---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Meyer/HOU/ECT on 10/31/2000 12:50 
PM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Chris Meyer                           10/31/2000 12:50 PM
	

To: Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Dave Kellermeyer/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: Lincoln - EIS issue REVISED ANSWER  

4.  Are the facilities FERC jurisdictional for environmental impact statement 
purposes pursuant to 18 C.F.R. Part 380?
  Assuming the "facilities" are the lateral and interconnect, the answer is 
no.

We noticed that the only facility with information about this issue was the 
pipeline at Lincoln, although the information seemed to suggest that only the 
pipeline was subject to the EIS process.  See 2.02.12.G.  Was the rest of the 
Lincoln facility subject to the EIS process?

 Fred - someone other than me will have to answer this question as I assume 
the "Lincoln facility" refers to the plant.
 I also need to see document 2.02.12G in order to see why they believe the 
pipeline was subject to the EIS process.

 What was the outcome of the EIS process for the pipeline?

 The interconnect facilities upstream of the intersection of the lateral and 
N. Border's Manhattan Station are subject to FERC jurisdiction.  N. Border 
completed the hot tap and interconnect facilities ( the permanent will be 
finished by December 1) under its blanket authorization and in compliance 
with any notice and/or permitting requirements.  As for the lateral, this was 
handled by Peoples.  Fred or Dave may be in a better position to ascertain 
any EIS process completed by Peoples.