25710 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

1Steuben’s application was filed with the

Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act

and Parts 157 and 284 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, Room 3104, 941

North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426,

or call (202) 208–1371. Copies of the appendices

were sent to all those receiving this notice in the

mail.

Herman K. Der, EA Project Manager, at

(202) 208–0896.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11724 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–119–001]

Steuben Gas Storage Company; Notice

of Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Assessment for the Proposed Thomas

Corners Gas Storage Field Project and

Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

May 8, 1995.

On April 18, 1995, Steuben Gas

Storage Company (Steuben) filed an

amendment to its application which

substantially changed the routing of its

proposed 12-inch-diameter gathering

header. The beginning and ending

points and the approximate length of

the gathering header, as well as all other

aspects of Steuben’s proposal remain

unchanged by this amendment. This

notice supplements the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or

Commission) ‘‘Notice of Intent to

Prepare an Environmental Assessment

for the Proposed Thomas Corners Gas

Storage Field Project and Request for

Comments on Environmental Issues’’

issued March 3, 1995 (March 3 Notice).

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

facilities proposed in the Thomas

Corners Gas Storage Field Project.1 This

EA will be used by the Commission in

its decision-making process to

determine whether an environmental

impact statement is necessary and

whether or not to approve the project.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Steuben requests Commission

authorization to convert a depleted

natural gas production field to storage

use in Steuben County, New York. It

proposes to construct and operate:

• 13 injection/withdrawal wells (11

new wells drilled from one central

location and two converted from

existing gas production wells);

• One observation well;

• 0.6 mile of 4-inch-diameter well

laterals;

• 0.3 mile of 12-inch-diameter well

laterals;

• A 3,284 horsepower compressor

station;

• 6.5 miles of 12-inch-diameter

gathering header including a pipeline

drip and storage tank; and

• Dehydration facilities.

Steuben indicates that the proposed

storage field, when fully developed,

would have a working gas capacity of

5,300,000 thousand cubic feet of gas.

Customers interested in using Steuben’s

storage service would have to arrange

for their own transportation. Steuben’s

existing facilities are interconnected

with the facilities of CNG Transmission

Corporation (CNG) in the town of

Woodhull, Steuben County, New York.

The 6.5 miles of gathering header would

connect the Thomas Corners Gas

Storage Field to Steuben’s existing

facilities.

Steuben states that the storage facility

would be developed in the nearly

depleted Thomas Corners gas

production reservoir. It lies about 3,530

feet below the surface. The aerial extent

of the reservoir is about 430 acres.

The location of the project facilities is

shown in appendix 1.2

Land Requirements for Construction

Steuben proposes to use a nominal

70-foot-wide right-of-way for

construction of the 6.5 miles of 12-inchdiameter pipeline. Following

construction, a 50-foot-wide easement

would be permanently maintained; the

remaining 20 feet would be restored and

allowed to revert to its former use.

Additional working right-of-way

width would be needed in areas of steep

side slopes and in agricultural areas

where topsoil would be segregated.

Additional working space would also be

needed adjacent to road and stream

crossings. About 60 acres would be

required for construction of the 12-inchdiameter gathering header.

A total of 37 acres would be needed

for construction of the Thomas Corners

Gas Storage Field. All new injection/

withdrawal wells would be

directionally drilled from one central

pad area covering approximately 31

acres. The wells would be drilled at

150-foot centers around the perimeter of

the pad area. All of the 4- and 12-inchdiameter well laterals would be

constructed within the central well pad

area.

An additional 6-acre work space

would be required adjacent to the pad

area for drilling, completion,

maintenance operations, and equipment

staging. After construction is complete,

this area would be used for the

dehydration facilities.

The proposed compressor station

would be located on Steuben’s existing

Adrian Compressor Station site.

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. All comments

received are taken into account during

the preparation of 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.

• Water resources, fisheries and

wetlands.

• Vegetation and wildlife.

• Endangered and threatened species.

• Public safety.

• Land use.

• Cultural resources.

• Hazardous waste.

• Air and noise quality.

We will also evaluate possible

alternatives to the proposed project or

portions of the project, and make

recommendations on how to lessen or

avoid impacts on the various resource

areas.

Our independent analysis of the

issues will be in the EA. Depending on

the comments received during the

scoping process, the EA may be

published and mailed to Federal, state,

and local agencies, public interest

groups, interested individuals, affected

landowners, newspapers, libraries, and

the Commission’s official service list for

this proceeding. A comment period will

be allotted for review if the EA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we

recommend that the Commission

approve or not approve the project.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25711

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

We have already identified several

issues that we think deserve attention

based on a preliminary review of the

proposed facilities and the

environmental information provided by

Steuben. Keep in mind that this is a

preliminary list. The list of issues may

be added to, subtracted from, or

changed based on your comments and

our analysis. Issues are:

• The project would cross three

perennial streams: Mud Hollow Brook,

the Canisteo River, an unnamed

tributary of the Canisteo River.

• The 12-inch-diameter header would

be constructed within Catatunk Road

and Canisteo River Road between

approximately mileposts 1 and 2.6 (see

appendix 1).

• About 25 acres of upland forest

would be disturbed.

• A 3,284 horsepower compressor

station would be constructed adjacent to

Steuben’s existing Adrian Compressor

Station which may increase existing

sound levels.

In addition, the following concerns

were raised in response to our March 3

Notice:

• The EA should include standards

required for slope stabilization and

erosion control during and after

pipeline construction.

• Prime agricultural lands should be

identified.

• Restoration should include

monitoring of agricultural lands.

• Fishery resources of the streams

crossed should be identified.

• The EA should identify any

threatened or endangered species

potentially found along the proposed

route.

• Safety features to ensure that no gas

leaks during all aspects of operation

should be described.

• All residences potentially affected

during construction should be

identified.

• All active or abandoned hazardous

waste sites should be identified.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by sending

a letter addressing your specific

comments or concerns about the project.

You should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,

alternatives to the proposal (including

alternative routes), and measures to

avoid or lessen environmental impact.

The more specific your comments, the

more useful they will be. Please follow

the instructions below to ensure that

your comments are received and

properly recorded:

• Address you letter to: Lois Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol St.,

N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426;

• Reference Docket No. CP95–119–

001;

• Send a copy of your letter to: Mr.

Howard J. Wheeler, EA Project Manager,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol St., N.E., Room 7312,

Washington, D.C. 20426; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, D.C. on

or before June 12, 1995.

If you wish to receive a copy of the

EA, you should request one from Mr.

Wheeler at the above address.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding or become an ‘‘intervenor’’.

Among other things, intervenors have

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filings by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intervenor must provide copies of

its filings to all other parties. If you

want to become an intervenor you must

file a Motion to Intervene according to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2).

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 scoping

comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Mr.

Howard Wheeler, EA Project Manager,

at (202) 208–2299.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11725 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–464–000, et al.]

Continental Natural Gas, Inc., et al.;

Natural Gas Certificate Filings

May 4, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Continental Natural Gas, Inc.

Complainant, vs. Colorado Interstate

Gas Company Respondent

[Docket No. CP95–464–000]

Take notice that on May 3, 1995,

Continental Natural Gas Company

(Continental), 1400 SouthBoston, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74119, filed with the

Commission in Docket No. CP95–464–

000 a complaint, motion for a cease and

desist order, and a motion for order

directing physical interconnections

pursuant to Rule 206 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, against Colorado Interstate

Gas Company (CIG) (Respondent),

alleging violations of the Natural Gas

Act (NGA); Section 7(b)—Unauthorized

abandonment of facilities and services,

Section 7(c)—Unauthorized

modification of facilities, and Section

284 of the Commission Regulationsdiscrimination in favor of its nonjurisdictional processing affiliate, all as

more fully set forth in the complaint

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

Continental, an Oklahoma corporation

with its principal place of business in

Tulsa, Oklahoma, engaged in the

gathering, processing and marketing of

natural gas, is also a gathering and

transportation customer on CIG’s system

and operates a natural gas processing

plant connected to CIG’s system.

CIG, a Delaware corporation, with

principal place of business in Colorado

Springs, Colorado, is engaged in the

business of gathering and interstate

transmission of natural gas. CIG’s

system stretches from Texas to

Wyoming.

Continental requests that the

Commission direct CIG to cease and

desist in its plans to reconfigure the

Mocane Compressor Station and direct

CIG to provide Continental with the

requested mainline and gathering

interconnections necessary to continue

the needed compression at the Mocane

Station. Continental states that its

Warren processing plant is located on

CIG’s mainline, immediately

downstream from the Mocane

Compressor Station (also on CIG’s

mainline) in Beaver County, OK, which

is essential to ensuring access to gas

supply for the Warren plant.

Continental alleges that CIG plans to

abandon (without Commission

approval) a significant portion of the

compression at the Mocane Station and

to appropriate such compression

(modification) for the primary benefit of

its non-jurisdictional processing

affiliate. Continental states that the

abandonment of that compression will

significantly reduce the throughput

capability of the Mocane Station and

will cause severe harm to Continental.

As explained by Continental,

Continental has requested that CIG

provide it with certain mainline and

gathering interconnects in order to

maintain as well as maximize current