28398 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices

1Transwestern Pipeline Company’s application

was filed with the Commission pursuant to 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, Room 3104, 941

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

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

were sent to all those receiving this notice in the

mail.

Copies of the filing were served upon

the appropriate state and local

regulators in Arkansas, Louisiana,

Mississippi, and Tennessee.

Comment date: June 7, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs:

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,

825 North Capitol 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. 95–13226 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. CP95–327–000]

Transwestern Pipeline Company;

Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Assessment for

Transwestern Pipeline Company’s

Proposed Rio Grande River Crossing

Project and Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

May 24, 1995

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss environmental impacts of the

construction and operation of the

facilities proposed in the Rio Grande

River Crossing Project. This EA will be

used by the Commission in its decisionmaking process to determine whether an

environmental impact statement is

necessary and whether to approve the

project.1

Summary of the Proposed Project

Transwestern Pipeline Company

(Transwestern) proposes to construct

and operate approximately 3,200 feet of

30-inch-diameter pipeline under the Rio

Grande River in Valencia County, New

Mexico. The proposed pipeline segment

would replace one of Transwestern’s

two 30-inch-diameter pipelines that

originally crossed over the Rio Grande

River on a steel structure pipeline

bridge. On August 20, 1994, an

explosion ruptured one of these two

pipelines and the bridge were replaced

under § 2.55 of the Commission’s

Regulations but the second pipeline was

not replaced at that time.

The proposed segment would be

installed from an existing block valve on

Transwestern’s existing pipeline located

about 1,100 feet southeast of the Upper

San Juan Riverside Drain. It would cross

the Upper San Juan Riverside Drain, the

Rio Grande River, and the Upper

Sabinal Riverside Drain, and end at

another existing block valve located

about 350 feet northwest of the Upper

Sabinal Riverside Drain.

The general location of the project

facilities is shown in appendix 1.2

Land Requirements for Construction

Transwestern proposes to use an

existing 150-foot-wide pipeline corridor

for construction but may require up to

a 250-foot-wide construction work

space. Based on a 150-foot-wide

construction work space, about 11 acres

of land would be affected by

construction.

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. These impacts may

include, but are not limited to:

• Geology and soils.

• Water resources, fisheries, and

wetlands.

• Vegetation and wildlife.

• Endangered and threatened species.

• Land use.

• Cultural resources.

• Public safety.

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.

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

We have already identified three

issues that we think deserve attention

based on a preliminary review of the

proposed facilities and the

environmental information provided by

Transwestern. 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 proposed project would cross

three waterbodies, the Upper Sabinal

Riverside Drain, the Rio Grande River

and the Upper San Juan Riverside Drain.

• Two federally listed and two state

endangered species may occur in the

proposed project area.

• The proposed project would cross

the Casa Colorado Waterfowl

Management Area.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices 28399

the instructions below to ensure that

your comments are received and

properly recorded:

• Address your letter to: Lois Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol Street,

NE., Washington, D.C. 20426.

• Reference Docket No. CP95–327–

000;

• Send a copy of your letter to: Ms.

Mary Hertling, EA Project Manager,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, NE., Room

7312, Washington, D.C. 20426; and.

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, D.C. on

or before July 5, 1995.

If you wish to receive a copy of the

EA, you should request one from Ms.

Hertling 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 § 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 Ms.

Mary Hertling, EA Project Manager, at

(202) 208–0874.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13192 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–498–000, et al.]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company, et

al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings

May 24, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Colorado Interstate Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95–498–000]

Take notice that on May 15, 1995,

Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG),

P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs,

Colorado 80944, filed in Docket No.

CP95–498–000 an abbreviated

application pursuant to Section 7(c) of

the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the

Commission’s Regulations for a

certificate of public convenience and

necessity to change the deliverability of

the Flank and Latigo Storage Fields all

as more fully set forth in the application

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

Pursuant to Commission orders issued

in Docket No. CP92–154–000, et al., CIG

constructed certain facilities at its Flank

and Latigo Storage Fields designed to

enhance the deliverability from these

two storage fields. CIG estimated that

the additional facilities would increase

the maximum deliverability of each

field to 150 Mmcf per day. After

construction and operation of the

facilities authorized in Docket No.

CP92–154, et al., CIG claims that the

deliverability of Flank and Latigo

Storage Fields is actually 165 Mmcf per

day and 140 Mmcf per day, respectively.

Therefore, CIG requests a change in the

certificated deliverability for these two

storage fields. No new facilities are

required to effect the proposed

deliverability changes.

Comment date: June 14, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

2. Northern Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95–499–000]

Take notice that on May 15, 1995,

Northern Natural Gas Company

(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street,

Omaha, Nebraska 68124–1000 filed in

Docket No. CP95–944–000 a request

pursuant to § 157.205 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) for

authorization to install and operate five

(5) new small volume customer delivery

points to accommodate natural gas

deliveries to UtiliCorp United, Inc.

(UCU), under Northern’s blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82–

401–000 pursuant to Section 7 of the

Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the request which is on file with

the Commission and open to public

inspection.

Northern states that it requests

authority to install and operate these

small volume delivery points to

accommodate natural gas deliveries for

UCU under Northern’s existing

transportation rate schedules. It is said

that the estimated total volumes

proposed to be delivered to UCU at the

proposed new delivery points are

expected to result in an increase in

Northern’s peak day deliveries of

approximately 49 MMBtu per day and

5,123 MMBtu on an annual basis.

Northern states further that the

estimated cost to install the delivery

points is $10,975. UCU, it is said, would

reimburse Northern for the cost to

install the facilities.

Comment date: July 10, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph G

at the end of this notice.

3. Southern Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95–505–000]

Take notice that on May 19, 1995,

Southern Natural Gas Company

(‘‘Southern’’) filed in the abovecaptioned docket an application

pursuant to the provisions of Section 7

of the Natural Gas Act (‘‘NGA’’), as

amended, and pursuant to the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission’s

(‘‘Commission’’) Regulations under the

NGA for a certificate of public

convenience and necessity authorizing

the construction, installation,

modification and operation of

compressor stations, meter stations and

related appurtenant facilities, more fully

set forth in the application which is on

file with the Commission and open to

public inspection.

In order to provide incremental firm

transportation services totaling 26,810

Mcf per day for fifteen (15) customers

on Southern’s system in Alabama,

Georgia and Tennessee, Southern

requests authorization to (1) construct

and install a new compressor station

consisting of a turbine compressor, ISOrated at 5,680 horsepower, to be located

in Tuscaloosa and Jefferson Counties,

Alabama, at or around mile post 286 on

Southern’s north pipeline system, (2)

install compressor cylinder unloaders at

its Tarrant Compressor Station in

Jefferson County, Alabama, (3) install an

additional turbine compressor unit, ISOrated at 1,452 horsepower, at Southern’s

existing Pell City Compressor Station in

St. Clair County, Alabama, and (4)

uprate an existing turbine compressor

engine at Southern’s DeArmanville

Compressor Station in Calhoun County,

Alabama, from 1,080 rated horsepower

to 1,200 ISO-rated horsepower. In

addition, Southern will uprate the

pressure at one meter station serving

one of the customers in this expansion

project and uprate the pressure of its

Gadsden Branch Line to accommodate

the increased firm contract quantities of

four other customers. The total cost of

these facilities is estimated to be

$13,055,800.