|
Cross-Cascade Pipeline Project, Application No. 96-1
Environmental Impact Statement Process Archive
Lead and Cooperating Agencies:
|
Lead State Agency
Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation
Council
Lead Federal Agency
U.S. Forest Service |
Cooperating Federal Agencies:
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Department of the Army
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic |
Top of page
The EIS Process
Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
EFSEC was required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to study the purpose
and need of the project, alternatives, and its impacts on the environment. Because the
proposed route crossed federal lands and required federal permits, the EIS was prepared
jointly with the lead federal agency, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In March 1996, EFSEC and the U.S. Forest Service
held six public meetings along the proposed pipeline route. Many citizens attended these
meetings, which provided an opportunity to find out more about the project, ask questions
about the review and EIS process, and tell the responsible agencies what issues and
alternatives should be studied.
In April 1996 EFSEC's independent consultant
reviewed the application by Olympic Pipe Line Company for their proposed Cross-Cascade
Pipeline Project and noted many areas where additional information was needed before a
complete EIS could be developed.
In December 1996, EFSEC in cooperation with the
U.S. Forest Service and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, determined that the
purpose and need statement for the EIS would be the following:
"Provide a cost-effective, efficient,
environmentally sound means to transport refined petroleum products from western
Washington refineries to central and eastern Washington to meet the long range need for
product transportation."
EFSEC and the cooperating federal agencies issued
a draft EIS (DEIS) in September 1998. Comments on the draft
EIS were due December 17, 1998. Hundreds of comments were received. EFSEC and
the cooperating federal agencies held four additional public meetings along the pipeline
route to receive oral or written comments from the public about the the draft EIS. The
DEIS was to be reviewed based on the comments from the public and government agencies, as
well as from additional information to be presented in the Adjudicative
Hearings.
Upon OPL's withdrawal of Application 96-1 in June
1999, both the SEPA and NEPA review processes were terminated.
Top of page
Scoping Comments
The following briefly summarize the scoping
comments received from the public and various federal, state, and local agencies, roughly
in order of the number of comments received.
Risk Analysis and Spill Prevention
The majority of comments focused on the risk of
pipeline failure and the method for spill response and remediation. Commenters wanted to
see the EIS address this issue and analyze potential damages; compare spills nationally
and locally between barges, trucks, and pipelines; and evaluate construction and
operational spill prevention measures and technologies for both pipelines and barges.
Groundwater Sources/Quality
The proposed route crosses over numerous aquifers,
some of which have been designated as sole source aquifers. Comments stated that the EIS
should provide detailed analyses of aquifer characteristics, discharge and recharge areas,
and established water rights. The potential impact of aquifer contamination and mitigation
measures which would be taken in the event of a spill should be included in the EIS.
Alternatives Analysis
The comments received stressed consideration of the
no-action alternative, expanded use of current petroleum delivery methods, alternative
delivery methods, and alternative pipeline routes. Commenters want the EIS to evaluate the
assumption that barge transportation will decrease as a result of the pipeline being
built.
Other Surface Water Sources/Quality
The proposed pipeline route is close to many
watersheds, lakes, and other surface water sources. Commenters requested that the EIS
include detailed, site-specific data on the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of these water sources. In addition, impacts on the quality of the surface
water from potential increased surface-water runoff, of seasonal timing of construction,
and potential spills and leaks should be evaluated.
Agriculture
The proposed pipeline route lies across farmland
and rangeland. Commenters suggested studying effects of the pipeline on irrigation and the
agricultural viability of the land in the event of a spill, damage to land during
construction, and the potential of changing land use to lessen the impacts of the
pipeline.
Public Services and Utilities
Several commenters expressed concern about the
level of emergency response services available to the pipeline both during and after
construction. Other suggestions included identifying water sources which will be available
during the operation of the pipeline and the need to prepare a wastewater discharge plan.
Purpose and Need
Commenters felt that the EIS needs to establish a
clear and concise purpose and need to support the selection of the alternatives and their
comparison to the no-action alternative.
Transportation and Traffic
Comments received suggested that the EIS should
study the impacts of construction-related traffic, reduced tanker truck traffic on the
highways, and new traffic load in the area of the terminal in Kittitas.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Several comments focused on the impact of the
pipeline on threatened and endangered species in Washington State. These commenters
requested that impacted species be identified and that studies include the expected impact
durations, rate of recovery, and the effects on ecosystems.
Land Use
The majority of the comments on land use requested
that the EIS closely examine the pipeline's compliance with local, state, and federal
regulations. There are questions about where rights-of-way can be used or where preemption
may occur. Comments focused specifically on a proposed crossing of the Army's Yakima
Training Center.
Aesthetics
Aesthetic-related comments focused on how the
pipeline will visually affect the areas along the route. The EIS should evaluate how the
surrounding environment will be changed, effects of relocating roads, and
photo-simulations of conditions before and after the pump stations and terminals have been
built and the pipeline constructed.
Recreation
The proposed pipeline route crosses several
recreation areas, parks, and trails. Comments included requesting site-specific
information for each area along with expected impacts both during and after construction.
Historical and Cultural Resources
Commenters suggested the EIS should study
historical and cultural resources along the pipeline route. Specifically, commenters
focused on the areas surrounding the Central Columbia Basin and Native American lands.
Energy and Natural Resources
Comments recommended that the EIS study the sources
of electricity for the pump stations, and terminals, and other pipeline power demands.
Evaluating the impacts of using a nonrenewable resource and the potential for conservation
efforts were also included in the comments.
WANT MORE INFORMATION?
The complete Scoping Summary
document is available in Adobe
Acrobat pdf format: scoping.pdf.
Top of page
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Online Version
If you have any questions about the SEPA or NEPA
review, please contact EFSEC at efsec@cted.wa.gov,
or by phone at (360) 956-2121.
Top of page |
