[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26149]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 21, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP94-29-000]

 

Paiute Pipeline Company; Intent To Prepare an Environmental 
Assessment for the Proposed Paiute Pipeline Expansion Project

October 18, 1994.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the 
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will 
discuss environmental impacts of the construction and operation of 
facilities proposed in the Paiute Pipeline Expansion Project.1 
This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process 
to determine whether an environmental impact statement is necessary and 
whether or not to approve the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Paiute Pipeline Company's application was filed with the 
Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of 
the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Proposed Project

    On November 10, 1993, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC or Commission) issued a Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Northwest Expansion II 
Projects. The projects included two proposals by Paiute in Docket Nos. 
CP93-751-000 and CP94-29-000, and related projects proposed by 
Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) in Docket Nos. CP93-613-000 
and CP93-673-000. The purpose of the notice was to request comments on 
environmental issues.
    Because of changes made in Northwest's proposals, Paiute withdrew 
its application in Docket No. CP93-751-000 which proposed the 
construction of 7.8 miles of loop pipeline in two segments on September 
8, 1994. Also, on September 9, 1994, Paiute sent a letter to the 
Director of OPR indicating that no changes were necessary to Docket No. 
CP94-29-000. In this application Paiute proposes to:
     Construct 53.5 miles of loop pipeline in seven segments;
     Construct two new compressor stations with a total of 
2,139 horsepower (hp) of compression;
     Add 268 hp of compression at an existing compressor 
station by installing an upgraded compressor unit; and
     Modify other existing meter, compressor, and pressure 
reduction stations.
    The following table contains more detailed information about the 
facilities. The general location of the project facilities is shown in 
appendix 1.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\The appendices referenced in this notice are not being 
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 3104, 941 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, or call (202) 208-371. Copies 
of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in 
the mail. 

                                  Paiute Pipeline Expansion Project Facilities                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Pipe                                                  
               State/proposed facility                  diameter  Approximate     Added            County       
                                                          (in)    length (mi)   horsepower                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada:                                                                                                         
    Mainline:                                                                                                   
      Paradise North Loop............................         24          7.2  ...........  Elko/Humboldt.      
      Paradise South Loop............................         24         10.4  ...........  Humboldt.           
      Winnemucca South Loop..........................         24         10.4  ...........  Humboldt.           
      Rye Patch South Loop...........................         24          5.0  ...........  Pershing.           
      Paradise Compressor Stationa...................                                  268  ....................
    North Tahoe Lateral:                                                                                        
      North Tahoe Loop...............................         16         14.0  ...........  Carson City/Washoe. 
      Incline Village Loop...........................         12          2.7  ...........  Washoe.             
    South Tahoe Lateral:                                                                                        
      South Tahoe Loop...............................         12          3.8  ...........  Douglas.            
    Elko Lateral:                                                                                               
      Battle Mountain Compressor Station.............  .........  ...........        1,339  Lander.             
      Palisade Compressor Station....................  .........  ...........          800  Eureka.             
                                                                 --------------------------                     
          Total......................................                    53.5        2,407                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aPaiute proposes to upgrade compressor unit at this existing compressor station.                                

    Southwest Gas Corporation, a local distribution company, would also 
build facilities to receive gas from Paiute and serve additional 
customers in the Truckee, California area. Those facilities include:
     22.9 miles of small diameter distribution pipeline;
     18.4 miles of transmission pipeline (ranging from 6 to 12 
inches in diameter); and
     Five distribution regulator stations.
    We have determined that an environmental assessment (EA), rather 
than an EIS is the more appropriate document for analyzing the 
potential environmental impacts associated with Paiute's project.3 
This decision was made because the scope of the projects originally 
anticipated for the EIS decreased when Northwest's applications no 
longer included the delivery of gas to Paiute, severing the connection 
between the two proposals, and Paiute withdrew one of its proposals. 
The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service concur as 
cooperating agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Pronouns ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the staff of 
the Office of Pipeline Regulation at the FERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Our EA will give 
the Commission the information it needs to do that. If the EA concludes 
that the projects would result in significant environmental impacts, we 
will prepare an environmental impact statement. Otherwise we will 
prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact.
    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. Local scoping meetings 
have already been held for the original projects. Additional scoping 
meetings are not planned since the facilities have not changed. We are 
asking for comments which may provide new information or on the change 
in the environmental documentation.
    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 soils
     Endangered and threatened species
     Water resources
     Vegetation
     Land use
     Air quality and noise
     Wetland and riparian habitat
     Cultural resources
     Fish and wildlife
     Public safety
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the projects, or 
portions of the projects, 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 
identifying information that was not previously available or brought to 
our attention. You do not need to re-submit comments if you have 
already done so. 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, 
D.C. 20426;
     Reference Docket No. CP94-9-000;
     Send a copy of your letter to: Ms. Lauren O'Donnell, 
Project Manager, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North 
Capitol St., N.E., Room 7312, Washington, D.C. 20426; and
     Mail your comments so they will be received in Washington 
D.C. on or before November 7, 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 
2.
    The date for filing timely motions to intervene in this proceeding 
has passed. Therefore, parties now seeking to file late interventions 
must show good cause, as required by Section 385.214(b)(3), why this 
time limitation should be waived. Environmental issues have been viewed 
as good cause for late intervention. You do not need intervenor status 
to have your scoping comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to 
receive a copy of the EA, please return the Information Request (see 
appendix 3). If you have previously returned the Information Request 
you don't need to do so again.
    Additional information about the proposed projects is available 
from Ms. Lauren O'Donnell, EA Project Manager, at (202) 208-325.
Lois D. Cashell
Secretary
[FR Doc. 94-26149 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P