8. Review Under CEQA

CEQA requires the Commission, as the designated lead agency, to assess the potential environmental impact of a project in order that adverse effects are avoided, alternatives are investigated, and environmental quality is restored or enhanced to the fullest extent possible. The Commission uses the PEA, required by Rule 17.1, to focus on environmental impacts and to prepare an initial study to determine whether the project will need a Negative Declaration or an EIR.

In compliance with CEQA, staff of the Environmental Projects Unit of the Commission's Energy Division (staff), commenced review of Wild Goose's application/PEA. Based on this review, which we describe in the following subsection, staff have prepared an EIR, entitled "Environmental Impact Report for the Wild Goose Storage, Inc. Expansion Project", which describes the project, discusses its potential environmental effects and considers alternatives to the project. MHA Environmental Consulting, Inc., under contract to the Commission, assisted staff in the EIR's preparation. The EIR consists of two separate documents, the Draft EIR (DEIR) and the Final EIR (FEIR), which cumulatively make up the EIR. We generally refer to the cumulative documents as the EIR, unless referring to a particular section or discussion, in which case we specifically reference either the DEIR or FEIR. These documents have been identified for the record, respectively, as Reference Exhibit (Ref. Ex.) B and Ref. Ex. C.

On December 21, 2001, staff mailed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR to local, state, and federal agencies and to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day period for review and comment, as required by CEQA. The NOP provided a general description of the proposed project and a summary of the main regulations and permit conditions applicable to its development and operation.

To gather information related to the possible environmental effects of this application, the Commission also consulted with other affected agencies and jurisdictions. The Commission conducted a Public Agency Outreach Program to establish early contact and open lines of communication with key public agencies that would be directly affected by the proposed project. In the course of consultations with more than 25 public agencies, local agency representatives provided the staff with background information and information about permitting requirements, land use, community perceptions and local environmental concerns. The agency comments helped to determine relevant environmental issues associated with the project.

In addition, the Commission conducted two public scoping meetings on January 8, 2002 in Colusa and Gridley, locations chosen for their convenience to the proposed Wild Goose expansion site and rights-of-way. The meetings were held to explain the environmental review process and to receive public comment on the scope of the EIR.

In compliance with CEQA, in April 2002, staff prepared a Notice announcing the completion of the DEIR and the date, time and location of a public meeting to discuss the proposed Wild Goose expansion project and take comment on the DEIR. The Notice was mailed to city and county planning agencies and to landowners affected by the project and was printed in local newspapers. Staff also posted the DEIR on the Commission's website and submitted copies of the DEIR to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research for circulation to affected state agencies for review and comment. The public comment period closed on April 22, 2002.

Staff received written comments from the following federal, state and local agencies and others:

Staff have reviewed these comments and included written responses in the FEIR which was issued on June 13, 2002 and posted on the Commission's website. Several areas of textual discussion, as well as identified draft mitigation measures, have been amended as appropriate to respond to specific concerns. Because of the volume of the EIR, the entirety of this document is not appended to this decision, but Chapter 4 of the FEIR, the "Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program", is included as Attachment B.

The "proposed project" identified in the EIR is the project formally presented in Wild Goose's application and PEA and includes the PEA's proposed mitigation measures. The project consists of four primary components: expansion of the existing Well Pad Site to allow the drilling of up to 16 new wells for injection, withdrawal and observation; construction in the existing right-of-way of a second 18-inch diameter bi-directional Storage Loop Pipeline and fiber optic cable to move gas from the reservoir to the Remote Facility; expansion of the existing Remote Facility Site, which is the operational base, or hub, for the Wild Goose storage facility; and construction of the Line 400/401 Connection Pipeline and the Delevan Interconnect Facility, to enable the proposed interconnection with PG&E's Line 400/401. For purposes of evaluating the project under CEQA, the EIR assumes that Wild Goose will meet all the construction specifications and will complete all mitigation measures.

CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain the basic project objectives, as well as a no-project alternative. Since the Well Pad Site, the Remote Facility Site and the interconnection with Line 400/401 have fixed locations, the principle project alternatives concern two alternative alignments of the new pipeline linking the Butte County facility with Line 400/401. The names of the potential project routes refer, comparatively, to where they cross the Sacramento River. The proposed route is known as the Central Crossing and the two alternatives, as the Northern Crossing and the Southern Crossing. The Northern Crossing, which is aligned in roadways or within or just outside road rights-of-ways to a greater degree than the other routes and therefore, is the longest route, actually runs coincidently with the Central Crossing in some places and with the Southern Crossing at others.

While the Northern Crossing would minimize potential impacts to agricultural land uses and garter snake habit (rice fields), it passes closer to a greater number of residences than the other routes. Its negative aspects include greater potential impacts associated with aesthetics, noise, and potential hazards to residences in the vicinity of the pipeline, as well as potentially significant impacts to traffic and circulation in the area attributable to construction activities along existing roadways. The distance across the river is about the same for the Northern Crossing and the Central Crossing (approximately 2,400 feet) and their potential impacts upon wetlands would be similar.

The Southern Crossing would affect fewer acres of orchards than the Central Crossing but would affect greater rice field acreages than either the Northern or Central Crossing, thereby increasing the potential impact on garter snake habitat. Because this route has the longest river crossing (approximately 3,700 feet), it would result in greater potential impacts on geology and water quality.

Our discussion, above, briefly summarizes the EIR's lengthy analysis of these three potential routes. The EIR determines, on balance, that the Central Crossing is the preferred route because it minimizes impacts to wetlands and minimizes potential impacts associated with hazards, noise and aesthetics in the area by avoiding residential land uses.

Each environmental issue in the EIR is analyzed based on significance criteria suggested in the CEQA Guidelines.14 When the Guidelines do not suggest specific significance criteria, the EIR employs professional judgment to develop reasonable significance thresholds. Potential impacts of the expansion project, including the Line 400/401 Connection Pipeline, are categorized as (1) significant and unavoidable; (2) significant, but able to be mitigated to a less than significant level; or (3) less than significant. When the analysis presented in the EIR shows that no impact will occur as a result of the project, that impact is generally not discussed further. When the EIR determines that the proposed project could potentially cause significant environmental impacts, the EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels, if possible.

For purposes of evaluating the project under CEQA, the EIR assumes Wild Goose will meet all the construction specifications and will complete all mitigation measures required. In addition, the EIR assumes that if Wild Goose makes any changes in the proposed route or other project components, it will apply to the Commission for approval of a variance. In other words, the EIR is based on the assumption that Wild Goose will construct and operate its facilities within the parameters of all required approvals and permits; construction and operation in excess of permitted levels will require new discretionary permits and additional environmental review.

The EIR determines that utilizing the proposed route, all significant environmental impacts of the expansion project can be mitigated to a less than significant level except one, the permanent loss of 5.8 acres of prime farmland (and possibly somewhat more) to non-agricultural uses, which is unavoidable. The temporary removal of farmland from agricultural production during construction can be partially mitigated by paying compensation to farmers for crop loss.

The Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment B), prepared in compliance with Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6, summarizes the role and responsibilities for the Commission and the process that Wild Goose must follow to ensure effective implementation of mitigation for potential adverse effects and cumulatively considered effects. In response to Wild Goose's comments, we have revised, slightly, three identified Mitigation Measures (Measures 3.2-5, 3.4-3 and 3.14-1) to ensure that the description of each measure in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program follows the fuller discussion in the body of the EIR and we have deleted one, duplicative measure (Measure 3.3-6). The revised Measures appear in a new attachments to this decision entitled Errata for WGSI Expansion Project FEIR MMRP (Attachment C).

When an EIR concludes that a project will still have a significant impact on the environment even after all reasonable mitigation measures are applied, a CPCN can only issue if it is accompanied by a statement of overriding consideration explaining why the project should still be approved. We address this requirement in Section 9.

The Commission must conclude that the EIR is in compliance with CEQA before any final approval can be given to the application. This is to ensure that the environmental document is a comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased tool that the lead agency and other decisionmakers can use in addressing the merits of the project.

We find that this EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. It reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis on the issues addressed by the EIR, and the Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR in formulating today's decision. We will certify the EIR.

14 The EIR addresses the potential for environmental impacts in each of the following areas: aesthetics; agriculture; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils and mineral resources; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services and socio-economics; recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems. It also examines cumulative and growth-inducing impacts, as CEQA requires.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page