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

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