[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15587]


[Federal Register: June 28, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. CP93-618-000 and 00]


Pacific Gas Transmission Company; Intent To Prepare an 
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed PGT Expansion II Project

June 22, 1994.
    On November 17, 1993 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC 
or Commission) issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Joint Draft 
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) 
with the California State Lands Commission (SLC) for the above proposed 
PGT Expansion II Project and a related project proposed by Tuscarora 
Gas Transmission Company in Docket CP93-685-000 (Tuscarora Pipeline 
Project). The purpose of the Notice was to request comments on 
environmental issues. On May 31, 1994, PGT filed an amendment to its 
original application. In a June 8, 1994 response to a FERC staff data 
request, PGT confirmed that no expansion of its mainline facilities is 
required to provide service to the Tuscarora Pipeline Project. From the 
standpoint of the environmental analysis, the important changes to the 
PGT Expansion II Project are:
     The elimination of the additional compression originally 
proposed at the Sandpoint, Idaho and Rosalia, Washington Compressor 
Stations;
     The removal from the above proceedings of three meter runs 
inside PGT's existing Malin Meter Station in southern Oregon; the meter 
runs will still be necessary to serve the Tuscarora Pipeline Project, 
but will now be proposed under section 157.208(a) of the Commission's 
regulations (18 CFR 157.208(a)).
     The elimination of one meter station proposed in Klamath 
Falls, Oregon;
     The addition of two service taps on the Medford Extension 
Lateral;
     Route realignments that increase the total miles of the 
Medford Extension Lateral (pipeline) to be constructed from 84.17 miles 
to 86.5 miles (see Table 1)1; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The table and appendices are not printed in the Federal 
Register, but have been mailed to all receiving this notice. Copies 
are also available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 
Room 3104, 941 North Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Route realignments that increase the total miles of the 
Coyote Springs Extension Lateral (pipeline) to be constructed from 
17.71 miles to 18.5 miles (see Table 1).
    Prior to this amendment, the PGT Expansion II and the Tuscarora 
Pipeline Projects were being processed concurrently because of the 
inclusion in Docket No. CP93-618-000 of additional system compression 
and the meter runs at Malin needed to deliver gas to the Tuscarora 
Pipeline Project. However, the proposed amendment to eliminate the 
compression and the proposal to build the meter runs under separate 
authority make the PGT Expansion II Project a stand-alone proposal 
which can be considered separately from the Tuscarora Pipeline Project.
    Based on the above changes, we have determined that an 
environmental assessment (EA), rather than an environmental impact 
statement, is the appropriate document for analyzing the potential 
environmental impacts associated with the PGT Expansion II Project. We 
are now preparing this document. Since the PGT facilities will be 
located outside the State of California, the SLC will not be a 
cooperating agency in the preparation of this EA. We are proceeding 
with a joint EIR/EIS with the SLC for the Tuscarora Pipeline Project. 
The three meter runs inside PGT's existing Malin Meter Station will be 
addressed as a related facility in that joint EIR/EIS.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the 
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could 
result from a major Federal action whenever it considers the issuance 
of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The EA we are 
preparing will give the Commission the information it needs to do that. 
If the EA concluded that the project would result in significant 
environmental impacts, the Commission would prepare an environmental 
impact statement. Otherwise a Finding of No Significant Impact would be 
produced.
    NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public 
may have about proposals. We call this ``scoping''. The main goal of 
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important 
environmental issues, and to separate these from issues that are 
insignificant and do not require detailed study. Although the scoping 
of the original project has already been completed, we are now asking 
for any additional comments only on the relocated or new portions of 
the project as currently proposed. Local scoping meetings have already 
been conducted for the original project. Additional scoping meetings 
are not anticipated.
    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the 
construction and operation of the proposed projects under these general 
subject headings:
     Geology and paleontology.
     Endangered and threatened species.
     Visual resources.
     Water resources.
     Vegetation.
     Land use.
     Air quality and noise.
     Wetland and riparian habitat.
     Cultural resources.
     Fish and wildlife.
     Socioeconomics.
     Soils.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the project, or 
portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or 
avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will result in the 
publication of the EA which will be mailed to Federal, state, and local 
agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected 
landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official 
service list for these proceedings.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by sending a letter with your specific 
comments or concerns about the projects. You should focus on the 
potential environmental effects of the new portions of the proposal 
(see Table 1). You do not need to re-submit comments if you have 
already done so in this proceeding. We are particularly interested in 
alternatives to the proposals (including alternative routes), and 
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific 
your comments, the more useful they will be. Please follow the 
instructions below to ensure that your comments are received and 
properly recorded:
     Address your letter to: Lois Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol St., NE., Washington, 
DC 20426;
     Reference Docket No. CP93-618-001;
     Send a copy of your letter to: Ms. Alisa Lykens, Project 
Manager, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol St., 
NE., Room 7312 Washington, DC 20426; and
     Mail your comments so they will be received in Washington 
DC on or before July 28, 1994.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want 
to become an official party to the proceedings or an ``intervenor''. 
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of 
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. 
Likewise, each intervenor must provide copies of its filings to all 
other parties. If you want to become an intervenor you must file a 
Motion to Intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) which is attached as appendix 
1\2\. You do not need intervenor status to have your scoping comments 
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\See footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    If you don't want to send comments at this time but still want to 
receive a copy of the EA, please return the Information Request 
(appendix 2)\3\. If you have previously returned the Information 
Request you need not do so again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\See footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the proposed project is available from 
Ms. Alisa Lykens, EA Project Manager, at (202) 208-0766.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-15587 Filed 6-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P