HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.29.1983•
enc ?/i9/g3
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT NAME: Gary Pipeline
REQUEST: Special Use Permit, transmission
pipeline
APPLICANT: Gary Energy Corporation
ENGINEER: Rooney Engineering Company
LOCATION: Portions of Sections 2, 11, 12, 13,
14 and 23 of Township 7 South,
Range 96 West; Sections 7, 8, 9,
10, 11 and 12 of Township 8 South,
Range 97 West; Sections 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12 and 13 of Township 8
South, Range 98 West; Sections 7,
8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Township 8
South, Range 100 West; more
generally described as a corridor
starting north of Parachute and
heading in a westerly direction
north of the U.S. Highway 6 & 24
right-of-way and staying north of
Debeque to a point just north of
Garfield Mesa, where it enters Mesa
County.
ACCESS:
SITE DATA:
Via private and public access
easements off of County Roads 200,
204, 215 and 222, and U.S. Highway
6 & 24.
The proposed project is an 8 inch
steel pipeline, to be used to
transport upgraded shale oil
(syncrude) from Parachute to
Gilsonite (Fruita area) of which
approximately 26 miles will be
located in Garfield County.
EXISTING ZONES: R/L, A/R/RD, O/S, C/L, R/G/SD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Because the proposed project crosses a number of private and public lands
with the various alternatives, nearly every type of management district in
the Comprehensive Plan is included, except District E. Transmission
pipelines are not specifically dealt with in the Comprehensive Plan, but
the following goals, policies, and performance standards are relevant to
the siting of the Gary Pipeline:
1. Encourage industrial development in areas where adequate
transportation facilities and public utilites are available. (#7,
Page 12)
2. Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing
active farms and ranches. (#1, Page 17)
3. Ensure the minimum disturbance of slopes to reduce erosion,
sedimentation and runoff. (#11, Page 29)
4. Protect natural landscape features by "fitting" the development to
the land. (#14, Page 29)
5. Protect unique natural and scenic resources (unique vegetation,
major wildlife habitats.) (#16, Page 30)
1 •
6. The County shall guide new development to occur on lands having
moderate, minor or no environmental constraints. In areas with
environmental problems, the county shall require development to
perform to a standard which mitigates or minimizes the problem. (#2,
Page 30)
7. Those lands or geographic areas within the County which are
considered to be of scenic value or unique to the character of the
County shall be protected from negative effects caused by
development. In such areas, special site design shall be required
which minimizes and mitigates disturbance of natural vegetation;
clearing and grading, blockage of views, and incompatibilities with
the general character of the area. (#8, Page 31)
8. The grading of all new development shall be designed so that cut
and fill are kept to a minimum and can balance within the project
site.
a. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 unless
efficient stabilization methods are utilized.
b. The proposed development shall be designed in a manner which
demonstrates a "fit" with the existing topography of the land.
(#I B (5) , Page 78)
9. Performance Standards:
a. Development construction shall minimize the disturbance of
the existing vegetative cover.
b. No vegetation shall be removed on slopes 25% or over unless
otherwise approved by the County Commissioners.
c. Vegetation stands along creeks and rivers should be retained
where these corridors have noted wildlife habitats. (Page 81)
10. Performance Standards:
a. Proposed land uses shall be required to provide adequate
mitigation of potential impacts to ensure maximum compatibility
with all adjacent land uses.
b. An incompatible situation shall be solved before the proposed
development will be approved.
1. Proposed land uses with a more intensive land use rating
than the adjacent land uses shall reduce or alter all the
more intensive uses until that proposed use is compatible
with the adjacent property to the satisfaction of the County
Commissioners. (Page 89)
11. Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible for the following
reasons:
a. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate
neighborhood or the entire community.
b. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent
properties.
c. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent
residents.
d. Showing a lack of quality or function in site planning and
design.
e. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas.
f. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the
entire community. (Page 90)
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The proposed corridor will start at the Union Oil
Shale Oil upgrading facility northwest of Parachute and follow a route
that moves in a southwesterly direction adjacent to the north side of the
U.S. Highway 6 & 24 corridor to a point three and one half miles northwest
of DeBeque, where it heads a westerly direction to Dry Fork and then west
to South Dry Fork and McKay Fork. The terrain to be crossed varies from
the valley floors of the Colorado River, Dry Fork, South Dry Fork and
McKay Fork to the low plateau below Mount Logan. The vegetation along the
proposed route ranges from riparian vegetation to salt tolerant plants
such as Wheatgrass, Saltgrass and Greasewood to Sagebrush, Pinyon -Juniper
woodlands.
1 •
B. Project Description: It is proposed that an 8 5/8 inch steel
pipeline, 56.6 miles in length, be constructed to transport up to 25,000
BBL per day of upgraded shale oil (syncrude) from the Union Oil shale oil
facility north of Parachute to Gary Energy Corporations's refinery in
Gilsonite, Colorado. The syncrude would then be refined into jet fuel.
Of the total 56.6 miles in length, approximately 26 miles of the pipeline
are proposed to be located in Garfield County, with the remaining 30 miles
in Mesa County. A total of 33.3 miles will be on private lands, with 23.3
miles of Federal lands crossed.
Right-of-way widths are proposed to be 35 feet on Federal lands and 50
feet on private lands. The depth that the pipeline will be varies,
dependant upon the type of ground; 36 inches in soil, 24 inches in shot
rock, 48 inches in cultivated lands and 60 inches in wash areas. It is
projected that there will be a need to clear rights-of-way of vegetation
and topsoil to facilitate the movement of men and equipment. Upon
completion of the project, disturbed areas would be restored to as close
as possible to original condition.
It is anticipated that construction would start in the fall of 1983, and
last 90 to 120 days, with an average rate of 0.5 mile of pipeline laid per
day. Due to their desire to complete the project as quickly as possible,
the applicant anticipates that a maximum of 90 employees will be working
at one time, which is less than the 200 employees that would trigger a
fiscal impact mitigation program. Storage or staging areas are not
specifically identified because it will be the construction contractors'
responsibility to obtain or have the necessary storage and staging areas.
When completed, the pipeline would have a number of different facilities.
A pumping station in the Parachute area would represent the beginning of
the pipeline, where the syncrude would be put into the pipeline at a
discharge pressure of 1,625 psi. The 8 5/8 inch line would have check
valves along the route, particularly at the downstream side of certain
water crossing. Ultimately, the syncrude would reach the delivery
terminal where a number of pressure reducing valves would be used before
the syncrude is stored.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
A. Zoning:
The Garfield County Zoning Resolution treats transmission pipelines as
a special use in all zone districts, except those lands zoned O/S
(Open/Space), which are public lands. In the O/S zone district,
transmission pipelines are considered a conditional use.
B. Staff Comments:
1. To obtain the right-of-way permits from the BLM, Gary Energy
Corporation had to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). The
final EA is out for public comment until August 27, 1983. After
that deadline, the BLM will make either a finding of No
Significant Impact, require a full Environmental Impact States or
require the pipeline to be included in a larger scoped EIS (i.e.
Getty or Union EIS). The applicants are requesting that a
decision be made by BLM by October 1, 1983. To this date, there
has been only one significant environmental issue identified,
which is a threat to some endangered cactus species. This has
resulted in a re-routing of the proposed corridor in those areas.
The EA identified three (3) basic corridors for consideration,
of which the preferred alternative is the route that the special
use permit has been applied for. There is no alternative other
than the preferred alternative for Garfield County lands. The EA
states that truck and train transport is an unacceptable
alternative due to economic constraints. The applicants state
that there will be some destruction of habitat due to the
temporary loss of vegetation and soils due to erosion. During
construction, there would be some short term degradation of water
and air quality.
2. Friends of the Earth have objected to the possibility that the
BLM might make a finding of No Significant Impact. (See
pages 6 thru 17 ) . Basically, Friends of the Earth feel that the
pipeline should be part of a larger EIS or develop an "area wide"
EIS that identifies a pipeline corridor for this and any other
3-
future pipelines.
• •
3. Mesa County approved the Gary Pipeline Conditional Use Permit on
August 23, 1982 with a number of conditions.
4. One issue that has been a point of controversy with the BLM and
Mesa County is the fact that the applicants have not provided a
spill contingency plan. The applicants feel that a spill
contingency plan would be premature if submitted before an "as
built" plan is completed. They state a spill contingency plan
would be developed prior to actual operation and is required by
the U.S.Department of Transportation.. The BLM feels that a
spill contingency plan should be available prior to
construction. Mesa County has established some specific
requirements for a spill contingency plan that has to be
submitted prior to construction and approved prior to any
operation.
5. Some discussion has occurred regarding the location of the
pipeline in some County rights-of-way. The County Road
Supervisor has stated that he has no objection to County
rights-of-way being crossed, but does object to the pipeline
being laid in the rights-of-way for any purpose other than
crossing, due to the number of gas transmission lines already in
the County right-of-way..
6. As noted earlier, there are no identified storage or staging
areas in the application. Unless materials and equipment are
located in already approved storage areas, each storage or
staging area will require a separate permit. These permits can
be approved in the same resolution approving the pipeline, but
will be issued separately.
7. The Garfield County Planning Commission reviewed the application
on September 7, 1983. A majority of the discussion centered
around the requirements that security be posted by the applicant
for roads, revegetation and revegetation of a spill. In all
cases the Planning Commission felt these were necessary.
Additional discussion about a spill contingency plan prior to a
construction, resulted in agreement that a general document would
be submitted, with a copy of the final U.S.Department of
Transportation spill contingency plan being submitted prior to
actual operation.
IV. FINDINGS:
1. The application has been filed in accordance with Section 5.03 of the
County Zoning Regulations.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted
and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing.
3. That the Garfield County Planning Commission has recommended approval
of said Special Use Permit, with conditions.
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed
special/conditional use permit is consistent with the best interests
of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
On September 7, 1983 the Garfield County Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with the following
conditions:
1. All representations of record by the applicant shall be
considered conditions of approval, unless expressly stated below;
2. That prior to issuance of the subject special use permit, the
applicant shall obtain and submit to the Garfield County
Department of Development/Planning Division copies of:
a. All permits from other governmental entities;
-4-
b. The specific location of storage/staging areas
easement and easement agreements with private and
public land owners. Department of Development staff
will contact affected landowners and any changes
suggested by landowners and staff may be incorporated
into the final design.
3. That the applicant will demonstrate prior to issuance of said
Special Use Permit that it has provided adequate security by bond
or some similar security acceptable to the County, for County
road maintenance and repair as deemed appropriate by the Board of
County Commissioners and the County Road Supervisor;
4. That the applicant will demonstrate prior to issuance of said
Special Use Permit that it has provided adequate security by bond
or some similar security acceptable to the County the equivalent
to the estimated cost of site rehabilitation after construction
for all private lands crossed;
5. That upon an allegation by an affected landowner or governmental
entity, the Board shall investigate compliance with the
conditions of approval, as provided for in Section 9.01.06 of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended;
6. That the permit shall be reviewed annually for compliance with
the permit's conditions of approval.
7. That all access roads on private lands be temporary roads which
will be recontoured and revegetated upon completion of
construction, unless a different type of access road is agreed
upon by the landowner involved;
8. That a general emergency spill contingency plan be submitted
prior to actual construction and the final Department of
Transportation emergency spill contingency plan be submitted;
9. That the applicant agrees to provide security by bond within ten
(10) calendar days of each spill on private lands, in an amount
the equivalent to the estimated cost of site rehabilitation and
acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. Should said
security by bond not be provided within ten (10) calendar days
the County shall have the right to revoke the Special Use Permit;
10. That County road rights-of-way may be crossed, but that the
county road right-of-way will not be encroached uppon for any
other reason unless otherwise approved by the County Road
Supervisor;
11. That the applicant submit a specific construction time table
prior to issuance of said Special Use Permit;
12. That said Special Use Permit be issued within one (1) year of the
date of approval of the resolution approving the Special Use
Permit, otherwise said permit approval shall be null and void,
unless extended prior to the one year deadline based upon a
showing of good cause.
13. The Special Use Permit shall be valid for a period of one hundred
(120) days from the date of issuance unless construction or use
has commenced; and if construction or use has not commenced
within the specified period, the permit shall expire;
FRIENDS
THE EARTH
July 12, 1983
'•?r. Tom Coe
Regulatory Section, Sacramento
650 Capitol Mall
Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento, CA 95814
3
Dear 4r. Coe:
The attached letter to the Grand Junction BLM details our concerns on the
shale oil pipeline that we discussed earlier this week. We are requesting
you to recommend to the BLI1 a delay in granting Gary Energy the proposed
right-of-way until the Union Oil Shale EIS is finished by your office.
Under NEPA regulation Sec. 1506.1 (b) we hope that you can deal with the
applicant until the situation is clarified through an environmental impact
statement.
-Thank you.
Sincerely,
Connie Albrecht
Colorado West Representative
Colorado West Office, 530 Main St., Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, (303) 245-7047
-6-
FRIENDS fa THE EARTH
July 12, 1983
ir. Dave Jones, District Manager
3ureau of Land Management
764 Horizon Drive
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Dear Mr. Jones:
•
This is a request regarding the proposed Gary Energy pipeline which
-Mould carry shale oil from the Union Oil Shale Project at Parachute to
Gary's refinery at Fruita, Colorado. "e have reviewed the application and
environmental assessment (EA) submitted 'oy Gary Energy, and have discussed
the matter with BEM staff, as well as Gary Energy and Union Oil personnel.
ye have also followed the Union EIS through the Joint Review Process. Over
all, we have received the distinct impression that your office intends to
grant the right-of-way which Gary has requested in order to build the pipeline,
and that the environmental assessment is not being considered a process by
which to determine if an environmental impact statement needs to be done.
It also appears that the proposed pipeline as a shale oil transport system is
not being coordinated with the Arany Corps of Engineers, the lead agancy for
the Union EIS, which will include transportation alternatives. Yet for
reasons detailed below, we have come to the conclusion that the granting of
a right-of-way (ROT?) to Gary Energy is not only premature, but may constitute
a major federal action which will have significant impact on the environment.
Therefore, we urge your office to not make a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI), and to not grant a ROW in the
be resolved.
"e have
near future until certain issues can
a number of reasons for this recommendation, including the fact
that the pipeline while not being built by Union, is solely for the use of
transporting shale oil from Union's plant, potentially including the Phase
II oil. The pipeline ROI,T may also be establishing a new corridor in the
region. Since Union's EIS won't be finished until 1984, and the Grand Junction
Resource Management Plan (RI.IP/EIS) won't be finished for several years, we
believe the BLM has the obligation to delay granting the right-of-way, under the
directive of No.PA Regulation Sec. 1506.1 (c) which provides that "while work
Colorado West Office, 530 Main St., Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, (303) 245-7047
on a required program environmental impact statement is in progress and the
action is not covered by an existing program statement, agencies shall not
undertake in the interim any major Federal action covered by the program
which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. . ."
And the pipeline, as we shall show, is not covered by the exceptions to the
above directive, since it runs the probability of prejudicing the ultimate
decision in both the Union EIS and the RMP/EIS. We believe the pipeline ROW
warrants inclusion in an EIS. 'Wile the BIM may approve most ROW's in the
region simply on the basis of an application and/or environmental assessment,
we charge the proposed pipeline constitutes a different situation, as the following
information will demonstrate.
1) The environmental assessment (draft) prepared by Gary Energy's
contractor, Rooney Engineering, is quite deficient in its consideration of
the alternative routes. It is obvious that the preferred route, which was
apparently developed with assistance of district BILI staff, is the only
route seriously considered; the other alternatives are "paper tigers" and merit
only a few words in the EA. Additionally, other environmental assessments
done for gas pipelines in the general region do not thoroughly cover the
complete preferred route, much less the alternative routes, of the Gary
pipeline. Chevron's draft EIS covers some of the region through which the
pipeline would go, but much of its analysis for producttransport and corridors
deals with an area somewhat north of the proposed Gary route. Furthermore,
shale oil pipelines in the past have justified treatment in an EIS. (See Lisbon
Utah pipeline for Colony project in 1973, and the La Sal Pipeline EIS in 1983).
Since there is a precedent of shale transport pipelines justifying EIS treatment,
it seems that the BIM would be bound by NEPA regs Section 1501.4 (a) 1 which
direct that a determination be partially made on the basis of whether a proposal
is one which"hormally requires" an EIS.
2) There are also two proposed wilderness study areas (WSA's) as well as
a wild horse management area in the general region of the proposed and alternative
pipeline routes. Both of the wilderness study areas are under appeal because
of BIM's recommendation to delete them from consideration for WSA designation.
Meanwhile the BIM has granted Gary Energy permission to utilize a portion of
the SouthShale Ricige WSA for its preferred route under the "nonimpairment
criteria". This was done, to my knowledge, without giving notice to Friends
•
Page 3
of the Earth, or any of the other environmental groups concerned with the area.
In turn, the Colorado Open Space Council, which filed the original appeal on
the '•'SA, has now filed a protest of the approval of the pipeline right-of-way
under the nonimpairment criteria. It is unclear at this time when the original
appeal, and the recent protest will be resolved. However, because of the
potential impacts of the pipeline on the South Shale Ridge '.TSA, and possible
impacts on the Little Bookcliffs 'TSA and the mild Horse area if a larger
corridor is established, we feel these impacts are best dealt with through an
EIS process.
3) The BIM has not scheduled public hearings on the pipeline, even though
it is a crucial component for the Union Oil Shale project. Although hearings
on right-of-way applications are optional, the BIM should consider hearing the
public viewpoint on such a controversial project in order to assist in the
determination of whether an EIS is in order.
44) Gary Energy has applied for use permits from both Mesa and Garfield
Counties only within the last few weeks; these will not be granted by the
counties until mid-August (at the soonest) which is after the proposed construc-
tion commencement of August 1, 1983. ':•Te feel, and we think the counties will
agree, that any major decision on the part of the BIM should follow the issuance
of county permits. BIM also has the responsibility under the Federal Land
Policy and ManAgement Act (Title II, SEC. 202 (c) 9.) to coordinate its
activities with local governments, and to make decisions which are as consistent
as possible with local land use plans. Moreover, Mesa County is currently in
the process of establishing energy siting policies and finalizing its land use
plans.
5) There is some question as to the exact ownership of the proposed
pipeline. According to Gary Energy and the BIM, Getty Oil will be a partial
owner of the pipeline, and in fact, may also construct the pipeline. It was
mentioned to us that Getty is interested in this particular venture because
of its possible future oil shale project north of DeBeque. Yet Getty does not
appear as an applicant or owner on any of the documents which we have seen at
the BIM or Mesa County. We don't understand this possible secrecy or simple
ommission regarding ownership, but we think it should be clarified before there
is any more action of the proposed pipeline. This is important both in terms
of possible liability for problems which arise during construction and operation,
as well as the issue of future use of the right-of-way by other companies.
• •
Page 4
6) Upon consulting with professional plant specialists familiar with
the region, to their knowledge there has not been a thorough field survey for
endangered plant species along the proposed route. And when we recently checked
with the 3111 they also had not done the required survey. Given the scattered
range of the endangered cactus, Sclerocatus glaucus, and the possibility
of finding and confirming the continued existance of Cryptantha aperta, a
thorough survey is definitely called for. If either of these species were
discovered, then a mitigation program, with possible route changes in order to
preserve the species habitat, would best be dealt with through an EIS.
7) The environmental assessment is totally inadequate in terms of a
"contingency and response plan" for oil spills or other accidents associated
with a high-pressure, lengthy line of this type. Since the pipeline's capacity
is 25,000 barrels per day, and it will cover some very rough terrain, surely
such a plan is critical. This issue was also brought up by the Parachute City
Council, and given the proposed route's proximity to Parachute and the Colorado
River, it certainly must be dealt with by approved mitigation measures. Please
refer to the La Sal Pipeline EIS for examples.
8) The BIM is currently in the process of beginning its Resource Management
Plan (RMP) for the Grand Junction area which includes the area in question.
In speaking with Jim Keaton, team leader for the RMP, apparently the BIM is
planning to develop criteria for the establishment of corridors. Although the
Gary pipeline will follow other current ROW's for much, but not all, of its
route, and since it is the first step, we submit, in establishing a corridor
which is a complete "loop" from the oil shale projects at both Parachute Creek
and Roan Creek, bypassing the Grand Valley and tying into a refinery and other
transport systems, we think the logical place to analyze this in an integrated
fashion would be the RMP. Our letter of June 14, 1983 to you requesting informa-
tion on how BIM is planning to deal with this situation in its planning process
has not yet been answered.
Over and above these various issues, there is evidence that several other
companies are interested in utilizing the Gary proposed ROW for various purposes
in the future.First of all, with the demise of the Colony project, and the
indefinite hold in building the accompanying La Sal pipeline, Union has no
other existing pipeline transport system for Phase II, that we are aware of.
In fact, in the early days of its Phase II project, Union stated that the Ia R 1
pipeline was its likely transport scheme, since it was designed to be a common
• •
Page 5
carrier. It appears that the Gary pipeline may not have been conceived until
after the Colony shutdown; the actual application was November 12, 1982.
7;ary's proposed pipeline has a capacity of 25,000 barrels per day (bpd, even
though Gary's contract with Union is supposedly only 7,000 bpd for Phase I oil.
Obviously, the pipeline would also have the capacity to hold much of Union's
oil from the first module of 20,000 bpd in Phase II, or shale oil from other
companies. Secondly, Union has approached the BIM informally, according to the
staff, to discuss the possibility of using the proposed Gary ROv for another
larger pipeline to be constructed to transport oil from Phase II, and to obtain
information in order to include it as an alternative in their EIS. Thirdly,
the Grand Junction BLM office is completing work on the Chevron EIS, in which
a major issue is the establishment of multi-purpose corridors, which affect
much of the same region as the Gary pipeline. Fourthly, the W.R. Grace Aquatrain
project has also expressed informal interest to the BIM about utilizing the Gary
ROW. And Getty Oil, as we mentioned earlier, is also possibly an interested
party for future transport of shale oil. There are definitely some serious
issues as to the carrying capacity of the region in terms of the number of
corridors. If the BIM approves one or two multi-purpose corridors for Chevron's
oil shale project, and if it approves the Gary ROW request (only on the basis
of the environmental assessment) this potentially creates a number of future
corridors without benefit of the RNP, or a thorough analysis in one or more
EIS's.
We reiterate our request that the BIM delay granting the Gary Energy ROW
request, as per NEPA Section 1506.1. The ROW not only has the potential of
creating cumulative adverse environmental effects, it also limits the choice of
alternatives especially if Union is already so interested in the Gary route
that it may give short shrift to other alternatives in its EIS. The ROW is
not independent of the program, i.e. it may be a crucial piece of the plans of
Union and other shale projects. It is not covered adequately by any EIS, and
it certainly will prejudice the outcome corridor selection in the /EIS.
Additionally, the proposed ROW, we submit, meets a number of the criteria that
determine significance (see NEPA Sec. 1508.27) especially (7) which states that
the action is related to other"actions with individually insignificant, but
cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to
anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance
Page 6
cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into
small component parts."
Thus, the BIM has the following choices in this regard:
a) It must consider the Cary RO7 as part of the proposed action necessary
to construct Union Oil Shale Phase II, therfore, the 3111 must await completion
of the Union EIS by the Army Corp of Engineers. And the EIS rust consider the
(Gary) corridor, and other alternatives, prior to the BIM granting any ROM's
to either Gary or Union.
b) Since there are several potential actions which may be affected by
the granting of the Gary ROT, including Union Phase II, Aquatrain, etc. BIM
must prepare an "area -wide" EIS which considers all of these potential actions,
or else evaluate the various proposed ROW's as a part of the Grand Junction
Resource Management Plan and EIS. The CEQ, Council on Environmental Quality,
memo of ?arch 16, 1981, p. 19 lends guidance in this case by stating such an
EIS is useful when "similar actions, viewed with other reasonably forseeable
or proposed agency actions, share common timing or geography." It continues
on to give as examples a variety of energy projects in an area, or when a series
of new energy technologies may be developed through federal funding, which
certainly is the situation with the oil shale industry.
In conclusion, we recommend BIM should not make a decision of no significant
impact in regards to this ROW. We prefer the BIM to deal with this through
a comprehensive and legally defensible planning process, so we recommend that the
RMP/EIA or an area -wide EIS as the best way to proceed. At a minimum, however,
we recommend holding off on the decision until the Union EIS is completed.
Thank you, and we await your response to our various points of concern.
aa--ez./1/47
Connie Albrecht, Colorado West Representative
Friends of the Earth