Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5823

APS–

FERC

rate

Schedule

No.

Customer name Exhibit

153 ......... Harquahala Valley Power District.Exhibit II.

168 ......... Maricopa Water

District.

Exhibit II.

126 ......... Electrical District

No. 6 of Pinal

county.

Exhibit II.

141 ......... Aquila Irrigation

District.

Exhibit II.

143 ......... Tonopah Irrigation District.Exhibit II.

65 ........... Colorado River

Indian Irrigation

Project.

Exhibit A.

128 ......... Electrical District

No. 7.

Exhibit II.

Current rate levels are unaffected,

revenue levels are unchanged from

those currently on file with the

Commission, and no other significant

change in service to these or any other

customer results from the revisions

proposed herein. No new or

modifications to existing facilities are

required as a result of these revisions.

Copies of this filing have been served

on the above customers and the Arizona

Corporation Commission.

Comment date: February 13, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3060 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Project No. 2232–321]

Duke Power Company; Notice of

Availability of Environmental

Assessment

February 3, 1997.

In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and

the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s (Commission’s)

regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No.

486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of

Hydropower Licensing (OHL) has

reviewed Duke Power Company’s

application for granting an increase in

water withdrawal from the CatawbaWateree Project to the Lugoff-Elgin

Water Authority (Lugoff-Elgin) of

Kershaw County, South Carolina,

located on Lake Wateree in the Santee

River Basin. The proposal would grant

permission to Lugoff-Elgin to: (1)

increase its water withdrawal from Lake

Wateree from an existing 3 million

gallons per day (mgd) to up to 10 mgd;

(2) replace one existing water intake

pump with two 60 horsepower pumps;

and (3) construct a new 12-inch water

line within the project boundary to

replace the existing 10-inch water intake

line. The proposed expansion of the

pumping facility would increase the

existing plant capacity from 3.0 mgd to

4.0 mgd initially. However, Lugoff-Elgin

requests authority to increase water

withdrawals up to 10 mgd over the next

20 years based on estimates of the

demand in the service area.

The staff of OHL’s Division of

Licensing and Compliance has prepared

an Environmental Assessment (EA) for

the proposed action. In the EA, the

Commission’s staff has analyzed the

environmental impacts of the proposed

project and has concluded that approval

of the licensee’s proposal would not

constitute a major federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment.

Copies of the EA are available for

review in the Public Reference Branch,

Room 2A of the Commission’s offices at

888 First Street, NE., Washington, D.C.

20426 or by calling the Commission’s

Public Reference Room at (202) 208–

1371.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3061 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP96–610–000]

Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.;

Notice of Availability of the Alternative

Sites Supplement to the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for

the Granite State LNG Project

February 3, 1997.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) ha prepared an Alternative

Sites Supplement to the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

(Supplement). This Supplement focuses

solely on an expanded alternative siting

analysis for the liquefied natural gas

(LNG) facilities proposed in Wells,

Maine by Granite State Gas

Transmission, Inc. (Granite State) in the

above-referenced docket.

The Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) that was issued by the

Commission on January 29, 1996 for the

Granite State LNG Project evaluated

potential alternative sites between Eliot

and Saco, Maine, based on the LNG

facility providing a winter baseload

service to Northern Utilities, Inc. After

publication of the DEIS, an application

was filed for the Portland Natural Gas

Transmission System which included

essentially the same winter baseload

service for Northern Utilities, Inc.

Subsequently, Granite State refiled its

application to reflect a change in service

from winter baseload to peak shaving.

As a result of these applications, the

range of potential alternative sites has

expanded south to Haverhill,

Massachusetts and north to Portland,

Maine.

The Supplement incorporates

comments received on the September

11, 1996, Notice of Intent to Prepare a

Supplement to the DEIS for the Granite

State LNG Project and Request for

Comments on Alternative Siting Issues,

and an independent alternative siting

analysis. Included in the Supplement

are:

• portions of revised DEIS section 2.0,

Proposed Action;

• revised DEIS section 3.3, Site

Alternatives; and

• revised DEIS section 6.1,

Comparison of Site Alternatives.

Comment Procedure

Any person wishing to comment on

the Supplement may do so. Comments

on other environmental issues

associated with the DEIS will not be

accepted. The comment period for those

issues has already closed.

Written comments should be filed on

or before March 31, 1997, must

reference Docket No. CP96–610–000,

and be addressed to: Office of the
5824 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

1Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation’s

application was filed with the Commission under

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of

the Commission’s regulations.

2The 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 appendixes were sent to all

those receiving this notice in the mail.

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426.

Public meetings to receive comments

on the Supplement will be held in early

March of 1997. We will provide the

locations and times for these meetings

in a future notice.

After these comments are reviewed,

any significant issues are investigated,

and modifications are made to the DEIS,

a Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) will be published and

distributed. The FEIS will contain the

staff’s responses to timely comments

received on the DEIS and the

Supplement.

Comments will be considered by the

Commission but will not serve to make

the commentor a party to the

proceeding. Any person seeking to

become a party to the proceeding must

file a motion to intervene pursuant to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214).

The date for filing timely motions to

intervene in this proceeding has passed.

Therefore, parties now seeking to file

late interventions must show good

cause, as required by section

385.214(b)(3), why this time limitation

should be waived. Environmental issues

have been viewed as good cause for late

intervention. You do not need

intervenor status to have your

comments considered

The Supplement has been placed in

the public files of the FERC and is

available for public inspection at:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Public Reference and Files

Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street,

NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202)

208–1371.

and

Town Manager’s Office, Town Hall,

Wells, ME 04090, (207) 646,5113.

Copies of the Supplement have been

mailed to Federal, state, and local

agencies; public interest groups; public

libraries; newspapers; interested

individuals; and parties to this

proceeding. For a limited number of

copies of the Supplement, contact the

Public Reference and Files Maintenance

Branch identified above.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3034 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–176–000]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Intent To

Prepare an Environmental Assessment

for the Proposed Terra Alta Storage

Field Project and Request for

Comments on Environmental Issues

February 3, 1997.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction and operation of about

2.6 miles of various diameter pipeline to

replace about 2.9 miles of pipeline

which would be abandoned as proposed

in the Terra Alta Storage Field Project.1

This EA will be used by the

Commission in its decision-making

process to determine whether the

project is in the public convenience and

necessity.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation (Columbia) wants to

upgrade and modernize facilities at its

Terra Alta Storage Field in Preston

County, West Virginia. Columbia seeks

authority to construct and operate

approximately:

(1) 1.4 miles of 8-inch-diameter

storage pipeline and appurtenances

(replacing and abandoning about 1.4

miles of 8-, 10-, 12-, 16-, and 20-inchdiameter pipeline and appurtenances on

Line X–76–F–1);

(2) 105 feet of 4-inch-diameter storage

pipeline and appurtenances (replacing

and abandoning about 1,143 feet of 4-

inch-diameter pipeline on Storage Well

Line X–76–W–7375);

(3) 0.4 mile of 16-inch-diameter

storage pipeline and appurtenances

(replacing and abandoning about 0.4

mile of 8-, 10-, and 12-inch-diameter

storage pipeline on Line X–76–F–2);

(4) 0.4 mile of 8-inch-diameter storage

pipeline and appurtenances (replacing

by abandonment about 0.4 mile of 6-,

and 12-inch-diameter storage pipeline

on Line-X–76–F–4);

(5) 0.2 mile of 10-inch-diameter

storage pipeline and appurtenances

(replacing by abandonment about 0.2

mile of 8-, 10- and 12-inch-diameter

storage pipeline on Line X–76–F–6);

(6) 26 feet of 10-inch-diameter storage

pipeline and appurtenances (replacing

by abandonment about 26 feet of 8-inchdiameter storage pipeline on Storage

Well Line X–76–W–7394); and

(7) 0.1 mile of 6-inch-diameter storage

pipeline and appurtenances (replacing

by abandonment about 0.1 mile of 4-

inch-diameter storage pipeline on Line

X–76–W–7380).

Columbia would also abandon about

0.2 mile of 6-inch-diameter pipeline

referred to as Storage Well Line X–76–

W–7379.

In addition, under Section 2.55 of the

Commission’s regulations, Columbia

plans to remove drips; replace mainline

tees and methanol lines; and install

launching and receiving valves. These

actions would provide more efficient

operation and maintenance of the

storage field as well as restore

deteriorated facilities and will also be

examined in the EA.

The location of the project facilities is

shown in appendix 1.2 If you are

interested in obtaining procedural

information please write to the

Secretary of the Commission.

Land Requirements for Construction

Construction of the proposed facilities

would require about 40.5 acres of land.

No new right-of-way would be required.

Temporary work areas and abandoned

right-of-way would be restored and

allowed to revert to their former use.

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 of 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. 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