milepost Drainage Name 

Construction 

Method 

Township 

Range 

Section 

USGS 

7.5-minute 

Quadrangle 

Seasonal 

or Perennial 

Width 

(feet) 

Project Impact 

(acres) 

A-Line Impact 

(acres) Vegetation 

W-295 16 74.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 1 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, ambrosia 

dumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-296 16 75.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, ambrosia clumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-297 16 75.1 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ambrosia dumosa, larrea 

tridentata 

CS

W-298 16 75.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 2 0.001 0.004 ambrosia dumosa, larrea 

tridentata 

CS

W-299 16 75.2 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 3 0.002 0.006 creosote, brittlebush, 

ocotillo, ambrosia clumosa, milkweed 

CS

W-300 16 75.5 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 5 0.003 0.009 creosote C

S

W-301 16 75.8 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Ogilby Seasonal 15 0.009 0.03 creosote C

S

W-302 17 77.0 Unnamed 

Drainage 

Trench 16S 20E 2 Grays Well Seasonal 3 0.003 0.006 creosote C

S

7948 4.08181 13.05418 

M-15

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX N 

FIRE PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION PLAN 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix N 

Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan 

Prepared for: 

United States Department of the Interior (USDI) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Arizona State Office 

California State Office 

May 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX N 

North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan 

1. Introduction 

The Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Fire Plan) identifies measures to be taken by North 

Baja Pipeline, LCC (North Baja) and its contractors (Contractor) to ensure that fire prevention 

and suppression measures are carried out in accordance with Federal, State, and local 

regulations. Measures identified in this Fire Plan apply to work within the project area defined as 

the right-of-way (ROW), access roads, all work and storage areas, whether temporary or 

permanent, and other areas used during construction and operation of the project. This Fire Plan 

was developed in accordance with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) ROW Plans of Development and Grants, BLM Manual Handbook H-2901-

1. 

2. Purpose 

The risk of fire danger during pipeline construction is related to smoking, refueling activities, 

operating vehicles and other equipment off roadways, welding activities, and the use of 

explosive materials and flammable liquids. During pipeline operation, risk of fire is primarily 

from vehicles and pipeline maintenance activities that require welding. 

This Fire Plan establishes standards and practices that will minimize risk of fire danger and, in 

case of fire, provide for immediate suppression. 

3. Responsibilities and Coordination 

This Fire Plan will be implemented by North Baja and the Contractor on the North Baja Pipeline 

Expansion Project (Project). North Baja and the Contractor have the responsibility for providing 

all necessary fire-fighting equipment on the project site to their respective employees, and 

operating under the requirements of this Fire Plan. Prior to construction, North Baja will contact 

the appropriate fire control authorities to establish communications, obtain any required permits 

(such as burning or fire waiver permits prior to conducting any heavy equipment or burning 

activities), and/or fulfill other obligations as directed by fire control authorities. In addition to the 

above, North Baja will: 

•

•

•

Ensure that prevention, detection, pre-suppression, and suppression activities are in 

accordance with this Fire Plan and Federal, State, and county laws, ordinances, and 

regulations pertaining to fire; 

Accompany agency representatives on fire tool and equipment inspections and take 

corrective action upon notification of any fire protection requirements that are not in 

compliance; and 

Restrict operations on Federal lands during conditions of high fire danger as directed by the 

BLM as described in Section 4.1.11, Restricted Operations. 

May 2006 N-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX N 

The fire prevention and suppression measures described in this Fire Plan will be in effect from 

pre-construction to the end of restoration. These restrictions may change by advance written 

notice by fire control authorities. However, required tools and equipment will be kept in 

serviceable condition and will be immediately available at all times. 

4. Fire Prevention Measures 

Methods and procedures that will be implemented prior to and during construction, operation, 

maintenance and termination of the project to minimize the risk of fire are described below. 

a. Training 

The Contractor will train all personnel about the measures to take in the event of a fire. The 

Contractor will also inform each construction crew member of fire dangers, locations of 

extinguishers and equipment, and individual responsibilities for fire prevention and suppression 

during regular safety briefings. Smoking and fire rules also will be discussed with the Contractor 

and all field personnel during the project’s environmental training. 

b. Smoking 

Smoking is prohibited except in areas cleared and graded a minimum of 10 feet in diameter to 

mineral soil. All burning tobacco and matches will be extinguished before discarding. Smoking 

also is prohibited while operating equipment or vehicles, except in enclosed cabs or vehicles. 

Smoking is never permitted in any area designated by DANGER or NO SMOKING signs. 

Smoking is not permitted in these areas regardless of any other factor. Smoking is not permitted 

on the pipeline ROW. Smoking is only permitted on access roads, within vehicles, and in 

approved smoking areas as described in the paragraph above. 

c. Spark Arresters 

During construction, operation, maintenance and termination of the ROW, all equipment 

operating with an internal combustion engine will be equipped with federally approved spark 

arresters. Spark arresters are not required on trucks, buses, and passenger vehicles (excluding 

motorcycles) that are equipped with an unaltered muffler or on diesel engines equipped with a 

turbocharger. Agency fire inspection officers will have full authority to inspect spark arresters on 

project equipment prior to its use on the project on Federal lands and periodically during the 

construction project. 

d. Parking, Vehicle Operation, and Storage Areas 

In no case will motorized equipment, including worker transportation vehicles, be driven or 

parked outside of the designated and approved work limits. Equipment parking areas, the ROW, 

staging areas, designated vehicle-parking areas, and small stationary engine sites, where 

permitted, will be cleared of all flammable material. Clearing will extend a minimum of 2 feet 

beyond the edge of the area to be occupied, but not beyond the boundaries of the approved 

ROW, extra workspace or ancillary site. Glass containers will not be used to store gasoline or 

other flammables. 

May 2006 N-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX N 

e. Equipment 

All motor vehicles and equipment will carry at least one long handled (48 inch minimum) round 

point shovel, a double-bit ax or Pulaski (3.5 pounds or larger) and one dry chemical fire 

extinguisher (with a UL rating of at least 5B or C). Individuals using power saws and grinders 

will have a shovel as described above, and an 8-ounce capacity fire extinguisher immediately 

available. All equipment will be kept in a serviceable condition and readily available. 

The Contractor shall maintain a list, to be provided to local fire protection agencies, of all 

equipment which is either specifically designed for or capable of being adapted to fighting fires. 

The Contractor shall provide basic fire fighting equipment on-site during construction, including 

fire extinguishers, shovels, axes and other tools in sufficient number so that each employee on 

site can assist in the event of a fire-fighting operation. See Attachment A, Contractor’s 

Specification for Fire Prevention and Control, for a complete list of equipment that the North 

Baja requires the Contractor to provide at various locations on the project site. 

f. Road Closures 

The Contractor will notify the appropriate fire suppression agency of the scheduled closures 

prior to the open cut crossing of a road. If required, the Contractor will construct a bypass prior 

to the open-cut installation of a road crossing, unless a convenient detour can be established on 

existing project approved roads or within project approved work limits. All bypasses will be 

clearly marked by the contractor. During road closures the Contractor will designate one person, 

who knows the bypass, to direct traffic. The Contractor will minimize, to the extent possible, the 

duration of road closures. 

g. Refueling 

Fuel trucks will have a large fire extinguisher charged with the appropriate chemical to control 

electrical and gas fires. The extinguisher will be a minimum size 35-pound capacity with a 

minimum 30 B.C. rating. Power saw refueling will be done in an area that has first been cleared 

of material that could catch fire. 

h. Burning 

No burning of slash, brush, stumps, trash, explosives storage boxes, or other project debris will 

be permitted on the project. No lunch or warming fires or barbecue grills will be allowed. 

i. Flammable Liquids and Explosives 

The handling and use of explosives shall be conducted in strict conformance with all local, State, 

and Federal regulations as detailed in North Baja’s construction specification on Blasting. 

j. Fire Guard 

The Contractor will designate a Fire Guard on each construction crew prior to the start of 

construction activities each day. The Fire Guard must be physically able, vigilant, and suitably 

trained to detect fires and use required fire-fighting equipment, according to the requirements 

specified in this Fire Plan. An alternative or back-up Fire Guard will be designated to assume 

responsibility if the primary Guard is unavailable to perform his or her duties. The Contractor 

will provide, if required by North Baja, additional fire watch people with radio communication to 

the Fire Guard if the construction activity becomes too wide spread for one Fire Guard to 

May 2006 N-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX N 

manage effectively. 

k. Fire Guard Communications 

The Fire Guard will be responsible for maintaining contact with fire control agencies and will be 

equipped with a radio or cellular telephone so immediate contact with local fire control agencies 

can be made. If cellular telephone coverage is not available, the Fire Guard will use the 

contractor’s frequency to contact their radio base at the Contractor’s yard. From there, yard 

personnel will telephone emergency dispatch. 

l. Welding 

One 5-gallon back-up pump will be required with each welding unit in addition to the standard 

fire equipment required in all vehicles. All equipment will be kept in a serviceable condition and 

readily available. 

m. Restricted Operations 

The Contractor will restrict or cease operations on Federal lands during periods of high fire 

danger at the direction of the BLM Fire Management Officer. Restrictions may vary from 

stopping certain operations at a given time or stopping all operations. North Baja may obtain 

approval to continue some or all operations if acceptable precautions are implemented. A written 

waiver must be issued to the Contractor. 

The responsible BLM Fire Management Officer will notify North Baja the previous day if fire 

danger predictions call for restrictions the following day. If a sudden change in fire danger 

requires restrictions during the day, the BLM Fire Management Officer will notify North Baja 

immediately. North Baja will immediately notify the Contractor of restricted activities. 

n. Monitoring 

Construction and Environmental Inspectors for North Baja will inspect the job site and the 

Contractor’s operations for compliance with all provisions of this Fire Plan. In addition, Federal 

State, and local fire control agencies may perform inspections in areas under their jurisdiction at 

their discretion. 

o. Pipeline Operation and Maintenance 

During pipeline operation, the risk of fire danger is minimal. The primary causes of fire on the 

ROW result from unauthorized entry by individuals utilizing the ROW for recreational purposes 

and from fires started outside the ROW. In the latter case, authorities can use the ROW as a 

potential firebreak. After the completion of pipeline construction, North Baja will block access in 

some locations to the ROW in coordination with the land managing agencies to minimize 

recreational use of the ROW. However, most of the ROW is in relatively flat terrain where there 

is no realistic way to block access. BLM’s restricted routes of travel will help to limit 

recreational access. North Baja’s maintenance and patrol personnel will be equipped with basic 

fire-fighting equipment including fire extinguishers and shovels as described in Section 4.1.5, 

Equipment. Maintenance crews will also carry emergency response/fire control contract phone 

numbers. 

May 2006 N-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX N 

5. Fire Suppression 

a. Suppression 

The Contractor will take the following actions should a fire occur within the project area during 

construction: 

•

•

•

•

•

Take immediate action to suppress fires using all available manpower and equipment; 

Notify the Fire guard; 

Immediately notify the nearest fire suppression agency of the fire location, action taken, and 

status (see Section 6.2); 

Immediately notify North Baja of the fire location and action taken; and 

Relinquish the Fire Guard’s direction of fire suppression activities to agency fire 

management officers upon their arrival. 

Note: If required, personnel may leave the ROW boundaries ONLY to accomplish fire 

suppression. Heavy equipment is not to leave the ROW to suppress a fire unless directed by a 

BLM Representative on Federal lands or by the State or local authorities on private or State 

lands. 

If a reported fire is controlled, the Fire guard will note the location and monitor the progress in 

extinguishing the fire. The Fire Guard, or his/her designee, will remain at the fire scene until it is 

fully extinguished. The extinguished fire will be monitored in accordance with procedures 

described in Section 5.2 below. 

When reported by the BLM Fire Management Officer, the Contractor will make any equipment 

and personnel currently at the site temporarily available for fighting fires in the vicinity of the 

project. Payment of such services will be made at rates determined by the BLM Fire 

Management Officer. 

b. Monitoring 

The Contractor will mark the location and boundaries of all extinguished fires. The extinguished 

fire site will be monitored by the contractor for a minimum of 24 hours. Monitoring includes 

walking the fire site perimeter, as well as crossing through the site. The Fire Guard will maintain 

a log of all extinguished fire locations for future reference. 

c. Notification 

Construction crew members will report all fires, whether extinguished or controlled, to the Fire 

Guard. If the fire is uncontrolled, the Contractor’s Fire Guard will call the nearest fire 

suppression agency (911) and the North Baja Lead Environmental Inspector. Information 

regarding the location of the fire, property ownership, and closest access roads should be 

reported to the 911 operator and North Baja. 

If a reported fire is controlled, but not extinguished, the fire guard will call to notify the nearest 

police/fire authorities (see Section 6.2) using the non-emergency telephone line to alert them of 

the situation. The status of the fire will be monitored by the Fire Guard and when extinguished 

the nearest fire suppression agency will be notified. 

May 2006 N-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX N 

North Baja will also immediately contact the nearest landowner(s). North Baja will maintain and 

provide the Contractor with an up-to-date list of landowner and land management agency 

contacts along the pipeline ROW. 

d. Emergency Contacts 

Construction Phone Number Office Location BLM Contact 

Arizona 

La Paz County 911 

311 

520-669-2281 

Emergency Number 

Non-emergency Number 

County Sheriff’s Office 

California 

Riverside County 911 Emergency Number 

County Sheriff’s Office 

(Non-emergency) 

Imperial County 911 Emergency Number 

County Sheriff’s Office 

(Non-emergency) 

May 2006 N-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX N 

ATTACHMENT A 

North Baja Construction Specifications Regarding Fire Prevention and Control 

[To be provided when construction specifications are complete.] 

May 2006 N-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX O 

SITE-SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL 

CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLANS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Non-Internet Public 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Appendix O Site-specific Residential Construction Mitigation Plans 

B-Line (all Riverside County) IID Lateral (all Imperial County) 

Page Figure Name Page Figure Name 

O-1 MP 2.92; Tract CA-RI-0200; 8580 18th Ave O-21 MP 8.90; Offline 

O-2 MP 3.3; Tract CA-RI-0210; 8691 18th Ave O-22 MP 27.84; Tract CA-IM-1460 

O-3 MP 3.62; Tract CA-RI-0252; 9201 18th Ave O-23 MP 27.94; Tract CA-IM-1480 

O-4 MP 3.64; Tract CA-RI-0253; 9231 18th Ave O-24 MP 28.12; Tract CA-IM-1510 

O-5 MP 3.72; Tract CA-RI-0262; 9260 18th Ave O-25 MP 29.54; Tract CA-IM-1610 

O-6 MP 3.75; Tract CA-RI-0263; 9300 18th Ave O-26 MP 40.44; Tract CA-IM-2220 

O-7 MP 3.77; Tract CA-RI-0264; 9360 18th Ave O-27 MP 41.40; Tract CA-IM-2260 

O-8 MP 3.84; Tract CA-RI-0280; 9400 18th Ave O-28 MP 41.42; Tract CA-IM-2270 

O-9 MP 3.92; Tract CA-RI-0290; 9511 18th Ave O-29 MP 41.94; Tract CA-IM-2310 

O-10 MP 4.23; Tract CA-RI-0340; 9826 18th Ave O-30 MP 41.99; Tract CA-IM-2320 

O-11 MP 4.42; Tract CA-RI-0400; 10100 18th Ave O-31 MP 42.12; Tract CA-IM-2360 

O-12 MP 4.64; Tract CA-RI-0440; 10220 18th Ave O-32 MP 42.89; Offline 

O-13 MP 4.93; Tract CA-RI-0450; 10531 18th Ave O-33 MP 42.92; Tract CA-IM-2450 

O-14 MP 5.25; Tract CA-RI-0500; 18th Ave O-34 MP 43.04; Tract CA-IM-2460 

O-15 MP 5.72; Tract CA-RI-0550; 11301 18th Ave O-35 MP 43.72; Tract CA-IM-2500 

O-16 MP 6.38; Tract CA-RI-0604; 11960 18th Ave O-36 MP 45.24; Offline 

O-17 MP 7.66; Tract CA-RI-0670; 12401 18th Ave O-37 MP 45.26; Offline 

O-18 MP 7.91; Tract CA-RI-0700; 13480 18th Ave O-38 MP 45.30; Offline 

O-19 MP 8.20; Tract CA-RI-0740; 1378018th Ave O-39 MP 45.32; Offline 

O-20 MP 8.66; Tract CA-RI-0771; 14231 18th Ave O-40 MP 45.36; Offline 

O-41 MP 45.40; Offline 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

February 2006 H-1-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix P 

Off-Highway Vehicle Management Plan 

Prepared by

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

February 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... P-1

2.0 SITING .......................................................................................................................... P-2

3.0 CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... P-3

4.0 OPERATION ................................................................................................................. P-4

4.1 OHV Blocking Goals and Tools .......................................................................... P-4

4.2 Assessment ........................................................................................................ P-5

4.2.1 B-Line ....................................................................................................... P-5

4.2.2 IID Lateral ................................................................................................. P-8

4.2.3 Arrowhead Extension ............................................................................... P-9

5.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ P-10

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 P-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix P 

Off-Highway Vehicle Management Plan 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project) will construct a new natural gas pipeline to 

connect with the Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline at the U.S.-Mexico border and to the existing 

North Baja facilities and the El Paso Natural Gas system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. In addition, new 

connections will be made with the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) system near 

Blythe, California, and with the Imperial Irrigation District’s (IID) El Centro Generating Station in 

El Centro, California. The proposed Project will be constructed in phases, with the first phase 

planned for construction in 2007, the IID Lateral for 2008, and the final phase of the North Baja 

Expansion in 2009, pending completion of upstream liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal 

facilities. 

The Project includes three elements: the B-Line, which includes interconnection facilities in 

Ehrenberg, Arizona, as well as a 79.8-mile, 42- and 48-inch diameter pipeline between Blythe 

and the Mexican border; the Arrowhead Extension, which includes a meter station and a 2.1-

mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline extending from the proposed B-Line at milepost (MP) 7.4 to 

SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station; and the Imperial Irrigation District Lateral (IID 

Lateral), a 45.7-mile, 16-inch diameter pipeline between the B-Line and IID’s El Centro 

Generating Station. 

Construction and operation of the Project could cause conditions that may affect adjacent lands, 

pipeline integrity, or off-highway vehicle (OHV) users. One of the near-term effects of 

construction could be disruption of established OHV use or interference with pipeline 

construction activities. One of the long-term effects of pipeline construction and maintenance is 

the increased accessibility the right-of-way may provide for OHV use into previously restricted or 

inaccessible areas. To reduce the potential for interference between pipeline construction 

activities and OHV users and inappropriate OHV use of the pipeline right-of-way, North Baja 

developed this plan to cover initial siting, construction, and operation of the pipeline. This plan is 

based on discussions with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recreation specialists and 

biologists in 2001-2002 and again in 2005, and experience gained while operating, maintaining, 

and managing the A-Line right-of-way since 2002. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

2.0 SITING 

The entire length of the B-Line will be located 25 feet west or south of the existing A-Line 

constructed in 2002. Use of the existing right-of-way does not add potential access points 

beyond those created by the A-Line and avoids creating a new right-of-way with new access 

points at some other location. 

The IID Lateral, a new pipeline, has been sited at the edge of existing road shoulders or along 

existing transmission lines for 33.8 miles of its 46-mile total length. A 7.9-mile segment is 

located within the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA), including a 5.6-mile distance 

through the Buttercup Management Area Campground, which is intensively managed for OHV 

uses. The selection of the IID Lateral route was based on an evaluation of alternative routes and 

consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), IID, BLM, and the members of the 

Technical Review Team (Cassady 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). The location of the route accounts for 

concerns that arose during those consultation meetings. 

The eastern end of the pipeline alignment (east of the All-American Canal [AAC] and Interstate 

[I-8]) will be located adjacent to an existing 500-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from MP 

0.1 to MP 2.3. This portion of the route is in the Ogilby Management Area of the ISDRA, an area 

of lighter OHV use and away from any developed recreational facilities. Between MP 2.3 and 

MP 2.6, the pipeline will be directionally drilled under I-8 and the AAC. From MP 2.6 the 

alignment continues west adjacent to the I-8 right-of-way to MP 4.4. In this segment the route 

traverses the northern edge of the Buttercup Campground, avoiding the main parking and 

vendor area by hugging the I-8 right-of-way, an alignment that was suggested by the ISDRA 

Technical Review Team (TRT) (Cassady 2005d, Appendix T). 

West of the Buttercup Campground, BLM suggested that the area between Grays Well Road 

and I-8 is less intensively used than the area to the south of Grays Well Road. Accordingly, 

North Baja considered a route in this strip between the freeway and Grays Well Road. This area 

currently contains a wood pole line and a fiber optic line (Level 3), and is also somewhat more 

constricted than it appears by a relatively wide (400-foot) CalTrans right-of-way. While early 

investigations suggested there may still be room for the 16-inch pipeline within the strip, upon 

completing a recent field survey to more accurately locate the Level 3 fiber optic conduits, 

North Baja concluded that there is not sufficient space for the pipeline within this area. 

Beginning at MP 4.4 the proposed route turns south crossing Grays Well Road and three 

electric transmission lines, which it then parallels for 1.2 miles. Other alignment adjustments 

were made in this stretch at the suggestion of BLM, with the goal of avoiding the most 

intensively used areas. At MP 5.7 the alignment crosses I-8 to an area between the freeway and 

the AAC, where there is no access for OHV users. The pipeline will cross this area between MP 

5.7 and 7.9, adjacent to an area that will be used by IID for its AAC relining project. The line will 

be drilled beneath the AAC (and exit the ISDRA) at MP 7.9. A block valve will be located at 

MP7.6. The valve is located in an area between the I-8 right-of-way and the AAC that is 

generally avoided by OHV enthusiasts because it is very difficult to access. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

3.0 CONSTRUCTION 

In the area crossed by the B-Line, OHV use is permitted only on BLM-designated routes of 

travel except between MPs 71.1 and 74.5 (see Section 4.0). Prior to construction, the right-ofway will be clearly marked on the ground. Where active construction is underway, the right-of 

way will be occupied by workers and equipment. OHV users will be directed back to designated 

routes of travel. 

Construction of the IID Lateral would normally be planned for the winter to avoid the hottest 

weather and the nesting bird season. Because peak OHV use season is from Labor Day to 

Easter and is especially high in November and December, BLM recreation planners and the 

TRT recommended that pipeline construction take place during the summer months to avoid 

conflict with the high use recreational season (North Baja 2005a, 2005b). North Baja has 

incorporated this suggestion into its proposed construction schedule. The TRT also raised 

concerns that various recreational activities might conflict with the pipeline if it was buried at 

standard depths. In response to these concerns, the pipeline will be buried to ensure 6 feet of 

cover (3 feet greater than typical pipeline depths) between MPs 2.7 and 5.7. 

During construction, the work area within the ISDRA will be fenced to prevent recreational users 

from entering the construction area. Because this will represent a short-duration recreational 

use restriction in a limited area during the low-use season, this will not constitute a significant 

impact. Surface contours will be re-established once the pipeline has been installed. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.0 OPERATION 

Where the pipeline will be located in areas of authorized OHV use such as between MPs 71.1 

and 74.5 of the B-Line and MPs 2.3 to 7.9 of the IID Lateral (both segments are in the ISDRA), 

the pipeline right-of-way will not be restricted for OHV use, so no significant impact on 

recreational use will result with respect to normal pipeline operations. Short-term recreational 

impacts could result from operation and maintenance activities if North Baja needed to perform 

major maintenance work, such as pipeline repairs; however, such major work would occur 

seldom, if ever. Routine maintenance at block valves will occur inside the fenced valve yard and 

will not affect recreational use. During operation, North Baja will maintain a rigorous program of 

inspection to ensure that underground facilities are properly marked and the integrity of the 

pipeline is intact. In areas outside of the ISDRA where OHV use is supposed to be confined to 

designated roads and trails, North Baja will employ appropriate OHV blocking tools. 

4.1 OHV BLOCKING GOALS AND TOOLS 

Based on the premises that OHV users will use the right-of-way as a road if there are no 

blocking measures, and that a relatively small investment in visual blocking can reduce OHV 

route proliferation, North Baja implemented in 2002 blocking measures at certain important 

intersecting road crossings for the A-Line. In 2002 three categories of roads were considered in 

the OHV blocking plan where crossed by the pipeline right-of-way: 

• Paved roads, 

• Existing unpaved roads, and 

• Obvious OHV tracks. 

Where the proposed right-of-way closely parallels an existing route, it was assumed that 

although the right-of-way is visible, it will not be attractive to OHV users. Inspection of the rightof-way from parallel roads during 2005 confirmed this original assumption. 

Where the right-of-way crosses one of these road types, consideration was given to one of 

several OHV blocking tools: 

• Berms will be placed across the right-of-way where it intersects an existing OHV road. 

Berm slopes shall not exceed 30 percent. 

• Berms will be placed across the right-of-way as part of erosion control, strategically 

placed to reduce visibility and mimic local topography. 

• Rock redistribution and strategic placement, without making it into a challenging obstacle 

course, will occur across the pipeline where large rock is available and such work would 

“erase” the visual cues of “road.” 

• The right-of-way will be backbladed or raked by bulldozer or by hand, to erase the traces 

of the intersection of the pipeline with an existing OHV route or dirt road. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

• Ocotillo and large cacti will be salvaged and replanted where they are available, with the 

understanding that survival criteria would not be applied because even dead specimens 

can provide convincing visual clues of “no road.” 

• Other desert species, including creosote bush scrub and desert wash woodland species 

(palo verde, ironwood, smoke tree, etc.) will also be salvaged and replanted, with the 

understanding that they would be unlikely to survive but could still provide value as a 

visual block even if they are dead. 

• Woody material removed during construction will be redistributed across the right-of-way 

used to both disguise the right-of-way and serve as “vertical mulch.” 

• No action will be taken where it is apparent that no blocking measure would prevent OHV 

use. 

4.2 ASSESSMENT 

4.2.1 B-Line 

An assessment of road crossings along the A-Line right-of-way was completed in December 

2001 through the use of aerial photographs and field verification. The substrate, terrain, 

vegetation, and other roads within the area, especially those that run parallel to the right-of-way, 

were all considered during the assessment. Additionally, North Baja and BLM conducted a joint 

survey of the pipeline route prior to construction in order to further identify and assess locations 

where visual blocking of the right-of-way will help to discourage use of the right-of-way by 

unauthorized OHV traffic. The results of that assessment are described in the OHV Blocking 

Plan (North Baja 2001). The plan related specific landscape features for 16 route segments and 

the type of blocking methods that might be successful, and identified the method selected for a 

specific road crossing. 

Because the B-Line will be located in the existing operational right-of-way for the A-Line, the 

same road crossings are still applicable. Proposed blocking measures are described below. 

Milepost 0.36 (Riviera Drive) —An earthen berm was installed across North Baja’s right-of-way 

on the western edge of Riviera Drive to discourage OHV users from accessing other parts of the 

property from that location. This has proven effective in discouraging access down the right-ofway from this location. However, OHV use on the right-of-way originating from other locations 

has been relatively heavy on the North Baja and adjacent SoCalGas rights-of-way. Based on a 

review of pre-construction aerial photography, this appears to be a continuation of an OHV use 

pattern established prior to North Baja’s existence. North Baja proposes to reconstruct the 

earthen berm at Riviera Drive after construction of the Colorado River loop and, with the 

property owner’s concurrence, will leave the right-of-way with a rougher, more hummocky 

surface, instead of the smooth finished grade that matches that adjacent ground surface. This 

may make the right-of-way less attractive as a travel way. North Baja will also offer to procure 

and install signs for the property owner, should he choose to attempt to discourage OHV access 

at the main entry points on the property (unrelated to the pipeline right-of-way). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Milepost 11.88—An existing dirt road crosses the right-of-way at MP11.88, this road also was 

used as a temporary access road to the right-of-way during A-Line construction in 2002. This 

area is very sandy and dominated by herbaceous plants and creosote bush, and the terrain is 

relatively flat. It is likely that this area will disguise itself fairly quickly with herbaceous plants, 

and thus the recommended method of visual blocking was raking and replanting of creosote 

bush. In 2005, evaluation of this revegetation effort indicated that OHV blocking efforts were 

successful. After construction of the B-Line, the right-of-way will be raked and creosote bush will 

be replanted to block OHV access. 

Mileposts 12.5, 13.25, 14.9 (Gravel Pit Road), 16.2, and 18.3 (Bradshaw Trail)—These roads 

are all existing dirt roads that intersect with the powerline access road, which runs parallel to the 

right-of-way. The substrate is sand with small gravel, and the terrain is flat. The adjacency of the 

A-Line to the existing powerline right-of-way made visual blocking measures less likely to be 

effective, and the right-of-way does not increase access into previously inaccessible areas. The 

redistribution of woody material across the right-of-way was enough to discourage OHV traffic 

from using the pipeline as a road. Evaluation of this measure in 2005 indicated that these 

measures were effective. They will be re-instituted after construction of the B-Line. 

Milepost 22.1—This major dirt road that is used by many recreational vehicle (RV) drivers to 

get to desired camping areas. The substrate and terrain are the same as above. In 2002, it was 

recommended that 3-foot berms be placed across the right-of-way at this location to discourage 

traffic from turning onto the right-of-way instead of the powerline right-of-way access road. 

Evaluation in 2005 of this measure indicated that it was effective. The same measures will be 

re-instituted after construction of the B-Line. 

Mileposts 23.97, 24.04, and 24.27—These are signed access roads that lead into a dry desert 

wash, which is then used as OHV access. The terrain is flat, and the area is thickly vegetated 

with saltbush. Respreading the cut vegetation over the right-of-way to provide sufficient blocking 

were the measures implemented at these crossings in 2002. Evaluation of these measures in 

2005 indicated that they were effective. They will be re-instituted after construction of the 

B-Line. 

Milepost 34.95 (Walter’s Camp Road)—This is a major road that parallels the bank of Milpitas 

Wash. The terrain at the area where the road crosses is hilly, so a berm could be used 

effectively to block OHV traffic and blend into the surrounding landscape. In 2002, a 3-foot berm 

was placed to the north of the road intersection because Milpitas Wash is directly south of the 

road intersection, and the bank of Milpitas Wash provided its own blocking. Evaluation of these 

measures in 2005 indicated that it was effective. It will be re-instituted after construction of the 

B-Line. 

Mileposts 35.05 to 35.73 (Milpitas Wash)—Milpitas Wash is a large desert wash that is used 

as a track for OHV users. Because the banks of the wash were restored to their original 

contours in 2002, the pipeline route to the north and south of the wash was effectively blocked 

to OHV traffic within the wash. However, to more effectively reduce the visual cues, replanting 

of desert wash trees was recommended in 2002 for areas within the right-of-way and along the 

banks where the right-of-way intersects. Evaluation of these measures in 2005 indicated that 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

they were effective, and OHV usage has not created a problem in this area. They will be reinstituted after construction of the B-Line. 

Mileposts 36.9, 41.5—The substrate along this part of the pipeline consists of desert varnish 

coated desert pavement, and the terrain is hilly. The right-of-way is approximately 250 feet off 

State Route 78 at this location. After construction of the A-Line in 2002, 3-foot-tall berms were 

constructed along the right-of-way, and backblading was also used. Evaluation of these 

measures in 2005 indicated that they were effective. They will be re-instituted after construction 

of the B-Line. 

Milepost 39.0— At this location a dirt road and a wash intersect with the right-of-way. The 

substrate and terrain at this location are the same as that of MP 36.9A, as is the location of 

State Route 78. Therefore, the visual blocking method recommended is the strategic placing of 

berms (3 feet tall) along the right-of-way, the use of backblading, or both. 

Milepost 42.25—This crossing is a desert wash that is used by OHV traffic. Because the banks 

of this wash are steep, the recontouring of the banks will provide OHV blocking. Replanting of 

desert wash vegetation will provide further visual blocking of the right-of-way. 

Milepost 47.3—This is an existing dirt road that crosses the right-of-way behind the Border 

Patrol Checkpoint along State Route 78. The substrate and terrain at this location are similar to 

that at MPs 36.9A, 39.0A, and 41.5A. Two- to three-foot tall berms along the right-of-way and 

backblading were recommended and installed in this area in 2002. Evaluation of these 

measures in 2005 indicated that they were effective. They will be re-instituted after construction 

of the B-Line. 

Milepost 49.0 (Black Mountain Road)—Black Mountain Road is a maintained dirt road. The 

road cut currently has berms on either side. The creation of 3-foot-tall berms across the right-ofway on either side of Black Mountain Road and replanting of salvaged cacti or ocotillo will 

create an effective block to OHV traffic. 

Milepost 49.4—The right-of-way parallels a powerline at this location. A powerline access road 

crosses the right-of-way within a small desert wash. The use of a 4-foot berm at the edge of the 

wash in 2002 blended into the landscape and discouraged OHV traffic from using the pipeline 

as road access. Cacti and ocotillo salvage and replanting in 2002 also discouraged OHV traffic. 

Evaluation of these measures in 2005 indicated that they were effective. They will be reinstituted after construction of the B-Line. 

Milepost 49.8—This location is similar to that at MP 49.4 in that the right-of-way parallels a 

powerline with an access road. Therefore, the blocking measure recommended and 

implemented in 2002 was a single 4-foot berm that blended into the landscape and cacti 

salvage and replanting to discourage OHV traffic from using the pipeline as a road. Evaluation 

of these measures in 2005 indicated that they were effective. They will be re-instituted after 

construction of the B-Line. 

Mileposts 50.2, 50.7, and 51.8—These three crossings are all within dry desert washes with 

desert wash trees. The wash banks were restored after construction of the A-Line to their 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

natural contours, thereby providing natural berms. Additional blocking measures included 

salvage and replanting of desert wash trees across the right-of-way on both banks of the wash. 

Mileposts 54.45 and 54.47—At this location two dirt roads intersect the right-of-way within 

approximately 125 feet of each other. The terrain is relatively flat, and the substrate is desert 

varnish-coated desert pavement. Backblading was used in 2002 to disguise the right-of-way, 

and 3-foot berms were placed across the right-of-way at the far north and south sides of the two 

roads to discourage OHV traffic on the right-of-way. These measures were effective and will be 

reinstated after construction of the B-Line. 

Milepost 54.98 (Ogilby Road)—Ogilby Road is a paved county road that leads from State 

Route 78 to I- 8. To the south of this intersection, the right-of-way parallels Ogilby Road. To 

prevent OHV traffic to the north of this intersection, a 4-foot berm was placed across the rightof-way in 2002 on the north side of the intersection. Evaluation of these measures in 2005 

indicated that they were effective because no OHV tracks were observed in this area. They will 

be re-instituted after construction of the B-Line. 

Mileposts 55.85, 56.45, 56.92, 57.05, 66.8, 67.0, 69.25, and 70.9—The right-of-way at these 

eight crossings parallels Ogilby Road. The edge of the right-of-way is within 100 feet of Ogilby 

Road. The substrate is desert varnish-coated desert pavement, and the terrain is relatively flat 

and sparsely vegetated. The adjacency to Ogilby Road made blocking measures such as 

berms, backblading, or replanting unlikely to adequately block the right-of-way. Therefore, at 

these crossing locations no action was recommended or taken in 2002. Evaluations of these 

crossing measures in 2005 indicated limited OHV traffic. A similar approach will be taken after 

construction of the B-Line. 

Mileposts 64.9 (Walker Way Road), 65.36 (County Road 8125), and 66.5 (Golden Rock 

Ranch Road)—These three roads are all maintained dirt roads that are predominantly used by 

RV drivers and other campers to get to desired camping spots. Because campers use the area, 

the right-of-way could potentially be seen as an OHV route. The maintenance of the roads has 

created berms, which were enhanced in 2002 after construction of the A-Line (to a total height 

of 4 feet) at the locations where they intersected the right-of-way to discourage drivers from 

using the right-of-way as a road. Evaluation of this measure in 2005 indicated that it was 

effective. They will be re-instituted after construction of the B-Line. 

4.2.2 IID Lateral 

Mileposts 0.0 to 7.9 (ISDRA)—This area is a recognized OHV use area. OHV blocking 

measures are unnecessary. 

Mileposts 7.9 to 46.0 (primarily Imperial County roadways)—This segment of the IID Lateral 

will be located at the edge and sometimes in the pavement of the traveled way. OHV blocking 

measures are unnecessary. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.2.3 Arrowhead Extension 

The 2.1-mile Arrowhead Extension is partially in agricultural lands with the remainder in the 

Arrowhead Boulevard right-of-way. This area does not provide access to previously restricted or 

inaccessible areas; therefore, OHV blocking measures are unnecessary. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX P 

February 2006 P-10 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

5.0 REFERENCES 

Cassady, J. 2005a. Imperial Irrigation District Meeting Notes, July 19, 2005, provided in 

Appendix T 

Cassady, J. 2005b. Bureau of Reclamation Meeting Notes, October 12, 2005, provided in 

Appendix T 

Cassady, J. 2005c. Imperial Sand Dunes Recreational Area Technical Review Committee 

Meeting Notes, October 12, 2005, provided in Appendix T 

Cassady, J. 2005d. Jennifer Wellman, Planning Director, City of Blythe, Meeting regarding 

Edgewater Development and Riviera Drive realignment, Notes, September 9, 2005. 

Cassady, J. 2006. Telephone record of conversation with Rex Wahl, Bureau of Reclamation, 

January 3, 2006, provided in Appendix T. 

Hocking, M. 2006. E-mail correspondence with A. Kirk Dimmitt, Imperial Irrigation District, 

January 25, 2006, provided in Appendix T. 

North Baja. 2001. OHV Blocking Plan, filed for the North Baja Pipeline Project, FERC 

Docket CP01-22. 

Uzdavinis, N. 2006. Barbara Burrow, Planner, City of Blythe, Meeting regarding Riviera Drive 

Development, Notes, January 18, 2006. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q 

VISUAL RESOURCE STUDY 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
North Baja Pipeline, LLC 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Appendix Q 

Visual Resource Study 

Prepared by 

1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 200 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

February 2006

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q 

February 2006 Q-i North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................Q-1

2.0 VRM PROCESS OVERVIEW .........................................................................................Q-3

2.1 VRM Planning Authority........................................................................................Q-4

3.0 B-LINE AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES........................................................................Q-7

3.1 VRM Inventory and Evaluation for Palm Springs Field Office BLM Lands (MP 

11.7 to 22.3)..........................................................................................................Q-7

3.1.1 Scenic Quality Evaluation ......................................................................Q-8

3.1.2 Sensitivity Level Analysis.....................................................................Q-11

3.1.3 Distance Zones ....................................................................................Q-13

3.1.4 Determining Interim VRM Class...........................................................Q-14

3.1.5 Contrast Rating ....................................................................................Q-14

3.1.6 Degree of Contrast...............................................................................Q-15

3.1.7 Key Observation Points for MP 11.7 to 22.3 (Palm Springs BLM 

Field Office Lands)...............................................................................Q-15

3.1.8 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met...................................Q-16

3.2 VRM Evaluation for Yuma BLM Field Office Lands (MP 22.3 - 33.8) .................Q-17

3.2.1 Key Observation Points for MP 22.3 to 33.8 (Yuma BLM Field Office 

Lands) ..................................................................................................Q-17

3.2.2 Degree of Contrast...............................................................................Q-17

3.2.3 Determining Whether Visual Management Class Objectives Are Met .Q-18

3.3 VRM Evaluation for El Centro BLM Field Office Lands (MP 33.8 to 79.8)..........Q-19

3.3.1 Key Observation Points for MP 33.8 to 79.8 (El Centro BLM Field 

Office Lands)........................................................................................Q-20

3.3.2 Comparison of KOP Views – 2002 to 2005..........................................Q-20

3.3.3 Degree of Contrast...............................................................................Q-21

3.3.4 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met...................................Q-21

3.4 Impact Summary.................................................................................................Q-21

3.4.1 B-Line MP 0.0 to 11.7 and Arrowhead Extension ................................Q-21

3.4.2 B-Line MP 11.7 to 22.3 (Palm Springs BLM Field Office Lands) .........Q-21

3.4.3 B-Line MP 22.3 to 29.7 and 31.5 to 33.8 (Yuma BLM Field Office 

Lands) ..................................................................................................Q-22

3.4.4 B-Line MP 29.7 to MP 31.5 (Yuma BLM Field Office Lands)...............Q-22

3.4.5 B-Line MP 33.8 to 79.8 (El Centro BLM Field Office Lands)................Q-23

4.0 IID LATERAL PIPELINE TO EL CENTRO....................................................................Q-24

4.1 Pilot Knob Mesa SQRU (MP 0.0 to 0.5)..............................................................Q-24

4.1.1 Key Observation Points for MP 0.0 to 0.5 (El Centro BLM Field 

Office Lands)........................................................................................Q-25

4.1.2 Degree of Contrast...............................................................................Q-25

4.1.3 Contrast Rating for the Proposed IID Lateral in Pilot Knob Mesa 

SQRU (MP 0.0 to 0.5)..........................................................................Q-25

4.1.4 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met...................................Q-26

4.2 Algodones Dunes SQRU (MP 0.0 to 7.9) ...........................................................Q-26

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q 

February 2006 Q-ii North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

4.2.1 Existing Scenic Quality.........................................................................Q-27

4.2.2 Existing Sensitivity Levels....................................................................Q-28

4.2.3 Distance Zones ....................................................................................Q-29

4.2.4 Determining VRM Classes...................................................................Q-29

4.2.5 Key Observation Points........................................................................Q-30

4.2.6 Contrast Rating for the Proposed IID Lateral in ISDRA SQRU (MP 

0.0 to 7.9).............................................................................................Q-32

4.2.7 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met...................................Q-33

4.3 East Mesa SQRU (MP 7.9 to 27.6).....................................................................Q-33

4.3.1 Existing Scenic Quality.........................................................................Q-33

4.3.2 Existing Sensitivity Levels....................................................................Q-34

4.3.3 Distance Zones ....................................................................................Q-34

4.3.4 Determining VRM Classes...................................................................Q-35

4.3.5 Key Observation Points........................................................................Q-35

4.3.6 Degree of Contrast...............................................................................Q-36

4.3.7 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met...................................Q-37

4.4 Impact Summary.................................................................................................Q-37

5.0 ARROWHEAD EXTENSION.........................................................................................Q-39

6.0 ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES......................................................................................Q-40

7.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................Q-41

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q 

February 2006 Q-iii North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Q-1: Pipeline Facilities Associated with the North Baja Expansion Project...............Q-1

Table Q-2: Aboveground Facilities Associated with the North Baja Expansion Project ......Q-2

Table Q-3: Interim Visual Resource Management Classes.................................................Q-6

Table Q-5: Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart .................................................Q-9

Table Q-6: Scenic Quality Rating Summary for the Existing Pipeline and B-Line Right-ofWay .................................................................................................................Q-11

Table Q-7: Sensitivity Level Rating for B-Line Route ........................................................Q-13

Table Q-8: BLM Rating for B-Line for MP 11.7 to 22.3 .....................................................Q-14

Table Q-9: Visual Contrast Rating.....................................................................................Q-15

Table Q-10: KOP Locations for the A-Line and B-Line........................................................Q-20

Table Q-11: VRM Class Designations by Milepost for IID Lateral Pipeline.........................Q-24

Table Q-12: KOP Location for the IID Lateral through the Pilot Knob Mesa .......................Q-25

Table Q-13: Visual Resource Management Classes of OHV Use and Camping Areas......Q-30

Table Q-14: Key Observation Point Locations in the Algodones Dunes SQRU..................Q-31

Table Q-15: Key Observation Point Location for the IID Lateral at East Mesa ...................Q-35

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Q-1 Location Map Showing Key Observation Points 

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment A A-Line (2001) and B-Line (2005) KOP Photos 

Attachment B IID Lateral (2005) KOP Photos 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
February 2006 Q-1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project

Appendix Q 

Visual Resource Study 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project) will construct a new natural gas pipeline to 

connect with the Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline at the U.S.-Mexico border and to the existing 

North Baja facilities and the El Paso Natural Gas system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. The Project 

includes three elements: the B-Line, which includes interconnection facilities in Ehrenberg, 

Arizona, as well as a 79.8-mile, 42- and 48-inch diameter pipeline between Blythe and the 

Mexican border; the Arrowhead Extension, which includes a meter station and a 2.1-mile, 36-

inch diameter pipeline extending from the proposed B-Line at milepost (MP) 7.4 to Southern 

California Gas Company’s (SoCalGas) existing Blythe Compressor Station; and the Imperial 

Irrigation District Lateral (IID Lateral), a 45.7-mile, 16-inch diameter pipeline between the B-Line 

and IID’s El Centro Generating Station. 

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the visual impact of the proposed Project. The specific 

facilities evaluated in this analysis are listed in Tables Q-1 and Q-2. The location of the Project 

is shown in Figure Q-1. 

Table Q-1: Pipeline Facilities Associated with the North Baja Expansion Project 

Facility 

Pipe 

Diameter 

(inches) 

Approximate

Milepost 

Length 

(in miles) County, State 

B-Line 

Colorado River Loop 42 0.0 to 0.5 0.5 La Paz, AZ, 

Riverside, CA 

Mainline Loop 42/48 0.5 to 79.8 79.3 Riverside, CA 

Imperial, CA 

B-Line Total 79.8 

Arrowhead Extension 36 0.0 to 2.1 2.1 Riverside, CA 

IID Lateral 16 0.0 to 45.7 45.7 Imperial, CA 

Project Total 127.6 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Table Q-2: Aboveground Facilities Associated with the North Baja Expansion Project 

Facility Approximate 

Milepost County, State 

B-Line 

 Ehrenberg Compressor Station modifications and pig receiver 0.0 La Paz, AZ 

 Rannells Trap pig launcher and receiver 11.7 Riverside, CA 

 Mainline Valve #1 0.0 Riverside, CA 

 Mainline Valve #2 5.7 Riverside, CA 

 Mainline Valve #3 11.7 Riverside, CA 

 Mainline Valve #4 11.7 Riverside, CA 

 Mainline Valve #5 28.0 Imperial, CA 

 Mainline Valve #6 41.6 Imperial, CA 

 Mainline Valve #8 75.2 Imperial, CA 

 Mainline Valve #9 75.2 Imperial, CA 

 Ogilby Meter Station modifications and pig launcher, receiver 75.2 Imperial, CA 

Arrowhead Extension 

 Two Taps at the A-Line and B-Line, Crossover Piping, and Pig 

Launcher 

0.0 Riverside, CA 

 Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station and Pig Receiver 2.1 Riverside, CA 

IID Lateral 

 Tap at mainline and pig launcher 0.0 Imperial, CA 

 IID Lateral Valve #1 0.0 Imperial CA 

 IID Lateral Valve #2 7.6 Imperial CA 

 IID Lateral Valve #3 27.2 Imperial CA 

 IID Lateral Valve #4 38.7 Imperial CA 

 El Centro Meter Station and pig receiver 45.7 Imperial CA 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

2.0 VRM PROCESS OVERVIEW 

In order to assess visual resource impacts of the Project, it is important to understand the 

methodology used for the visual impact assessment. Most of the right-of-way crosses lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM has developed a systematic 

approach to managing scenery and visual resources of landscapes, called the Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) System (BLM 2000). This system was used for the inventory of visual 

resources and evaluation of the predicted visual effects that could be created by the Proposed 

Project. 

The purpose of the BLM VRM system is twofold: 1) to manage the quality of the visual 

environment and 2) to reduce the visual impact of development activities, while maintaining 

effectiveness in the BLM’s resource programs. Managing the visual aspects of changes to the 

natural landscape is particularly important for the BLM because most activities taking place on 

BLM-administered lands involve some degree of alteration to the landscape. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) requires that public lands be 

managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and archaeological values (43 United 

States Code 1701). The BLM is concerned with managing visual impact without unduly reducing 

commodity production or limiting overall program effectiveness. 

Because the scenic value and management objectives of public lands vary, it is not practical or 

desirable to provide a uniform level of visual management for all areas administered by the 

BLM. The agency has therefore developed a system for evaluating the visual resources of a 

given area and for determining what degree of protection, rehabilitation, or enhancement is 

desirable and possible. 

The VRM system is an analytical process that identifies, sets, and meets objectives for 

maintaining scenic values and visual quality. It functions in two ways: 

First, for management purposes, the BLM conducts an inventory that evaluates visual resources 

on all lands under its jurisdiction (Inventory/Evaluation). Once inventoried and analyzed, lands 

are given relative visual ratings (Management Classification). The development of Visual 

Management Classes is not project-specific. It is a general process to identify broad visual 

objectives for all public lands during land management planning processes. 

Visual Management Classes are established through the resource management planning 

(RMP) process for all BLM-administered lands. During the RMP process, the Class boundaries 

are adjusted as necessary to reflect the resource allocation decisions made in RMPs. In 

accordance with BLM Manual 8400 (April 5, 1984), it is BLM policy that “interim visual 

management objectives” are established where a project is proposed and there are no RMP 

approved Visual Management Classes. These interim objectives are developed using the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

guidelines in Manual Section 8410 and must conform to the land use allocations set forth in the 

RMP, which covers the project area. The establishment of interim VRM objectives will not 

require a plan amendment unless the project itself requires one. 

Secondly, when any development is proposed – whether it is proposed by the BLM itself 

through its planning process, or by other agencies, or by the private sector – the degree of 

contrast between the proposed activity and the existing landscape is measured utilizing a 

methodology called “Contrast Rating”. 

The assessment of Project visual resource impacts is presented in four parts: 1) B-Line, 2) IID 

Lateral, 3) Arrowhead Extension; and 4) aboveground facilities. 

2.1 VRM PLANNING AUTHORITY 

The North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project will cross public lands administered by three 

different field offices of the BLM: Palm Springs Field Office (B-Line MP 11.7 to 22.3); Yuma 

Field Office (B-Line MPs 22.3 to 33.8); and El Centro Field Office (B-Line MPs 33.8 to 79.8, and 

MPs 0.0 to 27.6 of the IID Lateral). Each of these BLM offices handles visual resource 

management differently. 

Lands crossed by the B-Line under the jurisdiction of the BLM-Palm Springs Field Office, from 

MP11.7 to 22.3, do not have a formally designated Visual Management Class through the RMP 

process , and the BLM did not formally correlate Multiple-Use Class designations with VRM 

classifications (Jim Foote, BLM, 2004). However, since these lands have not been classified by 

the BLM and are also located within the CDCA, the CDCA Plan requires that each project 

develop “Interim VRM Classes and Objectives” (BLM 1980). Interim objectives were developed 

and included in the Visual Resource Study for the 2002 North Baja Project, and a detailed 

description of the process used to develop Interim VRM Classes was presented for that project. 

A synopsis of that process follows in this report for MP 11.7 to 22.3. 

Visual resource classifications for lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM-Yuma Field Office are 

outside the CDCA (B-Line MPs 22.3 to 33.8). These lands are designated by the current RMP 

as Visual Management Class III. (Aaron Curtis, BLM, 2006; BLM 1987). The BLM Yuma Field 

Office is currently updating their RMP and VRM maps displayed at planning Open Houses have 

shown the entire California State Route 78 utility corridor as Visual Management Class III. Some 

surrounding lands have Class II because of extensive cultural resources. The new RMP may be 

adopted by the end of 2006. 

Public lands administered by the BLM-El Centro Field Office (B-Line MPs 33.8 to 79.8) are 

based directly on the Multiple-Use Class designations developed through the CDCA Plan (Larry 

Caffey, BLM, 2005; BLM 1980). The Multiple-Use Class – VRM Class associations for lands 

administered by the El Centro field office are: 

• Multiple-Use Class “C” = VRM Class I 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

• Multiple-Use Class “L” = VRM Class II 

• Multiple-Use Class “M” = VRM Class III 

• Multiple-Use Class “I” = VRM Class IV 

For public lands administered by the BLM-El Centro Field Office and crossed by the IID Lateral 

(IID MPs 0.0 to 27.6) Visual Management Classes are based directly on the Multiple-Use Class 

designations developed through the CDCA Plan (Larry Caffey, BLM, 2005). 

Visual Management Classes describe the different degrees of modification allowed to the basic 

elements of the landscape. 

Class I. Natural ecological changes and very limited management activity are allowed. Any 

contrast created within the characteristic landscape must not attract attention. This classification 

is applied to wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other similar situations. 

Class II. Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) caused by a 

management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. Contrasts are seen, 

but must not attract attention. 

Class III. Contrasts to the basic elements caused by management activity are evident, but 

should remain subordinate to the existing landscape. 

Class IV. Any contrast attracts attention and is a dominant feature of the landscape in terms of 

scale, but it should repeat the form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape. 

Class V. This classification is applied to areas where the natural character of the landscape has 

been disturbed to a point where rehabilitation is needed to bring it up to one of the four other 

classifications. The classification also applies to areas where there is potential to increase the 

landscape’s visual quality. It will, for example, be applied to areas where unacceptable cultural 

modification has lowered scenic quality; it is often used as an interim classification until 

objectives of another class can be reached. 

Table Q-3 (derived from BLM 1986a) was used in 2001 to determine the Interim Visual 

Management Classes for the North Baja Pipeline. Because these same lands will be crossed by 

the B-Line from MP 11.7 to 22.3, in the BLM Palm Springs area, this table was used again in 

this report: 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Table Q-3: Interim Visual Resource Management Classes 

Visual Sensitivity H H H M M M L 

Special Areas I I I I I I I 

Scenic Quality A II II II II II II II 

Scenic Quality B III III III III IV IV IV 

Scenic Quality C III IV IV IV IV IV IV 

Distance Zones FG/MG BG SS FG/MG BG SS SS 

Note: Class V areas are those that have been identified in the VRM planning system which 

require rehabilitation or enhancement and therefore are not included in the chart above. 

On BLM lands the proposed B-Line route crosses VRM Classes II, III, and IV lands (24.9, 23.5, 

and 6.8 miles, respectively). The IID Lateral crosses VRM Class II lands (20.8 miles) and VRM 

Class IV lands (4.9 miles). 

Table Q-4 displays the various VRM Class objectives by Milepost and by Jurisdiction. 

Table Q-4: VRM Class Designations by Milepost 

VRM Class) Milepost I II III IV 

B-Line

0.0-0.2 - - - - 

0.2-3.4 - - - - 

3.4-11.7 - - - - 

11.7-14.5 - - 2.7 

14.5 - 14.8 - - - 

14.8-17.3 - - 2.5 

17.3 - 17.6 - - 0.3- 

17.6 - 18.1 - - 0.5 

18.1 - 18.3 - - - - 

18.3 - 19.3 - - 0.8- 

19.3-22.3 - - - - 

22.3 – 33.8 - - 4.2 - 

33.8 - 34.5 - 0.7 - 

34.5 – 39.6 - 4.9 - - 

39.6 – 49.0 - 9.1 - - 

49.0 – 52.0 - - 3.0 - 

52.0 – 55.1 - 3.1 - - 

55.1 – 62.0 - - 6.9 - 

62.0 – 66.0 - 4.0 - - 

66.0 – 71.3 - - 4.4 - 

71.3 – 75.5 - 3.8 - - 

75.5 – 79.8 - - 4.3 - 

IID Lateral 

0.0 – 2.3 - 2.3 - - 

2.3 – 7.2 - - - 4.9 

 7.2 – 27.6 -- 18.5 -- - 

 27.6 - 45.6 - - - - 

Arrowhead Extension

 0.0-2.1 - - - - 

TOTALS 0 45.7 23.5 11.7 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

3.0 B-LINE AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES 

The B-Line will be located adjacent to the existing A-Line, generally offset 25 feet to the west 

side. The existing A-Line was approved in 2002 and constructed in spring and summer of 2002. 

Landscape restoration was completed in fall of 2002. Subsequently in the winter of 2004-2005, 

precipitation was received in the California Desert that was reported to be of a magnitude of 

“once-in-100-years.” Revegetation of the pipeline right-of-way has been somewhat dramatic 

because of this precipitation. In order to document the visual effects of the existing pipeline 

construction activities and the effectiveness of mitigation measures undertaken during the initial 

phases of construction, operation and maintenance, this Visual Resource Study documents the 

changes that occurred at each of the eight Key Observation Points of the original mainline 

pipeline, called the “A-Line.” Additionally, photographs were taken to show the visual effects of 

the mainline construction from the Mexican border to Ehrenberg Compressor Station near 

Blythe, California. These photographs proficiently show the visual effects of pipeline 

construction, operation and maintenance in the desert environment, and therefore, aid in the 

assessment of future visual effects of the proposed Project (see Attachment A). 

3.1 VRM INVENTORY AND EVALUATION FOR PALM SPRINGS 

FIELD OFFICE BLM LANDS (MP 11.7 TO 22.3) 

The visual resources inventory consists of a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, 

and a delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, BLM-administered lands 

from MP 11.7 to 22.3 were placed into one of four visual resources inventory classes. These 

inventory classes represent the relative value of the visual resources, Class I and II being the 

most valued, Class III representing a moderate value, and Class IV being of least value from a 

scenic standpoint. The inventory classes provide the basis for considering visual values in the 

RMP process. 

The California Desert Conservation Area Plan (BLM 1980), as amended, identifies the following 

actions the BLM will take to effectively manage for activities involving alteration of the natural 

character of the landscape to some degree: 

1. The appropriate levels of management, protection, and rehabilitation of all public 

lands in the CDCA will be identified, commensurate with visual resource 

management objectives in the multiple-use guidelines. 

2. Proposed activities will be evaluated to determine the extent of change created in 

any given landscape and to specify appropriate design or mitigation measures using 

the BLM’s contrast rating process. 

Because in 2001, Visual Management Classes had not been adopted by the BLM in an RMP for 

Federal lands crossed by the A-Line, North Baja used BLM methodology to inventory, evaluate 

and establish Interim VRM objectives. The Visual Resource Management Report prepared by 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

North Baja and included as an appendix in the 2002 North Baja Pipeline EIS for the A-Line 

identified Interim VRM objectives utilizing the guidelines set forth in BLM Handbook 8410 (BLM 

1986a). These objectives conformed to the land use allocations set forth in the CDCA Plan that 

covers the Project area. The methodology utilized to develop these interim VRM objectives is 

explained in the sections below, including scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity levels, and 

distance zones. A similar approach has been used for the Project facilities from MP 11.7 to 

22.3. For areas that have a Visual Management Class objective based on a Multiple-Use Class, 

there is an explanation of the differences, if any. 

3.1.1 Scenic Quality Evaluation 

Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of a tract of land. In the visual resource 

inventory process, public lands are given an A (distinctive scenery), B (common scenery), or C 

(minimal or low scenic value) rating based on the existing scenic quality which is determined 

using seven key factors: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and 

cultural modifications (see Table Q-5). An important premise of the evaluation is that all public 

lands have scenic value, but areas with the most variety and most harmonious composition 

have the greatest scenic value. Another important concept is that the evaluation of scenic 

quality is done in relationship to the natural landscape. This does not mean that man-made 

(cultural) features within a landscape necessarily detract from the scenic value. Man-made 

features that compliment the natural landscape may enhance the scenic value, such as split rail 

fences or log cabins. 

To conduct a scenic quality evaluation, a planning area is subdivided into scenic quality rating 

units. Rating areas are delineated on the basis of the following: 

1. Like physiographic characteristics 

2. Similar visual patterns, texture, color, variety, etc. and 

3. Areas which have similar impacts from man-made modifications. 

The size of a scenic quality rating unit (SQRU) may vary from several thousand acres to one 

hundred or less acres, depending on the homogeneity of the landscape features and the detail 

desired in the inventory. Normally, more detailed attention is given to highly scenic areas or 

areas known to have high sensitivity. The A-Line, which was constructed in 2002, generally is 

located south of Interstate Highway 10 (I-10) in an east-west direction, then turns south and is 

located east of State Route 78, and east and then west of State Route 34 both of which lie in a 

north-south direction. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-9 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Table Q-5: Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart 

Key Factors Rating Criteria and Score 

Landform High vertical relief as expressed in 

prominent cliffs, spires, or massive 

rock out-crops; or severe surface 

variation or highly eroded formations 

including major badlands or dune 

systems; or detail features dominant 

and exceptionally striking and 

intriguing such as glaciers 

Steep canyons, mesas, buttes, 

cinder cones, and drumlins; or

interesting erosional patterns or 

variety in size and shape of 

landforms; or detail features 

which are interesting though not 

dominant or exceptional. 

Low rolling hills, foothills, 

or flat valley bottoms; or

few or no interesting 

landscape features. 

5 3 1

Vegetation A variety of vegetation types as 

expressed in interesting forms, 

textures, and patterns. 

Some variety of vegetation, but 

only one or two major types. 

Little or no variety or 

contrast in vegetation. 

5 3 1

Water Clear and clean appearing, still, or 

cascading white water, any of which 

are a dominant factor in the 

landscape. 

Flowing, or still, but not 

dominant in the landscape. 

Absent, or present, but 

not noticeable. 

5 3 0

Color Rich color combinations, variety or 

vivid color; or pleasing contrasts in 

the soil, rock, vegetation, water, or 

snow fields. 

Some intensity or variety in 

colors and contrast of the soil, 

rock, and vegetation, but not a 

dominant scenic element. 

Subtle color variation, 

contrast, or interest; 

generally mute tones. 

5 3 1

Adjacent 

Scenery 

Adjacent scenery greatly enhances 

visual quality. 

Adjacent scenery moderately 

enhances overall visual quality. 

Adjacent scenery has 

little or no influence on 

overall visual quality. 

5 3 0

Scarcity One of a kind; or unusually 

memorable, or very rare within 

region. Consistent chance for 

exceptional wildlife or wild-flower 

viewing, etc 

Distinctive, though somewhat 

similar to others within the 

region. 

Interesting within its 

setting, but fairly 

common within the 

region. 

5+ 3 1

Cultural 

modifications 

Modifications add favorably to visual 

variety while promoting visual 

harmony. 

Modifications add little or no 

visual variety to the area, and 

introduce no discordant 

elements. 

Modifications add variety 

but are very discordant 

and promote strong 

disharmony. 

2 0 -4

Scenic Quality 

A= 19 or more 

B= 12-18 

C= 11 or less 

In 2002, the SQRU for the North Baja Pipeline Route was established, inventoried and 

evaluated for the then proposed A-Line. Following is a summary of the scenic quality 

assessment for the pipeline route that was constructed in 2002. Because the B-Line will be built 

in the same right-of-way (25-feet away from the existing pipeline), the same scenic quality 

assessment applies to the B-Line as well for MP 11.7 to 22.3. 

The dominant view of the landscape through which the right-of-way passes is a flat desert floor, 

covered with creosote bush scrub and widely scattered desert dry-washes. The majority of 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-10 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

BLM-administered lands under jurisdiction of Palm Springs and crossed by the B-Line are flat to 

hilly desert landscapes. Background views to the south reveal the Palo Verde Mountain Range 

in the background of the right-of-way. Following is a detailed discussion of landform, vegetation, 

water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity and cultural modifications, which the BLM VRM system 

utilizes to establish existing scenic quality. 

Landform. Regarding landforms, the Palo Verde Mesa generally slopes from west to east into 

and following the Colorado River drainage, with very little elevation change from MP 11.7 to 

22.3. A few minor drainage swales cross the right-of-way corridor, however, no significant 

elevation change is observed. 

Vegetation. The vegetative pattern on the desert floor is expansive areas of widely scattered, 

low-growing and sparse creosote bush scrub. Other plants observed in scattered locations 

include ocotillo, cholla, brittlebush, and cacti. In the dry desert washes, linear patterns of desert 

dry wash woodlands were observed to contain species of palo verde, ironwood, smoke tree (all 

of which are short, densely branched trees). There is little- or no-contrast in vegetation color or 

pattern within the SQRU. 

Water. Generally, no water was observed within the SQRU during field reconnaissance in 

September-October 2005. The nearest body of water is the Colorado River, located 

approximately one-to seven-miles to the east, but the river is not visible from the pipeline route 

or from State Route 78. 

Color. Colors exhibited in the B-Line right-of-way landscape include tan sand flats, brown 

background mountains and gray-green scrub brush. During months of rainfall in winter and early 

spring, the hues of green become brighter and create some contrast with the tan sands and 

desert varnish. Overall, for the majority of the year, there are only subtle color variations, littleto no-visual contrast or interest. 

Adjacent Scenery. Regarding adjacent scenery, throughout the entire path of the B-Line, there 

is little variation from that of barren desert scrub. The scenery directly adjacent to the B-Line 

right-of-way from MP 11.7 to 22.3 adds minimally to the visual quality of this landscape. 

Scarcity. The desert floor scenery crossed by the B-Line is very common within the 

southeastern region of the California Desert. The landscape has all the typical appearance of 

desert dominated by creosote scrub and flat desert landscapes. There are no unique or scarce 

viewsheds crossed by the right-of-way. 

Cultural Modifications. Electrical transmission lines on double wooden poles are immediately 

adjacent to the B-Line right-of-way. Wooden power poles and associated conductors between 

them extend the entire length of the SQRU. This intrusion on the landscape constitutes a minor 

impact to the scenery. Some dirt roads have been cut through the SQRU; however, they 

generally can only be seen when traveling on them or in close proximity. The visual impacts of 

cultural modifications are restricted to the electric power line corridor, as well as State Route 78 

which generally traverses north-south within 4- to 5-miles of the existing A-Line and proposed BDocument Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-11 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Line pipeline route. Cultural modifications add little or no visual variety to the area, and 

introduce only slight discordant elements. 

Overall, no exceptionally striking, intriguing, unique, or visually stimulating landforms, vegetative 

communities, waterbodies, colors, or adjacent scenery landscapes are crossed by the B-Line 

corridor in MP 11.7 to 22.3. 

Utilizing the BLM VRM system, the scenic quality of the B-Line right-of-way is rated as shown in 

Table Q-6. 

Table Q-6: Scenic Quality Rating Summary for the Existing 

Pipeline and B-Line Right-of-Way 

Key Factor Possible 

Rating 

B-Line SRQU 

Rating 

Landform 1 to 5 1 

Vegetation 1 to 5 1 

Water 1 to 5 1 

Color 1 to 5 1 

Adjacent Scenery 1 to 5 3 

Scarcity 1 to 5 1 

Cultural Modifications -4 to 2 0 

Total Scenic Quality Score 2 to 32 8 

In accordance with BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1 (BLM 1986), the scenic quality of an SQRU 

with a total score of 8 is “C” meaning low or minimal existing scenic quality. 

3.1.2 Sensitivity Level Analysis 

Sensitivity levels are a measure of public concern for landscape scenery. Public lands are 

assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity levels by analyzing the various indicators of public 

concern. A sensitivity level rating unit (SLRU) is delineated after review of the factors 

considered discerning public concern; however, there is no standard procedure for delineating 

SLRUs. The boundaries will depend on the factor that is driving the sensitivity consideration. 

The factors to be considered in the sensitivity level analysis are as follows: 

Type of Users. Visual sensitivity will vary with the type of users. Recreational sightseers may 

be highly sensitive to any changes in visual quality, whereas workers who pass through the area 

on a regular basis may not be as sensitive to change. 

The users can generally be characterized as individuals who recreate in the winter or reside in 

the communities of Palo Verde, Yuma, Blythe and El Centro who transit the area. There is a 

significant amount of vehicular traffic that travels through this vicinity via State Routes 78 and 

34. State Route 78 is a connector between Interstate Highway 8 (I-8) and I-10, and State Route 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-12 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

34 is a cut-off through the abandoned Ogilby site to I-8. The dirt roads in the desert valley are 

used very infrequently. Common recreational opportunities appear to be off-road biking and four 

wheel driving, as there are signs posted noting that the area is an official OHV area. Workers for 

the electric utility make use of a dirt road graded to the side of the utility poles and tend to not be 

sensitive to the surrounding landscape sights. 

The Colorado River is located approximately eight to ten miles to the east of the Project. 

Where maintenance of visual quality is a major public issue, a rating of high is assigned; where 

it is a moderate public issue, a rating of moderate is assigned; and where it is a minor public 

issue, a rating of low is assigned. Given the remoteness of the Palo Verde Mesa and lack of 

public controversy expressed by residents of Blythe, Yuma or El Centro, it can be concluded 

that the maintenance of visual quality is a minor public issue. Therefore, the rating for this factor 

is LOW. 

Adjacent Land Uses. For BLM-administered lands from MP 11.7 to 22.3, the land use that 

surrounds of the Project right-of-way is that of and overhead electrical utility line and openspace desert. There are no agricultural, commercial, residential, or industrial uses anywhere 

near the B-Line. I-8, to the south, carries people to the nearest cities, which are El Centro, 

California and Yuma, Arizona. To the north, I-10 carries people to the nearest city, which is 

Blythe, California. The small community of Palo Verde (population less than 100) is situated 

near the Imperial-Riverside County line, approximately four miles east of MP 22.3. Very few 

individuals live in the near vicinity of the Project in the remainder of MP 11.7 to 22.3. 

Where maintenance of visual quality to sustain adjacent land use objectives is very important, a 

rating of high is assigned; where it is moderately important, a rating of moderate is assigned; 

and where it is slightly important, a rating of low is assigned. Given the uses of lands in the Pilot 

Knob Mesa, the rating for this factor is low. 

Other Factors. All other data, such as research, or studies that include indicators of visual 

sensitivity, were researched. No other information that includes indicators of visual sensitivity is 

known to exist relative to the landscapes crossed. The rating for this factor is Low. 

Overall Sensitivity Level. The overall sensitivity level is a judgmental process, which requires 

a careful analysis of all of the sensitivity level factors. The ratings given to each factor are 

reviewed, and the relationship between factors is analyzed. A high rating in any one factor does 

not necessarily mean that the overall sensitivity level rating should be high. For example, the 

rating for type of users might be high but the amount of use might be low. Consequently, the 

overall rating could be low or moderate. 

As with determining the boundaries of the SLRU, the key factor in determining the overall 

sensitivity level is type of users. The residents of Palo Verde, Blythe, El Centro and Yuma have 

not expressed any undue concern regarding maintenance of visual quality. The users are 

sporadic and seasonal, OHV-users, or are simply persons traveling through on State Route 78. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-13 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

The number of people in the Project area at any one time is very small. Therefore, the overall 

sensitivity level of the SLRU as shown in Table Q-7 is determined to be low. 

Table Q-7: Sensitivity Level Rating for B-Line Route 

Factor Rating Range B-Line right-of-way 

Rating 

Type of Users High / Moderate / Low Low 

Amount of Use High / Moderate / Low Low 

Public Interest High / Moderate / Low Low 

Low Adjacent Land Users High / Moderate / Low Low 

Other Factors High / Moderate / Low Low 

Overall Sensitivity Rating High / Moderate / Low Low 

3.1.3 Distance Zones 

The visual quality of a landscape may be magnified or diminished by the visibility of the 

landscape from major viewing routes and key observation points. In the VRM system, therefore, 

distance zones play a key part in visual resource management. 

Landscapes are subdivided into three distance zones based on a relative visibility from travel 

routes or observation points. The three zones are foreground-middleground, background, and 

seldom seen. Because areas that are closer have a greater effect on the observer, such areas 

require more attention than do areas that are farther away. Distance zones allow this 

consideration of the proximity of the observer to the landscape. 

Foreground-Middleground Zone. This is the area that can be seen from each travel route 

(highways, use areas, rivers, or other viewing locations) for a distance of 3 to 5 miles where 

management activities might be viewed in detail. The outer boundary of this distance zone is 

defined as the point where the texture and form of individual plants are no longer apparent in 

the landscape. In some areas, atmospheric conditions can reduce visibility and shorten the 

distances normally covered by each zone. Also, where the foreground-middleground zone from 

one travel route overlaps the background from another route, the foreground-middleground 

designation is used. 

Background Zone. This is the remaining area that can be seen from each travel route to 

approximately 15-miles. Areas in the background which are so far distant that the only thing 

discernible is the form or outline are not included. In order to be included within this distance 

zone, vegetation should be visible at least as patterns of light and dark. 

Seldom-seen Zone. These are areas that are not visible within the foreground-middleground 

and background zones, and areas beyond the background zones. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-14 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

The B-Line Route in the Palo Verde Mesa is in the foreground-middleground distance zone. 

This pipeline route is approximately 2 to 5 miles west of State Route 78 for the majority of the 

right-of-way on BLM-administered lands. The pipeline right-of-way landscape is not visible 

because the valley floor is so flat. The slight changes in topography make it so the vast majority 

of this pipeline route will not be visible at all from most of the miles of highways and county 

roads. Landscapes visible from these highways can be seen for distances of 15- to 20-miles, or 

greater, and yet the visual impacts for the existing pipeline right-of-way are very low to nonexistent. 

3.1.4 Determining Interim VRM Class 

Table Q-8 shows the determinations made for the BLM-administered lands crossed by the 

proposed B-Line from MP 11.7 to 22.3 relative to scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance 

zone: 

Table Q-8: BLM Rating for B-Line for MP 11.7 to 22.3 

Existing Pipeline and B-Line Route BLM Rating System 

Scenic Quality Minimal (C) 

Sensitivity Level Low (L) 

Distance Zone Foreground-Middleground (FG/MG) 

Interim Visual Resource Management Class Class IV (Major Modification Is Allowed) 

In accordance with the table above, the Interim Visual Resource Management Class for BLMadministered lands crossed by the existing pipeline and the proposed B-Line from MP 11.7 to 

22.3 is VRM Class IV. Accordingly, changes in any of the basic elements of form, line, color, or 

texture caused by the proposed Project may dominate the view and may be the major focus of 

viewer attention without creating a significant visual effect. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape may be high. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the 

impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic 

elements of the visual landscape. This level of modification to the landscape is not demanded, 

but is allowed without creating a “significant” visual impact, per the definition of significant in 

NEPA. 

3.1.5 Contrast Rating 

The contrast rating system is a systematic process used by the BLM to analyze potential visual 

impacts of proposed projects and activities. The BLM Handbook H-8431-1, Visual Resource 

Contrast Rating (BLM 1986b), provides necessary guidance to follow when conducting the 

ratings. It primarily is intended to assist Bureau personnel who are not formally trained in the 

design-arts to apply the basic principles of design in the resolution of visual impacts. It is not 

intended to be the only means of resolving these impacts. It should be used as a guide, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-15 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

tempered by common sense, to ensure that every attempt is made to minimize potential visual 

impacts. 

The basic philosophy underlying visual quality of a landscape depends on the visual contrast 

created between a project and the existing landscape. The contrast can be measured by 

comparing the project features with the major features in the existing landscape. The basic 

design elements of form, line, color, and texture are used to make this comparison and to 

describe the visual contrast created by the project. The assessment process provides a means 

for determining visual impacts and for identifying measures to mitigate these impacts. 

3.1.6 Degree of Contrast 

The rating is completed by determining the degree of contrast (i.e., strong, moderate, weak, or 

none) for each element. The general criteria and factors in Table Q-9 are used when rating the 

degree of contrast: 

Table Q-9: Visual Contrast Rating

Degree of Contrast Criteria 

None The element contrast is not visible or perceived. 

Weak The element contrast can be seen but does not attract attention. 

Moderate The element contrast begins to attract attention and begins to 

dominate the characteristic landscape. 

Strong The element contrast demands attention, will not be overlooked, 

and is dominant in the landscape. 

3.1.7 Key Observation Points for MP 11.7 to 22.3 (Palm Springs BLM Field 

Office Lands) 

The contrast rating is done from the most critical viewpoints. This is usually along commonly 

traveled routes or at other likely observation points. Factors that should be considered in 

selection of key observation points are angle of observation, number of viewers, length of time 

the project is in view, relative project size, season of use, and light conditions. 

Relative to the B-Line from MP 11.7 to 22.3, there were no key observation points established 

because the existing A-Line right-of-way is not visible from any sensitive viewing location, and 

therefore, the proposed B-Line right-of-way will not be visible either. Potential sensitive viewing 

locations that were examined include California State Route 78, numerous county roads, and 

the village of Palo Verde at the Riverside/Imperial County line. The only vantage points that look 

into this section of the B-Line are along the utility line access road that follows the overhead 

electric line (see photo 0050 taken 9/22/05). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-16 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Form. Implementation of the proposed B-Line will create few, if any, changes in landform, as it 

will be constructed 25-feet away from the existing A-Line which was constructed in 2002. 

Because that right-of-way was recently disturbed by construction of the A-Line, then restored 

after construction, landforms have been restored to natural appearing conditions. Form 

contrasts will be weak to none. 

Line. Implementation of the proposed B-Line will create no changes in line, as the A-Line and 

B-Line right-of-ways are contiguous. The right-of-way is not visible from KOPs described above. 

The existing electric utility is the only above-ground facility near the right-of-way, and the B-Line 

will be completely below-ground from MP 11.7 to 22.3. Line contrasts will be weak to none. 

Color. Implementation of the proposed B-Line will create few, if any, changes in color, as it will 

be constructed 25-feet away from the existing A-Line which was constructed in 2002. Lighter 

colored soils, from pipeline construction, are slightly evident when driving on the electric utility 

access roads, but reveal only weak color contrasts. Orange-colored pipeline markers will be 

visible at intermittent locations along the pipeline, but will not detract from the visual quality of 

the area. 

Texture. Implementation of the proposed B-Line will create few, if any, changes in texture, as it 

will be constructed 25-feet away from the existing A-Line which was constructed in 2002. 

Therefore, only a slight amount of existing desert vegetation will be disturbed during right-of-way 

expansion. The amount of texture contrast will be weak to none. 

For BLM-administered lands from MP 11.7 to 22.3, visual contrasts created by the construction, 

operation and maintenance of the B-Line will be weak-to-none. Because the land-alteration 

activities of pipeline construction will not be visible from major viewing areas, and because the 

existing A-Line did not create any visual contrasts or public objection, there will be little or no 

visual effects from the B-Line to BLM-administered lands. 

3.1.8 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met 

These contrast ratings can be evaluated against the Interim VRM Class objectives for MP 11.7 

to 22.3. For comparative purposes, the four levels of contrast (i.e., none, weak, moderate, and 

strong) roughly correspond with VRM Classes I, II, III, and IV respectively. This means that a 

“strong” contrast rating may be acceptable in a Class IV area, but probably will not meet VRM 

objectives for a Class III area. In making these comparisons, the cumulative effect of all the 

contrast ratings must be considered. Certain combinations of ratings may indicate there is a 

stronger overall contrast than the individual ratings show. For example, several “moderate” 

ratings when viewed in combination may warrant on overall “strong” rating. This is a judgment 

determination by the visual resource evaluator. 

Though experience in construction of the A-Line, it was learned that all of the contrast ratings for 

landscape elements were “none” or “weak,” and therefore potential contrast of visual elements 

(form, line, texture and texture) caused by trenching and backfilling for the pipeline construction 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-17 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

in 2002 did not cause any visual contrasts that were unacceptable after implementation of 

mitigation measures. 

Therefore, based on lessons-learned during construction of the A-Line from MP 11.7 to 22.3, it 

is the conclusion of this visual resource analysis that the overall contrast rating for the A-Line 

route is “Weak” to “None”, meaning that the pipeline right-of-way may be seen in some locations 

but does not attract attention and will meet the objectives of VRM Class II (weak contrast) or 

that the right-of-way is not visible to the casual observer and will meet the objectives of VRM 

Class I (no contrast). 

Based upon experience gained by constructing the A-Line and the evaluation of this visual 

resource report, it is the conclusion that construction of the proposed B-Line in the same rightof-way (plus 25-feet of additional temporary construction right-of-way) will result in similar visual 

effects. Therefore it is the conclusion of this visual assessment that the proposed B-Line rightof-way will be seen in some locations but will not attract attention and will meet the objectives of 

VRM Class II (weak contrast) or that, in some locations, the right-of-way will not be visible to the 

casual observer and will meet the objectives of VRM Class I (no contrast). 

Consequently, the visual resource management objectives for this Class IV area have been met 

by the construction that occurred in 2002 and will be met by the proposed the B-Line 

construction, operation and maintenance. 

3.2 VRM EVALUATION FOR YUMA BLM FIELD OFFICE LANDS 

(MP 22.3 - 33.8) 

From MP 22.3 to 33.8, Visual Management Classes have been adopted by the Yuma Field 

Office of the BLM. Under the current RMP, and under the proposed RMP maps shown at public 

open houses by the BLM, the B-Line right-of-way is designated as Class III for MP 22.3 to 33.8. 

3.2.1 Key Observation Points for MP 22.3 to 33.8 (Yuma BLM Field Office 

Lands) 

The only observation points of the existing A-Line and the proposed B-Line from MP 22.3 to 

33.8 are from California State Route 78, which runs in a north-south direction. The pipeline 

right-of-way is located a distance from the highway, varying from a few-hundred-feet to 1-1/2-

miles away. The pipeline and right-of-way crosses under State Route 78 at approximately MP 

28.2. Because of the flat terrain, the existing right-of-way does not attract attention, and is not 

visually evident to passers-by, unless pointed out. 

3.2.2 Degree of Contrast 

The ratings of visual contrast for the Yuma Field Office BLM Lands are similar to those 

described above for Palm Springs Field Office BLM Lands. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-18 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Form. Implementation of the proposed B-Line will create few, if any, changes in landform, as it 

will be constructed 25-feet away from the existing A-Line which was constructed in 2002. 

Because that right-of-way was recently disturbed by construction of the A-Line, then restored 

after construction, landforms have been restored to natural appearing conditions. Form 

contrasts will be weak to none. 

Line. Implementation of the proposed B-Line will create no changes in line, as the A-Line and 

B-Line right-of-ways are contiguous. The right-of-way is not visible from KOPs described above. 

The existing electric utility is the only above-ground facility near the right-of-way, and the B –

Line will be completely below-ground from MP 11.7 to 22.3. Line contrasts will be weak to none. 

Color. Implementation of the proposed B-Line will create few, if any, changes in color, as it will 

be constructed 25-feet away from the existing A-Line which was constructed in 2002. Lighter 

colored soils, from pipeline construction, are slightly evident when driving on the electric utility 

access roads, but reveal only weak color contrasts. Orange-colored pipeline markers will be 

visible at intermittent locations along the pipeline, but will not detract from the visual quality of 

the area. 

Texture. Implementation of the proposed B-Line will create few, if any, changes in texture, as it 

will be constructed 25-feet away from the existing A-Line which was constructed in 2002. 

Therefore, only a slight amount of existing desert vegetation will be disturbed during right-of-way 

expansion. The amount of texture contrast will be weak to none. 

For BLM-administered lands from MP 22.3 to 33.8, visual contrasts created by the construction, 

operation and maintenance of the B-Line will be weak-to-none. Because the land-alteration 

activities of pipeline construction will not attract attention from State Route 78 and there are no 

other major viewing areas, and because the existing A-Line did not create any visual contrasts 

or public objection, there will be little or no visual effects from the B-Line in the Yuma Field 

Office BLM Lands. 

3.2.3 Determining Whether Visual Management Class Objectives Are Met 

For MP 22.3 to 33.8, these contrast ratings can be evaluated against the Visual Management 

Class III objectives that were adopted in the 1987 RMP by the Yuma Field Office of BLM (Aaron 

Curtis, BLM, 2006). Though experience in construction of the A-Line, it was learned that all of 

the contrast ratings for landscape elements were “none” or “weak,” and therefore potential 

contrast of visual elements (form, line, texture and texture) caused by trenching and backfilling 

for the pipeline construction in 2002 did not cause any visual contrasts that were unacceptable 

after implementation of mitigation measures. 

Therefore, based on lessons-learned during construction of the A-Line from MP 22.3 to 33.8, it 

is the conclusion of this visual resource analysis that the overall contrast rating for the A-line 

route is “Weak” to “None”, meaning that the pipeline right-of-way may be seen in some locations 

but does not attract attention and will meet the Visual Management Class II objectives (weak 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-19 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

contrast) or that the right-of-way is not visible to casual observers and will meet the Visual 

Management Class I objectives (no contrast). 

Based upon experience gained by constructing the A-Line and the evaluation of this visual 

resource report, it is the conclusion that construction of the proposed B-Line in largely the same 

right-of-way (plus 25-feet of additional temporary construction right-of-way) will result in similar 

visual effects. Therefore it is the conclusion of this visual assessment that the proposed B-Line 

right-of-way will be seen in some locations but will not attract attention and will meet the Visual 

Management Class II objectives (weak contrast) or that, in some locations, the right-of-way will 

not be visible to the casual observer and will meet the Visual Management Class I objectives 

(no contrast). 

As a result, the Visual Management Class III objectives for this area have been met by the 

construction that occurred in 2002 and will be met by the proposed construction, operation and 

maintenance of the B-Line. 

3.3 VRM EVALUATION FOR EL CENTRO BLM FIELD OFFICE 

LANDS (MP 33.8 TO 79.8) 

From MP 33.8 to 79.8, Visual Management Classes II and III have been adopted by the El 

Centro Field Office of the BLM (Larry Caffey, BLM, 2005). Therefore, it is not necessary to 

proceed through the VRM inventory process, as that has been accomplished by the BLM-RMP 

process. Table 2.1-2 above describes the Visual Management Class objectives by milepost. 

Under the current RMP, the B-Line right-of-way is designated as either Class II or Class III for 

MP 33.8 to 79.8, depending on exact location. 

Adjacent features along most of the length of this right-of-way segment include paved highways, 

paved roads, and desert wash jeep trails, abandoned mines, and electric transmission lines. 

Over time, the visual contrast of the proposed B-Line will continue to diminish and the visual 

effect of the installed pipeline will be minimal. 

The existing A-Line and the proposed B-Line route are located on the flat desert landscapes of 

the Pilot Knob Mesa. The right-of-way is seen in the foreground-middleground distance zone. 

This pipeline route is less than 1⁄4 mile off State Routes 78 or 34 for the majority of the right-ofway on BLM-administered lands from MP 33.8 to 75.2. At approximately MP 75.2, the pipeline 

crosses under I-8 and from there to its terminus at MP 79.8, it is visible only from desert jeep 

roads. Even though the pipeline is close to viewers on State Routes 78 and 34, the majority of 

the pipeline right-of-way landscape is not visible because the valley floor is so flat that it is not 

discernible. The slight changes in topography make it so the vast majority of this pipeline route 

will not be visible at all from most of the miles of these highways. Landscapes visible from these 

highways can be seen for distances of 15- to 20-miles, or greater, and yet the visual impacts for 

the existing pipeline right-of-way are very low. Views of the pipeline right-of-way from I-8 are 

negligible. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-20 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

The greatest visibility of the right-of-way is from the State Route 34 over-crossing bridge of I-8, 

and the right-of-way is visible as a cleared area adjacent to the highway. Even this clearing 

does not attract attention, but borrows from the form, line, color and texture of the straight, linear 

highway. 

South of the freeway, the right-of-way is used by the US Border Patrol as a surveillance road, 

and it is not distinguishable as a pipeline right-of-way. Therefore, the visual contrasts are 

negligible. At the US/Mexican Border, MP 79.8, the B-Line route will cross under the AllAmerican Canal (AAC). 

3.3.1 Key Observation Points for MP 33.8 to 79.8 (El Centro BLM Field 

Office Lands) 

For the A-Line that was constructed in 2002, eight key observation points (KOPs) were 

established along the pipeline corridor in the spring of 2001 to document the existing landscape 

setting, as shown in the following Table Q-10 (see photographs in Attachment A). Subsequently, 

in 2005, photographs were taken from these same KOPs in order to determine the visual effects 

of the 2002 construction and landscape rehabilitation activities, operation and maintenance 

activities that may be visually evident, plus any unauthorized OHV usage that may have created 

a visual disturbance. 

Table Q-10: KOP Locations for the A-Line and B-Line 

2001 GPS Location 

UTM NAD 83 Zone 11N 

2005 GPS Location 

UTM NAD 83 Zone 11N KOP 

Number 

Approximate 

Milepost 

Easting Northing Easting Northing 

KOP 1 35.8 706810E 3684937N 706712E 3684758N 

KOP 2 36.1 705975E 3684282N 706313E 3684407N 

KOP 3 36.6 705800E 3683918N 705717E 3683851N 

KOP 4 39 703269E 3681053N 703232E 3680993N 

KOP 5 42.2 699577E 3677206N 699959E 3677199N 

KOP 6 47.3 698744E 3671498N 698359E 3669365N 

KOP 7 47.6 698155E 3668799N 698143E 3668799N 

KOP 8 48.3 697649E 3667895N 697596E 3667810N 

3.3.2 Comparison of KOP Views – 2002 to 2005 

The visual effects of underground pipeline construction are sometimes dramatic, and sometimes 

unnoticeable, depending on various conditions in the existing landscape and the visual 

elements of the proposed Project – form, line, color, texture and scale. In the case of 

underground pipeline construction, operation and maintenance in the flat desert landscape from 

MP 33.8 to 79.8 with only scattered, low-growing scrub vegetation, very little visual contrast was 

created. The pairs of photographs in Attachment A are a comparison of pre-construction 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-21 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

existing scenic quality at each KOP, with a corresponding photograph taken from approximately 

the same location, showing the current scenic quality and visual conditions after construction. 

3.3.3 Degree of Contrast 

The photographs in Appendix A clearly show that, as seen from KOPs 1-8, there are no 

introduced contrasts of form, line, color, or texture that were created by the A-Line. Visual 

results of the B-Line will be the same. 

3.3.4 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met 

Visual Management Class II and III objectives have been met by the A-Line construction that 

occurred in 2002 and will be met by the proposed B-Line construction, following implementation 

of restoration measures. 

3.4 IMPACT SUMMARY 

The visual effects of the cleared right-of-way vary along the proposed routes, depending on 

landscape terrain, vegetative patterns, and manmade modifications. 

3.4.1 B-Line MP 0.0 to 11.7 and Arrowhead Extension 

In the agricultural areas of the Palo Verde Valley, visual impacts will be temporary and very 

minor. The terrain is flat and agricultural operations will resume following construction. 

Construction activity will be a short-term visual intrusion to residents along 18th Avenue. Long 

term-impact will be unnoticeable because the pipeline will, for the most part, be located in 

county rights-of-way requiring little or no clearing. The crossing of the Colorado River will be 

accomplished by directional drilling, and setbacks from the river will protect existing vegetation. 

Therefore, no significant visual impacts will occur. Lands in this route segment are not 

administered by the BLM, and therefore, have no BLM-VRM classification. 

3.4.2 B-Line MP 11.7 to 22.3 (Palm Springs BLM Field Office Lands) 

In this flat desert landscape environment, a low degree of visual impact will occur initially and be 

further reduced over time. Visibility resulting from the very slight contrast in soil color and 

vegetative pattern between the right-of-way and adjacent areas will be offset by limited viewing 

afforded by areas with flat to low topographic relief and views that include existing manmade 

features of electric transmission lines and appurtenant access roads. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-22 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

3.4.3 B-Line MP 22.3 to 29.7 and 31.5 to 33.8 (Yuma BLM Field Office 

Lands) 

In this desert landscape environment, a low degree of visual impact will occur initially during 

construction of the B-Line, and after mitigation the weak contrasts will be further reduced over 

time. Visibility resulting from contrast in soil color and vegetative pattern between the right-ofway and adjacent areas will be partially offset by limited viewing afforded by areas with flat to 

low topographic relief and views that include existing manmade features, including California 

State Route 78, jeep trails, and various outfall drains in area. Adjacent features along most of 

the length of this route segment include paved roads and desert wash jeep trails, levees, 

canals, electric distribution, and high voltage electric lines. Over time the visual contrast of the 

proposed Project will continue to diminish and the visual effect of the installed pipeline will be 

minimal. 

The proposed pipeline, at the location proposed, is consistent with the VRM Class III objectives 

in this area. Under this designation, the existing character of the landscape should be partially 

retained (Class III), and the overall level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

low. The visual impacts resulting from the proposed pipeline will be within these guidelines. 

3.4.4 B-Line MP 29.7 to MP 31.5 (Yuma BLM Field Office Lands) 

In this route segment, the pipeline will cross hilly to flat terrain with a backdrop created by the 

steeper slopes of the Palo Verde Mountains to the west. In 2002, site grading to prepare for 

pipeline installation and maintenance was accomplished during the construction of the A-Line. 

The visual effects of pipeline construction in this right-of-way were minimal, and generally did 

not create any visual contrast with the surrounding landscape. Viewing locations and conditions 

of the B-Line will be the same as for the A-Line. Potential viewing locations include from State 

Route 78, which is parallel to the proposed pipeline route. Few longitudinal views down the 

right-of-way occur. Most often, glimpses of the right-of-way can be seen while traveling State 

Route 78, with the dominant visual feature being the mid distance views of the Colorado River 

bottom covered by the expanse of thick tamarisk. Tamarisk is a species of low-growing, densely 

branched evergreen trees that effectively screen the landscape from view. The highway 

alignment in this area is curvilinear with vertical changes in grade, and the two-lane highway 

has one single lane in either direction. All of these factors compete with the viewer’s attention. 

Overall, there was not a large degree of visual contrast created by the construction of the 

A-Line, and construction of the B-Line will result in similar visual effects. Over time the impact 

will continue to diminish as vegetation softens the few views of the right-of-way. 

The existing pipeline alignment was chosen to limit environmental and visual impacts. The 

Proposed B-Line will be installed 25-feet away from the existing pipeline in the same alignment. 

There will be no further visual impacts to form, line, color, and texture in the landscape. No 

visual mitigation is planned beyond the restoration measures proposed (see CMR Plan, 

Appendix A of the Environmental Report). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-23 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

3.4.5 B-Line MP 33.8 to 79.8 (El Centro BLM Field Office Lands) 

In this desert landscape environment, a very low degree of visual impact will occur initially 

during construction of the B-Line, and after implementation of mitigation measures, the weak 

visual contrasts will be further reduced. Visibility resulting from contrast in soil color and 

vegetative pattern between the right-of-way and adjacent areas will be partially offset by limited 

viewing afforded by areas with flat to low topographic relief as seen from California State Routes 

78 and 34, and I-8. 

The proposed pipeline, at the location proposed, is consistent with the VRM Class II and III 

objectives of this area. Under this designation, the existing character of the landscape should be 

retained (Class II), and partially retained (Class III), and the overall level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low. The visual impacts resulting from the proposed B-Line 

pipeline will be within these guidelines. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-24 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

4.0 IID LATERAL PIPELINE TO EL CENTRO 

For the purposes of visual resource management, BLM-administered lands crossed by the IID 

Lateral can be subdivided into three SQRUs. Those three SQRUs are the Pilot Knob Mesa (MP 

0.0 to 0.5), Algodones Dunes (MP 0.5 to 8.1) and the East Mesa (MP 8.1 to 27.6). Following the 

methodology presented above for the B-Line (see Section 3.0), this report assesses compliance 

with Visual Resource Management Classes established in BLM RMP and Recreation Area 

Management Plans (RAMP) for the lands crossed by the IID Lateral (BLM 1980; 2003). 

A fourth landscape crossed which is not administered by BLM, is the segment of the pipeline 

located in the Imperial Valley (MP 27.6 to 45.6). 

From MP 0.0 to 7.9, the IID Lateral will cross the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 

(ISDRA). The BLM has adopted an objective of Visual Resource Management Classes II and III 

for the ISDRA by correlating the ISDRA Multiple-Use Classifications with the VRM Classes, as 

shown in Table Q-11. 

Table Q-11: VRM Class Designations by Milepost for IID Lateral Pipeline 

Mileposts BLM Field 

Office 

BLM Multiple-Use Class 

Designation 

Visual Resource Management 

Class Designation 

0.0 – 2.3 El Centro Limited (L) VRM Class II 

2.3 – 3.0 El Centro Moderate (M) VRM Class III 

3.0 – 7.9 El Centro Intensive (I) VRM Class IV 

7.9 – 27.6 El Centro Limited (L) VRM Class II 

4.1 PILOT KNOB MESA SQRU (MP 0.0 TO 0.5) 

The Pilot Knob Mesa was fully described in the analysis of the A-Line and B-Line. The dominant 

view of the landscape through which the right-of-way passes from MP 0.0 to 0.5 is a flat desert 

floor, covered with widely scattered creosote bush scrub and will parallel a multitude of 

overhead electrical transmission lines on wooden poles and steel lattice towers. This portion of 

the IID Lateral starts at a new Main Line Valve and tap to the mainline near Ogilby Road (MP 

74.5 of the B-Line) and ends at the transition to Algodones Dunes (MP 0.5). The VRM Class 

objective for the Pilot Knob Mesa is Class II, where proposed activities should remain 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Because the proposed IID Lateral will be an 

underground facility and will parallel existing overhead transmission lines, the proposed Project 

will create no significant adverse visual effects upon the landscape in the Pilot Know Mesa. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-25 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

4.1.1 Key Observation Points for MP 0.0 to 0.5 (El Centro BLM Field Office 

Lands) 

There is only one key observation point looking into this segment of the IID Lateral, located on 

State Route 34 (the Ogilby Road) at the interchange of I-8, looking west through the corridor of 

overhead transmission lines (Table Q-12). The lateral pipeline will be constructed as an 

underground facility in a right-of-way adjacent and parallel to existing overhead transmission 

lines. This freeway interchange has an elevated viewer platform created by the overpass of 

Ogilby Road. Because this segment of the IID Lateral Pipeline is so short, only one KOP was 

necessary to determine the visual effects of the proposed Project. 

Table Q-12: KOP Location for the IID Lateral through the Pilot Knob Mesa 

KOP Number Approximate 

Milepost 

2005 GPS Location 

UTM NAD 83 Zone 11N 

 MP Easting Northing 

KOP 9 0.3 702642E 3627024N 

4.1.2 Degree of Contrast 

The basic philosophy underlying visual quality of a landscape depends on the visual contrast 

created between a project and the existing landscape. For the IID Lateral through the Pilot Knob 

Mesa, the contrast can be measured by comparing the project features with the major features 

in the existing landscape. The basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture were used 

to make this comparison and to describe the visual contrast created by the project. The 

assessment process provides a means for determining visual impacts and for identifying 

measures to mitigate these impacts. 

4.1.3 Contrast Rating for the Proposed IID Lateral in Pilot Knob Mesa 

SQRU (MP 0.0 to 0.5) 

The proposed IID Lateral from MP 0.0 to 0.5 will cross through the flat desert, open-space 

landscapes of the Pilot Knob Mesa administered by the BLM, parallel to overhead transmission 

lines. Following is an assessment of contrasts in form, line, color, and texture that will be caused 

by the IID Lateral. 

Form. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create no changes in landform, as it will 

be constructed on flat terrain parallel to existing transmission lines. Form contrasts will be weak 

to none. 

Line. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create no changes in line, as the 

transmission lines right-of-way and IID Lateral right-of-way are parallel and contiguous. Newly 

created line contrasts will be weak to none. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-26 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Color. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create few, if any, changes in color, as it 

will be constructed parallel to the existing transmission line right-of-way. Lighter colored soils 

from pipeline construction will be indistinguishable, and not evident, as compared to 

transmission line access roads, and will result in no additional color contrasts. Orange-colored 

pipeline markers will be visible at intermittent locations along the pipeline, but will not detract 

from the visual quality of the area. 

Texture. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create few, if any, changes in texture, 

as it will be constructed parallel to the existing transmission line right-of-way. Therefore, only a 

slight amount of existing desert vegetation will be disturbed during construction. The amount of 

texture contrast will be weak to none. 

For BLM-administered lands from MP 0.0 to 0.5, visual contrasts created by the construction, 

operation and maintenance of the IID Lateral will be weak-to-none. There will be little or no 

visual effects from the IID Lateral to BLM-administered lands. 

4.1.4 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met 

The contrast ratings were compared with the objectives of VRM Class II. Though experience in 

construction of the A-Line, it was learned that all of the contrast ratings for landscape elements 

were “none” or “weak,” and therefore potential contrast of visual elements (form, line, texture 

and texture) caused by trenching and backfilling for the pipeline construction did not cause any 

visual contrasts that were unacceptable after implementation of restoration. 

The overall contrast rating for the IID Lateral through the Pilot Knob Mesa is “None” to “Weak”. 

Consequently, the visual resource management objectives for this Class II area will be met by 

the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed IID Lateral Pipeline. No mitigation 

measures are planned beyond the proposed restoration. 

4.2 ALGODONES DUNES SQRU (MP 0.0 TO 7.9) 

A very unique and interesting landscape feature on BLM-administered lands that will be crossed 

by the IID Lateral is the Algodones Dunes, also known as the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation 

Area (ISDRA). 

According to the BLM RAMP, “The ISDRA, located in eastern Imperial County in Southern 

California, offers outstanding opportunities for OHV recreation within the BLM’s California 

Desert Conservation Area. The approximately 159,072-acre ISDRA contains the largest mass of 

sand dunes in California, covering an area more than 40 miles long and averaging 5 miles in 

width. The ISDRA is considered a world-class OHV area and it represents one of the most 

popular OHV areas in the western United States. It is a well-known area to local residents and 

the thousands who visit each year from the southwestern United States and beyond. The 

ISDRA is the most heavily and intensively used OHV recreation area in the California Desert 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-27 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

District with over 1.4 million OHV visitors per year. In addition, the ISDRA is recognized for its 

frequent use as a backdrop for commercials and movies because of its unique beauty and 

landscape. The ISDRA is also recognized for providing unique habitat for several endemic and 

sensitive plant, insect, and animal species and habitats” (BLM 2003). The RAMP recognizes the 

unique scenic attributes of the dunes. 

Visually evident man-made modifications in the vicinity of the pipeline route in the Algodones 

Dunes include I-8, the AAC, new Coachella Canal, and several wood-pole and steel-latticetower electric transmission lines traversing the Dunes in an east-west direction. The abandoned 

Coachella Canal to the west and the railroad to the east are not visually prominent man-made 

features. 

According to the ISDRA RAMP, “the proximity of the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area to 

private land and the wilderness area requires that the BLM carefully manage the recreation, 

natural, and cultural resources and corresponding resource values (such as “scenic values”) 

within the planning area to reduce potential impacts to these areas” (BLM 2003). 

4.2.1 Existing Scenic Quality 

The BLM VRM system utilizes the following factors to establish existing scenic quality: landform, 

vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity and cultural modifications. 

Landform. Regarding landforms, the RAMP adequately explains scenic quality of the Dunes, as 

follows. “The dune system is situated on a relatively flat plain. The plain has an elevation of 

approximately 50 feet above sea level. On the west, the plain is called East Mesa because it is 

east of Imperial Valley. On the east, the plain is called Pilot Knob Mesa. The dunes reach 

heights of 300 feet above the plain, and include classic examples of several different types of 

dune morphology. The sand dunes are thought to have originated from the beach sands of 

ancient Lake Cahuilla, a water body created by episodic diversions of the Colorado River into 

the Imperial Valley instead of the Gulf of California. The Imperial Dunes have formed primarily 

as a result of opposing seasonal winds. Winter winds come from the northwest, but often 

reverse to the southeast in summer. The stronger winter winds are slowly pushing the dune 

system southeastward. The east and west sides of the dunes system differs substantially in 

character. West side sands are composed of material that is generally heavier and coarser than 

the lighter, finer sands carried further east in the prevailing winds. The coarse sands form the 

largest, tallest dunes, which are located in the western two-thirds of the dune system. These 

constitute the ‘primary dunes.’ East of the primary dunes are the ‘secondary dunes.’ These 

dunes are smaller dunes composed of finer sands and having more vegetation cover.” 

Vegetation. Vegetation on the dunes is very sparse on the westerly side and top of dunes. East 

of the primary dunes, and transitioning into the Pilot Knob Mesa, vegetation is widely scattered 

creosote bush scrub. A corridor of vegetation, mostly non-native, water-loving species, follows 

the lower banks of the AAC, and creates a pleasant visual contrast of blue, green and tan 

colors. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-28 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Water. The only water in the Algodones Dunes SRQU is found in the All American Canal. The 

proposed pipeline will cross under the All American Canal and I-8 at approximately MP 2.3 and 

again at MP 7.9. 

Color. Colors exhibited in the IID Lateral right-of-way landscape include light-tan to white sand 

dunes, gray-green Creosote bush scrub, medium-green, non-native species along the blue 

waters of the AAC. 

Adjacent Scenery. Regarding adjacent scenery, throughout the path of the IID Lateral in the 

Algodones Dunes, vistas are available to the East Mesa and the Pilot Knob Mesa, especially 

when the route is slightly elevated from MP 4 to 6. The contrast created by the 300-feet tall sand 

dunes situated on a flat desert plane is dramatic. 

Scarcity. The sand dunes crossed by the IID Lateral are very unique, and comprise the largest 

dune formations in southwestern United States. 

Cultural Modifications. Electrical transmission lines are very visually evident in the vicinity of 

the proposed pipeline route and as viewed from the I-8 corridor. Additionally, the AAC, I-8, 

Grays Well Road, Buttercup Campground, Midway Campground, and the Plank Road 

monument are present and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pipeline. All of these 

cultural modifications are very visually evident in the characteristic landscape. Steel lattice 

towers and wooden pole transmission lines create strong linear contrasts with the horizontal 

landforms of the dunes, and they extend the entire length of the crossing through this SQRU. 

This intrusion on the landscape constitutes a noticeable impact to the scenery. A multitude of 

tracks left in the sand by OHV also have created a visible cultural modification. 

4.2.2 Existing Sensitivity Levels 

Sensitivity levels are a measure of public concern for landscape scenery. Public lands are 

assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity levels by analyzing the various indicators of public 

concern. The factors to be considered in the sensitivity level analysis include type of users, 

adjacent land uses and other factors. 

Type of Users. Visual sensitivity will vary with the type of users. Recreational sightseers may 

be highly sensitive to any changes in visual quality, whereas workers who pass through the area 

on a regular basis may not be as sensitive to change. According to the Imperial Dunes RAMP, 

“the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) is the most popular OHV area in the 

southwest United States. It encompasses the most intensively visited recreational area in the 

California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). It provides a unique, world-class recreation 

opportunity” (BLM 2003). The primary recreational use is camping and the use of OHV, 

principally dune buggies, quads and all terrain vehicles. Camping in recreation vehicles (RVs) 

and vacation trailers is a predominant use in the Algodones Dunes, also known as the Imperial 

Sand Dunes Recreation Area. Buttercup Campground, Midway Campground and Dune Buggy 

Flats receive extreme recreation use; typically 100,000 people or more will recreate on the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-29 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

dunes during the cooler autumn and winter months. Other recreation uses include utilization of 

the Rest Area in the median of I-8. Non-recreation uses include canals and roads, filming, 

conservation activities, and right-of-way use for utility lines. 

Adjacent Land Uses. For BLM-administered lands, the land use that surrounds the IID Lateral 

route through the dunes is dominated in the winter by OHV related uses. Off season, adjacent 

land uses are those of open-space desert plains. The Plank Road monument is adjacent to the 

proposed right-of-way but will not be affected by construction, operation or maintenance of the 

IID Lateral pipeline. There are no agricultural, commercial, residential, or industrial uses 

anywhere in the vicinity of the IID Lateral and the dunes. There are, however, several utility and 

infrastructure uses that are located in the same corridor as the proposed IID Lateral. I-8 carries 

people to the nearest cities, which are El Centro, California and Yuma, Arizona. The AAC 

parallels and crosses under I-8 and several high voltage electric transmission lines are present. 

The number of people using the ISDRA at any one time is extremely high in the cooler months 

of the year; yet is rather small during the hottest seasons. Recreationists are attracted to the 

unique scenery, and travelers on I-8 experience the scenery of the dunes as a unique visual 

relief while traveling through vast expanses of desert plains that exhibit minimal visual variety. 

4.2.3 Distance Zones 

The visual quality of a landscape may be magnified or diminished by the visibility of the 

landscape from major viewing routes and key observation points. In the VRM system, therefore, 

distance plays a key part in visual quality management. Landscapes of the ISDRA were 

subdivided into three distance zones based on a relative visibility from travel routes or 

observation points. The three zones are foreground-middleground, background, and seldom 

seen. Because areas that are closer have a greater effect on the observer, such areas require 

more attention than do areas that are farther away. Distance zones allow this consideration of 

the proximity of the observer to the landscape. Because recreationists travel cross-country on 

OHVs, and I-8 crosses through the dunes, the entire area of the dunes in the vicinity of the IID 

Lateral is visible as foreground/middleground, giving the greatest exposure and visibility to the 

landscape. 

4.2.4 Determining VRM Classes 

As previously stated, visual resource management classes are established through the RMP 

process for all BLM-administered lands. However, the BLM has not formally inventoried the 

lands within the ISDRA, nor has it given those lands Visual Management Classifications, 

according to the VRM Program. However, these ratings were developed based entirely on the 

multiple use classes in the RAMP-FEIS for the ISDRA (Larry Caffey, BLM, 2005). 

The BLM currently manages the lands within the ISDRA according to the Multiple-Use Classes 

listed in the CDCA. VRM Class V was not assigned to any of the Multiple-Use Classes because 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-30 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

none of the lands in the ISDRA have been degraded to the point where they require 

rehabilitation. 

Figure 3.7-1 in the RAMP FEIS depicts the VRM Classes associated with the Multiple-Use 

Classes that are assigned to ISDRA lands by management areas. Although the management 

areas do not exactly fall within the multiple use class, geographically, the following table will 

provide a general overall classification of the management areas as a whole. (However, a visual 

assessment conducted without regard to the multiple use class may result in different 

classifications, such as Mammoth Wash Management Area will most likely be VRM Class II.) 

As shown in Table Q-13, the popular dune areas and campgrounds within the ISDRA also can 

be categorized according VRM Classes. 

Table Q-13: Visual Resource Management Classes of OHV Use and Camping Areas 

VRM Class I VRM Class II VRM Class III VRM Class IV 

North Algodones 

Dunes Wilderness 

Dune Buggy Flat Management 

Area 

Glamis Management Area Mammoth Wash Management 

Area 

 Adaptive Management Area Buttercup Management Area 

 Ogilby Management Area Gecko Management Area 

Visual Management Classes for IID Lateral in Algodones Dunes. Based on Multiple-Use 

Classes in the ISDRA-RAMP, the visual management class for the IID Lateral in the Algodones 

Dunes SQRU is Class II. In Class II landscapes, changes in any of the basic elements (form, 

line, color, texture) caused by the proposed Project should not be evident in the characteristic 

landscape. Contrasts can be visible, but must not attract attention. 

From MP 0.0 to 7.9, the proposed IID Lateral will cross under open-space sand dunes, OHV 

recreation sites, campgrounds in the dunes, and will directionally drilled and/or bored under the 

All American Canal and I-8 at several locations. 

4.2.5 Key Observation Points. 

Contrast ratings were done from the most critical viewpoints in the Imperial Dunes Recreation 

Area. In 2005, five key observation points were established along the proposed IID Lateral 

pipeline corridor (see Table Q-14), and photographs were taken from these KOPs in order to 

analyze in detail the potential visual effects of the construction, operation, maintenance, and 

landscape rehabilitation activities (see Attachment B). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-31 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Table Q-14: Key Observation Point Locations in the Algodones Dunes SQRU 

2005 GPS Location UTM NAD 83 Zone 11N KOP 

Number 

Approximate 

Milepost Easting Northing 

KOP 10 1.8 700250E 3625979N 

KOP 11 3.5 698466E 3624346N 

KOP 12 6.5 697399E 3623878N 

KOP 13 5.3 695770E 3622776N 

KOP 14 6.5 694831E 3621331N 

As seen from KOP 10, the IID Lateral will enter the Algodones Dunes SQRU at the location 

where the landscape transitions from the flat mesa to the beginning of the small dunes at MP 

0.5. The pipeline will be drilled and bored under both the AAC and I-8 freeway. The horizontal 

directional drill (HDD) pullback area is partially screened from view by the landforms of the sand 

dunes. After construction, there will be no visual effect of the pipeline as seen from KOP 10. 

As seen from KOP 11, the proposed IID Lateral will be constructed adjacent to and parallel to 

the H-frame wooden transmission lines. The pipeline will be placed in a trench dug in the sand, 

and then backfilled. Because of the blowing and drifting nature of the sand, there will be no 

visible evidence of construction shortly after construction. No-evidence will remain of the 

pipeline after construction. 

KOPs 12 to 14 are located on the south side of I-8, looking from Gray’s Well Road. As seen 

from KOP 12, the pipeline will be located north of both the Gray’s Well Road and the H-frame 

wooden poles, and adjacent to the I-8 right-of-way. The pipeline will be placed in a trench dug in 

the sand, and then backfilled. Because of the blowing and drifting nature of the sand, there will 

be no visible evidence of construction shortly after construction. No-evidence will remain of the 

pipeline a short time after construction. The only above-ground facility of the pipeline in the 

Algodones Dunes will be Mainline Valve No. 2 which will be located at MP 7.6. The valve will be 

visually evident, but in an area of limited public access between I-8 and the ACC. 

As seen from KOP 13, there is a large area of sand dunes between Gray’s Well Road and I-8, in 

which an H-frame transmission line runs parallel to I-8. The sand dunes on the horizon to the 

north of the freeway are covered with widely scattered, low-growing scrub brush. The pipeline 

will be placed in a trench dug in the sand, and then backfilled. Because of the blowing and 

drifting nature of the sand, there will be no visible evidence of construction shortly after 

construction. 

As seen from KOP 14, the proposed pipeline will cross under the AAC at the western edge of 

the Algodones Dunes. From this vantage point, the expansive, horizontal landscapes of the 

East Mesa are visible. The tall single-mast tower, visible between the H-frame transmission pole 

and the white vacation-trailer on I-8, is located at the junction of the Coachella Canal and the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-32 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

AAC. The proposed pipeline laydown area will be in the creosote scrub bush area almost 

directly behind the H-frame transmission pole. 

On the south side of the ACC, landforms are flat to gently sloping, tan colored sand. The 

vegetation is widely scattered low growing gray-green creosote bush scrub and gray-green 

sage. After construction, there will be no visible evidence of the IID Lateral from KOP 14, 

because wind-driven sand, and extensive OHV use will obliterate any trace of construction 

activities. 

On the north side of the ACC, the pipeline laydown area will be cleared and the pipeline will be 

placed by HDD. The trench will then be backfilled. Because of the blowing and drifting nature of 

the sand, there will be very little to no visual evidence of the pipeline shortly after construction. 

4.2.6 Contrast Rating for the Proposed IID Lateral in ISDRA SQRU 

(MP 0.0 to 7.9) 

The contrast rating of the proposed IID Lateral pipeline through the Algodones Dunes was 

completed by determining the degree of contrast (i.e., strong, moderate, weak, or none) for 

each element (form, line, color and texture). The general criteria and factors in Table Q-9 were 

used when rating the degree of contrast: 

Form. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create no changes in landform, as it will 

be constructed in the sand dunes of the ISDRA, all of which rapidly reform and re-sculpt during 

wind storms. There will be no form contrasts. 

Line. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create no changes in line, as the pipeline 

will be buried and sand dunes will be re-sculpted by winds on a regular basis. There will be no 

line contrasts. 

Color. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create no changes in color, as the natural 

colors of sand dunes will be dominant after construction, resulting in weak to no color contrasts. 

Orange-colored pipeline markers will be visible at intermittent locations along the pipeline, but 

will not detract from the visual quality of the area. 

Texture. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create no changes in texture, as it will 

be constructed in sand dunes parallel to the existing transmission line right-of-way. The amount 

of texture contrast will be none. 

For BLM-administered lands from MP 0.0 to 7.9, visual contrasts created by the construction, 

operation and maintenance of the IID Lateral will be weak-to-none. There will be little or no 

visual effects from the IID Lateral to BLM-administered lands. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-33 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

4.2.7 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met 

The contrast ratings were compared with the objectives for the VRM Classes II and III in the 

ISDRA RAMP. The potential contrast of visual elements (form, line, texture and texture) caused 

by trenching and backfilling for the pipeline construction will not cause any visual contrasts that 

will be unacceptable after implementation of mitigation measures. The sand dunes have a much 

higher visual absorption capability than the rocky desert landscapes that were traversed in 2002 

by construction of the A-Line. The period of time that it will take to “heal the landscape” in the 

dunes is extremely short, because of wind-driven sand and wheel traffic of OHV users. 

Therefore, the overall contrast rating for the IID Lateral through the Algodones Dunes SQRU is 

“None” to “Weak.” Consequently, the visual resource management objectives for this VRM 

Class II and III area will be met by the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed 

IID Lateral Pipeline. 

Because there will not be a significant visual impact created by pipeline construction, operation 

or maintenance in the Algodones Dunes, no mitigation measures are needed. 

4.3 EAST MESA SQRU (MP 7.9 TO 27.6) 

The dominant view of the landscape through which the IID Lateral passes is an extensive, 

visually flat desert plain covered with creosote bush scrub. There are no interesting landscape 

features on BLM-administered lands in the East Mesa, only a flat landform, uniform brush cover, 

no water, no rock outcrops. Background views to the east reveal the Chocolate Mountain Range 

in the background of the Lateral, and views to the east reveal a flat plain on the horizon. 

4.3.1 Existing Scenic Quality 

The BLM VRM system utilizes the following factors to establish existing scenic quality: 

landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity and cultural modifications. 

Landform. Regarding landform, the valley floor generally slopes from northeast to southwest, 

but it is visually flat and monotonous. A small amount of elevation change was observed during 

field investigations, but the general public will perceive this landscape as extremely “flat.” 

Vegetation. The vegetative pattern on the East Mesa is uniformly scattered, low-growing and 

sparse, gray-green creosote bush scrub. There is little or no contrast in vegetation within the 

East Mesa SQRU. 

Water. No water was observed within the East Mesa SQRU along the IID Lateral. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-34 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Colors. Colors exhibited in the IID Lateral landscape include tan sand flats and gray-green 

scrub brush. Overall, for the majority of the year, there are only subtle color variations, little- to 

no-visual contrast or interest. 

Adjacent Scenery. Regarding adjacent scenery, throughout the entire path of the IID Lateral, 

there is little to no variation from that of flat, barren desert scrub. 

Scarcity. The desert floor scenery crossed by the IID Lateral is very common within the 

southeastern region of California Desert, and is almost archetypical of the public’s perception of 

“desert.” The East Mesa has all the typical appearance of the desert landscape dominated by 

creosote bush scrub and flat desert landscapes. There are no unique or scarce viewsheds 

crossed by the right-of-way. 

Cultural Modifications. Electrical transmission lines, communications and cell-phone towers 

can be seen from certain viewpoints within sight of the IID Lateral. These intrusions in the 

landscape constitute a minor impact to the scenery. 

Overall, no exceptionally striking, intriguing, unique, or visually stimulating landforms, vegetative 

communities, water-bodies, colors, or adjacent scenery landscapes are crossed by the IID 

Lateral. 

4.3.2 Existing Sensitivity Levels 

Type of Users. The users of East Mesa can generally be characterized as motorists traveling 

on I-8. I-8 carries interstate traffic between San Diego, California to the west and Phoenix, 

Arizona to the east. Additionally, it carries local traffic between El Centro, California to the west 

and Yuma, Arizona to the east. Users also exit at Gordon’s Well to access the nearby 

campground, Dune Buggy Flats and the RV Park. 

Adjacent Land Uses. For BLM-administered lands, the land use that surrounds of the Project 

right-of-way is that of open-space desert and the East Mesa Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. The only commercial or residential uses located near this Project site are Pair-A-Dice 

(a roadside establishment), Gordon’s Well RV Park, and the deserted Brock Research Center, 

all of which are located on Evan Hewes Highway immediately adjacent to I-8. 

4.3.3 Distance Zones 

Following the distance zone criteria given for previous SQRUs, it was determined that all of the 

IID Lateral right-of-way from MP 8.1 to 27.6 will be in the foreground-middleground distance 

zone of I-8 and Evan Hewes Highway. Because areas that are closer to observers have a 

greater potential for adverse visual effects, such areas require more attention than do areas that 

are farther away. Distance zones allow this consideration of the proximity of the observer to the 

landscape. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-35 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

4.3.4 Determining VRM Classes 

As previously stated, visual resource management classes are established through the RMP 

process for all BLM-administered lands, but the BLM has not adopted any visual management 

classes for East Mesa. Therefore, visual resource management classes are correlated to the 

Multiple-Use Classes for the East Mesa (Larry Caffey, BLM, 2005).The proposed IID Lateral 

Pipeline will cross the East Mesa following Evan Hewes Highway on open-space desert lands 

administered by the BLM. 

4.3.5 Key Observation Points. 

The contrast rating was prepared from the most critical viewpoints: I-8, Evan Hewes Road, PairA-Dice and Gordon’s Well RV Park (Table Q-15). 

Table Q-15: Key Observation Point Location for the IID 

Lateral at East Mesa 

2005 GPS Location 

KOP Number UTM NAD 83 Zone 11N Approximate 

Milepost. Easting Northing 

KOP 15 8.5 691478E 3620934N 

KOP 16 8.6 691309E 3620998N 

KOP 17 8.5 691478E 3620934N 

KOP 18 20.6 672517E 3623169N 

As seen from KOP 15, the IID Lateral Pipeline will enter the East Mesa SQRU near the 

Gordon’s Well exit of I-8. The pipeline will be directionally drilled under the AAC from this 

location. The site where the pipeline construction will occur has no occupancy, no topographic 

relief, only scattered creosote bush scrub, no rockforms and no water features. 

On the north side of the AAC, the pipeline laydown area will be cleared and the pipeline will be 

placed by HDD. The trench will then be backfilled. Because of the blowing and drifting nature of 

the sand and the rapid regeneration of sand dune vegetative communities, there will be very 

little- to no-visual evidence of the pipeline shortly after construction. 

As seen from KOP 16, the Pair-A-Dice roadside establishment is a local landmark, comprised of 

paved parking, spent-military shells as parking barriers, grass-thatched roof over outdoor 

seating, and a restaurant-bar. The large tower to the right is a cell phone tower. The proposed 

IID Lateral will be located at the south edge of the pavement of Evan Hewes Highway, in front of 

the restaurant/bar. Once the pipeline is installed and the road repaved, the pipeline will not be 

visible from this vantage point. This view is looking toward the northwest. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-36 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

As viewed from Evan Hewes Highway at KOP 17, looking northwest, Gordon’s Well RV Park is 

a pleasant landscape setting in the desert that offers tall, green shade trees, paved roads, 

colorful red and pink flowering shrubs, and green lawns. The proposed IID Lateral will be 

located at the edge of pavement of the Evan Hewes Highway, and after construction and road 

repaving, the pipeline will not be visible. 

For the next approximately 19 miles the IID Lateral will be constructed at the south and then 

north edge of pavement of Evan Hewes Highway, on BLM-administered land, as shown in 

KOP 18. Soil color is light-tan and vegetation is widely scattered, light-green creosote bush 

scrub. There are no rock formations or water features in this desert landscape of sameness. 

Because of the high winds in this area, the drifting nature of the desert sands, and the wide 

spacing of the creosote bush scrub, there will be very little to no visual evidence of the pipeline 

shortly after construction. Likewise, because of access afforded by Evan Hewes Road, the 

operation and maintenance of the proposed IID Lateral will have no adverse effect on the visual 

resources of these BLM-administered lands. 

4.3.6 Degree of Contrast 

The rating is completed by determining the degree of contrast (i.e., strong, moderate, weak, or 

none) for each element. The general criteria and factors shown in Table Q-9 are used when 

rating the degree of contrast: 

Form. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create no changes in landform, as it will 

be constructed on flat terrain parallel to Evan Hewes Road and I-8. There will be no form 

contrasts. 

Line. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create no changes in line, as the IID 

Lateral right-of-way will be parallel to Evan Hewes Road. There will be no line contrasts. 

Color. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create few, if any, changes in color, as it 

will be constructed parallel to Evan Hewes Road and I-8. Minimal vegetative clearing of the 

right-of-way and lighter colored soils from pipeline construction will create weak-to-no color 

contrasts. Orange-colored pipeline markers will be visible at intermittent locations along the 

pipeline, but will not detract from the visual quality of the area. 

Texture. Implementation of the proposed IID Lateral will create few, if any, changes in texture, 

as it will be constructed parallel to Evan Hewes Road and I-8. Therefore, only a slight amount of 

existing desert vegetation will be disturbed during construction. The amount of texture contrast 

will be weak to none. 

For BLM-administered lands from MP 7.9 to 27.6, visual contrasts created by the construction, 

operation and maintenance of the IID Lateral will be weak-to-none. There will be little or no 

visual effects from the IID Lateral to BLM-administered lands. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-37 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

4.3.7 Determining Whether VRM Objectives Are Met 

The contrast ratings are compared with the VRM objectives for the East Mesa. For comparative 

purposes, the four levels of contrast (i.e., none, weak, moderate, and strong) roughly 

correspond with VRM Classes I, II, III, and IV respectively. 

Though experience in construction of the North Baja Pipeline in 2002 (A-Line), it was learned 

that all of the contrast ratings for landscape elements were “none” or “weak,” and therefore 

potential contrast of visual elements (form, line, texture and texture) caused by trenching and 

backfilling for the pipeline construction did not cause any visual contrasts that were 

unacceptable after implementation of mitigation measures. The landscapes that will be crossed 

by the IID Lateral are even more uniform than those crossed in 2002 by the A-Line, and 

therefore, it was determined that the visual effects will be “None”. 

Consequently, the visual resource management objectives for this area in East Mesa will be met 

by the proposed Project. Because there will not be a significant visual impact created by 

pipeline construction, operation or maintenance in the East Mesa, no mitigation measures are 

needed beyond those proposed for restoration. 

4.4 IMPACT SUMMARY 

IID Lateral MP 0.0 to MP 7.9 – The approximately 159,072-acre ISDRA contains the largest 

mass of sand dunes in California, covering an area more than 40 miles long and averaging 5 

miles in width. The ISDRA is considered a world-class OHV area and it represents one of the 

most popular OHV areas in the western United States. In addition, the ISDRA is recognized for 

its frequent use as a backdrop for commercials and movies because of its unique beauty and 

landscape. Very little vegetation is present due to intense OHV use. Manmade modifications in 

the vicinity of the pipeline route in the Algodones Dunes include I-8, the AAC, new Coachella 

Canal, and several wood-pole and steel-lattice-tower electric transmission lines traversing the 

Dunes in an east-west direction. Moreover, wind-deposited sand is expected to mask most 

remaining visual evidence of the right-of-way within a relatively short period following 

construction. The VRM objectives for this area in the Algodones Dunes pipeline segment will be 

met by the proposed Project. Consequently, because there will not be a significant visual impact 

created by pipeline construction, operation, or maintenance, no mitigation measures are needed 

beyond those implemented during construction of the A-Line. Effectiveness will be similar. 

IID Lateral MP 7.9 to 27.6 – The landscapes that will be crossed by the IID Lateral through the 

East Mesa are even more uniform than those crossed in 2002 by the A-Line. In this desert 

landscape environment, a low degree of visual impact will occur initially and be further reduced 

over time. Adjacent features along most of the length of this route segment include electric 

distribution and paved roads. Long term impact will be unnoticeable because the pipeline will for 

the most part be located in county rights-of-way requiring little or no clearing. The VRM 

objectives for this area in the East Mesa will be met by the proposed Project. Consequently, 

because there will not be a significant visual impact created by pipeline construction, operation 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-38 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

or maintenance in the East Mesa, no mitigation measures are needed beyond those 

implemented during construction of the A-Line. Effectiveness will be similar. 

IID Lateral MP 27.6 to 45.6 – In the agricultural areas of the Imperial Valley, visual impacts will 

be temporary and very minor. The terrain is flat and agricultural operations will resume following 

construction. Construction activity will be a short-term visual intrusion to residents along county 

roadways. Long-term impact will be unnoticeable because the pipeline will for the most part be 

located in county rights-of-way requiring little or no clearing. Lands in this route segment are not 

administered by the BLM, and therefore, have no BLM VRM classification. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-39 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

5.0 ARROWHEAD EXTENSION 

The Arrowhead Extension is a 2.1-mile pipeline located between MP 7.4 of the proposed B-Line 

and SoCalGas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station. The terrain is flat and uniform with a mix of 

agricultural and rural residential landscapes on both sides of Arrowhead Boulevard. 

Construction activity would create a short-term visual intrusion along Arrowhead Boulevard. 

There would be no long-term impact on visual resources in this area because little or no 

vegetation clearing would be required where the pipeline would be installed within the right-ofway associated with Arrowhead Boulevard, and agricultural operations would resume following 

construction where the pipeline would be outside the road right-of-way. The lands affected by 

the Arrowhead Alternative are not managed by the BLM and do not have a VRM classification. 

No mitigation measures are warranted or proposed. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-40 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

6.0 ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES 

Two new and separate aboveground facilities are proposed: the Blythe-Arrowhead and El 

Centro Meter Stations. Other aboveground facilities will be modified, but the incremental visual 

change will likely be unnoticeable. Construction of the aboveground facilities will also have a 

temporary impact on visual resources. The Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station is a new 

aboveground facility. It will be located within SoCalGas’ existing site associated with its Blythe 

Compressor Station. The aboveground structures will be painted to match the surroundings. 

Because the facility is not located on BLM land, it does not have a VRM classification. 

The El Centro Meter Station is a new aboveground facility that will be located in the fenced yard 

of the existing El Centro Generating Station. It will be a minor industrial addition to a much 

larger industrial complex. Because the facility is not located on BLM land, it does not have a 

VRM classification. 

The existing Ogilby Meter Station, located in the open desert near I-8, affects the surrounding 

visual landscape. The presence of construction crews/equipment will be a minor visual 

disruption. All modifications will be at or near ground level and be visually unobtrusive. The 

VRM designation for this site, located on BLM-administered land, is Class II. After construction 

is complete, modifications to the existing Ogilby Meter Station will not be visually evident to 

casual observers. 

During modifications associated with the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, the presence of 

construction workers and equipment in the Project area will be a minor detraction. All 

modifications will be at or near ground level and be visually unobtrusive. Because the facility is 

not located on BLM land, it does not have a VRM classification. 

There will be little impact to visual resources resulting from the expansion of the B-Line, new 

laterals, or aboveground facilities. The right–of-way created by construction of the A-Line has 

recovered significantly since construction was completed in 2002. Construction of the B-Line will 

result in an incremental impact that is expected to recover in a similar manner. Pipeline markers 

will be visible at intermittent locations along the pipeline, but will not detract from the visual 

quality of the area. The Project will not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista or 

substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because none exist in the 

Project area. Although aboveground facilities will use small floodlights on site, they will not 

create a new source of substantial light or glare that will adversely affect day or nighttime views 

in the area. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-41 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

7.0 REFERENCES 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1980 (as amended). California Desert Conservation Area 

Plan. Latest amendment 1999. 

BLM 1986a. Visual Resource Inventory. Handbook 8410-1. Available online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/vrm/8410.html. 

BLM. 1986b. Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Handbook 8431-1. Available online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/vrm/vrmsys.html. 

BLM. 1987. Final Yuma District Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

BLM. 2000. Visual Resource Management. Available online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html. 

BLM. 2003. Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP). May. 

BLM. 2004. Personal communication with Jim Foote, BLM, with Lee Anderson, Tetra Tech EC, 

Inc. June. 

BLM. 2005. Personal communication with Jamie Neilans and Larry Caffey, BLM, with James 

Nickerson, Andrea Slusser, and Lee Anderson, Tetra Tech EC, Inc. September. 

BLM. 2006. Personal communication with Aaron Curtis, BLM, with Lee Anderson, Tetra Tech 

EC, Inc. January. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-42 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

FIGURE Q-1 

KOP LOCATIONS ALONG THE B-LINE AND IID LATERAL 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-43 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT FOR 

THE PROPOSED NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP06-61-000 and CP01-23-003 

Figure Q-1 KOP Locations Along the B-Line and IID Lateral 

Page Q-43 

Public access for this Non-Internet information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-44 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

ATTACHMENT A 

A-LINE (2001) AND B-LINE (2005) KOP PHOTOS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

February 2006 1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

ATTACHMENT A 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

A-Line (2001) and B-Line (2005) KOP PHOTOS 

KOP 1. Highway 78 at Milpitas Wash looking east-northeast (MP 35.8) 

2001 Visual Conditions Before Pipeline Construction 

2005 Visual Conditions After Pipeline Construction and Landscape Restoration. 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

February 2006 2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 2. Highway 78 at Milpitas Wash looking south-southeast (MP 36.1) 

2005 Visual Conditions After Pipeline Construction and Landscape Restoration. 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

February 2006 3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 3. Highway 78 at Milpitas Wash Looking South-Southeast (MP 36.6) 

2001 Visual Conditions Before Pipeline Construction 

2005 Visual Conditions After Pipeline Construction and Landscape Restoration 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

February 2006 4 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 4. Highway 78 near Access Road IMCA-1009 Looking Due East (MP 39.0) 

2001 Visual Conditions Before Pipeline Construction. 

2005 Visual Conditions After Pipeline Construction and Landscape Restoration. 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

February 2006 5 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 5. Highway 78 Looking Southeast (MP 42.2) 

2001 Visual Conditions Before Pipeline Construction. 

2005 Visual Conditions After Pipeline Construction and Landscape Restoration. 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

February 2006 6 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 6. Highway 78 near Access Road IMCA-1037, Looking East-Northeast (MP 47.3) 

2001 Visual Conditions Before Pipeline Construction. 

2005 Visual Conditions After Pipeline Construction and Landscape Restoration. 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

February 2006 7 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 7. Highway 78 North of the U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoint Station looking Northeast 

(MP 47.6) 

2001 Visual Conditions Before Pipeline Construction. 

2005 Visual Conditions After Pipeline Construction and Landscape Restoration. 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

February 2006 8 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 8. Highway 78 South of the U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoint Station Looking East-Northeast 

(MP 48.3) 

2001 Visual Conditions Before Pipeline Construction. 

2005 Visual Conditions After Pipeline Construction and Landscape Restoration. 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX Q

February 2006 Q-45 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

ATTACHMENT B 

IID LATERAL (2005) KOP PHOTOS 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

January 2006 1 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

ATTACHMENT B 

NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT 

IID Lateral (2005) KOP Photos 

KOP 9. State Route 34 (Ogilby Road) Looking West-Southwest (MP 0.3) 

KOP 10. Interstate 8 near Grays Well Road, Looking Southwest (MP 1.8) 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

January 2006 2 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 11. Grays Well Road (within ISDRA), Looking Southwest (MP 3.5) 

KOP 12. Between Grays Well Road and Interstate 8, Looking Southwest (MP 4.1) 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R

January 2006 3 North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project 

KOP 13. Grays Well Road, Paralleling Interstate 8, Looking Southwest (MP 5.3) 

KOP 14. Western Edge of the Algodones Dunes, Looking Due West (MP 6.5) 

Public Appendix Q

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX R 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, California 92011

In Reply Refer To: 

FWS-ERIV-5068.2 

Apr 20 2007 

Michael J. Boyle, Chief 

Environmental Gas Branch I 

Office of Energy Projects 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20426 

Re: Formal Section 7 Consultation on the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project; 

La Paz County, Arizona; Riverside County, California; and Imperial County, California 

(1-6-05-F-5068.2) 

Dear Mr. Boyle: 

This document transmits our biological opinion based on our review of the proposed North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project (Project or proposed Project) located in La Paz County, Arizona; 

Riverside County, California; and Imperial County, California; and its effects on desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizi), desert tortoise critical habitat, and Peirson’s milk-vetch (Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 

1973, as amended (16 United States Code 1531 et seq.). Your September 27, 2006, request for 

formal consultation was received on September 29, 2006. 

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the September 2006 draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), which was prepared 

to also serve as the Biological Assessment, survey reports, a site visit on July 6, 2006, and other 

sources of information. The project description has been modified to reflect the adoption of the 

Arrowhead Alternative, a minor facility change that North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja) 

incorporated into its proposed action after the issuance of the draft EIS/EIR. A complete 

administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 

CONSULTATION HISTORY 

A request for a species list was received by the Service on April 15, 2005. 

A meeting was attended by Kurt Roblek, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the Navy Office 

in San Diego on August 25, 2005, in which endangered species issues and timeline were 

discussed. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 2

On September 27, 2005, Kurt Roblek met with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

representatives and others to discuss more issues and the timeline for section 7 consultation and 

the draft EIS/EIR. 

On December 30, 2005, the Service received a letter requesting a species list for a newly 

incorporated portion of the proposed project, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Lateral. In a 

phone call conversation on March 3, 2006, it was agreed that Peirson’s milk-vetch and the flattailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii; proposed for listing at that time) were species of 

concern on the IID Lateral. 

Survey reports for desert tortoise, Peirson’s milk-vetch, Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris 

yumanensis), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) were received on 

February 7, 2006. 

Penny Eckert of Tetratech, EC Inc., escorted Tyler Grant, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, on 

a site visit on July 6, 2006. The length of the proposed project was driven and points of concern 

were visited. 

The draft EIS/EIR was received on September 25, 2006. 

The Service received the FERC request on September 29, 2006, for initiation of formal section 7 

consultation on desert tortoise and Peirson’s milk-vetch. The FERC determined the project 

would have no effect on the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), brown pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis), bonytail chub (Gilia elegans), and desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularis). The 

FERC also determined that the project may affect, but would not be likely to adversely affect 

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and its critical habitat, southwestern willow flycatcher, 

and Yuma clapper rail. The Service concurred with these “not likely to adversely affect” 

determinations in a letter dated November 11, 2006. 

A draft of the Biological Opinion was provided to FERC representatives on March 28, 2007. 

FERC representatives reviewed the draft Biological Opinion. At this time, FERC representatives 

also informed the Service that the Arrowhead Alternative analyzed in the draft EIS/EIR would 

be adopted in the final EIS/EIR. The Arrowhead Alternative would have no effect on listed 

species. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

North Baja proposes to expand its existing natural gas transmission pipeline system between 

Ehrenberg, Arizona and an interconnection at the international border between the United States 

and Mexico. The North Baja system is the U.S. portion of the international North 

Baja/Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline Project. North Baja’s existing system extends approximately 

79.8 miles from an interconnection with the facilities of El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 3

near Ehrenberg through southeast California to a point on the international border between 

Yuma, Arizona and Mexicali, North Baja Mexico, where the pipeline interconnects with the 

Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline. The North Baja/Gasoducto Bajanorte Pipeline Project was built in 

2002 to supply domestic natural gas from the United States primarily to gasfired electric 

generation facilities in Baja California, Mexico. Since that time, several projects have been 

initiated to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage and vaporization terminals on the Baja 

California coast, near the terminus of the Gasoducto Bajanorte pipeline. This new source of 

natural gas would be stored in tanks as LNG at the terminals in Baja California, and then regasified (vaporized) and transported as natural gas into the North Baja/Gasoducto Bajanorte 

systems. 

The existing North Baja system is currently certificated by the FERC to transport 512,500 

dekatherms per day (Dthd) of natural gas in a southbound direction. Once completed, the 

expanded system would be capable of transporting up to 2,932,000 Dthd (2,753 million standard 

cubic feet per day) of natural gas from the planned LNG terminals in a northbound direction for 

delivery to customers in California and Arizona. In addition to the new volumes from the LNG 

terminals, North Baja would continue to offer southbound gas transportation service for several 

existing shippers. The anticipated delivery points for the proposed Project are: the IID’s existing 

El Centro Generating Station in El Centro, California and the SoCal Gas Company (SoCal Gas) 

system in Blythe, California; and the El Paso system in Ehrenberg, Arizona. 

The proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project would involve the construction and 

operation of a pipeline loop; two pipeline laterals; two meter stations; modifications at North 

Baja’s existing compressor and meter stations; and installation of taps and crossover piping, 

mainline and lateral valves, and pig launchers and receivers. A loop is a segment of pipeline that 

is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. The loop 

allows more gas to be moved through the system. A lateral pipeline typically takes gas from the 

main system to deliver it to a customer, local distribution system, or another interstate 

transmission system. A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or 

to inspect it for damage or corrosion. 

Specifically, North Baja proposes to construct and operate: 

• 79.8 miles of pipeline loop (B-Line) consisting of 11.7 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

pipeline extending from the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station at milepost (MP) 0.0 

in La Paz County, Arizona to the existing Rannells Trap at MP 11.7 in Riverside County, 

California and 68.1 miles of 48-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Rannells Trap to 

an interconnection at the U.S.-Mexico border at MP 79.8 in Imperial County, California; 

• 2.1 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline (Arrowhead Extension) extending from the 

proposed B-Line at MP 7.4 to SoCal Gas’ existing Blythe Compressor Station in 

Riverside County; and 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 4

• 45.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline (IID Lateral) extending from MP 74.5 of the BLine near the existing Ogilby Meter Station in Imperial County to the existing IID El 

Centro Generating Station in Imperial County; 

• modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station in La Paz County and the 

existing Ogilby Meter Station in Imperial County to allow northbound flow of natural 

gas; 

• metering modifications inside the existing El Paso Meter Station at the Ehrenberg 

Compressor Station site to allow LNG-source gas to be delivered into the El Paso system; 

• one meter station (Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station) at SoCal Gas’ existing Blythe 

Compressor Station in Riverside County to measure gas delivery from the North Baja 

system to SoCal Gas; 

• one meter station (El Centro Meter Station) at the IID’s existing El Centro Generating 

Station in Imperial County to measure gas delivery from the North Baja system to the 

IID; 

• two taps and crossover piping where the Arrowhead Extension would connect with the 

existing A-Line and proposed B-Line in Riverside County; 

• one tap where the IID Lateral would connect with the proposed B-Line in Imperial 

County; 

• four pig launchers, one where the Arrowhead Extension would connect with the existing 

A-Line and proposed B-Line, one at Rannells Trap in Riverside County, one at the 

Ogilby Meter Station, and one where the IID Lateral would connect with the proposed BLine; 

• five pig receivers, one at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station, one at the end of the 

Arrowhead Extension at the Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station, one at Rannells Trap, one 

at the Ogilby Meter Station, and one at the end of the IID Lateral at the IID El Centro 

Generating Station; 

• nine remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the B-Line, adjacent to 

the existing A-Line valve sites; and 

• four remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the IID Lateral. 

The proposed Project would be constructed in three phases beginning in 2007 and ending in 

2009. Phase I would involve modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station and 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 5

Ogilby and El Paso Meter Stations and construction of the Arrowhead Extension; BlytheArrowhead Meter Station and pig receiver; and the pig launcher, taps, and crossover piping at 

the beginning of the Arrowhead Extension. Phase I-A would involve the construction of the IID 

Lateral and El Centro Meter Station, one of the horizontal directional drills (HDDs) of the AllAmerican Canal, and the HDD of the Eastline Canal. Phase II would involve the construction of 

the B-Line adjacent to North Baja’s existing A-Line between Blythe and the U.S.-Mexico 

border. Phase II would also include the HDD of the Colorado River and the second HDD of the 

All-American Canal. 

Maintenance 

An electronic monitoring system would monitor the integrity of the pipeline system. A 

maintenance team would be on-call at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station 24 hours a day. 

Maintenance activities would include erosion control, observation from a truck of the state of the 

facilities and conditions in the right-of-way, and repair of facilities if required. Environmental 

protection programs such as desert tortoise awareness training would be implemented during 

operation of the proposed project. 

Additional details of the project description can be found in the draft EIS/EIR. 

Conservation Measures

The following conservation measures were described in the draft EIS/EIR. This biological 

opinion is issued on the assumption that these conservation measures will be implemented. 

General Minimization and Conservation Measures 

1. North Baja would use its environmental training program, successfully implemented for 

the A-Line construction, as a basis for a site-specific environmental training program to 

be implemented before the start of work. All employees and contractors working in the 

field would be required to complete an environmental training session before beginning 

work on the right-of-way. The program would include discussions of the biology, 

distribution, and ecology of special status species within the geographic area of 

construction; protection afforded such species under applicable Federal and State laws 

and regulations; all protection measures that must be followed to protect such species 

during Project activities; penalties for noncompliance; reporting requirements; and the 

importance of compliance with all protection measures. To ensure proper focus, emphasis 

would be placed on the specific aspects of compliance applicable to the particular 

audience’s activities on the Project. 

2. Employees and contractors would be informed during one or more training sessions that 

they are not authorized to handle or otherwise move listed species at any time, including 

while commuting to work sites or at a work site. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 6

3. North Baja would hire and designate at least two Environmental Inspectors (EIs) per 

construction spread who would be responsible for overseeing Project environmental 

protection measures, including those for special status species. Environmental inspection 

procedures would be in compliance with the relevant provisions of North Baja’s 

Construction Mitigation and Restoration Plan. North Baja would also hire and designate 

at least one authorized biologist who would be responsible for identification of habitat 

and individuals of special status species and for implementation of all measures requiring 

an authorized biologist’s intervention. The biologist would, if needed, hold the required 

permits or formal agreements with appropriate Federal and State agencies for the survey 

or handling of any special status species. 

4. An authorized biologist would conduct species-specific surveys of each Project facility 

located within areas identified during North Baja’s surveys as listed species habitat no 

more than 7 days before the onset of activities. 

5. Project personnel would exercise caution when commuting to the construction area to 

minimize any chance for the inadvertent injury or mortality of species encountered on 

roads leading to and from the construction area. North Baja’s contractors and employees 

would report all such incidents directly to an EI. 

6. Only existing routes of travel and approved access roads would be used to and from 

construction areas. Cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment would be prohibited. 

Except on county- or State-maintained roads, vehicle and equipment speeds would not 

exceed 25 miles per hour within potential habitat of a listed species. On the B-Line, 

between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 (an area of relatively high tortoise density), North Baja states 

that it would limit vehicle and equipment speeds to 10 miles per hour except for stringing 

trucks, which North Baja proposes to allow to travel at 25 miles per hour. In accordance 

with the recommendation of the environmental staffs of the FERC, the California State 

Lands Commission (CSLC), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Section 

4.7.3 of the EIS/EIR, North Baja would be required to restrict stringing trucks to a 10-

mile-per-hour speed limit between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 on the B-Line. 

7. Authorized biologists would monitor all work where prior North Baja surveys have 

documented the occurrence of one or more listed species and where construction 

activities can reasonably be expected to adversely affect those species. In conjunction 

with North Baja’s EIs, the biologists would have the authority to halt all non-emergency 

actions that might result in harm to a listed species, and would assist in the overall 

implementation of protection measures for listed species during Project activities. 

8. All trash and food items generated by construction and maintenance activities would be 

promptly placed in a closed container and regularly removed from the Project site to 

reduce the attractiveness of the area to common ravens and other desert predators. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 7

9. Firearms and domestic pets would be prohibited from work sites. 

10. In the construction work area and along access roads, employees and contractors would 

look under vehicles and equipment for the presence of special status species before 

movement. If a special status species is observed, no vehicles or equipment would be 

moved until the animal has left voluntarily or is removed by an authorized biologist. 

11. Pipeline construction activities between dusk and dawn would be limited to emergencies 

only (i.e., issues involving human health and safety) with the exception of the HDD 

operations (including those at the Colorado River, the All-American Canal, Interstate 8, 

the East Highline Canal) and the open-cut crossing of Rannells Drain. 

12. Open pipeline trenches, auger holes, or other excavations that could entrap wildlife 

would be inspected by an authorized biologist a minimum of three times per day, and 

immediately before backfilling. In habitats supporting special status species, pipe 

segments would either be capped or taped closed each night or raised on supports of 

sufficient height to prevent the entry and entrapment of special status species. Such pipe 

segments would be inspected regularly before sealing and before using in the morning. 

For open trenches, earthen escape ramps would be maintained at 1-mile intervals. Other 

excavations that remain open overnight would be covered, ramped, or fenced to prevent 

entrapment of wildlife. 

13. If a listed species is located during construction, and a contingency for avoidance, 

removal, or transplant has not been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS 

or Service) or appropriate agency, North Baja would not proceed with Project activities 

in that location until specific consultation with the FERC, the FWS, the BLM, and/or 

other appropriate agency is completed. 

14. All encounters with listed species would be reported to the biologist, who would record 

the following information: 

a. species; 

b. location (narrative and maps) and dates of observations; 

c. general condition and health, including injuries and state of healing; 

d. diagnostic markings, including identification numbers or markers; and 

e. locations moved from and to. 

15. Upon locating a dead or injured listed species, North Baja would notify the FWS and the 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in California or the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department in Arizona. Written notification would be made within 15 days of the 

date and time of the finding or incident (if known) and would include: location of the 

carcass, a photograph, cause of death (if known), and other pertinent information. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 8

16. As described in Section 2.2.1 of the EIS/EIR, in general, the construction right-of-way 

would be limited to a width of 105 feet along the B-Line. North Baja proposes to 

generally use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the Arrowhead Extension 

except when in the Arrowhead Boulevard roadway or road shoulder where a 60-footwide construction right-of-way would be used. The construction right-of-way for the IID 

Lateral would be limited to a width of 60 feet for the majority of its length and 80 feet 

where it parallels existing utility corridors. The construction right-of-way would be 

clearly staked and flagged in advance of construction. The construction work area 

includes approved work areas for the pipelines, compressor station, and meter stations; 

the facilities at Rannells Trap; the taps, crossover piping, and pig launcher associated 

with the Arrowhead Extension; access roads; the tap to the B-line and pig launcher 

associated with the IID Lateral; and staging and pipe storage areas. 

17. As described in Section 4.6.2.3 of the EIS/EIR, North Baja would attempt to schedule 

construction in native habitats outside of the breeding season for migratory birds. If, 

however, construction activities are necessary in native habitats during the bird breeding 

season, North Baja would remove vegetation that could provide nesting substrate from 

the right-of-way before the breeding season, thus eliminating the possibility that birds 

could nest on the right-of-way. In accordance with the recommendation of the 

environmental staffs of the FERC, the CSLC, and the BLM in Section 4.6.2.3 of the 

EIS/EIR, specific plans relating to preclearing of vegetation would be coordinated with 

the FWS, the BLM, and the CDFG. Qualified biologists would conduct preconstruction 

surveys to confirm the absence of nesting birds before construction begins. 

18. If, in spite of vegetation removal, nesting birds are found on the construction right-ofway, the nest would not be removed until fledging has occurred or unless authorized after 

consultation with the FWS, the CDFG, and, if the nest is located on Federal lands, the 

Federal land management agency. 

19. At specified locations in areas of high-density microphyll woodland (see Table 4.5.3-2 of 

the EIS/EIR), North Baja would narrow the construction right-of-way width to 80 feet. 

Areas of this narrower construction width would be identified in the field, staked, and 

flagged in advance of construction. 

20. At the conclusion of work, all trenches and holes would be completely filled, surfaces 

cleaned and smoothed, and each site recontoured to match the original profiles as closely 

as possible. 

21. With the exception of fenced facilities, all materials and equipment would be removed 

from the area upon completion of work. All stakes, flagging, and fencing used to 

delineate and protect any environmental or cultural feature in the construction area would 

be removed no later than 30 days after construction and restoration are complete. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 9

22. Upon completion of Project activities, North Baja would submit a final report to the 

FERC for distribution to other agencies, including the FWS. The report would document 

the effectiveness and practicality of the conservation measures, the number of individuals 

of each species excavated from their burrows or removed from the site, the number of 

individuals killed or injured, and other pertinent information. The report would also 

recommend modifications of the Project stipulations in order to enhance the protection of 

species in the future. In addition, the final report would provide the actual acreage 

disturbed by Project activities by habitat type. 

23. North Baja would also monitor the entire pipeline route to determine the success of 

restoration of desert vegetation. In native desert habitats, restoration would be considered 

successful if the right-of-way is similar in species composition to adjacent undisturbed 

lands. This post-construction monitoring would be conducted annually in areas of desert 

vegetation disturbed by construction through 2012. Results of the monitoring would be 

provided in reports to the FERC, the BLM, the CSLC, and the CDFG. 

24. Additionally, North Baja would conduct surveys for non-native invasive plant species. 

The results would be compared to the preconstruction survey conducted to determine 

locations of weed infestations attributable to the Project. North Baja would be 

responsible for weed survey and control two times a year for 2 years, then once a year 

thereafter as part of its routine operation and maintenance of the pipelines. 

25. After construction, the lead, cooperating, and/or other agencies would continue to 

conduct oversight inspection and monitoring. If it is determined that any of the proposed 

monitoring time frames are not adequate to assess the success of restoration, North Baja 

would be required to extend its post-construction monitoring programs. The BLM would 

retain North Baja’s bond or other security until the BLM is satisfied with North Baja’s 

reclamation efforts. 

Desert Tortoise Conservation Measures 

26. Compensation rates for new impacts on desert tortoise habitat of 1:1 would be calculated 

and an assessed financial contribution would be paid to the BLM. In accordance with 

accepted guidelines previously implemented by the FERC, the FWS, and the BLM, areas 

of new impacts would include only those areas not previously affected by construction of 

the A-Line. 

27. North Baja would provide funding to the CDFG to manage acquired lands in addition to 

an enhancement fee based on the same compensation rate, which would be based on the 

CDFG published or calculated rates per acre at the time of issuance of the final EIS/EIR 

for the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 10

28. North Baja would submit the names, permit numbers, and relevant tortoise experience 

resumes of all individuals who might need to handle desert tortoises to the FWS for 

approval at least 15 days before the initiation of clearance surveys. North Baja would 

also submit the list to the BLM for its records. Project activities would not begin until an 

authorized biologist has been approved. Although other biologists may be employed as 

biological monitors, only those approved by the FWS as authorized biologists would be 

permitted to handle tortoises. 

29. All persons authorized by the FWS to handle desert tortoises would follow the guidelines 

established in the Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises During Construction Projects 

(Desert Tortoise Council 1999). 

30. A clearance survey for the desert tortoise would be conducted by an authorized biologist 

within 24 hours before ground disturbance. 

31. Burrows outside of the limits of the construction right-of-way would be flagged so that 

the biological monitor would be able to more easily locate them during construction. 

32. All desert tortoise burrows or pallets in the construction area would be excavated by an 

authorized biologist. All desert tortoise handling and burrow excavation would be in 

accordance with the handling procedures developed by the FWS and would be conducted 

by authorized biologists. 

33. Desert tortoises that are found above ground and need to be moved from potential harm 

would be placed in the shade of a shrub by the authorized biologist. All desert tortoises 

removed from burrows would be placed in an unoccupied burrow of approximately the 

same size as the one from which it was removed. 

34. If an existing burrow is unavailable, the authorized biologist would construct or direct the 

construction of a burrow of similar size, shape, depth, and orientation as the original 

burrow. Desert tortoises moved during inactive periods would be monitored for at least 2 

days after placement in the new burrows to ensure their safety. The authorized biologist 

would be allowed some judgment and discretion to ensure that the survival of the desert 

tortoise is likely. 

35. Should a tortoise wander into the construction area during construction, adjacent 

activities would be halted until the tortoise is moved out of the construction work area 

and out of harm’s way. 

36. North Baja would install exclusion fencing along the right-of-way in areas where tortoise 

density is sufficiently high to warrant fencing, in the opinion of the authorized biologist 

in charge of tortoise surveys and in consultation with the FWS and the CDFG, to prevent 

tortoises from entering the construction work area and getting in harm’s way. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 11

37. A worker bonus program would be implemented that would reward construction staff 

who spot a tortoise within the construction work area and, without touching or disturbing 

the animal, notify the authorized biologist for action. 

38. If a tortoise is located in the construction work area and is not moving, adjacent activities 

would be halted until an authorized biologist is able to move it out of harm’s way. 

39. All pipeline marker signs within desert tortoise habitat would be fitted with “bird-begone” or similar bird repellent devices. 

40. Only approved access roads would be used. Only approved areas would be used for 

temporary storage areas, laydown sites, and any other surface-disturbing activities. Any 

routes of travel that require construction or modification, or any additional work areas, 

would be surveyed for tortoises by an authorized biologist(s) before modification or 

construction of the route or construction or use of a new work area. 

41. Trench segments or other excavations would be provided with tortoise escape ramps at 1-

mile intervals. All excavations would be inspected for tortoises three times daily and 

before backfilling. 

42. Any time a vehicle is parked, the ground around and under the vehicle would be 

inspected for desert tortoises before the vehicle is moved. If a desert tortoise is observed, 

it would be left to move on its own. If this does not occur within 15 minutes, an 

authorized biologist would remove and relocate the tortoise. 

43. Within desert tortoise habitat, construction pipe, culverts, or similar structures with a 

diameter of 3 inches or greater that are stored on the construction site for one or more 

nights would be inspected for tortoises before the material is moved, buried, or capped. 

As an alternative, all such structures may be capped before being stored on the 

construction site. 

44. All construction-related activities in desert tortoise habitat would be conducted between 

dawn and dusk. 

Peirson’s Milk-vetch Conservation Measures 

45. All topsoil within 2 to 8 inches of the soil surface would be set aside during construction 

and respread above the pipeline when construction is complete. 

46. The right-of-way of the B-line would be imprinted (sheepsfooted) to create 

microcatchments for seeds and moisture. The right-of-way for the IID Lateral would not 

be imprinted in the sand dunes because it would be ineffective. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 12

47. Construction in Peirson’s milk-vetch habitat is expected to occur between mid-June and 

mid-September, usually the time of year of the fewest standing plants. 

STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizi)

The Mojave population of the desert tortoise was emergency listed as endangered by the Service 

on August 4, 1989 (54 FR 32326). On April 2, 1990, the Service issued a final rule listing the 

desert tortoise as threatened (55 FR 12178). The Mojave population is defined as occurring 

north and west of the Colorado River in California (Mojave and Sonoran deserts), southern 

Nevada, north-western Arizona, and south-western Utah. Reasons for the threatened status 

included loss and degradation of habitat from construction projects, conversion of tortoise 

habitat for agricultural development, livestock grazing, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) activity. 

Also cited as factors for individual mortality and population declines were illegal collection, 

upper respiratory tract disease, and elevated levels of predation. The desert tortoise is also listed 

as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. 

In June 1994, a Final Recovery Plan was issued for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. 

The Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan serves as the key strategy for recovery and delisting of the 

desert tortoise. The document divides the species’ range into six distinct population segments or 

recovery units (i.e., Northern Colorado, Eastern Colorado, Eastern Mojave, North-eastern 

Mojave, Western Mojave, and Upper Virgin River) and recommends the establishment of 14 

Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) throughout the recovery areas. Within each 

designated region, the recovery plan recommends reserve level protection for both desert tortoise 

populations and habitat, while maintaining and conserving sensitive species and ecosystem 

functions. The design of the DWMAs follow accepted concepts of reserve design and, as part of 

the actions, restrict human activities that negatively affect the desert tortoise (Service 1994). 

Critical Habitat

On February 8, 1994, the Service designated approximately 6.47 million acres of critical habitat 

for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (California - 8 units, 4.8 million acres; Nevada - 

4 units, 1.2 million acres; Arizona - 2 units, 338,700 acres; Utah - 2 units, 129,100 acres [59 FR 

5820]). The rule became effective on March 10, 1994. The Service determined critical habitat 

unit boundaries based on proposed DWMAs in the Draft Recovery Plan for the Desert Tortoise 

(Mojave Population). A total of twelve critical habitat units were designated across California, 

Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. Three units span more than one state: Piute-Eldorado occurs in 

California and Nevada; Gold Butte-Pakoon occurs in Nevada and Arizona; and Beaver Dam 

Slope occurs in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 13

Critical habitat is designated by the Service to identify the key biological and physical needs of 

the species and key areas for recovery, and focuses conservation actions on those areas. Critical 

habitat is composed of specific geographic areas that contain the biological and physical 

attributes that are essential to the species’ conservation within those areas, such as space, food, 

water, nutrition, cover, shelter, reproductive sites, and special habitats. These features are called 

the primary constituent elements of critical habitat. The specific primary constituent elements of 

desert tortoise critical habitat are: sufficient space to support viable populations within each of 

the six recovery units and to provide for movement, dispersal, and gene flow; sufficient quality 

and quantity of forage species and the proper soil conditions to provide for the growth of these 

species; suitable substrates for burrowing, nesting, and overwintering; burrows, caliche caves, 

and other shelter sites; sufficient vegetation for shelter from temperature extremes and predators; 

and habitat protected from disturbance and human caused mortality. 

The final rule for designation of critical habitat did not explicitly ascribe specific conservation 

roles or functions to the various critical habitat units. Rather, it refers to the strategy of 

establishing recovery units and desert wildlife management areas recommended by the recovery 

plan for the desert tortoise, which had been published as a draft at the time of the designation of 

critical habitat, to capture the “biotic and abiotic variability found in desert tortoise habitat” (59 

FR 5820, see page 5823). Specifically, we designated the critical habitat units to follow the 

direction provided by the draft recovery plan for the establishment of desert wildlife 

management areas. Note that each critical habitat unit functions independently of the others in 

terms of providing the physical and biological needs of individual desert tortoises; that is, desert 

tortoises are not required to move between or among units to complete their life histories. For 

this reason, we have not presented specific information related to the status of individual critical 

habitat units that are located outside of the action area. We also note that the critical habitat 

units in aggregate are intended to protect the variability that occurs across the large range of the 

desert tortoise; the loss of any specific unit would eliminate elements of the species’ behavioral, 

ecological, and genetic variability. 

Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit 

Approximately 107,183 acres of this critical habitat unit lie within Joshua Tree National Park 

(Service 2005a). We were unable to obtain any information on specific uses of this area from 

the National Park Service; however, given the general patterns of visitor use at Joshua Tree 

National Park, we expect that this area receives little use. 

Approximately 187,046 acres of this critical habitat unit lie within the Chocolate Mountains 

Aerial Gunnery Range (Pearce pers. comm. 2005). Within the area designated as critical habitat 

of the desert tortoise, the Marine Corps primarily uses the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery 

Range to support target sites for aircraft and, to a lesser degree, ground-based artillery; 

maintenance of the targets is the other primary activity in this area. Target areas cover 

approximately 2,095.5 acres and forward arming and refueling points occupy 161 acres. 

Approximately 202.8 miles of roads cross this portion of the critical habitat unit. Forward 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 14

arming and refueling points are areas that the Marine Corps uses to land helicopters to refuel and 

rearm them in the field. Refueling can be done from a large transport helicopter to a smaller 

attack helicopter, but it is usually done from pre-positioned trucks. The trucks stay on 

designated routes to minimize surface disturbance and dust in the landing zone. Except to place 

targets in the designated targets areas, which are both mapped and marked with permanent 

monuments on the ground, vehicles are required to stay on the designated roads. Washes are 

only used when they are part of the designated routes. The Marine Corps and Service consulted, 

pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, on the effects on the desert tortoise and its critical habitat 

of the roads, target areas, and forward arming and refueling points in 1996 (Pearce pers. comm. 

2005). 

Life History

The desert tortoise is a large herbivorous reptile found in portions of the California, Arizona, 

Nevada, and Utah deserts, and extending in range to Sonora and Sinaloa, Mexico. In California, 

the species occurs primarily within the creosote bush, shadscale, and Joshua tree series of the 

Mojave Desert scrub, and the lower Colorado River Valley subdivision of the Sonoran Desert 

scrub. Optimal habitat has been characterized as creosote bush scrub in which precipitation 

ranges from 2 to 8 inches, the diversity of perennial plants is relatively high, and production of 

ephemerals is prominent (Luckenbach 1982, Turner 1982, Turner and Brown 1982, Schamberger 

and Turner 1986). Soils must be friable to allow for burrow excavation, but firm to avoid 

burrow collapse. In California, desert tortoises are typically associated with gravel flats or sandy 

soils with some clay, although the species has occasionally been found on windblown sand or 

rocky terrain (Luckenbach 1982). 

Desert tortoises are found in a variety of desert habitats, including arid, sandy, or gravelly areas 

in creosote bush scrub. They retreat into their horizontal burrows to avoid high daytime 

temperatures. Desert tortoises are most active in California during the spring and early summer 

when annual food plants are most prevalent. Additional activity occurs during the warmer fall 

months and sometimes following summer rain storms. Desert tortoises spend the remainder of 

the year in burrows, escaping the extreme conditions of the desert. Further information on the 

range, biology, and ecology of the desert tortoise is described in Burge and Bradley (1976), 

Burge, (1978), Luckenbach (1982), Weinstein et al. (1987), Hovik and Hardenbrook (1989), 

Service (1994), and Tracy et al. (2004). 

Population Dynamics

Desert tortoises do not reach sexual maturity until they are 10 to 15 years old. Tortoise 

populations are probably dependent on relatively rare years of sufficient and timely precipitation 

to produce sufficient forage for reproduction and survival. This life history makes the species 

susceptible to environmental perturbations that may affect recruitment of young animals into the 

population, or survival of breeding adults before replacement (55 FR 12179). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 15

Status and Distribution

Analysis of study plot data from sites in the western Mojave Desert indicate that subpopulations 

(both adults and especially juveniles) have declined over the last decade. The desert tortoise 

species is long-lived with a relatively slow rate of reproduction. Vandalism, collecting, raven 

predation, drought, and disease are a few of the many factors that are implicated in population 

declines. Habitat conditions have deteriorated and/or habitat has been lost in certain localities 

resulting from urban, energy, and mineral development; conversion of native habitats to 

agriculture; vehicle-oriented recreation; livestock grazing; military activities; and other uses (55 

FR 12179). Luckenbach (1982) concluded that human activity is the most significant cause of 

tortoise mortality. Also, the apparent distribution of Upper Respiratory Disease Syndrome, not 

identified before 1987 in wild tortoises, has suggested the possibility of an epizootic condition 

and thus may be a significant contributing factor to the current high level of desert tortoise losses 

documented from certain localities (55 FR 12179). 

Threats

Numerous factors are likely involved in the decline of desert tortoise populations. Predation by 

common ravens and domestic and feral dogs, unauthorized OHV activity, authorized vehicular 

activity, illegal collecting, upper respiratory tract disease, possibly other diseases, mortality on 

paved roads, vandalism, drought, livestock grazing, feral burros, human development, non-native 

plants, changes to natural fire regimes, and environmental contaminants are known or potential 

contributing factors. Tracy et al. (2004) postulate that “disease alone is not sufficient to explain 

(desert) tortoise die-offs.” They state that a combination of factors may be responsible for 

declines in the numbers of desert tortoises across its range and cite a “growing awareness” 

among experts on disease “that the probability of infection leading to death in (desert) tortoises 

may be a function of chronic stress (e.g., malnutrition) and the strain of infectious agent. This 

means that the presence of disease alone is not sufficient to explain (desert) tortoise die-offs. For 

example, it is possible that habitat degradation results in physiologically stressed (desert) 

tortoises that then succumb to disease agents that are normal at background levels in healthy 

populations.” Oftedal (2005) has advanced the concept that desert tortoises “must match their 

ability to balance nutrient intake and excretion over a period of years to ephemeral plant 

resources that change over period of weeks.” Basically, Oftedal contends that desert tortoises 

are completely dependent on nutrient resources that are only available briefly and on an irregular 

basis to sustain them over years when these resources are scarce or absent; furthermore, the 

ephemeral plants that they need to ingest at these times are high in protein and water relative to 

potassium. In areas where non-native plant species that do not contain these specific nutrients, 

such as Mediterranean grass and brome grass, have displaced the plants that desert tortoises 

require, they may be in a state of chronic nutritional stress. This level of stress may be an 

important component in the declines that have been observed over large portions of the 

California desert. Finally, Federal, State, and local agencies and non-governmental 

organizations have undertaken numerous activities to attempt to recover the desert tortoise in 

California. Agencies and others have modified grazing procedures, retired livestock allotments, 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 16

fenced highways, removed burros, and restored disturbed habitat, among other activities in an 

attempt to recover the desert tortoise. The extent that these efforts will benefit the desert tortoise 

will be difficult to measure because of the slow reproductive rate of the species and other factors, 

such as disease, drought, and predation, that may be affecting the number of individuals in a 

region. 

Increases in non-native plant presence and vegetative biomass may increase the propensity for 

habitat to burn. Desert tortoises and their habitat are not adapted for regular fires as some 

ecosystems are and wildfire may kill tortoises directly or affect the microhabitats available to 

them. In 2005, 136,447 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat (2.1 percent of total) burned. 

Synopsis of Status

Available data suggest many or most desert tortoise populations are in long-term decline for 

reasons that are unclear. We make this statement despite acknowledging the difficulties 

involved in estimating the numbers of a species that spends a large portion of its life 

underground and that occurs over millions of acres. Although some statistical tests do not 

indicate obvious declines, other studies and observations clearly indicate that desert tortoise 

populations are not functioning normally. For example, the transects in the Western Mojave 

Recovery Unit that did not detect any sign over large areas of previously occupied habitat and 

the numerous carcasses found on permanent study plots and lack of recent sign also suggest 

population decline. During line distance sampling conducted in 8 desert wildlife management 

areas in California in 2003, 930 carcasses and 438 live desert tortoises were detected; more 

carcasses than live animals were detected in every study area (Woodman 2004). In 2004, 

workers conducting line distance sampling in California detected 1,796 carcasses and 534 live 

desert tortoises; once again, more carcasses than live animals were detected in every study area 

(Woodman 2005). Line distance sampling in the Chuckwalla DWMA shows a statistically 

significant decline in density from 11.61 tortoises per square kilometer in 2001 to 5.47 tortoises 

per square kilometer in 2004 (Averill-Murray et al. 2006). 

Peirson’s Milk-vetch (Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii)

Peirson’s milk-vetch was listed as an endangered species by the State of California in 1979. On 

May 8, 1992, the Service published a rule proposing endangered or threatened status for seven 

desert milk-vetch taxa, including Peirson’s milk-vetch (57 Federal Register 19844). The Service 

listed this species as threatened on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596) due to threats of increasing 

habitat loss from OHV use and associated recreational development, destruction of plants, and 

lack of protection afforded the plant under State law. At the time of listing, the Service 

estimated that 75-80% of the milk-vetch habitat in the Algodones Dunes was subject to OHV 

use. 

 

Peirson’s milk-vetch is a stout, short-lived perennial member of the Legume Family (Fabaceae). 

Stems are gray-green in color, upright, and reach heights of 20 to 70 centimeters (8 to 27 in). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 17

Leaves are pubescent, gray-green, long, and slender, with paired leaflets along each edge. The 

flowers are dull purple, arranged in 10- to 17-flowered racemes. The pods are large and inflated, 

2 to 3.5 centimeters (0.8 to 1.4 in) long, and contain 4.5 to 5.5-mm (0.2-in) black flat seeds; the 

largest seeds of any Astragalus in North America (Barneby 1964). Seeds require no pregermination treatment to induce germination but show increased germination success when 

scarified (Romspert and Burk 1979). Seeds germinated best at lower and intermediate 

temperatures (15 to 25°C) in laboratory studies (Romspert and Burk 1979), and as might be 

expected, germinate in the cooler fall and winter months. The taproot is extremely long and 

penetrates deeply before lateral rootlets emerge (Barneby 1964). The root crown is often 

exposed due to moving sand in the dunes. Milk-vetch seedlings mature rapidly, and although 

perennial, some plants may bear fruit within several months of germination (Barneby 1964, 

Phillips et al. 2001). Romspert and Burk (1979) noted that older plants were the primary seed 

producers, and plants that become reproductive in the first season do not contribute much to the 

seed pool. This corresponds to conclusions reached by Pavlik and Barbour (1986) on a related 

Astragalus species, although Phillips and Kennedy (2002) concluded that there was a 

“substantial infusion of seeds into the sand as a result of the 2000 germination event and 

favorable weather conditions in the dune system in the spring and summer 2001.” Survival into 

the following wet fall/winter period was low in studies conducted by Rompsert and Burk (1979), 

and Phillips and Kennedy (2002) reported 26 percent survival of the 2000-01 cohort through the 

summer of 2001. Though additional research will improve our understanding of the relative 

importance of first year reproductive plants, the existing literature suggests that older plants are 

important contributors to the persistence of the Peirson’s milk-vetch seedbank. Rompsert and 

Burk (1979) also noted significant presence of the bruchid seed beetles, which they concluded 

contributes to a high mortality of seeds and a reduced seed crop for the species. 

Peirson’s milk-vetch grows on slopes and hollows of windblown dunes in the southwestern 

Sonoran Desert. The species is frequently associated with other psammophytic (sand-loving) 

plants in the psammophytic scrub plant community. The only confirmed extant population of 

Peirson’s milk-vetch in the U.S. is distributed in what can be considered one extensive 

population of scattered colonies spanning the length of the (Algodones) dune system (63 FR 

53596). The plant occurs primarily in partially stabilized bowls that lie behind the primary, 

western-most dunes. Most vegetation occurs in dunes of intermediate size in the western half of 

the area, and not in the high dunes in the eastern portion of the dune field (Phillips and Kennedy 

2002). Approximately 108,658 acres of psammophytic scrub/active dune occurs within the 

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) (BLM 2002), although recent studies conclude 

that mappable concentrations of plants were noted in less than 25 percent of the dunes proper 

(Phillips and Kennedy 2002). Service analysis of 2005 survey data concluded that 21 percent of 

the dunes was occupied (Service in litt. 2006). Surveys conducted in the Borrego Valley, where 

the species was originally collected, have failed to detect Peirson’s milk-vetch (BLM 2001). 

Another historic location, west of the Salton Sea, cannot be confirmed. Peirson’s milk-vetch has 

been apparently misidentified in the Yuma Dunes of Arizona (Phillips and Kennedy 2002). A 

specimen collected in the Gran Desierto of northwestern Sonora was confirmed as A. m. var. 

peirsonii by A. Phillips in 2001. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 18

Peirson’s milk-vetch exhibits temporal variability in plant numbers apparently associated with 

annual precipitation patterns. In dune-wide surveys conducted during the spring of each year 

from 1997 to 2006, the species was most abundant in 2005, after the highest rainfall year, and 

least abundant in 2000 and 2006, after the lowest rainfall years. Responses of this species were 

similar in both the closed and open areas across 4 years of BLM monitoring (BLM 2001). Based 

on current understanding of the species’ life history, sufficient rain in conjunction with wetter 

than average fall weather appears to trigger significant germination events. After germination, 

seedlings may be present throughout the dunes, especially during above normal precipitation 

years. As discussed above, older plants produce more seeds than first-year plants. In 

intervening drier years, plant numbers decrease as individuals die and are not replaced by new 

seedlings. The species likely depends on the production of seeds in the wetter years, and the 

persistence of seed producers and seeds in the seed bank until appropriate conditions for 

germination and reproduction occur. Further research and modeling are necessary to better 

understand the dynamics of this system and how the species may be responding to natural and 

man-made disturbances within its range. 

 

Vehicles can crush individual plants, reduce the reproductive output of those that survive, and 

change dune structure. Destruction of plants and modification of habitat associated with OHV 

activity is considered the primary threat to Peirson’s milk-vetch. Willoughby (2001), however, 

concluded that healthy milk-vetch populations persist in OHV “open areas” in the Algodones 

Dunes and that populations in both “open” and “closed” areas respond to precipitation patterns. 

This likely results from the observation that OHV use does not tend to encroach on habitat of the 

plants in more distant regions of the open area away from OHV staging concentrations 

(Willoughby 2001). At the time of listing, an estimated 75 percent of the ISDRA was open to 

motorized vehicle use. Since listing, recreational use and border traffic associated with illegal 

entry into the U.S. has increased significantly in the Algodones Dunes. The number of visits to 

the ISDRA has tripled since 1985 (BLM 2002). 

The Service has not yet developed a recovery plan for Peirson’s milk-vetch. Based on our 

current understanding of the species’ biology, the primary conservation needs include: 

maintenance of the major occurrences of Peirson’s milk-vetch to conserve genetic diversity; 

management of milk-vetch habitat to prevent catastrophic population declines; and collection of 

additional information concerning recreational use-patterns in the Algodones Dunes, the direct 

and indirect effects of OHV use on this species, and biological factors affecting milk-vetch 

demographics. 

Critical Habitat

On August 5, 2003, the Service proposed to designate approximately 52,780 acres (ac) (21,359 

hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for Peirson’s milk-vetch (68 FR 46143). On August 4, 2004, the 

Service designated approximately 21,836 acres (ac) (8,848 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat (69 

FR 47330). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 19

The proposed critical habitat is designed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain self-sustaining 

populations of A. m. var. peirsonii throughout its range and to provide those habitat components 

essential for the conservation of the species. These habitat components provide for: (1) 

individual and population growth, including sites for germination, pollination, reproduction, 

pollen and seed dispersal, and seed bank; (2) intervening areas that allow gene flow and provide 

connectivity or linkage within segments of the larger population; and (3) areas that provide basic 

requirements for growth, such as water, light, and minerals. 

The primary constituent element of critical habitat for A. m. var. peirsonii consists of intact, 

active sand dune systems (defined as sand areas that are subject to sand-moving winds that result 

in natural expanses of slopes and swales) within the historical range of A. m. var. peirsonii that 

are characterized by: (A) substrates of the Rositas soil series, specifically Rositas fine sands of 

sufficient depth to promote A. m. var. peirsonii and discourage creosote bush scrub; and (B) 

wind-formed slopes of less than 30 degrees, but generally less than 20 degrees. 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR §402.02) define the environmental baseline as the 

past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the 

action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated impacts of all 

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have undergone section 7 consultation, and the 

impacts of State and private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in 

progress. 

This biological opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse 

modification” of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, we have relied upon the statute and 

the August 6, 2004, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Gifford Pinchot Task force v. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. 03-35279) to complete the following analysis with respect to 

critical habitat. 

The proposed project is entirely within the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision of the 

Sonoran Desert. Vegetation communities in the action area include creosote bush scrub, desert 

wash woodland, desert sand dune, agricultural, and urban/ruderal. The proposed project would 

also cross approximately 2.7 miles of wetlands, some near the Colorado River and some near 

canals in the Imperial Valley. 

The desert has been affected by a myriad of incremental impacts from anthropogenic sources. 

Habitat loss, roads, air and water pollution, recreational activities, and other activities occurring 

in the action area decrease the capacity for the habitat to support threatened and endangered 

species or directly decrease numbers of threatened and endangered species. Climate change is 

expected to change future habitat conditions, with potentially harmful results for threatened and 

endangered species. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 20

The first North Baja Pipeline (A-line) was constructed in 2002 adjacent to the B-line of the 

proposed project and thus has a large effect on the environmental baseline. Approximately 30 

feet are between the A-line and proposed B-line. Reseeding of the A-line was generally 

unsuccessful, but an above-normal precipitation year in 2004-2005 aided restoration greatly. 

Small palo verde (Cercidium floridum) and ironwood (Olneya tesota) have grown in some areas. 

Vertical mulch appears to have succeeded in discouraging OHV traffic on the alignment, except 

near the international border where Border Patrol has been using the alignment. The alignment 

is still clearly visible however and complete restoration is not expected for many years. 

Four weed species were found in preconstruction surveys for the A-line: African mustard 

(Brassica tournefortii), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), fountain grass (Pennisetum

sp.), and tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). Post-construction surveys found mustard and 

tamarisk in areas they had previously inhabited, but they had not spread to new areas. Fountain 

grass had been eliminated. 

The environmental baseline for each species is described in more detail below: 

Desert Tortoise 

The proposed project is in the Eastern Colorado Recovery Unit as defined in the Recovery Plan 

(Service 1994). This Recovery Unit has one DWMA, the Chuckwalla DWMA. The desert 

tortoise population in the Chuckwalla DWMA is generally declining. In one long-term study 

plot, the density of tortoises has declined from approximately 150 per square mile to 50 per 

square mile from approximately 1979 to 1997 (Tracy et al. 2004). In another long-term study 

plot, the density has remained stable at approximately 50 per square mile (Tracy et al. 2004). 

However, the overall density as measured by line distance sampling has declined from 10.80 per 

square kilometer in 2001 to 6.38 per square kilometer in 2005 (Service 2006). 

Approximately 62 miles of the proposed B-line is in desert tortoise habitat. Desert tortoise 

habitat is not present on the IID Lateral. Desert tortoise habitat occurs between approximately 

MP 11 of the proposed B-line outside of Blythe to approximately MP 76 at Interstate 8. Habitat 

in this area is creosote bush scrub or desert wash woodland. Desert tortoise information for the 

project comes from three sources: 2001 surveys for the A-line, 2002 construction encounters, 

and a 2005 survey for the B-line. 

Occasional tortoise sign was found between Blythe and Milpitas Wash (approximately MPs 11 

to 39). An increased concentration of sign and live tortoises was found from Milpitas Wash to 

Tumco Wash (approximately MPs 39 to 67). From Tumco Wash to Interstate 8 occasional sign 

was found (approximately MPs 67 to 76). 

Thirteen tortoises were found during surveys in 2005, two of which were on the right-of-way. 

One hundred four burrows, 10 carcasses, and 21 scat were also found during surveys. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 21

One tortoise was killed during construction operations on the A-line, 15 were relocated, and 13 

were observed. Thus tortoise populations along the right-of-way were likely not substantially 

affected by construction of the A-line. 

Highway 78 parallels a portion of the alignment and likely affects the desert tortoise populations 

nearby, primarily from mortality of tortoises on the road. Tortoise sign was found in reduced 

numbers up to 0.4 kilometer from a highway in one study (Boarman and Sazaki 1994). The 

alignment also parallels two roads that are less busy, Stallard Road and Ogilby Road. 

Peirson’s Milk-vetch 

Peirson’s milk-vetch is assumed to occur in the Algodones Dunes from approximately MPs 0.5 

to 7.5 of the IID Lateral. This section would lie near Interstate Highway 8, passing through a 

designated OHV open area and a campground. Thus, the suitability of the habitat for milk-vetch 

is currently impaired by substantial impacts from recreation. 

The B-line right-of-way was surveyed for Peirson’s milk-vetch south of Interstate 8. Peirson’s 

milk-vetch was reported as present. Photographs were submitted with the survey report in which 

inflated seed pods are clearly visible. The right-of-way on the B-line south of Interstate 8 is not 

in the sand dunes, though a sand veneer may be present; therefore, it is not typical habitat for 

Peirson’s milk-vetch. We have determined that the milk-vetch observed on the B-line is very 

unlikely to be Peirson’s milk-vetch. The photographs are inconclusive, but they appear to show 

full-sized leaflets. Peirson’s milk-vetch has extremely reduced leaflets. These plants are likely 

Borrego milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. borreganus), which also has inflated pods. 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 

Proposed construction and maintenance of the North Baja Expansion Project will cause direct 

and indirect impacts on desert tortoise and Peirson’s milk-vetch in the action area. The Project 

would result in 1,055.2 acres of disturbance to creosote bush scrub, 83.2 acres of disturbance to 

desert wash woodland, and 42.0 acres of disturbance to desert sand dunes. Urban/ruderal and 

agricultural would receive 442.6 acres and 278.7 acres of impacts, respectively. The total project 

would affect approximately 1,710 acres of non-wetland. Approximately 717 acres would be 

newly disturbed; the rest of the acreage was impacted during the construction of the A-line. 

Approximately 109 acres would be required for operation of the proposed facilities and the 

remaining 1,600 acres would be restored to the extent possible and allowed to recover to its 

former state. Approximately 36 acres of wetlands would be disturbed as well. 

Desert Tortoise 

Direct Effects

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 22

Construction and maintenance of the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project could result in 

harm, harassment, and mortality to desert tortoises in and near the project right-of-way. Desert 

tortoises entering the right-of-way during construction could be crushed by construction 

equipment. Tortoises could fall into the trench excavated during construction and be killed, 

injured, or trapped. Tortoises suffer harassment when they are relocated or otherwise affected by 

construction activities. During construction of the A-line, one tortoise was reported to be 

crushed as a result of construction activities and 15 tortoises were relocated. Similar take is 

expected to occur during construction of the B-line. 

Approximately 1,138 acres of potential desert tortoise habitat (creosote bush scrub and desert 

wash woodland) would be temporarily impacted. Though temporary impacts do not permanently 

render the habitat unusable, the desert may take decades if not longer to recover to a predisturbance state and until then would be more limited in its ability to support desert tortoise. 

The loss of perennial shrubs decreases the amount of cover for tortoises. Burrows may be 

crushed and rendered unusable. Invasive or “pioneer” plants, which may be less nutritious for 

tortoise, may become more common because of soil disturbance. Soil compaction can also 

discourage annuals that tortoise feed on. Thus, temporary disturbance has long-lasting 

consequences. Approximately 1 acre will be permanently impacted (in addition to permanent 

impacts from the A-line) in tortoise habitat during operation. 

Approximately 237 acres of new disturbance would occur in desert tortoise habitat. This habitat 

disturbance would be offset at a 1:1 ratio for purchase of land within desert tortoise habitat that 

will be managed for conservation of the species. 

Indirect Effects

Pipeline construction could encourage growth of invasive species. In the past century the 

Mojave and Colorado Deserts have been invaded by several exotic species of annual plants. 

These invasive plants have two effects on the desert tortoise: they increase wildfire frequency 

and they alter the annual plant community that tortoises feed on. 

Proliferation of invasive plants has resulted in larger and more frequent fires in the deserts of the 

southwest (Brooks and Esque 2002). The desert tortoise and Mojave and Colorado Deserts are 

not adapted to frequent fires and are negatively affected by fire. Fire may directly kill tortoises 

(Esque et al. 2003, Lovich and Daniels 2000) or may result in altered vegetation attributes 

(Esque et al. 2003). Since tortoises are thought to be selective of the vegetation they consume to 

maintain proper mineral balance (Oftedal 2001), fire-altered vegetation attributes may be 

undesirable for the desert tortoise. The alien grasses Schismus barbatus and S. arabicus

(Mediterranean grass or split grass) and Bromus rubens (red brome) appear to be the primary 

facilitator of increased fire frequency because the dead plants may remain for many years and 

create a fuelbed for fire to cross between shrubs. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 23

The invasion of exotic species has also changed the annual plant community that desert tortoises 

rely on for food. Exotic species are present in larger numbers than native species and usually 

form the bulk of the annual plant community biomass (Brooks 2000), likely because they outcompete native species (Brooks 2000). The primary exotic species of concern are Schismus spp., 

filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and red brome (Bromus rubens). Mediterranean grass is 

ubiquitous in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts where it occurs as a carpet covering the desert 

floor in wet years. Red brome is primarily confined to the Mojave Desert and also grows 

primarily under the canopy of shrubs like creosote, whereas Mediterranean grass grows in the 

open. Filaree, a forb, in contrast to the two previous grasses, is ubiquitous in both deserts and 

has been present probably since the 1600s while the two grasses have only become widespread 

in this century (Brooks and Esque 2002). Schismus spp. have relatively low nutritional value to 

tortoises (Oftedal et. al. 2002) and is often bypassed by foraging juvenile desert tortoises despite 

its overwhelming availability (Oftedal et. al. 2002). Filaree may be a significant part of the diet 

and appears to be somewhat nutritious early in its phenology (Oftedal 2002), but is not a 

preferred food (Jennings 1993). A nutritionally poor diet of invasive plants, especially grasses, 

may contribute to tortoises’ susceptibility to upper respiratory tract disease (Tracy et al. 2004, 

Jacobson et al. 1991). Red brome (Bromus rubens) was not eaten by the desert tortoise at all in 

one study (Avery and Neibergs 1997) but has been considered a major food item for tortoise 

(Oftedal 2002). Experimental thinning of Mediterranean grass and red brome resulted in higher 

densities, biomass, and species richness of native annuals in one experiment (Brooks 2000). 

Mediterranean grass and red brome likely out-compete native annuals because of faster uptake of 

water and nitrogen (Brooks 2000). Saharan mustard is another common invasive (Sanders and 

Minnich 2000). 

Surveys after construction of the A-line found that invasive species had not spread beyond preconstruction conditions, thus the mitigation measures were thought to be successful. The same 

mitigation measures would be used during B-line construction and restoration. 

Ravens have been known to prey on young tortoises (Boarman 2002). Ravens are thought to 

have increased in number in the Mojave Desert by 1,500 percent in recent decades (Kristan and 

Boarman 2003). Trash would be the main attractant for ravens. Proper disposal of trash as 

described in conservation measure 8 would likely decrease the attractiveness of the project to 

ravens. The project would not be expected to cause an increase in ravens in the action area. 

OHVs may crush tortoises or their burrows. OHVs may degrade habitat by destroying 

vegetation. The potential for the cleared right-of-way to be used by OHVs will be decreased by 

the use of “vertical mulch” to block access points. This method has been largely successful on 

the A-line. 

Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat

An estimated 358 acres of the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit would be impacted by the 

proposed project, of which 106 acres would be new disturbance. Compared to the size of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 24

Critical Habitat Unit (1,020,600 acres) the impact is relatively small at 106 acres of new 

disturbance and 358 acres of total disturbance. Impacts would be offset by compensation paid to 

the BLM that would be used to buy tortoise habitat. 

As discussed above, invasive species can reduce the suitability of habitat for desert tortoise. As 

discussed above, the project would not be expected to increase the spread of invasive species in 

the action area. 

Peirson’s Milk-vetch 

Direct Effects

Milk-vetch plants and seeds can be damaged, uprooted, buried or otherwise killed or injured 

during construction activities. 

The number of standing plants that may be affected by the project is highly dependent on the 

amount of rainfall that year. If there is little rainfall, few milk-vetch will sprout and hence few 

would be damaged by construction activities. If there is substantial rainfall, a large number of 

milk-vetch may be harmed during construction. Inevitable mixing of the topsoil during 

excavation and replacement above the finished pipeline could bury seeds too deep to germinate 

successfully, however, removal and stockpiling of the topsoil will aid in avoiding burial of seeds 

too deep for germination. Because the project area inhabited by milk-vetch is highly impacted 

by OHVs, the project is unlikely to have a measurable effect on the milk-vetch population. 

Indirect Effects

Modification of the habitat could have subtle effects on milk-vetch in and near the right-of-way. 

Sand dunes do have a cryptogamic flora that would be disturbed by the project. The sand 

compaction could be increased. Slope and aspect are import to Peirson’s milk-vetch and postconstruction conditions could be unsuitable for milk-vetch. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future 

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section 

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 

Although segments of the proposed project alignment are privately held, the alignment is 

predominantly surrounded by public lands. Consequently, most activities reasonably expected to 

occur in the foreseeable future will have direct Federal involvement. However, the area’s 

relative accessibility, in conjunction with recreational opportunities by local natural attractions 

such as the Colorado River, Algodones Dunes, and other areas, will likely continue to attract 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 25

more recreational enthusiasts. Recreationists will likely continue to cause degradation of desert 

tortoise habitat and direct impacts to desert tortoise. OHV enthusiasts will likely continue to 

impact Peirson’s milk-vetch individuals and habitat in the Imperial Sand Dunes. The overall 

effect of these activities is difficult to determine because data are lacking. 

CONCLUSION 

After reviewing the current status of the desert tortoise and Peirson’s milk-vetch, the 

environmental baseline for the action area, effects of the proposed project, and cumulative 

effects, it is our biological opinion that the proposed project, as proposed, is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise or Peirson’s milk-vetch. The proposed 

project crosses designated desert tortoise critical habitat in the Eastern Colorado Desert 

Recovery Unit and we conclude that the proposed action does not adversely modify critical 

habitat. 

The Service concludes that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the desert tortoise and its critical habitat for the following reasons: 

1. The number of tortoises potentially affected by construction of the B-line represents a 

small percentage of the desert tortoise population in the Eastern Colorado Recovery Unit. 

Loss of tortoises associated with construction and operation of the proposed North Baja 

Pipeline Expansion Project does not appreciably reduce the size of the tortoise population 

throughout the remainder of the recovery unit. 

2. Habitat acreage associated with the final footprint of the proposed project represents a 

small percentage of tortoise habitat available in the Eastern Colorado Recovery Unit and 

critical habitat in the Chuckwalla Critical Habitat Unit. Approximately 1 acre of desert 

tortoise habitat would be permanently impacted by the project. Approximately 358 acres 

of critical habitat would be impacted, of which 108 acres would be newly impacted. 

Though the environmental baseline suggests that disturbances and impacts to desert 

tortoises in the area are of increasing concern, we do not believe that the incremental 

habitat change that would result from this project would preclude long-term survival or 

recovery or adversely modify critical habitat. 

3. Proposed conservation measures would reduce direct take of desert tortoises and would 

reduce long-term impact to tortoise habitat. 

The Service concludes that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Peirson’s milk-vetch for the following reasons: 

1. The habitat affected is heavily impacted because of its proximity to campgrounds, 

recreational areas, and Interstate 8, and likely supports an impoverished Peirson’s milkDocument Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 26

vetch seedbank and standing cohort. Thus the area is likely of small importance to the 

species’ survival and recovery. 

2. The habitat area involved is a small percentage of the area available for the species. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

Section 9 of the Act, and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is 

defined as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to 

such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not 

limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, 

and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of 

section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the 

agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the FERC so 

that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to North Baja, as appropriate, 

for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The FERC has a continuing duty to regulate the 

activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the FERC fails to adopt and implement the 

terms and conditions or fails to require North Baja to adhere to the terms and conditions of the 

incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, grant, and 

construction contract document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. To 

monitor the impact of incidental take, North Baja must report the progress of the action and its 

impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR 

§402.14(i)(3)]. 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. However, 

limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the Act prohibits the 

removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed endangered plants or the malicious 

damage of such plants on non-Federal areas in violation of State law or regulation or in the 

course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. 

Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated 

The Service anticipates 22 individual desert tortoise would be taken as a result of the proposed 

action. Based on survey reports and the amount of take that occurred during construction of the 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 27

A-line, the incidental take in the form of accidental injury, death, or harassment is expected to 

be: 

1. Accidental injury to or death of no more than two (2) tortoises as a direct or indirect 

result of pipeline construction activities. 

2. Harassment by relocation of no more than eighteen (18) tortoises within the project rightof-way and access roads. 

3. After completion of construction, impacts to desert tortoises including incidental take 

associated with vehicle use for pipeline maintenance and weed control is expected to 

occur. A maximum of two (2) tortoises may be harmed or killed as a result of pipeline 

maintenance. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

The following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts 

of incidental take of desert tortoise. 

1. Project biologists and consultants shall be allowed to communicate freely with the 

Service regarding implementation and compliance with the biological opinion. 

2. Ensure that take levels are not exceeded and reinitiation is promptly executed, if 

necessary. 

Terms and Conditions 

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the FERC must comply with the 

following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures 

described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and 

conditions are non-discretionary. 

1. The following terms and conditions shall implement reasonable and prudent measure 1: 

a. Project biologists and consultants and others involved in the project shall be 

allowed to communicate freely with the Service verbally, by electronic mail, or 

written letter regarding implementation and compliance with the biological 

opinion. The project proponents shall submit to FERC and the Service all draft 

and final reports from project biologists and consultants that pertain to the listed 

species addressed in this opinion. 

 b. The Service shall be notified by electronic mail when the project begins. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 28

c. The Service shall be notified within 2 working days of violations of the 

minimization and conservation measures and terms and conditions of this 

biological opinion. 

2. The following terms and conditions shall implement reasonable and prudent measure 2: 

a. The Service shall be notified within two working days of fatal take of desert 

tortoise. 

b. The Service shall be notified within two working days if the number of non-fatal 

take reaches 17. 

The Service believes that no more than 22 desert tortoise would be incidentally taken as a result 

of the proposed action. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms 

and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise 

result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is 

exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation 

and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must 

immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the 

need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. 

Disposition of Dead or Injured Desert Tortoises 

The Service’s Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office [(760) 431-9440] must be notified within three 

working days should any desert tortoise be found injured or dead on the project site. A written 

notification must be made within five calendar days and include the date, time, and location of 

the discovered animal/carcass, the cause of injury or death, and any other pertinent information. 

Injured animals should be transported to a qualified veterinarian or certified wildlife care facility 

and the Service informed of the final disposition of any surviving animal(s). All dead specimens 

shall be submitted to educational/research institutions possessing the appropriate State and 

Federal permits. Failing deposition to an available institution, the carcass should be marked, 

photographed, and left in the field. 

REINITIATION NOTICE 

This concludes formal consultation on the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project as outlined in 

the initiation request. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is 

required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been 

retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; 

(2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is 

subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 

not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 30

LITERATURE CITED 

Averill-Murray, R.C., M. Brenneman, P.S. Corn, C. Everly, J.S. Heaton, R. Marlow, P.A. Medica, K.E. 

Nussear, and C.R. Tracy. 2006. Draft Range-wide Monitoring of the Desert Tortoise: 2001-05 

Summary Report. Desert Tortoise Monitoring Committee. 

http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt_reports.html

Barneby, R.C. 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus, Part II. Mem. New York Botanical Garden 

vol 13. 

BLM. 2001. Biological Evaluation on Effects of CDCA Plan as amended and proposed to be 

amended by the NEMO and NECO Preferred Alternatives and with other interim measures on 

ten T&E plants. Document prepared by the California Desert District, Bureau of Land 

Management, January 2001. 

BLM. 2002. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Proposed Recreation Area Management Plan 

and Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan: Imperial Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area. 

Brooks, M.L. 2000. Competition between alien annual grasses and native annual plants in the Mojave 

desert. American Midland Naturalist 144:92-108. 

Brooks, M.L. and T.C. Esque. 2002. Alien plants and fire in desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat 

of the Mojave and Colorado deserts. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:330-430. 

Burge, B.L. 1978. Physical characteristics and patterns of utilization of cover sites by Gopherus 

agassizii in southern Nevada. Pages 80-111 In Proceedings of the 1978 Symposium: The Desert 

Tortoise Council. 

Burge, B.L., and W.G. Bradley. 1976. Population density, structure and feeding habits of the desert 

tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, in a low desert study area in southern Nevada. Pages 51-74 In 

Proceedings of the 1976 Symposium, The Desert Tortoise Council. 

Desert Tortoise Council 1999 

Esque, T.C., C.R. Schwalbe, L.A. Defalco, R.B. Duncan, and T.J. Hughes. 2003. Effects of desert 

wildfires on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and other small vertebrates. Southwestern 

Naturalist 48:103-118. 

Hovik, D. C., and D. B. Hardenbrook. 1989. Summer and fall activity and movements of desert 

tortoises in Pahrump Valley, Nevada. Abstract In Proceedings of the 1978 Symposium, The 

Desert Tortoise Council. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 31

Jennings, W.B. 1993. Foraging ecology of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the western 

Mojave Desert. M.A. Thesis, University of Texas, Arlington, Texas. 

Lovich, J.E., and R. Daniels. 2000. Environmental characteristics of desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii) burrow locations in an altered industrial landscape. Chelonian Conservation and 

Biology 2000 3(4):714–721. 

Luckenbach, R. A. 1982. Ecology and management of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in 

California. In R.B. Bury (editor). North American tortoise: conservation and ecology. Wildlife 

Research Report 12. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Oftedal, O.T. 2001. Low rainfall affects the nutritive quality as well as the total quantity of food 

available to the desert tortoise. Abstract of paper presented at the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting 

and Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council. 

Oftedal, O.T. 2002. Nutritional ecology of the desert tortoise in the Mohave and Sonoran deserts. In 

The Sonoran Desert Tortoise. T.R. Van Devender, editor. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 

AZ. 

Oftedal, O.T. 2005. Fast plants, slow tortoises: how nutrition could constrain the recovery of the desert 

tortoise. Abstract of paper presented at the Thirtieth Annual Meeting and Symposium of the 

Desert Tortoise Council. 

http://www.deserttortoise.org/abstract/abstracts2005/dtc2005abstracts.pdf

Pavlik, B.M. and M.G. Barbour. 1986. Demography of endemic psammophytes, Eureka Valley, 

California. II Survivorship, seed bank dynamics, and frequency of establishment. Unpublished 

report CDFG. 

Pearce, R.L. 2005. Personal communication regarding Marine Corps activities and acreages of 

disturbed areas within critical habitat of the desert tortoise at the Chocolate Mountains Aerial 

Gunnery Range. Range Manager, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma. Yuma, California. 

Phillips, A.M. III, D.J. Kennedy, and T.A. Olsen. 2001. Biology, distribution, and abundance of 

peirson’s milk-vetch and other special status plants of the Algodones Dunes, California. Final 

report prepared for American Sand Association. 

Phillips, A.M. III, and D.J. Kennedy. 2002. The ecology of Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii: 

distribution, reproduction, and seed bank. Final report prepared for the American Sand 

Association. 

Romspert, A. and J. Burk. 1979. Algodones dunes sensitive plant project 1978-1979. Unpublished 

report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management (project number 1510(C-961.1) 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 32

Schamberger, M., and F. B. Turner. 1986. The application of habitat modeling to the desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii). Herpetologica 42(1):134-138. 

Tracy, C.V., R. Averill-Murray, W.I. Boarman, D. Delehanty, J. Heaton, E. McCoy, D. Morafka, K. 

Nussear, B. Hagerty, and P. Medica. 2004. Desert tortoise recovery plan assessment committee 

report. 

Turner, R. M. 1982. Mojave desert scrub. In D.E. Brown, editor. Biotic communities of the American 

Southwest - United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4):157-168. 

Turner, R. M., and D. E. Brown. 1982. Sonoran desert scrub. In D.E. Brown, editor. Biotic 

communities of the American Southwest - United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4):181-

222. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule 

for Seven Desert Milk-vetch Taxa from California and Nevada. 57 Federal Register 19844-

19851. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) recovery plan. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule for 

Seven Desert Milk-vetch Taxa from California and Nevada. 63 Federal Register 53596. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson’s milk-vetch). 

68 Federal Register 46143-46160. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson’s milk-vetch). 69 Federal 

Register 47330-47351. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Population of the Desert 

Tortoise: 2001-2005 Summary Report. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. 

Weinstein, M., K. H. Berry, and F. B. Turner. 1987. An analysis of habitat relationships of the desert 

tortoise in California. A report to Southern California Edison Company. 

Willoughby, J.W. 2001. Monitoring of special status plants in the Algodones Dunes, Imperial County, 

California: 1977, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Bureau of Land Management, California State Office. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Michael J. Boyle (FWS-ERIV-5068.2) 33

Woodman, P. 2004. Summary report for line distance transects conducted in spring, 2003 in the Mojave 

Desert, California. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, Nevada. Inyokern, 

California. 

Woodman, P. 2005. Summary report for line distance transects conducted in spring, 2004 in the Mojave 

Desert, California. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. Inyokern, 

California. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S 

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
S-1 

APPENDIX S 

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

American Gas Association. 1986. An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas Transportation 

and Gathering Lines 1970 through June 1984. NG-18 Report No. 158, Pipeline Research 

Committee of the American Gas Association. D.J. Jones, G.S. Kramer, D.N. Gideon, and R.J. 

Eiber. 

American Lifelines Alliance. 2001. Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe. 

Arizona Department of Revenue. 2006. October 2005 Tax Facts. Available online at 

http://www.revenue.state.az.us/Newsroom/TaxFacts/2005/1005Taxfact.pdf. Accessed February 

2006. 

Bennett, J. H., R. W. Sherburne, C. H. Cramer, C. W. Chesterman, and R. H. Chapman. 1979. Stephens 

Pass Earthquakes, Mount Shasta, August 1978: Siskiyou County, California. California Geology, 

Vol. 32, No. 2. 

Bennett, M.J., P.V. McLaughlin, J.S. Sarmiento, and T.L. Youd. 1984. Geotechnical Investigation of 

Liquefaction Sites, Imperial County, California, United States Department of the Interior 

Geological Survey, Open-File Report 84-252, Menlo Park, California. 

Brown, D.E. (ed.). 1982. Biotic Communities of the American Southwest - United States and Mexico. 

Desert Plants 4(1-4):1-342. University of Arizona. 

Brown, J. S. 1923. The Salton Sea Region, California; A Geographic, Geologic, and Hydrologic 

Reconnaissance, with a Guide to Desert Watering Places. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 497. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2005. Regional Economic Accounts for 2003. Available online at 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm. Accessed February 2006. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1980 (as amended). California Desert Conservation Area Plan. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Yuma District Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District. 1986. Milpitas Wash Wildlife Habitat 

Management Plan. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1998. BLM Special Edition 1998 Surface Management Status Desert 

Access Guide, California Desert District. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Proposed Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated 

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Conservation District; and the California 

Department of Fish and Game, Inland, Deserts, and Eastern Sierra Region. July. Available 

online at http://www.ca.blm.gov/news/pdfs/neco2002/. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-2 

Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan. El 

Centro, California. May. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Environmental Assessment and Amendment to the California 

Desert Conservation Area Plan for the Adoption of the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide 

Management Strategy, 2003 Revision. El Centro. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Personal communication on September 23, between J. Nickerson, 

A. Slusser, and L. Anderson (Tetra Tech EC, Inc.) and J. Neilans and L. Caffey (Bureau of Land 

Management). 

Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Comments on Administrative Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project from D. 

Steward. 

Bureau of Reclamation and Imperial Irrigation District. 1994. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the All-American Canal Lining Project. State 

Clearinghouse No. SCH-90010472. 

California Department of Conservation. 1995a. Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and 

Farmland of Statewide Importance, Riverside County. Available online at 

http://www.consrv.ca.gov. Accessed September 2002. 

California Department of Conservation. 1995b. Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and 

Farmland of Statewide Importance, Imperial County. Available online at 

http://www.consrv.ca.gov. Accessed September 2002. 

California Department of Conservation. 2004. California Surface Mining and Reclamation Policies and 

Procedures: Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Special Publication 

51. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed 

Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. Revised 2000. 

Sacramento, California. May. 

California Department of Transportation. 2002. 2002 Imperial County Transportation Plan. Available 

online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/02_IC_TransportationPlan.PDF. 

Accessed February 2006. 

California Department of Water Resources. 2005. Untitled Well Location Database. Glendale, 

California. Available online at http://wdl.water.ca.gov/gw/gw_data/hyd/gwater/clickmap.plx?type 

=move&rgpr=1155,325&qdpr=1146,328&mvpr=1,0. Accessed February 2006. 

California Division of Mines and Geology. 1977. Geology and Mineral Resources of Imperial County, 

California, California Division of Mines and Geology County Report 007. 

California Division of Mines and Geology. 1992a. Geologic Map Sheet of San Diego-El Centro, Scale 

1:250,000. Fourth printing. 

California Division of Mines and Geology. 1992b. Regional Geologic Map Sheet of the Salton Sea, 

Scale 1:250,000. Fifth printing. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-3 

California Division of Mines and Geology. 1996. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State 

of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 96-08. 

California Division of Mines and Geology. 1999. Mines and Mineral Producers Active in California 

(1997-1998), Revised. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 103. 

California Energy Commission. 2004. Integrated Energy Policy Report: 2004 Update. 100-04-006CM. 

Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2004_policy_update/index.html. 

California Energy Commission. 2005a. 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Commission Report 

CEC-100-2005-007-CMF. 

California Energy Commission. 2005b. 2005 Transmittal of 2005 Energy Report Range of Need and 

Policy Recommendations to the California Public Utilities Commission. Commission Report 

CEC-100-2005-008-CMF. 

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. State Water Resources Control Board, Colorado 

River Basin Region. List of Impaired Waterbodies. Available online at 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7/tmdl/303d.pdf. 

California Public Utilities Commission. 2006. Phase 2 Order Addressing Infrastructure Adequacy & 

Slack Capacity, Interconnection & Operational Balancing Agreements, an Infrastructure Working 

Group, Natural Gas Supply and Infrastructure Adequacy for Electric Generators, Natural Gas 

Quality, and Other Matters. Decision 06-09-039. Rulemaking 04-01-025. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River 

Basin-Region 7. Accessed on State Water Resources Control Board Website at 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7/documents/r7bplan.pdf. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1999. Draft Surface Water Survey (Unpublished 

Report). 

California Resource Evaluation System. 2006. Habitat Types and Land Ownership Colorado Desert 

Bioregion. Available online at http://ceres.ca.gov/. 

California State Board of Equalization. 2005. California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates - 

Cities, Counties and Tax Rates. Available online at http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgibin/rates.cgi?LETTER=R&LIST=COUNTY. Accessed February 2006. 

California State Lands Commission. 2003. Guidance Document - Addressing Environmental Justice 

Issues within the Context of the CEQA Process. 

Capitol Impact. 2005. Government Gateway: Imperial County, California. Available online at 

http://www.capitolimpact.com/. Accessed February 2006. 

Congressional Resources Committee. 2005. Access Issues to the California Desert Conservation District 

with an Emphasis on the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area-101. Available online at 

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/nprpl/cadesert_access101.htm. Accessed October 

2005. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-4 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pub. No. 

FWS/OBS-79/31. 

Desert Tortoise Council. 1994 (1999 revised). Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises During 

Construction Projects. Edward L. La Rue, Jr. editor. Wrightwood, California. 

Dibblee, Jr., T. W. 1954. Geology of the Imperial Valley Region, California, pp. 21-28 in R. H. Jahns 

(editor), Geology of Southern California. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 

170. 

Donald Laird Consulting. 2000. California State Historical Landmarks: Tumco Mines. Available online 

at http://www.donaldlaird.com/landmarks/counties/100-199/182.html. 

Elliot, R. N. and A. Shipley. 2005. Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on Natural Gas 

Markets: Updated and Expanded Analysis. Report Number E052. American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy. Washington, DC. 

Elliot, R. N., A. Shipley, S. Nadel, and E. Brown. 2003. Natural Gas Price Effects and Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Practices and Policies. Report Number E032. American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy. Washington, DC. 

Ellsworth, W. L. 1990. Earthquake History, 1769–1989, in the San Andreas Fault System, California. 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, edited by R. E. Wallace. 

Employment Development Department. 2005. Labor Market Information. Available online at 

http://www.calmis.ca.gov. Accessed February 2006. 

Energy Information Administration. 2003. Expansion and Change on the U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline 

Network – 2002. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. May. 

Energy Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025. 

Energy Information Administration - Report #:DOE/EIA-0383(2003). January 9. 

Energy Information Administration. 2005. Policies to Promote Non-hydro Renewable Energy in the 

United States and Selected Countries. February 2005. Available online at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/non_hydro/ 

nonhydrorenewablespaper_final.pdf#2.3. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. and Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2005. 

ESRI/FEMA Project Impact Hazard Site. Available online at 

http://www.esri.com/hazards/makemap.html. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2005. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and California State Lands Commission. 2002. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Kern River 2003 

Expansion Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-5 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and California State Lands Commission. 2002. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and Proposed Land Use Plan 

Amendment for the North Baja Pipeline Project. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2006. Policy Statement on Provisions Governing Natural Gas 

Quality and Interchangeability in Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Company Tariffs. 

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee. 2003. Flat-tailed Horned Lizard 

Rangewide Management Strategy, 2003 revision. 

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 2002. Final Biological Report for the North Baja Pipeline. 

Greenspan, A. 2003. The Economic Outlook. Testimony of the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Alan 

Greenspan, before the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, May 21. 

Gurrola, L. D. and T. K. Rockwell. 1996. Timing and Slip for Prehistoric Earthquakes on the 

Superstition Mountain Fault, Imperial Valley, Southern California. Journal of Geophysical 

Resources 101:5977-5985. 

Hart, E.W. 1997. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. California Division of Mines and Geology, 

Special Publication 42. 

Hayes, C. 2000. Telephone communication on September 21, between C. Hayes (California Department 

of Fish and Game) and K. Bargerhuff (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation). 

Hocking, M. 2006. E-mail correspondence with A. Kirk Dimmitt, Imperial Irrigation District. January 

25. 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 

Unpublished report. California Department of Fish and Game. 

Holland, V.L. and D.J. Keil. 1995. California Vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 

Imperial County. 1998. Felicity Specific Plan. Final Draft of Report prepared by the Imperial County 

Planning and Building Department. 

Imperial County. 2005. Telephone communication on October 12, between A. Slusser (Tetra Tech EC, 

Inc.) and J. Minnick (Planner IV, Imperial County Planning Department). 

Imperial Irrigation District. 1967. Report for General Soil Map, Imperial County, California. 

International Conference of Building Officials. 1998. Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones 

in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. Published by International Conference of 

Building Officials. 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Foundation. 2001. INGAA Foundation Natural Gas 

Pipeline Impact Study. Washington, DC. 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. 2004. An Updated Assessment of Pipeline and Storage 

Infrastructure for the North American Gas Market: Adverse Consequences of Delays in the 

Construction of Natural Gas Infrastructure. July 2004. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-6 

Jennings, C. W. 1967. Geologic Map of California, Salton Sea Sheet. California Division of Mines and 

Geology (1:250,000 Scale). 

Kastoll, L. 2007. Personal communication on March 12, between A. Davis (Natural Resource Group, 

Inc.) and L. Kastoll (Bureau of Land Management). 

Konecny, J. 2000. California. Personal communication between L. Malo (Foster Wheeler 

Environmental Corporation) and J. Konecny (Ornithologist, Konecny Biological Services). 

La Paz County Sheriff’s Department. 2004. Emergency Management Services. Available online at 

http://www.co.la-paz.az.us/ems.htm. Accessed February 2006. 

Langer, William H., W.R. Moyle, L.R. Woolfenden, and D. A. Mulvihill. 1984. Maps Showing GroundWater Levels, Springs, and Depth to Ground Water, Basin and Range Province, Southern 

California. Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4116-B: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Loeltz, O.J., B. Irelna, J.H. Robison, and F.H. Olmsted. 1975. Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of the 

Imperial Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-K. 

Marks, M., et al. 2004. LNG and California’s Future Natural Gas Needs, Staff Draft. California Energy 

Commission. March 17. 

Marshall, R.M., S. Anderson, M. Batcher, P. Comer, S. Cornelius, R. Cox, A. Gondor, D. Gori, J. Humke, 

R. Paredes Aguilar, I.E. Parra, and S. Schwartz. 2000. An Ecological Analysis of Conservation 

Priorities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy Arizona 

Chapter, Sonoran Institute, and Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del 

Estado de Sonora with support from Department of Defense Legacy Program, Agency and 

Institutional Partners. 

Mendez, H. 2005. Telephone communication on October 10, between H. Mendez (Imperial Irrigation 

District) and G. Hoisington (Tetra Tech EC, Inc.). 

Metropolitan Water District. 2005. Palo Verde Water Transfer Program. Available online at 

http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/paloverde01.html. 

Metzger, D.G., O.J. Loeltz, and B. Irelna. 1973. Geohydrology of the Parker-Blythe-Cibola Area, 

Arizona and California. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-G. 

Midwest Research Institute. 1996. Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1). 

March 29. South Coast Air Quality Management District Contract No. 95040. 

Mirpour, J. 2006. E-mail communication on November 29, between J. Nickerson (Tetra Tech EC, Inc.) 

and J. Mirpour (Water Resources Control Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, Colorado River Basin Region). 

Morton, P.K. 1977. Geology and Mineral Resources of Imperial County, California. California Division 

of Mines and Geology, County Report 7. 

Mueller, G. 2000. Bonytail and Razorback Sucker in the Colorado River Basin. National Biological 

Service. Denver, Colorado. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-7 

NGC+ Interchangeability Work Group. 2005. White Paper on Natural Gas Interchangeability and NonCombustion End Use. 

Norris, R.M. and R.W. Webb. 1990. Geology of California. Second Edition, published by Hohn Wiley 

& Sons, Inc. 

North Baja Pipeline, LLC. 2002. Final Biological Report. Prepared by Tetra Tech FW, Inc. 

O'Rourke T. D. and M. C. Palmer. 1996. Earthquake Performance of Gas Transmission Pipelines. 

Earthquake Spectra 12:493-527. 

Petersen, M.D., W.A. Bryant, C.H. Cramer, T. Cao, N.S. Reichle, A.D. Frankel, J.J. Lienkaemper, P.A. 

McCrory, and D.P. Schwartz. 1996. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of 

California. California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08, U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 96-706. 

Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. 2004. Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment 

of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines. 

Planert, M. and J. S. Williams. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States, California, Nevada. HA 

730-B: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Quartzsite Chamber of Commerce. 2004. Community Profile. Available online at 

http://www.quartzsitechamber.com/community_profile.html. Accessed December 2005. 

Remington. 2005. Personal communication in September, between Penny Eckert (Tetra Tech EC, Inc.) 

and M. Remington (Staff Biologist, Imperial Irrigation District). 

Riverside County. 2003. County of Riverside General Plan. 

Roblek, K. 2005. E-mail communications on May 9-11, between P. Eckert (Tetra Tech EC, Inc.) and K. 

Roblek (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

Robson, S.G. and E.R. Banta. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States, Arizona, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah. HA 730-C: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant 

Society. 

Sempra Energy Utilities. 2003. Letter dated May 14, regarding Sempra Energy Utilities’ potential 

capacity to receive new supplies into the utility systems from Otay Mesa. 

Simmons. 2007. Personal communication on April 4, between Z. Rice (Natural Resource Group, Inc.) 

and C. Simmons (Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management). 

Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik, (eds.). 1994. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and 

Endangered Vascular plants of California. Fifth edition. California Native Plant Society, 

Sacramento, California. 

Small, A. 1994. California Birds, their Status and Distribution. Ibis Publishing Company, Verona, Italy. 

Southern California Earthquake Data Center. 2005. Available online at http://www.data.scec.org. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-8 

Southern California Gas Company. 1997. Rule No. 30: Transportation of Customer-Owned Gas. 

November. 

Steward. 2007. Personal communication on March 21, between J. Lee (Natural Resource Group, Inc.) 

and D. Steward (Wildlife Biologist and Acting Resources Staff Supervisor, Bureau of Land 

Management). 

Stone, P. 1990. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Blythe 30' by 60' quadrangle, California and Arizona. 

U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF-90-497, Scale 1:100,000. 

Strand, R.G. 1962. Geologic Map of California, San Diego-El Centro Sheet. California Division of 

Mines and Geology, (Scale 1:250,000). 

Taylor, T. 2005. E-mail communication on September 20, between T. Taylor (Riverside County 

Department of Health Services) and G. Hoisington (Tetra Tech EC, Inc.). 

Thomas, A. P. and T. K. Rockwell. 1996. A 300- to 550-year History of Slip on the Imperial Fault near 

the U.S.-Mexico border: Missing Slip at the Imperial fault bottleneck. Journal of Geophysical 

Research 101(B3), 5987–5998. 

Tibbitts, T.J., M.K. Sogge, and S.J. Sferra. 1994. A Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). National Park Service Technical Report. 

NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-94/04. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, 

Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1996. Statistical Abstract of the United States 118th Edition. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000a. American Fact Finder. Available online at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed March 2006. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000b. California Congressional Districts by Urban and Rural Population 

and Land Area. Available online at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cd108th/CA/ur_c8_06.pdf. 

Accessed February 2006. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2004a. 2004 American Community Survey. Available online at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datas

ets_2&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed March 2006. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2004b. State and County QuickFacts. Available online at 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/. Accessed March 2006. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Various dates. STATSGO 

database. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2005. California Unified 

Watershed Assessment: Federal and State Wild and Scenic Rivers. Available online at 

http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/features/projects/cwap/wild_scenic.html. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-9 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Soil Survey of Palo Verde Area, 

California. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of Yuma-Wellton Area, 

Parts of Yuma County, Arizona, and Imperial County, California. U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Imperial-Mexicali 230-

kV Transmission Lines. DOE/EIS-0365. December. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1987. Annual Report on Pipeline Safety - Calendar Year 1987. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite 

to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March. EPA/ONAC 

550/9-74-004. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels. Condensed Version of U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Levels Document. EPA 550/9-79-100. November. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice 

Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Interim Policy to Identify and Address Potential 

Environmental Justice Areas. EPA-904-R-99-004. April. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations of 

Environmental Injustice. EPA-300-R-04-002. November. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. EPA Website, Surf Your Watershed. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/ssa/reg9.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Impaired Waters. 

Available online at http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/state_rept.control?p_state=CA#IMP. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 Division of Migratory Bird 

Management. Arlington, Virginia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Biological Opinion. Proposed North Baja Pipeline Project. 

FWS-IMP-2398. January 15. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1973. Geohydrology of the Parker-Blythe-Cibola Area, Arizona and California. 

USGS Professional Paper 486-G. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. Probabilistic Hazard Lookup by Zip Code. Maps available online at 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. National Water Information System Database. Available online at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/nwis. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. National Water Information System Database. Available online at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/nwis. 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX S (cont’d) 

S-10 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Quarterly Fault and Fold Database. Available online at 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/ca/index.pnp. Accessed April 2006. 

Wahl, R. 2006. Telephone communication on January 3, between R. Wahl (Bureau of Reclamation) and 

J. Cassady (North Baja Pipeline, LLC). 

Wells, D. L. and K.J. Coppersmith. 1994. New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture 

Length, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement. Seismological Society of America Bulletin 

84:974-1002. 

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 1995. Seismic Hazards in Southern California: 

Probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024. Seismological Society of American Bulletin 85:379-439. 

Whipple, P. 2006. E-mail communication on March 9, between P. Eckert (Tetra Tech EC, Inc.) and P. 

Whipple (U.S. Border Patrol). 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX T 

LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
T-1 

APPENDIX T 

LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Swearingen, David - Project Manager

M.S., Marine Biology, 1996, University of North Carolina, Wilmington 

B.S., Zoology, 1992, Louisiana State University 

Boros, Laurie - Cultural Resources

B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, 1980, Queens College, C.U.N.Y

Manco, Magdalene - Air Quality, Noise, Reliability and Safety, Cumulative Impacts

B.S., Environmental Systems Engineering, 2004, Pennsylvania State University 

California State Lands Commission

Sanders, Dwight - Chief, Division of Environmental Planning and Management 

M.P.A., 1981, California State University, Sacramento 

B.A., Political Science, 1966, University of California, Davis 

 Internship in Public Affairs, 1962, Coro Foundation 

Filler, Tom - Project Manager

B.S., Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning, 1992, University of California, Davis 

Basavalinganadoddi, Chandra - Senior Engineer, Petroleum Structures 

P.E. (Civil), 1994, State of California 

M.S., Civil/Environmental Engineering, 1991, Lamar University, Texas 

M.S., Marine Structures, 1985, Mangalore University, India 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 1983, University of Mysore, India 

Bureau of Land Management

Kastoll, Lynda - Project Manager, El Centro Field Office 

Realty Specialist 

Arnold, Sandra - Archaeologist, Yuma Field Office 

B.A., Archaeologist, 1998, Columbia University 

Dreyfuss, Erin - Natural Resources Specialist, El Centro Field Office 

B.S., Biology, 2004, Northern Arizona University 

Fusilier, Stephen - Lands and Minerals, Yuma Field Office 

B.S., Finance, 1978, McNeese State University 

Morfin, Ron - Recreation and Wilderness, Yuma Field Office 

B.S., Biology (Ecology), 1988, New Mexico State University 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX T (cont’d) 

T-2 

Queen, Rolla - District Archaeologist, California Desert District 

M.A., 1986, Anthropology, University of Nevada at Reno 

Reichhardt, Karen - Natural Resources Specialist/Botanist, Yuma Field Office 

 B.A., Biology and Geology, 1974, Prescott College 

M.A., Botany, 1978, University of Northern Colorado 

Steward, Daniel - Wildlife Biologist, El Centro Field Office 

B.S., Biology, 2000, Arkansas Technical University 

Wong, Winfred - Wildlife Biologist, Yuma Field Office 

M.S., Biology, 1998, Baylor University 

B.S., Ecology and Environmental Biology, 1992, University of California, Irvine 

Natural Resource Group, Inc. 

Davis, Amy - Project Manager, Introduction, Project Description, Alternatives, Conclusions and 

Recommendations

B.A., English, 1975, University of Maryland 

Potter, David - Deputy Project Manager, Soils, Wetlands, Vegetation, Wildlife, Reliability and 

Safety, Cumulative Impacts, Growth-Inducing Impacts

B.S., Environmental Horticulture, 1986, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo 

Brown, Larry - System Alternatives 

B.S., Biology, 1981, Bates College 

Lee, Jennifer - Land Use, Special Management Areas, Recreation and Public Interest Areas, 

Aesthetic Resources, Environmental Justice

B.A., Environmental Studies and Geography, 1995, University of St. Thomas 

Rice, Zeke - Cultural Resources, Reliability and Safety

B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology and Sociology, 1994, Hamline University

Rieland, Janelle - Socioeconomics, Transportation and Traffic, Environmental Justice 

B.S., Wildlife and Fisheries, 2002, University of Minnesota

Seaberg, John - Geological Resources, Groundwater Resources 

M.S., Geology (Hydrogeology Emphasis), 1985, University of Minnesota 

B.S., Geology and Geophysics, 1980, University of Wisconsin

Thommes, Jeffrey - Surface Water Resources, Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species 

M.S., Zoology (Wildlife Ecology Emphasis), 1994, Southern Illinois University 

B.S., Zoology, 1992, Southern Illinois University 

Van, Scot - Air Quality, Noise, Cumulative Impacts 

M.S., Environmental Engineering, 1996, University of Texas 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 1994, Texas A&M University 

 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U 

SUBJECT INDEX

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U 

SUBJECT INDEX 

18th Avenue ..................................................................ES-5, ES-7, ES-15, ES-18, ES-20, ES-26, 1-17, 2-6, 

2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-17, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 3-8, 3-10, 3-28, 3-33, 4-16, 4-18, 4-39, 4-46, 4-54, 4-66, 

4-67, 4-75, 4-114, 4-115, 4-131, 4-132, 4-136, 4-137, 4-141, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-160, 4-169, 4-175, 

4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-185, 4-231, 5-3, 5-20, 5-22, 5-28, 5-45, 5-46, 5-56, 5-57 

24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(24)) .................................................................................................4-206 

above mean sea level (amsl) ....................................................................................................... 4-3, 4-6, 4-7 

aboveground facility ........................................................................ ES-2, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, ES-11, ES-14, 

ES-17, ES-19, ES-22, ES-23, ES-27, 1-1, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, 3-2, 3-10, 3-30, 3-32, 3-33, 4-5, 4-8, 4-9, 

4-10, 4-17, 4-26, 4-43, 4-51, 4-63, 4-69, 4-78, 4-82, 4-89, 4-94, 4-129, 4-133, 4-134, 4-137, 4-142, 

4-156, 4-161, 4-184, 4-201, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-210, 4-212, 4-223, 4-229, 4-231, 4-253, 5-3, 5-4, 

5-12, 5-13, 5-15, 5-16, 5-34, 5-50, 5-54, 5-60 

access road .................................................. ES-20, 2-1, 2-4, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-24, 2-26, 2-28, 3-24, 3-33, 

4-32, 4-34, 4-51, 4-63, 4-66, 4-70, 4-77, 4-83, 4-85, 4-89, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-105, 4-106, 4-124, 

4-129, 4-136, 4-161, 4-180, 4-186, 4-191, 4-202, 4-203, 4-240, 5-4, 5-6, 5-9, 5-10, 5-16, 5-17, 5-26, 

5-35, 5-37, 5-39, 5-41, 5-58, 6-47 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).................... ES-18, ES-21, 1-33, 4-182, 4-191, 4-192, 

5-10, 5-58 

Agency Staffs..................................................................... ES-1, ES-4, ES-6, ES-10, ES-13, ES-14, ES-15, 

ES-17, ES-18, ES-20, ES-21, ES-22, ES-24, ES-25, ES-27, ES-28, 1-2, 1-12, 1-17, 1-18, 1-22, 1-23, 

1-24, 1-29, 1-30, 2-17, 2-23, 3-1, 3-2, 3-15, 3-16, 3-22, 4-37, 4-56, 4-60, 4-66, 4-87, 4-91, 4-100, 

4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 

4-119, 4-122, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-137, 4-151, 4-177, 4-185, 4-191, 4-197, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 

4-205, 4-216, 4-229, 4-231, 4-232, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-23, 5-37, 5-42, 5-63, 6-15, 6-59, 6-90, 6-113, 

6-125, 6-134, 6-176, 6-195 

Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs)..................................................................................................4-195 

Air Quality Management District (AQMD).............. ES-21, ES-25, 1-11, 1-35, 4-195, 4-199, 4-200, 4-202 

air quality ................................................................................... ES-5, ES-22, ES-24, ES-25, 1-7, 1-8, 1-15, 

1-17, 1-22, 1-23, 1-27, 1-31, 3-5, 4-1, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-200, 4-201, 4-204, 

4-205, 4-226, 4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 4-237, 4-238, 5-59, 6-12, 6-15, 6-40, 6-78, 6-89, 6-92, 6-96, 6-111, 

6-118, 6-121, 6-122, 6-125, 6-132, 6-143, 6-193 

Algodones Dune sunflower......................................................................................4-96, 4-112, 4-125, 5-44 

A-Line...........................................................ES-3, ES-4, ES-7, ES-8, ES-11, ES-12, ES-14, ES-15, ES-17, 

ES-19, ES-26, 1-5, 1-14, 1-25, 1-27, 1-30, 1-32, 1-37, 1-39, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 

2-11, 2-16, 2-17, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 2-27, 2-28, 3-8, 3-10, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 4-5, 4-8, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 

4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-33, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-46, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 

4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-84, 4-91, 

U-1 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

4-92, 4-94, 4-98, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-108, 4-110, 4-111, 4-114, 4-115, 4-120, 4-121, 4-123, 

4-124, 4-129, 4-131, 4-133, 4-135, 4-136, 4-142, 4-145, 4-146, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-153, 4-154, 

4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-160, 4-163, 4-167, 4-169, 4-180, 4-183, 4-184, 4-213, 4-214, 4-217, 4-222, 

4-223, 4-227, 4-231, 4-238, 4-247, 5-2, 5-14, 5-15, 5-23, 5-34, 5-39, 5-42, 5-44, 5-49, 5-52, 5-53, 6-45, 

6-48, 6-192, 6-193, 6-194 

All-American Canal Lining Project ..................................... 3-17, 4-142, 4-147, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-230 

All-American Canal .............................................ES-10, ES-19, ES-20, ES-28, 1-14, 1-15, 1-34, 2-8, 2-15, 

2-17, 2-25, 3-12, 3-15, 3-17, 3-20, 3-22, 4-10, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-24, 4-39, 4-43, 4-48, 4-49, 4-54, 

4-55, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-63, 4-66, 4-75, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-99, 4-121, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 

4-142, 4-147, 4-159, 4-184, 4-185, 4-209, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-230, 5-1, 5-19, 5-24, 5-25, 5-32, 

5-36, 5-60 

alternatives ............................................................. ES-1, ES-5, ES-6, ES-18, ES-20, ES-25, ES-26, ES-27, 

1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-17, 1-19, 1-37, 1-39, 1-40, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-12, 

3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-24, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 4-56, 4-65, 4-107, 4-142, 4-145, 4-147, 

4-175, 4-176, 4-185, 4-190, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-246, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-12, 5-42, 5-55, 5-56, 

6-15, 6-25, 6-44, 6-93, 6-178 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA).....................2-16, 4-213 

An Ecological Analysis of Conservation Priorities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion (Ecological 

Analysis) ..............................................................................................................................................4-88 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)..................................................1-25, 4-1, 4-128, 4-152 

Arizona Bell’s vireo.......................................................................................................... 4-95, 4-110, 4-125 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) ..... ES-21, 1-34, 4-195, 4-199, 4-200, 4-233, 6-62 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)............................. 1-34, 4-94, 4-99, 4-109, 4-113, 5-36, 6-29 

Arizona myotis.........................................................................................................................................4-95 

Arrowhead Extension......................................................................... ES-3, ES-4, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, ES-10, 

ES-12, ES-15, ES-18, ES-19, ES-23, ES-28, 1-5, 1-32, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-15, 

2-17, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 

4-18, 4-21, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-39, 4-40, 4-43, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 

4-49, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-62, 4-63, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-75, 4-77, 4-82, 4-85, 4-89, 

4-90, 4-91, 4-95, 4-100, 4-102, 4-103, 4-114, 4-115, 4-118, 4-129, 4-130, 4-132, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 

4-137, 4-139, 4-142, 4-143, 4-148, 4-158, 4-160, 4-161, 4-165, 4-169, 4-170, 4-173, 4-175, 4-177, 

4-179, 4-184, 4-201, 4-213, 4-216, 4-222, 4-227, 4-228, 4-240, 4-244, 4-247, 4-248, 4-250, 4-252, 5-1, 

5-9, 5-14, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-25, 5-29, 5-31, 5-32, 5-37, 5-45, 5-57, 5-61 

bald eagle ............................................................................................................ ES-14, 4-101, 4-109, 4-125 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) .......................................................1-15, 1-23, 3-5, 6-40, 6-42 

billion standard cubic feet per day (Bscfd) ..................................................................3-5, 3-6, 6-124, 6-132 

U-2 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

Biological Assessment (BA)................................................................................... ES-14, 1-14, 4-93, 4-206 

Biological Opinion (BO)......................................................ES-14, ES-28, 1-34, 4-93, 4-107, 4-109, 4-125, 

4-126, 5-4, 5-9, 5-42, 5-43, 5-50, 5-63, 6-30, 6-194, 6-195 

B-Line ...................................................................... ES-3, ES-4, ES-7, ES-8, ES-10, ES-11, ES-12, ES-14, 

ES-15, ES-18, ES-19, ES-23, ES-26, 1-5, 1-14, 1-15, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-32, 1-37, 1-39, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 

2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 2-29, 3-8, 3-10, 3-28, 3-32, 

3-33, 4-5, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 

4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-43, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 

4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 

4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 

4-92, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 

4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-129, 4-130, 4-132, 

4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 

4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-160, 4-161, 4-163, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-169, 

4-170, 4-173, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-184, 4-201, 4-213, 4-214, 4-216, 4-222, 

4-228, 4-230, 4-238, 4-240, 4-244, 4-247, 4-248, 4-250, 4-252, 5-2, 5-8, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-18, 5-21, 

5-24, 5-26, 5-28, 5-29, 5-31, 5-33, 5-35, 5-37, 5-38, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 

5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-54, 5-57, 5-61, 5-62, 6-48, 6-192, 6-193 

Blythe Energy Interconnect (BEI) .......................................................................ES-3, 1-1, 3-28, 3-30, 3-32 

Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station...................................................ES-3, ES-4, ES-9, 1-1, 1-5, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 

2-10, 2-15, 2-24, 3-28, 3-33, 4-33, 4-40, 4-58, 4-59, 4-69, 4-77, 4-82, 4-91, 4-135, 4-136, 4-160, 4-161, 

4-165, 4-170, 4-179, 4-240, 5-25, 6-14 

bonytail chub..............................................................................................................................ES-14, 4-101 

Bradshaw Trail.......................................................................................................4-148, 4-152, 4-153, 5-54 

brown pelican...................................................................................................... ES-14, 4-101, 4-109, 4-125 

brown-crested flycatcher...............................................................................................................4-114, 5-45 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ........................................................ ES-1, ES-4, ES-5, ES-12, ES-13, 

ES-15, ES-16, ES-17, ES-19, ES-20, ES-21, ES-26, ES-27, ES-28, 1-2, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 

1-17, 1-18, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-29, 1-32, 1-33, 1-34, 1-37, 1-38, 1-39, 1-40, 2-7, 2-12, 

2-14, 2-23, 2-25, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 3-2, 3-8, 3-10, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-33, 4-1, 

4-17, 4-27, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-60, 4-67, 4-71, 4-74, 4-77, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-85, 

4-87, 4-88, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-104, 4-105, 4-108, 4-113, 4-114, 4-116, 

4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-133, 4-134, 4-136, 4-143, 

4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-149, 4-150, 4-152, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 

4-161, 4-162, 4-171, 4-180, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-188, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-205, 

4-210, 4-223, 4-226, 4-231, 4-244, 4-251, 4-253, 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 

5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 

5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 5-50, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 

5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 6-15, 6-33, 6-34, 6-35, 6-40, 6-42, 6-48, 6-192, 6-193, 6-194, 6-197 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)....................................................... ES-1, ES-4, ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, ES-21, 

ES-28, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-14, 1-15, 1-17, 1-22, 1-23, 1-32, 1-34, 2-7, 2-12, 2-14, 2-19, 2-29, 3-2, 3-16, 

U-3 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

3-20, 3-21, 3-24, 3-33, 4-8, 4-9, 4-27, 4-55, 4-59, 4-133, 4-134, 4-142, 4-147, 4-148, 4-153, 4-182, 

4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-231, 4-244, 4-251, 5-1, 5-10, 5-12, 5-13, 5-16, 

5-24, 5-58, 6-33, 6-34, 6-35, 6-40, 6-42, 6-197 

burrowing owl....................................................................................... 1-14, 4-83, 4-85, 4-114, 4-115, 5-45 

California black rail ......................................................................................4-95, 4-110, 4-125, 4-126, 5-43 

California Department of Conservation (CDC) ...................................................................... 4-8, 4-33, 4-34 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)..............ES-11, ES-12, ES-13, ES-14, ES-28, 1-8, 1-11, 

1-13, 1-26, 1-35, 2-17, 2-22, 2-28, 4-36, 4-37, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-71, 4-74, 4-86, 4-87, 

4-89, 4-91, 4-94, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-103, 4-105, 4-106, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 

4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-228, 5-1, 5-4, 5-8, 5-9, 5-16, 5-23, 

5-26, 5-28, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-36, 5-37, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-50, 5-63, 6-57, 6-58 

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) .................. ES-26, 1-11, 1-35, 3-12, 3-16, 3-17, 3-22, 

3-24, 4-9, 4-22, 4-147, 4-175, 4-179, 5-3, 5-15, 6-51 

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) ....................................................................4-44, 4-46 

California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) ..................................ES-1, ES-15, ES-26, ES-27, 1-2, 1-10, 

1-12, 1-13, 1-25, 1-26, 1-32, 1-33, 1-37, 1-39, 1-40, 3-10, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-20, 3-21, 4-1, 4-87, 

4-104, 4-143, 4-145, 4-149, 4-152, 4-157, 4-159, 5-2, 5-3, 5-52 

California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA Plan) ......................................... ES-15, 1-2, 1-10, 1-12, 

1-25, 1-26, 1-32, 1-33, 1-37, 1-39, 3-10, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-20, 3-21, 4-1, 4-87, 4-104, 4-143, 

4-145, 4-149, 4-152, 5-52 

California Desert District (CDD).............................................................................................................1-24 

California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) ...................4-3, 4-5, 4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 4-14, 4-18, 5-13 

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ....................................................1-35, 4-93, 4-125, 5-50, 6-58 

California Energy Commission (CEC) .............................ES-26, 1-4, 1-21, 1-22, 3-3, 3-4, 3-7, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-16, 4-148, 5-2, 5-52, 6-101, 6-191 

California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA)............................................................................4-48 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ........ ES-1, ES-4, ES-5, ES-19, ES-21, ES-27, ES-28, 1-2, 

1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-17, 1-18, 1-21, 1-22, 2-25, 2-29, 3-1, 3-2, 4-26, 4-56, 4-57, 4-93, 4-107, 4-109, 

4-122, 4-126, 4-155, 4-182, 4-183, 4-191, 4-212, 4-238, 4-240, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 

5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 

5-33, 5-34, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 

5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-62, 5-63, 6-15, 6-32, 6-59, 6-86, 6-90, 6-93, 6-176, 6-194, 

6-195, 6-196, 6-197 

California Invasive Plant Council (CIPC) ............................................................................ 4-78, 4-79, 5-29 

California leaf-nosed bat..........................................................................................................................4-95 

U-4 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS).......................................................4-94, 4-97, 4-112, 4-122, 4-123 

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) ......................................4-94, 4-101, 4-109, 4-113, 4-120 

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) .......................................ES-23, 1-6, 1-7, 1-15, 3-3, 4-198, 

4-212, 4-238, 4-253, 5-60, 6-12, 6-13, 6-42, 6-119, 6-123, 6-124 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region (CRWQCB) ....... ES-10, 

ES-11, 1-11, 1-35, 2-22, 4-46, 4-48, 4-51, 4-53, 4-61, 4-65, 4-66, 4-155, 5-21, 5-23, 5-25, 6-52, 6-53, 

6-192 

California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) ................................ES-19, ES-20, ES-21, 3-14, 4-182, 

4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-191 

California State Lands Commission (CSLC) ........................ ES-1, ES-4, ES-5, ES-8, ES-9, ES-12, ES-19, 

ES-21, ES-28, 1-1, 1-2, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-17, 1-18, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-29, 1-35, 1-40, 2-7, 

2-25, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 3-2, 3-7, 3-33, 4-1, 4-2, 4-21, 4-27, 4-40, 4-41, 4-43, 4-56, 4-60, 4-67, 4-80, 

4-87, 4-92, 4-93, 4-101, 4-126, 4-133, 4-134, 4-151, 4-162, 4-171, 4-177, 4-180, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 

4-191, 4-192, 4-204, 4-205, 4-210, 4-212, 4-216, 4-217, 4-223, 4-244, 4-246, 4-253, 5-1, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 

5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 

5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 

5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-62, 6-15, 6-34, 6-35, 6-40, 

6-42, 6-82, 6-97, 6-123, 6-193, 6-194, 6-197 

California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) .....................................................4-48, 4-155 

carbon dioxide (CO2) ............................................................................ 3-5, 4-200, 4-204, 6-12, 6-14, 6-157 

carbon monoxide (CO) ...............1-32, 3-5, 4-193, 4-194, 4-200, 4-201, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236 

cathodic protection................................................ 1-15, 4-212, 4-214, 4-216, 4-217, 4-220, 5-6, 5-11, 5-62 

cave myotis ..............................................................................................................................................4-82 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) ...................................ES-1, ES-28, 1-1, 1-8, 

1-9, 1-12, 1-24, 1-33, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 3-2, 4-27, 4-38, 4-41, 4-60, 4-67, 4-80, 4-92, 4-126, 4-162, 

4-171, 4-180, 4-192, 4-205, 4-210, 4-212, 4-223, 4-253, 5-1, 5-7, 5-8, 6-40 

Chevron Corporation (Chevron) ..............................................................................................ES-2, 1-2, 1-6 

Cibola National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) ........................................... ES-5, ES-9, ES-21, 1-11, 1-14, 1-17, 

1-27, 2-29, 4-8, 4-14, 4-27, 4-44, 4-74, 4-80, 4-87, 4-88, 4-102, 4-148, 4-151, 4-154, 4-182, 4-183, 

4-184, 4-186, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 5-9, 5-10, 5-13, 5-16, 5-32, 5-52, 5-53, 5-58 

Clean Air Act (CAA) ........................................................... 1-15, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-234, 6-118 

Clean Water Act (CWA).........................................................1-33, 1-34, 1-35, 4-48, 4-53, 4-61, 5-23, 6-44 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ............................ES-1, ES-7, ES-10, ES-19, ES-21, ES-23, 1-8, 1-10, 

1-11, 1-15, 1-30, 1-37, 1-39, 1-40, 2-11, 2-15, 2-16, 3-1, 3-33, 4-20, 4-22, 4-46, 4-52, 4-59, 4-65, 

4-182, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-212, 4-213, 4-215, 4-218, 4-222, 4-238, 4-245, 4-253, 5-13, 5-24, 5-59, 

5-60, 5-61, 6-34, 6-118 

U-5 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

Colorado River cotton rat.................................................................................................... 4-95, 4-113, 5-44 

Colorado River toad............................................................................................................ 4-96, 4-119, 5-47 

Colorado River....................................................................... ES-7, ES-10, ES-20, ES-28, 1-13, 1-14, 1-33, 

1-35, 2-15, 2-17, 2-25, 3-8, 3-32, 4-3, 4-14, 4-16, 4-18, 4-20, 4-22, 4-24, 4-28, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-48, 

4-49, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-61, 4-63, 4-66, 4-68, 4-75, 4-84, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 

4-92, 4-95, 4-96, 4-99, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 

4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-142, 4-148, 4-152, 4-157, 4-158, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 

4-189, 4-209, 4-228, 5-1, 5-8, 5-13, 5-21, 5-24, 5-30, 5-32, 5-33, 5-36, 5-38, 5-39, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 

5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-54, 5-60, 6-27, 6-29, 6-54, 6-61 

compensatory mitigation ........................................................ ES-11, 4-74, 4-116, 4-117, 4-228, 5-28, 6-46 

Construction Mitigation and Restoration Plan (CM&R Plan) .................. ES-6, ES-8, ES-9, ES-10, ES-11, 

ES-12, ES-13, ES-14, ES-28, 1-29, 2-11, 2-16, 2-22, 2-25, 2-26, 4-22, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 

4-44, 4-45, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-58, 4-59, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-79, 4-84, 

4-86, 4-90, 4-98, 4-102, 4-107, 4-225, 4-228, 5-1, 5-6, 5-14, 5-16, 5-18, 5-20, 5-21, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 

5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-42, 6-45, 6-52, 6-193 

contamination ..................................................ES-8, ES-10, 4-36, 4-38, 4-44, 4-45, 4-47, 4-51, 4-52, 4-71, 

4-77, 4-155, 4-227, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-28 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) ............... ES-1, 1-8, 1-18, 1-24, 1-39, 3-1, 3-2, 4-65, 6-90, 6-93 

Crissal thrasher..................................................................4-85, 4-95, 4-115, 4-116, 4-154, 5-45, 5-46, 5-54 

critical habitat...............................................................ES-14, ES-24, ES-28, 1-14, 1-26, 4-93, 4-104, 4-15, 

4-107, 4-108, 4-125, 4-228, 5-4, 5-39, 5-42, 6-176, 6-194 

cumulative impact ...............................................................ES-5, ES-24, ES-25, 1-7, 1-8, 1-17, 1-22, 1-23, 

1-26, 1-37, 4-1, 4-124, 4-188, 4-190, 4-205, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 

4-233, 4-234, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 6-33, 6-35, 6-40, 6-78, 6-90, 6-92, 6-96, 6-103, 6-197 

day-night equivalent sound level (Ldn)............................................................................ 4-206, 4-207, 4-209 

Decade of North American Geology (DNA) ..................................................................................4-11, 4-12 

decibel (dB)............................................................................................................................................4-208 

decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA)......................................................................... 4-206, 4-207, 4-209 

dekatherms per day (Dthd) ..................................................................... ES-2, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 3-1, 6-124 

Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC)..........................................................................4-155 

desert bighorn sheep ..................................................................................................4-81, 4-82, 4-113, 5-44 

desert pupfish ..................................................................................................... ES-14, 4-101, 4-109, 4-125 

U-6 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

desert tortoise ...................................................... ES-14, ES-24, ES-28, 1-14, 1-26, 1-39, 1-40, 2-29, 4-74, 

4-88, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-109, 4-116, 4-117, 4-125, 4-126, 4-228, 4-229, 5-4, 5-28, 5-39, 

5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-46, 5-47, 6-176, 6-194 

Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) .................................................................. 1-26, 4-104, 4-105 

Earthquake History of the United States (EQH).............................................................................4-11, 4-12 

easement.................................................................. 1-14, 1-33, 1-34, 2-7, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-26, 2-30, 3-10, 

3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-27, 4-22, 4-80, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-136, 4-137, 4-142, 4-153, 4-169, 4-170, 5-14 

Ehrenberg Compressor Station ...................................................ES-3, ES-4, ES-9, ES-22, ES-23, 1-5, 2-1, 

2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 2-15, 2-24, 2-29, 3-30, 3-32, 4-16, 4-17, 4-28, 4-33, 4-58, 4-59, 4-69, 4-77, 4-82, 

4-85, 4-91, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-149, 4-152, 4-160, 4-167, 4-170, 4-195, 4-196, 4-206, 4-210, 4-216, 

5-24, 5-60, 5-61, 6-14 

El Centro Meter Station ................................................... ES-3, ES-9, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-10, 2-24, 2-25, 4-28, 

4-34, 4-69, 4-77, 4-82, 4-85, 4-135, 4-136, 4-160, 4-170, 4-210, 5-29, 5-60 

El Paso Meter Station .......................................................... ES-3, ES-4, ES-9, 1-5, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 2-24, 

3-32, 4-28, 4-33, 4-82, 4-134, 4-135, 4-170, 4-195, 6-14 

El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) ............................................. ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, ES-9, ES-24, 1-2, 

1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 2-17, 2-24, , 4-28, 4-33, 4-82, 4-134, 4-135, 4-170, 4-195, 6-14, 6-207 

elf owl .........................................................................................................................................4-109, 4-126 

Emergency Response Plan ....................................................... ES-24, 1-30, 4-22, 4-168, 4-217, 5-55, 5-62 

emergency response................................................. 1-15, 1-30, 2-23, 2-29, 4-21, 4-45, 4-90, 4-137, 4-167, 

4-168, 4-211, 4-212, 4-217, 4-218, 4-223, 5-21, 5-23 

eminent domain....................................................................................................................... 1-9, 4-134, 5-5 

emissions ...............................................................ES-21, ES-25, 1-6, 1-7, 1-15, 1-22, 1-23, 3-4, 3-5, 3-33, 

4-151, 4-193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-232, 

4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-253, 5-10, 5-16, 5-17, 5-59, 6-11, 6-13, 6-15, 6-42, 6-80, 

6-118, 6-119, 6-120, 6-123, 6-124, 6-125, 6-140, 6-192 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) ................... 1-8, 1-26, 4-93, 4-120, 4-124, 4-125, 6-27, 6-30, 6-58 

Energia Costa Azul (ECA) ............................................ ES-2, ES-24, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-19, 4-232, 6-13, 6-14 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) ............................................................................. 3-4, 3-6, 6-101 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ............. ES-1, ES-2, ES-4, ES-5, ES-6, ES-14, ES-25, ES-26, ES-27, 

ES-28, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 

1-24, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 1-31, 1-35, 1-37, 1-39, 1-40, 2-1, 2-12, 2-17, 2-25, 2-29, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 

3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-20, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 4-2, 4-56, 4-57, 4-68, 4-93, 4-105, 4-125, 4-145, 4-151, 4-167, 

4-170, 4-186, 4-188, 4-197, 4-204, 4-223, 4-231, 4-232, 4-240, 4-252, 4-253, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-40, 6-10, 

6-11, 6-15, 6-23, 6-25, 6-30, 6-32, 6-37, 6-40, 6-42, 6-48, 6-52, 6-54, 6-58, 6-82, 6-83, 6-86, 6-90, 

U-7 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

6-91, 6-93, 6-97, 6-103, 6-104, 6-113, 6-132, 6-134, 6-140, 6-143, 6-151, 6-176, 6-181, 6-191, 6-193, 

6-194, 6-195, 6-196, 6-197, 6-207 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ................................ ES-1, ES-2, ES-4, ES-5, ES-6, ES-14, ES-25, 

ES-26, ES-27, ES-28, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-21, 

1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 1-31, 1-35, 1-37, 1-39, 1-40, 2-1, 2-12, 2-17, 2-25, 2-29, 3-1, 

3-2, 3-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-20, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 4-2, 4-56, 4-57, 4-68, 4-93, 4-105, 4-125, 4-142, 4-145, 

4-146, 4-151, 4-167, 4-170, 4-186, 4-188, 4-197, 4-204, 4-223, 4-231, 4-232, 4-234, 4-236, 4-237, 

4-252, 4-253, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-40, 6-10, 6-11, 6-15, 6-23, 6-25, 6-30, 6-32, 6-37, 6-40, 6-42, 6-48, 6-52, 

6-54, 6-58, 6-82, 6-83, 6-86, 6-90, 6-91, 6-93, 6-97, 6-103, 6-104, 6-113, 6-132, 6-134, 6-140, 6-143, 

6-151, 6-176, 6-181, 6-191, 6-193, 6-194, 6-195, 6-196, 6-197, 6-207 

Environmental Inspector (EI)..................................... 1-1, 2-26, 4-27, 4-38, 4-98, 5-5, 5-7, 5-15, 5-16, 5-35 

environmental justice ................................................................ ES-25, 1-8, 1-16, 4-1, 4-238, 4-243, 4-244, 

4-245, 4-246, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 6-92 

erosion ............................................................................ ES-8, ES-9, ES-12, ES-24, 2-15, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 

4-8, 4-17, 4-22, 4-26, 4-28, 4-31, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 

4-54, 4-57, 4-59, 4-64, 4-68, 4-70, 4-76, 4-77, 4-90, 4-91, 4-124, 4-150, 4-216, 4-225, 4-227, 4-228, 

5-4, 5-15, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-24, 5-25, 5-27, 5-28, 5-33, 5-53 

fairyduster ......................................................................................................................... 4-122, 4-123, 5-49 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .......................................................................4-43, 4-51 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) ................................... ES-1, ES-2, ES-4, 

ES-5, ES-6, ES-8, ES-9, ES-12, ES-18, ES-20, ES-21, ES-22, ES-23, ES-28, 1-1, 1-2, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 

1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 1-14, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-29, 1-33, 1-34, 1-35, 1-40, 2-11, 2-25, 

2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 3-2, 3-3, 3-7, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 4-1, 4-2, 4-21, 4-27, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-40, 

4-41, 4-43, 4-53, 4-56, 4-60, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-80, 4-87, 4-92, 4-93, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-105, 

4-114, 4-126, 4-134, 4-151, 4-162, 4-171, 4-177, 4-180, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-186, 4-190, 4-191, 

4-192, 4-197, 4-199, 4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-210, 4-212, 4-223, 4-246, 4-253, 5-1, 5-5, 5-7, 5-8, 

5-9, 5-10, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 

5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-36, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 

5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-62, 5-63, 6-12, 6-15, 6-25, 

6-27, 6-29, 6-30, 6-32, 6-34, 6-35, 6-40, 6-42, 6-61, 6-82, 6-94, 6-97, 6-111, 6-118, 6-120, 6-123, 

6-124, 6-193, 6-194 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) .........................ES-1, 1-37, 1-39, 4-26, 4-143, 4-152 

Federal Register (FR) .......................................................... ES-5, ES-21, 1-1, 1-12, 1-15, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 

1-27, 1-30, 1-40, 4-120, 4-146, 4-197, 4-199, 4-214, 4-215, 5-13, 6-34, 6-48, 6-118 

FERC Order ....................................................................................................................................... 5-5, 5-7 

FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) ............... ES-1, ES-6, ES-8, 

ES-9, ES-10, ES-11, ES-12, ES-13, ES-15, ES-16, ES-17, ES-18, ES-20, ES-22, ES-23, ES-28, 1-2, 

1-11, 1-12, 1-15, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-30, 1-32, 1-33, 1-34, 1-35, 1-37, 1-38, 1-39, 2-11, 2-17, 2-22, 

2-23, 2-25, 3-12, 3-15, 4-22, 4-26, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-44, 4-48, 4-51, 4-54, 4-56, 4-58, 

4-60, 4-65, 4-66, 4-77, 4-84, 4-87, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-108, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146, 

U-8 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

4-148, 4-149, 4-157, 4-159, 4-168, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 

4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-207, 4-208, 4-215, 4-217, 4-231, 4-245, 4-246, 5-1, 

5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-21, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-30, 5-33, 5-52, 5-56, 5-57, 

5-58, 5-61, 5-62, 6-43, 6-45, 6-47, 6-48, 6-81, 6-82, 6-120, 6-123, 6-193, 6-194, 6-197 

FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) ............2-11, 2-12, 

2-24, 2-29, 4-21, 4-36, 4-53, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-218 

ferruginous hawk ...................................................................................................................................4-116 

flat-tailed horned lizard .................................................ES-14, ES-24, ES-28, 1-14, 2-14, 3-14, 3-15, 4-82, 

4-88, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-152, 5-4, 5-48, 5-49, 6-176, 6-196 

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee (FTHLICC)................. 4-88, 4-121, 4-122 

General Conformity ............................... 1-23, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 6-11, 6-15, 6-118, 6-119, 6-120, 6-143 

geologic hazards .................................................ES-7, ES-8, 4-3, 4-8, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-219, 4-220, 5-13 

giant Spanish-needle .....................................................................................................................4-123, 5-49 

Gila woodpecker .............................................................4-82, 4-85, 4-96, 4-111, 4-125, 4-126, 5-43, 6-195 

greenhouse gas (GHG)...............................................................................................3-5, 4-200, 4-204, 5-59 

Harwoods milk-vetch...............................................................................................................................4-97 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)...............................................................................................4-196, 4-237 

hazardous waste site......................................................................................................................4-155, 5-54 

Herd Management Area (HMA)........................................................................................... 4-87, 4-88, 5-32 

high consequence areas (HCAs) ............................................................... ES-23, 4-214, 4-215, 4-222, 5-62 

high heating value (HHV)......................................................................................6-14, 6-123, 6-124, 6-125 

horizontal directional drill (HDD) .............................................. ES-6, ES-7, ES-10, ES-11, ES-19, ES-20, 

ES-28, 1-35, 2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-22, 2-25, 3-15, 3-17, 3-20, 4-20, 4-22, 4-49, 4-50, 4-54, 4-55, 

4-56, 4-58, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-75, 4-84, 4-88, 4-90, 4-92, 4-99, 4-102, 4-104, 4-107, 4-108, 

4-110, 4-113, 4-118, 4-119, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-147, 4-152, 4-157, 4-173, 4-177, 4-184, 4-185, 

4-209, 4-227, 4-228, 5-1, 5-6, 5-8, 5-13, 5-22, 5-24, 5-30, 5-32, 5-33, 5-36, 5-38, 5-39, 5-42, 5-43, 

5-44, 5-47, 5-54, 5-60, 6-193 

Horizontal Directional Drill Plan (HDD Plan) ...............................ES-6, ES-10, ES-11, ES-28, 2-11, 2-19, 

4-56, 4-92, 4-108, 4-228, 5-1, 5-8, 5-24, 5-42, 5-44, 5-47, 6-193 

Hot Springs Long Term Visitor Area .........................................................................................4-148, 4-155 

IID Lateral ............................................................................. ES-3, ES-4, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, ES-12, ES-15, 

ES-18, ES-19, ES-20, ES-23, ES-26, ES-27, ES-28, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-22, 1-25, 

1-26, 1-32, 1-37, 1-40, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 

U-9 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

2-25, 2-29, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-17, 3-22, 3-24, 3-32, 3-33, 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 

4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 

4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 

4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-69, 4-70, 4-73, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 

4-85, 4-86, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-100, 4-102, 4-103, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 

4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-118, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-129, 4-130, 4-132, 4-134, 4-135, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-152, 4-155, 4-156, 

4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-165, 4-167, 4-169, 4-170, 4-173, 4-175, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-183, 

4-185, 4-188, 4-201, 4-213, 4-214, 4-216, 4-222, 4-225, 4-228, 4-231, 4-240, 4-241, 4-244, 4-247, 

4-248, 4-251, 4-252, 5-1, 5-3, 5-8, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-25, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 

5-31, 5-37, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-48, 5-49, 5-51, 5-52, 5-61, 5-62, 6-35, 6-104, 6-207 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) ....................................ES-21, ES-22, 1-7, 1-11, 

1-17, 1-22, 1-23, 1-35, 3-33, 4-151, 4-195, 4-197, 4-199, 4-200, 4-204, 4-232, 5-11, 5-18, 6-42, 6-62, 

6-82, 6-83, 6-207 

Imperial Irrigation District (IID) ................................................................... ES-3, ES-4, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, 

ES-12, ES-15, ES-18, ES-19, ES-20, ES-23, ES-25, ES-26, ES-27, ES-28, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-13, 1-14, 

1-15, 1-16, 1-21, 1-22, 1-25, 1-26, 1-32, 1-34, 1-37, 1-40, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 

2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-29, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-17, 3-22, 

3-24, 3-32, 3-33, 4-5, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 

4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-43, 

4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 

4-69, 4-70, 4-73, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 

4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-100, 4-102, 4-103, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-118, 4-120, 

4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-129, 4-130, 4-132, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 

4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-152, 4-155, 4-156, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-165, 4-167, 

4-169, 4-170, 4-173, 4-175, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-183, 4-185, 4-188, 4-201, 4-213, 4-214, 4-216, 

4-222, 4-225, 4-228, 4-231, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-244, 4-247, 4-248, 4-251, 4-252, 5-1, 5-3, 5-8, 

5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-25, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-37, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 

5-46, 5-48, 5-49, 5-51, 5-52, 5-61, 5-62, 6-33, 6-35, 6-91, 6-104, 6-178, 6-191, 6-207 

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) ............................................ ES-15, ES-17, ES-20, ES-26, 

ES-27, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-26, 1-32, 2-23, 3-10, 3-12, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 4-39, 4-108, 

4-112, 4-116, 4-123, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-159, 4-167, 4-185, 4-190, 4-214, 4-222, 

4-226, 5-3, 5-5, 5-8,5-12, 5-19, 5-44, 5-46, 5-49, 5-52 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) .....................................................................4-169

ISDRA Management Plan (ISDRA Plan) ........................................................................ES-15, 1-26 ,4-146 

La Rosita Power Complex (LRPC) ................................................ES-25, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 6-80 

Lake Cahuilla............................................................ 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 4-17, 4-24, 4-31, 4-148, 4-152, 5-52

Las Animas colubrina ..............................................................................................................................4-97 

Le Conte’s thrasher ..................................................................................................4-96, 4-116, 4-117, 5-46 

U-10 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

lead (Pb) ..................................................................ES-1, ES-21, ES-25, ES-26, 1-8, 1-9, 1-11, 1-21, 1-34, 

2-19, 2-25, 2-28, 3-3, 4-14, 4-17, 4-57, 4-61, 4-68, 4-80, 4-94, 4-182, 4-191, 4-193, 4-194, 4-197, 

4-225, 4-242, 5-2, 5-24, 6-15, 6-91, 6-118 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) ................................................. ES-2, ES-3, ES-24, ES-25, ES-26, ES-27, 1-1, 

1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-15, 1-19, 1-22, 1-23, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-22, 3-32, 4-27, 

4-41, 4-60, 4-67, 4-80, 4-92, 4-127, 4-162, 4-171, 4-181, 4-192, 4-197, 4-198, 4-204, 4-205, 4-210, 

4-224, 4-232, 4-254, 5-2, 5-3, 6-13, 6-119, 6-124, 6-178 

Map Unit Identifiers (MUIDs).....................................................................................4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32 

maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) ................................................. ES-25, 2-1, 4-213, 4-215 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) ........................................................................................ES-21, 4-191 

Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) .............. ES-21, 

4-191, 4-212 

Metropolitan Water District (MWD) ................................................................................ 1-14, 4-148, 4-153 

migratory birds .......................................................ES-13, 1-29, 4-81, 4-85, 4-86, 4-100, 4-154, 5-31, 5-37 

milepost (MP) ...............................................................ES-3, ES-7, ES-8, ES-15, 1-26, 1-37, 2-1, 2-3, 2-8, 

2-10, 2-14, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 3-8, 3-10, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-24, 

3-27, 3-28, 3-33, 4-5, 4-6, 4-8, 4-10, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-31, 

4-33, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-43, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 4-61, 4-63, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 

4-75, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110, 

4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-136, 4-137, 

4-142, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 

4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-167, 4-175, 4-177, 4-184, 4-185, 4-213, 4-222, 4-247, 5-8, 5-12, 5-14, 

5-15, 5-18, 5-19, 5-22, 5-27, 5-28, 5-35, 5-38, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 5-54, 

5-57, 5-62, 6-48, 6-192, 6-194 

million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd) ....................................ES-2, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7 

Milpitas Wash ......................................................... ES-1, ES-15, ES-26, 1-2, 1-10, 1-13, 1-26, 1-27, 1-32, 

1-37, 1-39, 4-1, 4-6, 4-14, 4-74, 4-87, 4-88, 4-111, 4-119, 4-145, 4-146, 5-2, 5-32, 5-47, 5-52 

mineral resource zones (MRZ) ..................................................................................................................4-8 

mitigation monitoring program (MMP) ...................................... ES-28, 2-25, 2-27, 4-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-7, 6-97 

Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) .........................................................................................................4-12 

multiple-use classes (MUCs) ...................................................................................1-25, 3-12, 4-143, 4-149 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) .................... 4-193, 4-195, 4-198, 4-235, 4-236, 6-118 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ..........................................ES-1, ES-4, ES-5, ES-21, 1-2, 1-8, 

1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-18, 1-24, 1-37, 1-39, 3-1, 3-2, 4-26, 4-65, 4-94, 4-182, 4-191, 4-240, 4-245, 4-253, 

6-32, 6-48, 6-86, 6-90, 6-93 

U-11 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ........................................ ES-18, ES-21, 1-8, 1-14, 1-33, 1-34, 

1-35, 4-182, 4-191, 5-58, 6-48 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .............................1-34, 1-35, 4-59, 5-25, 6-53 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) .................................. ES-19, ES-20, 1-33, 3-14, 3-31, 4-182, 

4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-190, 4-231 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)...............................................................................................4-61, 4-62 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) .........................................................ES-5, 1-11, 1-27, 4-80, 4-87, 4-102, 

4-148, 4-151, 4-154, 4-183, 4-184, 5-13 

Native American .............................................ES-4, ES-5, ES-6, ES-19, ES-20, ES-21, ES-28, 1-12, 1-14, 

1-17, 1-18, 1-39, 4-1, 4-55, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 

4-243, 4-244, 5-1, 5-10, 5-58, 6-47, 6-48, 6-49, 6-50 

Natural Gas Act (NGA) ..............................................................ES-1, 1-1, 1-8, 1-9, 1-19, 2-29, 4-134, 5-5

nitrogen dioxide (NO2).................................................................. 4-193, 4-194, 4-200, 4-233, 4-235, 4-236 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) ..................................................................1-6, 1-7, 1-15, 1-21, 1-23, 3-4, 3-5, 4-197, 

4-198, 4-199, 4-201, 4-205, 4-232, 4-234, 4-235, 6-13, 6-119, 6-125 

noise-sensitive area (NSA) ............................................................................................ES-22, 4-206, 4-209 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR).................................................................... 4-195, 4-196, 4-236 

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ............................................................................1-2, 1-9

Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert (NECO)..................................... 1-25, 1-26, 1-32, 3-12, 4-87, 4-104 

Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO Plan)....... 1-25, 1-26, 3-12, 

4-87, 4-104 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) ............................................... ES-5, ES-6, ES-15, ES-17, ES-22, ES-28, 1-14, 

1-17, 1-26, 1-39, 2-12, 2-14, 2-16, 2-23, 3-17, 3-20, 3-21, 4-76, 4-112, 4-114, 4-123, 4-146, 4-147, 

4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-159, 4-204, 4-231, 4-232, 4-241, 5-1, 5-9, 5-27, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 6-43, 

6-81, 6-192, 6-197 

Off-Highway Vehicle Management Plan (OHV Plan) .......................... ES-6, ES-17, ES-22, ES-28, 4-149, 

4-150, 4-151, 4-204, 5-1, 5-9, 5-52, 5-53, 6-43, 6-81 

Office of Energy Projects (OEP) ............................................ 4-56, 4-60, 4-87, 4-151, 4-177, 4-192, 4-204, 

5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-58 

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)........................................................................................ 4-211, 4-215, 5-60 

Ogilby Meter Station .................................................... ES-3, ES-4, ES-9, 1-5, 1-6, 1-15, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 

2-9, 2-24, 2-25, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 4-28, 4-34, 4-69, 4-70, 4-77, 4-82, 4-85, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 

4-142, 4-155, 4-160, 4-170, 4-195, 5-29, 5-31, 6-14, 6-207 

U-12 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

operation and maintenance ..................................... ES-10, ES-13, ES-17, ES-18, ES-23, 2-10, 2-28, 2-29, 

3-10, 4-44, 4-80, 4-147, 4-165, 4-180, 4-216, 5-30, 5-61, 5-62 

ozone (O3) ............................................................................ ES-21, 1-7, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-199, 6-134 

Paleontological Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMM Plan) .................... ES-6, ES-8, ES-28, 

2-11, 4-26, 4-27, 5-1, 5-15 

pallid bat ..................................................................................................................................................4-82 

Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) ......................................... ES-19, 2-11, 2-15, 2-19, 2-22, 4-54, 4-58, 

4-59, 4-75, 4-84, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-138, 4-184, 5-25, 5-28, 5-30, 5-33 

particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10).................. 1-15, 3-4, 3-5, 

4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236 

particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) .......... 3-5, 4-193, 4-194, 

4-195, 4-200, 4-201, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)....................................................4-211 

Plank Road............................................................................... 1-14, 4-148, 4-152, 4-155, 4-185, 5-12, 5-52 

potential impact radius (PIR) ............................................................ES-25, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 4-215, 4-222, 

4-238, 4-244, 4-247, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252 

potential to emit (PTE)...........................................................................................................................4-196 

precedent agreement ..................................................................................... 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-13, 4-234, 6-13 

Pre-Filing Process ................................................................................................................ES-4, 1-11, 1-12 

Preliminary Determination on Non-Environmental Issues (PD) ...............................................................1-9 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) ....................................................4-195, 4-196, 4-234, 4-236 

Rannells Drain ..........................................................ES-10, 2-22, 2-26, 2-27, 4-39, 4-49, 4-53, 4-54, 4-75, 

4-84, 4-90, 4-91, 4-99, 4-103, 4-104, 4-110, 4-227, 5-8, 5-9, 5-20, 5-22, 5-23, 5-28, 5-30, 5-32, 5-33, 

5-36, 5-39, 5-43 

Rannells Trap ............................................................. ES-3, ES-4, ES-9, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 4-28, 4-33, 

4-70, 4-77, 4-82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-100, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-160, 5-29, 5-37 

razorback sucker ......................................................... ES-14, 4-55, 4-89, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-125, 5-42 

Record of Decision (ROD) ..........................................................................................1-11, 1-19, 1-40, 2-12 

recreational vehicle (RV).....................................................................................4-146, 4-166, 4-167, 4-222 

Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) ..........................................1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 6-165 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)........................................................................1-27, 1-28, 6-165, 6-173 

U-13 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

resource management plan (RMP)...........................................................................................................1-24 

saguaro ...................................................................................................................................................4-111 

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) .............................................. 1-6, 1-7, 2-8, 3-6, 3-7, 4-198, 

4-205, 6-12, 6-13, 6-119, 6-178 

sand food.......................................................................................................................................4-123, 5-49 

Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) ...................................ES-5, 1-18, 1-37, 4-191, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR)..........................................................................................................1-23 

Sempra LNG (Sempra) .................................................ES-2, 1-2, 1-6, 1-15, 1-19, 3-6, 4-21, 4-218, 4-232, 

4-233, 4-234, 6-13, 6-181 

Significant Impact Level.......................................................................... ES-25, 4-233, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237 

Small Power Plant Exemption (SPPE).....................................................................................................1-21 

Sonoran yellow warbler ...........................................................................................................................4-96 

South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)............................................................ 1-7, 1-23, 4-197, 4-198, 4-205, 6-13, 

6-42, 6-111, 6-119, 6-122, 6-123, 6-124, 6-125, 6-132, 6-134, 6-140 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) .........................1-7, 1-23, 4-197, 4-202, 4-204, 

4-232, 4-237, 4-238, 6-13, 6-42, 6-111, 6-113, 6-123, 6-124, 6-125, 6-151, 6-181, 6-207 

Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) ..........................................................................................1-15, 4-238 

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) ......... 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 1-31, 6-165, 6-176 

Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC) ..............................................4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-14 

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) ................................... ES-2, ES-3, ES-9, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 

1-6, 1-7, 1-21, 2-1, 2-3, 2-10, 3-6, 3-7, 3-22, 3-28, 3-30, 3-32, 3-33, 4-20, 4-33, 4-40, 4-69, 4-136, 

4-151, 4-160, 4-198, 4-204, 4-205, 6-12, 6-13, 6-14, 6-25, 6-119, 6-124, 6-162, 6-178, 6-207 

southwestern willow flycatcher ...................................... ES-14, 4-101, 4-102, 4-104, 4-109, 4-115, 4-125, 

5-8, 5-38, 6-194 

Special Management Area (SMA) .......................................... ES-1, ES-14, ES-15, ES-26, 1-2, 1-10, 1-13, 

1-27, 1-32, 1-37, 1-39, 4-1, 4-74, 4-87, 4-88, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-229, 5-2, 5-32, 5-52 

Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan for Hazardous Materials and Wastes (SPCC Plan) .......... 

ES-6, ES-8, ES-10, ES-11, ES-13, ES-28, 2-11, 4-38, 4-44, 4-45, 4-47, 4-52, 4-77, 4-90, 4-155, 4-227, 

5-1, 5-18, 5-21, 5-23, 5-28, 5-33, 5-54 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) .................................... ES-20, ES-21, 1-34, 1-35, 4-182, 4-183, 

4-184, 4-186, 4-188, 4-191, 4-192, 5-10, 5-58, 6-197 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs)..............................................................................................4-195, 4-199 

U-14 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

State Route (SR) ............................................1-26, 1-27, 2-8, 2-16, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-24, 3-27, 4-8, 

4-9, 4-37, 4-88, 4-96, 4-97, 4-105, 4-108, 4-145, 4-158, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-177, 4-179, 4-195, 

5-13, 5-32, 5-39 

State Soil Geographic (STATSGO)................................................................................................4-28, 4-32 

Statement of Overriding Considerations..........................................ES-28, 1-10, 1-35, 4-107, 4-109, 4-122, 

4-126, 5-4, 5-42, 5-43, 5-48, 6-176 

Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) .................................... ES-11, 1-13, 1-35, 2-22, 4-38, 4-51, 4-53, 

4-56, 4-57, 5-23, 6-57 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) ............................................ 3-4, 3-5, 4-193, 4-194, 4-200, 4-232, 4-233, 4-236, 4-237 

sulfur oxides (SOx).......................................................................................................... 4-196, 4-201, 4-235 

summer tanager.............................................................................................................................4-117, 5-46 

supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) ............................................... ES-23, 2-28, 2-29, 4-216 

Terminal GNL Mar Adentro de Baja California (Mar Adentro) .............................................ES-2, 1-2, 1-6 

Termoelectrica de Mexicali Power Plant (TDM Plant) .................ES-25, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 6-80 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) ............................................ ES-11, 1-8, 1-9, 1-13, 1-33, 1-34, 2-17, 

2-22, 4-53, 4-55, 4-61, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-228, 5-23, 5-25, 6-44, 6-45, 6-46 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ....................................................... 2-14, 4-142, 4-175 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ........... 4-28, 4-33, 4-48 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)....................................................................................................4-93 

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) .... 2-11, 4-212, 4-238 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) ........................................ ES-23, ES-24, 1-34, 2-11, 2-14, 2-15, 

2-24, 2-29, 4-52, 4-59, 4-197, 4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-221, 

4-222, 4-223, 4-238, 4-244, 4-253, 5-11, 5-13, 5-24, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .....................................ES-1, ES-5, ES-21, ES-22, 1-2, 1-7, 

1-15, 1-17, 1-18, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-27, 1-34, 1-40, 3-5, 4-43, 4-48, 4-145, 4-151, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-201, 4-202, 4-204, 4-206, 4-207, 4-232, 4-233, 4-236, 4-241, 4-243, 4-244, 

4-245, 4-248, 5-59, 6-32, 6-37, 6-40, 6-42, 6-48, 6-83, 6-118, 6-119, 6-120, 6-123, 6-132 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ..................... ES-1, ES-5, ES-12, ES-13, ES-14, ES-21, ES-28, 1-8, 

1-11, 1-17, 1-24, 1-26, 1-27, 1-32, 1-34, 1-40, 2-7, 2-12, 2-29, , 4-36, 4-37, 4-61, 4-74, 4-85, 4-87, 

4-93, 4-94, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-113, 4-114, 

4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-125, 4-126, 4-133, 4-134, 4-154, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-186, 

4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-244, 4-251, 5-1, 5-4, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-16, 5-28, 5-31, 5-32, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 

5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-50, 5-58, 6-27, 6-29, 6-30, 6-194, 6-195 

U-15 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)...................4-5, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-14, 4-16, 4-21, 4-43, 4-44, 4-46, 6-34 

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)..................................................................4-85 

United States Code (USC) .................................................................. 1-37, 4-23, 4-93, 4-195, 4-211, 4-215

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP)...................................................................4-23 

utility corridor ......................................................... ES-1, ES-15, ES-26, 1-2, 1-10, 1-13, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 

1-32, 1-37, 1-39, 1-40, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-21, 4-100, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146, 4-152, 4-154, 5-2, 5-3, 

5-37 

vermilion flycatcher ......................................................................................................................4-118, 5-46 

Visual Resource Management (VRM)............................... 4-128, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) .............................................. 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-232, 4-234, 4-235 

well ........................................................................ ES-1, ES-8, ES-9, ES-10, ES-13, ES-15, ES-17, ES-18, 

ES-25, ES-26, 1-4, 1-5, 1-10, 1-11, 1-15, 1-19, 1-22, 1-23, 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 1-39, 1-40, 2-11, 

2-12, 2-15, 2-27, 3-3, 3-4, 3-6, 3-10, 3-17, 3-22, 3-27, 3-33, 4-1, 4-14, 4-16, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 

4-26, 4-27, 4-31, 4-33, 4-35, 4-41, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-67, 4-68, 

4-70, 4-79, 4-80, 4-91, 4-92, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-114, 4-120, 4-122, 4-126, 4-127, 

4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-137, 4-141, 4-142, 4-146, 4-147, 4-149, 4-151, 4-156, 4-159, 4-160, 4-162, 

4-166, 4-168, 4-171, 4-172, 4-175, 4-178, 4-181, 4-182, 4-191, 4-192, 4-196, 4-199, 4-205, 4-210, 

4-213, 4-214, 4-219, 4-220, 4-223, 4-224, 4-229, 4-231, 4-233, 4-238, 4-244, 4-245, 4-247, 4-254, 5-2, 

5-5, 5-10, 5-14, 5-15, 5-21, 5-22, 5-24, 5-25, 5-30, 5-33, 5-39, 5-52, 5-55, 5-58, 6-34, 6-105, 6-194 

Western Colorado Desert (WECO).................................................................................................1-26, 1-32 

Western Colorado Desert Routes of Travel Designations Plan (WECO Plan)........................................1-26 

western mastiff bat...................................................................................................................................4-82 

western yellow-billed cuckoo ........................................................................................... 4-111, 4-126, 5-44 

wetland ............................................................ES-11, ES-28, 1-8, 1-29, 1-33, 1-34, 2-11, 2-12, 2-16, 2-22, 

2-26, 3-31, 3-33, 4-1, 4-35, 4-36, 4-42, 4-45, 4-57, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-75, 

4-81, 4-82, 4-84, 4-86, 4-101, 4-103, 4-104, 4-107, 4-110, 4-111, 4-113, 4-119, 4-131, 4-132, 4-200, 

4-227, 5-1, 5-6, 5-21, 5-25, 5-26, 5-30, 5-39, 5-43, 6-44, 6-45, 6-92 

Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA)..................................................................................................................4-87 

Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA) .......................... 4-87, 4-88, 4-113, 4-148, 4-154, 5-32, 5-54 

Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (WHMP) ................................................................................1-26, 4-87 

Wobbe Index (WI) .................................................................1-6, 1-7, 1-15, 1-23, 4-61, 4-62, 4-197, 4-198, 

4-204, 6-12, 6-13, 6-119 

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) ........................................................4-13 

U-16 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
APPENDIX U (cont’d) 

Yuma clapper rail .............................................................. ES-14, 4-96, 4-103, 4-104, 4-109, 4-110, 4-125, 

5-8, 5-9, 5-39, 5-43 

Yuma District Resource Management Plan (Yuma District Plan) .........................ES-1, ES-15, ES-27, 1-2, 

1-10, 1-12, 1-26, 1-27, 1-32, 1-33, 1-37, 1-39, 4-1, 4-87, 4-145, 4-146, 5-52 

Yuma mountain lion ................................................................................................................................4-95 

U-17 

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007
Document Content(s)

01 Report Cover_and Spine_Volume I.PDF....................................1

18 Report Cover_and Spine_Volume II.PDF...................................3

02 Cover Letter To the Parties.PDF........................................5

03 Table of Contents Volume 1.PDF.........................................9

19 Table of Contents Volume 2.PDF........................................25

04 Executive Summary.PDF.................................................26

05 Section 1.0 Introduction.PDF..........................................54

06 Section 2.0 Project Description.PDF...................................94

07 Section 3.0 Alternatives.PDF.........................................124

08 Section 4.0 Environmental Analysis.PDF ..............................157

09 Section 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.PDF......................411

10 Section 6.0 Comment Responses Index.PDF..............................474

11 Section 6.0 Comment Responses ptA_Public Meetings.PDF ...............477

12 Section 6.0 Comment Responses ptB_Federal.PDF .......................501

13 Section 6.0 Comment Responses ptC_NA Tribes.PDF......................522

14 Section 6.0 Comment Responses ptD_State.PDF .........................527

15 Section 6.0 Comment Responses ptE_Local.PDF .........................540

16 Section 6.0 Comment Responses ptF_Comp&Orgs.PDF......................634

17 Section 6.0 Comment Responses ptG_Applicant.PDF......................669

Appendix A Distribution List.PDF........................................694

Appendix B Maps with NIP Flysheet for public eLibrary.PDF...............718

Appendix C Typical Right of Way Cross Sections.PDF......................720

Appendix D EWSs and Access Roads.PDF ...................................740

Appendix E CM&R Plan.PDF................................................752

Appendix F SPCC Plan.PDF................................................788

Appendix G HDD Plan.PDF.................................................839

Appendix H Traffic Plans.PDF............................................852

Appendix I Blasting Specs.PDF...........................................933

Appendix J Geohazard Study.PDF..........................................946

Appendix K Paleo Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.PDF ....................985

Appendix L Dust Control Plan.PDF.......................................1001

Appendix M Dry Washes.PDF..............................................1013

Appendix N Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan.PDF ...................1029

Appendix O Site Specific Residential Construction Plans.PDF............1038

Appendix P OHV Management Plan.PDF.....................................1040

Appendix Q Visual Resource Study.PDF ..................................1053

Appendix R Biological Opinion.PDF......................................1114

Appendix S References.PDF..............................................1148

Appendix T Preparers.PDF...............................................1159

Appendix U Subject Index.PDF...........................................1162

Document Accession #: 20070608-4000 Filed Date: 06/08/2007