[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12162-12164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6440]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-161-006]
Avoca Natural Gas Storage; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Avoca Gas Storage Project
Supplement and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
March 10, 1997.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate
the environmental impacts of the construction of about 87.6 miles of
various diameter pipeline and related facilities proposed in the Avoca
Gas Storage Project Supplement.\1\ This EQ will be used by the
Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the
project is in the public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Avoca Natural Gas Storage'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
Avoca Natural Gas Storage (Avoca) received a certificate
authorizing the development of gas-storage caverns in an order issued
on September 20, 1994. In conjunction with the construction of the
storage caverns, Avoca wants to construct facilities to transport brine
from the Avoca Storage Field (under development) near Avoca, New York,
to two salt recovery facilities, Akzo Nobel Salt Company (Akzo) and
Cargill, Inc. (Cargill), near and within Watkins Glen, New York,
respectively. The brine would be created during the solution mining (or
leaching) of the underground salt caverns that will be used to store
natural gas. In that order, Avoca was authorized to use brine injection
wells to dispose of the brine created during the cavern leaching
process. However, the aquifers into which the brine injection wells
were completed do not have the capability to receive the brine at the
planned design rate of production. Therefore, Avoca would transport the
brine via the proposed brine pipeline to the two salt recovery
facilities. Specifically Avoca proposes to construct:
[[Page 12163]]
About 36.9 miles of 10-inch-diameter brine pipeline;
About 5.5 miles of 8-inch-diameter brine pipeline (from
about milepost [MP] 36.9 to the Akzo facility);
About 2.83 miles of 6-inch-diameter brine pipeline (from
about MP 36.9 to the Cargill facility);
A valve station (at MP 36.9);
A brine storage tank, pipeline pigging equipment, residual
water storage tank, associated valves, and piping at the Avoca
facility;
Electric pumps, associated valves, pipeline pigging
equipment, and aboveground residual water and brine storage tanks at
the Akzo facility; and
42.4 miles of 6-inch-diameter processed water return
pipeline (from the Akzo facility back to the Avoca facility for reuse)
that would be installed in the same ditch as the 36.9-mile-long 10-
inch-diameter and the 5.5-mile-long 8-inch-diameter brine pipelines.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\ If you are interested in obtaining detailed maps of a specific
portion of the project, or procedural information, please write to the
Secretary of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available from the
Commission's Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, or call (202) 208-1371.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this
notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Requirements for Construction
Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 474.5
acres of land including land that would be used for extra workspaces at
stream and road crossings and warehouse and staging areas. About 308.1
acres of this land would be within existing utility, road, and railroad
rights-of-way. About 134.6 acres would be required for the new
permanent right-of-way and about 31.8 acres of land would be restored
and allowed to revert to its former use. The proposed pipeline would
follow existing rights-of-way for about 90 percent of the route.
Avoca would use a 75- to 100-foot-wide right-of-way to construct
most of the project in non-agricultural and agricultural areas,
respectively. However, a narrower right-of-way would be used in some
areas.
Avoca would install only the brine pipeline (i.e., no water return
pipeline) to the Cargill facility, so the right-of-way would be 40 feet
wide or less in non-agricultural areas and 55 feet wide in agricultural
areas. Also, the portion of the pipeline right-of-way along the Conrail
railroad right-of-way leading to the Akzo facility would be about 30-
feet-wide.
The EA Process
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity. 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. By this
Notice of Intent, the Commission requests public comments on the scope
of the issues it will address in the EA. All comments received are
considered during the preparation of the EA. State and local government
representatives are encouraged to notify their constituents of this
proposed action and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
Geology and soils;
Water Resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
Vegetation and wildlife;
Endangered and threatened species;
Public safety;
Land use;
Cultural resources;
Air quality and noise;
Hazardous waste.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed 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 be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we
recommend that the Commission approve or not approve the project.
Currently Identified Environmental Issues
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Avoca. This preliminary list
of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
42 private wells, 1 privately-owned community well, and 1
state-regulated non-municipal well would be within 150 feet of
construction work areas;
46 perennial streams and 42 intermittent streams would be
crossed;
3 of the perennial streams contain protected fisheries;
Goff Creek and the Cohocton River would be crossed by
directional drilling;
54 wetlands would be crossed;
About 3.92 miles of State Reforestation Lands would be
crossed;
About 9.79 miles of agricultural land would be crossed;
Proposed construction right-of-way would be wide for this
size pipeline;
The area into which an existing gravel mining operation
plans to expand would be crossed;
Finger Lakes Trail would be crossed at MPs 7.47, 22.39,
26.62, and 39.60 (Queen Catherine Marsh Trail);
About 2.93 miles of New York State Forest land would be
crossed including land within Moss Hill, Birds Eye Hollow, Groundry
Hill, Sugar Hill, and Coon Hollow State Forests;
The access road for the Sanford Lake Day Use Area, a
public recreation area, would be crossed near MP 19.97;
Watkins Glen State Park would be crossed by using the
existing Conrail railroad trestle across Glen Creek Gorge for about 450
feet or, alternatively, Watkins Glen State Park may be crossed at
another location entirely by directional drill; and
6 residences are located within 50 feet of construction
work areas.
Public Participation
You can make a difference by sending a letter addressing your
specific comments or concerns about the project. You should focus on
the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to
the proposal (including alternative locations/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, 888 First St., N.E., Washington, DC
20426;
Reference Docket No. CP94-161-006; and
Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before April 9, 1997.
[[Page 12164]]
If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.
Becoming an Intervenor
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding or become 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) (see
appendix 2).
You do not need intervenor status to have your scoping comments
considered.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6440 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M