GIVING COMMENT
• Juab County Commissioner Robert Steele was one
of those giving comment on the Draft EIS last Tuesday
at Juab High School. While 45 attended, the count was
a far cry from the 200 plus who attended the scoping
meeting held in May of 2000.
By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
The meeting held by the Bureau of
Land Management to solicit comments regarding the adequacy
of the draft environmental impact statement held in Nephi on
Tuesday was attended by 45 interested citizens, most from
the local area.
LaVerne Steah, project manager, and
Mark Mackiewicz, assistant project manger, both with BLM;
Ralph Becker, facilitator with Bear West; and Leland A.
Matheson, coordinator for the Forest Service on the project,
each took a few minutes to address the gathering.
Time was taken to explain the
project, the comment period, and to set the rules for
comments.
A time limit of three minutes each
was imposed on comments.
"This is not a time for questions,
and verbal questions will not be formally answered," said
Becker. "This is not a forum for debate and time will be
called after the three-minute limit."
Several area residents signed up to
make public comment at the meeting.
Don E. Jones, made the statement
that the eminent domain law was not equitable. A landowner
should have more say.
"Why can't they all (the three
projects) go through the same corridor?"
Jones said to his way of thinking,
the pipeline would affect future development and land
use.
Most of the issues addressed in the
EIS concerned public lands, said James Ockey, who owns a KOA
Campground on the proposed pipeline route. "I am concerned
about the impact on private individuals."
In addition, he said, he was
concerned about the safety standards and wanted to know what
would happen if a pipeline would rupture or break. If that
were to happen, how much petroleum from the Williams
pipeline could escape before it was stopped?
Service station owners, he said,
had been forced to take fuel tanks out of the ground because
of perceived problems with underground leaks and possible
contamination.
"I would like to put my comments in
writing," said Richard Brough. Since questions would not be
answered nor debate allowed it would be better to write his
concerns and submit them.
Robert Steele, county commissioner,
said he did have some concerns but had attended all three
public hearings. "I have a business the pipeline would go
through, a gypsum mine at the mouth of Salt Creek Canyon,"
said Steele.
He said, however, he did believe
safety issues had been addressed and standards were in
place. "I do support the Williams proposal," he
said.
"Have the proposed routes been
surveyed?" asked Newell Johnson. "Has the permission of the
landowner been given to conduct the surveys? I object to
people going over my land without permission."
Johnson said it seemed to him that
the projects avoided all forest and public land and had used
private land because it must be easier to go over private
land.
"We think that is discrimination
against the private landowner."
An earlier easement given on land
near Scofield had created problems for him, said Johnson.
The problems had not been anticipated.
Ann Baker said she had concerns
about the culinary water supply for Nephi. Water for the
community comes from springs along pipeline which will use
the same route as the proposed project in Salt Creek
Canyon.
Even though there were sensors to
detect problems, they may not be adequate to prevent a
substantial amount of fuel escaping and leaking into the
water supply.
"At 2,000 pounds of PSI a lot of
fuel could be expended in a short time," she said. A spark
could ignite the escaping fuel and create still another
danger.
"My concern is the fault line,"
said Carole Brough. If streams were contaminated by fuel
from a leak in the pipeline, it would follow down the canyon
and affect livestock and farm ground.
"How would you stop that?" she
asked.
"We live here for the quality of
life we enjoy," she said. In her estimation, the pipeline
should be located well away from communities.
Blaine Malquist explained that he
was a chemist and knew how toxic some fuels could be. In
addition, because of the livelihood of family members, he
had an understanding of the oil and gas industry.
"One quart of oil can pollute
10,000 gallons of water," said Malquist.
He was also concerned about drivers
who would be navigating roads in the area. Winter storms
make the roads slick and, in addition, the country roads
near the site are narrow and winding. Those who might choose
a shortcut could easily tip and pollute his farm land or his
ranch. So might a rupture in a pipeline.
"Those accidents can cause pretty
spectacular fires," he said.
He had personal experience with
those dreaded fires in California caused by fuels and had
lost his home to the poorly designed Teton Dam.
"I can walk from my home to the
area where the proposed terminal would be in 20 minutes,"
said Malquist.
The close proximity to the
community could be dangerous to the residents.
Melanie Mortensen asked if items
had been added to the project but was told they had
not.
All that is in the current EIS was
always in the document, said Alan Anderson, Williams Company
project manager.
"There will be approximately 50
trucks a day which will use the terminal," he
said.
"As a property owner, what can I do
to prevent you from going through my property?" asked Mike
Keyte. "What can we do?"
Richard Brough said the comments
made at an earlier public meeting should not be considered
as part of the public scoping meetings were made for the
proposal to locate the terminal north of Nephi, near
Mona.
That proposal was rejected by the
residents of Mona and Nephi and a new site was selected as a
result.
"No decision has been made yet,"
said Mackiewicz. "As a federal agency, we are your
advocates."
The EIS was just a draft and the
final EIS would not be completed until June, he
said.
Steah who earlier said questions
would be answered in the foyer after the meeting rather than
during the meeting, told those who had questions to meet in
that area. Questions asked in that scenario before the
meeting were also answered, she said.
Prior to the beginning of the
meeting, the three projects were explained to those in
attendance.
"During the spring of 1999, the
Williams Pipe Line Company submitted an application to
transport a variety of petroleum products from northwestern
New Mexico, through western Colorado, and Utah using a
network of existing and proposed underground pipeline," said
Becker.
The Williams project is the one
venture which might impact Nephi since the south border of
the community has been identified as the site of a proposed
terminal.
"Williams proposes to utilize an
existing 10-inch pipeline from Bloomfield, New Mexico, to
Crescent Junction, Utah," said Becker. "A new pipeline, 250
miles long and 12-inches in diameter will be built from
Crescent Junction to North Salt Lake City."
Questar is proposing to install a
new 75.6 mile, 24-inch diameter natural gas loop pipeline
which would transect portions of Carbon, Emery, Sanpete and
Utah Counties.
The pipeline would be installed to
parallel Questar's existing line from Price to Payson the a
new pipeline would continue west through Goshen Valley and
terminate with an interconnect with the existing Kern River
pipeline near Elberta.
Kern River would build an 82-mile,
20-inch diameter pipeline to transport natural gas from
Price to an interconnect with the existing Kern River
Pipeline system west of Nephi.
Kern River proposes following 38
miles of Questar's existing gas pipeline to Indianola and
building a new route to west of Nephi.
|
